Written By: - Date published: 3:05 pm, July 12th, 2008 - 74 comments
Categories: election funding, nz first -
Tags:
It appears, as everyone suspected, that Owen Glenn did give a donation to New Zealand First. There is nothing illegal or immoral in that. Under the law at the time anonymous donations of any sum were legal and National was the biggest exploiter of that fact, receiving over $2 million in secret donations in 2005 (thankfully, the Electoral Finance Act now makes those practices illegal).
But Winston Peters should not have lied when asked. He would have been totally within his rights to stick to National’s line: ‘we don’t discuss donors’. Better yet, he could have done what Labour did and tell the truth.
So what now? Peters was talking in his capacity as leader of New Zealand First, not Foreign Minister and, while he may have lied to the media, he didn’t mislead Parliament. That means calls for him to be sacked as Foreign Minister are just politicking by opportunists.
If Peters has lied to the public as New Zealand First’s leader, then it is for his party and the voters to punish him. And voters should punish him, as they should punish any politician who lies to their faces.
At least, now the EFA is in place, we won’t have to go through this rubbish over secret donors again.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Point well made Lew – this goes above partisanship. Whilst it is not a matter directly related to Peters’s portfolio, can Clark afford to keep a proven liar as a Minister – especially the Minister who is the “shop-window” for the New Zeakland government? But then again, can she afford to ostracise Peters this close to the election?
“Winston’s often suspected but rarely documented moral and ethical failings speak poorly of the government who appointed him to such a lofty position as Foreign Minister.”
What about the people who appointed him Treasurer, Lew?
And Spondre, Perhaps SP should have said, “David, I’m overlooking those spurious allegations because it’s boring.’
Leaving aside the lies in Labour that have not been proven, Lew,
if you feel so strongly about this, if Winston’s behaviour is bad, why didn’t you say the same thing about Mike Williams when he was outed as a proven liar – or do you agree with SP that Mike Williams just so boring that boring liars can be tolerated…
jafapete: “What about the people who appointed him Treasurer, Lew?”
Yep, it reflects on them, too. But that was then; this is now.
Edit:
dave: “why didn’t you say the same thing about Mike Williams when he was outed as a proven liar?”
Who’s to say I didn’t? Just because I didn’t in some forum or other which you frequent.
I think it’s preposterous to assume Labour’s constituency won’t judge them negatively over the Moore situation, and I’d never argue otherwise. But nice try at painting me as one-eyed just because I called you a partisan hack.
L
Inventory2: “can she afford to ostracise Peters this close to the election?”
I think Labour’s hopes lie in a closer alliance with the Greens (agreement over the new orthodoxy of climate change), whereas NZ First under anyone other than Peters (FWIW I’d consider Ron Mark a stronger leadership candidate than Peter Brown) is a more natural ally of National than of Labour. So yes; I think if this situation tarnishes Peters’ shine enough that the electorate sees him as fundamentally dishonest, Labour and NZ First are a thing of the past.
Is this for the better? I think so.
L
Did you fellers enjoy watching “Gone Fishing’ this afternoon?
[there's no actual evidence of a corrupt practice. Like some other things you've been going on about recently, what you've got going on in your head is not justified by the facts. SP]
You have an interesting definition of what constitutes a ‘fact’ Steve. If ANZ release a report unfavourable to the govnt or if truck driver protest against user charges then it is a fact (without offering any proof) that it’s a national party setup whereas if a wealthy doner to the labour party gives money to a political party whose leader happens to be foreign minister and that doner has made it known he would like a diplomatic role then no inference of wrong doing is justified.
Can’t we find Winnie a job with a high profile (so we can enjoy his antics) but no real responsibility?
I’d suggest Governor General but I don’t think we’d see enough of him.
I don’t really like him but I’d hate to see him go, knowaddamean?
“Can’t we find Winnie a job with a high profile (so we can enjoy his antics) but no real responsibility?”
Weirdly enough I was having that exact conversation with a friend today. My idea was to make NZ a republic and install Winston as president (for life), a role where he could fully utilise his skills to greet visiting chinese school children or hobnobbing with dictators (Wait, I think Helen wants that job)
Heh. The most public sinecure we can find. Awesome idea.
L
I wouldn’t talk about facts Steve, your analysis of what is fact and what is opinion ( interpreted and written as facts by you) is pretty shonky.
nothing you have said so far indicates that you have any grasp of the truth at all dave. in fact your utterances have all the veracity of a cesspit whinger just saying anything to either get your name in print or to cover up the lack of substance in a bankrupt right wing political party by continually repeating lies.
Ah piss off Randal if you can’t say something constructive or name one lie I have told. You’ve tried that before too, I may add, and failed. Because I only write the truth and have a pretty good grasp of it, too.
“to cover up the lack of substance in a bankrupt right wing political party by continually repeating lies.”
Would that be morally bankrupt (like labour passing the foreshore and seabed act to get the redneck vote) or financially bankrupt (like labour was after being forced to payback taxpayers money to parliamentry services).
Interesting debate on the (il)legalities. Thanks DPF, Anita et al.
Okay, so let’s take the extremely charitable view. The funds were sliced and diced into small amounts, put through trusts, spread out over time, blah blah. Winston told lies about this while wearing his “Leader of NZ First” hat but when he puts on his “Minister of Foreign Affairs in a Labour-led government” hat he transforms into a paragon of virtue, etc etc.
In other words, let’s say for argument’s sake the donation(s) from Glenn are just this side of legal (i.e. within the letter but not the spirit of the law).
What we’re left with, then, is that someone with whom the government and the PM chooses to associate themselves acted immorally by lying to the public – and on a matter upon which he’d sought to lecture others and impose laws to supposedly “clean up” their allegedly immoral dealings. Which adds hypocrisy to the mix.
Thus from SP’s careful delineation of Peters’ bad acts as NZF leader from any acts he’s undertaken as Foreign Minister, and from the PM’s sudden vow of silence on the issue, we can take it that Labour countenance hypocritical immorality.
Because no one reading this post, Steve, can imagine for one nanosecond that if Peters was propping up a Key-led government you wouldn’t be:
a) attributing this strategy to Crosby/Textor; and
b) (justifiably) calling on Key to present Winston’s head on a platter and positing that failure to do so amounts to evidence that National condone hypocrisy and lying.
Rex: “Thus from SP’s careful delineation of Peters’ bad acts as NZF leader from any acts he’s undertaken as Foreign Minister, and from the PM’s sudden vow of silence on the issue, we can take it that Labour countenance hypocritical immorality.”
While I broadly agree, I have two main objections:
1. Steve is a declared not-Labour voter.
2. Clark will (as Key’s supporters say) reveal her party’s position in the fullness of time. Serious allegations like this require full consideration. Clark doesn’t have a record of going off half-cocked; nor should she in this case.
L
Lieing politician guilty of hypocrisy! Film at eleven!
I think this is what bothers me most about the whole thing. We all think Peters lied, we all think he’s been hypocritical, none of us are surprised or genuinely outraged, none of us think anything will come of it, none of us will do anything to actually address it.
Peters lied and has been hypocritical
So has Key
So has Clark
Why are our politicians like that? Why do we expect it of them? Why do we let them get away with it?
What would we, each one of us, have to do to make this different?
Anita: This is really the fundamental question. Why don’t wee all vote ACT, Green, or Maori and shun these parties on the grounds of dishonesty?
The answer is: for all that people claim otherwise, policy matters more than integrity, when push comes to shove.
L
Lew,
Then why isn’t UF madly popular? Their policies are pretty much the overlap of Labour and National so if people were voting for policies they’d be perfect, and Peter Dunne doesn’t get enough exposure so us to catch him lieing or being hypocritical.
Wow – I really have had the cynicism injection haven’t I?
Ok so someone tell me – what’s the difference between the SECRET ballot that is a cherished part of our democracy and the SECRET donations that are so evil (when they are given to National, that is)?
Luke,
Easy…
I get one secret vote, so do you, so does Alan Gibbs. Our influence is identical.
Secret donations however… Alan Gibbs gets to buy a whole lot more influence than me (and probably you). Our ability to influence is vastly different. If we’re going to allow that kind of imbalance in power and influence the best way to mitigate the worst of its effects is to make it visible.
Anita: “Then why isn’t UF madly popular?”
Another good question, and one which Peter Dunne surely asks himself every day. I wonder if it’s the kitten effect: http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20070815.png
L
[lprent: you have been banned for previous behavior ]
Murray,
Yes
Any ideas how we fix this?
[lprent: you have been banned. Buggerit - moving to permanent]
C’mon people, let’s not play games. We all know it’s politics. We all know Peters tells porkies, and we all know Clark won’t dump Peters because she needs his votes. And every left-leaning voter I know wishes she didn’t.
So Clark is hanging on. OK, what’s John Key’s excuse? If you’re willing to keep Winston on as Foreign Minister even when you’re over 50% in the polls, when *do* you actually take a stand?
I’m not demanding that Key should take an UNPOPULAR principled stand. Heaven forbid. I’m only saying he should take an easy one.
And yet – he can’t even do that.
You know, all the Helen-haters could earn some respect by doing a very simple thing. Demand that John Key rules out Winston Peters. No wriggling, just – “No Winston, no way”. After all, aren’t National meant to be dead certs to win?
But you won’t, and he won’t.
Until you do, and he does, spare us the phoney baloney. It has a very nasty smell.
Cheers.
Gobsmacked. What are ya ranting about mate?!
Winnie the pooh has zero chance of being in the nats line up – zero.
The maori party are in front of that old hack.
Youre not making any sense mate.
“You know, all the Helen-haters could earn some respect by doing a very simple thing”
The question is do we want your respect? Look at how posters like robinsod act. Why the fuck would I want the respect of someone like that.
gobsmacked is referring to key’s statement that peters coud be foreign minister in a nat govt
J,
Whatever you feel about Robinsod I would like to think that some of us have respect that is worth wanting.
It’s also your own respect. If you vote for National and they appoint Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs (or whatever) you’re going to feel pretty bad. Why not ask National to rule it out so that you know you’re voting with a clean conscience?
(Unless, of course, you actually want WP to continue on as Minister, in which case you should probably vote for NZF as they don’t look very secure right now).
I, for one, call on John Key to rule out any possibility of a coalitition with NZF.
AndrewE gets the chocolate fish!
For Max, J and anybody else who hasn’t been paying attention:
“Peters could be Foreign Minister in National government – Key”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501819&objectid=10502946&pnum=0
So what are you are saying is that national should rule him out as a candidate but labour should keep him in. On what basis do you support this distinction?
If labour supporters here were truly consistent then they would call on Clark to have him removed as foreign minister instead of trying to distract us with claims of what may or may not occur under a national administration.
J,
I’m not a Labour supporter, so it’s a bit hypothetical, but…
If I was a Labour supporter I would call on them to avoid NZF like the plague.
If I had voted Labour last election I would be ashamed that my vote had been used to give power and status to Winston and NZF.
But, as I said, it’s a bit academic and I obviously can’t speak for actual Labour supporters.
J
Read my earlier post (10.49). I made my views on Peters perfectly clear. In: bad. Opposition: worse. The same view as Helen Clark, and John Key. Not the same view as Andrew.
Now your turn.