Vegas Issues
September 16th, 2008 at 9:35 am by David FarrarThe latest news on Winston’s trip to Las Vegas confirms that Helen Clark is operating two sets of standards – one for Winston, and for other Ministers. Winston could rob a bank in broad daylight, and Helen would happily keep him on.
Let us go to the Cabinet Manual, section 2.113:
Subject to parliamentary or portfolio requirements, and with the prior approval of the Prime Minister, Ministers may occasionally extend overseas visits outside the formal itinerary for personal reasons, provided no additional costs are incurred by the government as a result.
Now it is as clear as it can be, that Winston Peters was required to get Helen Clark’s permission for the sidetrip to Las Vegas. Clark says she only learnt of it two weeks ago. Now by itself this isn’t a hanging offence, but what it illustrates is how Clark operates a totally different set of standards with Peters. Peters knows Clark won’t touch him, so he doesn’t bother with minor stuff like accountability or rules.
There is also some confusion about whether or not Clark did know more than two weeks ago. Whale Oil alleges that the unapproved side trip was discussed at the MFAT Divisional Officers’ Meeting which includes PM’s foreign afairs advisor from DPMC. So if Clark did not know, then her Department did.
Matthew Hooton also reports that George Calvert has denied paying for the sidetrip to Vegas. Now the lanugage used here (and one has to be suspicious when it involves Winston and friends) suggests the denial only applies to the airfares – not necessarily the accomodation and match tickets. Because if someone other than Peters did pay for them, and the cost was over NZ$500, then Peters has breached (again) the Register of MPs Pecuninary Interests and the Cabinet Manual (again).
Queen Bee asserts that the taxpayer originally paid for the flights and the accommodation. which is what caused all the fuss in MFAT. The money was repaid, but it is not known when – was it after questions were asked?
The best case scenario is that Peters has broken the Cabinet Manual, and Clark has demonstrated she has will not enforce any rules on Peters, so long as he votes for her. The worst case scenario is that the taxpayer paid for personal travel, it was only refunded when found out, and also gifts in excess of $500 were not declared. It is important to stress that there is no public proof of the worst case scenario at this point in time. Only the best case scenario has been proven. The worst case scenario can be proven false in just five minutes with the appropriate receipts.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Viva Las Vegas…
One rule for all, and another for Winston. I repeat: ‘What does Winston have on Hellun ?’
Shall we add this one to the list:
Vote:* I did not know the car was speeding
* I did not know that the plane door opened
* I did not know that I hadn’t painted the painting
* I did not know the Owen Glenn had donated $100K to NZF
* I did not know the public wanted tougher sentances
* I did not know the public wanted fewer MP’s
* I did not know about Winston’s visit to Las Vegas
* I did not know that Mike Williams jacked up the NZF finance deal.
* I did not know that my pledge card was an illegal use of funds
September 16th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Well I was pretty luke-warm on this story when it first broke and certainly if all Peters did was to ‘forget’ to seek HC’s permission then it’s still not huge although I agree with David’s point about Clark operating double standards.
But I think now sufficient doubt has been raised so as to require Peters to come clean on who paid for what and when and particularly the time line applying to any reimbursements.
What I do know from my (admittedly limited) contact with WP is that the lawyers axiom of short arms and deep pockets is well adhered to by ‘the man’.
Vote:September 16th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Ross, that’s a little unfair. Many will testify to Winston’s generosity. But we are now finding Winston’s generosity is almost invariably funded by someone else.
His pockets may be deep – but his arms are certainly not short. They are long enough to reach into your pocket and mine!!
Vote:September 16th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I HATE to say this, but he may not have needed to get any one’s permission!
As I read the words (they are Winston’s best friends) what is being referred to is a “Cabinet Manual”. Winston is a Minister Outside of Cabinet! Could it be that he did a deal with H1 to the effect that the Cabinet Manual was not to be applied to him, in the same way as he did not have to accept the strictures of common responsibility that comes with being a Cabinet member?
Like I said. I HATE saying it, but once again the words may be in his favour. Mind you, $15 grand for airfares and a room must have come from somewhere, if he’s got the receipts, fine – otherwise it’s another failure to declare, unless there’s words on that too!
Vote:September 16th, 2008 at 10:46 am
You guys have all missed one critical point. It’s not in Labour’s best interest to maintain the highest ethical stanards. Move on.
Vote:September 16th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Trying to move on Burt – but despite my best intentions I remain transfixed!! I need help. Perhaps one more disappointing anticlimax at the PC this morning will convince me to ignore Winston henceforth.
In my defence I, like many others, find I cannot escape Winston’s cautionery tale. Maybe this is a temporary effect of the LHC. I am drawn not because I find him in any way appealing – quite the opposite. I am fascinated by the ease with which so many of the great and the good fall under his spell.
His attraction is an enigma to me. Like the lure of Nigerian scams, NZ Finance companies and Sensing Murder. So many of my fellow citizens seems to be dancing to a beat that I cannot hear no matter how hard I strain.
I feel that if I can understand the “why and how” of Winston – I can understand just why so many NZ’s are so easily scammed.
Vote:September 16th, 2008 at 11:16 am
dave strings – The Cabinet Manual does not just apply to Ministers Inside Cabinet, but to the whole Executive – Ministers, staffers and all public servants. As Prime Minister Helen Clark wrote in the foreword to the Manual: “The Cabinet Manual is an authoritative guide to central government decision making for Ministers, their offices, and those working within government. It is also a primary source of information on New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. Cabinet has approved the content of the Cabinet Manual. I urge all those working in government to use the new Cabinet Manual and follow the guidance it contains.”
Vote:The document itself covers rules for all public servants – see, for example, http://www.cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/3.50 It is impossible for anyone to argue (as I believe the Beehive is!) that the Manual does not apply to Winston Peters.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Vague ass?
Sounds appropriate.
Vote:September 16th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Winston robbing a bank would be “not following the exact procedures for making a withdrawal – a simple procedural mistake”
Vote:September 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Matthew Hooton
THANK YOU MOST SINCERELY for that clarification, I am much better now and able to face the future without the trepidation I was earlier feeling.
Whew! (wipes brow and wanders off to the water cooler smiling a nice smile.)
Vote:September 17th, 2008 at 5:52 am
Doesn’t anybody think it’s weird that Winston would rather keep his baubles for the next 7 weeks than save his party from electoral oblivion by resigning as Foreign Affairs Minister?
Vote: