As Winston Peters faces yet another legal claim – this time from former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr – which he dutifully notes is not exactly his first legal rodeo.
In fact, as anyone with even the dimmest, post-naughties memory can attest, the Deputy Prime Minister Peters has been rough-riding the legal circuit on several occasions this century alone,
The pending Carr defamation action involved deliberations as to New Zealand joining the AUKUS alliance, which pertains to the development and sharing of advanced technologies.
During his visit to Wellington in April, Carr expressed his criticisms of the U.S.-led pact following which Peters delivered a foreign policy address saying New Zealand had not yet contemplated collaboration on the second pillar, as it had not been invited to do so.
The following morning, in a series of interviews, he queried Carr’s criticism, prompting him to launch an typically colorful verbal attack.
“What on Earth does he think he’s doing, coming into our country and telling us what to do? We would never do that in Australia, and he should refrain from doing so here. That kind of arrogance is something we don’t appreciate,” he said. The alleged defamatory words are excluded because who can be bothered being sued alongside Winston Peters?
The other legal actions involving Peters span a wide array of issues, commencing in headline-making fashion with the seminal Winebox inquiry.
It then spread from electoral matters, including an SFO inquiry into his Party’s Foundation donations, which were dismissed, to privacy breaches.
He was involved indirectly in an $8 million defamation claim by Simonovic Fisheries against TVNZ and others that included a false claim that he and another MP had been bribed by the company.
A notable case was his pursuit of legal action over the disclosure of his superannuation repayment, which sparked debates about privacy and the use of personal information. This and other cases have raised questions about legal principles, the accountability of public figures, and the transparency of government processes.
To recap for those wanting a Peters’ Rodeo update, we record them –
The Winebox Inquiry
In the early 1990s, Peters played a pivotal role in the Winebox Inquiry, introduced by Peters when he delivered documents to Parliament in a wine box, delving into allegations of corporate fraud involving tax evasion involving the Serious Fraud Office and Inland Revenue.
His actions in bringing the case to light were a defining moment in his political career and upheld his reputation as an advocate for transparency and anti-corruption. In fact, no corruption was found and the Commission of Inquiry, established in September 1994, reported nearly three years later in August 1997.
Parliamentary Defamation
In 2006 High Court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit Peters launched against TVNZ and National MP David Carter. He had alleged that Carter made defamatory remarks about him while serving as the chairperson of a parliamentary select committee investigating the scampi industry. Peters sought to take legal action against TVNZ for broadcasting Carter’s comments.
The court struck out Peters’ defamation case, effectively ruling in favor of the defendants, TVNZ and David Carter.
Superannuation Overpayment
The Superannuation Overpayment controversy became public when it was revealed that Peters had been receiving higher payments than he was entitled to. He swiftly returned the overpayment and took legal action, claiming there had been a breach of privacy in the way the matter was disclosed to the public.
Privacy Breaches Claim
Peters took legal action in 2020 against two government ministers, claiming $1.8 million for damages and declarations against former ministers Paula Bennett and Anne Tolley, State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and its former chief executive Brendan Boyle, which were dismissed and costs of $320,000 were ordered against him.
Leak of SFO Investigation Details
Peters was also involved in litigation relating to a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into the NZ First Foundation funding, resulting in a lawsuit against the SFO by the NZ First Party. This case centered around the unauthorized disclosure of information from an ongoing SFO probe, a breach of confidentiality that Peters argued had political motivations and implications for his privacy and reputation.
And so, for Winston Peters, the combative approach towards a lawsuit from a retired Australian politician is yet another legal fly to be swatted away with his trademark belligerence.
