Kiwiblog

One of the anonymous authors at The Standard tried yesterday to smear Murray McCully over, well doing the right thing.

In a post they filed under the “corruption” category, they revealed that Murray McCully has shares in Widespread Portfolios. Except they did not in fact reveal it – McCully did in the MPs Annual Register of Pecuniary Interests. He’s declared every single year since the Register started in 2006.

Then in a piece of detective work worthy of Sherlock Holmes, they went to the homepage of Widespread Portfolios and managed to dig up (I a being sarcastic – it is at the top of their main page) the statement:

Widespread Portfolios Limited (stockmarket code WID) invests primarily in overseas-based mining and mineral exploration companies.

So this so called corrupt behavior from McCully was to declare he had shares in a company that declares it invests in mining companies.

Now not only has McCully behaved entirely appropriately, the value of his shares turns out to be $31.63. McCully has followed the PM’s lead and mooted giving the shares to the young Max Key. Poor Max must be wondering why he is becoming the target of unwanted share parcels. He should suggest to his Dad that he would rather have one of those Ministerial credit cards that Ministers have been disposing of

Phil Goff looks stupid when he says:

Opposition leader Phil Goff said any shares in a mining company working in New Zealand represented a conflict of interest.

“Whenever there was a conflict of interest of any sort in the Cabinet I was part of, a minister was expected to remove him or herself from the room immediately and not participate in those discussions.”

What nonsense. Did half the Labour Cabinet remove themselves when they debated monetary policy, because they were owners of investment properties? Their interest was vastly more than $31.

A conflict of interest is generally about a decision to favour a specific company, not about policies that support a sector of the economy. Do farmers get excluded from decisions about primary production?

Exclusion on a conflict happens only when there is a direct beneficial interest, such as granting a contract to a company you have shares in – and even then, it has to be significant. If your super fund has lots of Telecom shares, that doesn’t mean you can’t ‘t be involved in decision on Telecom – again I suspect most of the Cabinet would have an indirect interest.

The major requirement around conflicts of interests is transparency. And McCully has complied 100%. As it happens, he had not even been present at any discussions on mining, but it is ridicolous of Goff to suggest he can’t be, because of $31 of shares.

But what really annoys me over The Standard’s labelling of this as corruption (the category they assigned to the story) is the immense double standards – and this applies to Phil Goff’s comments also.

Think back 18 months to Winston Peters. Here are the key facts in two cases:

1. Winston knew of a $100,000 donation from Owen Glenn to his lawyer to cover his legal fees.
2. Winston never ever declared this, as he was required to do so.
3. Winston lobbied for Mr Glenn to be given a diplomatic appointment

But the more important case:

1. Racing interests donated money to Winston Peters personally by paying his costs to Bob Clarkson.
2. This personal donation of tens of thousands of dollars was never declared by Peters, and only exposed by the SFO
3. The same racing interests also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to NZ First.
4. Peters was the portfolio minister for racing under Helen Clark, yet never disclosed the personal donations, or the party donations. Arguably no need to disclose the party ones, but he was required to disclose the personal one.
5. Peters advocated for more money for the racing industry, including having the taxpayer pay for bigger prizes for races.
6. Officials strongly advised against doing this, but Cabinet agreed to the extra funding advocated by Peters, unaware that Peters was receiving large donations from racing interests.

Now one can argue Peters was genuinely motivated to help the racing industry, and the donations did not influence him. That is not the issue today.

The issue is that this was the most serious breach of the conflict of interest regime we have seen. A personal donation which directly benefited a Minister (by paying off his damages to Clarkson) was not declared, and that Minister directly lobbied for money to be given in prizes to the racing industry.

So this puts Phil Goff’s holier than thou statement about practises in the last Government in perspective. And remember Phil Goff voted against the Privileges Committee report, as Labour insisted Winston had not broken the rules.

But back to The Standard, what did they have to say about Winston’s conflicts at the time:

On 22 July:

For my part, I don’t see the big deal in all this Peters donation stuff. Transparency in election funding is important (and it’s something that National and ACT have constantly opposed) but there is no evidence of Peters has been purposely secretive.

So no big deal. And even better:

As for the Dompost’s ‘revelations’ today – various members of the Vela family and companies owned by the family gave amounts that may have totalled $150,000 to New Zealand First over a period of five years. So what? The donations are legal and, as long as NZF didn’t receive more $10,000 from any individual person (legal or natural) in one financial year, they didn’t have to be declared under the law of the time.

However the donation to pay Winston’s legal costs to Clarkson was required to be disclosed, but more importantly back then The Standard had no concern about sums 1,000 times greater than $31 going to parties or politicians, and the party leader directly advocating for policies that will benefit those donors.

And again on 23 September:

So, the committee found what everyone knew: Peters story doesn’t add up. But it also shows that this story isn’t really about anything significant. Oh, no, a politician didn’t make the efforts he should have to find out what benefit he may have gained from a legal donation, his form was wrong as a result, and he made up a story to try to cover himself. Shoddy behaviour to be sure but nothing that actually impacts on the substance of government.

So as Winston supported Labour, there was nothing of substance wrong. Never mind he didn’t declare the personal donations to cover his legal costs to Clarkson, and never mind the Labour Cabinet had no idea when Peters was advocating more money for racing prizes, he was receiving these donations from companies that are likely to benefit.

Peter’s conduct was probably the biggest breach of standards since the marginal loans affair. Yet to Phil Goff and The Standard, it was all okay.

Now let us admit that we all are coloured to some degree and see things more rosy for the side you tend to support. That is natural, and expected. We’re not neutral reporters.

But I find those who blog anonymously stretch that to breaking point – there is almost no misconduct they won’t defend for their own side, and they will label as corrupt basically anything that moves from the other side.

The Standard suggest McCully is corrupt for following the rules and declaring his $31 of shares (yes they did not know the amount, but the issue is McCully has acted entirely appropriately) yet they defended Winston time and time again over horrendous breaches of the conflicts of interest regime.

I regard myself as a mate of Phil Heatley. Have even stayed at his house and he is one of the nicest guys you can meet. But when the Dom Post published their story yesterday, I described the use of the ministerial credit card as totally unacceptable with no ifs and no buts.

Those who blog anonymously tend to use extreme language to smear people. They call them corrupt, crooked or racist or bigoted. They do so, because they don’t have to defend their comments in real life.

So here is my challenge to Eddie. Stop the extreme language against people just because their politics are not your own, or have the guts to blog under your real name.

The ODT reports:

To the outrage of many Britons, a white-supremacist fringe party riding a wave of electoral success has been invited to participate in a BBC prime-time TV show on politics.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s Labour Party government says it is appalled that the far right British National Party will get such high-profile exposure to millions of viewers. The BBC, however, says as a publicly funded broadcaster it must cover all political parties that have a national presence.

The BNP is a loathsome vile racist party. But they also won two seats in the European Parliament. It is not for state owned media to decide not to cover a party, just because of their views.

Personally I believe exposing extreme views, and ridiculing them, is much better than ignoring them.

Having said that media should be careful not give a minor party disproportionate coverage just because they are controversial. For example Winston First should get the same coverage as any other party not in Parliament that is polling 1% to 2%.

NZPA report:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is back with all guns blazing today in a speech slamming immigration, foreign ownership and the Government.

Saying NZ First would be fighting the 2011 election to save the country, Mr Peters returned with relish to his old themes of immigration and foreign investment.

The comments were made in speech notes for delivery to the Kawerau and Districts Grey Power meeting this afternoon.

New Zealand had suffered a “tsunami” of immigrants, he said, and large scale immigration could not be justified when 140,000 people were out of work. …

The burden of immigrants on welfare and pensions was bemoaned.

“These people are feasting on your pension pie … the pension pie you and other Kiwis paid for.”

I’ve just gone to Stats NZ and got their annual stats for people arriving in NZ on a residence permit. They are for June years:

• 2006 – 17,917
• 2007 – 17,156
• 2008 – 15,262
• 2009 – 14,275

If that is a tsunami, it is a rapidly shrinking one. How pathetic and desperate is he to resort to his tactics of 15 years ago.

Bryce Edwards continues his excellent summaries of chapters on the 2008 election campaign, with one on NZ First.

Also people will be interested in a draft of an article on how the Electoral Finance Act impacted on third parties last year.

G-Man used to work for Winston as a press secretary. So it is with interest we read his blog at Gotcha:

What did I think of The Big Speech? To mix canine metaphors: It was a dog’s dinner, all over the place like a mad dog’s shit. I thought Winston now sounds like a man desperately searching for relevance.

Normally I smile politely to myself, but tonight I AM writing New Zealand First off as a going concern. I can say with 100% confidence that New Zealand First will not be in the next parliament after 2011, and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

A big call.

Please understand, this conclusion has not been reached from a point of anger: I personally like Winston. This conclusion was reached after a cold, objective look at the facts. Simply put, Winston does not have the resources or political credit to launch a serious attempt at re-election. …

Voters can be compared to a finance company. If we can indulge in an extension of that analogy then New Zealand First, and Winston in particular, have used up all their (political) credit, and now have a bad credit rating.

Winston’s counter to this is to paint himself as the victim of a conspiracy; his amazing speech this last weekend to the New Zealand First conference explicitly states this …

And some advice:

Right now Winston’s biggest asset is the respect and weariness that his political foes and the media have of him. They too have a fear that he may very well have the powers to be the comeback-kid once again, and aren’t prepared to write him off. The result is that they continue to give him token attention.

If they really want to get rid of him then they should simply ignore him. Winston’s only chance of getting traction is to be a gadfly who gets a reaction from those with better things to do, to be an itch that has to be itched.

Without that traction then the laws of rational expectations applies: if potential NZ First voters believe that NZ First will not get over 5% then they will not be prepared to vote for him, and his support will stay low, repeating the cycle– Unless NZ First is around the 5% within 6 months then he has no chance whatsoever. The chances of that happening, with the country emerging from recession and National so far ahead in the polls are zero.

NZ First was at 1.5% in the last Roy Morgan poll. To make 5.0% is an additional 100,000 voters or so.

And Roy Morgan were quite accurate in predicting NZ First. Their pre-elections campaign polls has NZ First at 5% (14 Sep), 4% (5 Oct), 4.5% (19 Oct) and 4.5% (2 Nov). They got 4.1%.

During 2005 to 2008, Roy Morgan never had NZ First under 2%.

The SST reports on the big issues for Winston Peters:

He said an official Maori flag, giving Maori easy access to university and building prisons specifically for Maori would be disastrous for Maori and the country.

Umm no one is building prisons specifically for Maori. There is no easy access to university – there was a one off suggestion by Pita Sharples that got shot down in flames within hours of being made.

So this leaves a Maori flag. Good God, how pitiful. The fact one day a year a Maori flag may fly on Waitangi Day alongside the New Zealand flag. What a sad irrelevance that this now seems to be his major issue.

NZ First announced this week they have relaunched their website. They even have a section for “Young NZ First”. I presume this is for any members under the age of 70.

John Key announced yesterday three initiatives in response to the referendum. Taking each in turn:

The Police and Ministry of Social Development chief executive lead a review of Police and Child, Youth & Family policies and procedures, including the referral process between the two agencies, to identify any changes that are necessary or desirable to ensure good parents are treated as Parliament intended.  The Commissioner of Police and Ministry of Social Development chief executive will seek an independent person to assist in the conduct of the review and will report back by 1 December 2009.

I think this is useful and desirable. I’d guess that more parents are worried about over-zealous action by CYFS, than they are about actually being prosecuted and convicted for a light smack.

Bring forward the delivery of the report from the Ministry of Social Development chief executive on data and trends and the effect of the law change from the end of the year to late September/early October. The Minister of Social Development will table the report in the House.

As MSD are doing the review, I will be amazed if it amounts to much. But yes useful to have it done earlier.

Invite Police to continue to report on a six-monthly or annual basis for the next three years on the operation of the law, and invite Police to include data on cases where parents or caregivers say the force used on the child was reasonable in the circumstances.

This is useful, as it may lead to a situation where a conclusion can be reached on whether the law is working or not. Now that I think that is the correct test, but it is the test laid down by the PM.

“Cabinet has agreed that if future Police data indicates a worrying trend, the law will be changed to ensure that good New Zealand parents are not criminalised for lightly smacking,” says Mr Key.

I regard “criminalised” as meaning are in breach of the law, not merely that they are not charged or convicted. And the law is very specific that smacking for correctional purposes is absolutely illegal.

The problem we have is that the Government’s test of “Is the law working” is not the test, that many others have. Their test is “Is this a good law”.

So why is the Government, or more specifically the PM, applying the “Is the law working” test? Why doesn’t he just agree to change the law?

Well the simple answer is he does not want to break his word, and that is not a bad thing. Since the compromise the test he promised was “Is the law working” and while I think that is the wrong test, that is what he promised.

So the PM has to balance up keeping his word, with responding to a clear public vote they do not like the law.

If the public are unhappy with no law change, there are a number of ways this could show itself. National could lose support to ACT who want the law changed. This is not a concern to National. Most of the smart people in National want ACT to be higher in the polls than 1%. Losing support to ACT doesn’t change the Government.

It is hard to see Labour picking up support from National on this issue. Labour are still blamed by most for the law, and Labour have little relevance at the moment for most people.

The nightmare scenario is Winston. His caucus had a conscience vote on this issue and Peters voted against. Could Winston use this to campaign in 2011 that National and Labour are the same, and if he gets back in he will force whomever is in Government to scrap the law. In those circumstances Phil Goff would scrap the law to have Winston make him PM.

Colin Espiner blogs on this issue, and he implores John Key to “hold the line”. I suspect Colin’s view is that of almost the entire gallery. I really do wish someone from the gallery could tell me what the problem is with the Borrows amendment. After all Colin says:

I’ve smacked my child, and I don’t want to be prosecuted for it. But I like the law, because it stops child beaters who bash their kids with lengths of hose pipe from getting away with it.

The Borrows amendment would mean Colin is not breaking the law when he smacked his child (assuming it was for correctional purposes) and it would also stop someone hitting their kid with a length of hose pipe.

Is Colin aware that the current law does not explicitly forbid hitting your kid with a length of hose pipe? If done for non-correctional purposes, it may be found to be reasonable force. While the Borrows amendment would rule that out in all circumstances.

It seems to me (and I admit I have a position on this subject) that what most Kiwis are telling the Government is that they don’t want to be told how to discipline their kids.

Yet they are. The Bradford law is explicit. It says you can not use any force at all for correctional purposes. It says you can use undefined reasonable force for good parenting, for preventing disruptive behaviour but not for correction. And that is exactly telling parents how to discipline their kids.

David Beatson blogs at Pundit and concludes:

Third, he should be prepared to consider an amendment to section 59 that might satisfy all parties – one stating clearly that legal parental correction does not include the use of force that results in a child suffering any form of physical injury or sustained distress.

That is basically the Borrows amendment. But despite it giving children greater protection in most areas, it is not acceptable to the 12%. You can not get a compromise that everyone will accept – there is too much gulf between the 88% and the 12%.

What if everything you knew about politics came from the internet?  What if people based their vote on which politician was the most popular on Facebook or Bebo?  It’s unlikely and a bit of a nightmare scenario really but on-line sources of information are becoming increasingly important for voters. 

To test my vague theory in New Zealand politics, I searched on Facebook for each party leader and examined the groups supporting and, in some cases opposing, them.  Here are the results:

John Key (National) – 14,388 supporters.  Interestingly the “I HEART John Key” and “Scientologists for John Key” groups have exactly the same number of members.  I’m presuming they are the same people.

Helen Clark (United Nations) – 5, 408 supporters.

Phil Goff (Labour) – 1,112 members of a group wanting him to be Prime Minister in 2011 and 3 in a quite different group who think he is a DILF.  Look up what it means at your peril.

Rodney Hide (Act) – 719 supporters.

Russel Norman (Green) – 567 supporters.  His on-line presence grew significantly when I spelled his first name correctly in the search field.

Metiria Turei (Green) – 339 supporters.

Winston Peters (Retired) – 236 supporters for Prime Minister, 11 supporters for next year’s Dancing with the Stars.  Both quite terrifying prospects really.

Jim Anderton (Progressive) – 17 supporters, much higher than expected.

Pita Sharples (Maori Party) – No Facebook groups supporting him but a couple which are worryingly opposed (and in apparent breach of Facebook policies).

Tariana Turia (Maori Party) – No Facebook groups supporting or opposing her.  There is one offering to be a support group for Mrs Turia going back to school but the tag is “just for fun – outlandish statements.”

Peter Dunne (United Future) – Mr Dunne does not have an official supporters group.  The group “I lost my phone drinking in London – numbers please!!! (Peter Dunne)” is almost certainly not him.  Peter Dunne does not strike me as the kind of man who, under any circumstances, would use three exclamation points.

Bill Ralston writes:

A NZ First conference is coming up next month and it appears Peters plans staging a comeback at the next election. Party members might wonder where he has been for the past several months. Going into seclusion is hardly the way to rebuild a shattered political party. From the email it seems as if he is targeting the economy, the Supercity, cuts to night classes and ACC physiotherapy and the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

In other words, he plans to attack a variety of disparate issues that have nothing in common, other than they are unpopular moves in some quarters.

He is promising a return to what he is good at, populist rabble rousing. The Government is to blame for the international recession. We may be broke as a nation but we should still pay for people to go to macrame classes and get a neck rub. Attempts to get rid of inefficiently competing local body warlords in the country’s biggest city must be stopped. And, if all else fails, go Maori bashing because there are enough rednecks to assure him of 5 per cent at the polls.

It will be very interesting to see who Winston gets on his party list. I reckon almost all his former MPs will run a mile, so his line-up will be even weaker than previously.

Both the Press and the Dom Post discuss “Yesterday’s Man”. First The Press:

After election night last year, New Zealanders would have been entitled to think that they had seen the last of Winston Peters and the sour, rancid style he brought to New Zealand politics.

Peters had been overwhelmingly buried in his supposedly loyal Tauranga electorate, and voters around the country, finally exhausted by his chicanery and egotism, sent his party into oblivion with him. For those who care about decent politics and the welfare of the country it was a welcome deliverance. It is horrible, therefore, to have to consider the thought that Peters may be intending to try to make some kind of political comeback. It can only be hoped that voters’ memories are not so short that they give him any kind of hearing.

I think as big an issue, is NZ First will be very short of candidates and money and every winter they lose more and more voters.

Thankfully, Peters’ former deputy, Peter Brown, has provided an insight into just how disastrous Peters’ leadership of the party was and how the election calamity it faced came about.

It was not a democratic party, but a personality cult. I mean to have the Party President kept ignorant of funding issues is outraegous.

Peters has made comebacks before. But he is now in his mid-60s and out of Parliament, without a political infrastructure to support him. He is emphatically yest

Personally I hope Peters does stand again. We’ve still got the billboard skins from last time and be a shame not to use them. And it will be such fun getting people to needle him at public meetings.

The Dom Post says:

Rarely in politics does the souffle rise twice.

Winston Peters should not become one of those rare exceptions. …

One of Mr Peters’ lasting achievements was the introduction of the Gold Card, giving older citizens access to services, including free travel. Mr Peters will be 66 by the time the next election rolls round, and eligible for his own card. What he should be thinking about now is how to use it, rather than how to get himself back to Parliament.

I don’t regard the Gold Card as an achievement. There is nothing smart about taking money from taxpayers and giving it to mainly non taxpayers so they may be bribed to vote for you. Anyway the biggest beneficiary of the Gold Card has been bus and transport owners who are raking it in.

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)?

A number of people are getting all excited over Winston Peters appearing on Q&A and what this may mean for 2011. The saying “One swallow does not make a summer” comes to mind.

There is a huge difference between going on a TV show, and trying to get a party that has been booted out of Parliament back in – something never done in NZ. You have to find candidates, money, staff etc and that is hard work, and Winston has never been one for hard work.

Peters will be 66 in 2011 and his party has dropped away to 1% in the latest Roy Morgan poll. While I have no doubt Peters, with a good campaign, can lift it from 1%, that 5% threshold is a tough one to make. It means Peters has to find 100,000 more people to vote for him than the 25,000 who currently support him.

In a way I would like him to stand. That way we can all get to ask him about the $158,000 not repaid to the taxpayer.

The Herald reports:

Mr Peters is writing a sports column for Sky Sport Magazine, and his first missive includes one of his trademark political lines: “Let’s get the facts straight about this.” …

Mr Peters’ “last post” column says the great institution of Maori rugby is being neglected. It draws on his personal experience as the captain of Auckland Maori and details the important contribution Maori teams have made to the game and society.

The writing contains several Winstonisms: “Work that out” (twice), “Unbelievable really” and “We need facts, not self-serving, egregious nonsense and attendant unfairness”.

Mr Peters is unable to resist a political swipe while criticising a new book on Maori rugby, Beneath the Maori Moon, by Malcolm Mullholland.

“Facts and words do matter and yet this publication disregards both, qualifying it more for the parliamentary press gallery than as an historic work on a great institution.”

Winston would be a great sports writer – and yes I am being serious. They should also make him a rugby commentator – would be superb.

Mr Peters would not be drawn on whether he would make a political comeback by running for the Auckland Super City mayoralty.

“Unless I say it, then nothing’s true.”

Some would argue the opposite

A spy reports:

MT ALBERT BI-ELECTION

MESSAGE TO OUR MEMBERSHIP

So can only bi-sexuals stand in a bi-election?

15 May 2009

Dear Members,

After careful consideration and consultation with many members, electorates and former MP’s including Winston Peters and Peter Brown, the Board has decided that it is not in the best interests of New Zealand First to stand a candidate in the Mt Albert by-election.

There are many reasons against standing and we can already see in the media build up to the event that there has been absolutely no discussion of policy. This by-election is basically a two –horse war and is simply not our fight.

Our main focus at this time is to rebuild our infrastructure and lines of communication so we are prepared for the next election.

We are currently working on establishing a new web-site with options for committees and members to log in and share information. Obviously some of our members are not computer literate; therefore we need Electorates to create telephone trees and news letters to reliably relay messages.

Now is the time for our Electorates to be pro-active in raising funds and broadening our membership.

Let’s keep our chins up and get pro-active. Our policies are working for New Zealand and this will become more obvious as time wears on.

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.

Brendan Horan,
Media Liaison

Yes just like Christians believe Christ will return one day when called, so does the NZ First cult wait, ready for the call from the masses for the return of Winston?

The print Qantas Awards were last night.

Winston helped with two of the awards. The Weekend Herald won Newspaper of the Year, partly on Audrey Young’s revelation of email evidence that Winston Peters’ interests did receive funding from Owen Glenn.

Also the Dom Post reports:

Phil Kitchin was again named senior news reporter of the year at last night’s ceremony in Wellington. He also won best politics story for his investigation into the NZ First funding saga.

We owe Audrey and Phil our thanks.

Some of the more notable winners:

• Qantas Fellow to Wolfson – Chris Barton
• Outstanding Achievement – Peter Bromhead
• Newspaper of the Year – Weekend Herald
• Large Daily – Waikato Times
• Small Daily – The Daily Post (Rotorua)
• Weekly Newspaper – Weekend Herald
• Senior Reporter – Phil Kitchin, Dom Post
• Junior Reporter – Sarah McDonald, NBR
• Business Columnist – Fran O’Sullivan, NZ Herald
• Politics Columnist – John Armstrong, NZ Herald
• Blog – Moata Tamaira, Stuff
• Website Breaking News – Stuff/Dom Post – election night
• Business Website – interest.co.nz
• Web Design – Stuff
• News Website – nzherald.co.nz

Well done all.

I read this exchange in the Herald:

White-haired Mt Albert pharmacist David Baird met his first living, breathing politician yesterday – and gave her an earful.

“Hi, I’m Melissa Lee, National candidate for Mt Albert,” said the politician.

“Well you won’t be getting my vote because I don’t think we need any Asians in Parliament,” the pharmacist shot back tartly.

Or Jews. We don’t need any Jews either.

Korean-born Ms Lee, a former journalist who has been in New Zealand for 21 years, asked brightly, “Why not?”

Mr Baird said he had his reasons. “They are very difficult people to deal with. They don’t spend any money. I don’t see that they bring any money into the country. Another problem is their English is very bad.

Good on Melissa for not taking offence. Not sure I would have been as reasonable.

As I read this, I thought to myself that this guy sounds like a NZ First voter. And later on we read:

Mr Baird voted NZ First last year and has not decided whom to support in the June 13 byelection, caused by Helen Clark’s departure to the United Nations.

Will NZ First stand a candidate? If so, who will they take votes off?

And a Pakeha mother who declined to be named turned out to be as “red” as Mr Baird’s wife. Her simple verdict: “I’m going to vote for him – he’s the right colour.”

So is she voting Shearer because Labour is “red” or is she voting Shearer because he is white?

Some interesting parts to the Clark and Davis interview on Q&A. I do have to say though that I hope it will not become a permanent feature having an MPs partner on with them.

PAUL Exciting times. Looking back, what was the biggest mistake you made as Prime Minister, I’m sure you’re not gonna tell me your biggest mistake, can I change the question. What is the thing that you did which if you looked back you might do differently?

HELEN No I wouldn’t even go there because I never look back, that’s part of my style, I know journalists often got fed up with me saying move on move on, but I do. You know in politics there’s always an opposition employed to pick over the things you’ve done and why this why that why not the other way, well let them do it but I’m moving on to the next thing.

It is a real pity that Clark won’t answer this question, because I think you learn a lot from a person when they talk about what they would do differently. And while one should not dwell over long on mistakes, I find it useful to acknowledge them and learn from them.

PAUL Not so the one MP who’s name we cannot remember who did not stand up. Peter can I ask you this seriously, what was Helen like in the weeks or the days and the weeks after last year’s electoral loss?

PETER I think she felt rejected basically, because she felt she’d done a good job which I also believe and had put her best foot forward and had been frankly an almost incomparable Prime Minister and yet somehow the public had not seen that the same way. So it took some time for her to frankly come to terms with that and if I was in that position I’d feel the same way I guess.

This has a bit of an attitude about how the public made the wrong decisions, and Labour/Clark did nothing wrong. The reason I say this, is not to swipe at Davis, but because from all accounts most of the Labour Caucus are still in this space. They think John Key just conned the public and all they have to do is wait for him to be exposed.

FRAN Yes she has but I think it’s more than just you know meet and greet and all of that, I think where Helen Clark has scored is she’s also made a contribution and I saw her for instance one example chairing the OECD ministerial in Paris in 2003, and that was probably her first forum where she brought together a number of players, it was after September 11, there was a big you know fracas going on between Europe and America at that stage over the invasion of Iraq which had just happened but she brought together some disparate players to talk about what they could do to move economies forward and particularly also on the trade dialogue, so she chaired that, other actors paid tribute to her, so I’ve seen it there and I’ve also seen her at APEC where she has quietly moved a number of issues on to the agenda, for instance climate change in Korea, it wasn’t on the agenda, Australia claimed credit for it later but she put it there.

I quote this part from Fran, partly because it does highlight where Clark was skilled, but also to balance Fran’s later comment.

FRAN Well that’s right and it was interesting that she said she’s been empowered to do exactly that by Ban Ki-moon the Secretary General. I’d like to just go back, I think she will shake it up and she’s had that track record in New Zealand but one thing that struck me from that interview was that slight disconnect about not understanding why Helen Clark was voted out despite being competent, and to bring to the point one of the issues really was this issue about democracy in New Zealand with the Electoral Finance Act, that and together with Winston Peters that long running scandal that basically cost her her leadership here.

Disconnect is the right word for it. Now Labour have at least done a mea culpa over the Electoral Finance Act, but that was only one part of an arrogance the Government displayed on everything from the pledge card to Winston Peters. Frankly Labour should apologise for their disgraceful behaviour at the Privileges Committee and afterwards. Those MPs are not stupid and they all know that Winston knew about the donation. Yet they covered up for him. Until we get some mea culpas for that also, I’m not convinced they have understood why they lost the election.

The media has rightfully focused on DIA trying to cover up the situation around Winston’s non-returned and non-purchased Ministerial car.

But there is a bigger story. And that is around the petrol. Yes I know that sounds trivial, but let me explain.

Being tardy returning your car is not a hanging offence. Many of us are tardy doing various things. It is a bad look, but not a deliberate action.

Being tardy paying for the car is also not a hanging offence. Many individuals and businesses have paid bilsl late. Again not a great look, but not a deliberate action.

But as Whale Oil points out, Winston was using his Ministerial fuel card to pay for petrol well after the election. He used the card on the 19th of November and 29th of November and 10th of December.

Now the election was 8 November and the new Government sworn in on 19 November. That means Winston was morally wrong to use the fuel card after 8 November and legally wrong to use it after 19 November.

Unlike the car not being returned, which can be explained away, using a Ministerial fuel card when you are not a Minister is a very deliberate decision. You go to the petrol station, fill up the car, and get asked to pay. You have a choice. You can pay cash. Or you can pull out the Ministerial fuel card and use that.

This is arguably a criminal offence. I recall a former MP got into some serious trouble some years ago when he used parliamentary taxi chits after he was no longer an MP.

Assuming Peters remains Leader of NZ First, maybe someone can ask him at his next press conference why did he choose to charge petrol to a Ministerial fuel card a month after the election?

The Herald reports on the 2008 spending returns. I’ll come to that, but first an error they made:

No parties exceeded their caps, unlike 2005 when Labour got into trouble for its parliamentary-funded election year “pledge card” – a cost which was later deemed an illegal election expense and put it over its spending cap.

It was not “later” deemed an illegal election expense. The Chief Electoral Office warned Labour three times before the election that their pledge card was an election advertisement.

Anyway the 2008 returns are on the Elections website. Be warned some of them are huge as every ad has to be listed.

NZ First is listed as havign filed an incomplete return. What this probably means if there is no statutory declaration and/or an Auditor’s Certificate. In other words no-one will swear it is actually correct!

Considering their 2005, 2006 and 2007 returns were all found to be false, it might be no surprise they are finding it difficult to find someone to sign them off.

Inventory2 at Keeping Stock blogs:

We’ve just watched John Key on Breakfast ruling out any government support for Winston Peters if he seeks a plumb job overseas a la Helen Clark.

Good show. Key’s rationale is that he couldn’t trust Peters last year, and nothing has changed. It’s not rockety science, but it’s nice to see it articulated in plain English.

It is no surprise at all, but I agree nice to have on the record.

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.

Whale Oil continues his relentless stalking of Winston, and has found he has broken the law by not registering his Baublemobile within the required seven days.

NZ First is looking at standing in the Mt Albert by-election if it occurs:

I heard a few weeks ago that they saw this as a possible route back into Parliament for them. And it can’t be totally dismissed – third parties often do very well in by-elections.

Complicating this by-election is the situation I have previously blogged on. If Phil Twyford is the Labour candidate, then a vote for hm in Mt Albert may bring Judith Tizard back in on the list.  You could expect to see a huge amount of focus on this.

It sounds like Winston may not be the candidate:

Mr Groombridge would not comment when asked if Mr Peters would be the candidate. He said it would be up to the party’s electorate organisation to choose. He was “pretty certain” NZ First had a branch in Mt Albert.

I find it amusing the Party President can not be sure if they have an electorate organisation or not!

Mr Groombridge said he also believed that Mr Peters should share the leadership of NZ First.

He said a co-leader would bring in “new blood”, while still retaining Mr Peters who “really is the patriarch of the party, there’s no question about that”.

Patriarch isn’t a bad term for Winston. Wikipedia describes as:

Originally a patriarch was a man who exercised autocratic authority as a pater familias over an extended family.

I’m wondering though if “capo” may not be a better term

Mr Groombridge said that depending on whether Helen Clark got the job and when she left, NZ First’s candidate could be either a contender for the co-leadership or the newly appointed co-leader.

If Ron Mark is co-leader, Ron could do quite well – especially that voting for him won’t automatically bring Winston in with him – unlike in the general election.