KEY POINTS:
We like to think nobody in this country is above the law, but it is not so. In the system of government we have inherited from Britain, Parliament is a law unto itself. Its debates allow people to be defamed with impunity, its members cannot be served with
writs of any sort inside its walls, courts and police are wary of stepping on its toes.
Parliament polices itself through a "privileges committee" of senior members from the different parties. Tonight, the committee begins an inquisition of Winston Peters that should raise questions of financial accountability that he has chosen not to answer in public. The hearing tonight will be open to the press at his request, but neither he nor his lawyer, Brian Henry, is taking the exercise very seriously. Mr Henry has said, "Nothing about the privileges committee bothers me at all. It could be a bit of fun."
He was talking about Mr Peters' denial of a $100,000 donation from the Monaco-based expatriate businessman Owen Glenn, a donation Mr Henry put towards the cost of his own services to Mr Peters in a court action against the man who took his Tauranga seat at the last election. Mr Henry let Mr Peters' denials stand for several months before letting him know the truth, and Mr Peters, to his credit, immediately made it public.
But questions remain for the privileges committee, such as: Did the MP know his legal bill had been paid by someone else, should he have known, and was the donation a gift that should have been declared on the public register of members' interests?
There are, however, much more serious concerns about the New Zealand First Party's funding that should not be beyond the committee's scope. Substantial donations from racing interests, fishing interests and the property tycoon Sir Robert Jones are said to have been made to Mr Peters' party though they do not appear on its books.
Sir Robert says he was asked to make out a cheque for $25,000 to an entity called the Spencer Trust and he received a receipt signed by Wayne Peters, a brother of the party leader. Neither Winston nor Wayne Peters has been prepared to explain the nature of this entity, and the party's president appears to know nothing about it.
The questions these facts raise are too serious to ignore even if the attention is working to Mr Peters' political advantage. In many other political systems they are questions no public figure could ignore; courts and constitutions would hold him to account. Here we have only the privileges committee, unless the Serious Fraud Office, which Labour and NZ First are about to abolish, decides to investigate. It is taking its time to decide.
Ultimately, of course, Mr Peters' fate rests on the court of public opinion. But MMP allows him to be acquitted on the verdict of a tiny minority, one voter in 20 to be precise. He can survive with the support of just 5 per cent of voters nationwide. And even that pitiful support could enable him to decide which of the two main parties forms the next government. Hence, neither of them has tried to question his financial arrangements too closely.
Labour and National members dominate the privileges committee and there, too, they might not press him for answers. It is a worry that the committee has not bothered to contact Mr Glenn, who thought his donation went to NZ First. Like the Prime Minister, it might prefer to accept Mr Peters' assurances that nothing untoward has been done.
We would all like to accept those assurances, if only to cease handing Mr Peters more attention, but somebody has to hold him to account, as he likes to hold others. If his peers cannot do it, who will?
