Photo of the Day - 9 August 2013

We were tempted to have another Caption Contest, but three in two days was probably overkill. But this Stuff photograph taken yesterday at Parliament needed to be acknowledged in some way, shape or form, so here it is:

The symbolism here is interesting. Alexander Ustinov is a heavyweight fighter in the twilight of his career. The same could be said of Winston Peters with regard to the twilight bit, but he's never been a heavyweight. 

And Peters has lost some of his biggest fights, knocked out by Jim "the Fighting Irish" Bolger, Jenny "Trailblazer" Shipley and Helen "H1" Clark. He also had titles stripped from him by the Privileges Committee, and the People of Tauranga due to playing fast and loose with the rules. And he has been reduced to undercard contests against the likes of John "Memory" Banks and Peter "Mr Sensible" Dunne.

Quite what Alexander Ustinov was doing at Parliament yesterday is anyone's guess. But he seemed to enjoy the company of the veteran pugilist Peters, and was also photographed with Shane "Fast Hands" Jones, sometimes tipped as Peters' successor.

There's one thing that is in no doubt however. Peters' lack of height and reach are his greatest disadvantage. Sometimes a picture is worth 158,000 words!

 

We can't help but wonder...

Cameron Slater has blogged on a subject that we've been pondering over the last week or so; check this out:

via the tipline
How come Winston Peters is sitting on the Privileges Committee investigation regarding Andrea Vance and the idiot Peter Dunne when he has claimed all along, in parliament, that he has known the content of the emails since the get go?
Why isn’t he giving evidence instead of sitting in judgment?
Surely this is closer to Zimbabwe than his fanciful claims?

Whaleoil's tipline correspondent makes a very good point. All along, Winston Peters has dropped all sorts of "hints" that he had all the good oil on Peter Dunne. Here's just one example, courtesy of the NBR:

United Future leader Peter Dunne exchanged personally embarrassing emails with Fairfax journalist Andrea Vance, NZ First leader Winston Peters claims. Mr Peters told TV3's The Nation he had seen the email exchange that Mr Dunne refused to hand over in the inquiry into the GCSB report leak.

So we can't help but wonder; given that Mr Peters has shown a significant amount of personal antipathy towards Mr Dunne, and given that he has told the media that he had either seen or had in his possession information germane to the Privileges Committee, does he not have a pretty significant conflict of interest here. After all, how can Winston Peters objectively judge an issue over the release of personal information when he has claimed to have that very information, and has used it to make political attacks on Peter Dunne.

Winston Peters is, of course, no stranger to the inner workings of the Privileges Committee. But on this matter, he should and must recuse himself from the hearing. Perhaps he could ask his deputy leader to deputise for him; oh, wait...

Maybe this is why they wanted them Winston

Winston Peters does faux outrage better than most. And he has been in a state of high dudgeon today, after telling Parliament that the police wanted to access his phone records when they investigated cameraman Bradley Ambrose in late 2011. 

Now we know that Winston Peters is getting on a bit, but he claimed to be ignorant as to why the Police would be connecting NZ First and Winston Peters with a meeting between the National and Act leaders. He's obviously forgotten this, but fortunately, Stuff's archives haven't:

Winston Peters flew into Invercargill yesterday claiming he had information most of the New Zealand media wanted to know – what was in the Teapot Tapes.
He didn't disappoint the sizeable media contingent at the Invercargill Workingmen's Club, revealing in dramatic style what Prime Minister John Key apparently told John Banks during their now infamous cup of tea.
He said Mr Key had told Mr Banks the next leader of the ACT Party should be Catherine Isaac, the party's former president and No2 list candidate.
"Here is the leader of the National Party telling Mr Banks, on whose coat-tails (ACT) hope to get back into Parliament, who the new leader of the ACT Party should be," Mr Peters said. "And that person is, according to Mr Key, Ms Isaac. That caught you unaware, didn't it?"
He said Mr Banks had described ACT leader Don Brash as "a strange fellow" and that Mr Key had then said "we've been down that road before". 

Whilst the Police were investigating Mr Ambrose and his motives in recording the conversation between Key and Banks, any Police officer with a better nose than Inspector Clouseau would wonder how Winston Peters came to be in possession of a conversation that occurred at a meeting that he wasn't at. 

The police seized, under a search warrant, text messages between Mr Ambrose and a number of other individuals. There's nothing at all unusual about that. And if Mr Ambrose happened to have entered Winston Peters' name in his contacts, that name would show up on any text messages between the two. 

This is the kind of stuff that Peters thrives on. He will deny that the Storm in a Teacup helped get him back into Parliament, but he gleefully broadcast the news that he knew what was in the conversation, just as he has claimed to have seen Peter Dunne's e-mails and phone records.

This time however, he's moaning because his role in this saga has been exposed. He's claiming to be an injured innocent, but that simply won't wash. 

Winston Peters has built a political career out of innuendo, attacks under parliamentary privilege, telling half-truths and far more. This time however his chickens have come home to roost, and we have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

Peters cops a serve

Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse has dished Winston Peters a taste of his own medicine. Woodhouse has put out a presser in which he describes allegations by Peters as "out of touch with reality"; the Beehive website reports:

Michael Woodhouse

1 August, 2013

Peters loses the plot says Woodhouse


Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse says the latest tirade from Winston Peters shows the New Zealand First leader is clearly out of touch with reality.
Currently in China meeting with senior government officials, education leaders and Immigration New Zealand (INZ) offices, Mr Woodhouse said suggestions his trip was courtesy of China Southern Airlines were absolutely untrue.
“Mr Peters has absolutely no basis for making this statement and is either deluded or is being deliberately misleading. Either way, serious questions should be asked of him,” Mr Woodhouse says.
“Mr Peters continues to claim applications are being stockpiled by INZ which is blatant rubbish, designed to stir the embers of xenophobia for political ends and he should be ashamed of himself.”

This is great stuff from Michael Woodhouse. He will be well aware that his portfolio is one that is of more than passing interest to the ageing NZ First leader, but has sensibly decided that he is not going to put up with any of Peters' nonsense.

And Woodhouse makes the point that his trip to China is proving very successful, which will doubtless aggravate Peters even more; read on:

Mr Woodhouse says his trip to China has been extremely successful in strengthening ties between the two countries.
“The China market is an important part of New Zealand’s future economic success. It is important that we continue to develop relationships in China that will help strengthen ties and contribute to more jobs and higher wages for New Zealanders.
“I’ve been very impressed with the efficiency and professionalism of our Immigration offices in Beijing and Shanghai and I remain upbeat about the prospects in tourism, trade and education with China.”

The relationship between New Zealand and China is hugely important. That Winston Peters will do anything that he can, including making stuff up, to undermine that relationship is telling. Michael Woodhouse has done us all a service by calling Peters on his mischief-making.

But what about the e-mails they wanted seized?

David Shearer, Russel Norman and Winston Peters have made a lot of noise this week. All are incensed that journalist Andrea Vance's phone log (as opposed to any data regarding actual calls) was handed over to David Henry whilst he investigated the leak of the Kitteridge Report on failings of the GCSB.

But turn the clock back around 7 weeks, and you'll find that things were very different. Winston Peters wanted the Police to investigate Peter Dunne, and boasted proudly how he had seen private e-mails between Dunne and Ms Vance. Dr Norman told Radio New Zealand this:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said the inquiry into the leak to Fairfax Media does not confirm whether Mr Dunne in fact did it, and police need to investigate and force Mr Dunne to release the emails.
"Clearly (inquiry head) David Henry didn't have sufficient powers to make Peter Dunne release the emails. If the police are investigating a Crimes Act offence, then they do have the powers to get Peter Dunne to release the emails."
Dr Norman said it needs to be seen whether Mr Dunne has breached the Crimes Act.

To his credit, Dr Norman thought things through over the weekend that followed, and did a complete u-turn. But his initial response was that private information involving Ms Vance should be taken by force by the Police.

And David Shearer took a similar stance to Dr Norman's initial one, as the Dominion-Post editorial reported on 11 June 2013:

Labour leader David Shearer's call for police to seize UnitedFuture MP Peter Dunne's emails and question him under oath about the leaking of the GCSB review suggests he has a remarkably short memory. It is little more than a year since Labour colleague Phil Goff used leaked Mfat documents to reveal that cuts within the ministry were undermining New Zealand's diplomatic capability. 
The Labour leader's comments also show a worrying lack of understanding of important principles. Is Mr Shearer really suggesting the police should have the power to seize material from anyone suspected of embarrassing the government? 

David Shearer's comments may have been made in the heat of the moment, but they reveal a particular lack of political nous. It is really ironic now that he wants John Key's head on a platter because Ms Vance's telephone records were erroneously given to Mr Henry by Parliamentary Services.

We all know that there is an element of the theatrical to politics. But Mr Shearer, Dr Norman and Mr Peters, in the best traditions of Cirque de Soliel, added gymnastics to the theatrics with their back-flips and u-turns. The end result, once their faux outrage is added in is little more than farce, and does them no credit whatsoever. 

Tweet of the Day - 1 August 2013

Fairfax journalist Andrea Vance has vented her spleen this morning over the release of her phone records. You can read her piece here.

But this tweet raises an interesting perspective:

It's rather like Nicky Hager's outrage at journalists being declared subversives by the military when the Helen Clark government was in power in 2003, having himself profited significantly from a book based on e-mails gained by nefarious means. 

Things are not always as black and white as they seem. And what about Winston Peters' role in all of this, given his boast of having phone records? The Privileges Committee hearing later in the month might have all sorts of surprises.

When will the LabourGreen Party launch?

Labour seems to be drawing closer to the Greens by the day. Now they are "considering" adopting a Green housing policy; the Herald reports:

Labour says it would consider restricting foreign ownership of residential properties to help ease pressure on the housing market.
Labour's finance spokesman David Parker has previously said the party would restrict foreign ownership of rural land, but as recently as May he said restricting foreign ownership of residential property was not Labour policy.
However, Mr Parker appeared to soften his position on TV3's The Nation this morning, saying Labour "would consider" foreign ownership of residential land.
He would not go into details about what the party was looking at.
"But we're worried about these issues. We think that the suite of solutions that we have - that deal with both demand pressures and increased supply, both important parts of the equation - would make a fundamental difference."

Perhaps there's another explanation though; maybe Labour is spooked by all the speculation that Winston Peters is about to dance off into a third term sunset with John Key (and it is only speculation from 3News at this stage). Maybe this policy is the first of a whole "suite of solutions" designed to lure NZ First to join the LabourGreenNZFirstMana Party and contest next year's General Election on a single ticket.

With Labour's current leadership vacuum, anything is possible. It could even be that David Parker hasn't completely lost the leadership aspirations he had in 2011, and is looking to become the compromise leader of a compromised four-headed monster.

Labour's flip-flopping though does remind us of a famous quote from Groucho Marx:

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

Bad luck Winston; how about an apology...

Winston Peters' loathing of Peter Dunne saw him complain to the Police over an alleged GCSB leak. But Peters has drawn a blank; the Herald reports:

Police will not progress a complaint from New Zealand First leader Winston Peters about the leaking of a report into the GCSB.
In a statement issued today, Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess said police had decided not to take any action over the complaint about the leaking of the report Review of Compliance at the GCSB to Fairfax journalist Andrea Vance.
Mr Peters made his complaint under the Crimes Act and the Summary Offences Act.
"After considering the information presented by the complainant police are satisfied that no offence is disclosed and that further investigation will fail to provide evidence leading to a prosecution under either piece of legislation,'' Mr Burgess said.
"Police consider this matter ended unless additional information becomes available which might warrant further assessment.''

Winston Peters of course implied that he had seen or had knowledge of the e-mail correspondence between Peter Dunne and Andrea Vance. Having been unable to put up, he would now be well advised to shut up. He was very hasty in his complaint to the police, but he seems to have forgotten that the police deal with evidence, not innuendo and unsubstantiated rumours.

Just as the Speaker last week ruled that there was no question of privilege against Dunne as alleged by David Shearer, Peters' complaint to the Police has been swiftly dismissed. And let's not forget that Green Party co-leader Russel Norman was originally calling for the release of the e-mails in question, before he suddenly realised what the consequences of that might be and had a change of heart.  

Winston Peters however invested the most in this case. Another of his wild accusations has been unable to be substantiated. He owes Peter Dunne an apology.

Happy birthday Winston First

New Zealand First, or as it is often known, Winston First celebrates a birthday this week; the Dom-Post reports:

Peters renews pledge to mark party's 20th birthday
It's had its ups, including seats in government, and downs, including investigations into campaign finances, but NZ First remains embedded at the centre of the political stage. 
This week the party marks its 20th birthday.
Leader Winston Peters, who started NZ First with members of the National and Labour parties in 1993, said it would mark the milestone with a "renewed pledge to restore New Zealand's reputation as a fair and prosperous nation". 

There's little doubt that NZF has survived solely because of the personality of Winston Peters. But Winston is not getting any younger (he will be 69 at the time of the 2014 General Election), and doubts remain over the viability of the party without him. As if to amplify those doubts, Peters has still not appointed a deputy leader, despite the party having been back in Parliament for almost 20 months.

It would be churlish not to congratulate Peters and his party on reaching this milestone. We would be very surprised however if NZ First was around to celebrate a 25th anniversary. When Peters decides that it's time to pull the plug, or when the electorate decides for him, we reckon that NZ First will very quickly slide from our political consciousness, if not from our memories.

Tweet of the Day - 11 July 2013

Winston Peters discovered Twitter a while back but unlike some MP's, he is generally restrained in his use of it; a good thing probably! But this morning he has tweeted NZ First's collective conscience intentions with regard to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill; check this out:

We guess that if anyone would know about "underhanded, behind the scenes, crooked deals" (which the Government's agreement with SkyCity is not), it's Winston Peters. After all, he was involved in one not all that long ago, that Russel Norman paraphrases:

There were two principles around this, to my mind. One was the public’s right to know. The whole idea of pecuniary interest and what goes around it—and it is kind of paralleled with electoral law—is the public’s right to know who is giving money to politicians, and who is giving money to political parties. On the other side we had the basic right of Mr Peters to have a fair go. He had to have a fair go to present his side of the story to the committee. So basically we had to try to meet both of those principles—that the public had a right to know that the pecuniary interest register was being applied properly, and that we also had to give Mr Peters a fair go—and I believe we actually went through that.

In terms of the evidence, I can tell members that in my mind it was difficult to try to put the witnesses’ words one against the other. We heard numerous stories. It was very difficult to know which was the right story when one was sitting there listening to them all. So I think one of the key issues for me was the events around 14 December. That was one of the key bits of evidence, because regardless of who rang whom before 14 December, something very important happened on that day. There were two phone calls and an email. The first phone call was from the billionaire to the politician—if we want to take people’s names out of it—and they talked about something. We do not know what they talked about; there are different stories. The politician rang the politician’s lawyer immediately after, and they talked about something. Then the lawyer sent an email back to the billionaire and said: “Further to your conversation with the politician, here are my bank account details.” This series of phone calls and the email were compelling evidence—they were strong evidence. The thing about them is that nobody denied this evidence. Nobody said “Actually, this didn’t happen.” Those three pieces of evidence and the way they are connected together are a central part of why, I think, the majority of the committee came to the conclusion it did. There is a lot else around this, but we know that those three pieces of evidence were extremely strong, and nobody denied those three pieces of evidence.

Winston Peters continues to deny that he was guilty of his own underhanded, behind the scenes deal in 2008, but his peers on the Privileges Committee and in the 48th Parliament did not believe him. They passed a motion to censure him for "knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests". 

If the Owen Glenn donation to Winston Peters wasn't an "underhanded, behind the scenes, crooked" deal, we don't know quite what would be.  

du Fresne on Peters

Karl du Fresne probably wouldn't complain at being described by us as a veteran journalist. He admits to having been in journalism for "more than 40 years", which means that he has been writing longer than Winston Peters has been an MP; Peters first entered Parliament after the 1978 General Election and the infamous Hunua electoral petition.

So du Fresne's musings on Peters this week are the product of a career's worth of observations, and should be taken in that context; he opines:

Some people are in the fortunate position of being able to write or say almost anything and get away with it.
Take art critics, for example. Most contemporary art is, almost by definition, incapable of being explained coherently.
It follows that a critic can interpret it any way he or she chooses and sound authoritative, at least to the gullible.
Often the artists themselves have no idea what their works mean. Some of the more honest ones admit it.
The critic, therefore, has total freedom to decide what the artist's creation represents - and if the critique is phrased in words whose exact meaning is impossible to pin down, so much the better.
Much the same applies to wine writers, some of whom are in danger of displacing art critics as the most infamous creators of pretentious tosh.
Because the flavour, aroma and texture of wine is subtle, nuanced and hard to capture in words, a wine writer can use outrageously fanciful descriptive terms and appear knowledgeable. I know, because I used to be one.
Then there's Winston Peters. Even art critics and wine writers should bow to him as the acknowledged master of verbal flummery.
Words cease to have any meaning when they tumble out of Mr Peters' mouth. The sounds that emerge resemble recognisable language but they reveal nothing.
It follows that it's usually pointless trying to get sense out of him. An interview with him is as futile as a dog chasing its tail. Yet journalists keep on trying, as John Campbell bravely did on Campbell Live a couple of weeks ago.
Campbell is an accomplished broadcaster, but perhaps he needs to be gently reminded that Albert Einstein defined insanity as trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. 

In many ways, the Winston Peters who disrupts the flow of Question Time these days is a pale imitation of the Peters of old. Time, late nights and cigarettes have not treated the bloke they once called Luigi kindly. His "suppmentyqueshin" calls and the words that follow them are at times very difficult to interpret.

Peters can still light up a smoke-filled room with his mischievous grin, but his oratory is nowhere near as sharp as it used to be. As du Fresne notes "it's usually pointless trying to get sense out of him. An interview with him is as futile as a dog chasing its tail." 

One has to wonder for how much longer Peters will be able to keep it all up. There's certainly no-one emerging from the NZ First caucus to take his place, and you have to think that when Winston calls "time" on his career (or when the electorate does that for him), there will be no way back. But he has already completed one Lazarus-like comeback.

Winston Peters will never change, and people like John Campbell need to accept that. However willing the spirit is however, Father Time may dull the flesh.

Facebook Post of the Day - 26 June 2013

Peter Dunne has posted the following:

Good on Mr Dunne for his caustic reference to his holier-than-thou critics. To his credit, the MP for Ohariu has never appeared in court for fighting, nor has he been censured by his parliamentary colleagues "for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests".

Paragons of virtue indeed, the both of 'em. Now could some kind soul pass me a Tui...

Absolute "gold" from The Civilian

The Civilian is in vintage form this morning:

Prime Minister John Key has assured New Zealanders that the construction of a 20ft golden statue of Winston Peters outside Parliament is just a part of compromise to build consensus on a new law governing the actions and limitations of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB).
On TV3’s Firstline this morning, Key told host Rachel Smalley that the statue was one piece of a comprehensive deal to reform the GCSB, and that he was “cool with it.”
“I think what people have to understand is that, actually, we are a minority government,” said Key. “We have 59 votes in the House, and to pass legislation, we have to reach out to other political parties and build consensus. I might say ‘Look, I want a bit more flexibility for the GCSB so they can provide data to police more effectively,’ and Winston might say ‘I want a giant golden statue of myself at the seat of power in this country.’
“Obviously, we have to find a middle ground between those two positions, and that’s just a part of the normal give and take that occurs during these negotiations.”
Asked whether he thought a golden statue of Peters was appropriate, Key said he had yet to make up his own mind, but that he would let people see the statue and decide for themselves.
“I think most New Zealanders would agree that Winston Peters has been a politician for a long time,” he said.
Construction on the statue would begin next week, provided the Government could find the raw materials.
Despite the agreement to build an expensive monument in his likeness, Peters is maintaining this morning that the Prime Minister is a “wily shyster” intent on “sinking this economy, and a whole generation with it.”
He said that while the construction of the statue was a positive step, it was but a small measure, and if National wanted to retain the treasury benches after next year’s election, it would have to commit to “much larger reforms,” such as Winston Peters as Finance Minister and the sacrificial burning of Peter Dunne.

A golden statue of Winston; could there not be a more fitting epitaph for the man who famously shunned the "baubles of office", then took all the perks that come with the role of Foreign Minister?

This is absolute "gold" from The Civilian!

Emmerson on the Mob

We're not sure where Rod Emmerson has been these last couple of weeks, but if he's taken a holiday, it has certainly sharpened both his mind and his pens with this portrayal of Winston "Luigi" Peters:

The Nodfather indeed. Here's hoping that the Feds catch up with this dangerous Mob leader before November 2014. They will be doing the country a service if they make him an offer he can't refuse!

Kim comes 98th out of 100

The annual Readers Digest Most Trusted list has been released, and whilst sportspeople dominate the top end, it should come as no surprise that politicians are well down the list.

But the company that they keep there is interesting; the Dom-Post reports:

The usual suspects took out the most-distrusted spots once again, with Hone Harawira the bottom of the list, joined by Kim Dotcom (98) and Winston Peters (97). Dotcom's low position and election donations seemed to rub off on John Banks, ranked this year at 99.
Wellington businessman and philanthropist Gareth Morgan, at 81 this year, was jokingly miffed to have come behind Prime Minister John Key (80). "It comes and goes. I think I've been as high as No 20 or something before." 

It will be interesting to see whether a copy of the list is tabled as an exhibit at Kim Dotcom's extradition hearing, whenever that finally takes place. Being ranked as being slightly more trustworthy than John Banks but slightly less trustworthy than Winston Peters will be a blow to the Large German Gentleman's not-inconsiderable ego.

And Peter Dunne can probably count himself lucky that this survey was taken prior to his fall from grace. The again, he may well have enhanced his image with "those" e-mails!

The Chinese are buying our houses; oh, wait...

Another of Winston Peters' dreadful anti-Chinese memes has been exposed as false; the Herald reports:

Australians are contributing to New Zealand's skyrocketing house prices, with new research showing they bought more property than any other overseas group.
The figures have prompted calls to ban purchases by foreigners or impose a tax on top of the sale price.
BNZ chief economist Tony Alexander has found Australians are the biggest single group of overseas buyers with 22 per cent of all property purchases by foreigners. Chinese are second at 20 per cent and British at 13 per cent.
The BNZ-REINZ survey asked real estate agents to identify the proportions of their sales to various groups. It found 8 per cent to 9 per cent of sales were to foreigners.
While there are no exact figures showing the number of house purchases by foreigners, Real Estate Institute figures last month showed 7714 residential properties were sold. If that trend continued and around 90,000 houses were sold annually, about 8000 New Zealand houses could be going to foreigners.

Peters has never been one to let facts get in the way of a good bit of xenophobia, but by and large he gets away with it because the media doesn't challenge him. Campbell Live changed that trend a little last week, although we suspect that their agenda might be somewhat different and self-serving.

But on the basis of the figures from the BNZ-REINZ study, Chinese would only be responsible for around 1600 house purchases per annum (20% of 8000). That hardly fits in with the rhetoric from Peters in his recent Sin City speech, as reported at the time by Stuff (with our emphasis added):

He cited a free trade deal that works when it suits China, massive investment in local farms, forests and factories, fast-track schemes for students and rich Chinese tourists, and huge investment in the housing market.  

The numbers do not lie. Peters' hyperbole about land sales has already been exposed as false, and now a similar fate underlies his rhetoric on house sales. It is refreshing though that finally, the media has seen through Peters' xenophobia, and is challenging the unsubstantiated nonsense that he spouts.

Dame Susan fires a shot

Dame Susan Devoy has put Winston Peters on notice; TVNZ reports:

And she said while she stayed silent when Winston Peters recently played the race cardin blaming Chinese migrants for most of Auckland's problems, she expects to lock horns with him at some stage in the lead up to next year's election.
Devoy said she has exercised her judgement about what's worth getting involved in and she didn't want to give the New Zealand First leader "any oxygen".
"Winston has carried on this tirade for a long time and I don't think anything I'm going to say is going to make a leopard change his spots."
But Devoy said there is a broader human rights issue if Peters continues to stigmatise one population to his own benefit.

It is about time that someone in the Race Relations role called Winston Peters on his xenophobic, bullying behaviour. Peters has been spouting his anti-Asian rhetoric since the mid 1990's, when he made the infamous "rows of ostentatious houses" speech. Oddly enough, the worst of Peters' xenophobia seems to happen in election years.

Of course the supreme irony for Peters was serving as Helen Clark's Foreign Minister between 2005 and 2008, when Clark stood him down in the wake of the Owen Glenn donation row. During that time, Phil Goff negotiated a Free Trade Agreement with China, which Peters voted against, despite the obvious benefits to New Zealand exporters.

We hope that Dame Susan makes good on her promise becasue she is quite correct; a leopard does not change its spots. Winston Peters has built a following based on fear-mongering about immigration, especially Asian immigration, and most recently that from China. That the facts contradict Peters makes no difference whatsoever; facts have always been a trivial inconvenience (or should that be an Inconvenient Truth?) to the NZ First leader.

If Dame Susan Devoy succeeds in ridding New Zealand of the ignorance and prejudice that underpins Winston Peters' rhetoric, she will have done us all a big favour.