Skip to content

Privileges Committe report on Winston is out

22/09/2008

invisible hit counter

Scoopit!

NZ Herald reports on the tabling of the Privileges Committee report on the Glenn donation to Winston Peters:-

Chicane - 11 September

Chicane - 11 September

The privileges committee report, download here, has recommended Winston Peters be censured for “knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests”.

It remains to be seen what censure will actually mean in reality.

The Herald item goes on:-

The committee has been assessing whether Mr Peters should have declared the donation as a gift.

The committee said it found no evidence that Mr Peters made an “honest attempt” to find out whether any donations had been received before making his return in February 2006,

Chicane 18 September 2008

Chicane 18 September 2008

despite his knowledge of his arrangement with Mr Henry (Peters’ lawyer Brian Henry) and the likelihood of donations being received towards his costs.

So a majority did not think Mr Peters took appropriate steps to ensure accuracy in his filings, despite his many protestations of compliance.

The report recommended that Peters be ordered to file amended returns for 2006, 2007 and 2008 to include “all debts, gifts and payments in kind that he has not previously registered”.

Tom Scott - 09 September

Tom Scott - 09 September

Does the above phrasing suggest a belief that there maybe additional disclosures to be made? Does it suggest that the mere failure of Mr Henry to render a bill does not remove the obligation to disclose?

Does it mean that a donation to pay an MPs expense such as his legal fees is a gift, donation to the MP even if paid directly and not via the MP?

The committee was split along party lines and Labour MPs disagreed with the majority decision.

Were Labour MPs motivated just to support Mr Peters? Or do they have a disagreement over the interpretation of the rules which might be inferred from the above?

Did all parties other than Labour form the majority?

Mr Peters said in a statement this evening that those who supported the majority decision had decided he was guilty before the hearings began.

Predictable statement by Peters. Let us await his further frothings.

The committee’s report is expected to be debated in Parliament tomorrow afternoon and if it contains recommendations these will be voted on in the House.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

This is a quick initial post, but will read report and post more thoughts in due course.

UPDATE #1:- David Farrar makes some excellent points in an informative post here

UPDATE#2:– Keeping Stock has an acute observation on Winston’s campaign slogan in his post here

UPDATE#3:- Barnsley Bill is admirably short and to the point

UPDATE#4:- No Minister make some pointed observations, especially about distractions here

UPDATE#5:– PM of NZ is not impressed

2 Comments
  1. adamsmith1922 permalink*
    22/09/2008 23:35

    Like you I think he will back.

    Somehow he convinces a group of cargo cultists that he walks on water and tells only the truth.

    Like

  2. 22/09/2008 23:16

    After the frothing, Winston will be centre court, basking in all that free publicity. Down in the 49th Parliament bearpit it will be the same old same old. Nothing will change.

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: