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?

Stuff reports:

Environment Canterbury is standing by its report that a maximum of 4000 litres of oil spilled into the Timaru harbour last weekEnvironment Canterbury is standing by its report that a maximum of 4000 litres of oil spilled into the Timaru harbour last week, despite claims by NZ First that as much as 40,000 litres was spilled.

NZ First yesterday called on Environment Canterbury (ECan) and Timaru port authorities to reveal the extent of last week’s oil spill, which, the party said, was a “major” volume.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said in a statement he had been “reliably informed” that 40,000 litres of fuel was spilled and that all that authorities would reveal was that it was a “significant” amount.

However, ECan’s South Canterbury on-scene commander for oil spills, Grant Finlayson, told the Timaru Herald on Thursday he estimated two to four tonnes of oil had spilled, equating to a maximum of 4000 litres.

Mr Finlayson said yesterday that figure had not changed.

Oh this is a difficult one. Do we believe the first hand account of the ECan on-scene commander or do we believe Winston’s “reliable information”?

Wow, this is so very hard.

The NZ Herald reports:

The donation scandal engulfing Act leader John Banks spread last night as it emerged he lobbied personal friend and Government minister Maurice Williamson over internet tycoon and donor Kim Dotcom.

Mr Williamson, the Minister of Land Information, last night admitted Mr Banks had lobbied him over a property purchase in Coatesville, just north of Auckland, Dotcom wanted to make. …

Mr Williamson said: “John Banks did call me to advocate on behalf of Kim Dotcom with regard to the OIO [Overseas Investment Office] application on the Coatesville property. Mr Banks and I have been good friends for years. It is a matter of record that the ministers considered the application, but declined it.”

Dotcom told the Herald Mr Banks referred to being “very close” to Williamson, whose approval was necessary before he could buy the $30 million Coatesville mansion he rents.

He said the comment was made by Mr Banks in reference to his application to buy the mansion.

“He said he knows lots of people from when he was a minister. He knows Williamson … They are very close.”

Dotcom said he believed Mr Banks spoke positively to Mr Williamson about his application.

Overseas Investment Office officials left the decision on the application to ministers, and Mr Williamson approved it in April last year.

But it was eventually declined after it was rejected by Associate Finance Minister Simon Power.

Three months after approving it, Mr Williamson changed his mind and joined Mr Power in rejecting it.

I’ll come back to this issue. Also of note is:

Mr Banks yesterday continued to refuse to be interviewed, but issued a statement in which he said he was unaware Dotcom had donated to his campaign and denied ringing the internet magnate to thank him.

“I could not have, as any such contribution was anonymous.”

But he said he had spoken to Dotcom on “other matters”.

In an interview in January, Mr Banks said those other matters included advice on Dotcom’s OIO application and residency.

He said the advice was “just the process”, and their conversation was “in total of 15 minutes, maybe 20 minutes”.

It is significant that Banks is now saying he did not thank him for the donation, because in my mind that is the issue that would most undermine a defence that the donation was anonymous. I suspect any Police investigation will focus on this issue.

Let’s look at a number of related issue.

Did Banks solicit a donation from Kim Dot Com?

Yes, there seems little dispute there. It is not denied that he suggested they make it two donations of $25,000 rather than one of $50,000. The bizarre thing however is that this has no impact on disclosure.

Can you solicit a donation and then claim it is anonymous?

At parliamentary level probably not, at local government level, basically yes you can. See this post by Andrew Geddis and this post by Graeme Edgeler.

Was Banks unusual in not declaring his donors?

No. As 3 News reported, Len Brown received $499,000 of anonymous donations (Banks had $638,512). Len Brown used the legal avenue of having most donors donate to a trust and then the trust making a donation to Len Brown. This means that Len Brown could legally know who had donated to the trust (and de facto know who had donated to him), but not have to legally disclose their identity. This is also what National used to do before the law changed for parliamentary elections with the Waitemata Trust.

So the issue is not about whether a Mayoral candidate knew who donated to them. The law allows them to know, if they structure it in the right way. The law is about the identifying donations, not donors. The key issue is whether Banks broke the law. If you think Banks is unfit to be an MP because he may have a very good idea of who his likely donors are, then one would have to argue that Len Brown is unfit to be Mayor if he has a very good idea of whom may have donated to the trust which donated to his campaign.

Should the law be changed?

Yes, absolutely. The provisions of the Electoral Act around donations should basically be put into the Local Electoral Act.

Did Banks break the law?

That is for the Police to form a view on, and a court to decide. The key issue will be whether Banks knew the that Kim DotCom was the source of the two $25,000 donations. It is very hard to prove that someone knew something. However the timing of any phone call from Banks to Dot Com will be a key issue. In the Peters and Owen Glenn case, phone records showed Peters phoned his lawyer a few seconds after talking to Owen Glenn, and his lawyer then e-mailed Glenn asking for money referring to the conversation you have had with my client. That was pretty much proof beyond reasonable doubt that Peters knew of the donation.

If Banks phoned Dot Com the same day as the donations were received, or even the next day, then it makes it look more likely that the call was to thank him for the donation as Dot Com alleges. If it was some time later, then the call being for other reasons is more plausible.

Is this just like the Winston Peters and Owen Glenn case?

Yes, and no. Both involved donations, where the MP denies they knew of the donation. Both involved very wealthy donors, who seemed to be seeking “influence” rather than ideological support of a party or policy position.

The donations to the Banks campaign was before Banks was an MP, or indeed a member of the ACT Party. It relates to his local government campaign, and the disclosure requirement is the Local Electoral Act. Breaches of that are a matter for the Police, who will investigate.

The donations from Owen Glenn was made when Peters was an MP, and was to his lawyer to effectively pay for Winston’s legal expenses. This doesn’t have to be disclosed under any law, but was required to be disclosed by Parliament’s Standing Orders around disclosure of interests. The Privileges Committee was the body responsible for investigating any breaches, and did so – finding Peters did know of the donation, and had filed a false return. Labour voted in favour of Peters both at the Privileges Committee itself, and against the finding of the Privileges Committee report. They did not accept that Peters knew of the donation, despite the massive weight of evidence from phone logs and e-mails.

Should Banks be stood down while this is investigated?

I find it hard to see how this is credible. A number of MPs are under investigation by the Police for breaches of electoral laws. None of them are standing down – despite the fact these relate to breaches of the parliamentary Electoral Act not the Local Electoral Act. Helen Clark did not stand down as PM despite the referral to the Police of Labour’s $400,000 overspend.

The other factor is that the Police can take a very long time to decide on electoral law issues. Often over a year.

The appropriate threshold for a stand down in this case would be if the Police laid charges.

This is not to say that we should regard the law as the minimum ethical standard for MPs and Ministers. It is not. That is why we also have the Cabinet Manual and Standing Orders. But this allegation is about actions by Banks before he was even an MP, is not related to his duties, and the evidence is contested.

So how about the lobbying on behalf of Kim DotCom on a property purchase?

It has some parallels to the Bill Liu case

What was the case?

He was a Chinese businessman who donated to several MPs who advocated on his behalf to become a citizen. Shane Jones approved his citizenship despite strong advice from officials not to do so, as they said he had criminal convictions, and many aliases. Dover Samuels presented the citizenship to Liu in the Labour Caucus Room.

How do the cases differ?

John Banks was a private individual (neither MP, Mayor, or candidate) when he lobbied Maurice Williamson. Dover Samuels was a sitting MP.

The officials took no position on the Dot Com application, they strongly oppossed the Liu application.

Shane Jones granted Liu citizenship despite knowing of the criminal concerns. Simon Power declined consent, and Maurice Williamson after initially supporting it, also then declined it.

Should Banks have disclosed Dot Com was a donor, when he lobbied Williamson on his behalf?

Personally I think if you ever advocate on behalf of someone, you should be very upfront and transparent over your relationship and connection to them. I believe it is better to “over declare” than “under declare”. That is one reason I disclose on this blog even very minor dealings.

On the legal side, Banks as a private individual had no obligation to disclose that Dot Com had been a donor to him, even if you accept he knew Dot Com was a donor.

It will be interesting to consider whether Holly Walker’s lobbyist bill would cover situations like this one.

Again personally, I didn’t like Winston Peters lobbying to get a honorary consul position for Owen Glenn, when he knew Glenn was a donor.

I also don’t like John Banks lobbying for Kim DotCom to get a ministerial decision in his favour, when at a minimum he has good grounds to suspect that DotCom had donated to his campaign (even if he legally did not know how much, and which donations).

While disliking both sets of actions, I point out that Peters was actually the Foreign Affairs Minister when he was lobbying on behalf of Glenn, and his lawyer received the money while he was Minister. Banks was a private individual at the time he lobbied. Labour’s position was that Peters did nothing wrong with lobbying for Glenn while not disclosing he had donated $100,000 to pay Winston’s legal fees – so their outrage over Banks is totally fake.

Winston is a lot like Shane Jones – lots of natural talent, but allergic to actually doing the hard work. One example of this was when he fronted to the Electoral Commission’s review of MMP yesterday and rather then address any of the issues they are actually tasked with reviewing, talked about spending limits.

We see this lack of attention to detail, or well basic facts, in the request for a 10 per cent winter power discount for Super Gold Card holders to be included in next month’s Budget. Peters said:

New Zealand First is asking the Government to include a 10 per cent winter power discount scheme for SuperGold Card holders in the Budget next month.

Now this is a legitimate request. Personally I disagree with it, as assistance should go on the basis of need, not on the basis of age. Why should Winston himself get a 10% power discount, but not a poor struggling family? But lets even put aside the desirability of the policy, and look at the facts.

Rt Hon Winston Peters says a discount on winter electricity prices for SuperGold Card holders is the responsible thing to do in times of sharply increasing prices.

Actually he CPI records electricity costs have increased only 2.0% in the last year. Over the last three years the increase was 10%, of which 2.2% was the GST increase (which was compensated for), so an underlying increase of 7.8% over three years.

During the last term of Labour (when Peters was a Minister), electricity costs went up 22.9%. The previous three years it went up 23.8%. So the annual increase has fallen from almost 8% to just 2%.  But let’s ignore both the policy flaws and the false rhetoric.

Under the New Zealand First scheme, the cheaper electricity would be supplied by the three State Owned Enterprise-power generators – Mighty River Power, Meridian and Genesis.

Okay here is the real flaw, which shows that this is just a press release masquerading as a policy. First of all, it can’t possibly provide a rebate to all SGC holders, when only some of the generators are included. Contact Energy is the second largest generator, providing 24% of the market.

The other flaw is that generators do not know whom the end customers are unless they are also retailers. You can not ask generators to provide a discount for retail customers. It’s like asking Fonterra to supply cheaper milk to pensioners.

Mr Peters says these power companies and the Commerce Commission act as a “price-fixing cartel” which sees domestic users pay more than their fair share.

“Domestic users are paying more for power than both commercial and industrial electricity users. This imbalance will only get worse if the government proceeds with its plan to sell off the power stations to foreign companies.

This is false. My apartment and business are with the same company. As a domestic user I pay 27.35c per unit (includes line charges), and my commercial business pays $33.43c per unit.

It would potentially benefit more than 590,000 SuperGold Card holders by about $100 on their cold weather bills.

“It would cost the highly profitable state-owned power companies about $34 million a year but these companies would benefit from a larger customer base.

So in fact Peters is proposing trying to wipe out Contact Energy by having the taxpayer subsidise the SOEs.

“The power companies can easily afford it and the changes can be enacted swiftly under existing legislation, or the Government can use new legislation already prepared by New Zealand First.”

Given Peters appalling attention to detail, I’d hate to think what their legislation would look like.

The issue of electricity affordability for those on fixed incomes, in winter, is a valid one. The proposed solution, is a typical PR stunt.

Incidentally the Government has said they won’t be legislating for a 10% discount, noting that the value of the pension for a married couple has increased $194 per fortnight since the 2008 election.

Claire Trevett in NZ Herald reports:

Winston Peters says the cost of this country’s passports, which raked in $79 million last year, is a rip-off compared with many other nations’.

The NZ First leader yesterday called for lower passport fees, saying he had received a number of complaints about the cost and the five-year term for which they lasted.

A review of passport fees is expected next year.

In 2005, the fee increased from $71 and the term was reduced from 10 to five years as New Zealand moved to biometric passports.

Remind me again who was Foreign Minister from 2005 to 2008?

Now if Winston had actually done some homework, he would have looked up the DIA Annual Report, where he would find they have a memorandum account for Passports, recording each year the surplus or deficits from passports. In 2010/11 there was a surplus of around $8 million on revenue of $80 million which suggests there is room for maybe a 10% reduction. The actual income and costs of the service is what matters, now whether or not people have complained about the cost.

The previous year the surplus was $3.9m, so it is increasing.

NZ Herald reports:

Questions were raised about the best use of Parliament’s time today as MPs debated whether to repeal a WWI law that has not been used in 30 years.

The Military Manoeuvres Act was enacted in 1915 to deal with mobilisation for World War I, and enabled the Governor-General to declare any land available for a period specified for military manoeuvres.

National MP Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi launched a member’s bill in 2010 to get rid of the outdated law, and tonight the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill passed its final reading, 111 votes to eight.

NZ First voted against the repeal. Why?

Labour voted that Winston Peters did nothing wrong when he consistently lobbied on behalf his then friend Owen Glenn to be made Honorary Consul to Monaco, without revealing that Glenn had paid $100,000 of Winston’s legal costs.

Yet Labour now say that Nick Smith writing a letter on behalf of a friend testifying to her health before an accident, is terrible, and there must be an inquiry.

Don’t get me wrong. My position all along is that Nick Smith was wrong to write that letter. And doing so on letterhead even worse.

But let’s just remember the huge hypocrisy of Labour and Winston here. Winston actively lobbied and pressured MFAT and Helen Clark of behalf of Owen Glenn, in his role as Foreign Affairs Minister. And never disclosing that Glenn’s ties to him. This all went to Privileges Committee, and despite a abundance of evidence, Labour voted against the Privileges Committee report. This act of tolerance of corruption was so sickening not even Labour poodle Jim Anderton could bring himself to vote against – he abstained.

And we won’t even mention their months of defence of Taito Philip Field, claiming all he was guilty of was working too hard for his constituents.

Again this is not a defence of Nick Smith. This is just pointing out the hypocrisy from Labour and Winston. Maybe someone could ask some of the Labour MPs who voted against the Privileges Committee report why it is bad for the ACC Minister to write a reference for a friend for ACC, yet fine for the Foreign Affairs Minister to lobby for a diplomatic position on behalf of a friend who paid $100,000 of his legal bills.

Radio NZ reports:

New Zealand First is refusing to take part in the Government’s constitutional review.

The review is looking into matters such as the size of Parliament, Maori representation, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and whether New Zealand needs a written constitution.

But New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says it is sham designed to sneak the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi into all laws.

This is so typical. An inability to actually contribute constructively to anything – just mindless opposition. It would be one thing to take part, and then if you didn’t like the recommendations to depart, condemning them. But to refuse to even participate in the first place, means that you have made your mind up to oppose it regardless of what is recommended. And that is a pity because constitutional changes should have as much support as possible.

Peters lies that it is all about the Treaty. In fact many of the issues under consideration are ones he has championed – the size of Parliament and electoral integrity (waka jumping) laws. So NZ First has said we don’t want to even advocate for policies we have supported in the past.

In my blog at Stuff, I look at parliamentary privilege:

One of the privileges members of Parliament have is they they can’t be sued for defamation for statements they make in Parliament. This privilege has existed for hundreds of years and is generally regarded as desirable as it allows MPs to expose wrongdoing without being silenced by injunctions and lawsuits.

However, there is a great responsibility on MPs to get their facts right, and to apologise when they get it wrong. They can defame people under the protection of parliamentary privilege, and their victims have no legal recourse.

Winston Peters has a long history of making allegations under parliamentary privilege, and having the vast bulk of the allegations turn out to be without substance. I had hoped that these days were behind us, but this week we have seen two serious allegations made by Peters under parliamentary privilege.

I conclude:

Perhaps one of Mr Peters’ caucus colleagues could ask their leader whether or not he has any proof of his allegation that Mr McKenzie received free overseas travel from Deloitte. And if he is unable to provide them with the proof, implore him not to turn the House of Representatives into a Star Chamber.

Maybe iPredict could do a stock on whether Mr Peters will provide said proof of his allegation, and whether he would apologise for his allegation. I suspect both stocks would sell for under 5c.

Claire Trevett reports at NZ Herald:

Labour leader David Shearer has begun wooing potential coalition partners – including dinner with NZ First leader Winston Peters and calling an end to the Cold Shoulder War with Mana leader Hone Harawira.

Mr Shearer confirmed he had eaten dinner with Mr Peters last Wednesday at Wellington’s Trade Kitchen restaurant. He said it was an impromptu dinner after they appeared together on a TV3 show.

“It was just a getting together and having a bit of chat, as you’d expect.”

The pair were spotted and it was reported by blogger Cameron Slater on his Whaleoil blog. Yesterday, Mr Shearer would not divulge what they discussed.

“That’s a private conversation, not a public conversation. We didn’t invite the world’s media and put a microphone in a tea pot.”

Mr Shearer also takes a more generous view towards Mana leader Hone Harawira than his predecessor Phil Goff did. Mr Goff had ruled out working with Mr Harawira in a coalition, saying he did not believe he could be trusted.

However, Mr Shearer said although he had not specifically discussed it with Mr Harawira he had talked to him at events and it was “perfectly amicable”.

This is sensible stuff for Shearer. He is unlikely to be able to form a Government in the future without Peters and Harawira. A Labour-led Government is likely to be a Labour-Greens-NZ First-Mana Government. Of course Peters and Harawira have polar opposite views on certain issues, but that won’t stop them accepting Ministerial positions.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says John Key should also be referred to police over his hosting of a radio show, not just RadioLive. …

I’m staggered that Stuff have not reported on the hypocrisy of that statement by Peters.

You see in 2008, the Electoral Commission referred NewstalkZB to the Police, for a prohibited election programme. And what was that election programme? It was an talkback programme hosted by Winston Peters (and another one by Shane Jones).

So Winston in 2008, did exactly what the PM did in 2011.

Unless Winston is being a total hypocrite (which of course he is), one can only conclude that he thinks he should have been referred to the Police in 2008, not just NewstalkZB.

Unlike Key, who did not talk about politics, Peters said during his talkback hosting:

We don’t mind who you vote for in your first vote, but buy yourself some insurance and give New Zealand First your party vote, your second vote

The Electoral Commission concluded in 2008:

the talkback programmes hosted by Winston Peters MP and Shane Jones MP, and broadcast on NewsTalk ZB, were broadcast in circumstances amounting to the commission of offences for the purposes of section 80 of the Broadcasting Act 1989

So let’s not hold our breath waiting for Winston to demand that he also be referred to the Police. Hopefully though the media will at least mention the gross hypocrisy.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Opposition parties are outraged National is using the members’ bill ballot to advance laws updating old statutes which could be put through Parliament as government legislation.

Oh what a beat up by Labour and NZ First. Almost every members’ bill ever put up by a Government MP could be put through as government legislation in theory. But it is good for backbench MPs to gain experience of being in charge of a bill, and more importantly often law reform can occur quicker through the members ballot.

Labour and NZ First say their democratic right to progress their own legislation is being hampered by frivolous legislation.

The irony, after Labour fucked over the Greens and all other opposition MPs in 2008 2011 by fillibustering the VSM bill all year blocking all other members legislation. The hypocrisy as always is immense.

I mean Labour even fucked over their own private bill on behalf of the Royal Society of NZ, with their filibustering. Again, what effing hypocrites.

And Labour and NZ First are effectively arguing that National backbench MPs should not have the democratic right to enter bills into the members ballot. They are just sour because a National MP won one of the two spots.

Let us look at how many members (not Ministers) had bills in the last ballot from each party.

• National just 9 bills from 35 backbench MPs
• Labour had 15 bills from 34 MPs – so not even half their MPs bothered to submit a bill and they complain they are not winning the ballot
• Greens had 14 bills from 14 MPs – excellent
• NZ First had 1 bill from 8 MPs – again what hypocrisy complaining when someone else wins
• Maori Party – 1 bill from 1 backbench MP
• Mana Party – no bills from 1 MP

So maybe Labour and NZ First would be better spent submitting more bills to the ballot, rather than whining that National MPs are entering in bills they don’t like.

A member’s bill by National’s new MP for Tamaki Simon O’Connor was one of two to be drawn from the ballot yesterday.

The Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill seeks to abolish a 1964 law protecting the family home.

O’Connor said the Law Commission recommended scrapping the old law which “afforded the family home protection against the winds of financial adversity” because it was unused as the same protections were afforded in more recent legislation.

Asked why he had taken up the cause, O’Connor said there was a number of bills the Government had suggested its MPs look at adopting in their names.

“This one was suggested to me and I was happy to put my name to it.”

This has been the practice for Government MPs for as long as I can recall. Not all members bills are like this, but many are. In this particular case, this bill has been on the ballot for around two years – previously under the name of Jo Goodhew.

The Law Commission actually recommended in 2001 (off memory) that this law be repealed. The reality is that it is highly unlikely to ever be deemed a high enough priority by Cabinet to be given legislative priority. Hence a members bill means the law actually gets repealed.

Note again – the law was recommended for repeal in 2001.

Labour’s shadow leader of the House, Trevor Mallard, said it was “outrageous”.

“That sort of bill can be progressed through a statutes amendment bill or omnibus bill, where there is no argument about it.”

It was an unnecessary use of parliamentary time to do something that would have happened anyway, he said.

A simple question then. Why did Labour not repeal the law in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008?

“Someone who just signs on the dotted line to introduce legislation is effectively saying ‘at the moment there’s nothing more important in my electorate that this’.

“I feel quite sad for him.”

Trevor shows how he is a dinosaur of the past, who should stay there. First of all List MPs get to submit members bills also. Secondly, Very few members bills relate to an MPs electorate.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said it was an inappropriate use of the members’ bill process.

“This is just a device where (National) has used private members’ facilities to prosecute government policy.”

It blocked up the ballot, which limits MPs to one bill each, by increasing the number of National bills.

This comes from the leader of the party who submitted only one bill out of 8 MPs. Stop being a whining loser and go submit more bills into the next ballot if you want to improve your chances of winning.

Think if National adopted Labour’s tactics? They could filibuster a members’ bill all year long, so there are no more members ballots in 2012. That would really give them something to complain about. Yet, it would be exactly what Labour did in 2008 2011.

At Stuff I blog on Winston’s dilemma:

The sale of the Crafar farms must pose an awful dilemma for Winston Peters.

The leading bid for the 8000 hectares of farmland is $210 million from Shanghai Pengxin, a Chinese company.

Winston has spent most of the last 20 years railing against the Chinese. He has railed against Chinese immigration to New Zealand, he has railed against Chinese investment in New Zealand and despite being the foreign minister, railed against the 2008 free trade agreement with China (despite its having increased our exports to China by $3 billion and reducing our current account and trade deficits). …

But look at who else is lined up to buy them. Sir Michael Fay leads a group which is offering $170 million for the farms – $40 million less than Pengxin. If Pengxin is turned down, then Fay will pick the farms up for $40 million less than the market price.

Now if there is one person that Winston Peters hates and rails against even more than the Chinese, it is surely Fay. Peters alleged all sorts of wrongdoings by Fay and Richwhite in the late 80s and early 90s, and this led to the Winebox inquiry.

It gives me a certain pleasure to reflect that whatever the outcome, Winston will be unhappy

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has warned that planned Foreign Affairs job losses and the closure of overseas posts will cost more in the long run than they save.

A State Services Commission report last year said the ministry was looking at slashing 200 jobs out of almost 1000.

An announcement on the details is expected soon.

Peters, a former minister of foreign affairs who negotiated a big increase in funding for the portfolio, said a “slash and burn exercise” would seriously affect this country’s overseas trade.

He said the move was a “serious, retrograde step” at a time New Zealand was desperately trying to increase its export trade.

Phil Goff has also joined in the bleating, arguing that more bureaucrats in MFAT will increase exports. If only, it was so simple.

As it happens exports have been growing quite nicely. In the last three years, they have increased 15.1% to $46.1b. That’s pretty good considering the wobbly global economy. Why have they increased?

Well exports to China have increased 169.5% to $5.6b. The dollar increase of $3.5b makes up 59% of the overall increase in exports.

It was three years ago we signed a Free Trade Agreement with China. An agreement that Peters as Foreign Minister not only refused to vote for, but actively campaigned against with a newspaper ad campaign urging people to sign up in opposition to the FTA.

So Peters’ record is having opposed the China FTA which saw exports to China increase 170%, and instead his solution is more bureaucrats in MFAT.  I doubt I have seen a more moronic economic prescription in recent times.

The Canterbury Star reports:

One of Canterbury’s newest MPs wants to ban the burqa and arm bank tellers, dairy owners and taxi drivers.  

NZ First list MP Richard Prosser garnered just 538 votes in the Waimakariri electorate, but swept into Parliament on the strength of party leader Winston Peters’ rise from the grave.  

He makes no apology for the strength of the controversial Rightist ideas he has been pushing for almost 10 years. 

Oh armed taxi drivers would be hilarious fun. You know how the taxi drivers honks and curses when someone cuts them off in traffic? Well now they’ll be able to mow them down.

And think if two drivers get into a dispute over a cab rank. They can sort it out with a duel.

On compulsory military training: “There will be the pacifists, the weaklings, the other cowards and bludgers … who will conscientiously object … they can spend a couple of years picking up rubbish off the beaches and digging out long-drops for DOC instead.”

At least with CMT, people will be better equipped to handle being shot at by bank tellers or taxi drivers.

“As recently as 1973 every bank in New Zealand had a pistol under the counter and tellers undertook regular revolver training.

Really? Can someone confirm this?

He suggests “dairy owners and householders alike” should be allowed to have a “shotgun within reach, and taxi drivers as well as cops should almost be required to have at least a Walther PPK clipped to the sun visor”.

I like how he specifies the brand of the gun. I hope us bloggers will be allowed them also to cope with the stalkers.

I love how so many lefties tactically voted to get NZ First into Parliament. They have made life so much more enjoyable for us bloggers.

Danya Levy at SST reports:

New MP Richard Prosser dreams of a New Zealand where compulsory military training has returned and the burqa is banned.

The Canterbury-based NZ First list MP has some controversial ideas, many of which he has voiced in his column in Investigate magazine.

The 44-year-old is one of eight NZ First MPs elected to parliament last week. …

Compulsory military training had many social, economic and military benefits, Prosser has written. He stands by that, saying it would be good for New Zealand.

He also stands by his call that New Zealand should follow France’s lead and ban the burqa – a move which had, he wrote, outraged “Muslims, leftists, commies, pinkos, the entire anti-white western civilisation brigade, along with their media toadies”.

You know a Labour/Green/NZ First Government could be quite enjoyable, from a spectator point of view.

Prosser acknowledged he was not a “lone wolf” and his ideas would have to go through the party framework.

“But I’ve got a mark to make. I don’t come in here thinking I know everything, but I’m not going to breathe through my nose.

Absolutely. I encourage all new NZ First MPs to speak their minds.

MPs in

Winston Peters, Tracey Martin, Andrew Williams, Richard Prosser, Barbara Stewart Brendan Horan, Denis O’Rourke, Asenati Taylor. Their No 9 candidate Helen Jane Mulford holds the 121st quotient and could come in, but traditionally NZ First does not do so well on specials

MPs out

None

Result

7.5/10.An excellent result for Peters. He capitalised on his opportunities and not only made 5%, but made it easily. He has proven himself the great survivor and NZ First is only the second political party to be elected to an MMP Parliament that did not already have a sitting MP (ACT in 1996 was the first).

The score would match National’s if they had ended up holding the balance of power.

Challenges

The short-term challenge is the caucus. Few of them have significant parliamentary or even political experience. Peters need to put in a place a strong experienced Chief of Staff to help managed them. My pick would be former MP and Party President Doug Woolerton. Rumour has it that Michael Laws is also a contender. Michael’s cunning is second to none, but his relationship with Winston goes through ups and downs.

The longer-term challenges depend on what Winston wants. If his major motivation is revenge on John Key, then he could well be placed to achieve that in 2014 by denying National a third term. If his motivation is to become a Minister again, then his challenge is to convince National and Labour that he can be a stable player.

Peters is 66. I can see him standing again in 2014 when he will be 69, but in 2017 he will be 72 and would be commiting to still be an MP at age 75 if he contested that election. There are two paths ahead for NZ First. One is that Peters remains Leader and an MP indefinitely, and when he goes, NZ First goes.

The second path is that Peters uses the next two terms to build up leadership sucessors such as Andrew Williams and Brendan Horan, with a managed transition heading into maybe 2017. Then Peters gets the ultimate legacy – a party that survives him.

Winston has said:

Rt Hon Winston Peters says the National Party’s paid blogger David Farrar is spreading confusion about New Zealand First on the last day of the election campaign at the behest of politicians who should know better.

Winston normally starts with a lie, and he rarely disappoints. I’m not paid by anyone to blog. The blog does gain some revenue though through advertising, and the major advertisers this election have been Labour, Greens and Forest & Bird.

And the blog post was not at the behest of any politician. Not a single person knew I was going to blog on this, until it appeared. The issue only came to my attention this morning.

Farrar has written a blog about New Zealand First claiming it is an incorporated society when in fact it is a registered political party. An incorporated society simply holds and protects the name “New Zealand First”, which has been the case since 1993.

Winston is claiming there are really two New Zealand Firsts. I quote in rebuttal from an article by David Fisher, then of the Listener on 16 August 2008:

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.”

Winston is again relying on deception. If they were different entities, why would other rules changes been filed with the Registrar.

I also quote his party president:

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

No one but Winston thinks they are separate entities. remember this is the man who said on dozens of occasions that he knew nothing of the $100,000 donation from Owen Glenn.

An investigation by Kiwiblog has found that the candidacy of Winston Peters for New Zealand First is illegal under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908.

Unlike other political parties, New Zealand First is an incorporated society. That means it has to obey the rules laid down under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908.

Section 21(2) of the Act states:

Every alteration of the rules must be—

• (a) in writing; and

• (b) signed by at least 3 members of the society; and

• (c) delivered to the Registrar accompanied by a certificate by an officer of the society or a solicitor certifying that the alteration has been made in accordance with the rules.

And Section 21(3) states:

The Registrar, if satisfied that the alteration has been duly made, and that the rules as so altered conform in all respects to this Act, shall register the alteration in like manner as in the case of the original rules, and the said alteration shall thereupon take effect according to the tenor thereof.

In plain English this means that any rule change for an incorporated society does not take effect until the Register has approved them. This is well known to lawyers.

NZ First says they changed the rules of NZ First back in July to allow the Leader to be a list candidate, without being an electorate candidate. However they have not filed this rule change with the Registrar of Incorporated Societies and hence, the old rules still apply. They have filed them with the Electoral Commission *but only after I blogged pointing out they have not) but not with the Registrar as the website shows. There have been no rules changes registered since 2008.

This means the version of their constitution which is still legally in force states:

Rule 46(b):

A List candidate must first be selected as an Electorate candidate

Winston Peters did not get selected as an electorate candidate, so his nomination as a list candidate is illegal under the rules of the NZ First Party, as governed by the Incorporated Societies Act.

If he is not a legal candidate for the New Zealand First Party, then any election of him to Parliament can be challenged. This has happened before when a nomination has been accepted (Kelly Chal for united Future in 2002) but after the election it was found she was ineligible and she was removed from the United Future party list.

The case is more complicated here as it is the Incorporated Societies Act, not the Electoral Act, that makes Peters an illegal candidate for New Zealand First. I can almost guarantee you though that if he is elected, lawyers will be looking to take legal action. Incorporated Societies can be forced to obey their own rules, as we saw in the legal action against the NZ Rugby Football Union over a proposed tour of South Africa.

If Peters is removed from their party list, then presumably No 2 Tracey Martin would become the Leader of NZ First.

They’ve now tried to cover up their endorsement of Winston, but the fact is they did endorse him and it is just too good not to mock.

Some Labour supporters have been saying they may tactically vote for Winston to bring him in, as that is their only chance of forming a Government. If they do, I hope they enjoy this reminder of their fellow voters.

I blogged yesterday how the neo-nazis of the Right Wing Resistance had blogged urging people to vote for NZ First.

They seem to have had a fall off in support, as they have now edited their blog post, Pete George pointed out in a comment:

“In this country we must vote for the smaller parties…” replaces “If you want traditional Kiwi life vote NZ First.”

Hat Tip: Keeping Stock

No I am not making this up.

The white supremacist Right Wing Resistance urge their members to vote for MMP and Winston:

Don’t make the mistake to vote for anything but MMP, the tricky slimy government have tried to confuse people by chucking in other options, MMP ain’t perfect but its better then the one party system these anti democratic people want to go back to.

I will say it here and now, if you vote National or Labour your just voting in the same bunch of liars and hypocrites, who blame each other for things they do themselves, their MPs have been ripping off the system, neither of them can stick to their promises, and they both are happy to sell us down the river, Labour started asset sales, don’t forget that. They also sold out our work force with the free trade deals that make companies send their factories into other countries. They are immoral and will continue to bring in anti family policies.

National and Labour serve foreign interests not New Zealand. They will both swamp us with immigration, they will both serve the wealthy on the backs of the poor, don’t be fooled by them again, vote for the other parties. get blue and red out. If you want traditional Kiwi life vote NZ First.

Now you can’t choose who endorses you, but for NZ First it must be no surprise that their anti-immigration and anti-Asian rhetoric attracts support from white supremacists.