The privileges committee report

Yes, I've read the privileges committee's report on the Winston Peters circus and can't be bothered commenting on it unless I find anything of interest. They have recommended Peters be censured by the House because he lied to and misled all and sundry. They'll vote on it tomorrow and tell Winston Peters that he's a naughty boy.

But I will state that Peters received a number of donations amounting to $40,000 that he used to pay off a loan that was used to pay Brian Henry. Peters has to relinquish that gift unless Helen Clark decides that Peters can keeps it.

You can read more about that n Farrar's good quick analysis but beware of the quality of comments.

The people who ru(i)n our country

Michael Cullen has refused to say he has confidence in the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), after its head, Grant Liddell, was before the Privileges Committee today.

As you know, the SFO is investigating the country's Foreign Affairs Minister for fraud. Winston Peters is still the Foreign Affairs Minister but has had his portfolios stripped pending the investigation. The problem is that Michael Cullen is also the Attorney General, - chief law officer and primary legal advisor of the New Zealand government - despite having no legal qualifications whatsoever. Liddell reports to the Attorney General.

He did so again today.

Liddell addressed his boss, the Attorney General with no legal training - but only because said boss is not only the country's Deputy Prime Minister, he is a member of the said Privileges Committee that is discussing possible fraudulent behaviour of a former Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer who does have law degree and is now the Foreign Affairs Minister. The investigation is over a donation the Foreign Affairs Minster received in his role as a political party leader in 2005 but failed to declare it as required by law. The person who had donated the money had earlier funded the Attorney General's political party to the extent that it won the last election and became the Government - which is why the said Attorney General is still the Deputy Prime Minister.

But after Grant Liddell has addressed the Privileges Committee, his own boss, the Attorney General, refused to say whether he had confidence in the Serious Fraud Office, while earlier refusing to advise his own boss that the fraudulent Foreign Affairs Minister should be sacked.

This boss so happens to be the Prime Minister who is also the boss of the said Foreign Minister. But she has not only got the fraudulent Foreign Affairs Minister's portfolios, she is trying to get his party supporters to vote for her party at the next election because that Foreign Affairs Minister's donor won't give her party any more money, and musician Chris Knox won't sing "It's a bitter way with Labour, way bitter" any more.

But that hasn't worked very well as a political poll just out had the said Foreign Minister's political party doubling in support, and Labour falling.

So there you have it.

Clark will "let the process continue"

Helen Clark says she will hold off firing Winston Peters until the Serious Fraud Office and the police has completed their investigations into the Winston Peter's saga.

Because Michael Cullen told her to.

Which is precisely what I have been saying all month and on Monday said

Despite whatever the privileges committee says, Peters will still keep his ministerial warrants because the SFO and police will not have completed their investigations before the election. Due process extends as far as the Prime Minster wants it to, which is why she's happy to use the SFO and police as political pawns to extend that process. Nothing is a firing offence in this government unless it is politically expedient to do so.

The reason Cullen advised the Prime Minister so was because he wants people to think that Helen Clark still can't make up her mind which version of events is true.

Peter Dunne, who is on the committee, appeared annoyed that Henry cannot recall much. He put the proposition to Henry that he was not recalling things because to do so would create further embarrassment for Peters. Of course Cullen won't be asking to have the truth clarified.

The PM is deciding nothing. It is Cullen that is making the decisions and the PM is merely agreeing with him. Clark won't make any decision before the SFO report comes out.

updateThat decision not to make a decision is the only decision Clark has made in this saga since she suspended Peters.

Reasons to dump Winston Peters

Garth George has outlined eignt more reasons to dump Clark.
However Matthew Hooton has a reason to dump Peters and its better than George's eight reasons to dump Clark combined. It has nothing to do with the Privileges Committee hearing, and everything to do with Winston Peters' behaviour - although the hearing does reflect Peters' past behaviour.

The Cabinet Office Manual is quite clear that “Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour“. People are Ministers because the Prime Minister has confidence in them, and for no other reason. It is the sole basis of them being Ministers.

It is the Prime Minister’s job, again according to the Cabinet Office Manual, to ensure her Ministers ”behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards“. It is not possible that Clark believes Peters has met this standard. At the very least, he cannot possibly any longer be seen to have upheld the highest ethical standards. It is therefore not possible that a Prime Minister doing their job would continue to have confidence in him.

It is Helen Clark’s job as Prime Minister to act on her own judgement. It is not about “natural justice” or “due process”. If she no longer wants the responsibility that comes with that job, she should act on another section of the Cabinet Office Manual, and advise the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament and hold a general election on the soonest possible date.

But the Cabinet Manual is irrelevant, as if you break these rules there are no consequences. Helen Clark only obeys laws when there are consequences for not doing so. That's her standard.

What happened on December 14, 2005?

NB: BBC story on Winston Peters here

The Greens got its ETS bill passed under urgency, not because the Government wanted other bills passed before recess, but in case Winston Peters gets sacked today. He may. He should. He provided no evidence to the privileges committee last night that convincingly rebutted Owen Glenn's statements.

I think the whole thing comes down to one date. December 14, 2005. On that date Owen Glenn called Winston Peters. Owen Glenn says he talked money, Winston Peters said he didn't talk money, but about Glenn wanting "a roving ambassadorship with emphasis on trade... similar to Mike Moore".

Do you believe that?

Shortly after, Peters' lawyer Brian Henry's bank account was sent to Owen Glenn, on "behalf of my client". If Brian Henry can't name that client as someone other than Winston Peters, Helen Clark has no reason not to sack Winston Peters. But because Henry hasn't provided those details, despite being asked, and neither has Peters, we'll have to wait until Tuesday when Henry gets called before the committee again.

But Henry won't state that information as nobody can prove it either way. But this mess has caused so much damage to the Government that Michael Cullen - who is on the privileges committee - should not wait til Tuesday but recommend that Helen Clark should really sack Winston Peters today.

But she won't sack him today. Or tomorrow. Or the next day. Or the day after, etc.

Update I've just seen this on Stuff. Key issues remain unresolved. Hence no sacking. Helen Clark is using due process to avoid sacking Winston Peters -which is, I suspect, was the only reason Margaret Wilson decided that he should go the the privileges committee to start with - and Wilson delayed that decision so that due process would last beyond the ETS legislation.

Update 2 Here's the PMs Press statement. The refusal to sack Winston Peters has been reported as far away as France and Thailand as well as Austria.

Why self serving Helen Clark is corrupt

It is quite clear that Helen Clark is keeping Winston Peters on so she can pass her ETS bill tonight. The bill is at the top of the order paper - at least the draft version (thanks Keeping Stock for saving me some time). I predict the self-serving Clark wants to sack Peters shortly after the bill is passed, which looks likely to be while Peters is giving evidence to the Privileges Committee tonight.

National should delay the final vote as munch as they can by filibustering. If it doesn’t I’ll interpret that to mean that it is voting against a bill it supports.

Whatever, we don’t have representative democracy anymore. We have a president of the main Government party and a Foreign Minister who are proven liars, and a PM who thinks it is unfortunate that someone like Owen Glenn is telling the truth. Clark doesn't mind people who lie as long as they are not found out. She'll probably sack Winston Peters tonight because he got found out. Not because he lied.

Hiding the truth is not a sackable offence, neither is lying. You dont even get told off for lying. Not in New Zealand's government. Being found out for hiding the truth is not sackable offence either, neither is being caught lying. But being caught out lying in a court or a privileges committee - both of which can send people to jail - is the only sackable offence, as it is deemed worse than being cought lying outside the system.

But it is only sackable if you don't need the guilty person to pass legislation.

The above is the reason why Mike Williams did not appear before the privileges committee. Williams would be sacked.

Helen Clark's principles are screwed.

The PM knew Peters was lying

Winston Peters claims he never knew about any $100,000 donation from Owen Glenn until July last year. But today, Owen Glenn produced a phone log at a Privileges Committee hearing, showing he rang Mr Peters at 11:26am on December 14, 2005 and talked for six minutes and 41 seconds. Then Brian Henry sent Owen Glenn the details of his bank account to pay the hundred grand.

Whale Oil has the affidavits online here..

Peters lied to the PM and must be sacked.

Helen Clark didn't want to tell you that she knew that Peters was lying. She also didn't want you to know that she rang Mike Williams four times in one day in June this year he was on Owen Glenn's yacht trying to screw him for more money.

Owen Glenn said that Mike Williams rang him and told him in December 2005 that [video] the Labour party didn't object to Glenn giving $100,000 to NZ First. Helen Clark must have known that there was no "innocent explanation". If she knew about the donation back in December 2005 as Mike Williams told her about it, Clark, too, has lied to the country by saying she only found out about the donation earlier this year when Owen Glenn told her.

Matthew Hooten says there now seems little doubt that the Owen Glenn donations to New Zealand First were orchestrated by the highest level of the Labour Party.

That much can be said after Owen Glenn's appearance before the committee today.

This is from The Herald

Owen Glenn said Peters called and left a message on his telephone service on December 5, 2005. Glenn said he returned the call and Peters asked for financial assistance.He then checked with Labour Party president Mike Williams whether it would assist Labour, as that was his only intention.He had thought Williams would have told his colleagues.Williams took some time to get back him and Glenn assumed that this was to make sure Labour did not object.

Michael Cullen asked whether the person talked like Mr Peters usually did.Mr Glenn repeated that he was very sure. "I knew it wasn't you Dr Cullen...you already had your $500,000."

Owen Glenn testifies against Winston Peters

This summarises the ODT report .

Glenn was emailed by former National MP Roger McClay on August 3 2005 to set up a meeting. The following day Glenn emailed Williams and Sir Howard Morrison asking their views on Mr Peters. A meeting went ahead and Glenn then wrote to Mr Williams on August 13. He said he had a "very informative hour with the charismatic Winstone (sic) Peters."On ugust 22, Glenn wrote to McClay again,saying it was a pleasure meeting Mr Peters and regretted he could not assist "at this time".

On December 5, a Glenn staffer emailed Williams about a message Peters left on Glenn's answer machine. An email December 12 email then talked about what day Glenn and Williams could meet.A Telstra phone bill showed a call to Peters' cellphone lasting 6min 41sec from Glenn at 11.26am on December 14.

The next emails - the same day - are between Glenn and Peters' lawyer Brian Henry about the account into which the money was to be banked. One comment from Henry clearly referred to the phone call between Peters and Glenn: "further to your discussion with my client at 1.30 NZT..."

On December 20, Glenn says he had instructed the bank and the money would be there within three to four days.Other evidence was about which year Mr Peters and Mr Glenn met at the Karaka sales. Glenn always maintained it was 2006 and Mr Peters has since said he is unsure. In an email on January 31, 2006, Mr Glenn wrote to two men talking about his upcoming lunch with Peters at Karaka.An affidavit from Paul Moroney, a bloodstock consultant and racehorse trainer, said he was at the lunch and witnessed Peters thanking Glenn for his help to him.

More lies from NZ First revealed

On Wednesday I asked this, regarding the NZ First donations

I wonder how much money that should have been declared to Electoral Authorities was part of the repayment of $158,000 that was sitting in a NZ First bank account generating interest for a year before being distributed to undisclosed charities?

We got some of that answer in today's papers.The donation that spurred Winston Peters' infamous "no" press conference was $80,000, was paid last December, and went towards the $158,000 for wrongful spending at the last election. Is that what the Velas paid money to NZ First for? If so, do they have the right to ask which charities it went to? Did it actually go to charities, despite Margaret Wilson saying that she has received the names of the charities - or was that list a lie too, and Peters has misled the speaker as well?. Maybe the list of charities is a list that Peters didn't give to?

So although the $80,000 wasn't sitting in the NZ First bank account for a year, this undeclared donation has generated several thousand dollars worth of interest. Now it is generating interest of another kind, not just because it wasn't declared but because nobody seems to know who has got it now. And I believe Helen Clark knows a lot more about what went on than she has revealed to date, which is why she doesn't want to appear before the privileges committee or honestly answer these two questions.

Have you been told what charities received a total of $158,000, and do you know if they received the money?
Have you been made aware if Mike Williams approached Owen Glenn or Brian Henry with relation to financially supporting Winston Peters' petition against Bob Clarkson. If so, when, and to whom was that approach made?.

And I agree with No Minister in that Labour president Mike Williams needs to go before the privileges committee. He needs to explain Labour's involvement in getting Owen Glenn's support for Winston Peters' petition against Bob Clarkson in 2005, because Glenn gave the money to NZ First as he was a Labour supporter. He should be asked if -and when - he gave Brian Henry Owen Glenn's phone number and whether he suggested to Glenn that he give money to NZ First's petition. And Winston should be asked when he got that phone number from Brian Henry.

Honest answers will give the Serious Fraud Office something more to do and reveal systemic corruption once the ducks - Mike, Helen and Winston ( and ducklings Brian Henry and Margaret Wilson) - are in a row and the dots are joined.

Is it a big deal if you break the law if you are an amateur and have Ministerial connections?

note: post retitled to reflect post content
Helen Clark has has accepted NZ First’s word that NZ First made a mistake in not declaring the $50,000 to the Electoral authorities - but it is no big deal because NZ First is an amateur organisation

Miss Clark said she was taking NZ First’s explanation at face value: “They’re a small party with a rather amateur organisation, these things can happen.

I’m a small individual with a rather amateur car. If I make a mistake and go a bit too fast and get caught speeding, can I say it was a mistake if I have to go to court to pay a fine? And like NZ First redeclaring its illegal 2005 Election return, could I reverse really fast on the same area of road to undo the lawbreaking?

Or if I get caught smacking my kids - as it is against the law - and get hauled before the courts, could I say "I'm an amateur parent, with a rather small family, these things can happen."

Or would I only get off lawbreaking if I was associated with a Minister of the Crown, like David Cunliffe did when he smacked his kids.

When no means yes and yes means no

When Winston Peters put up his famous " no" sign in February, meaning that he did not receive a donation from Owen Glenn, Clark knew no meant yes. Now Labour has said that National were tipped off by the Serious Fraud Office as to its investigation on NZ First and and has asked it to come clean. So Key came clean and denied that the SFO had tipped National off. He said No.

I'm sure Clark privately believes this no means no, just like she knew Winston's no meant yes - but, if asked, she'll never say yes when asked if Key's no means no, she'll say it is a matter for Mr Key. If she says yes, Key's no means yes, her response is akin to Key's no meaning yes, and Winston Peters' no meaning no - which she wanted the public to believe even when she knew it was not the truth.

Perhaps she only takes honourable members at their word, even if that word is not the truth, but ordinary members don't make the cut, even when their word is the truth.

Update The Serious Fraud Office has denied leaking anything to anyone making Helen Clark look like a bit of a fool. I wonder if Helen Clark knew this before accusing National of denying a leak that didn't exist? Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest as Clark is currently demonstrating the behavioural traits of a vindictive old cow.

Has NZ First made false declarations?

It's actually a pity that people will be judging Helen Clark based on Winston Peters' behaviour. Peters may have been stood down but he still gets to keep his ministerial house and other baubles, as well as his staff who can now spend more time assisting Winston campaigning to get back into Parliament after the election.

Which is exactly what Helen Clark wants Peters to do, because her only hope of getting into power is if Winston and his party are alongside her.

Peters' lawyer, Peter Williams, maintains that Peters will be cleared today by the SFO, as all the money has gone to NZ First, even if it was channeled to other trusts. I'm not so sure that will be the end of it. If the money has been channeled to NZ First through trusts, perhaps Peter Williams can tell us why it wasn't it declared? As DPF has said, if Williams is correct, NZ First has forwarded a false donation declaration for years on end.

And I believe Helen Clark is aware of this. She should tell us what she knows about that, too. But she'll no doubt tell us that it is NZ First issue, not an issue that Winston Peters was responsible for.

Gone by....time

The word is that Winston Peters will be sacked today, once Helen Clark has had a talk to him this morning. Journalists have been asking why Helen Clark had not revealed that she knew about Glenn's $100,000 donation. She was asked again yesterday, and her reply was that no-one had asked her.

Except they had. The very day she found out

Bill English: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether her coalition partner New Zealand First has advised her whether Owen Glenn is the mystery anonymous donor who placed nearly $100,000 in the New Zealand First bank account last year, and if not, does she intend to ask New Zealand First in order to find out whether a donation may have affected Winston Peters’ consideration of who to appoint as consul to Monaco?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot advise that nor can I advise the House of any of the anonymous donors to the National Party.

SFO to investigate Peters/International news media rapidly posting stories

updated
The Serious Fraud Office is to investigate donations made to NZ First.
The story is now worldwide, International Herald Tribune, The Australian, Fiji Broadcasting Corporation(which describes Peters as a former Foreign Minister), Herald/Sun, Sydney Morning Herald, Khaleej Times, ABC.

Director of the Serious Fraud Office Grant Liddell said the focus of the investigation of " serious and complex fraud" will be donations made to the party by Sir Robert Jones and the Vela family which may not have reached their intended destinations.Earlier today Mr Peters challenged the Serious Fraud Office to "either lay charges or to shut up and go away."

So they decided they wouldn't shut up. Or go away.

Mr Peters responded that the investigation was "ridiculous in the extreme" and his party would meet it "head on".He said the SFO had not spoken to him yet and if they had the matter would be cleared up. He claimed the office was motivated by a past grudge against him for criticising it.

Could it be that Winston Peters may be stood down as early as tomorrow, and replaced by Phil Goff?

Timeline: Helen Clark and the $100,000 donation

Here's a brief timeline which I may add to later.

February 20 Helen Clark said that donations, scholarships and his success as a businessman earned Glenn his New Year's Honour.

February 20: Dail Jones advises that NZ First had large anonymous donation - "probably close to $100,000 than $10,000" - and Winston Peters is furious the media knows about it Glenn has hinted that he gave a large donation. TVNZ reported that Glenn had made a substantial donation to NZ FIrst.

February 21 Helen Clark knew Glenn gave a donation to Winston Peters because Owen Glenn told her in the presence of Trevor Mallard when Glenn opened the Owen Glenn School of Business at Auckland University. He also told her that Peters had asked for the money. Peters subsequently denied this to the PM.

February 21 in Parliament
Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether her coalition partner New Zealand First has advised her whether Owen Glenn is the mystery anonymous donor who placed nearly $100,000 in the New Zealand First bank account last year, and if not, does she intend to ask New Zealand First in order to find out whether a donation may have affected Winston Peters’ consideration of who to appoint as consul to Monaco?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot advise that nor can I advise the House of any of the anonymous donors to the National Party,

February 25 (Newstalk ZB)
Presenter:Do you believe that Owen Glenn gave substantial money to New Zealand First to help them pay their electoral spending bill?
Clark: ‘Well, that—that’s a matter for New Zealand First to answer, isn’t it. It’s not a matter for me.

February 28 Winston Peters' "NO" media conference

June 20: Helen Clark refused to comment on the any donations, saying it was an internal matter for NZ First. (Thats because she know that the donation was given.)


July 14 Speculation about a Glenn donation revives after e-mails from the billionaire to a public relations firm emerge. They appear to confirm a donation had been made.
Helen Clark said the donation controversy is an internal matter for New Zealand First but said it did
not relate to Mr Peters' foreign affairs portfolio, in which he conducted himself with integrity.

July 16 Helen Clark did not want to be drawn further on the matter of donations: "I'm not commenting on anything to do with funding New Zealand First may or may not have received.

July 18 Peters admits to Glenn donation

This exchange was on 22 July
John Key: Will the Prime Minister be giving Winston Peters her express permission, as required by paragraph 2.79 of the Cabinet Manual, to retain the $100,000 he received from Owen Glenn; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would need to take advice on what the issue is where a donation has been made anonymously, and then is later declared publicly because Mr Peters’ lawyer has advised him of the facts. I would note that the word of an honourable member is always accepted in this House. Further, Mr Peters’ lawyer, Mr Henry, has entirely backed what Mr Peters has said. Mr Henry, of course, has professional obligations to the Law Society

Apart from the fact that Clark knew that Peters knew about the donation.

Also that same day "In his position, I'd be embarrassed if that was what I was told after making clear denials ... I'm in the position that Mr Peters is an honourable member and I must accept his word, unless I have evidence to the contrary."

Which she did.

I have not known Mr Peters to lie to me, and I have to take people as I find them, she said, yesterday.

I thought so: Labour did know about the $100,000

I have long suspected that Labour has known that Owen Glenn gave Winston Peters $100,000.

Yesterday I opined just that:

I wonder if Labour knew about the donation,as if they did they are protecting someone who knowingly lied, while publicly maintaining they have to take an honourable member at his word.

Today it was conformed that Labour has known that Owen Glenn gave Winston Peters $100,000 - because Owen Glenn told Helen Clark as much in February.

Helen Clark said today that billionaire Owen Glenn told her in February that he donated $100,000 to New Zealand First.

This is big news. And it was revealed just after NZ First committed to the ETS bill. Surprise, surprise.

The Prime Minister then put that information to the party's leader Winston Peters at the time and he gave her an assurance that the party had not received money from Mr Glenn.This new information this morning means Helen Clark has known for months of the conflicting sides of the story which were publicly revealed yesterday in letters to Parliament's privileges committee.

Clark says Peters' handling of the issue "obviously leaves a great deal to be desired".

So does her unethical handling of the issues. So she has to take Peters at his word. But not Benson-Pope. I wonder if the climate change bill will be given urgency. It has its second reading today.

What an utter disgraceful way for a Prime Minister to behave. At least we now know Winston Peters will now not be part of a National Government as he will be unable to give a credible explanation to back up his version of events.

Yes, Winston Peters is a proven liar

Owen Glenn told the Privileges Committee that Mr Peters met him at the Karaka yearling sales ... in early 2006 and he thanked Glenn for his "assistance", meaning a substantial donation.

Yet Winston Peters said that was rubbish .He said he couldn't have met Glenn there as he wasn't there.

Winston Peters, the New Zealand Immigration Minister watches the sales on day two of the Karaka yearling sales on January 31, 2006, in Auckland, New Zealand. (Photo by Jeff Brass/Getty Images)

What a shame someone took his picture there, then. The camera doesn't lie.

Clark won't sack Peters - yet, but John Key would have stood him down as Minister

I suggested in an earlier post that perhaps Helen Clark will wait for the report from the Privileges Committee before determining anything with regards to the conflicting statements between Owen Glenn and Peters. And that is exactly what Clark is doing. She said in the House this afternoon that she is indeed waiting on the Privileges Committee to report. But it is not up to the Privileges Committee to report on whether on not Winston Peters lied. That's for Clark to determine. The Privileges Committee determines matters of privilege.

It's a stalling tactic to get the ETS bill through.However given that NZ First has announced that it will support the ETS, Clark should suspend Peters.

Clark say that she will take Peters his word, at least until such time as she has compelling reason not to? Depends on how she defines compelling, I suppose. She should sack Peters.

In an interesting but overtimely development, John Key says Winston Peters would have been stood down if he was PM, and said he is not welcome in a National led Government unless he can provide a credible explanation on the Owen Glenn saga.

Credible to John Key, that is, not Helen Clark.

Labour's response is that Key is slippery, but he's got more balls (and principles)than Helen Clark in more ways than one.

Bang!

Despite Winston Peters saying he did not know about a $100,000 donation to the Spencer Trust, Owen Glenn, in a letter to the privileges committee, says it was Winston Peters who asked him for that donation and later thanked him for it. I wonder if Helen Clark will take the honourabull member at his word now?
What Winston Peters said:

I have no knowledge of where and by whom any donation to New Zealand First was requested. I note Mr Glenn does not say I made it, or any donation was made, which is the substance of the New Zealand Herald 12 July allegation. Reported email in the New Zealand Herald, in fact contradicts his comment in his letter before you about donating to New Zealand First.

What Owen Glenn said:

The payment was made by me to assist funding the legal costs incurred personally by Rt Hon Winston Peters MP concerning his election petition dispute, at his request. Mr Peters sought help from me for this purpose in a personal conversation, some time after I had first met him in Sydney. 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.

The privileges committee is meeting again to consider the matter on Thursday, next week.

There is discrepancy as to over when Winston Peters thanked Glenn for the donation: Owen Glenn says:

Mr Peters subsequently met me socially at the Karaka yearling sales, I believe in early 2006. He thanked me for my assistance.

Winston Peters says:

In my evidence to the committee and in my press statement of 18 July I did not thank him until my lawyer advised me on 18 July 2008.

I wonder if Labour knew about the donation,as if they did they are protecting someone who knowingly lied, while publicly maintaining they have to take an honourable member at his word. Because for Labour, truth is irrelevant to politics. Lies are perfectly acceptable, provided the public doesn't have proof.Someone has lied and if Helen Clark is to take Peters at his word, she will have to hold that Owen Glenn lied. Problem is that the public won't agree with her and this could damage Labour. Perhaps Clark will wait for the report from the privileges committee before determining anything - it`ll certainly be politically convenient. That's because today is not about morals, laws, or what is right or wrong - its about politics.

Now, watch this, from the House in July