Hansard of Hide re Peters
This is from Hansard, and is protected under Parliamentary Privilege:
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her answer given in oral question No. 4 from the Rt Hon Winston Peters on 10 April 2003 that “This Government does not tolerate corruption. Any allegations are investigated.”?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) : Yes.
Rodney Hide: Will the Prime Minister therefore assure the House that the Serious Fraud Office will be able to assess and investigate, unimpeded, the claims of corruption by a businessman, repeated on several occasions to Dominion Post reporter Phil Kitchin, that this businessman was one of several people to whom Peter Simunovich gave $9,999.95 in 2002, to pass on to New Zealand First in exchange for Winston Peters’ “shutting up about his allegations of wrongdoing against Simunovich Fisheries”, and that “Sure enough, within a couple of weeks Winston Peters did shut up.”, and that the man’s statement and details were provided last week to the Serious Fraud Office, and that the businessman himself was concerned for his personal safety?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have just heard a very serious allegation from a member who, typically, failed to name anyone other than one company. But the critical person is the one he claims to be a businessman, whose life is under threat, apparently—unless it is from Rodney I cannot imagine from whom. But, I want to know, is that a fair question in this House?
Madam SPEAKER: Well, unfortunately, yes, from time to time allegations are made, and that question falls into that category that is permitted under the Standing Orders.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The relevant question to me was “Can such allegations be fully and independently investigated?”, and the answer is, of course, yes.
Madam SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Rodney Hide. Oh, point of order, the Rt Hon Winston—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Rodney Hide: Well, you can take your turn.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is my turn.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you both sit down, otherwise you will both leave the Chamber and no one will be asking the question, which will solve the problem. Be seated. I called Rodney Hide before I saw the Rt Hon Winston Peters, so I will call Rodney Hide and then we will take the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ question.
Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister think it a good look for her Government to be abolishing the Serious Fraud Office just as it is assessing the complaint made by a former business associate of Peter Simunovich that her Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, went to see Peter Simunovich to show him the evidence of corruption he had against Peter Simunovich and stated that through a payment of $50,000, “we would just slowly get rid of it”, or will she just keep accepting her Minister of Foreign Affairs’ word that he has done nothing wrong—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are not going to truly have some sort of half-baked Serious Fraud Office inquiry inside this House conducted by “Rodney Hide QC”. The reality of it is that he has not presented one fact to make these serious allegations. They are deadly serious in my view, and they also concern the issue on which we turned over Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand (TVNZ) in December last year with one Phil Kitchin, who was working for them—those are the facts.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. The only breach of the Standing Orders is that questions are meant to be succinct, as are answers. If the member could please make his question succinct, then it would be much appreciated, being consistent with the Standing Orders.
Rodney Hide: It is very hard; he has been up to such a lot of naughtiness.
Madam SPEAKER: No, could the member please just ask the question.
Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister think it a good look to be abolishing the Serious Fraud Office just as it is assessing the complaint made by a former business associate of Peter Simunovich that her Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, went to see Peter Simunovich to show him the evidence of corruption he had against Peter Simunovich and stated that through a payment of $50,000, “we would just slowly …”—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I demand that either the member gives me the evidence now or he apologises. What he is saying is baseless and, more important, it is the subject of a serious defamation case for which at the time, all the way through December last year, TVNZ and Radio New Zealand argued that they had never at any point sought to impugn my integrity. The member is now seeking to litigate a sub judice matter in the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order. Would the member just complete his question, please.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The sub judice rule applies in this House. You know I have an action against TVNZ, Radio New Zealand, and others.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry; would the member please be seated. No, I did not know that; I am sorry. I had not realised that. If matters are before the court, there are many precedents that they are not to be raised in this House. So would the member please just succinctly ask the point of his question, consistent with the Standing Orders.
Rodney Hide: I will pick up where I was interrupted—that through a payment of $50,000, “we would just slowly get rid of it”, or will she just keep accepting her Minister of Foreign Affairs’ word—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member may not know any Latin, but the sub judice rule does not allow him to raise the matter in this House. I am fighting this case in the court—and doing rather well at the moment—and with the greatest respect TVNZ, Radio New Zealand, and ACT are not going to win inside this House. They have to come to court with me, and I am very happy to join them.
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—
Rodney Hide: Can I finish my question now, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: No.
Hon Bill English: There is a fairly important issue here. The member is clearly trying to stop a question being asked—and I have to say that the way in which he is doing it is one I have never quite seen before—but certainly it would be difficult if the House had to accept on the word of Mr Peters that this matter was sub judice, particularly when he is often involved in court cases more than other members. It could end up with the ridiculous situation where no questions could be asked, because a member has said that he or she was involved in a court case, if we are to go just on the member’s say-so, and some members may well be in the position where they are always involved in some kind of legal matters related to their own activities. So I think we need to be pretty careful in order to make sure that a member cannot be prevented from asking a question. It is one of the basic freedoms of this House.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Unfortunately, there is a limitation upon our freedom of speech in this House in relation to things that are sub judice. The issue here presumably is whether the matter being raised by Mr Hide is central to the matter that is in front of the court in terms of the defamation case. Now you are hearing, I think, from Mr Peters that what he is telling you is that the matter being raised is central to that defamation case. If so, then clearly it is sub judice and one cannot go around the back door by pretending that that matter has come from somewhere else and therefore is unrelated to the case before the court. I think Mr Hide really can tell the House whether, in his understanding, what Mr Peters is arguing is true, because if what Mr Peters is arguing is true, then the House should not be pursuing this matter at this point.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There are numerous Speakers’ rulings with respect to the sub judice rule in this House that one may refer to an event of a case, but not the substance of it. Those are the previous rulings of this House. Mr Hide well knows that, so do his backers, and that is why, having lost in court, they seek to pursue it inside this House. They should be stopped from doing so.
Madam SPEAKER: I think the difficulty that has arisen is that Mr Hide could have asked the substance of his question without the elaboration that went on that would have, in fact, breached sub judice, if this matter—and I take the member’s word for it, because I have to, as we all do—is before the courts. So I am in a difficult position, because the question went on for so long. I understood the substance of it; it was to deal with a matter about independence of inquiries. Can the member, without reference to any specifics, ask the essence of the question?
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is nothing before the courts relating to this matter. Mr Peters himself said he thinks he has won something in the court, which again is news to everyone here. The matter I am referring to is not before the courts, and I think it is a sad day if you are going to shut down a question from a member of this House over a most important matter. I do not see why I should not be allowed to finish my question.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. I refer the member to Standing Order 111, and I will certainly take it away and look at it. I accept the member’s word that there is a matter revolving around these issues being raised that is before the court. I have to do that. If the member wishes to ask another question, please do so.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you be telling the House tomorrow what matter is before the court that prevents me from asking the question?
Madam SPEAKER: No, the member knows that that is improper. That is not the case. I have said I will look at it. I take the member’s word. We all know that we take a member’s word. If there is a matter before the court I take the member’s word for it, as we do with other matters in this House. Now either the member asks a question or we move on.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: This is the last point of order on this matter.
Rodney Hide: Well, it is a difficult matter for me. I have waited patiently to ask my question today, as I am entitled to as a member of Parliament. What we have heard from Mr Peters is that there is some matter before the court. He has provided no elucidation as to what that matter is. You have told me you do not know what the case is, and you have told me that I can ask a question as long as it does not relate to some matter before the court of which no one in this House is aware. I would like you to ask Mr Peters to please explain what the matter is before the court that he is talking about.
Madam SPEAKER: As members well know it is the convention in this House that one takes a member’s word and there are consequences if, in fact, that word is proven otherwise not to be the case. That is the way in which it works.
Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the ruling you have just made around Standing Order 111, it is dependent on the Speaker taking the view that it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case. Could you please tell us what is that—
Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not the question, please; and I suggest a little bit more experience, if I can say before we end all this.
Rodney Hide: Does it concern the Prime Minister that a second business associate of Peter Simunovich has repeatedly said, unrelated to any court case, that he too wrote cheques for Peter Simunovich to New Zealand First, and kept the bank records just in case something went wrong; and what will it take for her to finally take my advice and to stand Winston Peters down so that his shonky dealings, secret trusts—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Hide must surely have been looking in the mirror when he made those last comments. This is a man with a $2.8 million trust. But here is the point: this is a matter before the court. I took it seriously. I sued five different parties and I still am suing them. Before my lawyer left for overseas he advised me of the exact updated state of the case. Just to put the record straight, I say that in December last year it was found by the courts that there was a prima facie case for those parties to answer. That is where things stand at this point in time. Mr Hide cannot get away with that sort of allusion in this House, when the facts are before the court and they are sub judice.
Madam SPEAKER: I have made my ruling. I say to Rodney Hide that he can ask his question without referring to those matters. The substance of his question can be asked, but not in relation to those matters that are before the court.
Rodney Hide: No matters before the court are in my question.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. I ask the member to please be seated. I will go through it one more time and that will be it. If my ruling is challenged again I will be asking the member to leave the House. We have taken the member’s word for it. I have said that the member Rodney Hide can ask the substance of his question, without specific reference to those particular matters, to which the Prime Minister can then reply. So I ask the member to do that, otherwise I will have to move on to the next question.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If this whole issue hangs on your taking the word of a member, then which member are you taking the word of? Mr Hide has made it very clear that his question does not relate to a court case. We on this side of the House have some understanding of where things are at with this particular matter and concur with Mr Hide.
Madam SPEAKER: That is all very well, but I have taken the word of the member who is affected and who has the matter before the court—you are right. He is obviously the subject of the case.
Rodney Hide: Of course he is an honourable member—
Madam SPEAKER: I ask Mr Hide whether he has a question to ask.
Rodney Hide: To the Prime Minister—
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: How much are they paying you, Rodney?
Rodney Hide: Cheer up Michael. Does it concern her—
Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am reluctant to intervene in this dispute, but the Deputy Prime Minister said across the House: “How much are they paying you?”. That is out of order when directed at any member of Parliament, but particularly in respect of asking a question.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I withdraw and apologise.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On a number of occasions in the past I have raised allegations in Mr Hide’s presence that he receives, and has received in the past, outside payment—before, of course, the current rules came into force—and at no point in the past has he ever denied that.
Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will I be allowed to ask my question now?
Madam SPEAKER: Not if you ask it in the way you asked it before, but you can ask the substance of it.
Rodney Hide: Well, let me try, because I do not know what substance you are objecting to.
Madam SPEAKER: The member is starting to trifle with the Speaker. If the member finds himself in that position, I suggest that he does not ask his question.
Rodney Hide: I am definitely going to ask my question.
Madam SPEAKER: OK, I call Rodney Hide.
Rodney Hide: Does it concern the Prime Minister that a former business associate of Peter Simunovich is on record—a record that I provided to the Serious Fraud Office—as making a complaint of corruption against her Minister of Foreign Affairs—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.
Rodney Hide: —stating that Peter Simunovich—
Madam SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. A point of order has been called. All members have rights of speech in this House, and we are hearing those rights exercised today.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you may have given six rulings to this member already. He is choosing to ignore them because his purpose is to get some sort of story out, false as it is, for the newspapers up the stairs to publish, regardless of the veracity or the truth of the matter. This matter is the subject of a court case. In fact, five defendants have been involved, and that still remains the case. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to ask the member for the last time to change his question, or to send him from the House.
Madam SPEAKER: I have asked the member, and this will be the last time.
Rodney Hide: I am going to ask my question, Madam Speaker. If you do not allow me to ask it, then you had better get me to leave now because I am entitled in this House to ask this question. Does it concern—
Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. Please be seated. I have told the member; all members are entitled to ask questions that are consistent with the Standing Orders. That is all I am asking the member to do. I have ruled that his question, in the way it was phrased, is not consistent with the Standing Orders, but he can still ask the substance of the question. All I am asking him to do is comply with the Standing Orders.
Rodney Hide: Thank you. Let me ask precisely the substance of my question. Does it concern the Prime Minister that a former business associate of Peter Simunovich is on the record making a complaint of corruption against her Minister of Foreign Affairs—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have given him now six or seven rulings. He simply stood up, the last time, to read out the question from the previous time you gave him a ruling. I think he is trifling with the Chair now and that he should be asked to leave the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I am also being persuaded of that point. So I am sorry, Mr Hide, I have made my ruling. I am not—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Shameful!
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is not a shame; and that member will be asked to leave if he says that one more time. I am here to try to ensure that the Standing Orders are complied with and that the rule we abide by in terms of taking a member’s word is also abided by. Mr Hide is perfectly entitled to ask the substance of his question, and I have done this on many other occasions where I have said that to members and they have, in fact, complied. Now, if the member does not wish to do that, I suggest that he does not ask his question.
Rodney Hide: I am going to ask my question, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, then, I am sorry to do this. I really am sorry, but I will ask the member please to leave the House.
Rodney Hide: No. [Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: I have asked the member to leave the House. I have not denied you the right to ask your question
Rodney Hide: You have.
Madam SPEAKER: I have merely said you ask that question consistent with the Standing Orders.
Rodney Hide: It is consistent.
Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please leave the House. Thank you.
Rodney Hide: This is an absolute disgrace that you have shut down an MP from asking a question. [Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: Please leave. I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rodney Hide: I actually will not go, Madam Speaker, until I have my say.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I am sorry. The member wants to think very carefully before he does that. I understand that he is not being denied the right to ask his question; it is merely to ask that question consistent with the Standing Orders. That is all that is asked, and the substance of it can be asked. Others members have to comply with those rules; Mr Hide I ask you to comply with them.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I have asked the member please to leave. Thank you.
- Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have taken an extremely strong step today in denying Mr Hide the right to ask his question and you have relied heavily on the conventions of the House. Can I ask you to refer to Standing Order 111, “Matters awaiting judicial decision”, and ask why you have applied paragraph (c), which requires that such matters may not be referred to in any question, including a supplementary question, “if it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” The particulars of this case are not unknown to members on this side of the House. It would be our position that there has been a travesty of justice here. Mr Hide has been done a wrong and the question should have been asked. The Hansard record will show that he used very simple words, heading in a particular direction, that had nothing to do with the court case that Mr Peters is relying on.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: There are two issues, which may be related but actually need to be carefully separated. The first, and much more important, issue now, is respect for your authority as Speaker. Your authority was deliberately flouted. You gave rulings, on a number of occasions. Mr Hide refused to accept those rulings and continued to behave contrary to your rulings. You allowed him very, very significant leeway in that regard, because that matter occurred on a number of occasions. Any member of this House who behaved in that way, as frequently as that, sooner or later would be subject to the sanction that you have applied; and, indeed, given his subsequent behaviour, you would have been justified in the next stage of the sanctions being applied—that is, naming the member. All members in this House need to remind themselves that they are here to obey the authority of the Speaker when issues of that sort arise.
The second matter, of course, is the matter of judgment that you made about the sub judice rule. The member most closely involved in the case assured you that these matters were before the court. In all the time I have been in Parliament, Standing Order 111 has been interpreted very broadly to protect the court against Parliament’s discussing the matters before the court, unless there are actually very strong circumstances that might justify that occurring. You have clearly determined that that was not the case; it is not for the House now to question your judgment. If Mr Hide has other evidence, he may bring that evidence to you before tomorrow in the House, so that you may consider that evidence. But that is the way this place has to work. In essence it is like a game of rugby: sometimes a call may be made that one may dispute, but the dispute should not occur with the referee. The referee’s judgment is final, and we continue on from that point. This House cannot function unless we obey that rule.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I think you should know that when the National Party member Gerry Brownlee says what he says, he knows full well that one of his colleagues knows otherwise. He has lawyers in his party who could tell him otherwise, but, more important, this is a case where Mr Carter, his colleague, had his lawyer get up in court and say that at no time did he ever, associated with these allegations, mean to impugn Winston Peters, his integrity, or his honesty. That is what he argued.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. I also do not need assistance, Mr Finlayson, on running this House. I thank you for your asides, but I would say that in future they are not necessary. I have said I would look at this matter, and I will look at the matter. Under those circumstances, we normally move on. Mr Hide would have ample opportunity tomorrow and the next day to be able to come back, in the light of that. He chose not to take that course of action. I now ask the House, can we please move on to the next question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like a few supplementary questions myself.
Madam SPEAKER: That may well be the case, but you do not do it through a point of order.
Gerry Brownlee: Does she still accept all of the assurances that she has recently received from Winston Peters about the various allegations made against him?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have accepted the honourable member’s word, and will continue to do so unless something arises out of the Privileges Committee or some other appropriate authority that suggests I should not do so. But I do not have such information.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If there was a subsequent series of cheques, paid some substantial time later, despite the fact that there was an inquiry in this House on a matter that concerned a business, and—here is the relevant point—those cheques were never cashed, therefore at no point could New Zealand First be seen—
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you have well indicated to the House that this matter is sub judice and therefore questions cannot be asked about it.
Madam SPEAKER: I agree with you entirely. If the member has a question that is consistent with the Standing Orders he may ask it. If not, I suggest he does not ask it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports in the weekend papers, written by former ACT MPs, confirming an undeclared gift of $20,000 per annum of free office space over several years, and further adding that the bill to refurbish the gifted office space, after ACT vacated it, was sent to Parliamentary Service for the taxpayer to pick up?
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A supplementary question surely has to relate to the question that is asked. Mr Peters appears to be not only changing the tack of his question, but is now drifting right off the point.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: The member in his primary question referred to corruption. I am giving an example of it.
Madam SPEAKER: I would agree with the member. The question was quite broad in terms of those allegations, so I call the Rt Hon Prime Minister.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Not only did I see reported the matter the member referred to, but I also saw the extraordinary report in the same article, that a property developer had paid around $20,000 for a photograph of Richard Prebble. That must be pretty close to constituting fraud.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would an example of the kind of thing Mr Hide alleges be the Asian chapter of the ACT party paying the legal costs to get rid of Donna Awatere Huata so that the ACT Asian candidate could replace her, to the tune of substantial money, and why was that not, under its rules, declared?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Indeed the allegation was made in a Sunday newspaper by the former ACT member of Parliament that an Asian chapter of ACT was “pressured” to pay the legal bills of ACT with respect to Donna Awatere Huata because its candidate from the Asian chapter, Kenneth Wang, was next on the list and would benefit from Donna Awatere Huata’s departure from the House.
August 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
It may not be well known but it is not defamatory for Hansard to publish a defamatory statement made under parliamentary privilege, but for any other person to publish what is recorded in Hansard makes that person liable. What you have done is repeat outside the House what Rodney Hide is too scared to. Big Kahunas to you bro. I see radio NZ blanked out the defamatory part of Peters allegation and that Peters has sued nearly everyone who has repeated the comments. Blogger beware.
At any rate, interesting to know the outcome of the defamation cases and SFO enquiry. An intriguing allegation. I understand Ross Meurant is in the thick of things, just to make things even more rabid (if that is possible). This election seems pretty make or break for Peters – if he loses he will be fulltime trying to deal with the raft of litigation he has going. Brian Henry will be working for free for I few years yet I think (possibly suing you for this post):)
August 26th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
The speaker seems to be a white headed dumb idiot still a member of the liarbour party, ALAS winston rules AGAIN, and the truth is lost AGAIN, due to an enept USLESS SPEAKER SIGH but then shes stupid liarbour, bad genetics , larbour families breed ????? lossers
August 26th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Not only did I see reported the matter the member referred to, but I also saw the extraordinary report in the same article, that a property developer had paid around $20,000 for a photograph of Richard Prebble. That must be pretty close to constituting fraud.
Wow. Thankfully, hypothetically signing a painting one didn’t actually paint certainly DOES NOT constitute fraud.
Makes me sick.
August 26th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
“It may not be well known but it is not defamatory for Hansard to publish a defamatory statement made under parliamentary privilege, but for any other person to publish what is recorded in Hansard makes that person liable.”
Wrong.
Read s13 of the Defamation Act:
Absolute privilege in relation to Parliamentary proceedings
(3) The following publications are protected by absolute privilege:
(a) The publication, by or under the authority of the House of Representatives, of any document:
…
(d) The publication of a correct copy of any document or record to which paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of this subsection applies.
s13(3)(d) applies here.
QED.
August 26th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
DPF:
vs.
ernesto:
You’re both wrong
The statements by Mr Hide in the House are protected by parliamentary privilege (and absolute privilege under the Defamation Act). The Publication by Hansard of the hansard is protected by parliamentary privilege (and absolute privilege under the Defamation Act). DPF’s re-publication is protected (from defamation proceedings) by qualified privilege under the Defamation Act. It’s a slight distinction, but an important one – parliamentary privilege is pretty absolute applying across the board, absolute privilege and qualified privilege are defences to a defamation action (only).
August 26th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I must be getting cynical in middle age because the only reason I can find for this travesty is that Labour’s promised to protect Peters in return for his support on the ETS.
August 26th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
“DPF’s re-publication is protected (from defamation proceedings) by qualified privilege under the Defamation Act. It’s a slight distinction, but an important one…”
Re-publication of Hansard is protected by absolute privilege, not qualified privilege. See my comment above.
Qualified privilege only arises where the publisher has some sort of duty, or is in a position of responsibility, which requires him to publish the defamatory statements to the person who received them. A specific duty must exist – it cannot be, for example, the general public interest duty of a journalist or blogger.
Where did you get the notion that qualified privilege applied?
August 26th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
It is time for a petition to be circulated and presented, saying that NZ has no confidence in the ethics, honesty, or abilities of the current speaker of the house, Margaret Wilson, and that she be called to resign forthwith.
As for Cullen and Clark, a pair of liars with morals to match Winstons. What more can you say, protecting a truthless old fraud like Peters is equivalent to condoning the deeds, I wonder how much Labour scored from the same “businessmen”.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Mags Wilson has just issued a statement saying she was confused because she was trying to do the Dom-Post cryptic crossword at the time these questions were being asked. She has said that if Hide wants to put the question again tomorrow she will listen intently for the first bit before going back to her thrilling book “How to Successfully Complete the Dom-Post cryptic crossword” and having one of her staff set off the fire alarm.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
and my aged father has just emailed the motto for the 2005-08 coalition government: pecuniae obediunt omnia
August 26th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Re-publication of Hansard is protected by absolute privilege, not qualified privilege… Where did you get the notion that qualified privilege applied?
Because, qualified privilege is a defence to defamation, when reporting places like Parliament or courts, ( which is what DPF is doing) provided of course that such a report is fair and balanced…. absolute privilege is attached to parliament and courts, not the reporting of same. That’s why.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
pecuniae=money, obediunt=masters, omnia=all [things]
How about: Avaritia bona est!
August 26th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
chrislaing – I was talking about statutory qualified privilege, not common law qualified privilege. Your statement that “qualified privilege only arises where the publisher has some sort of duty, or is in a position of responsibility, which requires him to publish the defamatory statements to the person who received them. A specific duty must exist – it cannot be, for example, the general public interest duty of a journalist or blogger” applies to common law qualified privilege.
Statutory qualified privilege under s 16 of the Defamation Act applies to, among other things (as list in part 1 of schedule 1 of that act) “The publication of a fair and accurate extract from, or summary of, any document or record to which section 13(3)(a) or (c) of this Act applies.”
DPF doesn’t come within s 13(3)(d) because he is not publishing a correct copy of Hansard. He is publishing an extract from Hansard, so the defence he’d rely on is s 16(1) – the defence of (statutory) qualified privilege.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
I now understand why the old man sued Margaret Wilson when she was Attorney General. Can one sue the Speaker? And who is paying for Winston’s latest round of legal proceedings?
Nihil Boni Sine Pecuniae (Nothing achieved without hard cash)
August 26th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
After having read this entire post, I want to know was John Key in the house when all this was happening? If so, why didn’t he open his mouth to support his fellow opposition member? Why does Gerry Brownlee do all the heavy lifting for the National Party in the house? And I have to say Bravo to Rodney for doing his job. The sooner we are free of Winston Peters the better.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
“Hon Bill English: There is a fairly important issue here. The member is clearly trying to stop a question being asked—and I have to say that the way in which he is doing it is one I have never quite seen before—but certainly it would be difficult if the House had to accept on the word of Mr Peters that this matter was sub judice, particularly when he is often involved in court cases more than other members. It could end up with the ridiculous situation where no questions could be asked, because a member has said that he or she was involved in a court case, if we are to go just on the member’s say-so, and some members may well be in the position where they are always involved in some kind of legal matters related to their own activities. So I think we need to be pretty careful in order to make sure that a member cannot be prevented from asking a question. It is one of the basic freedoms of this House.”
Bill English had to be the man of the hour here.
But some very astute and technical issues were raised, ie….
Madam SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Rodney Hide. Oh, point of order, the Rt Hon Winston—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Rodney Hide: Well, you can take your turn.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is my turn.
lol, lol ,lol.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
radar, I agree. Key is far too silent for my liking.
Noli nothis permittere te terere: Don’t let the bastards wear you down
August 26th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
“After having read this entire post, I want to know was John Key in the house when all this was happening?”
JK was in Cambridge avoiding intelligent q’s from college students about student finance.
Apparently, he found out the hard way 16 y o’s have an opiniated critique that rival the antics of the chamber.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
“DPF doesn’t come within s 13(3)(d) because he is not publishing a correct copy of Hansard. He is publishing an extract from Hansard, so the defence he’d rely on is s 16(1) – the defence of (statutory) qualified privilege.”
If that’s correct, my apologies, but as far as I was aware the Courts have concluded that sections of hansard should be protected by absolute privilege under s13(3)(d), and the “publication of a fair and accurate extract from, or summary of, any document or record to which section 13(3)(a) or (c) of this Act applies” really only had any practical use in publications which discussed Parliamentary publications, but did not quote them Verbatim (hence the lesser degree of protection).
However, you sound like a practising lawyer, so your knowledge is probably much more complete than mine
August 26th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Parliamentary discourse looks dodgy most of the time anyway, but this takes the prize for blatant partisanship on the part of the Speaker.
“Hide: You have told me you do not know what the case is, and you have told me that I can ask a question as long as it does not relate to some matter before the court of which no one in this House is aware.”
Classic.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
After watching the full replay on Parliament TV before I think Hide deserves a medal for trying to stick to his guns and be allowed to exercise his democratic rights to ask a question. It’s good to see him back and abrasive as ever after his bizarre sojourn into dancing and swimming etc. Wilson should put on her broomstick and told to bugger off.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Homepaddock at 6.49
“I must be getting cynical in middle age because the only reason I can find for this travesty is that Labour’s promised to protect Peters in return for his support on the ETS.”
It’s difficult to draw any other conclusion from these proceedings and NZ1st delaying their decision on ETS until tomorrow. Murky as f@k.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Anyone who votes Labour or NZ First this year is encouraging and endorsing this type of deceit, abuse of power, and contempt of law. In my book this alone earns Rodney a seat in Parliament, if not the PM’s job (it’s a good thing that dreams are free).
It’s difficult to get the Left voted out of power because almost everyone receives an indoctrination from the Left at school. I’m surprised that the schools don’t line up the kids each morning and sings songs in praise of Helen. In lieu of that the Ministry of Miseducation puts out propaganda like this:
http://www.tki.org.nz/r/wick_ed/cool/archives/cindy-kiro.php
http://www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com
August 26th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
or Peter’s personal motto: si fecisti nega!
August 26th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
maggie was def out of her depth today – mind you the shit was piled fairly deep… and winston is only a short fella
August 26th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
National need tomorrow to get heavily involved with this and back up Hide and start asking some hard questions of their own and stop sitting on the fence. Peters is rooted now so they should join in and finish him off. If Key doesn’t want to be seen to be directly involved then get English or Brownlee to do the deed.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
The TV1 News coverage tonight of this was pathetic, selected extracts to make Rodney Hide look like the ogre. Doing Helen’s bidding or are they just conditioned now?
August 26th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Buggerlugs – very good; If you did it, deny it!
or how about: Protege Tuam Pugam; Cover your ass
August 26th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
“In essence it is like a game of rugby: sometimes a call may be made that one may dispute, but the dispute should not occur with the referee. The referee’s judgment is final, and we continue on from that point. This House cannot function unless we obey that rule.”
Continuing with the rugby analogy, does this make Margret Wilson the Wayne Barnes of speakers?
Also good on Nick Smith for shouting “Shameful” at the speaker.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I couldn’t work out which was Pooh and which was Rabbit
August 26th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
“Peters is rooted now so they should join in and finish him off.”
I know it, but I can’t believe it.
Seeing is believing.
November the what???
August 26th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Yet another example of what a hypocrite Peters is. He made his career making half cocked accusations in the House but as soon as there is a hint of anything directed his way he wants the matter shut down.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
I’ve never seen Peters look so shaken as he looked today.
Rodney’s delivered enough of the message to get the point across, the game gets moving at last.
Now lets wait to her if TVNZ confirm if it’s the same case???????
(Maurice owes Rodney big time I reckon)
August 26th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
What’s the protocol for moving a vote of no-confidence in the Speaker?
August 26th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I thought it was significant that Peter’s diverted back to the matter (re cheques he stated he never cashed), after the Speaker ruled no more discussion on it. Like he was completely flustered.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Thanks DPF for publishing that extract. As I have posted in another thread, I believe Act’s party vote went up by a couple of percentage points after the Campbell Live piece tonight. Having read this, I am more than convinced it should have.
This is madness. Hell, I’m even tempted to going back to my mid-90s toying of giving Act my party vote. I am now entirely convinced Labour doesn’t deserve it.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Paul Marsden
I agree, it looks like
LuigiWinston is trying to lay out some wiggle room going back over it like that.August 26th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Penelope
I hope you do party vote ACT, if you do … Welcome to the party vote of principle.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
So this will be the political legacy of Speaker Margaret Wilson. Patsy proxy Clarkist appointee and official running interference for a populist racist corrupt charlatan. Kinda fits.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Burt. I understand that the cheques were all issued as part of the ruse. He actually got paid in folding.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Lindsay @ 8.05pm
You are of course right, Key and the Nat’s should get stick in, the problem is that we both know they will not do so just in case they have to work with the man next time around.
Yes Labour are corrupt for harbouring Peters but the Nat’s are not a lot better given they have gone soft on him right throughout this entire saga, the behaviour of the National party is frankly embarrassing and boarders on scandalous.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
big bruv,
You make a lot of sense (unfortunately). With Rodney coming out all guns blazing I’m thinking of giving my party vote to ACT. I’d all but made a decision to vote for the Nats up until today………..
August 26th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
As one who lived in South Africa as the then National Party of South Africa [now merged with the ANC] did all that it could to silence the opposition’s voice in Parliament, and having seen the ANC’s attempts to achieve the same: Margaret Wilson is an amateur.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
My vote is weighted on broader policy considerations than these sorts of issues. I appreciate that Rodney did well today, but it’s little parties against little parties stuff…
National fights Labour, and must have serious credible policy detailed and laid out ready to hit the ground running the day after the election. They have had a couple of hiccups lately which is annoying, but I’m desperate to be rid of Clark, and we need National at late 40’s so she can’t have any options.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
getstaffed – the appropriate Latin is:
“Nil bastardum carborundum”
Don’t let the illegitimate ones grind you down.
Go Rodney, Scored another Act party vote today.
Wilson should choke on both the words of the opening prayer and the words “honourable member”
Couldn’t lie straight in bed.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
You have to ask yourself…What kind of moron (and why?), wouldn’t cash a cheque or several, for ten g’s each??
August 26th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
And what does Peter’s ‘blood brother’, know about all this??
August 26th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
If John Key thinks that at some stage he might need Winston Peters, age 63,MP of no fixed abode, of questionable morals and carrying dangerous baggage, then he is plain wrong. Peters is a poison pill to anyone who touches him and deserves nothing less than being taken down with his Labour associations intact.
He is, in reality, Labour’s achilles heel and the longer HC and Mickey go on defending and obfuscating around him, the more they will be associated with his sleaze and less than forthright approach to what should be an “honourable profession”
Singlehandedly, Peters has reduced the status of MP to something approaching amoeboid level, akin to finance company directors, used car salesmen and union organisers. The only good thing is that he has taken Labour down with him. God, even the Greens are getting some backbone and indicating a level of distaste at the antics which, given the Green’s ability to suck up left big time, is a pretty dramatic move. …. IMVHO
August 26th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Oh dear. So many cheques, from so many quarters. No wonder the bros are confused.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Who owns the Green Parrot?
There must be some economic reason why WP was a frequent patron.!
August 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Burt
Unless something spectacular happens, it won’t be happening this time, for reasons outlined in my post on the coalition thread. But if Act can get their understanding of the infinite variabilty of human nature, and therefore motivation, as on track as their philsophy, it is an option for the future.
Principles are only as good as their ability to be applied to human nature. And my experience of Act’s people is that they don’t actually understand the full variability of human experience combined with human nature. Once they get that not everybody can achieve simply by thinking positive (although thinking positive is a huge frigging help), then I’ll start feeling less nervous about them.
Either way, I hope Act ups its parliamentary representation this time. Despite my misgivings, it is a voice that needs to be heard.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Have just re-watched the TV3 coverage. Peters looked VERY grey and worried. He must know that Hide wants his political head on a pole.. and that he has the pole, knife and the will. Madam poodle squeeker can’t evict Hide day after day… and eventually we’ll hear more. This is going to be interesting!
August 26th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Perhaps Winston could cash some of those 10g cheques, and pay us back some of the $158,000 he owes us all.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Of course there is no paper trail to an uncashed cheque
August 26th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
I just hope that through all of this, people don’t get so hooked up in how shameful Wilson’s performance was or what a prat Peters is, and lose sight of the actual allegations that have been made against Peters. As I have said in my post on these, they are as serious as any allegations made against a Member of Parliament in all the time (35+ years) that I have been interested in politics.
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/08/allegations-against-peters.html
August 26th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Is there a paper trail if the cheque is a cash cheque and it is cashed by the payee in a restaurant (for example) owned by the payer?
Just asking.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
David
The mere fact Winston acknowledged the existence of the cheques appears to support Rodney’s claims that the ‘arrangement’ had in fact occurred,
Secondly I believe its also an offence to solicit, as well as to receive
August 26th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I’ m guessing that Peter’s won’t be the flavour of the month for a number of people in the legal and business community, who are coming under the spotlight (and reputations perhaps being sullied), via their association with him.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Gooner. Only a paper trail if they get presented back through the drawee’s bank account. Which of course, they haven’t.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Winston might be onto a winner here – just sue everyone in the country for everything so that any future embarassing questions are sub judice and he won’t have to answer them.
Of course it would only work if he had a lawyer who would work for free… where would you find one of those?
August 26th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Who was that woman worker at Kermadec (the restauraunt manager, I think??), who swore an affadavit about the shonky going’s on there, regarding Peters and co?? If I recall, she was publicly chastised, harassed and humilated, then dissapeared off the radar screen.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
The 10pm news on Radio NZ gave a highly sanitised version of this event, which completely missed the point and subtly implied that Rodney was out of order. Surprise, surprise.
http://www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com
August 26th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Rt “Honourable” Winston Peters, 23 August 2008 (quoted above):
Rt “Honourable” Winston Peters, 8 April 2008:
So perhaps the “Honourable” Member can explain how he thinks he should be able to hide behind Standing Order 111 when the judge in his case has merely decided, at a preliminary hearing, that there is a case to answer, and yet when a judge decides in a different case that there’s a case to answer, that gives the Rt “Honourable” Member carte blanche to go asking questions?
I smell hypocrisy, but then that’s hardly surprising… it comes off that “Honourable” Member and his cohorts like Mr Mark more strongly than the smell of rotting scampi.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Rex
So have I got this correct, there is a case to answer for serious allegations, an MP has questioned that in the house, Winston is saying it’s all sub judice so he won’t answer questions, the speaker shuts down the dissent AND the PM is still backing her man?
Wow, Bananas anyone?
August 27th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Burt, it’s like this: If a case is currently before the courts Members may be prevented from raising matters pertaining to it. The test is whether there is “a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case”.
Yet the Speaker admitted she had no idea if this were the situation in this instance, so would take the “Honourable Member” Winston Peters at his word. In ruling on this she obviously referred to the Paramount Rule of the Coalition Agreement, which clearly trumps Standing Orders: “It is if Winston says it is”.
You’d think that this test fails today, because in April this year Winston was arguing that the finding by a judge that there was a case to answer was not sufficient reason for the Speaker to invoke SO 111 and ban him from asking questions about it.
But the fact that four months ago he was saying the diametric opposite of what he said today is irrelevant – the Paramount Rule means that reality bends within Parliament to suit Winston’s purposes. It’s like the effect of being inside the Tardis has on time, only it’s the effect of being inside Parliament on the truth.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:14 am
The “cheques weren’t cashed” line is Peters’ out. That’s how he’ll play it up to his base, persecuted once again.
However in my reading, Peters in his own very small way is starting to become despised. He’s always played the polarising tactics just like Rob but he hasn’t the gravitas, style or most importantly, the personal integrity that Rob had. All amusement and affection the general public once held for him has gone in recent months and this is serious, for him.
Why?
Because 99% of his base have daughters, and if they start working on their mothers, enough of his base could be eroded to prevent him from reaching the threshold.
If the SFO gets involved, he’s toast. If any of those cheques mentioned today were cashed, he’s toast. If Hide has any more substantive information, he’s toast.
Hooten on Morning Report’s Monday Politics said there was a movement within the Nats toward ruling Peters out. Hooray but quite frankly, John Key; it should have already happened.
The interesting question is of course, who is giving Hide et al all this information, and why?
August 27th, 2008 at 7:22 am
No wonder Fat Pete Sum got out of fishing and into making model soldiers.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Too many positive Karma posts in this thread… This I posted in the other thread:
You guys are a bunch of idiots if you think the general public will give a fuck about this. If anything, it makes people think Rodney Hide is a rude MP and turn them off voting for him for being repetitively deliberate in not listening to the Speaker.
But go ahead, show your disgust and horniness over this issue as if it’s the most outrageous thing that’s ever happened since your child was raped and killed by a pedophile, to the 90% of ignorant centre voting average Joe they really couldn’t give a shit.
Seriously, I’ve noticed a pattern here – everytime something happens that is supposedly incredulous and the biggest threat to democracy there’ll be 100 comments on how horrible Labour are and how there’ll be blood on the streets, but in reality outside the blogosphere people just see it as another day in Parliament where Rodney Hide got kicked out for being loud. Freedom of speech? It’s the kind of shit academics and political pundits like to wank over but that’s it, no-one else cares.
If anything my prediction is that NZ First will go up by a few percentage points after seeing Winston Peters defending himself and shutting him up. Then Labour will do some universal student allowance policy announcement and be back neck and neck with National again and no-one will remember this incident after two weeks or so.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:12 am
They’ll only remember it, Reb, if it’s part of a 100 word summary in a newspaper story on why Winston is no longer Foreign Minister. (Who’s they? Do you read the paper Reb? Are you a “they”?) That 100 word summary will reflect some of the thoughts in blogs like these. Even if the total word count here reaches 30,000. The difference is that the 30,000 words here are read and quoted by the same media that will print those 100 words, and by the people in parliament like Rodney Hide, who is making the in-house moves. The thoughts of the average joe on the street are no so easily found.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Don’t let the bastards wear you down, I thought that was “ne te confundant illegitimi”
I think that the writing is on the wall for Winston, and shortly we will see the Nat’s wash their hands of him. The mechanics of MMP have, rightly or wrongly, required national to not risk overly offending a potential co-alition partner. As that now seems less likely, we will see more attacks on Peters.
As an aside, is Scampi on the Menu at the Green Parrot?
August 27th, 2008 at 8:21 am
I for one, will be very surprised if Peter’s is still MFA, this time next week. (perhaps even gone in the next day or, two)
August 27th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Winnies an old dog who is useful to his mistress exactly because she has castrated her own pack. A rabid outsider has its uses.
But when he is no longer useful it will be interesting to see how much loyalty Winnie shows, i imagine he will be very feral and may know one or two secrets.
Thats worth 100 words in the Herald aye?
August 27th, 2008 at 8:24 am
I was going to ask bustedblonde this. Right through the Glenn donation saga, and then the Jones $25k thing.. she regularly used scampi jibes when that hardly seemed relevant at the time. C’mon BB… show us what ‘cha got !
August 27th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Scampi fishermen and quota holders seemed to hold themselves above the law and the IRD for some time and also appeared to be ‘protected’ – or so I’ve heard.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:34 am
# Paul Marsden (247) Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
August 27th, 2008 at 8:21 am
I for one, will be very surprised if Peter’s is still MFA, this time next week. (perhaps even gone in the next day or, two)
See, this is probably like the 1000th time this has been said on this blog. Everytime something happens everyone goes: “oh my fucking Bolger this is outrageous! There is no way the government will survive this! There’ll be a snap election next week!” The smacking bill, EFA, buying NZ Rail, etc. etc. it’s always the same old bullshit but nothing ever happens.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Nov 8 Reb.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Reb. These are the people who make the rules, you and I live by. Once, politicians where respected lawmakers. It is my view, that their behaviour manifests itself in lack of respect for law and order in society, but particularly, lack of respect for the courts.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Many are asking why the Nats are not going for Winston with more vigour. I have been also. While many who post here would like to see the back of Winston, he is a problem for Labour who have to support him. In doing so Labour are tarnished. It would be better for Labour if Winston was excised cleanly and quickly. It benefits National to have this issue drawn out and to leave the major attacks to the person who will lead their main co-alition partner.
If this issue came to a head 18 months ago we would have seen far more aggression from the Nats on this issue. We still may as Winston’s position becomes less and less tenable.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:17 am
“…it’s always the same old bullshit but nothing ever happens.”
to cut a long story short, Reb, there is more chance of influence here than rambling ideas like a homeless man on a street corner. I’m flattered, and a little disturbed, you think commenters here hold more power than they do. We’re people sitting in offices and using laptops on various sites across NZ. Any form of unity you see here is cyber-unity. It only exists because it’s all in one place. If your argument is that we think we are something we’re not, it’s your perception of the matter that is the problem. Why go on about it? Will you meet the same standard you create for us? Rambling on and on about how ineffectual we are for 1000+ posts? What will you achieve? What will change? Nothing perhaps? Cheer up old chap. Have you tried The Standard?
August 27th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Owen Glenns statement has said that Peters personally chased the 100k.
This must surely mean, that Peters is caught in a lie and is history!!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4670684a6160.html
August 27th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Lala land I’m afraid Reb. This is a big deal – allegations of corruption and bribe taking by an MP are pretty serious. It is in all the newspapers, and lead item on all the TV news. I’m sure you wish your view was true, but that is not going to make it true.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:29 am
wreck – and apparently later thanked him for giving it!
August 27th, 2008 at 10:11 am
There is now a written statement to parliament from one of Labour’s major donors saying that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is misleading the Prime Minister, – We await her pronouncement at question time of whether she still has faith in him.
Glenn’s comment of
“I agreed to help in the belief that this step would also assist the Labour Party in its relationship with Mr Peters. I supported the Labour Party.” fairly much ties Winston’s political future to Labour, totally destroying what ever pretense there was over being a “swing party”
August 27th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Rest In Agony
Winston Peters
“His memory failed him”
August 27th, 2008 at 10:19 am
anonymouse – re “swing party”… Winnie will swing which ever way the MMP-enabled bauble breeze flutters. And Kiwi’s think this saves them from the tyranny of the majority. Blind, blind, blind …
Key must act. Today. Categorically rule out dealing with Winston who is a manifestly corrupt liar. As unfashionable as it might be to quote Sunday school memory verses… “Be sure your sins will find you out”!
August 27th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Very concerning. If National are very concerned about the Speaker’s rulings in this matter there is something very simple they can do:
If it happens again, they should all stand up & walk out with Mr Hide. That would shake things up a bit!
They could return at the end of question time. They would get far more publicity from walking out than they would from any question they could have asked.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I expect nothing less than Winnie to be verbally flayed in parliament today, and I will be interested to see if the slippery bugger actually fronts. Bluster is all that he has left. His word cannot be relied upon and this matter is certainly not Sub Judice, unless Audrey young wishes to sue for defamation?
and to Mr Dennis, wouldn’t that be great to watch!
August 27th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Me thinks Helen might be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If “the pooh” hasn’t committed to the ETS, shes stuck. She may not want to alienate him, but you don’t want to trample over your biggest donors credibility either.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:17 am
whether he cashed any cheques or not, the fact that he is admitting he received any is enough to completely damn him.
I wish the Nats would grow some balls and say what they stand for and stick to their guns. At the moment the only party that doesn’t sell out at the slightest pressure is Act. I still haven’t forgiven John Key for selling us all out on the S.59 bill.
But Act went and recruited goddamn Roger Douglas. How’s a guy to vote?
August 27th, 2008 at 11:48 am
adc: “How’s a guy to vote?” That’s easy:
http://www.familyparty.org.nz
August 27th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Telling exchange. Hide mucked it up, either on purpose of ’cause he simply didn’t know how to fit a good question within Standing Orders. Probably the former as he’ll have enough scandal on Winston for the media and can play the oppressed underdog when really he was just a bit too dim to respond to the rulings. Winston on the other hand, comes across exactly as he is; dodgy. But whether in fact he’s right or not, is impossible to tell from this exchange. Perhaps they both got what they wanted.
Kudos to National however; they’re cleverly enabling this. I wonder what reward will ACT seek, Douglas in Cabinet?.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Sumas Semper Et Excretum, Sed Alter Variat………..
August 27th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Paul
I’m interested. How did I muck it up? My problem is that all the advice I have — and had — was that my question was not sub judice. I had no idea what was being objected to. The Speaker simply took Mr Peters’ word that anything he objected to was sub judice.
That’s not how Parliament operates.
I am genuinely interested in what options you think I had to ask the question about anything other than the abolition of the SFO?
Rodney
August 27th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
you did well Rodney, you made the point even if you didnt finish the question. Every man and his dog saw the guilt on Peters face
August 27th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
BustedBlonde
Wilson would be out her depth in a pudlle of her own urine.
Mr Dennis
I suggested some time ago that the Nats should have put forward a motion of no confidence in Wilson – pity they didn’t as a second such motion would surely be a first in NZ if the first motion wasn;t. Has such a motion ever been put to parliament before?
August 27th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Well done to Rodney Even the MSM will be forced to keep reporting this matter if Rodney is allowed by Madam Speaker to keep up the questioning .Of course we know that the MSM particularly TVNZ with its baised political reporters will be troubled having to do so.
We are witnessing one of the rare moments of truth in our Parliament a place that for too long has been allowed to act in a manner that is incompatible with the princples of good governance good ethics and good morals.
Alas most citizens now view the House as an irrelvancy its inhabitants creatures of another moral and ethical planet completely out of touch iwth reality.
It is up to the Members whether they want to continue to be viewed as clowns in a 3 ring circus or as worthy to govern.
the ball is in their court
August 27th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Rodney, you didn’t get the question asked, it’s pretty binary isn’t it? He didn’t answer it.
You’ve said that the Speaker simply took Peters word and that this isn’t how Parliament works; yes it is. That was made very clear to you by the Speaker.
You know I agreed with what you said, and others said in support, that it’s critical that MPs ask questions; you’re uniquely privileged in this regard, but you must surely comply with Standing Orders and I don’t doubt you’re capability to do so. Therefore, the fact that you didn’t manage to ask the question is odd and not the fault of the Speaker.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Paul, I think you are missing the point. The answer wasn’t the interesting bit, the question was. He’s hardly going to come out and say ‘ah yes, that’s right, I overlooked that bribe I took’ is he. The more times the question could be asked, and the more time spent on it, the more media prominence it got. Helen managed to fail to answer the question anyway, which is what she would have done had Rodney finished answering it. Her answer had nothing of value in it other than some random allegations about ACT that were irrelevant and not even all that damning.
Rodney – well done. Looks like you have your fight back – and that is making me consider very seriously where my vote might go. I’ve voted ACT since you were formed, this was the year I was thinking of changing. On current performance, I’ll stay with you. I’m much more interested in genuine principles and beliefs than in dancing and swimming (although I acknowledge the difficulty in getting any airtime at all given the way our media think or fail to think).
August 27th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Hmm, just saw you have another go at this in Parliament. Were you aware of the rulling prior to taking the point of order? If not, fair enough. If you were however, what did you imagine the Speaker might say that was not already in the rulling?
Incidentally, will you/can you make the rulling available. This is an important matter; the fact that some members have very litigious tendencies could mean that a broad interpretation would exempt them from normal levels of Parliamentary scrutiny.
August 27th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
No I’m not missing the point at all, but you’ve largely confirmed what I suspected; Hide’s got no expectation of being able to actually assist in determining what happened, his goal is to simply promote media interest – resolving the matter would put us all out of our misery, misery he’s hoping to take political advantage of… that’s politics however, I guess. My point earlier was the Rodney missed an opportunity in Parliament, not that the Nat’s could have done better, they clearly can’t (and probably don’t wish too) and so we’re none the wiser. Oddly, I don’t know what I want to be true? Winston being right is unpleasant enough, Hide being backed by Winston’s oponents worries me too.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Actually his question was being put to the Prime Minister, not WP.
It was basically “how can you shut down the SFO when there are allegations your MFA is taking bribes”. Now, how do you ask that question without referring to the allegations that the MFA taking bribes?
The speaker asked him to do the impossible. Whether or not the issue of bribery was indeed before the courts should have been able to be simply resolved. Whether or not such a question in the house could be likely to seriously prejudice the alleged court cases was a matter for the speaker to subjectively decide. That’s what Brownlee was getting at, but that point was deflected by the speaker (which I have a dim view of).
August 27th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
The Green Party Secured roughly $1b for their support of the ETS.
New Zealand First managed a ‘dedicated portion’ (of that $1b) to go to SuperGold Card Holders… oh YES! you read right! ‘Dedicated Portion!’
I wonder why, all of a sudden, New Zealand First is content with the Green’s leftovers? Surely they were in a more powerful negotiating position as soon as the Greens pledged their support to the ETS?
Would’ve been interesting to see what New Zealand First could have secured, had these questions of Winston Peters not been raised.