Monday, August 18, 2008

No bill equals no debt

Yes, dear readers, that is Winston Peters's defence, as the Herald reported just a few minutes ago.

Mr Henry, who said a description of his relationship with Mr Peters of being blood brothers was apt, never sent bills via a solicitor for legal work for Mr Peters. That meant there was no debt.

"The position is I have not rendered a fee note to the solicitor for the work done and that solicitor has not rendered a bill to Winston. Until my instructing solicitor renders a bill to Winston, there is no debt owed by Winston."

Parliament's rules state that MPs must disclose any gift or payment of their debts, with a value of over $500, by another person.

Mr Henry told MPs he had long employed the practice of fund-raising to pay Mr Peters' debt and not tell him about doing this in order to protect him.

Mr Peters read a letter he wrote to Speaker Margaret Wilson outlining his arguments that there was no debt or gift to declare.

"We have always operated under an agreed system of Mr Henry not disclosing the source of fund-raising and myself not asking... there is no debt to be paid or discharged."

National's Gerry Brownlee asked Mr Peters about a comment Mr Peters made, saying Mr Glenn had helped pay his bill.

"When you were saying this is a donation to you, you were accepting that there was a donation to you personally?"

"No it was a donation to the legal cost of a petition."

Now I'm no legal expert - but given that the Petitioner in the Tauranga Electoral Petition was`Winston Raymond Peters, surely any donation towards the legal costs of the petitioner is a personal donation, because only the petitioner derives a pecuniary advantage from it.

3 comments:

MacDoctor said...

Hark! I hear the craven sound of hairs being split. Methinks the lawyer doth protest too much...

Inventory2 said...

Indeed MacDoc - but in fact there are two lawyers who doth protest too much - Messrs Henry and Peters.

Which raises a question - what DO you call a collective of more than one lawyer? Innovative suggestion anyone?

Anonymous said...

Henry is clearly corrupt along with Peters.

His answers to the questions were in contempt of parliament.

He should be thrown in jail until he answers the questions completely and fully; then his assets seized, his law liscence revoked, and his passport rescinded.


once again, this farce shows why NZ needs an overall of the electoral system. the funding laws, and a standing pleinpotentiary anti-corruption comission if it is to return to democracy