Peters referred to Privileges Committee
August 5th, 2008 at 2:32 pm by David FarrarThe Speeaker has ruled that there is a question of privilege over the $100,000 gift from Owen Glenn to pay off Winston’s legal bills, so the Privileges Committee will hold hearings on this.
It would be imprudent to speculate on what the conclusion will be, as that will or should depend on the evidence. But it does mean this issue will be in the public domain for some time to come.
Apart from the televised hearings of the Privileges Committee, the report back to the House will be subject to a debate – normally two hours or so.
Related posts:
- The myth that the Privileges Committee will decide who is telling the truth
- Preparing for Privileges
- The Privileges Committee Report
- Clark confirms Peters stays regardless of Privileges
August 5th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Oh lovely. I just hope this investigation isn’t shelved until after the election though? Any chance of that happening, DPF?
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Yes, if the House rises the complaint expires.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Great work on this complaint by Rodney Hide.
Looking at the make-up of the Committee it looks as though the “swing-votes” are Turei, Harawira and Dunne.
To “win” the National/ACT side or the Labour/NZF side will need to persuade at least two of those three MPs.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Perfect solution. No wonder Wilson was allowed to allow the complaint. Clark can now say that the matter is in the hands of the privileges committee and call an election as soon as the complaint looks like it might have any legs. This must be the deal that keeps confidence and supply?
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
DPF – what is the current make-up of the Privileges Committee? Is it left or right biased?
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hello!!
Vote:I have been happily watching this blog for quite a while and have not felt the urge to join in until today!.
Winston Peters has totally killed off whatever faith I ever had in the institution of Parliament and the behaviour needed to sink low enough to be held to account for ones actions.
I remember the days when even the hint of scandal was enough for a principled Politician to step down until cleared of any wrong doing.
I cannot fathom how that man sleeps at night.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I2 – you’ll find the members here. Whether it’s biased I’ll leave you to judge.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Rex You mean Luigi doesnt get a vote even though hes on the Committee Gosh thats a bit tough.
Looks like a Luigi win anyway 7 for Luigi 5 against
This is the usual MO of having the Report written and sitting in the drawer before the investigation is even called.
Come on DPF dont be so faint hearted Even you must be able to see the throughly disgusting governance behaviour that inflicts this Parliament. I would expect a first year constitutional law student to be able to see the disgrace that passes for governance.
And none of the inhabitants are completely innocent All are guilty of base behaviour. IMHO we need a Code of Conduct with robust penalities but of course none of the encumbents will support the introduction such is their guilt
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
If as suspected the complaint is not heard this session, if Peters gets in again can a fresh complaint be laid?
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Cheers for that Rex -perhaps “bias” wasn’t the best choice of word! But it does look as though, on a straight party split, that Peter Dunne’s will be the crucial vote.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
gd – I would imagine that Hide and Peters will both be disqualified from hearing this – Hide as one of the complainants, and Peters as the respondent – and would nominate replacements. But it looks to me like a six-six split – Nats, Act, Maori v Labour, Greens. NZF – so as I said above, Dunne will quite possibly have the “casting vote”.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Why would Rodney Hide be disqualified from hearing a complaint brought by Copeland?
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
“Why would Rodney Hide be disqualified from hearing a complaint brought by Copeland?”
Hide made (in my opinion) the more substantive complaint (Copeland and Hide both wrote to the Speaker).
Copeland says that Peters accepted a donation – that has not yet (despite the allegation) been proven.
Hide said that Peters should have declared that his legal bills were paid by another party, something that Peters MUST have been aware of given he had a debt that disappeared.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
IV2 Yes I was only being factitous with my comments buteaven kows the time will come when conflicts as open as this one wil be ignored. lets face it Over the past few years the concept that I learnt all those years ago has been well and truly stretched by the Socialists so its only a conflict when they say its a conflict.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
… which is a horrible prospect given his bumbling inabaility to understand things more complex than a one-sided Bellamy’s menu. Think back to the EFA[B] ‘justification’. Dunne couldn’t get the most basic of matters clear in his own mind.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
And why the hell should they be able to nominate replacements who will just vote as proxies for them
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Questions on membership, proxies etc are most probably moot.
I’m afraid GPT1 is right, folks. Standing Orders specifically preclude any Member from raising in the House a matter which is currently before the Privileges Committee. That’s why I asked DPF to confirm my recollection that complaints not dealt with when the House rises evaporate.
The Glenn affair is now, as far as Parliament is concerned, off limits. No one can ever mention it again. And of course if the Privileges Committee just can’t find the time to deal with it before an election is called… well that’s just too bad.
Note that Wilson said she’s had in-depth discussions with Winston before reaching her decision. They’re probably the two best experts on Parliamentary process and what they’ve done is a master stroke – they’ve used the complaints to stifle debate.
The only hope now is that Rodney can keep the pressure on them to move to a fast hearing, but he’ll have his work cut out.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
With a bit of luck, Bob Jones’ complaint to the police, might gazump this charade.
Vote:August 5th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
FFS, do not give Copeland a microphone.
Vote:August 6th, 2008 at 4:14 am
Interest to see it any meaning full action results from Winston being referred to the Privileges Committee. It’s not his first visit.
Vote: