In his NBR Weekend Review Matthew Hooton is tootin’ for a National government propped up by Winston Peters, with a few baubles for Winston to swing the deal.
Both Mr Key and Mr Peters know they need one another.
Should he hold the balance of power, Mr Peters would be an uncomfortable third-wheel and office junior in a Labour/Green government. His journey back to the deputy prime ministership, perhaps the foreign minister’s job, a knighthood and a veneer of respectability is only possible with Mr Key.
For his part, Mr Key is almost certainly doomed without Mr Peters propping him up for a third term.
Strong economic growth gives National the chance to sit around the 44% mark, where it is polling now. Throw in 5% for Mr Peters, and Mr Key might just squeak back in again.
This is as bad as Labour giving up on going it alone and becoming dependent on Greens for any chance of being in government.
And Hooton discounting…
…private polling suggesting that perhaps as many as two-thirds of National voters would consider staying at home or changing their vote if they thought Mr Key might govern with Mr Peters. They wouldn’t of course, or certainly not in those numbers.
…is remarkable. It wouldn’t take anywhere near two-thirds of National voters to change or abstain to cause major electoral problems for National. One third of the current approximate 45% level of support for National is 15% – that would drop them to about 30%, struggling on the same level as Labour.
And it’s not just National voters that could be problematic if a National+Winston government was signalled as likely. The swing voters in the middle would then have the dilemma of a choice between National+Winston versus Labour+Greens+Mana.
Perhaps Hooton hopes that many voters will give up in horror and that National may emerge victorious from the ruins of an election.
Hooton tootin’ has to be taken with a sea-ful of salt.
A shyster is a slang word for someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law, politics or business.
Shyster is derived from the German term scheisser, meaning literally “one who defecates”.
Appropriate. Sadly.
Sad for the occasion, sad for NZ First supporters who were embarrassed.
Draft transcript:
MARRIAGE (DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE) AMENDMENT BILL
Third Reading
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):
New Zealand First believes in the use of public referendum, and we have for a long time.
In 1997 some will recall that we put a referendum to New Zealand voters on a savings regime similar to Australia or Singapore. Sadly, it was voted down, and 60 years later we are broke and in the clutches of foreign banks and foreign money.
We could have just rammed a bill through Parliament, but we went and took it to the people, and those are our bona fides on the issue of a referendum. We have spent the better part of the year debating Ms Wall’s bill, and, sadly, the public are not much the wiser for it. In fact, there has hardly been a debate.
What we have had is a small yet vocal minority telling the rest of New Zealanders that there is a law change that everyone wants, and anyone who disagrees has got to be a bigot.
Then on the other side of the so-called debate we have got those who would like to see the State police themselves police morality in the bedroom.
The truth is that most New Zealanders sit somewhere in the middle. That might be tawdry and uncomfortable, but it is the way a society works.
Some support the change; others do not. But their reasons for supporting or opposing it are never as sensationalist or extreme as some on either side would have us believe. No one really knows what side the majority of the public opinion sits on.
Some claim, as Ms Wall and her supporters have, that there is a huge groundswell for change. Well, is that true, and if so, how do we know?
As far as we are aware, the issue never came up at any of the meetings that we held in the 3 years out from the last election. Nobody lobbied us and no journalists called to ask where we sat on the issue. There was no words spoken on the campaign trail about same-sex marriage whatsoever.
That is not the issue, and Ms Wall has every right to draft a bill and present it to this House, but a lot of the bile in this issue would not be present had the process been different.
It came upon us, this bill, out of the blue. The manner of this bill’s emergence, the process by which it got before Parliament, needs to be publicised.
It is why many fair-minded Kiwis feel confused. They are confused because Ms Wall and her supporters have not told them how it happened.
Why did they not, upfront, go to the last election, in the campaign, and say “We will introduce same-sex marriage.”, instead of using some woolly language like “We will review relationship and property law.”? Who up in the gallery thinks that that is what they wanted?
The only explanation has to be that they were afraid. They were afraid that their party supporters might not like it. We can make all the pretentious and glorious statements tonight, but, in the end, it is what the people think. In fact, Ms Wall, sad to say, was not even upfront with her own party.
The normal process of the Labour Party—
Hon Member: Come on.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —I am coming on with the facts here—is for members’ bills to be taken to the Labour whip’s office for the Labour whip to lodge after the bill is approved by the Labour caucus.
That is the process every party follows, and it has to be followed because the system will not operate without it. But Ms Wall did not. It is a fact. Make all the statements they like now, but the first the Labour leader’s office knew was seeing it on the list of bills lodged. That is a fact. So tell us why the Labour whip’s office was not told at caucus first, before the bill was lodged—
Hon Lianne Dalziel: It did go to caucus.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am getting it from the best of authority that that is what happened—
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah, after the event. That is true—after the event.
Moana Mackey: We were there.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: So you were in the whip’s office? No, you were not, and that is a fact. My evidence is of somebody who was, and it suggests that the Labour Party was hijacked on this issue.
Ms Wall, what do the people of Manurewa think? What do the people out there in South Auckland, in Manurewa, think?
Well, utter silence now, but this is about democracy and representation.
That is why so many Labour supporters are telling us that they support our referendum stance, because they feel they have never been asked, that somehow they have been left out; even more think that somehow they have been cheated.
This is supposed to be a democracy. This is supposed to be a place where the people’s voice matters. This is supposed to be a Parliament where one would be proud to face up to their caucus and say “I think this bill should come before Parliament.”
Oh no, no, I am sorry; that is what they are saying now, because they could not say anything else, in the same way that many National members over there who are going to vote this bill know full well that the so-called protection for religious dissidents, whether they are celebrants or otherwise, is not in this legislation.
If a church so deems someone’s objection to be wrong, then that person could be punished. That is all they asked for. Is it too much for that to happen?
That is why we call this House the House of Representatives, representing not ourselves, but the people.
Here we are as a Parliament about to circumvent any expression of public opinion yet again. Why? Do they think that if the public is asked, they might lose?
I do not know, but I am prepared to trust the public. I do not wish to hear from polls; I want to know what the public exactly thinks. On Campbell Live tonight, I think the poll that it had, strange as it was—and I do not think it is remotely scientific—had 78 percent no and 22 percent yes. What say it is wrong by 20 percent?
The question is: what to the public think? And why are there so many people in this Parliament prepared, when it suits them, to circumvent the public’s will, when all the bile and venom of this issue could not have been in Parliament had we asked New Zealanders “Well, what do you think?”.
Shortly we go to Anzac Day. It is about democracy, and it is an inclusive democracy that they were fighting for, not just one vote every 3 years, and that is my point.
We are prepared to respect as a party, in New Zealand First, that we have many divergent party views within the party. We respect that. That is why we are prepared to all compromise and say as one group “Well, let’s ask New Zealanders, for after all, they should be the final arbiter.”
This is a rule not for us; it is a law for them.
We object to the people being taken for granted. We object to the view that we are here and we have temporary hold of the reins, and what Joe Public thinks is of no importance whatsoever.
For those who wish to ignore this message, then let me give this clear warning: there is a day of reckoning coming, electorally.
The manner of this vote tonight—[Interruption] Laugh now and cry later. The manner of this vote tonight is a game shifter, and it will be reflected in the next election results.
There are some issues that dissipate and there are some issues that stay around a long time.
All around New Zealand tonight and in the next few days, people will be saying “Well, if that’s the way they think, then our view does not matter, then I will never ever for them again.”
If one looks at the huge social and economic issues this country presently faces, and the desperate need for better solutions to them, then some in this House would have seriously sacrificed their colleagues and their party for a narrow, undemocratic—worthy or unworthy, I do not know—expression.
When the political wilderness years come, do not say you were not warned.
Tau Henare’s response:
Hon TAU HENARE (National): I will be splitting my call with the Hon Nikki Kaye. I did have a speech prepared, but that speech shot it to bits. Here is the bona fides on the New Zealand First referendum of the 1990s. The National Party said no to a bill.
That is why we went to a referendum, and when we went to a referendum, 82 percent of the country said: “No, Winston. We don’t believe in you any more.” That is what it said. It never went through caucus. It never went through caucus.
And that speech that I heard tonight was the biggest shyster speech I have ever heard—the biggest shyster speech I have ever heard.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You heard what the member said. He must be looking in the mirror. But he must apologise.
Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Are you saying such an expression is parliamentary?
Mr SPEAKER: Sorry?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Are you saying that the expression he used is parliamentary?
Mr SPEAKER: I am certainly not ruling it out as unparliamentary.
Hon TAU HENARE: So it is OK for New Zealand First to have bills in the ballot. That is the democracy. But when Louisa Wall puts one in the ballot, that has to go to a referendum? How the hell is any country in the world supposed to operate on a system like that?
Who decides whether there should be a referendum or not? Him? I hope not. I hope not, because we would still be in the 1880s.
I feel sad that I was a member and even a deputy leader under that man. I used to look up to him. But I tell you what: that speech tonight is nothing more than pandering to the 10 percent on either side of this argument.
It is nothing more than pandering to those racist, redneck people who just love to get on the email. I want to say that I have been appalled with some of the behaviour of those for the bill and against the bill, because I for one do not think that those who are against the bill are homophobic just because they are voting against it.
It is their right to vote against it, and I will back my colleagues who vote against it all the way. I just do not agree with them. And they are going to lose tonight. But, however, to quickly run through what I was going to say, it is time.
The sky did not and will not fall in.
How does it affect me or anyone else in this House in this country? It does not. It just does not. Think about it for a minute.
If the institution of marriage was so sacrosanct, then why the hell are so many people getting a divorce? I do not say that in a facetious manner.
If it does belong to the Church, as I have been told by so many people on the email, then why do we have legislation outlining who can and who cannot?
If there was no legislation, I would back the Church 100 percent. But it is not theirs. It actually belongs to the Government. It actually belongs to this Parliament. It is a creature now of Parliament.
It is not a creature any more of either the Bible or the Church. Lastly, I want to say that it is actually about the equality of opportunity.
All we are doing—we are not forcing anybody to do anything in any way, shape, or form. But what we are doing is offering people the opportunity of equality, and they either take it or they do not. It is not up to me. It is not up to any one of us in this House.
I want to thank my cousin Cath, who unfortunately died some months ago. She would have been here yelling from the rooftops, and I seriously mean that she would have been yelling from the rooftops, because that is what she was like. I hope she is finally proud of her cousin, and I am sure she was in other ways.
Finally, a message to all LGBTI—and I finally got that out. My message to you all is welcome to the mainstream. Do well. Kia ora.
I had been wondering about Winston Peters being so quiet on the proposed changes to GCSB law and oversight. Seems like he has been looking at it seriously.
Jessica Mutch interviewed Winston Peters on Q + A this morning about the problems in Question Time with the Speaker David Carter and and opposition frustration at claimed unfaori and unbalanced rulings.
Peters gave a reasoned and reasonable response, with a fair evaluation of Carter’s performance to date. He ruled him 3.5 out of 10 so far. He said “it’s only two months. He’s got a long way to go. We do hope that he does get up to it, yes”.
You know, you’ve got to have a Speaker that works, because Parliament has got to work in the end run. And for Parliament to work, we’ve all got to make compromises, but you shouldn’t have to make too big a compromise.
It’s not a game. The fact is that you’re there to ask questions that the public wants the answers to, and it’s in the ambit of responsibility of these ministers and their capacity and their knowledge to answer them properly.
The Prime Minister and his Ministers need to do more to meet their responsibilities to the Opposition and the public.
And Labour need to enable this by being less confrontational and less obsessed with petty point scoring – they could learn from Peters (and the Greens) in their approach to question time. They should be holding the Government and it’s ministers to account, not trying to win an election every week the House sits.
Carter should be able to manage the House in his own style but needs to do more to be seen to be fair – but the parties and MPs need to give him more of a fair go as well.
JESSICA Look, being a referee or an umpire’s never easy, and you’ve got to have the knack. And some people have got it, some don’t, and some can by a lot of hard work and a bit of humility learn it. And he’s got a long, long way to go. Out of ten, what score would you give him?
WINSTON Well, he’s about three and a half at the moment, and I would think that even he would regard that as a pretty good score, but he’s got a long way to go. And if he doesn’t work out, I think we’ll have to look seriously at an independent or some other MP doing the job, because this sort of thing cannot go on. And there’s a lot of justification for the angst and upset of a number of members of Parliament. It’s not political. It’s just not right to have an unfair environment, either unknowingly or consciously.
JESSICA You talked about having someone independent. Do you think we’ve got to that point now?
WINSTON I think we were at the point a long, long time ago, but, of course, all the parties use it as a promotion link or as an equivalent to a Cabinet post, and it comes with a knighthood now, as you know. And so this is a huge inducement for people to do what they would ordinarily not do.
JESSICA Because we’ve seen in the House this week – we’ve seen almost a bit of a tag team with Trevor Mallard, Chris Hipkins, Russel Norman and yourself. Is this a game?
WINSTON No, it’s not a game. The fact is that you’re there to ask questions that the public wants the answers to, and it’s in the ambit of responsibility of these ministers and their capacity and their knowledge to answer them properly. And frankly, I’ve seen some ministers in the past you could never nail because they got up and briefly told the truth. And it’s still the smartest policy.
JESSICA So do you think this is a principle of Parliament that basically we have to have a Speaker who works to make the whole place work?
WINSTON Well, the most unusual people have been good Speakers. The best I ever saw was a guy called Burke – Kerry Burke. People are the-
JESSICA Why was he good?
WINSTON Well, we never thought he would be, and within a week, it was obvious he was going to be because you could tell from his demeanour that you had gone too far and that you weren’t being fair. He never kicked anyone out, and he got amazing cooperation out of the most unlikely people. So I think he was very, very good, and we did not think at the start he would be. Now, he was across the divide. He was a different party’s Speaker, so it’s not so much the party, it’s whether the person understands – you’re Parliament’s man or woman, you’ve got to be independent, you’ve got to be professional, and above all, you’ve got to be fair.
JESSICA In terms of fairness, do you think that David Carter is still very much leaning in favour of National?
WINSTON He hasn’t got past his political colours. He hasn’t dropped the National Party background, and he’s got to do that to be successful. That’s what it actually means in there. If you talk about the romance and majesty of the job, it’s to be Parliament’s person above all else, fearing no party or baggage or obligation. He’s got a long way to go to get there.
JESSICA Because some people would say you’ve been kicked out of Parliament, according to the Parliamentary Library, 38 times. Are you the best judge of what makes a good Speaker?
WINSTON Yeah, I am.
JESSICA Why is that?
WINSTON Because I’ve been treated more unfairly than most.
JESSICA So do you think-?
WINSTON I didn’t come here to make friends, and I didn’t come here to be put down or shut down. And if I was in a court of law, I’d get the answer, and I’m entitled to the answer here too.
JESSICA Do you respect the job that he’s doing?
WINSTON To be fair-
JESSICA Because that’s a point-
WINSTON he didn’t want the job.
JESSICA No.
WINSTON But the National Party wanted an extra Cabinet post member to be made available. That’s why Williamson outside of Cabinet didn’t get the job.
JESSICA And he’s only been in the job for two months, so don’t you need to give him a bit of leeway?
WINSTON Well, he’s been in Parliament long enough, hasn’t he?
JESSICA Yeah, but doing that-
WINSTON He’s been here since 1994. That is almost 20 years. If you haven’t learnt something in 20 years, maybe you should have gone.
JESSICA Do you think, though, that he does need to be given a little bit of leeway – give him a break, so to speak?
WINSTON Yeah, I think that’s fair.
JESSICA Are you doing that, though?
WINSTON Well, he’s had more than enough breaks so far.
JESSICA Because it seems like you’re giving him a pretty hard time. And watching from the debating chamber, it looks like you’re rarking him up a bit.
WINSTON Well, there’s no use saying, ‘Look, we’ll let the speaker do what he likes and try and learn,’ whilst you lose the game every day trying to get at the truth. Because this is a game or business that’s a raging battle for political plow. And if you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand Parliament. And people are expecting you to put your best foot- and give your best foot forward and give it your best shot. And you cannot have something that is hindering you from doing that.
JESSICA You sued the Speaker a number of years ago for defamation. Some people would say this is personal for you.
WINSTON No, it’s not because of that. You know, you’ve got to have a Speaker that works, because Parliament has got to work in the end run. And for Parliament to work, we’ve all got to make compromises, but you shouldn’t have to make too big a compromise.
JESSICA Does that personal clash, though, make it more difficult for you?
WINSTON It’s not a personal matter between him and me at all, but, you know, he came to me before he got the job and said, ‘We need to talk.’ And my answer was, ‘Well, look, if nobody bothered to consult us about you being chosen in the first place, what would our conversation be about?’
JESSICA So he can stay in the job, in your opinion?
WINSTON Well, he can stay in the job whilst he shows that he’s up to doing the job.
JESSICA And is he?
WINSTON And that should be the condition anyone stays in their job.
JESSICA Is he up to it?
WINSTON Well, as you say, it’s only two months. He’s got a long way to go. We do hope that he does get up to it, yes.
I list ten more, these ones are weaknesses of the Opposition that help National maintain their support.
1. David Shearer
Shearer’s bumbling and balls-ups, and his lack of any clear desire, direction or definitive position on anything, accentuate Key’s accomplished calm assurance. And Labour supporters dread seeing Shearer versus Key in election debates.
2. Labour’s repeating of failed strategies
Not just their clinging to battles long since lost, not just their continued attempts to discredit John Key, Labour look like last century political attack hacks.
3. Labour’s lack of talent
Labour’s caucus is very thin on new talent, it’s old talent often doesn’t look that flash, and some of it’s best talent is relegated to the back benches (David Cunliffe) or is driven out of parliament (Charles Chauvel). Even the new talent that’s rated, like Jacinda Ardern and David Clark, looks superficial – party parrots, not heavy lifters.
4. Green power wariness
The Green party have had an enthusiastic minority following, plus sizable support from people sympathetic to some of their ideals. Especially on environmental issues. A Green voice is good.
But now the Greens look like they could become a significant part of a Labour Green government people are becoming very wary of actual Green power.
5. Russel Norman – whiny and wacky
Norman can have a whiny demeanour. And he has made his financial portfolio ambitions clear – which scare the hell out of many people. They don’t care about Greens and wacky baccy, but wacky money ideas are a real worry.
6. Metirea Turei – socialist and socialite
Turei speaks strongly for people in poverty, but:
- her solutions are seen as serious socialism
- her advocating for people in poverty clashes with her well dressed well heeled image.
Turei’s image clash is a symptom of a more general Green disconnect with their poorly constituents – they look like well meaning well educated middle class do gooders. The Vatican versus the Salvation Army is too extreme to be a fair comparison but Greens don’t look like sleeves rolled up workers for the downtrodden.
They seem keen to transfer other people’s wealth, but not their own.
7. Green Hues of Gareth Hughes
No mining. No drilling. No fracking. No cars. No, Gareth, too much no, no, no.
The great Green alternative won’t just grow on trees by itself and save the world.
There’s a great big gap between great ideals and practical solutions.
David Shearer has been very vague about what Labour would do, saying they would wait until after the election to decided – Shear Shearer hypocrisy on asset mandate.
Shearer has said a bit more about this in an interview at ‘The Farming Show’:
Would you do a Winston and buy them back, compulsorily buy them back if you took office?
I can’t see we would be in a position to be able to do that, I mean, so I can’t put my hand on my heart and say to people that we would buy them back, ah, that wouldn’t be right.
Ah, look, the bottom line is when you sell these assets and the proceeds come in, and you spend them as the Government says it’s going to spend them on schools and hospitals, I don’t see how we can afford to buy them back when we came into office.
I’m not going to rule it out, but certainly I think it’s very unlikely.
That is less vague than before but far from certain.
And I’m very puzzled about Shearer’s thinking here, if he thinks.
If National didn’t sell any asset shares they would have to borrow more money.
If they sell the shares and borrow less, a Labour led Government could borrow more – what National would have had to borrow if they did as Labour want them to do now.
This could mean:
Shearer is using “I don’t see how we can afford to buy them back” as an excuse for not buying them back
Shearer wants to buy them back but doesn’t want to say that now
Shearer doesn’t understand much about this.
Or maybe Shearer isa banking on Russel Norman to start the printing presses and solve all of those little problems – How they plan to pay for their promises?
“Borrowing money would make economic sense because the returns would make that totally feasible”
This is a fair enough approach – it is a direct reversal of the government’s transaction of selling the assets and paying down debt. And the historical dividend returns on the assets are higher than the government’s costs of borrowing so there will be no great win or loss either way.
But this is freaking scary: “but there are other resources,” he said. “You’ve got the superannuation fund, KiwiSaver or a number of avenues or options you could exercise.”
The money in MY Kiwisaver account is MY money not Winston’s slush fund! If he wants the government to buy something they should borrow or raise the funds not steal them from savers!
Ignorance? Or dishonest claim?
(I disagree that a buy back would be a fair enough approach after shares were bought in good faith, many for long term investments).
Mr Peters said he would be happy for a Government of which he was a part to borrow or to use the superannuation fund to buy back shares at no more than cost.
Mr Peters said his NZ First party was renowned for going into negotiations “knowing what we want and getting what we want”.
“Borrowing money would make economic sense because the returns would make that totally feasible, but there are other resources,” he said.
“You’ve got the superannuation fund, KiwiSaver or a number of avenues or options you could exercise.”
Did Peters make a mistake, say this through ignorance, or he just doesn’t care what he says to try and get some media coverage and votes?
David Shearer shows incredible hypocrisy questioning National’s mandate on assets sales but he doesn’t want Labour’s position on buying back shares with Winston Peters to be judged in the next election. He says Labour won’t make a commitment until after the election.
Mr Peters said it would make sense to borrow to buy back shares, and commentators who said it did not make sense were “unreconstructed economic morons”.
He his NZ First party was renowned for going into negotiations “knowing what we want and getting what we want”.
“Borrowing money would make economic sense because the returns would make that totally feasible, but there are other resources,” he said.
“You’ve got the superannuation fund, KiwiSaver or a number of avenues or options you could exercise.”
Mr Shearer said, “We won’t rule it out but we won’t rule it in either.” Labour would not be able to make any commitment on it before an election.
We know all about trusting Winston, but can we trust Shearer?
This is remarkable non-stance and incredibly hypocritical – any post election decision would have zero mandate.
Would Shearer commit to waiting for the result of any referendum before buying back shares?
Commenting on NZ First claims they will push to buy back power company shares in any coalition deal Peter Dunne has described Winston Peters as “the Hugo Chavez of New Zealand politics” and that he “needs to be exposed as such”.
New Zealand First will use its influence on the next coalition Government to buy back our state-owned power companies which are being flogged off by National and we are committed to buying back the shares at no greater price than paid by the first purchaser.
I asked Dunne what the United Future position would be in any coalition deals.
I think this is no more than hot, populist air from Winston – by buy back he means re-nationalise, which no government would ever agree to.
I suspect the “weasel words” agreement would be something like the NZ Government giving active consideration to re-purchasing shares as and when they would become available, but that would impose extraordinary costs on the taxpayer.
If one of the reasons for selling shares in state assets is to broaden their capital base and lessen the dependence on the state’s coffer for their future capital requirements, then buying back shares or re-nationalisation makes absolutely no sense at all. All it will mean is that these entities will be even more capital constrained than they are now, with the prospects of future service improvements even more crippled.
It is dumb policy – but it has a sinister overtone. Peters knows it’s dumb, but he also knows he can play on people’s fears and gain popularity from such an approach. He is really the Hugo Chavez of New Zealand politics and needs to be exposed as such.
National would obviously not agree to buy back shares they have sold. Labour aren’t being open, probably because Dunne is right, they wouldn’t agree to re-nationalise either but don’t want to say that out loud at the moment. And Dunne suggests any coalition between Winston and Labour would be a “weasel words” agreement.
David Shearer shows incredible hypocrisy questioning National’s mandate on assets sales but he doesn’t want Labour’s position on buying back shares with Winston Peters to be judged in the next election. He says Labour won’t make a commitment until after the election.
We know all about trusting Winston, but can we trust Shearer?
This is remarkable non-stance and incredibly hypocritical – any post election decision would have zero mandate.
Would Shearer commit to waiting for the result of any referendum before buying back shares?