Kiwiblog

Stats NZ has reported that China has just over-taken Australia as the biggest export destination in the last quarter.

It is worth recalling that the Greens and NZ First battled against the free trade agreement with China. Thank God they lost.

Labour signed the China-NZ FTA. However their economic policy moves closer and closer to the Greens. I hope they do not abandon their belief in free trade, as they have with free markets.

Here’s the change in export volumes over the last year for our top 10 export destinations:

1. China +25%
2. USA +8%
3. Singapore +4%
4. Taiwan +1%
5. Hong Kong -1%
6. Korea – 2%
7. Malaysia -7%
8. Japan -8%
9. UK -9%
10. Australia -9%

The fall in exports to Australia, UK and Japan would be devastating if it were not for the growth to China and the US.

Just as I thought you couldn’t get a crazier policy that Labour and Greens on energy, Winston has upped the stakes and is basically proposing to steal money from all our retirement accounts.

NBR reports:

New Zealand First is proposing the Cullen Fund and Kiwisaver funds be used to re-nationalise Mighty River Power and possibly Contact Energy. …

But speaking on TV3’s “The Nation”, Mr Peters said the Government had the ability to access the Cullen Fund. 

“You’ve got the ability to access Kiwi Saver in the short term,” he said.

He said buying back Mighty Rover Power would be bottom line for NZ First support for any Government.

You’ve also got the ability to internationally access the market and borrow, which as you know according to Treasury, because this is a high yielding asset, that makes economic sense to do that, he said.

Mr Peters said to use Kiwisaver funds the Government would need to change the investment rules.

“You could quite easily do that in the short term …

This shows what happens when politicians start competing for the most extreme policy in order to win votes.

KiwiSaver funds do not belong to the Government. They are the private property of those who have one. My KiwiSaver fund is just as much my private property as my bank account, my shares, my house, my car etc.

Winston has said that he wants to forcibly legislate to force anyone with a private KiwiSaver account to purchase back Contact Energy and MRP shares on behalf of the Crown.

That is outrageous. This is like saying we will force every homeowner to take on an additional mortgage, so the Government can build a new office block.

If you elect a Government that treats your private retirement savings as a play-thing for the Government to take over, then the boundaries between public and private will be shattered for ever.

These crazy policies will see us become a banana republic. Who the hell would invest in New Zealand? Why would I keep my money in a KiwiSaver account if Winston and his allies plan to take control of it after the election?

3 News reported last week:

JBWere has sent a strong message that it and other investors will flee the New Zealand stock market if the state intervention signalled by Labour and the Greens this week comes to pass.

“The steps the Labour/Greens are suggesting, if enacted, are significant enough for JBWere to consider a reduced allocation to the local share market,” the firm which oversees $1 billion of client funds in the New Zealand share market said.

“We doubt we would be alone in making this judgment.”

Of course they won’t be alone. We live in a globalised world where capital and labour are highly mobile. The combined policies of Labour, Greens and NZ First will send investment fleeing. And it is investment that creates jobs.

Labour and Greens want to nationalise the electricity industry. NZ First want to nationalise KiwiSaver. How confident are you that is where they’ll stop?

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First will support law changes allowing the GCSB to spy on Kiwis, giving the Government a comfortable majority on the controversial legislation.

That means either 69 or 72 votes in favour.

Prime Minister John Key last night briefed Mr Peters, Labour leader David Shearer, Green co-leader Russel Norman, United Future’s Peter Dunne and Act’s John Banks on his proposed amendments to the GCSB Act.

The major change will make it clear the GCSB can intercept New Zealanders’ communications when assisting other agencies including the SIS, police and Defence.

I’ve been waiting for someone to make a principled case that the GCSB should not be able to assist those other agencies, but am yet to see it.

That co-operation has occurred for many years but questions about its legality were publicly raised in Cabinet Secretary Rebecca Kitteridge’s GCSB report last week.

The key thing is any assistance must only be under conditions where a warrant has been signed off.

Here’s a question for Labour and the Greens. If they win office in 2014 – will they pledge to change the law to ban the GCSB from assisting the SIS, Police and Defence?

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says his party wants to cut the corporate tax rate for exporters from 28 per cent to 20 per cent.

Well firstly it is a good thing that Winston recognises that a lower corporate tax rate is a good thing for the NZ economy. It is.

Commerce is more and more globally mobile. Companies can choose where to locate much easier than in the past. For Internet based businesses, even more so.

So all for lowering the company tax rate. But two big issues for Winston’s proposal.

The first is what spending will he cut, to fund a drop in the company tax rate? If NZ is in surplus, then you can cut taxes. But when we are in deficit, adding to debt is a bad idea.

Has NZ First even costed what their policy would be? That should be the first question from media – how much will this cost, and how will you pay for it?

The second issue is why exporters only? It is an arbitrary distinction. What if a manufacturer produces stuff for both domestic and international markets? Are they at 20% or 28%? Is Fonterra at 28% or 20%? My polling company has some international clients. Does that make me an exporter that can claim the 20% tax rate?

Tax systems are best kept simple. Two separate levels of company tax is a bad idea.

If Winston proposed an across the board lowering of the company tax rate to 20%, what it would cost, and how it would be funded – then people should take it seriously.

Also worth recalling that Winston, as Foreign Minister, opposed the FTA with China, launched a nationwide newspaper and billboard campaign against it. He campaigned against an FTA which increased exports by $5 billion a year. So much for his concern for exporter.s

The Press editorial:

By Winston Peters’ admittedly not very high standards the questions he raised in Parliament this week about alleged fraud and corruption in the earthquake recovery were terribly thin stuff.

If they were intended to embarrass the Minister for Earthquake Recovery, Gerry Brownlee, they were so lacking in specifics the minister easily brushed them off.

Even if, as is more likely, they were intended for no more elevated purpose than to get Peters’ name into the news and along the way to make a casual smear and raise vague conspiratorial suggestions of corruption, they were not up to much.

They never are, but I agree these allegations were even lamer than most.

Labour Party official “Mickey Savage” blogs:

The Green’s increase in support is significant and is having a fundamental effect on Labour.  Many of those changing their allegiance are activists and/or well resourced, the sorts of people who you want not only as voters but also as supporters and members.

 To get over the line Labour/Greens/Mana will need to further improve their collective support.  The only alternative is to countenance a coalition with New Zealand First.

The events of the past few months ought to have put Labour and the Greens completely off such a proposition.  New Zealand First has been conclusively shown, if conclusive proof had ever been required, to be a one man band, a personality cult based around the prodigious personality that is Winston Peters.  All the other MPs that are there are just there for padding.

Stuff reports:

What could have been yesterday’s hot political ticket was cancelled, apparently because of too much media interest.

Social media was abuzz at the prospect of NZ First MP Richard Prosser outlining his “common sense” views at the Aro St Community Centre, in the first public speech since his infamous “Wogistan” comments came to light.

However organiser Hugh Barr said as a result of a “media beat up” the long organised event had been cancelled. “We were scared that the only people who would turn up would be media.”

Oh I don’t think they were really worried about a lack of people turning up. I knew a lot of people planning to attend.

Homepaddock highlights this policy from NZ First:

All Christchurch uninsured red-zoned land owners who accept the current Government’s 50 per cent compensation offer will get the other half should New Zealand First become part of the next coalition Government.

Ensuring these landowners are treated fairly and receive the full rateable value of the land will be a bottom line in any coalition negotiations.

Very unwise for a party on 4% to start laying down non-negotiable policies two years before an election.

Ele points out:

The party obviously doesn’t understand that what it regards as treating these landowners fairly would be treating insurance companies, their staff and shareholders, and taxpayers most unfairly.

This would kill the insurance industry because no-one would bother insuring their properties if they knew the government would pick up the pieces after a disaster.

This policy passes all the risk and costs from private property owners and insurance companies to the government which means taxpayers.

Exactly. The precedent would be horrible. You’d be mad to ever get insurance again.

Now remember that NZ First has said this is a non-negotiable bottom line policy for any future Government.

Isn’t MMP great!

Imagine you are David Shearer or John Key and you have just become Prime Minister after an election. NZ First held the balance of power, and you struck a confidence and supply or coalition deal with them.

You have say a two seat majority.

You first six months go pretty well. Then the Sunday Star-Times breaks the story about Brendan Horan. The allegations are he stole tens of thousands of dollars from his dying mother, to fund a gambling addiction.

This is no longer just a matter for New Zealand First. He is a Government MP. He is voting confidence and supply for your Government. If you lose his vote, your majority is halved.  You can’t afford to have NZ First lose an MP so you decide to back Horan’s right to stay as an MP. You say he has not been charged with anything.

For the next six months the Opposition dominate question time with questions of fraud, gambling, vulnerable elderly and the like. You drop 5% in the polls and finally charges are laid, he is expelled and he becomes an Independent MP. Your majority is now one. It will be like what Julia Gillard has just had to endure with Craig Thomson (note I am not saying Horan has broken any laws).

Just as you are coping with that, then the MP for Wogistan shares his thoughts with the nation on how anyone who looks like a Muslim should be banned from flying. Once again this is no longer a matter just for NZ First. It is a matter for the Prime Minister. He is a Government MP. You face questions on whether he should remain an MP. If you say he should go, then you no longer have a majority. If you say he made a mistake but should stay an MP, then you become crippled as a Government with your mandate to govern being based on the MP for Wogistan’s vote. It is like Alamein Kopu but far worse. You drop another 5% in the polls and just one year into the term you are facing either an early election on inevitable defeat at the next election – regardless of how well you are doing with your policies.

This is no far fetched scenario. This is what could well have happened if NZ First had held the balance of power in 2011.

The question that should be keeping David Shearer and John Key awake at night, is the thought that this could be what awaits them after 2014. Winston by himself is capable of destablising the most stable Government. But add in some maverick MPs and it is a nightmare.

This Tom Scott cartoon hits the mark.  How confident can you be that NZ First actually has a robust selection process where they vet, critique and scrutinise their candidates? Does anyone really think Horan and Prosser are aberrations?

That is not to suggest all NZ First MPs are flaky. They are not. To name just three, Barbara Stewart, Tracey Martin and (somewhat surprisingly) Andrew Williams have all been diligent MPs who have not caused any issues and are working hard.

But if you are a minor party in Government, you only need a couple of ones that implode, and the Government itself gets imperiled.

David Shearer and John Key should be be thinking very hard about their options after the next election.  If you are a Labour or Green supporter, you should be thinking about what sort of Government a Labour-Green-NZ First Government would be. If you are a National supporter, you should be thankful that National ruled Peters out in 2008 and 2011, and hoping they do so again.

UPDATE: Stuff has a timely article looking at the NZ First caucus and asking which MP may go next.

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples has defended his connection to the head of collapsed construction company Mainzeal after their relationship was criticised in Parliament. …

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has repeatedly questioned the relationship between the Government and Mainzeal since the company went into receivership last week, threatening 200 jobs.

He believed the Government knew of the firm’s difficulties but continued to give it lucrative contracts in rebuilding Christchurch. Yesterday, he highlighted Dr Sharples’ relationship with Richina Pacific chief Richard Yan, whose company owned Mainzeal.

Dr Sharples took a $10,000 donation from Mr Yan before the 2011 election, and has been a strong supporter of the Chinese-born businessman’s proposal to build New Zealand House in Shanghai.

Mr Peters said these actions raised serious questions about the integrity of government negotiations. “This is another example of big business influencing government decisions behind closed doors.”

Excuse me while I vomit. How can anyone seriously report anything Peters says about integrity and donations. Sharples reported the donation from Mainzeal, and as far as I know the Minister of Maori Affairs has no role in allocating construction contracts in Christchurch.

Compare that to Winston Peters who took hundreds of thousands of dollars from racing companies, never declared them despite being legally required to, and pushed policy highly favourable to them through Cabinet – again never having disclosed the donations both NZ First receive and he himself personally (they paid for his damages to Bob Clarkson).

And of course the Owen Glenn case where he arranged for a $100,000 donation to his lawyer to cover his legal fees, lied dozens of times over many months about the existence of the donation, and as Minister of Foreign Affairs tried constantly to gain a diplomatic appointment for Sir Owen.

The conduct of Winston Peters is the classic example of big business influencing government decisions behind closed doors. He and his party failed to disclose donations, he lied about them, and he actually advocated policies and decisions beneficial to his donors without ever disclosing the donations.

This is in stark contrast to Sharples who both disclosed the donation, and as far as I know has had no role at all in decisions affecting them.

The hypocrisy is monumental. This is like Richard Prosser calling for religious tolerance.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

NZ First MPs are privately seething at Richard Prosser’s call for Muslims to be banned from Western airlines.

I’m not surprised.

There are some good people in NZ First. I’m no fan of Winston but some of his MPs are trying to be productive Representatives in Parliament. I’m sure they are cringing at the thought of having to explain to their friends and families how they are part of a party where an MP can refer to Muslims coming from Wogistan and calls on anyone who is “or looks like” a Muslim being banned from air travel if they are a young male.

The list MP went to ground yesterday after his remarks were widely publicised and provoked controversy. NZ First leader Winston Peters has refused to sack him and says he doesn’t have to apologise.

They should be equally angry at Winston. He has made it impossible for them to distance themselves from the views expressed, as not even the bare minimum of an apology has been given. They have no defence against people saying they are part of a party that effectively allows MPs to label some New Zealanders as wogs and that wogs shouldn’t be allowed on our planes.

A NZ First source said its MPs were furious and believed Mr Prosser “acted like a stupid idiot”.

Did no one in NZ First think to vet the column before publication. It is common in pretty much every party for columns to be go through the Leader’s Office in advance. You can’t allow an MP to claim they are a journalist and an MP, and what they write as a journalist is exempt.

And if I was in NZ First, I’d also be annoyed that the Leader knew about the column for three weeks and did nothing.

In a later interview he stood by his views and went on to say that an Israeli airline that bans Muslims is one of the world’s safest carriers.

Incidentally this is wrong. They do not ban Muslims. And having travelled to Israel let me tell you the security there is far more rigorous than merely losing a pocket knife as happened to Prosser. It took me over an hour to clear security – and you know I don’t “look like a Muslim” so the references to Israel are quite wrong.

“We are a mature party, we don’t go round telling people off. After a rational discussion he has changed his mind,” Mr Peters said. “. . . We can’t take it any further than that. He’s had a chance to reflect . . . he admits it was unbalanced.”

Rational?

The comments have gained some attention overseas, being well covered by Australian news organisations and turning up further afield in such publications as the Singapore-based Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia, Dubai-based Gulf News, and the UK edition of the Huffington Post.

I doubt there is another country on Earth where a legislator has actually seriously called for a travel ban on anyone who “looks likes a Muslim”, and is young and male.

UPDATE: The spin doctors have now got to Prosser and after saying he stands by what he wrote yesterday, he today said on Nine to Noon he regrets his choice of words (yet defends the use of the word wog!) and that he should have called for a debate on profiling, not a travel ban. There is a world of difference between what he wrote and what he now says he should have written.

He’s also trying to distract by saying my release of the story was part of a National strategy to cover up some (unidentified) other issue. Maybe he means the Papal abdication?

As I tweeted this morning, no one in National knew of my blog post before I made it. The only person who knew would be my flatmate after I showed him the article last night. You see, I only purchased a copy of Investigate on Monday afternoon, read the column with disbelief, and wrote my post that night timing it for 10 am Tuesday. So the conspiracy theory is just a desperate attempt to divert attention.

UPDATE 2: A very personal blog post from a Kiwi Muslim on what Prosser said.

I am a Bengali New Zealander. I am also a feminist, a bookworm, a foodie and a cinephile. Some days I have good taste in music and some days I have bad taste in music. I love the beach but hate getting sand everywhere. I speak several languages. I still get upset at the thought that Dumbledore dies. When I lived in Auckland, I thought of West Auckland as home. Now that I live in Wellington, I think of Auckland as home, and of Wellington as “my city,” whatever that means. I bake decent brownies (oh the irony).

Oh, yes, I am also a Muslim. …

Richard Prosser’s comments hurt because he’s saying I’m not a real New Zealander. I am an Other. I am suspect because I don’t, undoubtedly, look like his daughters. My little brother, now 20, studying a Bachelor of Commerce, with his terribly cheesy sense of humour and his kind, kind heart, who loves his sports and protein shakes but who I will partly always think of as that bossy toddler with chubby cheeks, is for no other reason than because Mr Prosser, from his position of power and privilege says so, not enough of a New Zealander. Because of only one thing, out of the many things that he is, because he is Muslim. Not enough of a New Zealander to deserve the minimum modicum of respect one would expect from an MP when talking about one of the citizens of this country, simply based on his faith, and, let’s be honest, the colour of his skin. Not enough of a New Zealander to get on his Western planes.

A very personal and moving post.

UPDATE3: The Radio NZ audio is embdedded below.

Stuff reports:

Peters said this afternoon Prosser had made a mistake.

A mistake? It was a column! He wrote it. He says he stands by what he said. How can you claim it is a mistake!

He said he knew about the article three weeks ago, and told Prosser it wasn’t acceptable to present only one side of the argument.

“I’ve told him he cannot have a view that doesn’t have the balance in the other side of the argument.”

You think the lack of balance was the issue Winston? Not calling people wogs and saying people who look like wogs shouldn’t be allowed on planes? The issue wasn’t balance. Columns are not meant to be balanced. They are meant though not to be racist.

Prosser wrote the column as a journalist, not as a NZ First MP, and the views expressed were not those of the party, Peters said.

Are you serious? He wrote it as a journalist, not as an MP? That’s your excuse for doing nothing.

He said a press statement was imminent from Prosser – but the MP had said he stood by his comments.

Barry Soper reported that Prosser had said he stands  by his comments.

Trade Negotiations Minister Tim Groser is technically Muslim (as he married a Muslim). If he was a bit younger, then according to Prosser he should be banned from flying on Western airlines.

Many interesting, outraged and humourous comments on Twitter under the Wogistan hashtag.

Jess Mutch from One News has tweeted:

David Shearer says Richard Prosser’s comments were “offensive and completely inappropriate” but wouldn’t say if he would stand him down.

I would have thought that was an easy call for a Labour leader. But I guess he doesn’t want to upset a future coalition with Winston.

The Herald reports:

NZ First leader Winston Peters says there is an ‘element of truth’ in the column and he has not asked Mr Prosser to apologise.

Incredible.

The PM has said:

Prime Minister John Key said Mr Prosser’s comments were “an example of the depth of thinking coming out of New Zealand First”.

“It’s an appalling thing to say. It was premeditated. It was written in an opinion piece. It’s clearly what New Zealand First think of other New Zealanders but it’s a bit buffoonish if you ask me.”

And others:

Asked whether the NZ First MP should have kept his comments to himself, Mr Harawira said: “It’s best that they’re actually expressed openly because when people hold views as extreme as that it’s best that we hear them.”

I agree. It’s good to know that at least one NZ First MP things wogs shouldn’t be allowed on planes.

Act Party leader John Banks said the comments were “crazy” and “bizarre”.

“What can you say? I believe in good in all people, all races, all people.”

Asked whether there was a place for such extreme views in Parliament, Mr Banks said: “That is going to be tested by this member.”

United Future leader Peter Dunne also criticised the remarks on Twitter.

“It all reveals an ugly racist seam lurks just below the skin of too many people here – very uncomfortable,” he wrote.

We often call things racist too often. But in this case it is hard not to conclude it is racism when he writes of Wogistan and banning from travel anyone who “looks Muslim”.

Imagine how stable a Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana Government would be!

UPDATE: Listen to Richard Prosser on radio here. Some quotes:

• it isn’t anything derogatory particularly
• I certainly think it is appropriate for me to be making those comments
• This is what we are here for – we are here to represent

Here to represent people who don’t like wogs.

New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser has a column in Investigate Magazine. In his latest column he refers to certain people as coming from “Wogistan” and also declares that no young male who is a Muslim, looks like a Muslim or is from a Muslim country should be able to fly on a Western airline.

It is worth realising that these are not comments made off the cuff in an interview. A New Zealand Member of Parliament sat down and wrote a column that refers to Wogistan and calls for basically dark-skinned people (how else do you interpret look like a Muslim) not to be allowed to fly.

36,000 New Zealanders are Muslims. A New Zealand MP has said they should be banned from flying or Air New Zealand if they are male and aged 19 to 35. I’m sorry, but that is appalling.

Now before anyone says this is just political correctness, and one should be able to talk about the fact almost all airline terrorism incidents have been done by young male Muslims – I agree.  I there there is an absolutely valid discussion to be held on issues such as the pros and cons of profiling, the costs of airline security, and the fact that so much terrorism is done in the name of Islam. In fact I have blogged on these issues several times.

But one can have that discussion without referring to Muslims implicitly as Wogs and without calling for Muslims to be banned from flying on Western airlines.

Some of the quotes from the article:

I will not stand by while their [his daughters'] rights and freedoms of other New Zealanders and Westerners, are denigrated by a sorry pack of misogynist troglodytes from Wogistan …

I mean seriously – effectively calling people wogs. I actually like Richard Prosser and agree with him on a few issues, but this column is seriously offensive.

If you are a young male, aged between say about 19 and about 35, and you’re a Muslim, or you look like a Muslim, or you come from a Muslim country, then you are not welcome to travel on any of the West’s airline …

When he says looks like a Muslim, does he mean look like a wog? Because let’s face it any sensible wannabee terrorist could simply wear non-religious attire if they really wanted to blow up a plane. So I can only imagine “look like a Muslim” means if you look South East Asian or Persian or Arabic or Turkish etc? Never mind that they may in fact be Christian or Hindu or anything. If they look like a Muslim, we have a Member of Parliament saying you should not be able to travel on Western airlines?

Taking Richard literally, Air New Zealand should refuse to accept any passengers from Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Malaysia etc if they are a young male. This presumably includes all the students from those countries that are students at New Zealand universities.

If the belief systems of ancient history are so important to you, and the advances of the decadent West so abhorrent, go ride a camel instead?.

Now this comment was not directed at the extremists, but at anyone who is a Muslim, looks like a Muslim or comes from a Muslim country.

Now again, there is a very legitimate debate to be had about profiling, terrorism, extreme Islamists and the like. I’ve been attacked myself for writing on some of those issues.

But never in a hundred years would I refer to Wogistan and advocate that people be barred from flying based on their appearance or country of origin. And to have a Member of Parliament deliberately write that is staggering.

Labour and the Greens are desperate to form a Government with NZ First as they know it is near impossible without them. Will any Labour or Green MP come out and state what they think of their potential coalition partner writing about Wogistan? Winston wants to be Foreign Minister again. Does he stand by the views of his MP that young men from Malaysia and Indonesia should be banned from travelling on Western airlines?

A photo of the second page of the column is below.

Stuff reports:

Former NZ First MP Brendan Horan says he will stand for Parliament in 2014 and in the meantime will remain to “work for taxpayers [and] all New Zealanders”.

NZ First severed its final links with Mr Horan on Monday night after confirming that his membership had lapsed once he informed Parliament’s Speaker Lockwood Smith that he was remaining in Parliament as an independent.

Mr Horan was expelled from the NZ First caucus after leader Winston Peters said he had lost confidence in him. He had received “substantive” information after allegations about money from Mr Horan’s late mother’s estate.

Mr Horan, who continues to receive his backbencher salary of $141,000 plus an expense allowance, told Radio New Zealand he had a mandate to remain in Parliament and represent the people of Tauranga, who voted for him.

He got 12.88 per cent of the vote in Tauranga, third behind National’s Simon Bridges on 61.4 per cent of the vote.

Horan has no mandate to represent those 4,611 people who voted for him. He lost. He came third. He became an MP not because of those 4,611 votes for him, but because NZ First placed him on their list and they got 147,544 votes.

Lots of people got 4,611 votes or more in the electorate vote and are not MPs. James Shaw the Green candidate in Wellington Central got 5,225. Paul Foster-Bell got 12,460. By Horan’s logic they have more of a mandate than him.

Mr Horan said details would be released this week discounting allegations that he took money from his late mother’s estate.

That will be very interesting.

Stuff reports:

Under-fire MP Brendan Horan has consulted police and the Privacy Commissioner about the leak of his phone records.

The bill from his taxpayer-funded mobile phone showed numerous calls to the TAB. But Mr Horan said he had not broken any rules and the calls added up to only about $20.

Mr Horan appeared to be pointing the finger at NZ First leader Winston Peters yesterday, saying the leaking of his calls “for political gain” was “grossly irresponsible and reckless”.

Mr Horan originally authorised the release of the records by Parliamentary Service, after Mr Peters asked to see them.

Now Mr Horan says the leaking of telephone numbers “jeopardised the protection of innocent people” who had contacted him confidentially.

I think Peters had the right to release them, but they should have blacked out all phone numbers on the statements except the ones to the TAB.

After meeting last night, the NZ First board released a statement saying that Mr Horan, “by his own action in notifying the Speaker that he be regarded as an independent Member of Parliament, had in doing so, relinquished his membership” of the party.

This looks like an attempt to get around the requirement in their own rules for a hearing into any expulsion. But on the face of it they are lying. Hansard records:

Honourable members, under Standing Order 35(1)(c) I have been advised by the New Zealand First Party that its parliamentary membership has changed and that Brendan Horan is no longer a member of the New Zealand First Party for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly, under Standing Order 34(4) Brendan Horan is from 4 December 2012 regarded as an Independent member for parliamentary purposes.

There is no mention by the Speaker about Horan notifying the Speaker. Peters did.

I think Peters has made the right ultimate decision, but that doesn’t excuse the total lack of any sort of fair process, let alone trampling on his party’s own rules. It is hypocrisy especially as Peters went to court over National’s non-selection of him in the 1990s.

This just confirms that NZ First isn’t a real political party. It is a personality cult. They haven’t even managed to elect a Deputy Leader more than a year after the election.

The NZ Herald reported:

Independent MP Brendan Horan’s last links with New Zealand First – the party which took him into Parliament – are likely to be severed following a board meeting on Monday evening.

The NZ First party rules clearly state that a member can be expelled only after a hearing, and that Horan must be sent by registered mail notice of the hearing and details of the nature of the complaint, the date, time and place of the hearing. Has this been done?

NZ First president Kevin Gardener yesterday confirmed Mr Horan’s membership was on the agenda for the board’s Monday meeting where Leader Winston Peters was expected to give his reasons for expelling him from the NZ First Caucus this week.

Mr Peters yesterday said he was relaxed that his decision to expel Mr Horan following allegations the MP had taken money from his dying mother’s bank accounts was the right one.

Mr Gardener said he had confidence in Mr Peters’ judgement, “and all the board will”.

Good God – not a big believer in natural justice or hearing both sides are they? This confirms that the party is a personality cult rather than a democratic organisation.

On the basis of what is known, I actually think Peters was right to take action against Horan. But the way they have taken action has been appalling in terms of process. They need to write to him and put the complaints to him, and have a hearing where he can put a defence. I also suspect (based on the precedent Peters himself created with National in the 1990s) that any board member (such as the President) who has pre-judged the matter can’t be part of the hearing. If they do not follow their own rules, they can face judicial review.

Tony Wall in the SST reports:

 MP Brendan Horan offered to pay $25,000 to his mother’s estate after he was accused of taking money from her bank accounts, but the deal collapsed, the Sunday Star-Times has learnt. …

Sources close to the family say they offered to settle the dispute by allowing Horan to take a $40,000 reduction in his share of his mother’s estate. …

The Star-Times yesterday saw a spreadsheet of 28 questionable cheques, totalling $180,000, going back to 2000. The largest, in February 2007, was for $50,000, and there were others for $35,000, $10,000, and several for around $5000. Investigators are still looking into who they were made out to.

If this is correct, I think its is fast becoming a criminal matter. I’m not saying any crimes have been committed. I’m saying that allegations of $180,000 of presumably unauthorised cheques are extremely serious.

If NZ First follow the process laid down in their rules, they can make a decision to expel Horan (if justified) before Christmas. Once there has been a process which has some natural justice attached to it, then he should resign from Parliament having lost the support of his party.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key says Winston Peters’ dislike of him stands in the way of a deal between National and NZ First in 2014.

Mr Key said he expected Mr Peters to back a Labour government, despite his long-standing clashes with the Green party.

“I think that the argument that he really really dislikes the Greens, let’s put it politely, that’s all true . . . but he’s not overly enamoured with me,” Mr Key said.

He and Mr Peters had chatted during a trip to Samoa as part of a New Zealand delegation.

“I had a brief chat to him but realistically I think he will go with Labour . . . Even if we were prepared to change, and that would be a big if, he was always going with Labour . . . in 2008,” he said. “I think it’s just personal.”

My view is that Peters is strongly motivated for revenge on John Key for ruling him out in 2008.

There is an argument that if Peters holds the balance of power in 2014, the bigger revenge would be to keep National in Govt but reliant and subservient to Winston, rather than sacking him.

The factors at play, if Peters holds the balance of power (and assuming National does not rule him out as they did in 2008 and 2011) are:

• Biggest party – Peters has always said he would negotiate with the biggest party first. Note that does not mean conclude a deal.
• No of parties needed to form a Govt – better to be the No 2 party in Govt than the No 3 party.
• Policy alignment
• Relationships with leader and front-bench

The first two factors favour National, the last two favour Labour.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

David Shearer appears to be weighing up his options for deputy prime minister between Green co-leader Russel Norman and NZ First leader Winston Peters as he looks for ways to reward support partners without letting go of the key finance portfolio.

I have the solution. Make Russel and Winston co-deputy PMs!

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Sacked NZ First MP Brendan Horan is defending his use of a parliamentary phone to ring a TAB bet line, saying it was personal use that was allowed.

But his former leader Winston Peters says that is “humbug” and such use was outside the rules.

Records seen by The Dominion Post show Mr Horan used his taxpayer-funded parliamentary mobile phone to call a TAB phonebet number 12 times in the space of about four hours on Saturday afternoon, April 28.

In the records, which covered a less than one month period, he called the bet line on nine other occasions.

Mr Horan said he was entitled to call who he wanted but did not deny the calls to the TAB.

He has strongly denied having a gambling problem, and has also rejected allegations he took money from his dying mother.

He said he did not have his phone records so had no way of confirming it. “Look up the rules; people can use their phones for anything.

“There is fringe benefit and people can use their phones for a certain amount of private business. Whatever I use my phone for is my private business.”

But Mr Peters yesterday said that was “humbug”.

“That’s not private business is it? If you’re ringing up your husband or your wife or your children, that’s understood to be legit, that’s private business. How could that be?”

The issue of Horan using his mobile phone is a red herring. You don’t sack an MP from your party because of some calls to the TAB from his mobile. Horan is correct that there is no restriction on what numbers MPs can call from their phones. It is interesting that Peters is releasing what is normally private information on Horan to discredit him.

Meanwhile, respected New Plymouth horse trainer John Wheeler yesterday said Mr Horan would ring him maybe five or six times a year, often to check on weather conditions when he was planning to dive for crayfish, and would ask about how certain horses were going.

“He did not strike me as a guy with a [gambling] problem.”

He had never seen Mr Horan put a bet on and from their conversation had struck him as “a $5 each way kind of bloke”.

He had not seemed obsessed, though he knew his horses well.

“Either he had a good memory or he did a lot of study.”

He did not think ringing the betting line 12 times in one day was out of the ordinary.

Wheeler would himself place small bets and may call six times on one day.

For my 2c, I think 12 calls in four hours does indicate a potential gambling problem. But that is not even the issue. The issue is whether he took money from his mother’s bank account without permission to gamble with.

On 3 News last night Patrick Gower said Horan “doesn’t deny ringing the TAB or putting a few bets on with his mother“.

So I think what we have is that bank records will show Horan took money from his mother’s account and gambled it at the TAB. However his defence will be that they were bets either on behalf of his mother or joint bets with his mother.

I don’t see that there is an easy way to prove or disprove whether or not his mother authorised the bets, but here’s what Id be looking for.

• Did she have a history of gambling at the TAB herself?
• When there were winnings from a race, who got them – just Horan or did some go back to his mum?
• Do phone records show frequent calls between Horan and his mum, which might indicate they were discussing bets?

If Horan can show some history of his mum being an active gambler herself, then his defence may have credibility. However I would still make the point that if, as indicated, her wealth dropped by almost $100,000 over a couple of years – it is not exactly a good look to have enabled this.

James Henderson at The Standard blogs who he thinks would be the best Labour-Green Cabinet, based on portfolios. They are:

• PM – Shearer
• Finance – Norman
• Social Dev – Turei
• Econ Dev – Parker
• Health – Hague
• Education – Robertson G
• CERA – Dalziel
• Housing – Ardern
• Transport – Genter
• Justice – Chauvel
• Energy – Hughes
• Labour – Little
• Environment – Twyford
• Attorney-General – Chauvel
• Foreign Affairs – Goff
• Maori/Treaty – Mahuta
• Climate Change – Graham
• Police – Little
• Internal Affairs – Dyson
• Commerce – Cosgrove

I thought I’d blog a possible Cabinet also, but not base it on my preferences but on current rankings. It is based on if there are 60 Govt MPs, being 36 Labour, 17 Greens and 7 NZ First. I applied the St Lague formula to get a proportional allocation (that Shearer and Norman say would be their rough guide) and then allocated MPs from their current caucus ratings. They would be:

1. David Shearer
2. Russel Norman
3. Grant Robertson
4. David Parker
5. Winston Peters
6. Metiria Turei
7. Jacinda Ardern
8. Clayton Cosgrove
9. Kevin Hague
10. Nanaia Mahuta
11. Maryan Street
12. Catherine Delahunty
13. William Su’a Sio
14. Tracey Martin
15. Phil Twyford
16. Trevor Mallard
17. Kennedy Graham
18. Charles Chauvel
19. Lianne Dalziel
20. Eugenie Sage

At this stage I’m assuming Hone wouldn’t be a Minister, unless they needed his vote. Note this is not a prediction of 2014, just looking at what a left Government may look like.

There are some interesting issues about Horan’s future. There are four aspects in regard to his future role.

1. His membership of the NZ First Caucus
2. His membership of the NZ First Party
3. His affiliation in Parliament
4. His membership of Parliament

With regard to the 1st, the NZ First caucus is the master of its own destiny. They can make their own decisions and rules, subject to any rules laid down by the party itself. But the party does have some rules. Rule 60(a) states:

The Parliamentary Division consists of the members of the Party elected to the House of Representatives.

Rule 60(b) states:

If a member of the Parliamentary Division ceases to be a member of the Party that person ceases to be a member of the Parliamentary Division.

But Horan is still a member of the party. Now you can argue that these rues don’t stop the caucus suspending an MP, or even expelling him. But it seems the caucus has not made any such decision on Horan. It is unclear if they have even had a discussion on the issue. Also Horan claims no allegations have even been put to him directly:

A defiant Mr Horan, speaking through his lawyer, said he would stay on as an independent MP.

“His question was, ‘Why should I quit, what have I done wrong? Just because Mr Peters has expelled me, and I have been convicted in the court of Mr Peters’,” Mr Horan’s lawyer, Paul Mabey, told Radio Live.

“Mr Horan is the subject of unproven allegations which he completely denies. None of the allegations have ever been put to him directly nor has he been shown any evidence to support them.”

It is very unclear that Peters has the power to unilaterally declare Horan has been expelled from caucus, or even that he will be expelled from caucus. However the only people with standing to challenge this are other members of the caucus.

Possibly Peters can argue he has authority under 59(b):

The Leader shall exercise all authority necessary for the effective organization of the Party’s activities in Parliament.

Amusingly the party leader is also the only MP exempt from paying a 10% tithe to the party!

But there is an important point here. Leaders should not have the power to unilaterally expel MPs from caucus. I think it is good that Winston has acted swiftly against Horan, but I assumed he had at least put the issues in writing to Horan, given him a chance to rebut them, and then make a recommendation to caucus. That might take a couple of extra days, but as Peters had known about the allegations for three months, then a couple of extra days wasn’t significant.

The next issue is whether Horan is still a member of the NZ First party. Under the NZ First constitution he clearly is. Rule 10 sets out the process to terminate membership. It is:

• Board receives complaint that a member has had conduct that is offensive, undesirable, or inconsistent with the welfare and interest of the Party.
• Board decides to hold a hearing
• The member is notified, by registered mail, within 14 days of the nature of the complaint, the date, time and place of the hearing, and that the member can be held
• The Board can then after the hearing expel the member.

Now Peters has said Horan’s expulsion from the party will be “automatic”. This is deeply hypocritical and cuts across Horan’s rights under the rules. I’d say it means Peters can’t be part of the Board’s deliberation and opens their decision up to judicial review.

Why it is hypocritical, is Peters himself took National to court in the 1990s over their decision not to approve him for selection, effectively kicking him out of the party.  It is a classic case of do what I say, not what I do.

We now have the third scenario, of Horan’s affiliation in Parliament. Standing Order 35(1)(c) states:

A party must inform the Speaker … of its parliamentary membership

All that is needed here is a letter from the party leader. His or her word is treated as authoritative. At this stage it does not appear Peters has written to the Speaker declaring Horan is no longer part of the parliamentary caucus.

Finally we have whether Horan can remain as an MP. The answer is yes, unless he is convicted of a crime with a maximum sentence of two years or more, or resigns.

Some have argued for a return of the electoral legislation that expels an MP from Parliament if they are no longer a member of that party. But what we have seen with this case is exactly why we should not have such a law. A party leader could then expel MPs at whim, without even bothering to have a caucus vote. Muldoon would have loved such a power.

I do believe Peters has done the right thing in acting against Horan if there is substantive proof of wrong-doing that Horan can’t credibly rebut. But the process he has followed has been seriously flawed and dictatorial and for Peters especially very hypocritical.

The final piece of hypocrisy:

He declined to comment further outside the House, saying he had made his statement under parliamentary privilege to avoid possible legal action. “I am not going to be subject to people spraying defamation writs.”

This is the same person who threatens people on a regular basis with defamation writs and has sprayed a few around himself, including against David Carter.

Winston Peters announced today to the House:

In recent weeks, a number of allegations had been made against Mr Horan, most of which arise from a family matter. The allegations are of a nature that requires that they should be treated seriously. Accordingly, I requested from the original complainant and those associated with him evidence to support their allegations. I also instructed Mr Horan to give every priority to resolving this family matter, so that I could be assured that those allegations were without foundation. Until a few days ago, we had not been furnished with any evidentiary material from any of the parties in this dispute. However, substantive material has now come into my possession, some as recent as 2.15 p.m. this afternoon. The information we have received leaves me in a position where I have no confidence in Mr Horan’s ability to continue as a member of Parliament, and he will be expelled from the New Zealand First caucus forthwith. Mr Horan has a duty, I believe, to resign as a member of Parliament. Lastly, this is a bitterly regrettable situation, but we had to place our decision on the public record as soon as we were in a position to make it.

It is good to see Winston holding his MPs to a higher standard than he held himself to. I understand that when the allegations were put to Horan, he simply sat in a room and held up a no sign to Winstons’s questions

Okay, being more serious I do give credit to Winston for his handling of this. As ACT did with Donna Awatere-Huata, he investigated serious allegations and as no satisfactory answers could be given, moved to expel the MP from the party.

It stands in stark contrast to the shameful behaviour of Labour over Taito Philip Field, where they not only refused to take action, but actively defended him.

Of course Winston did hand pick Horan to be his successor in Tauranga, and the episode overall is not positive for NZ First. And Peters did know about the allegations for a couple of months, before acting on them. However again overall I say Peters has handled this issue pretty well.

Credit also goes to Tony Wall and the Sunday Star-Times who broke the story. On the basis of what was published I thought the story was premature and should have waited for the forensic accounant report . But they obviously had confidence that the allegations were substantive, and it appears they are at least substantive enough for Peters to expel Horan.  They made the call, and got it right.

On the basis of what has been reported, the behaviour is allegedly criminal. Hence why Peters spoke under parliamentary privilege. And in terms of the law Horan is innocent until proven guilty. But the fact he has been unable to provide evidence to convince Peters does suggest he has real problems in the future.

Horan is now an Independent List MP. Unless he is charged and convicted of an offence that has a maximum penalty of over two years jail, he will remain an MP until he resigns. He says he is staying for now, but I suspect he will find Parliament a very lonely and unfriendly place if he does.

Of course if he can clear his name, and prove he has done nothing wrong, then he may have a future. But for NZ First to expel him suggests they are convinced of serious wrong doing.

Barry Soper at ZB reports:

The political future of New Zealand First MP Brendon Horan is expected to be decided some time today.

NZ First leader Winston Peters has been examining documents relating to Mr Horan’s late mother’s bank account, and is expected to decide whether the MP will stay with his party.

Mr Horan has been accused by his brother of dipping into his mother’s bank account to fund a gambling habit.

This might be trying to read tea-leaves, but the fact they are announcing something so quickly may mean it is bad for Horan. It tends to be quicker to establish wrong-doing than it is to be certain there is no wrong-doing. I have no inside knowledge at all on this, so am just speculating.

Mr Peters last week told him to stay away from Parliament to sort the matter out and he is not expected back at Parliament today.

That also implies maybe not so good for Horan. We’ll find out shortly.

Of course Horan is an MP and can’t be sacked by Peters or his party – even if they decided there were grounds to do so. At most they can remove him from NZ First.

But of course it may be that Horan is cleared entirely. As I have blogged previously many families have disputes over wills and it does not mean there has been wrong-doing.

NZ First have said:

New Zealand First says more evidence of rent gouging has emerged with a Christchurch family with nine young children landed with a rent increase of $100 a week to take their weekly rental from $460 to $560.

Nine young children?? I won’t even try and work out how much WFF they get!

Anyway we don’t know how many bedrooms their current house is but there are 16 properties currently on Trade Me that are at least five bedrooms for under $500 a week. And if you have three kids a room (they are young kids) then there are 72 four bedroom or higher properties for under $500 a week.

Christchurch Earthquake Issues spokesperson Denis O’Rourke says this vindicates repeated calls from New Zealand First for a short term rent freeze in the city.

No it doesn’t. A rent freeze did not work for Muldoon, and the fact some landlords increase their rents doesn’t mean you need price controls.

The economic policy of a Labour/Green/NZ First Government looks more and more to be wedded to the 1970s.

Rents have increased in Christchurch, but in some parts they have dropped according to the official stats:

A number of suburbs across greater Christchurch, particularly on the outside of the city centre, continue to show increases in average weekly rents of 20% or more. Russley, Hawthornden, Yaldhurst, West Melton, Halswell West, Halswell South and Kennedys Bush have all shown large increases for the three months ending October 2012 compared to the same period the previous year.

Meanwhile some suburbs in city fringe areas continue to show decreases in average weekly rents of 10% or greater. Ilam, Riccarton and Westburn have all shown large rent decreases.

And if you bring in a rent freeze, you will discourage new houses being built (which is the sustainble solution).

In Canterbury consents were issued for 396 new dwellings in September 2012, up 80% from September 2011. This is the highest number of consents issued in Canterbury since September 2007.

Yes it is tough if your rent goes up. But the solution proposed by NZ First will make things worse.

On Tuesday evening I was walking past Mac’s Brew Bar and sitting outside having a beer were Winston Peters and Shane Jones.

It got me thinking.

This is purely speculation, but it would solve issues for both men.

It is no secret Shane is not happy in Labour. He was furious with Shearer for calling in the Auditor-General. A number of women MPs there want him gone. He just clashed with Clare Curran on copyright parody exceptions. The grapevine suggests the Auditor-General’s report on his immigration decision may not be good for him. He will have a sense of grievance as I suspect he was told to let Liu become a citizen, as it will be good for Labour – and he now sees himself as the fall guy.

So with probably no future in Labour (does anyone think Shearer will make him front bench again?), but having undoubted political talent and smarts, could he prosper elsewhere? And NZ First is hardly likely to have objections over his ethical behaviour with citizenships, considering the Owen Glenn affair.

So what is in it for Winston (he is effectively the sole decision maker here)?

Well to give Winston credit he has defied the odds and survived multiple sackings and even being thrown out of Parliament in 2008, to come back in 2011. He has shown he is the great survivor. So what is the challenge for him now?

Well it is all about legacy, and his ultimate legacy would be a political party that can carry on without him, leaving him as revered founder. He is closer to 70 than 60, and can’t be keen on more than a couple more terms.

Now with all respect to his current caucus, none of them are up to taking over as leader. Some of them are competent and doing okay such as Tracey Martin and even Andrew Williams. But none of them could get 5% of the party vote.

However Shane Jones possibly could. He appeals to the same demographics as Winston, and are not that far apart on some policies – especially hating political correctness etc.

Could Jones defect to NZ First and become Deputy Leader (a job still vacant a year later), and heir apparent? He would add a couple of percent to the NZ First vote, and position them well to appeal to voters. If they hold the balance of power in 2014, then he is a senior Minister, and if Peters retires in 2017, leads NZ First into the next election. Fishing companies would be lining up to donate, and a fair few Iwi also I suspect.

Now this is all speculation, and there would be challenges, But it would give Jones a future, and would give Peters what he most needs – a party that can survive without him.

What do you think?