Liarbour's eternal shame

Labour's reluctance to upset Peters with rigorous questioning during his appearances in front of the committee was understandable given Labour's dependence on him for the past three years and conceivably for the next three as well. But it is to Labour's eternal shame that it behaved thus.

In the end, the majority verdict is a victory for principle over expediency and for the integrity of the privileges committee.

If it was someone else, Peters would be calling for his or her resignation from Parliament. If he followed the founding principles of his party, he would be considering resigning from Parliament. Don't hold your breath.

Comments on the state of play from John Armstrong

UPDATE:

And as you consider all this, consider what depths the ethical standards of the Clark Government have descended to. Clark condones a Minister who:

1. breaks the rules of the Register of Pecuniary Interests
2. breaks the rules of the Cabinet Manual
3. fails to disclose a $100,000 gift
4. tells multiple lies about it
5. gives false evidence to the Privileges Committee
6. benefits with $100,000 towards his legal fees from a billionaire whom he then lobbies to be made Consul to Monaco
7. has a $40,000 debt paid off by a company/family that benefits greatly from policy decisions he makes as Minister of Racing
8. has filed false donation returns to the Electoral Commission

Any one of these should be enough for dismissal arguably. But Clark is keeping him on despite all of the above. Could standards possibly get any lower?

from KiwiBlog