"If, in Parliament today, Labour again attacks the committee and tries to vote down its findings, Parliament will have reached a new low in my opinion"

Not Parliament reaching a new low Colin, But Labour reaching a new low....yes they do it in parliament, but it's labour thats taking it into the gutter, no one else!

And of course they'll attack the committee and the SFO, what other choice to the have, they are in too deep now and unlike key who admitted his error/mistake can you honestly see cullen/clark putting their hand up and admitting an error/mistake?....No, unfortunately ABSOLUTE POWER corrupts and these guys think they are above all reproach and indeed any moral/ethical standards.

TRUST..Its a little word that means so much. You can TRUST Baubles? - Yes you can trust him to wheedle huge sums out of players who he's minister for, or can assist. ld check my back pocket if l'd been within 10 feet of him. You can TRUST Helen? - Yes you can trust her to corrupt herself totally to try to retain power. You can TRUST John? - Yes you can trust him to have two bob each way and step in it right up to his neck every time. Can you trust any of them.Yes you can trust them to crawl, cheat, lie, coerce and blackmail every three years to retain their individual primary interests--- their own fat arses on the cushy seat in the debating chamber....wonder if Guy Fawkes has been reincarnated.

<i>On the Key sharetrading, I’m not going to relitigate the whole argument, but it’s clear he should have declared his interest in the company at the time he was asking questions as associate transport spokesman in 2003. And he should have sold his shares sooner. Both these things Key now admits.</i>

It might also be an argument for 1) Tightening - and getting rid of the (I suspect) deliberate ambiguities - in the rules around disclosure of pecuniary interests and disclosure of potential conflicts of interests. There are many MPs on all sides of the House who have beneficial interests in trusts, after all. And Cullen could certainly put his collegaues money where his mouth is by announcing that Labour has introduced a stringent voluntary disclosure regime for all Labour MPs and candidates that exceeds current Parliamentary rules.

Then again, there's an argument that if you take that to the <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>, MPs would be required to provide a detailed accounting of where their retirement savings accounts are invested. I certainly couldn't do that, and have little (if any) control over it.

This election is about trust. Helen Clark lost mine when she looked me squarely in the camera lens and said that she honestly didn't notice that her cavalcade was travelling at 180 km/hr.

Old story, but the one that's stuck most for me about which of our elected representatives I wouldn't trust.

"The privileges committee report came out too late for the TV news last night." Not quite, Colin. TV1 screened it in its 10.30pm bulletin but placed it second behind its earlier-screened "exclusive" story on John Key's shareholdings. Funny that.

With regard to the Peters enquiry, it's hard to disagree with your comment that "Labour’s handling of this crisis has been nothing short of shameful."

Not that I have a lot of trust in any of the others either!

But I agree with Colin re the shame of attacking the privileges committee, yet another example of the Great Right Wing Conspiracy in action eh?

attn jennifer and matt etc.....this www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=28573 is the decent, honourable and honest way of handling a mistake (which being human we all make).....and that is to put the facts on the table with supporting evidence and admit to admit to the mistake.

All the complete opposite to how winnie and dear leader have handled things...

This is a good example of why we need change to JK and National!

:)

Well said Colin. Clark and Cullen have an established track record of attacking institutions that make unfavourable findings towards them. Remember Clark's treatment of Gavin Brady over Labour's overspend? She has completely lost perspective in her determination to hold power at any cost. I am reminded of her description of Brash as a "cancer" in the NZ political scene; a look in the mirror might show her some real malignancy.

It really does surprise me re JK that he can be so maladroit at handling tricky questions in the media - as if he's calculating how much of the truth he wants to reveal, as if he thinks that if we really knew we wouldn't like it.

To all those Labourites who tried to make something out of Lord Ashcroft's visit: forget that one &amp; be comforted. This is a genuine hit &amp; could cost National its absolute majority. At least, unlike WP, JK has admitted his error. He's fair game now, just as we'll never hear the end of the motorcade or the painting while HC is in power. HC never got as far as an apology with either of them. And WP would never apologise no matter how bad things got. Just politicians being economical with the truth again.

What is good about the Peters and Key stories is that the votes of the minor parties - except NZF - will increase. National wont govern alone after November 8 and Peters wil be out of government even if he gets into parliament.

I think even Helen Clark thinks Winston Peters should be sacked - but it is not politicaly expedient to sack him. And political expedience and power are more important to Clark than anything else - including trust and truth. Clark thinks smearing John Key has a higher priority than promoting Labours policies. Juat olike CLark should have spokein out about whatshe knew of WInston, Peters should have spoken out about his shares earlier.

At least Key said sorry. Clark didn't. She doesn't know how because she has a flaw in her character.