0 Emmerson on Peters' castle

New Zealand First celebrates 21 years at the party's annual conference this weekend. And List MP Richard "Wogistan" Prosser has a policy which should find plenty of red-necked support; the Herald reports:

A hardline law and order policy by NZ First would offer greater protection to homeowners, farmers and shop keepers who shoot to kill intruders during home invasions or burglaries.
Along with a 40-year mandatory non-parole sentence for premeditated murder, NZ First wants the Crimes Act amended to give certainty over the use of "reasonable force" for self-defence.
Ahead of the party's annual convention this weekend, law and order spokesman Richard Prosser said the policy was a response to a string of incidents that had seen farmers and shopkeepers in court over their use of firearms or even hockey sticks against would-be robbers.
Mr Prosser said so-called "castle doctrine" laws in some US states, which saw Texan Joe Horn acquitted after his 2007 fatal shooting of two men who had burgled his neighbour's home, were "so over the top that it wouldn't be something that I think anyone in New Zealand would give consideration to".
"But what I do think people have a desire for is the ability to actually defend themselves and their families in their own homes."

Mr Prosser wants a regime based on that introduced in Ireland in 2011 following controversy over the 2004 shooting of an Irish traveller by a farmer.
NZ First's proposal would allow for homeowners to use "any firearm that is lawfully available to that person" to defend themselves.

It's certainly an interesting policy from NZ First. And it has attracted Rod Emmerson's attention, which isn't necessarily a good thing for Winston First:

Anyway, congratulations to Winston and his cult party. Surviving for 21 years is quite an achievement, although Winston First's longer-term survival is not by any means set in concrete and the party appears not to have a succession plan.

Perhaps Emmerson's cartoon is a depiction of what it'll be like the day that Winston is voted out again, and someone comes round to give him the bad news!

0 Conspiracy 101; Dotcom channels Peters

We know that Winston Peters visited Kim Dotcom's rental house in Coatesville last year. We now know the reason; Peters was taking the Large German Gentleman through a crash course in Conspiracy 101.

The Herald reports on Dotcom's latest fantasy:

Kim Dotcom is challenging government minister Jonathan Coleman to explain why he didn't block his application for residency after learning of an FBI investigation into him.
Dotcom claims Immigration officials broke their own rules to grant him residency in a ploy to lure him to New Zealand so the FBI would have an easier time of extraditing him on criminal copyright charges.
There were denials from the Government yesterday of interference in Dotcom's residency after emails between SIS agents in 2010 cited "political pressure to process this case". The claim was made 90 minutes before the spy agency lifted its objection to the tycoon's residency.
Dotcom said it was hard to believe then-Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman was told of the FBI investigation on October 28, 2010 - the day his residency was decided - and then didn't move to block it.
"Why in the world with that knowledge would the Minister of Immigration not intervene and say this is going to be a bad look for us knowing there is an investigation and a desire to extradite.

[They would say] we can't give this guy residency just because of the money ..."
He claims a decision to work with the US to get him into New Zealand for easier extradition was behind the decision.
Dotcom said his bid for residency should have failed because of Immigration NZ rules which automatically put applications on hold for six months if those seeking entry are under "investigation".

This is fanciful stuff from Dotcom, and from his biographer David Fisher who moonlights as an "independent" NZ Herald journalist. 

It was Dotcom who applied for New Zealand residence, via his agent David Cooper from Malcolm Pacific, the country's leading immigration consultancy. 

And it was Mr Cooper who convinced Immigration New Zealand to overlook pending convictions for share-trading offences in Hong Kong.

But most significantly, it was Mr Cooper delivering ultimatums to Immigration New Zealand on behalf of his client as 3News reported on 14 March 2012:

Internet tycoon Kim Dotcom threatened to withdraw his residency application and take his money elsewhere unless New Zealand immigration authorities met his deadline, new documents reveal.

Dotcom, who faces internet piracy charges in the United States over his file-sharing website Megaupload, was granted New Zealand residency in 2010 in exchange for investing $10 million in New Zealand under the Immigration Plus category.

Documents released to the Associated Press show Dotcom set a deadline for immigration officials to approve his application, with a threat that he would otherwise move to Australia or Canada.

On October 26, immigration manager Gareth Grigg sent a memo to a colleague, saying he had been advised by Dotcom's immigration agent David Cooper that "Mr Dotcom wants a decision on his application by 1 November 2010 or he will walk away".

Despite Mr Grigg's warning that "Mr Dotcom may be seen to be controlling the processing of his application" or receiving special treatment, Dotcom's residency was approved on November 1.

For Dotcom to now claim that he was lured here under false pretences is so bizarre it defies belief. And he is essentially arguing that he ought not have been approved for residence in the first place; a point with which we find agreement!

Perhaps the easiest way forward now would be for the Immigration New Zealand to admit that Dotcom ought not have been granted residence, revoke his residence permit, and serve him with a removal notice. If Dotcom doesn't think that he should have been given residence in the first place, then he would have no grounds to appeal the revocation!

In the meantime, Dotcom should leave the conspiracy theories to Winston Peters. And David Fisher should stick to writing Dotcom's publicity material, instead of pretending to present a neutral, accurate version of events to readers.

0 Quote of the Day - 2 July 2014

This was sent to us overnight by an alert reader. It's Bill English's answer to a supplementary question during Question Time yesterday:

John Hayes : What reports has he seen supporting the Government’s approach to investing proceeds from the share offer programme in new public assets?

Hon BILL ENGLISH : I have seen reports from an unlikely source: an alternative budget that was issued in the last week or two. The reports indicate that this alternative approach to the Government’s finances will continue the current Government’s approach of using proceeds from the share offer programme. The Opposition budget includes the $4.7 billion proceeds from the asset sales being spent on public assets, which was rather a surprise given that they had spent 4 years vigorously opposing the policy. 

This one seems to have snuck under the radar just a tad, as answers to patsy questions from Government backbenchers often do.

But this one is particularly significant. Labour appears to have factored in the proceeds of partial asset sales into its "alternative budget". Doesn't it make all the hot air generated by the Greens and Labour as they railed against asset sales all seem a little hollow, if Labour is simply going to go an a spending spree with the loot?

We guess it answers one question though. There is clearly going to be no buy-back of the shares in Air New Zealand, Mighty River Power, Meridian and Genesis, because Labour can only spend the money once. 

And wasn't a buy-back of assets a bottom line for Winston Peters in potential coalition negotiations? Has Labour slammed the door in Mr Peters' face to go on a spending spree with the Greens?

David Cunliffe and David Parker are economic hypocrites. They should not be allowed within a bull's roar of the Treasury benches.

0 Armstrong on extinct birds - and moa!

John Armstrong lampoons the fighting-for-survival Trevor Mallard and his leader this morning. In a column headed Moa no goer, but Cunliffe must wish dead ducks could fly Armstrong opines:

Trevor Mallard's mind-boggling suggestion to harness science to bring the moa back to life will likely end up being much-a-dodo about nothing.
And won't David Cunliffe be relieved. Trying to breathe life of its own into his faltering leadership, Cunliffe had recently promised that Labour henceforth would be focusing on "the things that matter".
Mallard may have misunderstood his leader, but it is unlikely that the "matter" Cunliffe was referring to was recovered DNA from moa egg shells.
Along with his front-bench colleagues, Cunliffe had to grin through gritted teeth as they were lampooned mercilessly by Government MPs for much of Parliament's afternoon hour-long question-time and beyond.
Never one to look a gift moa in the mouth, National's Steven Joyce kicked off the mass ribbing by manipulating his forearm and hand to resemble the neck and head of a moa and then waved the ensemble at arriving Labour MPs -- a pantomime act so polished that Joyce must have devoted all but a few moments of his lunchtime to perfecting it.

Trevor Mallard certainly provided a fertile topic with which the Government could mock the Labour Party. And of course David Cunliffe won't have been grateful for that as he tried to attack the Government's record on education using questions that may well have been written for him by NZEI.

But surprisingly (or not!), it was another parliamentarian from the Jurassic era who copped the best sledge of the afternoon; read on:

The subsequent deluge of puns and wisecracks became progressively more lame from thereon -- with one exception. When Winston Peters got to his feet, National backbencher Scott Simpson interjected: "A live moa!".
Peters -- for once -- was silenced, albeit briefly. He had no answer to Simpson's clever jibe, which labelled Peters a dinosaur without calling him a dinosaur.

Winston Peters looked a little confused by Simpson's jibe, and didn't quite know what to make of it. Then again, and to be fair, confusion has been Peters' hallmark of late, and he still looks far from well. He may even have felt in need of a dose of Mallard de-extinction yesterday, not that we would ever suggest that anyone try to clone Mr Peters!

For Trevor Mallard though, this was a clever move. Facing a real fight for political survival, he got a day's free publicity, and as the experts say, there is no such thing as bad publicity, especially with an election just around the corner. 

There was another benefit as well, notable for the fact that Mr Mallard is the de facto president of the ABC (Anyone But Cunliffe) faction within Labour. Armstrong concludes:

The person who should have been quivering in embarrassment at having created yet another distraction from Labour's less zany efforts to connect with voters instead seemed to be revelling in all the attention. Maybe Mallard has been so ostrich-cised (sorry) by Cunliffe that he no longer cares too much what he says or does. To escape Cunliffe's fury, Mallard could have argued his idea was a cunning plan to outflank the Greens. The latter have been devoting much time and energy to saving the Maui's dolphin from extinction. Labour could go one better by saving an already extinct species ... well, from extinction. On the other hand, maybe not.
When it comes to saving animals headed for extinction, Cunliffe would probably happily exchange a dead duck for a live moa.
Before you could say Dinornis giganteus novaezealandiae, however, Cunliffe had decreed the moa was not a goer. Like Mallard's wacky idea, this bird was never going to fly.

Regular readers will be aware that we are not members of the Trevor Mallard fan club. But give the man his due; this was clever stuff from the veteran MP. He managed to boost his own profile for a day, and stop his leader getting Labour's message out; a Machiavellian master-stroke.

And perhaps that's why Labour doesn't want the media present at its "congress" this weekend. Maybe there's going to be some DNA experimentation going on. Is a reconstituted Norman Kirk about to gazzump Grant Robertson's plans to assume the Labour leadership after the election?

Maybe Trevor Mallard is on to something after all... 

0 Hide on Labour's risky strategy

Rodney Hide reckons that Labour is walking a tightrope with the Donghua Liu donations saga. In his Herald on Sunday piece, and under the headline Risky response to donor row Hide opines:

Deny, deny, deny. Attack, attack, attack. That's been Labour's response to businessman Donghua Liu claiming he donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Party.
Labour's strategy is risky. It is challenging Liu's honesty and integrity. He's no doubt feeling aggrieved. The danger for Labour is that Liu produces documents, witnesses and photographs confirming his substantial donations.
That's what did it for Winston Peters in 2008. Sir Owen Glenn was able to prove the donations that Peters denied.
Labour also risks drying up its donations. Attacking a donor is hardly encouraging to others. I doubt there will too many Chinese charity auctions for Labour this election.
It's a risky response but Labour's entire attack strategy has been risky. Attacking John Banks for declaring Dotcom's donations as anonymous ran the risk that its own house wasn't in order. Likewise in attacking Maurice Williamson for ringing the police on Liu's behalf.

Cunliffe's letter 11 years ago for Liu wouldn't have mattered except for the hellfire and brimstone he visited on National for similar advocacy. It's true Cunliffe wasn't ringing the police. It's true Liu wasn't facing charges. But such difference matters constitutionally. It doesn't matter politically.
As far as headlines and soundbites go, Cunliffe has been caught doing exactly what he railed against.

Hide is dead right; perception is everything in politics,and the perception is that David Cunliffe has been a hypocrite. He and his MP's attacked National with relish, and made all sorts of accusations towards National MP's.

Had they restricted themselves to simply attacking National MP's, this may have passed without comment. But the likes of Trevor Mallard, aided and abetted by Winston Peters who relishes any opportunity to attack Chinese, made a series of allegation against National's apparent mate. One of those accusations was that he was downright corrupt, offering cash for changes to immigration policy. Like most of the accusations Mr Mallard makes, always under the cover of parliamentary privilege, he has yet to substantiate it.

But Labour took things one step too far, impugning Donghua Liu's reputation. That's when he started talking about his links to the Labour Party, at a time when David Cunliffe was a senior Minister. The rest, as they say, is (or will be) history.

Hide continues:

So where are we now? Confused. Liu said he gave substantial money to the Labour Party. The Labour Party says it has no record of it, and hasn't reported any donations from Liu.
But it's quite possible that everyone is telling the truth. The money could have been stolen. That would mean Liu gave the money but Labour never received it. Charity auctions and the like are often chaotic and it is too easy to have no one properly in charge of recording and receipting all payments and donations. This is especially so in political events. Volunteers are enthusiastic but not necessarily experienced and politicians are anxious to stay well away from money changing hands.
Indeed, a big part of Cunliffe's problem - and Banks' and Williamson's - is that politicians shy away from fundraising details precisely to avoid the perception that cash influences decision-making.

It is indeed possible that no one in Labour actually saw any of the money donated by Liu; possible, but highly improbable, we would say. We base that on information that we have heard in the last week; information which may or may not have got as far as Jared Savage from the NZ Herald. If even some of it is correct, Labour had better hope that no one has broken ranks. 

And Donghua Liu lawyering up, and giving documents to Paul Davidson QC whilst seeking financial records from his homeland ought to be worrying to Labour. What is in the financial records that Mr Liu is so anxious to share with his lawyer?

Hide closes, with a message that might send shivers up David Cunliffe's spine:

The safer course of action for the Labour Party would be to say it was treating the matter seriously. That would mean thanking Liu for coming forward with his information and inviting the police to investigate. The police could try to trace the money, letting Cunliffe off the hook. He would have done everything by the book. He would be open and upfront. It would also kill the story. He couldn't comment while police were investigating.
But Labour didn't do that. It denied and attacked.
There's a reason politicians do the things they do. Cunliffe couldn't be sure what the police would find. Calling in the police runs the risk of finding out more than Cunliffe wants to know.

David Cunliffe ought to remember that a "deny, deny, deny; attack, attack, attack" strategy is akin to poking a stick into a wasp's nest. As leader of the party, David Cunliffe is the one most likely to be stung if the wasps decide to fight back, and he is forced to defend, defend, defend.

There's an old saying in politics; never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. That would appear to be a strategic mistake on the part of Mr Cunliffe, and those who advise him, or who blog on Labour's behalf. It is going to be fascinating to see where this story goes, but a tweet yesterday from Herald editor Tim Murphy provides a clue:

We'd say the Donghua Liu saga still has some surprise twists and turns, and the exhortations to "move on" from the likes of Greg Presland towards the end of the week just gone may have been more in hope than anything else.  

0 Labour backs a loser

There has been a lot of xenophobic fighting talk this year from Labour over immigration. David Cunliffe promised to slash immigration numbers, then progressively backed away from that, as he is wont to do.

But if Labour was hoping to out-Winston Winston Peters in its attacks on immigration, it is going to fail; Stuff reports:

Scaremongering by opposition parties on immigration seems to be misplaced, with the issue barely registering as a concern among voters, a new poll reveals.
Labour and NZ First are raising the impact of migration on housing and interest rates as September's general election approaches.
But in the latest Stuff.co.nz/Ipsos poll, just 4 per cent of respondents cite immigration as the most important issue the country faces.
The economy (20.6 per cent), education (21.6), health (19.2) and unemployment (14.3) are the top four issues important to voters. A little over 12 per cent were worried about housing affordability.
In the past year, around 71,000 immigrants arrived in New Zealand - the highest number in 11 years. The poll asked if migration levels should change; 44.5 per cent said they should not.
However, most respondents believe a policy that would restrict non-residents buying property would be "somewhat effective". Among Aucklanders, in the midst of a housing shortage, the top response was "very effective".
Last month Labour leader David Cunliffe blamed immigrants for rising house prices.
"It would take 80 per cent of our housing supply just to accommodate this year's migrants - and National is doing nothing," he said.
Among Asians (15 per cent) and those not in paid employment (7.4), immigration was of most concern.
Labour has signalled it will look at controlling inward migration and work permits as a way to dampen housing demand and general price inflation. 

Under Helen Clark's leadership, Labour regarded itself as the natural home for those who have chosen New Zealand as a destination to migrate to. A lot has changed in six years however, and Labour is now openly hostile towards immigration, in the worst traditions of Peters. 

But it would appear that there is only room for one anti-immigration party, and Peters already has the market cornered:

Immigration has long been a touch-stone for NZ First leader Winston Peters, who claims it drives up property prices and inflation and will make NZ Super unaffordable. Concern is highest - at 8 per cent - among those who intend to vote NZ First.
The poll also shows Kiwis have an accurate perception of the levels of migration. It asked respondents to estimate what percentage of the population was born overseas. The average response was 25.92 per cent - very close to Statistics NZ figures, which recorded 25.2 per cent for 2013. 
Immigration minister Michael Woodhouse said the results were not surprising. "It suggests to me that Messrs Cunliffe and co are missing the point. I would interpret it as saying there is a minority of people who think it should decrease but actually it's not that important to them."
Labour's immigration spokesman, Trevor Mallard, said the debate around economic tools should not be stifled because some people took a racist approach. "You can't ignore migration because a small proportion of New Zealanders are racist." The question was whether more could be done around "peaks and troughs" of migration. 
"Where you can see a net spike then it is worth looking at ways you can level that off . . . I think it is important the tools work both ways - that it is pro-migration in a negative cycle and knowing the peak of migration when the economy is overheated."
Peters said the result was wrong and he did not listen to polls. 

The last sentence there is illuminating. Of course Winston Peters listens to the polls; they tell him when it is time to intensify the anti-immigration rhetoric in an election year.

This year however, David Cunliffe has already cut Peters off at the pass. His attacks on immigration though have been far less successful than those of Peters, partly because Labour's immigration policy has been so confused.

But the damage has been done. Labour has tried to steal a political march by going feral on immigrants, when immigration is low down on the list of thinks that matter to voters, except the dwindling number of voters who support Mr Peters. And to give him a rare bit of credit, at least Peters has been consistent in his xenophobia for 20 years, whereas David Cunliffe is a latter-day convert.

But once again, Labour has backed a loser. This is becoming too much of a trend.

0 Pay your own fine Hone

Hone Harawira is in trouble over trouble he was in last year. If that sounds confusing, hopefully the Herald will explain:

Current and former MPs and "ordinary people" banded together to pay the $632 fine Hone Harawira received last year for defying police at a 2012 Auckland housing protest.
But while one of his Mana Party contenders claims Winston Peters was among the donors, Mr Harawira will not name them, even though it appears he is required to do so under parliamentary rules.
The Mana Party leader was arrested when he joined protesters fighting the removal of state houses in the East Auckland suburb of Glen Innes. He was alleged to have locked himself in his car and turned his music up, blocking a Housing New Zealand-contracted truck from leaving with one of the homes.
Several months later he was found guilty of failing to comply with a police instruction, fined $500 and ordered to pay $132 court costs.
But last week at a public meeting of Housing NZ tenants in Grey Lynn, the sole nominee for Mana Party candidate for Tamaki Makaurau, Kereama Pene, said: "Our Mana leader was dragged out of his car in GI.

He got done for it. Do you know who paid his $500 fine?"
Someone called out "Kim Dotcom!".
But Mr Pene said: "No, it was worse than that, much worse than that, it was Winston Peters."
Mr Harawira last week confirmed he received assistance to pay the fine but would not say who from.
"I don't want to go naming names. Some of them were ex-MPs, some of them were current MPs, some of them were just ordinary people from GI and from other walks of life."
The money was paid "in the same way that people helped fundraise to help myself and my wife go to South Africa last year [for Nelson Mandela's funeral]. I think they just genuinely supported what I was trying to achieve."

Hone Harawira has dug a hole for himself. Instead of just shelling out the $632 himself, he fell back on socialism's favourite approach, and paid it with Other People's Money.

It's not like Hone is poor or anything. He's on a salary of $147,800, plus the added allowance for being a minor party leader. He's certainly in the top bracket of income earners in New Zealand, and probably closer to the 1% which he so frequently condemns that he would like to be.

Winston Peters, of course, denies shelling out, and Hone's saying nowt:

Meanwhile, Mr Peters said Mr Pene was wrong about him paying the fine.
He recalled it wasn't a big fine and on being told it was $500, asked: "Why didn't he pay it himself?"
However, the fine, including costs, is large enough to require disclosure under the rules for Parliament's Register of Pecuniary Interests because it was paid by someone other than Mr Harawira.
The rules also require the identity of those paying off MPs' debts to be declared.
Mr Harawira last night refused to comment on what he said was a "petty" matter.

We've got news for Mr Harawira; this is NOT a petty manner. He was convicted of a criminal offence whilst acting publicly in his capacity as an MP, then he accepted donations to pay the fine, having been found guilty by the Court. He is required by law to declare the donations, and if he refuses to do so he could find himself in front of Parliament's privileges committee.

The law applies to every New Zealander. Hone Harawira cannot simply opt out of his legal obligations because of the political implications of them. He's made his bed, and now he has to lie in it; not from it.

0 Photo of the Day - 30 May 2014

Eat your heart out Winston; Grey Power Upper Hutt has a new darling:

Maybe the Grey Power folk didn't like Winston's "Jimmy Savile" smear either. Is Grey Power's love affair with Winston First on the rocks?

0 Quote of the Day - 29 May 2014

The Dom-Post manages to send a strong message to David Cunliffe and Labour whilst barely naming them. Under the headline Immigrants aren't scapegoats the Dom-Post opines:

Immigrants are easy prey for political vultures. Demagogues can win votes by using foreigners as scapegoats, as has happened repeatedly in New Zealand's history. So the argument about the effect of immigration on housing could easily turn poisonous. It's important not to let that happen.
The Budget's big surprise was the revelation of a turn in the usual tide of migration. The outward flow has turned into a net inward movement, mainly because fewer Kiwis are moving to Australia. Now there is concern that the inflow will push up house prices.
Panic measures will not help with this problem, as Labour seemed to realise soon after pledging a cut in net immigration. Asked exactly how big the cut would be, Labour faltered and fudged.
Immigration flows cannot be turned off and on like a tap. The present trans-Tasman inflow could quite quickly reverse as the rebuilding of Christchurch reduces, our growth rate falls, and Australia's economy rebounds. Big cuts in immigrant numbers would then exacerbate the renewed outward flow.
The country is entitled to control immigration and there might be room for some temporary reduction in immigrants. This would have to be done carefully, together with other measures to control house prices, such as interest rate rises. The danger is that immigration will become a hot topic and governments will over-react.
The effects of a moral panic about immigration go much wider than the immediate issue of house prices. National's scapegoating of Pacific immigrants in the 1975 election caused great harm to race relations. It led directly to the dawn raids and an outpouring of repressed prejudice.
Winston Peters' anti-Asian campaigns in the 1996 and 2002 elections also caused unnecessary alarm. There is always a receptive audience for this kind of trouble-making, especially among the older, the frightened, and the bewildered.
All the loose talk about the "Asian invasion" and the predictions of racial trouble turned out to be hollow. Auckland now has a large Asian population, but there has been no bloodshed, no ethnic violence, no outbreaks of hatred. New Zealand has shown that it is on the whole a tolerant and welcoming society which copes well with change.
Immigration has, in fact, made the nation a more interesting and vibrant place, and this is probably a more cogent reason for liberal immigration policies than any strictly economic one. A major report last year by the OECD on immigration concluded that the effect on public finances of immigration is "small, generally not exceeding 0.5 per cent of GDP in either positive or negative terms". 

It's hard to disagree with the sentiments expressed here. Winston Peters' past xenophobic scaremongering has no place, and the signs that David Cunliffe is trying to out-Winston Winston are alarming. Helen Clark in particular would be disgusted at Cunliffe's recent anti-immigrant rhetoric.

If Labour loses significant support in places like South Auckland this election, it only has itself to blame. Leave the xenophobia to Mr Peters, who if nothing else has at least been consistently xenophobic, not a latter-day convert like Mr Cunliffe.

0 More dirt from Horan

Brendan Horan's time in Parliament may be ticking down. But he seems determined to use what time he has left to extract utu for his summary sacking last year by Winston Peters; the Herald reports:

Rogue ex-New Zealand First MP Brendan Horan has made fresh allegations that his former boss, Winston Peters, is breaking parliamentary rules by having taxpayer-funded staff working on party business.
Speaker David Carter is currently investigating claims by Mr Horan that the party's taxpayer-funded Vanguard constituency management software is being used by the party to seek votes and raise cash.
Parliament's rules forbid the use of funding intended to support MPs and political leaders' parliamentary activities for party political activities.
Today, Mr Horan produced internal NZ First documents dealing with the party's move to raise funds via a regular direct debit facility for members.
He said NZ First 2013 board minutes "make it clear" the scheme was being run from Parliament by the party's director of operations Apirana Dawson whose salary is paid by Parliamentary Service.
"One really has to question what Parliamentary staff are doing being involved in raising money and trying to get votes for a political party when their job is obviously towards Parliamentary Service", Mr Horan said this afternoon.
Asked whether he understood that Parliamentary Service paid all of Mr Dawson's salary or that he received some pay from the party, Mr Horan said he didn't know.
"That's one of the questions that's fair to be raised."
Mr Horan's latest attack comes after he raised questions around Mr Peters' interest in a race horse which was not declared in the MPs' Register of Pecuniary Interests, and allegations of bullying of staff by another NZ First MP.
A spokeswoman for NZ First Leader Winston Peters said he would not comment on Mr Horan's latest allegations.

And whilst Mr Horan insists that this isn't personal, he is also less than complimentary about the Winston First leader:

Mr Horan told reporters he wasn't attempting to destroy Mr Peters' political career; neither was he engaging in a personal vendetta.
"I'm not out to destroy anybody. I despise the act of hypocrisy, I despise the act of bullying and I'm standing up against the biggest bully in Parliament. What I'd like to see happen here is the rules are followed, that the hypocrisy ends in this Parliament and we get on with the important business of trying to do what MPs do, which is supposed to be helping people and making the economy grow."

It's quite probable that NZ First will give the Speaker an assurance that no taxpayer money has been misused, and because the Speaker is obliged to take MP's at their word, he will be unable to do anything. But that should not be Winston Peters' prime concern.

Someone from within the party organisation has loose lips, and is feeding Brendan Horan with information to embarrass Peters and his party. Someone is telling Horan where the bodies are buried, and once the media get the scent of a story, they will be in regular contact with Horan for the next instalment.

Ironically, Horan has learned something from his time in the Peters party where he was originally the Master's Apprentice. Is Winston Peters going to be hoist by his own petard? 

0 Cunliffe tries to out-Winston Winston

David Cunliffe will slash immigrant numbers if Labour is elected in September; 3News reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has taken his hardest line yet against immigrants, blaming them for rising house prices.

It follows a 3 News-Reid Research poll which shows almost two-thirds of voters say immigration should be restricted.

"It would take 80 percent of our housing supply just to accommodate this year's migrants - and National is doing nothing," says Mr Cunliffe.

Mr Cunliffe is already copping a backlash from within Labour. DPF blogs about that here, including a tweet from a Labour Party activist who sought the Christchurch East nomination last year. And Twitter is full of disparaging comments today about Cunliffe's xenophobia. There are plenty of comparisons to Winston Peters, and none of them flatters David Cunliffe.

But wait, as they say on the infomercials, there's more. Check out this tweet from Patrick Gower:

Yes Dear Readers. One one hand and to one audience, David Cunliffe wants to slash the numbers of immigrants coming to New Zealand. But on the other hand, he's quite prepared to do a deal with a party formed by a convicted criminal, a immigrant facing extradition the the United States to face serious criminal charges, and a immigrant who has been shown to have some very unsavoury personal characteristics.

The writing should have been on the wall however. There has been no denial that Kim Dotcom helped to write Labour's ICT policy, and it is common knowledge that Labour's now-ICT Spokeswoman Clare Curran visited Dotcom's rental house in Coatesville at least twice.

We wonder how Helen Clark is feeling today. Under her leadership of Labour, the immigrant community was seem as Labour's, almost by right. A lot has changed in six years, and we look forward to hearing David Cunliffe take his "Sorry, you're not welcome" message to the Chinese, Taiwanese, Korean, Indian and other immigrant communities.

Perhaps David Cunliffe is angling for Winston Peters' job leading NZ First. But David First doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?

0 Is Shane Jones the new Winston?

We've often said, semi-seriously, that Shane Jones would be a natural to replace Winston Peters as the leader of Winston First. But could that be closer to the mark than we think? Check out this morning's Herald:

Even before he gave his farewell speech in Parliament last week, renegade former Labour MP Shane Jones was already in a conversation about his return to politics with Mana's Hone Harawira, who in turn indicated he is considering leaving.
Ahead of his valedictory speech in Parliament on Thursday, Mr Jones was given a lapel microphone to wear by TVNZ's Marae programme. Yesterday Marae reported fragments of a conversation before the speech between Mr Jones and Mr Harawira who was unaware of the live microphone.
"If you come back in 2017 with Winston, I'll f****** hang round mate. Otherwise I'm out of here", Mr Harawira said.
Mr Jones who was rumoured to be considering throwing in his lot with Mr Peters' NZ First yesterday denied he was contemplating a return in 2017.
"My whole focus is te Moana Nui a Kiwa (the Pacific)."
Mr Jones left Parliament to take up a newly created role as a roving economic ambassador across the Pacific.

He said he had no idea what lay behind Mr Harawira's comment.
"You've got to go and ask Hone that."
Mr Harawira did not respond to requests for comment.

This is a fascinating insight into the mind of Hone Harawira. While all this is going on, the negotiations between his party and the Dotcom Internet Party, still without a leader or any candidates, continue; read on:

Mr Harawira's suggestion to Mr Jones he also considering leaving Parliament comes as his party closes in on a deal with Kim Dotcom's Internet Party.
Mana Party secretary Gerard Hehir yesterday confirmed the party had finalised a draft agreement with the Internet Party over the weekend.
That agreement now required final approval from within each party which was expected this week.

We're yet to be convinced that the Internet Party has any future. Kim Dotcom's extradition hearing is set to begin on 7 July, and Dotcom himself suffered a major setback when the courts ruled against him on Friday. 

Shane Jones is probably the only person who could revive Winston First though, once Father Time takes care of Peters once and for all. The survival of the party in September becomes all the more critical, but the polls last night suggest that's by no means a given.

We're in for a few interesting months.

0 Tracy was tough, but Duncan's even tougher!

If Winston Peters thought Tracy Watkins was tough on him and Winston First yesterday, we hope he didn't read Duncan Garner's Dom-Post column. Headed Is this all you have, Winston? Garner is absolutely brutal on Peters; he begins thus:

Poor Winston, what's going on? It looks like you're really struggling to land any decent hits in Parliament these days. It all looks a bit limp and sad.
You've been there since 1978, save for three years in the wilderness before this term. If you ever had the answers then you've had ample time to share them.
Instead, what did we see this week? You abusing your privilege of free speech by spewing vicious bile at an MP who is in Parliament only because you wanted him there. Brendan Horan is hardly the first NZ First MP selected for loyalty rather than ability.
Calling Horan the "Jimmy Savile of New Zealand politics" was evil and cowardly – and you know it. If anyone makes any sort of claim against you, you're quick to threaten legal action and demand retractions and apologies. But when you're the one dishing it out those rules don't apply: you can waltz into Parliament and get all the protection you need. 

"Evil and cowardly"; that's as trenchant a statement as we've seen a New Zealand journalist make against an MP for many years. And Duncan Garner doesn't do it under parliamentary privilege either!

Garner continues:

I can't help but point out the irony of it all to you. I remember covering a speech you made in Kawerau in 2008 and you had Horan along as your little sycophantic sidekick.
Horan was in awe of you, banging on to the journos about how you were an honest and loyal man who only wanted what was right for New Zealand. He told us you never took money from Owen Glenn and everyone was wrong to be questioning your integrity and honesty. Horan was really fired up that afternoon.
So how does it feel now he's firing a few at you? Suddenly the spending from your parliamentary leader's fund looks questionable – despite your denials.
And Horan's allegations might just be sticking too. Did you spend $20,000 on a computer system to aid your NZ First Party? That money you and all the other parties have in those slush funds has never been transparent.
Last week, before all this chaos, you were promising to take out Judith Collins. But when you pulled out your gun it merely went pop. 

But then comes the really scary bit:

Yet, despite your miserable week, I still can't write you off.
I was there in 1996 when you promised to get rid of Jim Bolger, Bill Birch and Jenny Shipley. I remember chasing you down Lambton Quay for weeks during the coalition negotiations. You loved the attention and you're at it again.
Here we are 18 years later and not much has really changed. You're still the potential king-maker and you like it like that.
David Cunliffe has flung the door open to you by shunning the Greens' offer to campaign as a Labour-Greens government.
That suits you – we know you don't like the Greens. It's why you couldn't go with Labour in 1996 – you didn't want to share power with the Alliance in a three-party coalition. 
Now we're back to square one. You've started talking about "bottom lines" again. Yet on really simple, straightforward questions you refuse to give a straightforward answer.
Yes, you've had some victories over the years, free healthcare for the under 6s and the Gold Card – but is there anything else after 36 years?
Now immigration is bubbling away as an issue again – just like 1996 all over again.
Yes, 98,000 people arrived in New Zealand last year and 65,000 left – but the fact is most of those coming here were Kiwis returning home. A small fraction of them were actually immigrants from another land. But let's not let the facts get in the way during the election campaign.
Really, Winston, I reckon the public is tired of all these silly games. It feels like you've become entertainment for the stupid and sycophantic, who don't take the state of the nation too seriously at all.
But still I think you'll scrape together the 5 per cent support to make it back to Parliament (which, of course, means that 95 per cent of voters don't want you). But 5 per cent is all you need and that will be enough to make John Key's life hell.
After 36 years, is the nuisance factor really all you have to offer? 

Yes Dear Readers; it's 36 years since Winston Peters first entered Parliament in 1978. And what does he have to show for it. He's been a Minister three times, without ever having served a full three-year term. Jim Bolger and Jenny Shipley fired him, and Helen Clark stood him down over the Owen Glenn donation and all the lies he told about that. He's brought such characters as Tuku "Underpants" Morgan, Ron "Fingers" Mark, Richard "Wogistan" Prosser, Andrew "Leaky" Williams and Asenati Lole-Taylor into Parliament. He has attacked immigrants, especially Chinese immigrants.

What will be Winston's legacy? A career of unfulfilled potential? New Zealand's pre-eminent conspiracy theorist? A lifetime achievement award for his contribution to the whisky industry? Or will a seat be saved in his honour at the Green Parrot Cafe in Wellington?

Winston Peters was once one of the most formidable politicians in New Zealand. In 2014 however, he is a far cry from that. The elderly and the rednecks may get him back for one more term, but it will be tight.  We really hope that come election night, Winston First falls slightly below the 5% mark.

There should be no place in our Parliament for a man who, under parliamentary privilege, likens another MP to an alleged serial child abuser and paedophile. Kudos to Duncan Garner for his denouncement of Peters' actions this week.

0 Watkins on "flaky" Winston First

Tracy Watkins doesn't mince words today. Under the headline Party in danger of Peter-ing out she opines:

Anyone who kids themselves that there is life after Winston Peters for NZ First only had to watch the party floundering in the absence of its leader this week.
Frantically trying to head off an attack by their former colleague, expunged NZ Firster Brendan Horan, Peters' front bench achieved the seemingly impossible feat of making Horan look good by comparison.
They were clueless in the face of Horan's determination to extract utu from his former party by tabling documents he claimed showed improper use of the taxpayer funded leader's fund.
Whether the documents do show what Horan claims remains to be seen; the Speaker is investigating although the explanation offered by Peters suggests the spending complies with the rules. But we know from long experience that politicians have a collective interest in not inquiring too deeply into the use of leaders' funds.
There is certainly no reason to be confident that they have cleaned up their act since an Audit Office inquiry several years ago found most parties treated it as a slush fund for party political activities. (NZ First was one of the parties pinged for unlawful spending to the tune of $158,000).
Regardless of the ins and outs of Horan's allegations, however, one thing seems clear: Horan is hellbent on using his last remaining months in Parliament to try to take Peters and the rest of NZ First down with him.
Even if he succeeds he will only be hastening by a few years what increasingly seems inevitable.
With its leader knocking 70, NZ First is a clock that has been slowly winding down since the 1996 election delivered Peters the balance of power. 

This is brutal stuff from Ms Watkins, but it is is also brutally honest. There is no way that New Zealand First will survive without its founder and cult leader. The ineptitude of the NZF caucus was there for all to see this week.

Tracy Watkins goes on to profile some of the more "colourful" members of the Winston First caucus:

Since the party's return in 2011, Parliament has been collectively holding its breath waiting for the current team to implode given some of the more eccentric selections - like former North Shore mayor Andrew Williams, notorious for urinating in a public place. 
The implosion hasn't happened yet but there have been plenty of flaky moments. Richard Prosser launched a diatribe against Muslims that prompted hundreds of complaints to the NZ First board. The party's Pasifika MP, Asenati Lole-Taylor, famously asked questions of the police minister in Parliament about blow jobs and has carved out a cult following on Twitter for her bizarre outbursts. Her most recent was to accuse a press gallery journalist of cyber bullying after he referred to her "shooting the messenger". Lole-Taylor thought he was alleging she had shot an actual parliamentary messenger. Horan, meanwhile, was dumped from the party over allegations of missing money from his dead mother's estate.
Horan's bitterness over his expulsion from the party is probably made even more visceral for his belief in himself as the obvious successor to Peters. A former TV weather presenter, Horan was noted for making sure he was always in screen shot when Peters was stopped on the way to the House.
Peters' dislike for his former MP, meanwhile, seems to run particularly deep, with his attack in Parliament on Horan as New Zealand's "Jimmy Savile" - a reference to Britain's celebrity child molester - plumbing the depths of personal attack. 

Asenati Lole-Taylor's Twitter feud with 3News journalist Lloyd Burr was somewhat surreal. It's fair to say that there are a number of MP's in the House with a better command of English than Asenati (perhaps as many as 120 more), but she made an absolute goose of herself, and not for the first time. In the past Ms Lole-Taylor has drawn attention to herself by gleefully announcing on a daily basis how many Twitter users she had blocked that day for daring to have a contrary opinion to hers!

Winston First may squeak back in at September's General Election. However we wouldn't put money on it; Peters himself is a pale shadow of the brash young man on 1996. In recent weeks he has looked far from well and we genuinely wonder if he can pick himself up for one final campaign. He will have to, because none of his current caucus looks capable of winning a chook raffle at the local pub, let alone winning votes in an election.

Father Time has not treated Winston Peters kindly; the late nights, fags and whisky have taken a cumulative toll. And it may well be Father Time who determines whether Winston First survives beyond 20 September 2014.

0 The rudderless SS Winston First

Winston Peters has been away from Parliament the last couple of days. He told reporters that his absence on Wednesday was because he was addressing a Grey Power meeting in West Auckland. However, as Pete George disclosed yesterday, the Grey Power meeting in question was actually held yesterday afternoon. Mr Peters seemed to have got his wires crossed.

But in his absence, his caucus has been an absolute shambles. We blogged yesterday about their attempts on Wednesday to stop Brendan Horan raising legitimate concerns about the possible misuse of taxpayer funds on party politicking. They were at it again yesterday as Mr Horan asked questions about workplace bullying. We've blogged the video of that question and the unsuccessful points of order here, and the Herald has also reported on the ongoing feud between Messrs Horan and Peters.

But the NZ First caucus was at that point yet to reach its nadir. Bill English closed the Budget Debate with his right of reply speech, after which Parliament voted; first on the no-confidence amendment moved by David Cunliffe, then on the Budget itself. Check this out; if you don't want to watch a spirited speech from Bill English, jump straight to about the ten minute mark:

They took the vote on Mr Cunliffe's no-confidence amendment first, and both the Greens and Winston First voted against it. The Greens realised the mistake before the count was made and corrected it, but NZ First did not. Watch the video; Denis O'Rourke is staring at Jan Logie as she amends the Green vote, and the penny hasn't dropped; what a plodder.

We can understand the Greens' error; when you are against everything the Government does, voting to oppose is your default setting. Jan Logie paused before announcing the Green vote, but at least was able to correct it with minimum embarrassment.

Denis O'Rourke's cock-up however was a real embarrassment, given the scrutiny his party and its leader have been under this week. One really has to wonder what NZ First adds to the current Parliament.

The story didn't end there however. Barbara Stewart had to come back into the House an hour later and seek leave to correct the result which initially saw Cunliffe's motion defeated 50-71. That it took NZ First an hour to grasp the effects of its stuff-up when it was causing mirth on social media at the time it happened is telling.

It hasn't been a great week for Winston First, or for its aging leader who is a shadow of his former self. Without Peters, the NZF caucus is a shambles, and there are now real doubts as to whether this is really the beginning of the end.

0 Winston First under investigation - again

Winston Peters and his party are under investigation by Parliament's Speaker for the second time this month; the Herald reports:

Parliament's Speaker David Carter has confirmed he is investigating whether NZ First misused taxpayer funding by paying for software used to seek votes and raise cash for the party.
Former NZ First MP Brendan Horan yesterday claimed claimed NZ First had spent as much as $20,000 in parliamentary funding from Winston Peters' leader's budget to develop and operate "taxpayer-funded software for party political purposes such as campaigning and fundraising".
He made an complaint to Mr Carter, who early this afternoon confirmed the matter was under investigation.
Mr Horan also said yesterday that NZ First parliamentary staff were working on running the Vanguard software during the election year.
"This is a clear breach of Parliamentary Service guidelines.

"I call on the leader of the party to open his leader's budget accounts to the scrutiny of the Speaker first and then the public of New Zealand."
Rules for parliamentary funding are intended to ensure the money is not used for party political purposes and the Parliamentary Service rules of conduct state that parliamentary staff, must, in the course of their work "avoid electioneering, political party business (i.e. acting for the non-parliamentary branch of the party, such as political party administration, fundraising or campaign related activities), and other actions that are party political in nature".
Mr Horan said the public had "a right to know what their money is being used for and whether it is being used legally", and last night confirmed he had lodged a complaint with Speaker David Carter.

We commend Brendan Horan for doing the right thing here. He made his point, then did exactly as he said he would, and made a formal complaint to the Speaker. An investigation into Winston First's use of taxpayer funds is now underway.

Contrast this with Winston Peters' modus operandi; threats, unsubstantiated allegations, smears and promises of revelations which never come. The Winston Peters of 2014 is a pale shadow of the Peters, even of the mid-2000's. He is living on borrowed parliamentary time.

That Speaker David Carter has deemed Horan's complaint as worthy of investigation is a victory for the "independent List MP". Here's hoping that he has got all his ducks in a row, and that the allegations he made yesterday are supported by stronger evidence that Peters' "smoking gun".

0 Where's this one going?

UPDATE: Goodness; look who Brendon Horan is gunning for. It's the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who, it is alleged, is not the nicest person in the world to work for. Ought we be surprised by this revelation?

And still, Peters' fellow MP's try to stop Mr Horan. Where is the transparency?

***********

Brendan Horan gets to ask a question this afternoon during Question Time; check this out:

The sting of course is never in the primary question, but in the supplementary questions that follow. So we wonder where Mr Horan might be going with this question, and whether he has any particular workplace bullies in mind.

Stay tuned for more on this as Brendan Horan continues his quest for utu.

0 Winston First is transparent. Yeah right.

Brendan Horan promised to dish dirt on his former party yesterday, and he was as good as his word. Unfortunately, Winston Peters wasn't there; perhaps he was keeping a low profile after his disgraceful behaviour on Tuesday. The Herald reports:

While he denied he was running away from a fight, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters left his MPs to defend the party against claims by independent MP Brendan Horan the party misused taxpayer funding to raise cash and seek votes.
After weeks of ill-tempered exchanges between Mr Peters and his ousted caucus member, Mr Horan yesterday fronted up in Parliament with what he said was proof of misuse of parliamentary funding by the party.
Mr Horan claimed NZ First had spent as much as $20,000 in parliamentary funding from Mr Peters' leader's budget to develop and operate "taxpayer-funded software for party political purposes such as campaigning and fundraising".
Mr Horan also said NZ First parliamentary staff were working on running the Vanguard software during the election year.
"This is a clear breach of Parliamentary Service guidelines.

"I call on the leader of the party to open his leader's budget accounts to the scrutiny of the Speaker first and then the public of New Zealand."
Rules for parliamentary funding are intended to ensure the money is not used for party political purposes and the Parliamentary Service rules of conduct state that parliamentary staff, must, in the course of their work "avoid electioneering, political party business (i.e. acting for the non-parliamentary branch of the party, such as political party administration, fundraising or campaign related activities), and other actions that are party political in nature".
Mr Horan said the public had "a right to know what their money is being used for and whether it is being used legally" and last night confirmed he had lodged a complaint with Speaker David Carter. Mr Carter's office did not respond to requests for comment.

We commend Mr Horan for standing up to the man who unilaterally sacked him, in a manner totally contrary to the principles of fairness and natural justice. Here, courtesy of In the House is his Budget Debate speech from yesterday afternoon:

The worst aspect of this was the attempts by Winston First lobby-fodder MP's Barbara Stewart, Richard Prosser and Andrew Williams to deny Mr Horan a voice. There were repetitive, unsuccessful points of order, all of which were over-ruled by the Assistant Speaker. And when Horan came to try to table documents in support of his allegations, the NZF MP's objected loudly on each occasion.

Now any MP has the right to object to leave being granted to table a document, without any reason being given. But yesterday's antics gave the perception, perhaps unfairly, that Horan had hit the jackpot, and that the Peters Party had been busted.

We look forward to hostilities being resumed, the next time Mr Peters considers a trip to Parliament worthy of his time. And we look forward to the outcome of the Speaker's investigation into these allegations of further wrongdoing by the party leader who was censured by his peers in 2008 for wilfully misleading them.

UPDATE: Over at Your NZ, Pete George notes that the Grey Power meeting Peters claimed to be attending is actually on today, and notes:

And very ironic. An MP well known for his attacks on others in Parliament seems unwilling to be on the receiving end of accusations.
There could be another reason for his absence yesterday, but why would he make up an excuse that is easily proven incorrect? Why would the event be removed from the NZ First website?
There’s a perception that Peters is trying to hide something, or hide from something.
His accusations on Tuesday have been called the worst seen in Parliament for a long time. Is NZ First reacting to that? Is Peters not prepared to face an accuser? Or is he trying to hide something?
He was Missing In Action and making things up yesterday. He would be one of the first to hold another MP to account for anything like that.

We could not agree more.