Winston Peters Definitely On the Money this time, make no bones about it

Let me begin by stating up front any potential conflicts of interest I may - conceivably - be accused of. Yes, I was supremely hopeful, during my one and only bid for ((i)extra-curricular) political office back in the 2008 General Election, that New Zealand First might possibly have 'come to the party' - or in this instance to me, myself & I -  and endorsed my candidacy in Dunedin South. Especially seeing as I'd been on good and friendly - and yes, distinctly non-pecuniary - terms with the Maori couple (wo)manning its South Dunedin electorate office; besides which they weren't even standing a candidate themselves on that occasion. Though I'd freely admit, and openly avowed then - if not to these folk personally - that my basic, essential political philosophy was far closer to the Democrats for Social Credit - at one time the major player and force in Aotearoa's electoral landscape known as the Social Credit Political League - than to any other significant party, that was for sure.

Indeed 'Socred' as we used to call it is the one and only political party I've ever been - if involuntarily, against my then knowledge and wish - a member (if rather briefly) of, essentially feeling unable to subsume my rather eclectic judgments on this, that and especially the other to any one political party, however much I resonated with its essential philosophy or however many of its individual policies I subscribed to. And of recent times I've agreed with the likes of the Mana Party's John Minto that Winston and his parliamentary colleagues have denied ex-NZ Firster Brendan Horan the natural justice owed each and every citizen of our great nation. And moreover I hardly took Mr Peters' side in the pre-2008 election events concerning Owen Glenn and the donations scandal as I believe it came to be known, seeing his behaviour as rather dodgy at best, and certainly extremely ungrateful - like Helen Clark and her Labour Government colleagues - for all the largesse Mr Owen had once lavished in their particular direction.

In addition I cannot but admit to feeling deep-seated revulsion for the politics of race Mr Peters was widely perceived as bringing to Parliament and New Zealand politics in the lead-up to the 1996 election in particular, and so I've had serious concerns about related immigration policies he and his party have often advocated since - above everything else how NZ First and especially Mr Peters have oftentimes chosen to couch the rhetoric they employed thereabouts. But having said all of that I nevertheless have found myself - on one occasion, 2002, (ii)despite the aforesaid being especially noticeable then, supporting them electorally (it should have included 2011, and almost was as I had a sudden 'inspiration' to do so at the very last moment in the polling booth) - and have generally found myself closer to their positions than to any other truly viable political force on the scene. And especially so on so-called 'moral issues', such as prostitution 'reform', civil unions and '(iii)gay' marriage, not to mention smacking: though admittedly upon the latter their stance was much more muted than might have been expected. However on matters economic I've also ever been in broad agreement, their sensible centre-left approach fitting me well, though of course both National and Labour at one time (as recently as the late seventies, even early eighties in fact) were essentially socially conservative and economically left-of-centre as the (iv)Winston First Party is today.

Having stated all the foregoing let me confess to actually being impressed today, during Parliament's notorious Question Time, with Winston Peters' exceedingly cautious and extremely measured (v)approach and presentation of his primary question, as well as each follow-up 'supplementary' he was allowed. Yes, he did fail to 'rark things up', as they say, and didn't engage in any of the petty grandstanding that he's usually (perhaps oftentimes justly) accused of, and definitely not the (vi)rather childish smirking and 'for the cameras' cheap ridicule that Mr Key and certain of his colleagues employed in response. And moreover he stuck to his guns, responding involuntarily under his breath about what an 'outrage' it was for the Speaker, David Carter, to - rather immediately, even seemingly automatically - assign his basic charge 'out of order' as if he'd been imputing actual corruption to the Minister in question, Judith Collins, which was clearly not the case. At least Peters could have hardly been accused of explicitly doing so, the most that could've been laid to his charge being that he had called into question the Minister's probity or rather lack thereof in lodging her expected returns to Parliament's Pecuniary Interests' Register - which I suppose, it might well be assumed, and seemingly was here by Speaker Carter, he thus implied was a deliberate, hence corrupt, action or rather inaction on her part. And so consequently he certainly did, and once again, get thrown out on his ear by the Speaker - ostensibly for failing to follow usual parliamentary protocol; or persisting therein after being duly cautioned.

Though methinks - and for a regular listener to Parliament like myself I feel entitled to speak with a modicum of 'authority' - the much more likely reason for Mr Peters' ejection from the Chamber was, as happens on a rather regular basis with Mr Carter as Speaker - wholly unlike with his well- (and even internationally-) esteemed predecessor, Lockwood Smith - Mr Peters had not only dared to challenge his ruling, and moreover his (moral) authority in the situation, but thus seemingly affronted David Carter, the man, himself. Though it could easily be argued that such ridiculous rulings, seemingly on an exponentially rising basis of recent times, are ipso facto opening themselves up to the very sort of ridicule and disorder the Speaker then accuses such as Mr Peters as causing. And may I even go so far as to assert that in this if in no other single instance, Mr Speaker appeared to actually pre-empt - not very hard with Mr Peters' well-signposted intention to raise his much-anticipated question today - the gist of what Mr Peters was intending to get at, and thus prematurely ruled all such questions' 'inferences and implications' out of order before they were even raised. Giving himself as Speaker a rather easy own goal (in his determination to maintain his own beloved mini-fiefdom, such as it is.)

Though, later on, reviewing the much-anticipated 'showdown at the parliamentary corral' on the two major TV news bulletins and accordingly feeling less convinced than before of my own understanding of what had transpired, I'm actually glad I initially listened on radio, as I'm convinced I was able to follow proceedings in a far less biased manner, appraising the words themselves and the manner in which they were spoken, presented and responded to, without any considerations of the usual visual nonsense that can so easily impede one's better judgment. And so let me say in no uncertain terms that Winston Peters' primary question and related line of questioning was not only couched, in both tone and content, in most reasonable, moderate terms, but, what's more to the point - (vii)however much propaganda to the contrary promoted by John Key and his ready array of sycophantic media acolytes (such as Larry Williams) and even National Radio reporters in this instance - the farthest thing from "incoherent" that one could claim. If anything the question was boringly simple and straightforward, and moreover as clear as daylight - but nevertheless, indeed perhaps for that very reason, thus unerringly zeroed in on its target and hit the bullseye. And I also suspect that the P.M.'s own immediate devaluing of Peters' 'bombshell' was rather more feigned, carefully-orchestrated and scripted for public consumption and the hordes of kiwis for whom he can never seemingly do any wrong than to any actual consideration of the concerns Winston expressed. Key's response was just too automatic knee-jerk reflexive and inconsistent with Peters' actual questions.

But finally, and by no means least, to pretend or make out, as Mr Key and his parliamentary colleagues so effectively have, that what is contained on the MPs' register of pecuniary interests is of relatively minimal consequence in the overall scheme of things, is, one cannot but admit, a brilliant political hat trick on the Government's part. Only problem is that the same standard is never applied to the likes of relative political newbies like David Shearer (when in New York) or other less popular MPs and/or ministers. But hey, Ms Collins is, after all, only the Minister of Justice, and, dearies, "leave 'er alone - she's gone through enough of late, what with all these nasty accusations and the like", and moreover the PM understanding her predicament by sending her home on sick leave for 5 days. Yeah, right: tell that to Maurice Williamson. Oh and while you're at it, pass the sentiment along to Pansy Wong, I'm sure she'll be equally sympathetic -not.

Afterthought: Sadly, for those of us who hope for and expect better from him, Winston has once again let himself and his side down - for all those who followed Wednesday's Question Time or rather General Debate. Imagining he'd been cunningly, strategically thinking outside the square and had actually decided to use the GD format for launching his main argument to reveal all upon Justice Minister Judith Collins - thus seemingly giving the Government false, cold comfort that things would go better in Parliament that day - that wish was rapidly deflated by Mr Peters' subsequent mini-tirade, it moreover soon becoming apparent things were about to spectacularly backfire in his very face. How so? Well, by simply - apparently - practising the usual sort of double standards here Peters so readily accuses his various (multitude of) opponents of - something, in fact which, on the floors of Parliament, has been known more than once to give rise to accusations of the dreaded (viii)'h' word - a definite political no-no in those unhallowed chambers.

(i) I did stand twice - and was elected overwhelmingly, possibly even unanimously, on both occasions (should have 'quit while I was ahead', eh) - but admittedly none of my classmates (in the 4th and 6th forms) happened to covet being on our high school's (rather activist) student council.

(ii) Why? Essentially because genetic modification/engineering was the one decisive issue that, upon P.M. Helen Clark's calling of a snap election, catapulted me down ipso pronto to the local Registrar of Electors to sign up for the coming poll. To say that I - I suspect like many other kiwis - was somewhat underwhelmed with the Greens', at least as indicated by then co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, rather hastily and needlessly backtracking from their - momentarily - courageous and decisive stance thereabouts, rather understates matters. Anyhow, the upshot is that I found, of the various parties also opposing a relaxing of the moratorium - including the likes of the (erstwhile) Alliance and (suddenly also) Jim Anderton's Progressives, United NZ and NZ First - only the latter was truly 'my cup of [strictly herbal, non-caffeinated and tannined] tea'. (For all the aforementioned reasons.) And did indeed deliver upon their pledge/policy, supporting - with a sizeable 13 of the 22 or so total - the wholly unsuccessful (as it transpired) attempt to get the moratorium extended.

(iii) No, the deliberate hijacking of the English language and, moreover, a perfectly good word with a bit of a pedigree to match, doesn't and has never met my approval.

(iv) Forgive me, Winston, I couldn't resist the obvious - if media and politically inspired - dig.

(v) Actually quite characteristic of Mr Peters since making his typically colourful and flamboyant return to Parliament in 2011 - however much and frequent the monotonous and predictably unthinking standard media commentary to the contrary. As is often said, repeating an untruth frequently doesn't thereby automatically transform it into a fact.

(vi) I somehow suspect they're just following their Textor & Crosby admen and women, who've instructed them: 'it's the baffle 'em with bullshit approach, stupid!'

(vii) Perhaps understandably few media folk readily forgo a ready-made opportunity to take Winston down a peg or two, but methinks they do so based upon a sporting-possessed nation's obsession to always find and pick winners and losers, and certainly not from any noble or even basic journalistic desire to glean what actually may be the real facts of the matter. Thus essentially falling into the very trap they would themselves often accuse Winston Peters of manufacturing, missing the run-of-the-mill wood of the forest for all the multi-coloured and resplendent trees contained therein. But no, that Mr Peters was soon thereafter sent out of the House on a rather spurious (and arguably undemocratic) technicality was all that ultimately mattered evidently - whether justifiably or not in this instance didn't bother such commentators a single whit.    

(viii) For good 'ole hypocrisy, no less.

(ix) One other potential conflict of interest has just occurred to me: a well-taken photo of Winston Peters in the mid-90s with my politically active Dad and his wife might well seem to imply such (at least among my wider family). But seeing as my Dad was only ever (far as I'm aware, anyhow) a member of the New Labour Party (and so probably later the Alliance as well), then perhaps that's not a hanging offence (on my part) after all. I'm hoping, anyhow!

Maurice Williamson, M.P. for Pakuranga: Ready-made Fall Guy for an Interest-laden Government

For once, to my shock and horror, a national media mogul 'took the words right out of my mouth' (to adopt the phraseology in Meat Loaf's old hit): that is, when TV3's The Nation host Lisa Owen cited Maurice Williamson as the Government's 'fall guy' in the present political landscape. Indeed that rather understates my reaction to Ms Owen this Sunday morning in regards to her (justifiably) lengthy interview with the former National Minister. For she gave him not only a far better 'interrogation' than did longtime presenter Susan Wood on TV1's equivalent 'Q & A' the previous hour, but I would argue a much fairer and more balanced, justifiably sympathetic 'grilling'; for she still spoke a mile a minute and took no prisoners in terms of getting every last ounce of response out of the obviously physically (and emotionally) exhausted but nevertheless quite coherent and persuasive Mr Williamson. Irrespective the long-serving Pakuranga M.P. certainly acquitted himself well and admirably in both instances, and especially so in view of his evidently having gone without shuteye and food ever since his personal misfortune broke on all and sundry last Thursday.

All too predictably, within a lickety-split Maurice Williamson was seized upon by P.M. John Key as the all-atoning fall guy or scapegoat for a Government long since under (often just) fire for two issues in particular, those of 'the Chinese connection' - i.e. of power, money and influence in New Zealand politics; and the National Administration's arguably lax response to domestic violence in God's Own (see for example the ACC's problematic non-dealing with sexual violence claimants in recent years, and, against the backdrop of the apparent marked decrease in crime 'across the board' throughout the land since National took office, seemingly only ever-increasing instances of sexual assault and domestic violence under the Government's watch.)

Hearing well-known political commentators - the Edwards Brothers I'll term them (the blogger Bryce Edwards of the University of Otago's Political Studies Department on Newstalk ZB's Friday evening 'Panel' discussion and Brent Edwards, Radio National's parliamentary correspondent on the public broadcaster's parallel programme at about the same time) - sound off on the matter, I found myself agreeing with Bryce to a point, insofar as he suggested Labour had been responding appropriately thus far - if in an understandably more measured way than usual in view of their own closeted skeletons from yesteryear. But no doubt that was only because I hadn't happened to hear any news reports of their response full stop. For to his suggestion that they were still a little late in getting off the starting blocks upon the matter I couldn't disagree more.

As far as I'm concerned, their one and only useful response thus far has been their complete silence, though all too typically this was soon cancelled out by their rather predictable reversion to good 'ole partisan politics - fully 'accepting' said ex-minister's guilt thus pre-empting the chance of his being proven innocent. Much as they've readily devoured each and every scandal engulfing their political opponents ever since they grabbed Tuku Morgan's undies firmly between both teeth back in early 1997 (or late 1996) and ran with them for all they were worth (or weren't!). Though it could well be argued that National has likewise done as much, and every bit as unscrupulously, when itself in Opposition.

Did it - (apparently) not - ever occur to them that instead of adopting el usual approach of playing up and unduly magnifying each and every inference gleaned from all such instances of indiscretion and alleged corruption then circulating all applicable innuendoes thereupon often and long enough, that there existed a ready if much less politically partisan alternative? That a much slower and more thoughtful, nuanced and considered approach might well have earned them much more credit with the general public? Even - God forbid - the very chance that Maurice might well be, as National Radio's Catherine Ryan commented to her comedian duo before Friday's midday news, actually telling it just as it in fact was - i.e. the full quid.

For 'as we all know' truth is indeed often a lot stranger than fiction, Mr Williamson's story being all the more believable for having certain elements which to a superficial critic might well initially have stood him in an unfavourable light. The very implausibility of his story, or rather the various strands and threads of it - just as a number of witnesses at a crime scene appear to superficial observers to have somewhat contradictory accounts, which, being perfectly human, they do, but that's hardly the point - thus ever so counterintuitively lending the very ring of truth to it (just as Pakuranga's own cheesy but unforgettable Colgate toothpaste smile was declared as doing on the TV ads in olden days!)

But no, like all 'good' political operators - with the slight exception of Grant Robertson, who made the apt if obvious comment that Judith Collins ought to have (long since) done the same, i.e. resigned - they soon swung into routine partisan denunciation and (sheeting home of due) opprobrium. Moreover they chose to characterize Williamson's apparent connection with, and moreover alleged advocacy on behalf of, someone involved in domestic violence in the darkest possible light, as such a thing readily suggested a red flag to a much-cherished constituency of theirs: naturally, as ever, assuming as most such middle-class 'intelligentsia' and identity politics' individuals ever do, that each and every instance of such crime is perpetrated by a man against a woman, when *well-conducted surveys by the likes of the arguably lefter than left University of Otago have long since shown that not to be the case. Indeed in a study they did female against male domestic violence was (at least quantitatively) 'greater' or more frequent than the converse.

In other words, for Maurice Williamson's involvement with any individual implicated in such a crime - convicted as yet or otherwise, which seems to be debatable seeing as Parliament's Speaker once again enforced the sub judice rule upon the parliamentary discussions thereof, though some have alleged said immigrant has already been indicted, only not yet sentenced - one and only one possible interpretation is possible: the MP must have one motive and one only in contacting the police, i.e. to be attempting an intervention on said individual's behalf to get him off said charges. The implication of course is clear: domestic violence is presumably of no great concern to a National M.P. or Minister, though of course no possible rationale for making such a general inference or rather slur upon said politicians as a group is really feasible.

Except of course good old left-wing prejudice against any and every 'Tory' politico, assuming the very worst in terms of male chauvinism, sexism etcetera. Because if you spread such innuendoes and inferences long enough, no doubt some of your mud will eventually stick. (Though I'd readily grant that much the same could be said vis-a-vis the typical line of slurs which right-of-centre politicoes themselves, and their media fellow-travellers, often make about their left-wing opponents. Yes, politics is ever politics, whatever the source thereof!)

Perhaps if they'd rather adopted the following approach they'd have - quite justly and justifiably - earned kudos from one and all, including Yours Truly: praised Maurice Williamson's rapid acceptance of responsibility for making a wrong call and accordingly deciding to quit his ministerial posts without delay, just as Labour's much-esteemed David Parker did himself during Labour's last tenure, to a virtual standing ovation from one and all in Parliament, including the National Party; made the obvious and logical comparison with Justice Minister Judith Collins' own predicament, calling upon her - as Mr Robertson did - to follow suit, and questioning (as they also have) why the Prime Minister seems to be adopting a different and inconsistent approach in the two instances; and perhaps then add that the charge of deliberate interference by Mr Williamson seemed completely out of character for someone well-known and noted for being a very able constituency advocate.

That though the matter certainly 'appeared' to put Mr Williamson in a rather unfavourable light, there could well be a quite innocent explanation for his behaviour which would actually give the lie to the only too obvious insinuation - admittedly pleasing for a Labour Party only too eager for fresh scandals to use against the Government of the day - thus elicited by said situation. Showing a refreshing and admittedly wholly unexpected impartiality and even-handedness which could take the public completely off guard and even, wonder of wonders, thus make them more inclined to vote for them. But doubtless such noble and lofty considerations rarely enter the minds - much less the hearts - of today's politicians. But dreams are ever free.

Disclaimer: 1) Having had my own words and meanings and intentions wrested and misrepresented by media and others, including political opponents and especially officious bureaucrats, over the decades, I concede I can rather easily and readily relate to, and empathize with, anyone else going through the ringer re the same. 2) I'm surprised to find myself thus going out of my way to argue the case for someone who I've oftentimes been critical of over the years, everything from Maurice Williamson's radical laissez-faire free market views to his botched re-introduction of five-ten year driver licences in the late 1990s, through to his recent acclamation by the international 'rainbow coalition' of homosexual activists for his strong stance and memorable speech in support of the Marriage Amendment Act - i.e. Gay Marriage Equality legislation.

As for the usually sensible 'the Two's' (i.e. Pam Corkery and Tim Roxborough) panning Mr Williamson as per his future employment prospects - "no-one'd employ him"; and disparagingly comparing his physical-emotional state on TV today with those of well-composed flood victims in Christchurch, let me say this. Though their comparison with and contrast between those ever markedly-composed sufferers from Christchurch's dreadful ongoing trials and tribulations and the ex-Minister seem rather salient, methinks they'd also be among those only all too ready to criticize the male of the species - especially public leadership thereof - for failing to show such emotions in the circumstances.

Interestingly the very term 'fall guy' immediately sprang to mind upon the announcement of Mr Williamson's resignation last week, as had the song 'Candle in the Wind' soon after the death of Princess Diana 17 years ago - who doesn't remember exactly where they were? - which indeed was itself 'prescient' of a sort, for Elton John almost immediately thereafter reworked his much-celebrated hit into 'England's Rose' for Princess Di's funeral service.

And one thing I hadn't realized and now celebrate, was not only Mr Williamson's good 'ole oh-so-kiwi (generally) common sense approach to this, that and the next thing, but moreover his (apparently relatively uncommon) understanding, appreciation - and that in a practical way - of the real role required of a local, constituency member of Parliament, an electorate M.P.. Which I'd argue is not only streaks - indeed light years I suspect - ahead of most of his own party compatriots and  parliamentary colleagues more generally, but perhaps unequalled - anecdotally anyhow - by any other MP save the likes of Te Tai Tokerau's Hone Harewira.  

*Indeed in the course of Yours Truly's 'mousebitten' approach to research and gleaning from eclectic sources of all sorts, I just so happened to uncover a similar bit of research info - from a late 70s'/early 80s' issue of none other than that red rag of extreme feminism, Ms Magazine - that is specifically cited and noted by its founding editor, Gloria Steinem. However, as might be expected in the circumstances, Ms Steinem automatically downplayed and attempted to discredit the implications of said research - conducted by herself among others - assuming, as such ideologues ever do, extenuating circumstances (I suppose of ye 'ole provocation variety) for those (women) upon the other (dishing out) end of such abuse. In other words women are never actually responsible for such domestic violence even when they are most assuredly so!

As a lifetime hoarder, various magazines of me and my siblings still inhabit the lower recesses of our abode - everything from Ms Magazine to my beloved Gram's Modern Maturitys and Let's Live (and Thursdays and Mushrooms) through to the ever-perennial NZ Listeners, Times and Newsweeks, not to mention our beloved childhood mags such as Look and Learn and World of Wonders.