Dictatorial ‘Bilge Rat’ politics

Winston peters has accused John Key of being dictatorial and involved in ‘bilge rat politics’:

PM Stoops To ‘Bilge Rat’ Politics On Auckland Housing

Auckland Council is a victim of the ‘bilge rat’ politics of Prime Minister John Key, says New Zealand First Leader and Northland MP Rt Hon Winston Peters.

“Mr Key is bullying the council. Fix housing or we put in commissioners. That’s dictatorial. It’s arrogant.

Typically colourful language to attract attention, as Peters is adept at. And Key does appear to be at least a little dictatorial on housing in Auckland.

But is Peters’ accusation a bit pot/kettle? He has been seen as and accused of being dictatorial within the NZ First party.

Little seems to be seen or heard of the other eleven NZ First MPs.

With the party’s rise in prominence in polls and raised chances of NZ First holding a pivotal role in the make up of the next government more exposure of the whole line up of MPs is important. I presume Peters won’t demand all the plum positions in Cabinet for himself and leave all his colleagues out in the cold.

Peters dominates the NZ First presence in Question Time in Parliament.

The most recent questions asked by NZ First MPs:

Peters seems to often ask both NZ First questions when they have two allocated.

I think Peters was not at Parliament in the first two weeks of May so duties were shared around, but with deputy leader Ron Mark ask more questions (four) than the other three combined.

But unless there is an ejection or walkout from the chamber the NZ First MPs other than Peters seem to get little media attention.

So is the media the problem? Are they guilty of focussing too much on headline makers like Peters and ignoring much of what goes on with the other MPs?

A search in Google news for the last week for “Ron Mark” gets two hits but they are press releases at Scoop.

In comparison Labour deputy Annette King features in 12 articles.

Going back a month, excluding press releases, there are a smattering of stories featuring Mark:

Again King has significantly more, about three times as many.

Looking at News releases on the NZ First website it is apparent that a number of NZ First MPs are busy churning out statements.



So seven MPs other than Peters put out press releases non budget day, but that was into a very crowded media market.








Obvious prominence of Peters but quite a few contributions from other NZ First MPs there.

They just don’t make headlines, and seem virtually invisible in the news.

Is this a problem? Or just how things work with list MPs who are not in leading positions?

If this low profile for most NZ First MPs continues the public may not know much about them until they are thrust into a coalition spotlight should they get that opportunity after next year’s election.

I don’t know if Peters is dictatorial in the NZ First caucus or not, but his MP colleagues are working on getting their messages out.

Is the media too dictatorial in what gets put in front of the public?

Are significant media resources pored/poured into trying to find smidgens of connections in a myriad of Panama papers a more worthwhile service to the New Zealand public than informing us about those who may well end up playing a part in running the country in eighteen months?

Horan’s accusations against NZ First

Brendan Horan accused Winston Peters and NZ First of misusing funds and parliamentary staff yesterday.

• NZ First used about $20,000 from its taxpayer-funded leader’s budget to purchase the Vanguard “constituent management software”.
• Mr Horan claims Vanguard is used to seek memberships and donations which is against Parliament’s rules.
• NZ First staff who are paid by Parliamentary Service are running the software which is also against Parliament’s rules.


Budget Debate – 21st May, 2014 – Part 6Date: 21/05/14Topic: Budget DebatePeople: Andrew Williams, Barbara Stewart,Brendan Horan, Richard Prosser

Starts at 5:45

The draft transcript:


15:59:30~BRENDAN HORAN (Independent)

I turn now to Vote Parliamentary Service. Recently I have received information that raises real questions about the use of parliamentary funding by a party. I am writing to the Speaker asking that the Parliamentary Service investigate these matters and report to him. There is a clear precedent for this when in December 2001 the then general manager, John O’Sullivan, reported to the Speaker on the Alliance electorate liaison unit. That report swept aside any uncertainty that might have existed and clearly stated the rules. The Leader of New Zealand First cannot claim to be ignorant—

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

BRENDAN HORAN: —but in the past 18 months has—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! There is a point of order.

Richard Prosser: The Budget debate is around the Government’s allocation of funding for various means and the use of that funding—.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. Look—[Interruption] Order! The member will sit. The member in opening talked about Vote Parliamentary Service. That is what he is speaking on and he can continue in that vein. I am listening very carefully to what he is saying. That comes under Speaker’s rulings. I am inviting Brendan Horan to continue.

BRENDAN HORAN: It is good to see he had a voice there, but a shame he does not have a vertebrae.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is completely out of order. That is an attack on the integrity of a member of this House. The member will withdraw and apologise for that comment.

BRENDAN HORAN: I withdraw and apologise for that comment.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Brendan Horan—continue.

BRENDAN HORAN: He has deliberately withheld information from the board of the NZ First Party. The NZ First Party—

Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 117, “Personal reflections”, a member may not make an imputation of improper motives against a member, an offensive reference to a private member’s affairs”—Standing Order 117.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Look, I know that this is a very interesting subject. This debate is about the spending not the person. We are in a debate on Vote Parliamentary Service. Anything to do with the appropriation and the way that money has been appropriated, how it is being used, and how it is being spent is a matter for debate, and that is what we are on now. So Brendan Horan will continue.

BRENDAN HORAN: The NZ First Party is using taxpayer-funded computer software for party political purposes such as campaigning and fundraising. The programme codenamed “Vanguard”—

Barbara Stewart: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again Mr Horan is transgressing Standing Order 117, making a personal reflection a member or a—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. The member has talked about a party. He has not mentioned any individual in this matter.

Hon Annette King: That’s cute.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry? And if we look at Standing Order 117 it says that “A member may not make an imputation of improper motives against a member, an offensive reference to a member’s private affairs, or ae personal reflection against a member.” I am listening very carefully to this. The member must keep focusing on the appropriation to Parliamentary Service, the use and appropriation of that money and any concerns that the member may have, if that is the way that his speech wishes to continue.

Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Speaker has in the last 2 weeks on numerous occasions advised members that if they have any issue in this regard, it should be referred in the normal manner through the Privileges Committee or through other official channels; it should not be raised in this House. The Speaker has made that ruling on numerous occasions. We would like that to be upheld.

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member will sit. That may well be the case that there is a referral to the committee, but this is a debating chamber and members in this House have freedom of expression, freedom to express their views. I am listening very carefully to this. I will ask the member to focus on Vote Parliamentary Service. As I have mentioned before, the debate is about the appropriation of the money and the use of that money, and the member should not bring into account the integrity of any member of this House. All members are honourable members. I will ask the member to focus on that.

BRENDAN HORAN: Vote Parliamentary Service —the New Zealand First Party is using taxpayer-funded computer software for party political purposes such as campaigning and fund-raising. The program, code named Vanguard, is a constituent relationships management system that stores personal details of voters and is used for mass mail-outs. Other political parties have these programs too—

Barbara Stewart: I raise a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker. This program has not been launched. It is not part of—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order. I will ask members that on point of orders, they have to be relevant to the matter. That is not a point of order.

BRENDAN HORAN: Other political parties have these programs too, but they are funded by the parties themselves and operated outside of Parliament. New Zealand First paid tens of thousands of dollars out of the leader’s budget to develop this software and has its parliamentary staff working to run the program for election year. This is a clear breach of Parliamentary Service guidelines. An internal party strategy document dated 9 March 2014 states, under the heading “Funds”: “Campaign fund request, first two weeks April—Self-funding after initial distribution, followed by use of Vanguard appeals to focus groups”. A memo to the party board by the president, Anne Martin, dated 10 March 2014, states: “The director of operations canvassed the use of Vanguard computer program. Suggest board advised of its uses, including candidates’ college program as well.” This use of parliamentary resources for fund-raising appeals and political campaigning is more than questionable, especially from the New Zealand First Party, which promised a fair go in the last election. The public has a right to know what its money is being used for and whether it is being used legally. A company called Lone Star Market Research was registered on 1 August 2012. The company’s sole director is New Zealand First’s director of operations in Parliament, and is a member of the party’s campaign committee. The company was set up with the intention of conducting political activity for New Zealand First. New Zealand needs an assurance from Parliamentary Service and the leader of New Zealand First that Lone Star Market Research has not received one cent of taxpayer money, nor had the use of parliamentary resources. New Zealand First—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! There is a point of order from Barbara Stewart.

Barbara Stewart: I raise a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker. This information is totally incorrect. It is just fantasising, and although I realise it is a wide-ranging debate—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no; I do not need any help. I have indicated that anything relating to Vote Parliamentary Service is in order. If the member ties that into Vote Parliamentary Service, that—

Barbara Stewart: But it’s wrong.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Whether it is wrong or right is a matter for debate. This is a debating chamber. It is not for me to judge the accuracy of the information that has been presented. So long as it ties into Vote Parliamentary Service, it is in order. Brendan Horan has 1 minute remaining.

BRENDAN HORAN: Vote Parliamentary Service—the New Zealand First Party membership secretary, present at board meetings and recorded in the minutes of those meetings, is paid by Parliamentary Service for a full-time, out-of-Parliament support role in the New Zealand First office in Bank Street, Whangarei. This is a clear conflict of interest. This paper trail leads down the pathway to inappropriate use of public moneys, serious conflicts of interest, secrecy, and a lack of transparency and accountability, and all from a party that purports to hold everyone else to task. There seem to be clear breaches of the Speaker’s directions on provision of services to MPs and parties. Staff would seem to be in breach of the Parliamentary Service code of conduct. I call upon the leader of that party to open his leader’s budget accounts to the scrutiny of the Speaker first, and then to the public of New Zealand.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call the Hon Chris Tremain. [Interruption] Point of order, Brendan Horan.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I seek leave to table an email received on 6 May 2014, stating facts re Vanguard.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I seek leave to table the minutes from the New Zealand First board meeting on 2 March 2013.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Brendan Horan: Point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): How many points of order do you have?

Brendan Horan: Well, there are number—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! One moment. Look, points of order will be heard in silence. I am asking the member how many points of order he is intending to bring forward.

Brendan Horan: Three more.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): OK.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I seek leave to table a New Zealand First memo to electorates in mid-July.


16:14:54~The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I seek leave to table a report to the board by Anne Martin, of 10 March 2014.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I seek leave to table a report of a strategy meeting on 19 March 2014, entitled “Use of Vanguard for fund-raising”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.


Reported afterwards by Felix Marwick (Newstalk ZB chief political reporter):

Here’s what NZF MPs Prosser, Lole-Taylor, & Stewart had to say after Horan’s allegations in Parliament today


Where’s Winston? MIA

Winston Peters was noticeably absent from Parliament yesterday when Brendan Horan made accusations against NZ First. This had been signalled the day before, when Peters made scurrilous insinuations likening Horan to Jimmy Saville.

It was left to other NZ First MPs to try to shut down the accusations – Richard Prosser, Andrew Williams and Barbara Stewart all tried points of order to shut down and argue against Horan. The NZ First MPs all blocked attempts by Horan to table documents in support of his accusations.

Deputy leader Tracey Martin was also absent. She was active on Twitter and Facebook up until Tuesday morning but nothing since.

Peters did defend against the accusations from a distance.

NZ First misused Parliamentary funding – Horan

Speaking from Auckland, Mr Peters said Mr Horan’s claim was “a lie” and denied the software was used for party political purposes.

Mr Peters said Mr Horan was making allegations “that are just baseless like the one he made about a $2 million slush fund, that’s a total lie as well, and the one about the horse is a lie as well.”

Peters claims and denials about the racehorse Bellazeel didn’t stack up with facts. And there’s a huge irony in Peters complaining about baseless accusations.

Where was Winston?

NZ Herald reported Peters dodges Horan’s allegations:

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.

Mr Horan had previously indicated he was going to make the claims in Parliament yesterday but Mr Peters was not there to hear them. He told the Herald he had a prior engagement to speak to the Waitakere Grey Power yesterday. However, Waitakere Grey Power’s website has him down to speak today.

That’s correct according to this:

Waitakere Grey power


Interestingly a Google search shows more:

Waitakere Grey Power searchThe event seems to have been listed on the NZ First website but now:

The requested page “/event/waitakere-public-meeting” could not be found.

But is still in cache:

Waitakere Grey Power cache

Very strange. NZ First events prior to this are still on the website.

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.

NZ First’s Stewart clear on Psychoactive Substances Bill support

NZ First spokesperson on health Barbara Stewart has made the NZ First position clear regarding the Psychoactive Substances Bill – they prefer a full ban but accept that the Bill is a practical step so support it.

The Bill passed in Parliament yesterday with support from all seven NZ First MPs. The final vote was 119 for, 1 (John Banks) against.

In the first and second readings of the bill Stewart was consistent with this NZ First position. Things were confused by a column by NZ First leader Winston Peters last week, where he appeared to be highly critical of the bil – The problem with politics. That highlighted the problem with trying to follow what Winston Peters means.

On my first reading of the column I thought he was signalling that NZ First would oppose the bill, but on further more careful readings he didn’t actually say that. It was typical of Winston, full of bluster but vague on what he was actually meaning to say.

In the final debate on the bill in Parliament yesterday Stewart repeated her previous positions – that NZ First preferred a drug ban but accepted that the bill a good step and that the party would support it.


Third Reading


I stand to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Psychoactive Substances Bill. New Zealand First believes that ideally these products should have been banned. We are realistic and we know that this cannot and will not occur at this particular point.

However, this bill is a very positive step forward from the situation that actually exists at this point in time.

We want this bill passed today.

We are sick of seeing the damage and the harm that is created among our young people from these particular drugs. It is ironic that the manufacturers, the importers, and the dairies are getting wealthier and wealthier at the expense of young people’s health right here in New Zealand.

We have to congratulate those dairies who acted before this bill actually came into the House and stopped the sale of these substances. Of course, we have to recognise the Waikato of Pūtāruru that has actually banned synthetic highs from its town—so well done, Pūtāruru.

There is a whole range of regulations that will stop the manufacturers from their merry trip around with these particular drugs.

We want the bill passed.

It will provide greater transparency. It will improve the health of our New Zealanders, once the substances are proven to be safe. We want young people to be safe. We care for our young people.

These substances have basically been an outrageous assault on our young people, which we in this House have let it happen here, so this is an important step forward with this particular bill.

New Zealand First supports it.

At the end of that an exclamation was heard – “Excellent speech!”

I agree, it was clear, concise and in my opinion correct. And it signalled appropriate support of the bill from NZ First.

InTheHouse video of Stewart’s speech:

NZ First confused on Psychoactive Substances Bill

As the Psychoactive Substances Bill moves through stages in Parliament it looks like NZ First minds are altering regarding their support of the bill.

During the first reading and the first part of the second reading there has been almost universal support, including from NZ First health spokesperson Barbara Stewart. But in an opinion column yesterday party leader Winston Peters hints at some mind altering.

First reading:


I stand on behalf of New Zealand First today to support the Psychoactive Substances Bill. This bill has been a long time coming to this House and we are really pleased that at last it is finally here. We need to front up to the problems caused by these legal highs. We know that, actually, they are happening right across the whole country, and we are looking forward to working on this legislation.

We in New Zealand First have regularly, consistently urged the Government to actually make a start on this legislation, and we realise, of course, that this particular problem is a worldwide challenge.

Despite seeing some areas as lacking in the bill—and we are looking forward to working on them at the select committee as well—we believe that the positives of this bill actually far outweigh the negatives.

This bill is a much-needed start, regulating the use of psychoactive substances, and something that we have been calling for, like other parties, for a long, long time. We are looking forward to working on it, and we will support this bill.

Second reading

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am delighted to speak on the second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. I am very pleased with the work that the Health Committee has done in terms of its consideration of the legislation, and with the bill that has emerged, which looks like enjoying the unanimous support of this House.

Hon John Banks: No, no, no.

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am sorry.

Banks was the only MP to question “looks like enjoying the unanimous support of this House“.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

Ideally—and before we went to the select committee—New Zealand First would have liked to see these substances banned. We know they are a very high risk, but during the select committee process we had our opinions changed, because these products contain many ingredients that are commonly available for purchase now.

That’s odd. In her speech in the first reading Stewart never talked about wanting these substances banned. Did her mind alter between the First Reading and the Select Committee, and then “had our opinions changed” during that process?

New Zealand First supports this bill because it actually protects the health and safety of New Zealanders, which is most important.

New Zealand First supports the provisions in the bill that wish to make manufacturers prove that their products are safe.

New Zealand First, along with others, wanted plain packaging for these particular products, but throughout the select committee process we, like other parties, changed our mind on this particular aspect.

The bill is a much-needed start at regulating the uses of psychoactive substances; it is something that we are very pleased to see.

We believe that this bill is a very positive step forward. These drugs will be tried and tested. We will not have these drugs in dairies, and we know that advertising is not going to be as widespread as it is at this point. It is for all of these reasons that New Zealand First supports this bill and we look forward to its speedy passage through the House. Thank you.

Clearly Stewart was indicating NZ First support of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

The bill completed it’s second reading with apparent full support of NZ First, with Stewart joiningg the near unanimous praise and support of the bill.

But yesterday her leader Winston Peters seemed to have an altered state of mind.

The problem with politics

By Winston Peters

There is an old saying that a horse was designed by God, while a camel was designed by a committee. Without denigrating the ship of the desert in any way, the point is that too many issues facing politicians end up being changed by endless compromises until the final result is something entirely different.

We are referring to the Psychoactive Substances Bill currently before Parliament. Under this legislation, party pills and other legal highs will have to be proven safe before they can be sold.

New Zealand First’s position is that these substances should be banned – full stop. They are designed to help their manufacturers, distributors and retailers get rich, while the idiots who consume them get off their faces, with lighter pockets. From all the research and discussion we have had, we cannot find any benefit to humankind whatsoever.

Now, there are some people in Parliament who slavishly adhere to the principles of private enterprise – even the sale of psychoactive drugs. So, to allay the concerns of parents and health professionals who see the end results of these drugs, the manufacturers/distributors/retailers have to prove they are safe. This in turn has sparked outrage among animal lovers and other people in Parliament who cannot bear the thought of Felix or Fido sniffing, smoking or ingesting these concoctions. (Apparently it is OK for teenagers!)

The end result of this is yet to be decided. In politics going around in circles is perfectly normal. It hurts the heads of ordinary people, but governments pay big money for professional advice on how to explain why black is really a different shade of white and that something is really being done about psychoactive substances.

In our view psychoactive substances should be completely banned and the legislation going through Parliament is only tinkering with the problem. The sale of mind wrecking muck will continue, people will get off their faces and overworked health professionals will be left to clear the carnage. As usual, we might add.

If you wonder why we sometimes vote a certain way, it is because of this messy, political distortion. Parliament has a serious duty to protect the young people of this country and once again their representatives have failed them.

Winston Peters is Leader of New Zealand First

Peters has long been reported as a consumer of certain mind altering substances. You have to wonder what he was on when he wrote this rambling, sometimes bizarre and inclusive column.

Contrary to his colleague Stewart (and every other party speaker except John Banks) Peters is very critical of the bill and claims it has been substantially altered and compromised – “ end up being changed by endless compromises until the final result is something entirely different” and “the legislation going through Parliament is only tinkering with the problem“.

What will NZ First do in the final vote? After my first couple of readings I had presumed they had altered their minds and would now vote against the bill.

But after further readings I’m not sure, in typical Peters fashion he rambles and rants rubbishes the bill but doesn’t commit to a specific vote for or against.

Peters’ views as expressed in his column are very different to Stewart’s in both readings. We’ll have to wait and see if NZ First minds are actually altered, and likewise their votes.

I’ll try to find out from health spokesperson Barbara Stewart what the NZ First position is on the bill.

Winston Peters et al

Winston Peters is currently in full attack mode. He is trying to destroy the political career of Peter Dunne, and he is trying to demolish the United Future party.

And Peters is also trying to bring down our current government.


Peters uses any dirty tactics he can get away with, including lying and making accusations that he has no evidence to prove – and he repeatedly makes accusations and assertions he must know are false.

Decency and democracy don’t matter to Peters. Much of his political ambition has been to destroy.

Peter Dunne is on a downer of his own making.

But Peters is a political vulture, an opportunistic vulture. He is trying to put in the boot, scratch out eyes and pour his acidic tongue over it all. He wants victims with incurring maximum damage.

Peters is playing the dirtiest kind of politics, the sort of nasty undemocratic politics that most of the public despise.

It should be recognised that Peters is not doing this on his own.

Some of the media actively assist Peters (although notably John Campbell has started to hold him to account and demand answers – but Peters is very practised in the art of avoiding questions, of avoiding providing any substance to his bluster.

And Peters is on this current rampage with the apparent support of compliant colleagues.

Six other NZ First MPs walked out of Parliament with Peters last week when he put on an attention seeking tantrum.

Six other MPs sit behind Peters in Parliament, supporting his actions. Those MPs are:

  • Barbara Stewart
  • Tracey Martin
  • Andrew Williams
  • Richard Prosser
  • Denis O’Rourke
  • Asenati Lole-Taylor

You can see photos of them all here: http://nzfirst.org.nz/our-mps

How do they justify their support of politics at it’s dirtiest and most destructive? Is this how they want to be seen as MPs?

About a year ago I asked all MPs:

Do you support “gotcha” politics where attacks and accusations are made to try and damage parties and to discredit and potentially end the careers of fellow MPs? Yes/No?

Tracey Martin replied No.

Richard Prosser replied in more detail:

No I don’t support it.

Whilst there are, by definition and indeed of necessity, always going to be
differences of opinion and philosophy in politics, it behoves us as Parliamentarians
to play the ball and not the man (or woman), and to address such differences, and
attempt to influence policy, through reasoned debate and by keeping an open mind,
and above all by having regard to the wishes of the voting public and the best
interests of the nation.

While we may not agree with the views or positions of any particular Member or
Party, it has to be remembered that most MPs enter Parliament with genuinely held
beliefs and with honourable intentions, and we owe it to the future of our
Parliamentary democracy to respect that fact.

Beyond holding Members and Parties to account as regards their current and intended
actions, and their present and past indications of character, we have a duty to be
fair in our dealings, and to conduct our affairs in the dignified manner which the
public has a right to expect.

Best regards

Richard Prosser

Prosser and Martin and the other NZ First MPs are supporting the opposite of this.

Peters has spent a career playing highly questionable politics. Are all the NZ First MPs happy following suit?