Kiwiblog

Both 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)?

NZPA reports:

One of Winston Peters’ most loyal and long serving political partners has thrown in the towel. New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown has broken the news at talks on the future structure of the party in Auckland.

Mr Brown says he has lost some of the passion he once had, and is giving up his role because it is time for fresh blood.

It isn’t a huge surprise. Brown is even older than Peters, and would have been 72 at the next election.

But the timing is interesting, as it means they will need to elect a Deputy Leader in the near future, and that person may be Winston’s successor (if there is one).

NZPA reports:

After being bumped out of Parliament in the last election NZ First has acknowledged it ran a “awful campaign”.

Last month it was confirmed Winston Peters would continue to lead NZ First in the near future, but was yet to commit to fighting the 2011 election.

“We ran an awful (election) campaign. There’s no two ways about it. We didn’t get our message out,”deputy leader Peter Brown told Radio New Zealand today.

“We got bogged down, and when I say we, Winston in particular, with defending all these issues that really amounted to not very much at the end of the day but it all became very tense.”

The problem with NZ First wasn’t their election campaign. Considering what had happened, it was quite good.

The problem was their conduct during the term of Parliament. The problem was vowing not to go into Government, and going into Government. The problem was having your hypocrisy exposed on funding issues. The problem was the Leader thought he was not accountable to anyone. The problem is the NZ First MPs defended the indefensible. The problem is not paying back the taxpayer their money.

If NZ First think they got booted out of Parliament because of a poor campaign, then they have not learnt.

Party president George Groombridge said the meeting would discuss restructuring the party and a possible co-leadership model.

Why does the co-leadership model of Zimbabwe come to mind

“We want to do it in such a way that electorates feel that they have more of a part in the running of the party and also we will be working right through to the top, to leadership.”

By more of a part of running the party, he means “a part”. Up until now it has obviously all been run out of the Leader’s Office.

Mr Groombridge said he hoped Mr Peters would be at the meeting.

So the Party President doesn’t even know if the Party Leader will be attending. How does that song go – EMM EYE CEE KAY E WHY, EMM OH YOU S E.

NZ First have confirmed that Winston Peters is going to remain Leader for now, but not necessarily until the 2011 election.

This is not unexpected, but what is a pleasant surpise is some backbone from Peter Brown:

Deputy leader Peter Brown said several supporters had told him they thought Mr Peters should resign, but he believed the party would suffer if he did.

He believed NZ First could successfully return to Parliament in 2011, but it would take some major changes.

The party’s funding and Mr Peters’ actions would both need to be more transparent.

“I personally think he’s a great guy and he’s got a lot of talent, but we can’t even give the perception that we are a one-man band.

“In reality we weren’t, but he would go off on a tangent and we wouldn’t know a thing about it, ie the Spencer Trust, and that’s not acceptable.”

Well done Peter Brown. No it is not acceptable for the money intended for the party to be deposited into private trusts run by the Leader’s staff and brother, without the Board even knowing the existence of such trust.

Apart from the difficulty of being out of Parliament, NZ First do have significant challenges. Winston will be 66 at the next election and Deputy Leader Peter Brown will be 72.

This is on workplace issues. Panelists:

• Trevor Mallard (Lab)
• Sue Bradford (Greens)
• Kate Wilkinson (National)
• Peter Brown (NZ First)

Questions

1. What changes to KiwiSaver and why?
2. What changes to ACC and why?
3. Will you allow grievance free probationary periods?
4. Will you remove the union monopoly on on collective bargaining?
5. Will you change the “relevant daily pay” provisions of the Holidays Act

Kate Wilkinson

1. No policy released. Key has indicated some modest changes to be announced in due course. Against Labour’s KiwiSaver amendment passed this morning that makes total remuneration packages illegal
2. Will investigate opening the work account to competition so incentives are there for good safety practices, and allow employers to insure for a higher stand of cover. Also will have an independent disputes tribunal for ACC to be fair to claimants
3. Yes a 90 day trial period for businesses with less than 20 employees.
4. Yes will allow a collective agreement with no union. Making employees form an incorporated society just to negotiate a collective contract is cumbersome.
5. The Holidays Act is like the blackboard scribblings in A Beautiful Mind. Will appoint business and union reps to a working group to review the Act, esp for relevant daily pay definition. Not to reduce rights but make law more clear.
6. General comment – important to be fair to all parties – no major changes but some improvements

Peter Brown

1. Want to make KiwiSaver compulsory
2. Do not support competition to ACC. Does support an independent disputes tribunal.
3. Missed
4. Passionate about allowing employees to do a collective contract without forming a union, but NZ First does not have policy.
5. Thinks law has settled down but willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Sue Bradford

1. Support Government, think it is great.
2. Oppose any moves to competition. Want more emphasis on equitable compensation regardless of how someone is impaired.
3. No.
4. No.
5. No.

Trevor Mallard

1. Missed but I guess no major changes
2. Against
3. Current Act has probationary periods (but grievances still possible)
4. Against
5. Missed

What was interesting is that every speaker against Trevor just spoke to policies and issues while Trevor sounded like he was blogging at The Standard and was referring to Crosby/Textor and the like.

The Dom Post reports:

Mr Brown described the failure to declare the donation as a genuine mistake.

“I can’t explain it. I think it was a genuine mistake,” Mr Brown told reporters as he entered Parliament this afternoon.

Of course it was. All a genuine mistake. We thought the $50,000 was actually a withdrawal, not a deposit.

Also some stories in the Fairfax group. First Martin Kay:

Prime Minister Helen Clark is seeking advice on whether Winston Peters should hand over the $100,000 donated by shipping billionaire Owen Glenn under rules requiring ministers to disclose gifts.

Miss Clark told Parliament she wanted to know if the donation, to help pay Mr Peters’ legal bills from his failed court bid to overturn the 2005 Tauranga result, counted as a gift under the Cabinet Manual.

Under those rules, ministers must relinquish gifts worth more than $500 unless they have the prime minister’s express permission to retain them.

This is Clark’s nightmare – that she has to decide whether or not it is okay for Peters to benefit from a $100,000 gift from a person who was lobbying him to be given a diplomatic appointment.

Clark initially said it definitely was not a gift under the Cabinet rules, so she is backing down from that position.

It will be interesting who she gets advice from. If it is from the Cabinet Office it will be pretty straight advice. If it is from Crown Law I predict it will say it is not a gift! Crown Law can be relied upon to please their client.

It is the first time Miss Clark has acknowledged the donation has a ministerial dimension after days of insisting it is an issue for Mr Peters and NZ First, not for her as prime minister.

Yep it is significant.

Colin Espiner writes:

Peters said he had broken no laws and he was also “confident” he had not misled Parliament.

He said that “big money” had been paid to dig up dirt on him, including by TVNZ, which had hired two detectives to investigate him.

Really. Someone should put that allegation to TVNZ.

NZ First MPs on their way into Parliament yesterday refused to talk to reporters, although deputy leader Peter Brown called out that he had “no concerns” about Peters.

I suspect Peter Brown could walk into a room where Winston is brutally stabbing someone to death, and cheerfully walk out of it and declare he has no concerns about Peters. There is loyalty, there is blind loyalty and then that special brand of it in NZ First.

I’ve just dug up the Hansard relating to when Parliament created the Register of Pecuniary Interests for MPs. The only two parties against were NZ First and ACT. Some quotes:

PETER BROWN: … This is a case of much ado about nothing. There is little corruption in politics in this country, and the corruption that has occurred has been targeted, found out, and exposed. We do not have to have this sort of carry-on in order to declare a war on corruption. It has no relevance to that, at all. As I said, this is a nosy parker amendment to the Standing Orders. …

This measure is a sop to the Greens. I hope it is the only one, because they will disappear at the end of this Parliament, and we can forget all about them. This measure is unnecessary; it is a mistake. It will encourage nosy parkers, and in the longer term it will discourage able people from putting their names forward to stand for Parliament. New Zealand First opposes this measure vehemently.

I am sure that opposition was indeed vehement.

I thought it would be interesting to see what the most well known political blogs have said on Peter Brown’s atrocious attacks on Asian immigrants.

1. Kiwiblog – criticised hypocritical Brown
2. Public Address – no comment
3. Whale Oil – calls him hypocritical racist
4. No Right Turn – vile rhetoric
5. Not PC – labels Brown a bigot
6. Frog Blog – no comment
7. The Standard – calls him racist and links to excellent Campbell Live interview
8. Kiwiblogblog – no comment
9. The Hive – calls it despicable
10. Tumeke – Bomber covers issue, negative on Brown

Good to see The Standard joining No Right Turn in attacking Brown, despite Brown’s party supporting the Government on supply and confidence.

People have been expecting NZ First to start bashing Asian immigrants for months, to try and lift their poll ratings like it did in 1996. Peter Brown’s outburst yesterday was not him just thinking aloud, but part of a planned strategy. It had to fall to him, as Winston being Foreign Minister can’t do it directly.  He is now refusing to comment on his own Deputy Leader’s comments.

The EMA Northern have condemned (hat tip: The Hive) NZ First and Brown:

Comments by New Zealand First MP Peter Brown are racial stereotyping of the worst sort, says Alasdair Thompson, chief executive of the Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern).

“It was post war migrants like Mr Brown who brought here the bigotry of the British class system and a rabid form of unionism,” Mr Thompson said.

“Mr Brown should stop being hypocritical.

And the Auckland Chamber of Commerce weighs in:

“Asian New Zealanders, and those overseas, should see this for what it is: a pathetic piece of political posturing by a minority party.

Hon Chris Carter:

 ”I think he’s absolutely being racist,” Carter said. “He shouldn’t be condemning people because of their race or culture.”

Hon Clayton Cosgrove:

 Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove told NZPA Mr Brown’s comments were ironic, given that he was a “native born British chap”.

He hoped Mr Brown did not “take his own advice” and return to the UK.

We wait to hear what the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Leader of New Zealand First has to say on the issue.

On a slightly related note, it reminds me of a further Cactus Kate story from Tuesday night. As we were heading along Blair Street, we ran into Keith Ng. Cactus looks at Keith somewhat warily when I mention he blogs for Public Address. I then mention he won a Press Council complaint against Deborah Coddington over her Asian crime story, and Cactus literally leaps forward and embraces Keith in full bear hug, finally releasing him after thanking him for his work.  It was very very funny.

Newstalk ZB reports:

New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown has attacked immigration policies due to the estimated increase in the Asian population. …
The Asian population here is set to rise to 790,000 by 2026.

Mr Brown says he is particularly concerned that Asians will outnumber Maori.

He says “it is a bit rich when the original inhabitants get shoved further down the pile because successive governments keep throwing open the doors to this country.”

At this point I should point out Mr Brown is an immigrant.

If he is worried about the original inhabitants getting outnumbered and shoved further down the pile, then he could do his bit to help and return to the UK.

Or is he saying it is a bad thing only when the yellow immigrants are outnumbering Maori, and the white immigrants are okay?