Question Time flop #1 – Winston Peters

In the new Parliament’s question time today Winston Peters began his quest to establish himself as the leader of the Opposition with a weak line of questioning that John Key easily rebuffed.

[Sitting date: 22 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:9. Text is subject to correction.]

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister : Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Does he stand by his statement of 13 October: “I would certainly describe my style as open and transparent.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : If that is true, why did his Government withhold the two child poverty reports for 17 months in an abuse of the Official Information Act?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : The member really should direct that to the responsible Minister; it was not in my office. But I think I am correct in saying—I could stand corrected—that it was because it was a work in progress and there were particular reasons as it was going through that process.

So his first hit was aimed at the wrong Minister. Peters should have known that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Having regard to the Hon Jim McLay’s comment in this House when the Official Information Bill was being passed, and he said: “The underlying philosophy of the bill is that official information should be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it.”, and that being the case, why has he admitted on 15 October to using delaying tactics for political purposes?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I have not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters : I seek leave to table the evidence that he did admit that on 15 October.

Mr SPEAKER : What is the source of this evidence?

Rt Hon Winston Peters : It is a Radio New Zealand transcript.

Peters must have (or should have) know that would be inadmissible as evidence to be tabled.

Mr SPEAKER : No. That is also available to all members. Does the member—

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Well, he’s just denied it, for goodness sake!

Pointless protest.

Mr SPEAKER : Order! I heard that. Does the member have a further supplementary question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters : Why are US congressmen kept well informed about the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations whilst New Zealand parliamentarians are kept totally in the dark on this matter?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Well, every system is different, so I cannot speak for what happens in the United States. But what I can say is that in New Zealand it has been a longstanding tradition for free-trade agreements to be negotiated behind closed doors, essentially, until the point an agreement is reached, because we do not believe it is in the best interests to be discussing those in the public domain because it weakens our bargaining position.

Peters will know that. Or should know that. He was Foreign Minister under the Helen Clark led government from 2005 to November 2008.

The New Zealand-China FTA was signed on 7 April 2008 in Beijing, after negotiations that spanned fifteen rounds over three years. It entered into force on 1 October 2008 (Wikipedia)

In an earlier question Peters tried to insert his influence once but it was dominated by Russel Norman questioning John Key about his contact with Cameron Slater with a strong and well considered point of order from Labour’s Chris Hipkins.

This wasn’t an eminent start to the new term from Peters. It was a fizzer.

Peters torpedos left wing options

Winston Peters appeared to promote a Labour+NZ First coalition option yesterday but it looks more like a torpedo to the left, especially aimed at the Greens, perhaps to try and pick up votes from the debris.

The main question is whether Peters was trying to be noticed on a day that Kim Dotcom was sucking up most of the media attention, or if he was trying to slip a positioning statement in under cover of the big news of the day.

Peters put out a media release yesterday afternoon - Alternatives In Election 2014 which praised both Labour’s David Parker and National’s Bill English.

When David Parker was attacked by a former business partner, alleging a breach of the law by the Hon David Parker, I was the first MP to back David Parker because, over an extensive period of time, I believed that he was a man of honour and integrity.

Similarly, I have observed the Hon Bill English’s conduct regarding the allegations in “Dirty Politics” and his reserve in the defence of the Hon Judith Collins’s conduct.

In addition on the question of tax cuts by National, Mr English’s aversion to claiming that they were possible is further evidence for me, that like Mr Parker, he has a certain integrity and honour.

Consequently, I see both of them as capable of being Ministers of Finance.

By stating he would work with either Labour or National Peters appears to keep his coalition options open. But he also slams the Greens.

In this campaign the Green Party has twice, for reasons best known to them, in essence led an assault on the Labour Party.

“Of late the Greens have been talking about being co-deputy prime ministers and wanting the finance portfolio.

“Does that mean when the Prime Minister is abroad we are going to have two acting prime ministers instead.

“This situation would be farcical.

“If the Greens think they are going to take over the levers of economic management they are assuming other parties are not watching their record.

“This statement in no way challenges the Labour Party’s belief that in the right circumstances they could form an alternative government.

“Voters need to be disabused of the view promoted by the Greens that we in New Zealand First would stand by whilst they promote extremist policies in government.

“This is not indicating a choice but the media seem to have overlooked one option entirely, a Labour-New Zealand First combination in Coalition or Confidence and supply.

“This emerged in 2005, has precedent, and it was a stable, successful government that delivered the greatest surpluses in recent years.”

Things were considerably different in 2005 when Peters shut the Greens out of Government.

Labour got 41.1% (to National’s 39.1), NZ First got 5.72% and the Greens 5.3%. Labour and NZ First combined with United Future (2.67%) giving a total of 49.42%.

Current polling has Labour in the mid twenties and NZ First 4-8%. Even if a miracle happens and Labour recovered to 30%, and NZ First climbed to 10%, that gets only 40%, well short of a majority. Greens (polling 10-15%) would be essential to get over the line.

Labour+NZ First is likely to be closer to 35% and could go as low as 30%.

“A Labour-New Zealand First combination in Coalition or Confidence and supply” looks an unattainable option. Peters must know this.

If Peters rules out combining with the Greens as he appears to have done here then he has only two choices – a coalition with National (possibly alongside Conservatives if they make the threshold, giving National alternatives) or going on the cross benches.

Peters must see potential votes from Green bashing. He has u-turned on his word before but he has consistently avoided working in Government alongside the Greens.

This looks like a torpedo to the left, conceding a left wing coalition is extremely unlikely.

Winston Peters on “baubles of office”

Winston Peters on baubles of office in a 2005 speech.

Peters – Who Will New Zealand First Go With?

An address by Rt Hon Winston Peters to a public meeting in Rotorua, Wednesday 07 September 2005, at the Rotorua Convention Centre.

There is a lot of familiar rhetoric. Peters concludes:

We place the voters needs first – that is why it is the policies – not the perks of office, which matter most to us.

That is why we are your insurance policy – your only protection – against the political extremes of others.

Our policies deserve to be debated in this campaign, and now the voters know New Zealand First will not be in government – by our own choice – they also deserve to know that we intend to serve New Zealanders, as we always have, by keeping the next government honest. And to keep it from pandering to the extreme Left or extreme Right, and from within.

It involves for my colleagues a real sacrifice, but we willingly make it. For my part, I never took as deputy Prime Minister ministerial cars or a house, so we genuinely don’t care about the baubles of office.

We in New Zealand First are going to put New Zealanders first.

And yesterday Peters on baubles of office in an interview with Duncan Garner on RadioLive THIS is the Winston Peters interview you MUST hear!

Garner: Ok let me remind you then, in 2005 you said you wouldn’t take the baubles of office and then a few months later you became the Foreign Minister.

That’s what I mean you see, people get a bit confused, you say one thing and then…something else.

Peters: no no you see you’re not very good at English.

The baubles means, a bauble means a trinket not worth having, I never said anything of the sort but you interpreted that way and repeated ad nauseum all around the country.

Garner: But I was at the speech Mr peters, I don’t want to get into a fight on air about this but I’m just saying people are a bit confused…

Peters: …well it sounds like you do, Duncan you have been slagging off this party and me saying what I’m going to do when you know full well we have always had a democratic tradition of asking the full caucus and the party organisation why, because if you don’t bind them all into the decision because they got to make it why should they keep it? It’s called stability.

Peters also discussed this in a speech launching a book covering the 2005 election campaign:

Peters – Never Judge A Book By Its Cover

This book highlights the validity of the maxim never to judge a book by its cover.

You see, while the content contained within is meritorious and useful, the cover is both mischievous and erroneous.

While on the surface it may seem flattering to have altered the political lexicon, thanks in part to the publication of this book, it is really based on a false understanding of the term in question.

Indeed it is highly likely that future generations of political science students will reflect on the 2005 election – with its many nuanced consequences – and wonder with some bemusement why the term “the baubles of office” came to symbolise its outcome.

That was not the intention when it was coined.

As the source of the phrase, it was regrettable when the media missed the subtle irony of its use.

But it still astounds me that those among the echelons of our academic community failed to grasp the ironic value of the phrase.

We expect you to educate those who need it, not echo their ignorance.

You see a ‘bauble’ is defined as “a trinket or decoration not worth having”.

So to state that one does not seek to have something not worth having would seem a totally reasonable proposition for a politician to make – can you see the irony already?

There’s no evidence Helen Clark gave Peters any actual trinkets in 2005. Is that his subtle irony? But, ah, he made it clear what he meant:

And they know we are in this for our policies – not the perks of office.

We place the voters needs first – that is why it is the policies – not the perks of office, which matter most to us.

Some irony was pointed about by NZ Herald in Baublewatch: Eye on Winston.

This occasional column will note the “baubles” Mr Peters accumulates in his new, controversial role outside the Cabinet.

1. Base salary up from $120,000 as a minor party leader to $171,600 for minister outside Cabinet.

2. Access to ministerial cars.

3. Qualifies for a VIP diplomatic passport.

4. Overseas trips to Korea (last week) and Malta and the UK (this week).

5. A trophy photograph for his wall of him in the background of an international line-up with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Repeating the original quote:

It involves for my colleagues a real sacrifice, but we willingly make it. For my part, I never took as deputy Prime Minister ministerial cars or a house, so we genuinely don’t care about the baubles of office.

For Peters it involved ‘real sacrifice’ seemingly willingly made.

Another quote from Peters in his 2005 speech:

So for this reason I am announcing today that New Zealand First will not be going into a formal coalition with either Labour or National.

We do not think there is sufficient common ground to base a formal coalition on – and we are not prepared to compromise our principles simply to pursue the perks of office.

There are some important questions which follow from this decision.

Where does this leave New Zealand First?

We will be sitting on the cross benches.

No “formal coalition”. Cross benches. Perks of office. Baubles.

Can we trust Peters and his “subtle ironies” this election?

NO

Voodoo and madness of Pawn Patrick

While Matt Nippert at Sunday Star Times has broken a huge story detailing big money using bloggers to smear a Serious Fraud investigation – see All the financier’s men – Patrick Gower has an odd column in NZ Herald trying to talk up Winston Peters.

Patrick Gower: Voodoo and madness of King Winston

Welcome to the madness of King Winston.

In Winston’s World, John Key is a voodoo doll he stabs with a pin whenever he gets bored.

This week Winston Peters took a decent jab at the Prime Minister during an interview with me, accusing Judith Collins and her “bag man” of plotting to get rid of Key.

Key dismisses Peters as nutty; Collins, who resigned yesterday, calls him a liar; Peters starts talking in riddles.

Gower seems to have a touch of madness too. His big efforts this week have been a 3 News poll where he tried to talk it up Winston Peters as the king of the election – see Poor poll coverage by Gower and 3 News – and then he scored an interview with Winston Peters – Peters slams dirty politics, then gets dirty.

So while one of the biggest news stories of the year breaks without Gower or Peters at centre stage Gower’s big conclusion:

Peters is again the kingmaker acting like he is King. Key thinks he is the king. One thing is for sure – madness will ensue.

WINNER OF THE WEEK: Winston Peters. Over the 5 per cent threshold, and back as the centre of attention, where he’s happiest.

Message to Patrick – Peters is out of touch. So are you. Too obsessed with each others own importance.

The threshold claim only applies to the 3 News poll, in two other polls since that NZ First has been on 5.0 and 4.0 – that’s far less certain than Gower’s election result proclamations would suggest.

Why is Gower seemingly obsessed with the relevance of Peters?

In yesterday’s big news, the resignation of Judith Collins, someone actually produced an email as evidence. All Peters does is claim he’s right and that evidence will be forthcoming. Gower should know by now it rarely is.

In today’s big news there’s a mass of evidence in a large and serious story.

Gower is trying to claim Peters deserves a throne, two big heads colluding but there’s little headroom for a crown.

It’s just the madness of Pawn Patrick.

 

 

Peters admits he wouldn’t protect his source

In a bizarre series of interviews today Winston Peters has morphed from an absolute protector of his supposed source to saying he would produce them as witnesses if his challenge to Judith Collins to sue him was taken up.

On Radio NZ:

I’m trying to find out exactly what what happened, so what day did it happen on and what time of day?

Winston Peters: Oh look, I’m not going to answer a silly question like that, it did happen I can assure you of that, but I’m not going to finger people who thought they were having a confidential conversation. It’s that simple.

Did you agree to keep it confidential?

Winston Peters: I always keep confidential conversations confidential. I have never ever given a source away to anyone.

But did they ask you to keep it confidential?

Winston Peters: No it was clear as daylight that they wanted it to be confidential.

With Sean Plunket on RadioLive:

Was it Simon Lusk that approached you?

Winston Peters: I can tell you that I do not intend to break any confidence on these matters.

I’m going to ask you direct, was it Simon Lusk?

Winston Peters: I’ll say it again, I’ll answer you direct, I do not intend to break confidence on these matters.

I’m going to put myself out on a limb here Mr Peters. Would you be prepared to privately give me that name on the grounds that I would not disclose it?

Winston Peters: Um well I’ve done that once before with you and you’ve kept your word, but the answer’s no because I’d be breaching confidentiality with someone else and I’m not going to do that and I’ve never done that in a long career.

So he would absolutely honourably not breach confidence.

Ok you do understand that in the absence of further information you know and I’m not saying I don’t believe you, but you know if I was Woodward and Bernstein for example I probably wouldn’t run this.

Winston Peters:Oh no no if I was Woodward and Bernstein I would take that information and work on it and sooner or later you’re going to strike pay dirt with others knowing about it, that’s what Woodward and Bernstein did in their case, they just followed the money as they were told by Deep Throat to do. In this case you follow the power.

But he’s happy encourage journalists to find out who his source is based on what he’s fed them, and that they previously knew nothing about.

On that basis I wouldn’t trust Peters to keep something confidential.  He would do enough to see that confidentiality was breached but try to avoid responsibility for discovery even though that was his intent in going public.

Later on 3 News:

Winston Peters is challenging Judith Collins to sue him for defamation over his claims she plotted against the Prime Minister.

Winston Peters: I bet she won’t, because then I will produce the witnesses.

So these sources that “I always keep confidential conversations confidential. I have never ever given a source away to anyone” would be produced and revealed after he promoted investigation of the story and if Collins sued him after he pushed her into doing so.

Trust Winston Peters?

John Key’s choice – Collins or Peters

After the latest revelation (or publicity seeking stunt) from Winston Peters – see Peters slams dirty politics, then gets dirty – I think John Key has two clear choices.

If Peters can prove (don’t hold your breath) that Judith Collins has totally flipped and tried something this ludicrous then Key should dump Collins.

If Peters can’t prove this was anything more than a casual hypothetical quip loosely related to Collins then Key should make it clear who won’t do any deals with Peters after the election.

If Key doesn’t act then whoever is at fault here will get away with doing something disgraceful.

 

Bribe and jibe season

Labour and New Zealand First campaign launches included voter bribes – offering more ‘free’ stuff, but of course taxpayers (other voters) will pay for the policies if they succeed.

Along with the bribes are the jibes – political jibes, racist jibes, anything to get some media attention and coverage to pander to the greedy, needy and the prejudiced.

NZ Herald reports in Winston’s digs come with jokes:

A Chinese name joke, a dig at this country’s “Mr Spray and Walk Away” Prime Minister, and a promise of $1000 and a KiwiSaver account for every newborn baby – all featured in the New Zealand First campaign launch yesterday.

“It’s so they can get out of university without a large albatross around their neck.

Taxpayers eventually have to wear the albatross.

And more jibes:

He repeated his intention to crack down on foreign ownership, saying National’s claim that Labour had done it as well was not vindication.

“Just because your predecessor did it too does not make your actions sensible. As they say in Beijing, two Wongs don’t make a right.”

Peters and some of the NZ First MPs tried to defend that joke but were unconvincing.

Vernon Small at Stuff comments on Labour’s biggest and best shot:

David Cunliffe has fired Labour’s biggest and best shot with his $280m health spending promise, taking aim squarely at the vote-rich elderly – Winston Peters’ happy hunting ground.

It leaves Cunliffe and finance spokesman David Parker with just under $200m of their election war chest left to spend…

“Their election war chest” is taxpayer money, not their lollies to scramble voters with.

More from Stuff in Labour’s health plan cost queried.

A battle has erupted over the affordability of taxpayers funding GP care for the elderly after Labour pledged to make their doctors visits free.

With the over 65s paying on average $31 a visit, Labour is hoping to match the huge success of the existing scheme for children by extending it to the over 65s.

The elderly and the very young were the big winners – with Labour making a grab for the pensioner vote with its promise to roll out free doctors visits and prescriptions to over 65s.

Whether you call them election promises or bribes this is a bad way to dump spending policy on the public in a mass of election rhetoric. Voters get to choose who they prefer in Government but they don’t get to debate the pros and cons of each promise of increasing spending of their money.

In closing hsi launch speech David Cunliffe said:

If you want an end to politics as usual and to build a New Zealand that works for everyone.

Mr Cunliffe, if you were serious about ending politics as usual you wouldn’t be resorting to bribes and policy that looks driven by election desperation. It’s your political future but it’s our money.

What would “one law for all” be?

If we had one law for all what would that law be?  Thou shall not hurt anyone else? Thou shall not tell fibs (especially in politics)?

ACT Party

Act Party leader Jamie Whyte has stirred up a race debate by promoting one law for all.

He means that one race (Maori) shouldn’t have separate laws or privileges or Parliamentary seats to anyone else. That’s fine in theory, but very contentious and controversial in practice, as Whyte is finding out.

But it’s having the desired effect, raising Whyte’s and Act’s profile on the potential constituency that matters for them to start to make an impression in the polls. See comments at Kiwiblog in Jamie Whyte on race based law.

Conservative Party

This is also one of the Conservative Party’s key policies (from very sparse offerings).

OneLawForAll

One Law For All is one of four very brief policy statements on their Issues page.

Another is the Conservative’s ‘bottom line’ policy “On Our Watch Referendums Will Be Binding’. In the unlikely event that they have a watch in Parliament they won’t get support for this, an issue that seems inspired by Craig’s obsession with getting the ‘smacking’ law repealed.

Craig wants one law for all if it involves Maori ‘privilege’, but he wants parents to have a different law than children when it comes to being hit. One could agree with Craig that there’s some crazy thinking here.

Another of their policies is YOUR FIRST $20,000 TAX FREE THEN A FLAT TAX. Act at least have some consistency, wanting one tax rate for all instead of no tax for those earning under $20,000 and then tax whack the rest of us.

NZ First

NZ First seem to stake a claim to the ‘One Law For All’ slogan but it doesn’t stand out in their policies. Their website doesn’t have a page for ‘Winston Peters Rhetoric’ but their is plenty of that elsewhere, for example in Budget in Reply Speech – Winston Peters.

We believe in one law for all – irrespective of ethnic background.

Not the crumbs of tokenism from the Cronies Club Tables!

New Zealand First believes that we must train, skill, educate and employ our own people first.

There’s no excuse for the hiring of cheap labour from overseas when so many are on the unemployment scrap heap back here.

On the issue of foreigners speculating on housing in New Zealand – we’ve had the courage to say it for years but successive governments have refused to act.

Ok, one law for all as long as you’re one of “our own people” and not “from overseas” or a “foreigner”.

NZ First and one law for all seems to be contradictory.

One Law 4 All Party

There is also a party set up and now registered to address this issue – One Law 4 All.

To keep faith with 1Law4All supporters from across the political spectrum, we have the one bottom line – that of legal equality of all citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, culture or religion.

Should we win a position in government, 1Law4All will take a middle-of-the road position on all other issues or proposals by other parties. Should this be difficult to define or involve highly controversial legislation, we will seek a majority public consensus and vote accordingly. We will not have personal conscience votes.

Legal equality is a bottom line but on anything else majority public consensus will enable the overruling of minority rights and needs.

Several Questions For All

‘One law for all” and legal equality sound fine in theory, but life and legislation can be more complicated than that. How would the above parties answer the following questions?

  • One assault law for all or separate law for parents?
  • One tax for all or different tax rates?
  • One property law for all or ‘one of us’ versus ‘foreigners’?
  • One immigration law for all regardless of race, religion, age, skills?
  • Can anyone put flashing lights on their car and run red lights and speed?
  • No age limit for marriage, sex, voting, firearms, driving, alcohol?
  • Superannuation for all?
  • Early childhood education for all?
  • Domestic Purposes Benefit for all?

And what seems to be at the centre of all the ‘one law for all’ posturing is the Treaty of Waitangi. Should New Zealand declare all treaties invalid – one treaty for all or no treaties for anyone? There’s quite a few, for example see Treaties and International Law.

Or just selected ones?

Back to Act

While Act want no legal or other privileges for Maori…

Treaty of Waitangi and Race Relations

ACT supports the vision of a free society and would seek to remove all race-based appointments in parliament or any other branch of government.

…they sound more reasonable regarding the Waitangi Tribunal:

We would work towards ensuring the Waitangi Tribunal process ends on the basis of full, fair, and final settlements.

But a quick scan through their other policies suggests they support some targeting and don’t propose universal rules for everyone.

ACC: “The one-size-fits-all compulsory, government-owned monopoly insurance provider is failing New Zealanders.” So they don’t support one insurance provider for all.

Crime and Justice: “ACT supports tough, appropriate sentencing for all offences including burglary (three strikes you’re out), livestock theft (weapon and vehicle confiscation) and murder (sentenced by degree).” Selective application of three strikes, which is targeting some offences and offenders differently to others.

One law for all, unless getting tough on (some) crime will get more votes.

‘One law for all’ is a simple political slogan in a very complex real world.

Horan responds to speculatory accusations

Speculation about independent MP Brendan Horan at The Standard has been refuted by Horan.

A post by ‘Geoff’ was full of speculation and accusation and absent any facts – Why does David Farrar hate Winston Peters so much? Farrar responded in Best ever thread on The Standard.

The post included speculation about Horan’s motives and possible collusion with Farrar and National in his questioning of Winston Peters and NZ First in Parliament over the past few weeks.

Lately, Brendan Horan has begun to attack Winston in parliament, somewhat out of the blue.
What is his motivation? Is this National attacking Winston through the satellite state of Brendan Horan?

Why would National do that? Have they decided, in private at least, that a coalition with Winston is intolerable? That’s seems risky because they may need his help to form a government after the election.

Are they just trying to diminish his vote, hoping that most of his supporters would vote National if they abandoned Winston? That would explain the use of Horan as a means to attack Winston without completely jeopardising a post-election deal with him.

How much of a say does David Farrar have in the National party’s election strategy?

Perhaps Farrar is by-passing National and feeding attack lines to Horan directly?

It’s all very fishy. Can anyone shed any light on this?

Horan’s attacks on Peters are not “somewhat out of the blue”. He indicated to me last year that after his family business was dealt with (the excuse Peters used to kick Horan out of the NZ First caucus and party, absent any facts) he would be revealing concerns he had about NZ First.

Geoff’s accusations themselves seemed very fishy, or fishing, and any questioning of them were slapped with Standard threats.

[lprent: Don't be stupid. You are likely to pick up a ban if you accused an author or the site of ulterior motives without proof or a reasonable theory. In the latter case it would usually be after you wank on about it repetitively for some time making assertions without proof.]

In other words you can’t question the “ulterior motives without proof or a reasonable theory” of authors who “wank on about it repetitively for some time making assertions without proof” without risking being attacked or banned – a normal double Standard.

Horan later posted a comment in response. It deserves a right of reply post but that’s not likely to happen at The Standard.

Hi all,

1) I’ve had no contact with David Farrer.
2) All questions I’ve asked have been on behalf of people bullied by the leader of NZ First.
3) I was challenged by media to supply evidence and I did.
4) My sources are Past employees, past and current party members and former NZ First Party MP’s.
5) The speaker is investigating the Leader of NZ First and I’m happy for due process and natural justice to run its course.

Regards,
Brendan

I’ve been following Horan’s questions in Parliament and I follow David Farrar’s posts and tweets and I have seen nothing that puts any doubt on what Horan says here.

I’ve also had recent contact with an ex NZ First employee who is not impressed by some of what Peters has done within NZ First.

Winston Yeah/Nah

A comment at Kiwiblog from ‘minus’ points out Winston Peters contradicting himself.

Winston YEAH / NAH
Speaking from Auckland, Mr Peters said Mr Horan’s claims were lies. While he confirmed NZ First had used parliamentary funding to develop the software, he denied the software was used for party political purposes.

“It’s used to enable our expansion into sector groups, all sorts of commercial and social interest groups where we’re able to spell out what our policies are and interact with them.”

“It is run by someone who knows precisely what the law is as to the appropriateness of use and what you can and cannot do.”

However he also said the software had not been launched yet.

1st sentence Winston denies the software is used for party political purposes.
2nd sentence Winston describes uses which seem to be party political
3rd sentence confirms that someone uses it
4th sentence denies it is used at all – “had not been launched yet”

Kī tōnu taku waka topaki i te tuna, Winston

Quote source NZ Herald: Peters dodges Horan’s allegations

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 245 other followers