Brown and Mark on NZ First
July 16th, 2009 at 11:00 am by David FarrarBoth Peter Brown and Ron Mark have spoken out on New Zealand First. The Dom Post quotes Peter Brown:
One of Winston Peters’ most loyal lieutenants has lifted the lid on the final days in the NZ First bunker before the election, revealing that abusive phone calls from the public forced some branch offices to leave their phones off the hook and admitting that Mr Peters’ judgment became clouded.
Clouded. A nice way of putting it.
Mr Peters appears to be on the comeback trail, writing in an email to party faithful that saying “sorry” for events leading up to the last election will clear the way for a “new beginning”. The email comes as the party prepares for its annual gathering on August 29 demoralised by an election loss and a bruising year in which Mr Peters faced controversy over donations to the secretive Spencer Trust and was embarrassed by revelations of a $100,000 donation from billionaire businessman Owen Glenn.
The email states: “Before we make a new beginning, we want to use the hardest word in the English language SORRY. We acknowledge that we made mistakes … we allowed our opponents to create a perception of wrongdoing when, in fact, no offences were committed.”
A perception of wrongdoing?
NZ First filed false donation returns in 2005, 2006 and 2007. They got off prosecution because the then law had a time limit for prosecution. And Peters was exposed by the Privileges Committee as having known about the Glenn donation, despite denying any knowledge dozens of times.
Mr Peters could not be contacted yesterday. But former NZ First deputy Peter Brown, who remains a party loyalist, suggested the sorry was overdue.
“They’re all very fine words. But some of us knew we were on the wrong track. Some of us knew we’d lost sight of the big picture. But much as we tried to steer the horse back on track, he went out like the Lone Ranger.”
I have heard from a few people that none of his MPs could get through to Peters.
But during the 2008 campaign “something clouded his judgment. I think he could have handled things differently and we could have got there. I genuinely believe that.”
If Peters had admitted he knew about the Glenn donation when asked, NZ First may well still be in Parliament. And for all his apologies about “perception” of wrong-doing, Peters still will not apologise for lying over the Glenn donation.
Of course all the Labour MPs voted to believe him also, so I suppose he thinks he was telling the truth. It is interesting Labour never cites their defence of Winston as a factor in their loss. I think it was quite a significant factor.
There had been tensions over legislation that Mr Peters demanded his caucus support, including the Electoral Finance Act, but the bolt from the blue was the Spencer Trust.
There were revelations that money had been secretly paid into the trust, including donations from wealthy business donors.
“Nobody knew anything about that. Deputy leader, the president, we knew nothing. What the dickens?” Mr Brown said.
Ironic that those who supported the EFA were practising exactly what they were denouncing. And as Peter Brown says, this was a trust so secretive not even the Deputy Leader or President knew of it. Winston wan the party as a personal fiefdom.
Things went from bad to worse when NZ First launched a web campaign attacking the media and John Key in an open letter, and 150,000 personalised letters were sent out to voters.
Only Mr Peters knew about it, Mr Brown said. “The place went mad. We got abusive phone calls left, right and centre. This was two days before the election. I couldn’t believe it.
“I rang Wellington and said somebody is up there playing dirty tricks on us … I thought it was our political opponents.’.
Yes, the letter with the personalised domain name was a disaster.
And the Herald talks to Ron Mark:
Ron Mark was NZ First’s highest-profile MP after Mr Peters himself – and yesterday said that after 12 years with the party, he was no longer active and would not rule out returning to politics with another party.
Ron was widely regarded as the successor to Peters.
The Newsroom website revealed yesterday that Mr Peters has written to party members and apologising for “mistakes” made in the election campaign.
When asked if Mr Peters’ apology was warranted, Mr Mark paused for a lengthy period before answering:
“I think it’s always important to acknowledge mistakes you have made.
“To me it’s irrelevant right now. I’m out.”
Peters will be 66 (and have his gold card) at the next election. Who is going to become the new Deputy Leader (Brown has or is stepping down)?
Related posts:
- Will Mark challenge Peters?
- Peter Brown retires as Deputy Leader
- Winston remains in charge
- Clark also damns Peters
July 16th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Soon New Zealand will be calling for New Zealand First and Winston. When that time comes we must have our infrastructure in place so we are ready to answer that call.
Vote:http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/05/winston_still_alive.html
July 16th, 2009 at 11:37 am
If find this article, along with the timing of Winston’s comeback just too coincidental
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10584828
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Perhaps Helen CLARK could find a high profile position for Winston within her organisation in view of the high regard she held him in as a Foreign Affairs Minister. There are no vacancies on the Kiwibank Board and as a politician he is well past his use by date.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Perhaps the reason why Helen and Cullen never challenged Peters was because they knew he used a very senior Kensington Swann lawyer to assist in the extraction of Helen’s husband out of the US after an ‘incident’ in a US nightclub. All papers, passports etc were taken care of by this lawyer, on instruction from Winston. It’s no wonder Winston was never held to account as he knew Helen’s deepest darkest secret.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Peters is one the come back trail?
Who bloodys say? Him? I think not baby puppy.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
A precondition must be – Payback the stolen taxpayer dollars!!!!
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Alfred knows all about the supposed L.A ‘incident’ or Alfred is pulling stuff out of his arse or did an unpleasant little homophobic ‘bird’ tell him?.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Can any-one remember Winnie’s big supporter who used to hijack every thread here? What was the name again?
Wonder what bridge they jumped off.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Cha, you seem to know a lot about this too. Tell all you communist supporter.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Perhaps Alfred should debate the issue directly with DPF quote “And the next person who mentions that fucking stupid rumour here will get 100 demerits straight off. Leave bloody Peter Davis alone.”
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Hang on, wasn’t it a public convenience at LA airport? No wait, it was in Bangkok, no, Turkey, no, it was…
Vote:you get the drift – uinsubstantiated scuttlebut.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Can any-one remember Winnie’s big supporter who used to hijack every thread here? What was the name again?
Bok, from memory he called himself Cadmus.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Heh, I keep reading this as “Brown mark on NZ First.”
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Who is the “we” in we are sorry?
Pay the money back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
That is a Peters look-alike. The real crook is dead and buried.
Vote:Barring a few morons and simpletons that vote for him, the venal Peters is and WILL remain history.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Indeed who is this “we” that allegedley has reflected. Clearly noone in the party knew this letter was coming out, so whaddayaknow, Peters plucks party consensus out his arse again.
quelle surprise.
Has he paid back the stolen $158,000 yet? And while I am at it, has he reimbursed Ministerial services for the use of the vehicle and fuel card yet?
I think all in Labour need to be regularly reminded they voted in lockstep for Luigi. What price labour party integrity eh?
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Which parties has Ron Mark been talking to? Have National offered him a deal for the future?(Tau Henare anyone?) Or is he going to form his own party perhaps?
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
The only thing that clouded his judgement was the prospect of a spot of porridge.
Does anyone know if the law society is looking at the extremely interesting explanations offered by the nice Mr Henry?
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
What does Mr Peters actually say sorry for? Sorry for losing? I’m sure he is! He has still not admitted any of his wrongdoing. The “we” is a handy device for shifting blame for those “mistakes” to anyone else but him.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
It is all well and good for you guys to have a crack at Winston for the money he stole but you seem to conveniently forget that there is one other crook who is still in the house who owes us money.
Personally I am prepared to forget about the 158k as it is a cheap price to pay to see the back of Peters, however we should not forget Peter Dunne and the 50 or 60 grand that bastard owes us.
Or is it that National party cheerleaders are happy to overlook Dunne’s theft because he is a part of Neville Keys government?
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
^ for holding up that stupid ‘NO’ sign for one.
DPF wrote:
Agreed. I suspect John key would have a major revolt on his hands if he forced his National colleagues to vote to support Winston when he was clearly lying. I can’t imagine someone like Chris Finlayson holding parliament in such contempt. Yet Labour MPs in their third term of a dying government not only propped up Winston but also voted for the EFA without so much as a peep (and then they voted to repeal the EFA – go figure). What’s the deal? Are they mere lemmings.
Regardless of whether you like Labour philosophy or not, the party is stacked with ‘yes men’ morons.
Also, did the Greens vote to support Peters? If so, what the hell does that got to do with Environmental policy.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Which parties has Ron Mark been talking to? Have National offered him a deal for the future?(Tau Henare anyone?)
Loco,
National would be mad NOT to offer Mark a position in the party. As a former officer, he is held in very high regard by the armed services, and I believe he would make an excellent Minister of Defence. He’s got a good reputation around parliament. And, having worked under Winston and come out alive must give him some street-cred too.
Bonus points for the awesome Fedora he’s got, too. Pimp stylz, mah bruva.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Phil is right. Ron Mark has principle and integrity. National would benefit from association with him.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Poor old Winston, such a looser. Only a clapped out piece of shit sad ass lawyer could think they were innocent because they were not charged due to expired time limits.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
“A perception of wrongdoing?”
Why yes…. a perception indeed. I also perceive that grass is green, water is wet, and without oxygen I’ll asphyxiate.
Vote:Many perceptions also “just happen” to be truthful and factual observations.
July 16th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
The loss of Ron Mark is a big blow for the party’s future. Essentially it is a vehicle for the Peters personality cult – so who is going to join that. And if the party has no future – why vote for it.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Ron Mark a loss, tvb? Let’s break it down.
On Brown’s admission, MPs knew that things were “on the wrong track” and that Winston’s judgment was “seriously clouded”.
In other words, at some point they knew they’d received money in a way that broke the spirit if not the letter of donations laws and that their boss was lying about it.
What was their reaction?
No one did a damned thing till the end, when – much as I have no time for the man – I must admit Brown started to make disapproving noises.
Mark said nothing and instead proudly strode the streets of Upper Hutt with Winston by his side, hoping that his silence and his leader’s presence would get him elected.
When that didn’t work, he dumps Winston and goes whoring himself round to any party who’ll put him back on the gravy train.
Must have been a true believer in NZF’s fundamental principles, then. The fact that no other party has adopted such principles (despite NZF itself abandoning them) is the reason I turned down a couple of approaches from other parties after I resigned – because I believed in something other than my own self-aggrandisement.
Clearly Mark does not. I admit that hardly makes him unique amongst MPs of any stripe, but the tactics to which he stooped when he was a Member make him unfit to govern. There are plenty of decent, talented people lined up for selection – at least amongst Labour and National. Anyone who takes Mark will be displaying a considerable lack of judgment and an opportunistic streak to rival his own.
Vote:July 16th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Rex W is on the money. Mark is just a little arsehole.
Key is actually trying to up the game/standards. He has effectively said as much more than once in public. And its evident in the respective standards of behaviour in the House. If Key ever brought Mark in, I’d eat Magpie Phil’s underwear after he’s been playing with the tweezers.
Vote:July 17th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Thank you Cha
Cadmus that was it.
I wonder what they are up to now. I always thought of
Cadmus as the Tom Cruise of NZ First and of Winnie as
L Ron Hubbert. I can just see cudmus running around saying
“he not dead, he’s not dead… he is just resting.”
I actually think Winnie did more harm to NZ then any one other person in the history of NZ
Vote:Not because of what he did, but because he facilitated Lab’s long time in power
and then his antics worked as a diversion to Helen being really exposed for what she was.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:13 am
I have it on good authority that Ron Mark is actively engineering a rapprochemont with Labour thru his old friend Mike Moore.
Vote: