Kiwiblog

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?

Sam Sachdeva at The Press reports:

NZ First has been embroiled in infighting after a blog slammed the performance of some of its MPs, leaked party emails show.

Internal emails, passed on to The Press, have revealed discord within the party, with Christchurch MP Denis O’Rourke among those attacking their Whip and the party’s board.

The emails relate to a post by website Kiwiblog that used a range of statistics to rank Opposition MPs.

The rankings placed Canterbury NZ First MPs O’Rourke and Richard Prosser in the bottom five for the third quarter of 2012, along with colleague Asenati Taylor.

I wouldn’t say the blog slammed any of the NZ First MPs. In the post I did, I mainly just report the data. Rajen Prasad is the only MP I really gave much of a swipe to.

As I said in the post, the data is quantitative, not qualitative. However I think it has some value as it does at least show if MPs are being active asking PQs and doing press releases.

To be fair to NZ First MPs, many will always struggle as Winston hogs most of the media stories, and front on almost any high profile issue. But that is no reason you can’t still be churning out some releases and gathering data through PQs.

NZ First Whip Barbara Stewart emailed the rankings to the caucus on October 4.

She said they showed “how others are judging you”.

O’Rourke and former North Shore mayor Andrew Williams hit back, criticising the rankings and Stewart’s decision to email them out.

What is fascinating is not that MPs disagree, but that one of the MPs has leaked the e-mails to the media. Not a good sign.

O’Rourke said the rankings were “not even remotely interesting or relevant” and were “utter nonsense”.

“I find it hard to believe that anyone with any brains would actually take any notice of a stupid Right-wing blog site,” he said.

Hey, I resent the “stupid” comment! And yes my blog is from the right and I am known to be a critic of Winston, but the MP stats are not designed to be pro or anti any party or MP. They are designed to both reveal how much work MPs are doing in certain areas, and how effective they are at gaining media attention. I do them for Government Ministers also.

Williams said Stewart’s decision to place importance on the rankings was “a sad inditement [sic] on you as Whip and of this party”.

“[Q]uite frankly I do not want to receive these ‘nanny’ type sermons from you. Have better things to do than be preached at.”

It is interesting that Winston promised soon after the election that the caucus would elect a Deputy Leader by the end of March 2012. They still haven’t elected one. Is it because they can’t agree?

In response, Stewart warned the MPs that their performance had been noticed by the NZ First board.

“The number of contributions or lack of – that you make . . . is also being noticed. A picture is being created about you!”

I’m biased, but I think the data in the ratings can be of some use to a party. Certainly only of some limited value, but it allows a party to say why has Brendan Horan does 16 press releases and Denis O’Rourke only one? Now there may be a simple answer such as Horan has a portfolio that has been more high profile. So the data is not the answer, but at least allows questions to be asked.  Likewise why has Andrew Williams asked 22 PQs and Asenati Taylor just three?

So even I wouldn’t place huge reliance on the data, but that isn’t to say it can’t be of some value.

3 News reports:

Prime Minister John Key says he won’t close the door on Afghan interpreters who say their lives are at risk after working with New Zealand troops.

Twenty-six interpreters work with the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Bamiyan. They say the Taliban will target them as soon as the troops pull out.

When the PRT leaves Afghanistan in April next year, they are planning to leave behind the interpreters. But Mr Key wants to be certain the risk is as bad as has been presented before he welcomes them here.

“We just need to assess the risks – whether the risks are real and genuine to them,” says Mr Key. “We need to work through the issue and see what it might all mean. I’m not closing the door to them.”

If there is a genuine and significant risk, we should take them. Of course the claims may be exaggerated in order to be allowed to move to NZ, as even if there is no risk to their security – NZ is always going to be a far nicer place to live than Afghanistan.

But by opening the door at all, New Zealand First says it could be impossible to close again.

“Well they will have effectively jumped the UN queue for a start,” says Winston Peters. “The second thing is they will be bringing hundreds of thousands as well with them. That’s the previous model.”

So 26 interpreters will bring in hundreds of thousands of family members? Why do the media give such statements any credibility? If Shearer or even the Greens said such an obviously false thing, they’d be pummeled by the media. But as usual, there is a double standard when it comes to Peters, where lying is seen as just Winston being Winston.

3 News reports:

New Zealand First is suggesting all New Zealanders pretend to be Maori to get special privileges under the law.

The party wants the Government to define who is and isn’t Maori before offering deals to iwi over water rights, after delaying the asset sales programme. 

Winston Peters says anybody could be Maori under the law.

Heh only Winston could suggest that.

For the 2nd time this week, I am partially agreeing with him.

I don’t think Maori should have special privileges under the law.

But I do think Iwi do have common law rights. I have no problem with saying that Iwi have customary rights in certain areas.

So the issue for me is not about rights for “Maori” but rights for “Iwi”. I don’t think you need to define who is or is not Maori, but rather the Crown needs to recognise Iwi, and Iwi have lists of their members.

This is why a national settlement on water rights is not desirable. Any rights belong to specific Iwi in specific locations – not to Maori generally.

Some will say Iwi have no special rights at all. I disagree. Just as property owners in a certain area may get rights of objection or compensation for developments that impinge on them, so do Iwi.

Rather rare for me to praise Winston, but I all thoroughly approve of his action in Parliament last week:

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I wonder whether I could ask the leave of the House to move a motion without notice regarding the 100th birthday of Nancy Wake, the Allies’ most decorated female war hero. This is her 100th birthday today.

Mr SPEAKER: Just to get it clear, the member is seeking leave for a motion to be moved without debate to commemorate that occasion. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I regret the collective lack of preparation on this, frankly. I move, That this Housecommemorate the 100th birthday of Nancy Wake, the Allies’ most famous and decorated Second World War hero, remembering that she was, after all, born in New Zealand of both Māori and European background. It is, perhaps, a matter of disappointment that we, as a country, have not acknowledged her in the way that France, the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom have.

I’ve blogged on Nancy Wake often in the past. I knew of course she was born in New Zealand. but didn’t know she was part-Maori. Her parents were Charles Augustus Wake and Ella Rosieur, and it appears Ella’s grandfather Charles Cossell married a Maori “maiden” called Pourewa in 1836 – one of the first ever marriages between races in NZ.

Her biography says that legend has it that Hone Heke wanted Poueewa for himself and had threatened to kill Cossell and Pourewa, but was himself killed before he could.

Stuff reports:

Winston Peters has criticised the anti-smoking lobby and Maori leaders, saying ordinary Maori are being saddled with a massive tax on smoking most of them don’t want.

Translation: Winston’s addiction is costing him money. I’ve got a solution for poor old Winnie though. The Government could add Quitline to the list of Super Gold Card services!

Mr Peters also questioned why the Japanese lived so long and have low rates of heart disease and stroke when they have the world’s highest smoking rate and said obesity was the main health concern for Maori, not smoking.

Oh dear, Winston must be lining up to be Health Minister in a Labour-led Government.

Incidentally Winston is wrong. The smoking rate in Japan is 24%. A Gallup poll found 21 countries with a smoking rate of over 30%.

John Armstrong writes in the Herald:

So much for the theory that Winston Peters was mellowing into Parliament’s version of everyone’s favourite, if somewhat cranky and irascible, uncle.

It was a more familiar Peters who delivered the leader’s address at New Zealand First’s annual convention last Sunday.

The speech was not so much a dog whistle as a wolf howl for attention. There was certainly no coded language to decipher.

His pinging of Chinese immigrants for allegedly sponging off New Zealanders by picking up state-funded super payments and other entitlements without paying any income tax was unquestionably populist – so much so that he was almost parodying himself.

A lot of people view Peters as a benign joker like figure. I’m not one of them. I think he has a history of scape-goating, and trying to convince people that it is the fault of some other group that they can’t receive more money or jobs or benefits.

He instead rationalised his accusation of freeloading by arguing that New Zealanders needed to know all the facts about superannuation rather than being manipulated by the savings and insurance industry into believing there was a “crisis” which required an end to universality in the payment of the state-funded pension.

Peters knows that superannuation is not sustainable. He argued so in 1997, when he proposed compulsory superannuation, saying that people “do not believe that the current arrangements will be there to deliver the same level of assistance in retirement that their parents currently enjoy”. Even worse Peters proposes superannuation be made even more expensive, with an increase in the floor.

It actually did not add up at all. Peters is the one choosing not to put all the facts on the table, especially major Government policy changes affecting those applying for residency under Immigration New Zealand’s family and parent categories.

While Peters rails against Chinese immigrants supposedly gobbling up the super – but then refuses to say what he would do about it – the National-led Government has quietly stolen a march on him. …

What is clear is that imminent changes to immigration rules are going to screen out those unlikely to pay tax.

The parent stream is currently closed pending the introduction of a new two-tier category.

Those applicants earning more than $27,203 a year as singles or nearly $40,000 if they are a couple will be able to go into tier one. They will also have to bring with them at least $500,000 in “settlement funds”.

Their sponsoring adult son or daughter will have to have an annual income of at least $65,000 and have been a New Zealand resident for at least three years.

Those who cannot meet these requirements will go into tier two where the only financial obligation is a lower benchmark of nearly $34,000 in income required of the sponsoring adult child .

Tier one applicants, not surprisingly, will get priority. As do a separate category of parents who can gain entry if they invest a minimum $1 million in New Zealand for at least four years.

With a two-year wait already for applications to be processed and a capped annual limit of 4000 on the number of parents approved for residency, those in tier two could be waiting years to get to the front of the queue.

So in fact the Government has already acted to mitigate the issue that Peters talked about.

Peters also used his convention speech that day to climb into the council for calling for the age of eligibility for super to be lifted to 67.

Claiming the council would be pushing for the privatisation of super, he also rounded on its chair, his old bete noire Jenny Shipley, who openly campaigned against Peters’ proposed compulsory savings scheme while National was in coalition with New Zealand First in the late 1990s.

This is such a bending of truth, it is hilarious. Peters proposal in 1997 was to effectively privatise superannuation, and Shipley was a prominent campaigner against it.

This is one of the problems of MMP. Smaller parties don’t have to worry about whether their policies are in the national interest. They know they will never be PM. So they are incentivised to push policies that will benefit a small section of New Zealanders (to get them over 5%), even if it fucks the country over.

On Q+A, Winston said:

GREG Lets talk about the contribution. 66% to 68%. Is that a bottom line for you?

WINSTON Oh, look, it is a bottom line, and thats why we had the law changed to 66, because you can recall National took it down to 60%. 

So the bottom line for NZ First support is increasing superannuation from 66% of the average wage to 68%. This is fiscal insanity. So that means a Government which includes NZ First will actually blow out the costs of superannuation even quicker than the current projections.

We actually have the most generous public superannuation scheme in the world. But for some greedy people it is not enough. Winston is a fine example himself. He gets a massive salary as an MP, and gets non means tested superannuation – and he is now saying a bottom line will be that his superannuation payments get increased even higher.

The HoS reports:

NZ First will never agree to an increase in the pension age or a reduction in its level of payment, leader Winston Peters says.

And it would rather be in Opposition than be part of a government whose policies it opposed.

But Peters refused to be tied down yesterday on whether the pension age or even asset sales issues would be deal-breakers in any post election coalition talks in 2014, saying NZ First still had “options”.

Ahead of NZ First’s annual conference this weekend Prime Minister John Key challenged Peters to remove any doubt that maintaining the pension age at 65 truly was a bottom line for NZ First.

“I dare him to go out there and say he will not under any condition form a government with Labour even if Labour’s policy is to raise the super age from 2020,” Key said on TV3′s The Nation yesterday.

In a preview of the speech Peters will give to the conference today, he said NZ First would “never agree to reduce the pension or lift the qualifying age from 65 to 67″.

However, Peters’ comments fell short of giving the cast-iron promise Key challenged him to make over Labour’s policy.

This is why I think the only way forward is to entrench the current scheme, and set up a Royal Commission into retirement savings to design a post 2025 scheme.

The Herald reports:

Maintaining the age of eligibility for superannuation at 65 would be a bottom line for New Zealand First in any coalition negotiations after the 2014 election, says leader Winston Peters.

His stance could be an obstacle to coalition talks with Labour if NZ First is the kingmaker after 2014 – Labour has made raising the pension age to 67 a centrepiece of its policies and has sought to embarrass Prime Minister John Key on the issue.

Mr Key has been under pressure for refusing to contemplate raising the age of eligibility for super from 65 to 67.

NZ First meets for its annual conference in Palmerston North this weekend – its first since the resurgent party made it back into Parliament last year with eight MPs. It is looking for more next election and could be a strong contender for coalition talks in 2014.

Asked whether NZ First’s position that the super age should remain at 65 was likely to be an issue in such talks, Mr Peters said: “Of course it’s a bottom line.”

It is highly unlikely that Labour could form a Government without Winston, so their policy to increase the age (actually a policy to means test 65 and 66 year olds) looks dead on arrival.

Have a look at Winston in the Budget debate, at his finest. From around 7:50 to 11:30 he works through MPs and comments:

• Calls Paula Bennett a Kate Moss look-a-like
• Refers to Melissa Lee as Pyongyang (capital of North Korea)
• Asks if there is a corner dairy available for Bakshi Singh
• Then asks if there is a Chinese Restaurant left on Dominion Road for Dr Jian Yang
• Calls Katrina Shanks Miss South Carolina
• Calls Tau Henare an Uncle Tom

To think this man was Labour’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. And he is their path back to power.

Imagine if National MP had got up and spoke about Labour MPs in such a way. They would have denounced National as a racist and sexist party.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has mounted a further attack on the Whanau Ora programme, describing it as a ‘bro-ocracy’ and questioning a $60,000 grant to a rugby club.

Mr Peters said the $60,000 grant was to the Rahui Rugby and Sports Club, based in Otaki “to research the vaguely-termed ‘whanau connectedness’ and ‘resilience’ in the community.”

He said it was ridiculous the Government considered a small rural sports club an appropriate body to undertake economic and social research.

On the face of it, I have to agree with Peters. There may be factors we do not know about, but on the surface it looks quite inappropriate.

I do support the Whanua Ora programme. Empowering communities to help improve social outcomes is a good thing. But those administering the grants need to apply a high level of scrutiny to ensure any grants are going to bodies that realistically can make a difference.

He said Whanau Ora’s Whanau Innovation, Integration and Engagement Fund should be dismantled and the funding passed onto experienced Maori providers.

Again, I might partially agree. Not to dismantle the fund, but to favour those with experience and a proven track record at delivering.

Stephen Stratford blogs on lunch with Winston:

NBR has posted online the official text of the speech here. It was the usual stuff, a mixture of charm, bluster, fudging the historical record and blaming the media – especially two social-media operatives, Whale Oil and “a mischievious [that’s how he pronounced it] blogger known as Kiwiblog” who apparently are responsible for NZ First’s dismal result in the last election.

Heh. Again, if this is true I want a knighthood.

When in government Peters was notorious for not reading Cabinet papers. He seemed not to have read his speech either – we were all discovering it together. We were on the same journey. At one point he extemporised then went back to the speech notes – and repeated a couple of paragraphs. He didn’t notice but we all did.

Oh dear, senior moments.

On Kim Dotcom: “Tim Dotcom”.

On Jacinda Ardern: “Jacinda Ahearn”.

More blather followed about finance and speculation, all of it about John Key and all of it economically illiterate, as I said to Joshua later. He replied, “But he’s very politically literate.” Yes. I suppose that’s why he is still with us.

Among the audience eyebrows had been raised and eyeballs had rolled throughout. But not as much as when – after some shameless pandering to the audience about how wonderful “TV7” is – he got onto immigration and Asians, as we all knew he would eventually

Drive down Dominion Road, there’s 150 restaurants. Now there can’t be that many people eating.

Winston has just made a speech where Whale and I get a mention. Worth putting things in context:

No sooner had the Banks/Dotcom story hit the headlines than Newstalk ZB decided to interview a bewildered blogger called Whaleoil.

Without a fact to fan his considerable self with Mr Whaleoil explained to ZB listeners that New Zealand First had been a beneficiary of the giant German.

The ZB people did not bother to check with Dotcom or New Zealand First.

To be fair to Whale and ZB, considering NZ First has a long history of not disclosing donations it was legally required to disclose, and that Winston himself was found to have lied about not knowing about Own Glenn’s $100,000 donation to his lawyer, then you could argue checking with NZ First would be a waste of time. However would have been useful to check with Dotcom.

A mischievous blogger known as Kiwiblog made up a story the Thursday before the election that New Zealand First was an incorporated society and that Winston Peters was an illegal candidate.

That story running as it did immediately before the Election Day is a corrupt practice under our election law.

Except that there is a NZ First incorporated society. My story is here. Winston claims that there are in fact two NZ First’s – one incorporated and one unincorporated. But as I blogged here, this is not something his own party officers agree with him on:

Contacted by the Listener, Catchpole, treasurer from 2005 until the party’s convention earlier this month, says: “They are one and the same really, the incorporated society and the party, because the party constitution and rules are all registered with the incorporated society. That basically makes it one entity.” …

Asked about the incorporated society, Groombridge says: “That’s the party itself.”

So that was both the party president and the party treasurer contradicting Winston, and saving the political party NZ First is the same entity as the incorporated society NZ First.

By sheer coincidence, this blogger is the paid pollster of the National Party.

I blogged at the time that absolutely no one in National knew of this story before I published it. I only wrote the story that morning because I received an e-mail from a (non-National) friend who had come across the rules.

What I can also now reveal, is that in fact National got a bit shitty at me for running the story. They told me the last thing they wanted was more publicity for Winston on the eve of the election.  Just as National didn’t like me describing their campaign opening TV spot as looking like an excitable eight year old filmed it

The foreign owned newspaper Dominion Post felt compelled to also publish this garbage and the story appeared to be taking off until some spoilsport presented the true facts.

I’m still waiting for the true facts. Whom do we believe – Winston or his own party president and treasurer?

That story could have been the difference between eight and nine MPs for New Zealand First.

And the publicity it gave Winston may have been what got NZ First eight MPs instead of seven. A possibility that may haunt me for decades

With one more we could have stopped the sale of state assets – and the National Party knew it.

I’d love to take credit for getting the Government back into office with a clear centre-right majority, as it means I’d never have to buy a drink again at party conferences!

For NZ First to have gained a 9th MP, they would have needed 153,819 votes or 6.86% rather than 147,544 or 6.59%, an increase of 6,275.

I hear from someone who was at the actual speech, that in fact Winston blamed me for not just NZ First getting one extra MP, but maybe several. If this is true, surely the PM could consider a knighthood for me?

On the 6th of November we decided that we had to break free from this coalition that we had never entered.

At a public meeting at Kelston we carefully explained that we would be going into Opposition.

Again, there is a credibility problem here. He basically promised the same in 2005, and promptly went into Government with the Foreign Affairs bauble.

In 2008 Barack Obama credited social media with getting both grass root activists and the normally apathetic people involved in his campaign.

In New Zealand politicians have been trying to play catch up.

We, in New Zealand First are learning.

There is no doubt social media provided a way for New Zealand First supporters and candidates to stay in touch and organise for the 2011 election. 

We are using it in Parliament. …

Most members of the press gallery monitor Twitter and Facebook.

News breaks on these social media sites and politicians get themselves into trouble on them!

The technology is amazing.

With the advent of smartphones and iPads, MPs are tweeting from the House to their constituents, providing an instant information service.

It’s interesting to look at the demographics of people of those that like my page on Facebook.

The highest percentage of people who like my page are males aged 18-24. 

There is no doubt that social media provides an unprecedented way for people to connect with politicians.

Good to see NZ First recognising the potential of social media.

The Herald reported last week:

NZ First leader Winston Peters said the fact Mr Key was open to a potential coalition with someone who had such a belief only showed how desperate National was.

This was a reference to Colin Craig’s comments on how promiscuous young NZ women are.

However listen to this recording sent to me by Matthew Flannagan of (then) NZ First MP Pita Paraone at a Family First forum in 2007. He refers to the Durex survey (it was released just before the forum) and that it showed how promiscuous young New Zealanders are.

So for Winston to be huffing and puffing about National being desperate if they associate with someone like Colin Craig – well he should look closer to home.

Incidentally Colin Craig presented his views much better on Q+A this morning. Well worth a watch.

NZ First Promiscuity Pita Paraone (1)

The Timaru Herald reports:

Sanfords has labelled Winston Peters’ claim that 40,000 litres of oil spilled into Timaru harbour last week as “deeply bizarre”.

“I don’t know where he got his figures from. They don’t stack up,” Sanfords Deepwater manager Darryn Shaw said.

The incident is believed to have occurred after a Sanfords’ deep-sea vessel the San Enterprise had a mechanical failure in one of its internal pipes on Wednesday.

NZ First leader Mr Peters remained adamant yesterday that at least 40,000 litres of oil was spilled into the harbour. He would not reveal the basis for his claim when contacted by the Herald.

“It comes from an impeccable source,” Mr Peters said.

Environment Canterbury (ECan) coast and waterways safety manager Evan Walker reaffirmed the initial assessment that up to 4000 litres of oil were spilt in the incident.

So Winston’s source is now impeccable. Is this like his impeccable source about the fleet of Mercedes that WINZ owned?