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!
No comments:
Post a Comment