Preparing for Privileges
For the Privileges Committee to do its job, and reach a fair conclusion on whether the $100,000 Owen Glenn donation should have been declared on the MPs Register of Pecuniary Interests, they are going to need to be able to answer the following question:
- Who or what was the $100,000 paid to?
- Why was it donated?
- Who knew about it?
That is not an exhaustive list. But even off that, what sort of evidence would you want, so one could make a fair conclusion. Rodney Hide has suggested that Owen Glenn should give evidence – maybe by video conference. It is almost unthinkable that one can resolve this issue without hearing from the donor. I would expect evidence to include the following:
- Testimony from Owen Glenn on why he donated, who he thought he was donating to, and who did he discuss the donation or the possibility of a donation with?
- Testimony from Steve Fisher as to why he said it was vital Glenn did not contradict Peters?
- A full forensic investigation of the money -
- Who was the cheque/draft made out to?
- Into what account was it paid?
- Was it the Spencer Trust?
- Was the money passed onto someone else?
- What bills were paid with it?
- Was the $40,000 damages to Clarkson (which is beyond dispute a personal debt) paid for by way of donation – whether Glenn or someone else?
- Does Peters personally make up any shortfall in the costs for his legal actions?
- Would Peters have paid over time at least $500 more to Henry, if the donation had not been made?
- How many donations of greater than $500 have been made towards the legal fees?
- Expert advice from the Law Society regarding barristers fees?
- If money was donated to a formal trust (such as the Spencer) is Peters a beneficiary of it, which requires a declaration on the Register?
As I said this is just an initial list.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: anonymous donations, Brian Henry, Owen Glenn, Privileges Committee, Rodney Hide, Winston First
August 6th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Strictly speaking a client has no contract with his Barrister. Fees are owed by an instructing solicitor. But if a solicitor was paid by Glenn for Peters legal fees then that is a gift to the benefit of Peters by the donor. That gift should have been disclosed by Peters to Parliament even if its route was somewhat circuitous. Henry who is Peters’ Barrister thinks this will be a bit of fun. But I think the instructing solicitor should also be called to square the circle.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:59 am
And to be a little cynical (and I’m sure the PC has the power to do this, but will be corrected if I’m wrong) here’s bullet point # 10: Put everyone under oath (including Peters), and take the opportunity to remind them that perjury is a serious offence, and being a smart-arse is not going to fly anymore. And I’m not being entirely facetious here. If Peters sticks to his standard m.o., the crap scented fog machine will be cranked up to eleven, and this is a little bit too serious. Especially for the Privileges Committee, which really can’t afford to be seen as the third ring in Winnie’s circus for the sake of its own credibility.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:02 am
are we allowed to comment on keys’ appearance on breakfast this morning..?..here..?
(or is that a ten-pointer..?…)
if not here..where..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 6th, 2008 at 8:06 am
try the standard phil, thats ‘your place’
August 6th, 2008 at 8:07 am
This is total fantasy on your part. Expert advice from the Law society on barrister fees ? You really gone into cukoo land over this
August 6th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Peters will get let off in another liarboe farce – it will be well known in years to come as the final straw that broke the camels back in election year 2008…the public will revolt.
God you liabore apologists disgust me – get a job, a real job.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:22 am
philu:
You sign it to all your posts. whoar.co.nz. If anybody is interested in reading and responding they will do so there.
Now, what is the scope of this type of investigation and what are the possible results that can come from this? Is it possible that they will look into how donations from this same group of people flowed into other political parties or is this restricted only to Winston Peters?
August 6th, 2008 at 8:23 am
I’m assuming that Helen will be able to ‘reluctantly’ act on any PC findings after the final confidence vote.
Appease the voters, while shedding crocodile tears to Winnie: “Sorry about that. My hands were tied. Good luck and I’ll work with you again post election. More scampi?”
August 6th, 2008 at 8:24 am
phule – why don’t you comment on YOUR site about Keys appearance on Breakfast.
You know, your 2 million plus hits a week site that everyone reads.
Your going off subject on EVERY post on this site is just getting tiresome. And no its not tiresome because of your cutting analysis, its tiresome because your gibberish is BORING.
Don’t bother to reply I have no interest in what you’ll say.
edit – what pascal said.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Chicken..little..or..should..I..say..large..?!
Agree, cluck orf phil
August 6th, 2008 at 8:31 am
…So Henry thinks this will be a bit of fun, eh? (Jeez, being reading too much of philu!)
Anyway, hardly the right choice of public speak for a barrister, one would have thought?? But then, being a joint member of the AEO club (arrogant/egotistical/obnoxious), its hardly surprising.
His disclosure, discloses something to I hide, I strongly suggest.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:39 am
DPF,
Can the Committee compel Glenn to appear? What powers do they have with the general public? I read somewhere that they can jail fellow MPs!?
August 6th, 2008 at 9:11 am
The Privileges Committee has the power to require people to appear and to produce records. It is the only committee with that direct power. All other committees have to exercise that power through the Speaker.
The relevant standing order is 391(2) : “The Committee has the power to send for persons, papers and records”.
Someone who refuses needs a reason that will satisfy the Committee otherwise they can be found in contempt of Parliament, which is not a good look.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:31 am
>
>>Strictly speaking a client has no contract with his Barrister
Not necessarily true, I have had a direct client/Barrister relationship where the invoices were sent directly to me – my Barrister understood my reluctance to explain a complicated business transaction indirectly, and my usual Solicitor (who doesn’t – of course – solicit) had no problem standing out of the loop and not collecting fees for collecting fees.
FillYou – does anyone but you read your blog?
Folks – why do some of you use the term “final confidence vote”? It’s my understanding that there is one more supply vote needed in this parliament, but a confidence motion can be put at any time can’t it?
August 6th, 2008 at 9:32 am
You missed eight rifles, seven live rounds, one blank and a blindfold.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:38 am
As Owen Glenn has been honoured by the NZ Govt for his contribution to NZ, has a business school named after him etc and is seeking a diplomatic appointment – it is unthinkable that he would not co-operate and agree to testify by way of video-conference.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:45 am
This from a man with a yellow jacket
August 6th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Better a yellow jacket than a yellow belly.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
If Peters is not a beneficiary of The Spencer Trust what are the ramifications of any payments made to him by said trust?
August 6th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
An excellent set of questions DPF but I’m concerned by Simon Power’s seemingly already laying the groundwork for nothing to happen because of the imminence of Parliament rising for the election. That would suggest the Committee need convene immediately, and get as much as possible into the open in the next five to seven weeks.
Indeed it’s possible that, having survived todays “confidence vote” the PM will see value in an early election. It shuts down the Peters-related investigation, allows her to go at a time when “National’s secret agenda” is on everyone’s lips and, from her perspective, Labour’s own performance and reputation can only get worse.
Equally disappointing is the head of the SFO implying there’s not enough evidence to mount an investigation. Perhaps he missed the class at Plod College where it was pointed out that the purpose of an investigation is to uncover evidence.
My own experiences suggest the coppers don’t need a whole lot of “evidence” before they boot your door down at dawn and haul you off, making sure the media know they have a high-profile captive so they look good on the news. Any investigation of the Peters matters won’t involve anything like that level of trauma to those under investigation, so why the reluctance?
August 6th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Alas whilst my heart tells me that the PC will do the right and honourable thing and act in an ethical and moral manner my head tells me we are now dealing with politics in New Zealand in 2008 where good governance principles are no longer the order of the day and the citizens right to view the Parliament as an honourable institution is now in tatters.
There are now a shrinking minority of inhabitants in the House that any good decent citizen can have any respect for and that is a very sad thing.
When the citizens come to view those who would be their representatives as unworthy then those same citizens will switch off and regard the Parliament as a irrelevancy to their lives.
If this is the case then all Members stand guilty of bringing the Parliament into disrepute.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I wonder how quickly Power, the Chair, can move this along?
Not to ignore the inevitable inertia from Cullen, the Deputy Chair.