Peters' lawyer accuses journalists of 'charading' as pension case proceeds

Winston Peters has taken legal action over the leak of his pension details (photo: Jerry Yelich-O'Connor)

Winston Peters’ pensions payout case has had its first court hearing

0
0:00 0:10

Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters’ lawyer, Brian Henry, wants to argue particular reporters linked to the leaking of the New Zealand First leader’s pension details were charading as journalists and therefore may not be able to claim usual media protections under the law, the High Court at Auckland has heard.

Mr Henry and the lawyers for the nine potential defendants Mr Peters intends to sue over the leaking of his pension details came to court this morning for a largely procedural hearing.

The journalists named as potential defendants include Tim Murphy of Newsroom and Lloyd Burr of Newshub. National Party MPs Paula Bennett, Steven Joyce, Anne Tolley and Bill English are also possible defendants as well as party staffers of the time, Wayne Eagleson and Clark Hennessy. The chief executive of Ministry of Social Development, Brendan Boyle, is also a potential defendant.

Mr Peters wants a discovery order ahead of making a formal claim. This is allowed under the High Court rules, although Justice Anne Hinton indicated during the hearing that such an application was uncommon.

During the hearing, Mr Henry indicated there could still be a settlement reached with some parties. He also claimed Mr Murphy, he believed, had had the information about the pension payment but did not publish it.

‘’This is about dirty politics and an illegal act and, when it comes to the journalists, it is our understanding that some of the journalists were not acting as journalists as you would expect they were.’’

He suggested Mr Murphy had been ‘’big mouthing around town’’ and that, while another reporter had been given the information and not published it, others were part of a ‘’political set up’’ and would be challenged on their right to journalists' privilege because they were just charading as journalists.

The lawyer for Mr Murphy, Anderson Creigh Lai’s Andy Glenie asked for a draft statement of claim to be prepared, because “it is not yet clear who is under the gun, it is not clear who the actual defendant to the actions will be.’’

Mr Henry said he would do so but said that in his view it would not help, and that most of the information had been indicated in Mr Peters' affidavit. He said a new affidavit filed by Mr Peters would be unlikely to contain anything new from the one that has already been filed.

A full hearing on the matter is not expected until next year.


63 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.


This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

63 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

You go get them Winnie.

Disgusting turn of events.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 6

He can dish it out but he can't take it.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Winston has the power over us everyday Kiwis and we can do nothing to stop him.
The brain drain has already started as many hard working New Zealanders sell their family homes and head to Australia.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

Not sure of your comment's relevance or connection to this court case??!!

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

What idiot would head off to Aussie ? Their economy is far worse and Aussies are heading here - not the other way around

Maybe you need to sit down and rethink your strategy

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 4

Any apparent radical change in political direction in NZ, ie the installation of Douglas and Treasury in power in 1984 or Helen Clark in 1999 or Jacinda Arden has always resulted in a few exiting the country in panic or correct judgement.
The major reason for people going to Australia since 1967 have been a more exciting night and social life, ie wilder bars and sex life and better cafe society which is doubtlessly all still true in Melbourne today,; secondly pay in Australia has been better in many fields at different times ut increasingly in the higher professions and skilled trades its been increasingly better since about 1990.
Thirdly the larger scale of lAustralia and it ciities gives people more privacy which for many intelligent people inherently provides the potential for more freedom and a better social life. Australia's two greatest cities Melbourne and Sydney are world class cities while Brisbane and Perth have often been the more likely destination for New ZEalanders are enlarged provincial cities which have not developed on the European basis of a heavy industrial organised working class and libertarian middle class which was the main attraction of Sydney and Melbourne. Perth and Brisbane were attractive as a better version of what Auckland was in the 1950s and 1960s as much of the industrial and middle management based business in New ZEaland had simply moved to Australia anywhere and moving to Perth or Queensland allowed and escape from the PC bureaucrat social police society New Zealand became.
The fall off of NZ immigration from about 2013/14 reflected that most of the people with good career prospects who wanted to move to Australia had done so in the previous 25 years and the 2014 Australain budget is partly about creating a society which would prioritise jobs for young Australians and did not particularly want what the remainder of what New Zealand wanted and no longer thought it desirable to provide good quality state education for New ZEalanders and other working class people who couldnt afford private. Australia had become a more attractive country in the assement of the world and had a better pool of alternative immigrants.
Australia has been moving in the direction of restricting free access and equal access to New ZEalnders in Australia to social services and educational services since the early 1980s. Both Britain and Australia found by about 1980 if free access to all recent arrivals and imigrants was given to welfare, PEP type jobs in industry and bureaucracy and education, it simply meant every chancer and free rider in the world was quicly on the boat to Sydeny and London. And it was only too true. Internally British arisitocrats rushed to live free in the squats and on the dole while they nursed there rock star star ambtions. New ZEalanders were too square to take up these opportunities- but no top class Brtish actor, militarist or aristocrat hesitated to sign for the dole. By the early 1980s Australian government and NSW statistical evalutaion showed that NZ European immigants to Australia were twice as likely as the Australians themselves to be living on the dole and NZ Maori immigrants four times more likely. It was also clear that all the more talented and educated New Zealand criminals had moved to Australia with the jails in NSW holding a greatly disproportiate number of well educated New Zealanders. While that could be interpreted in a number of ways-the obviousl facts and the danger to Australlan security of backdoor entry to Australia of a wave of Pacific Islanders and the risk from the ineviable increase of backdoor entry thru ,HK residents granted citizenship in New Zealand who were actualy chinese agents or criminals into Australia are the predominant drivers of increasing Australian restriction. The final New Zealand mass exodus in 2011-12 were mainly motivated by the desire for high pay in Australian mining jobs which have wound down with China and Japan reducing coal and steel purchase and werre people often illsuited and unable to afford the costs of Australian lifestyle and education.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

You need to settle down, and take a pill; just what Twyford advised Mark Richardson to do, when his overwhelming ego got the better of him.

This seems a common trait amongst journalists, and its time class actions like Winston Peters is taking bring them into line.

One suspects it goes deeper than that, with National having already paid the price.
[Edited]

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

Twyford is knowledgeable about taking pills?

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Perhaps that's a good thing. It will raise the average IQ on both sides of the Tasman.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Dave, you sound like another National party supporter being a sore loser. National "no friends" only got 44% of the vote at election and had no buddys around the table during coalition talks except for Act. Perhaps this is the reason why.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

Any major party would have been thrilled with 'only 44%'..... It took an old man to give Jacinda the reins.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Other parties know better than to be thrilled with a percentage when coupled with a lack of understanding of how to navigate MMP.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

A bitter old man who doen't care what his actions do to NZ, so long as he exacts Utu on his former National Party colleagues.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Should we perhaps find out ahead of time who's going to be paying Winston's legal bills this time around? And then we don't need to repeat the drawn-out, political charade surrounding Owen Glen's payment of Winston's previous, unspecified legal bills.

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 0

I strongly suspect that the National party will be picking up the tab.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

Very Trumpesque. Next he will be declaring an independent North Land, free of migrants.

Sorry worrying this backstabbing two tongued individual.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 2

Well two questions could be solved at the same time. The outdated one going back to 2005. Winston what have you done with the $158,000 you got then, and confirmed as illegal. The other question has to be about your "mistake" in signing the wrong box or declaration to Social Welfare or WINZ when the question is. "Do you live alone as a superannuand". "Or do you live in a defacto relationship".
Both questions can surely be resolved by answering them . Wonder what part of either question, or both than Mr Peters up to now refuses to answer.
A good faith release of his Super application could answer many many questions like who in fact is, or was culpable in the" mistake" which took seven years to be discovered.

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

Interesting but not central to the case as this is about how it became public.

What I find interesting is this is a civil case, where I assume Winston is claiming he was defamed or suffered some personal loss. Given the election result I am at a loss to understand what loss he has suffered.

I think he has approached this wrong and should have requested a Privacy Commission investigation and had this investigated as a criminal matter.

Individually naming and suing individuals does give the whole thing a whiff of him exacting a personal vendetta.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

I think he's going to claim under tort of defamation or maybe breach of confidence. I still think he can claim it was damaging to his reputation. 

Perhaps doesn't want to go down the criminal track because the standard is higher and he wont get any insight into the investigation whereas at present he can fish for what info he wants. 

 

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

A defence to defamation is the truth of the statement and his reputation is poor to say the least. Will need to be going after breach of privacy, or using this as a fishing expedition to get info for a criminal complaint.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Reputation as what; - a duplicitious grand stander ?

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

It also means that he stays for some time where he likes to be in the limelight. If he is not successful will the current defendants be able to sue the current plaintiff for defamation?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

It is unlikely that he will rely on defamation: his complaint is that private information was released, not that his reputation has been damaged - as he clearly did receive the benefit calculated on the basis of him being single. Thus the election result (and it should be remembered that he lost his seat) is not on point.

He is not suing the various individuals - he is using a procedural tool to uncover evidence of the identity of the person(s) responsible for the release of the information held by the various respondents to his application. If he succeeds, then he will know who to sue.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

National's Dirty Politics comes back to bite them. First it costs them the election, and now he's suing them to boot!

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 6

Don't forget that he was probably using this "leak" (sic) as a leverage too to get the best coalition concessions from National/Labour. Dirty politics indeed and what a character this Winston really is.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

Did I miss something
Wasn’t it just a few weeks ago that he was claiming to have text message from the PM to Glenys Dickson that did not aventuate but he was still insisting he had!!
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!!!!!

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Where is any evidence of where the leak came from? We only have Peters' paranoid imagination to say that it had anything with the National party.

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

On the contrary. Henry is Slater’s lawyer. Quite clear where this is heading. If the court finds through Winston’s case that journalists can be found when acting as political activists and operatives to not have source protection then stage II will be to go after Hager.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Don't know how it can be dirty politics when what was released was the truth.
Thats what Winston fears the most,the truth.

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

Yes and when will be Winnie's first speech in parliament: the opposition's faces were sour enough having to sit there and be lectured to by Jacinda and Shaw. Can't wait.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

LOL. Winston's been charading as a straight up honest politican for years. What a JOKE.
But he needs to be careful; in my view Newsroom and Newshub are pretty left leaning. He might find his leaker(s) are his Cabinet colleagues!!

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

The people have a right to know, Mr Peters, that you have been over paid National Super and the circumstances of it. You are a public figure, the Deputy Prime Minister, a MP, the leader of a minor party that has long championed the rights of the elderly and those on Superannuation. You are by no means an ordinary citizen. Given the nature of the over payment there are questions that need to be put to you and for you to answer that are in the public interest of holding all members of Parliament to the highest standards of openness, transparency and accountability.

Reply
Share
  • 7
  • 0

True but do we also ask the same question to the 55,524 other superannuants that were also overpaid for the year ended July 2017? It seems the problem is not so much Mr Peters but a problem with the system. Perhaps national should have spent more time looking at why so many superannuants got overpaid instead of implying Mr Peters was committing fraud. If fraud was involved I am sure the ministry would have laid charges by now.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

The other 55,524 superannuitants are not Deputy Prime Ministers, MPs, public figures or leaders of minor political parties. Why is it that you defenders of Winston Peters just simply do not want to acknowledge that, but want him treated in this instance as an ordinary member of the public of which he patently is not?

Moreover, I'm not aware of the National Party implying that Peter's is guilty of fraud? Perhaps you have got some alternative facts you would like to share with us in this regard?

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

The threshold for prosecuting fraud these days is very high, and in public circles there is an automatic resistance in case of retribution. The case almost has to be a "slam dunk guaranteed win" or in clear public interest before police and victims will proceed. In some instances, prosecuting for fraud and losing, results in legal action by the fraudster against the victim(s) for false accusation.

A bit like being caught knowingly taking extra superannuation payments and then conducting a witch hunt against those who outed the crime because they considered it conduct unbecoming of the leader of a political party.

As country we have become numb to the dishonest actions of these who serve us. God help the future.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Transparency and Winston don't go in the same sentence.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

He must have learnt something of John Key , eh Anon ?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Winston would have known he was getting more money than his partner after seeing their bank statements. Everybody in society knows the single rate is higher than the couples rate. What planet does Winston live on, pretending he had no idea. He wants to run the country but doesn’t understand a simple thing like pension payments - yeah right.

Reply
Share
  • 7
  • 0

Well one upside of this is Winston will need all his legal training and then some to get the ultimate perspective on the litigation threat around TPP.
With our no fault ACC system do we really have the legal depth to foot against the litigation crazy yanks and others who might turn up to this thing in due course?
There are 2 concerns typically around litigation
1) Will I win?
2) Can I afford it either way?
Perhaps a few too many years of 'punching above our weight' has got to our heads and we think that protracted litigation is going to be something we can just #8.
The fight theory suggest might is right and it concerns me that our 'fair play' culture has us extremely naive right now as to how such disputes would play out.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

What we have around the TPP now is a crisis of irresponsibility whereby Labour are saying to the extent the deal is "cons" National handed them a dog and they dont have time to fix it.
The risk in that context with significant cross party support is a vacuum of accountability to the NZ Public on some of these difficult issues like sovereignty risk.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 1

The court case is scheduled for March 2018. Hopefully around the time Mainstream Media will be covering Peter Partys' back down against the legislation for a small Super increase for his over 65s Gold Card Supporters.Will not be a good look for the Peters Party. Especially since the Peters Party voted for the extra for dollars for his elderly supporters.
Mr Peters will get maximum media coverage at that time,especially his loyal supporters will be watching with interest.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

This government's only been going a few weeks and already its deputy PM is proving to be a bigger, and nastier, laugh than could reasonably have been expected.

As a taxpayer, one hopes he was charged interest and penalties on his superannuation 'overpayment'.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Surely transparency in this matter would be good. If National MPs leaked the details in the style of the earlier "dirty politics", then there's nothing wrong with cleaning house. They're not supposed to be above the law.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Meanwhile Peters is charading as Deputy PM.....

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Can we dock his pay whilst his personal crusade takes up all his time?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Memo to W. Peters
Now look here sunshine. Im paying you a lot of hard earned money to run the country not to swan around suing people over one of your vanity trips.
I expect you back at your desk in Wellington first thing tomorrow morning. You have much work to do meet my expectations sunshine. Get to it.

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

What a laugh if it turns our WP was behind the 'leak" and the "leaker" exposes WP.

Also when are we gonna see the form WP signed. The same form that I and all Nats Supers have to sign. If he cant get it right he sure cant run the country.

Oh....................... I forgot.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

As a widower I was regularly asked to confirm my status Peters was the same but failed to
Be honest hence his over reaction now
Not fit to be a politician let alone deputy PM

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

What a world we live in.

We recently just had the deputy leader of one party admitting to defrauding the tax payer, and then wore the committing of offence like a badge of honour before being reigned in to prevent a complete deflation of the Greens Party.

Now we have the deputy prime minister; A man who would have you believe that he has an IQ far higher than normal; and so astute that he can help lead the country; And he would also like you to believe that his IQ and awareness is so low, he not only filled out the form incorrectly without knowing that he did; He would also have you believe that he didn't have the awareness or curiosity to know or ask where the extra money was coming from.

Peter's court actions amount to a witch hunt. Being caught taking money from the taxpayer and then conducting a witch hunt because it became public knowledge are actions 180° from what we want from someone who parades himself as a pillar of virtue.

The correct response from a statesman would have been to admit the offending (or mistake) and thank those that the brought it to his and the public's attention. After all, it is the conduct a statesman would expect of the public he serves. An honourable statesman would also probably resign, as he would expect anyone else to do.

This court action shows that Winston is neither honourable nor a statesman. Winston and his childish witch hunt belong back in the 16th century. The bulk of New Zealand taxpayers live the the 21st century and we demand more of our political figures than an impulsive knee jerk reaction to being caught with fingers in the taxpayers till. It is NOT Ok for someone to be in power, who is unable to differentiate between personal and public funds.

Congratulations to whoever leaked to the press the fact that Winston had his nose in the public trough. If Winston had any integrity the only thing we would be seeing in the media is his resignation.

Reply
Share
  • 7
  • 0

I say bring on a court case. It will expose the Nats for their dirty politics. Breaching the Privacy Act is serious and those behind it need to be held accountable and dealt with. National have form on this too. Remember Bennett's infamous leak about two beneficiaries.

Winston is smart enough to know that the full details of the pension overpayment will be debated during the case. He is clearly confident that he has nothing to answer for, or he would not be bringing it.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 3

In general i am very opposed to the leaking of private information from Govt departments and IRD.

Winston Peters has built a political career out of taking mainstream parties to task, demanding specifics from others, insisting that other people should be above reproach, not above making reference to confidential information. In fact "shooting from the lip" is what he is most remembered for.

In essence, Winston Peters does not wish to be judged by the same standard that he has judged others by throughout his career.

Regardless of the leak, Winston Peters did make a mistake. If it was a mistake, any normal person would shrug it off the leak with a simple statement affirming that the matter was a mistake, money repaid, and get on with his elected job of running the country. Placing an inordinate amount of attention and time on a witch hunt through the courts to find the culprits, indicates he has not moved on. "Methinks thou dost protest too much" .

There is still time for Winston to save the day by withdrawing court proceedings and act like a statesman. I don't think Winston wants to be remembered fro his negative exploits.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

You forgot to highlight National's behaviour re Todd Barclay, including their use of taxpayer funds to hush up what appears to be a criminal act. Followed by their MP's refusal to cooperate with the police. Followed by their PM misrepresenting things to the public.

Very dirty times, indeed.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Like Trump hides his tax return..WP hides his pension forms. What is he ashamed of?

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Winnie's not one to hold a grudge -- for more than 10 years

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

1. Confidentiality of state held private information is vital how ever, this should have no bearing on whether Winston should be prosecuted for fraud , he signed the declarations relating to super. No one should be above the law on this.
2. Winston Peters has got away with far worse than this leak of his information, if he didn't have Helen's support as regards the illegal $158k , he would not have ended up back in politics - why was Helen so supportive of Winston at the time - Something to do with someone being caught in USA so I have been told ?
3. Winston always looks after Winston ahead of anyone or anything else and that includes the NZ public - wake up NZ first supporters.
4. Dont be fooled, Winston's swing to Labour was nothing more than a lash out at National (pure Winston self interest), it had nothing to do with helping the average worker, the love affair with Labour wont last the term. "Upon the earth there is no greater treason than to do the right deed for the wrong reason"
5. Is Winston suffering from early stages of dementia, he doesn't look that well?

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

On point 2 you are correct..

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

If you live your life telling porkies, sooner or later you will be caught out. For the disingenuous Mr.Peter's, his time has come. Whoever outed him, performed a public service and should be applauded. Besides, the Privacy Act is an as s by allowing criminals (particularly conmen), to run amuck and ruin a countless number of lives in this country.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I'm interested to hear your view on the public service performed by Nicky Hager with regard to Dirty Politics.

In terms of telling porkies, our former PM (JK) turned that into an art form.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is most recently associated with U.S. political (Trump style) conversation.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

To Did you Know
Yes agree wholeheartedly on this tactic.
Well used by John Key during his years in office to deflect and obfuscate and most used by Nats during election campaigns on paid advice from Crosby Textor. Steven Joyce's $11 Billion "dead cat" tactic comes to mind.

WP learnt quickly from previous esteemed leaders.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Nicky isn't my cup of tea, hes full of moral fundamentalist fury of a certain type of PC, equalist, do good, er anti war as unforgivable obscentity. However The' Hollowman' is an excellent political documentary and the Barry film better. The truth is the Barry document ' Some Other Country' is a brilliant account of the rogernomics revolution and was almost certainly never shown on TV1 because the depiction of the leading busines tycoons such as Fay Richwhite Jones Gibbs and Hawkins is probably fair in content and camera angle and in truth would actually have improved there public image. What is revealed in those films is that their was a case for Richwhite and the right wing revolution and the real idiots were Brash and Richardson. The argument of whether JK betrayed Bill English is irrrelevant, John Key could never admit that he voted for Brash, it would at least have lessened his chance of being PM and being able to work with Englsih and it is obvious since that when JK resigned as PM a year ago it actually consitituted the sabbotage of the government which he supposedly led " as the ventriloquist dummy' . Despite the comment of Bill English that he had Keys every cooperation and instant availability to assist, it is ever more apparent nothing was less true.
Mr Hagar is mainly noted for left wing semi academic works on the intelligence and military services of the western powers and NZ. They are competently sourced and referenced , but contain little truly unknown to most defence specialists - the interesting issue in Mr Hagers Hit and Run and previous military works is, how much actual control does the NZ Government have over its serious miltiary, ie SAS, frigates and Orions when they operate beyond NZ territory. The more relevant source is the various reviews of Hit and Run by retired British Army Lt Colonel Christopher Puglsey a fairly right wing miliary academic and writer and other political scientist in a recent 2017- NZ Books. In the Mid 1960s the NZ CDS Admiral Peter Phipps did everything to closely monitor the NZ SAS during the confrontation and stop their involvement in British approved cross border retalliation, provocation and pressure raids but was not even notified when the RNZAF Canberra's came within a couple of minutes of lifting off in company with RAF Vulcans, Javelins and Canberras to strike Djkartas airbases and defence facilites. Hit and Runs retalliatin raid was apparently approved and signed by NZs PM and defence minister Wayne Mapp , but did they do more than tick the boxes and sign understanding no more than say Transport Minister for the Muldoon Government the supposed MInister of Rail , Colin McLauchlin clearing his desk of railway and transport papers in 1979- by flicking through the documents in 20 minutes with an intial and applying an offical stamp before heading for the members bar.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

If Peters’s intelligence is greater than his ego, he will drop this frivolous action. My money's on a win for his ego.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

David Clarke is claiming a 'mandate'. Ummm...you lost the popular vote...

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.6802 -0.0004 -0.06%
AUD 0.8992 -0.0014 -0.16%
EUR 0.5772 -0.0009 -0.16%
GBP 0.5149 -0.0008 -0.16%
HKD 5.3116 -0.0113 -0.21%
JPY 76.2840 0.0400 0.05%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1296.5 15.490 2017-11-17T00:
Oil Brent 62.7 1.370 2017-11-17T00:
Oil Nymex 56.6 1.440 2017-11-17T00:
Silver Index 17.4 0.300 2017-11-17T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NASDAQ 6794.7 6797.8 6793.3 -0.15%
DJI 23433.8 23433.8 23458.4 -0.43%