Friday, May 15, 2020

The Covid-19 pandemic came at a good time for Winston Peters


(First published in The Dominion Post and on Stuff.co.nz, May 14.)

The coronavirus crisis has been very good for Winston Peters.

He came back from his Northland lockdown firing on all cylinders. If you wanted confirmation that this is an election year, there it was.

Perhaps he needed that spell of seclusion to recuperate from the bruising effects of a court case that blew up in his face and a donations scandal that refuses to go away.

Whatever the explanation, the Great Tuatara was quick to re-assert himself on the political stage. The Covid-19 pandemic enabled him to present himself as statesmanlike in his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs and made him look good as the saviour of New Zealanders trapped overseas and desperate to come home.

It also allowed him to promote himself as a Man of the People by disclosing that health officials had been rebuffed when they advised the government to close our borders, which would have left those travellers stranded.

It was inconceivable, Peters declared, “that we [would] ever turn our backs on our own”. He was thus able to parade as a patriot who stood firm against flint-hearted bureaucrats.

Normally such advice to Cabinet is kept confidential, but Peters went public. Did he do so in the hope that his own image, as the minister whose officials had successfully argued against the health advice, would be enhanced? Perish the thought. And shame on anyone cynical enough to suspect that Peters spoke out because he was feeling aggrieved that Jacinda Ardern was sucking up all the political oxygen and leaving none for him.

The virus scare also gave Peters an opportunity to unleash his inner Muldoonist by railing against globalisation and promoting  protectionism – all of which might have sounded appealing to anyone not old enough to remember what New Zealand was like when everything from shoes to cars was shoddily made and overpriced.

He was on equally safe ground advocating a trans-Tasman bubble, calling for greater state control over Air New Zealand and championing Taiwan’s bid, over China’s objections, for observer status at the World Health Organisation. All three moves played to populist sentiment.

Not only would Peters have been confident that the public would back his support for plucky little Taiwan, since China is seen as the nasty bully standing in the Naughty Corner, but it also had the advantage of differentiating his position from that of Ardern, who appeared less keen to buy into the controversy.

No one should be surprised if Peters exploits more such opportunities between now and the September election. Remember, this is a politician with a history of going rogue whenever he perceives the need to distance himself from his coalition partners.

All this couldn’t have happened at a better time for the New Zealand First leader. He’ll be counting on the Covid-19 pandemic to help the public forget a stream of highly damaging disclosures about his party’s dodgy conduct.

Those disclosures related to big donations made to the shadowy foundation that bankrolled the party. The donations, some of them made by ultra-wealthy individuals in fishing, horse racing, property and forestry, are now being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office – a fact that should be included in every news story about New Zealand First, lest voters succumb to amnesia.

Being subject to an SFO investigation doesn’t make the donations illegal, but it’s worth recalling that party president Lester Gray felt so uneasy about the opacity of NZ First's financial affairs that he resigned.

In any case, it’s one thing to pass a legal test and quite another to pass the sniff test, which is how voters decide whether something smells “off”. Going by what's been reported so far, the public is entitled to conclude that the NZ First Foundation was a mechanism for disguising the source of donations to the party, and thus making it hard to determine whether favours were bought.

Then there’s the small matter of the court case in which Peters sued former National Party ministers and top public servants over the leaking of his superannuation overpayment. Remember that? The case he kept quiet about, thus making nonsense of claims that post-election coalition talks in 2017 took place in good faith?

Peters may be hoping the lockdown drama will erase memory of those court proceedings, during which he backed down on his claims that Paula Bennett and Anne Tolley, whom he sued for $450,000, had leaked to embarrass him.

In the end, all the theatrical huffing and puffing came to nothing. The High Court dismissed all of Peters’ claims. But the taxpayers lost too, because the bill is expected to total more than $1 million. That’s a big price to pay for one man’s quest for utu.

15 comments:

Scott said...

While I am not a huge fan of Winston Peters and we do note the huge amount of money that he secured for the racing industry, he is not wrong on everything. Regarding trade and tariffs and manufacturing and globalisation I believe that our elites, such as yourself, need to have a big big think. Basically every manufacturing job has gone to China. We rely on China for everything. This is the same China from whom came this global pandemic. This is the same China who cornered the market on PPE and according to reporting has withheld PPE from some countries unless they say nice things about China. This is the same China who, according to prominent Americans in the US Senate, deliberately allowed their citizens to travel overseas to Malan and New York and seed the virus there. Believing that if China must undergo economic catastrophe so must everyone else.

So yes we need to totally totally rethink our dependence on Chinese manufacturing. And if that means we encourage New Zealand manufacturing then so be it. What is it about the idea that in New Zealand we just can't make things properly and at a decent price?? We make leading-edge America's Cup yachts. In the past we used to make trains. This is the path to national greatness. We need to start making things and being responsible for our own destiny and not relying for all of our goods on the good graces of the Chinese Communist Party, who have been proved again and again to be a very bad actor. Let's all of us, wake up and smell the coffee.

Karl du Fresne said...

Scott,

I share your reservations about Chinese dominance of trade and manufacturing. I think that should have been clear from my post on April 30. That doesn't mean I think we should retreat into the Fortress New Zealand mentality of the 1960s and 70s, when an inefficient, complacent, cost-plus manufacturing sector was sheltered from competition and New Zealand consumers were deprived of choice.

Incidentally, I don't know what your definition of "elite" is, but it's obviously very different from mine.

hughvane said...

Disclaimer: I am no fan of Winston Peters, so I hope these questions are viewed as impartial.

What is it about WP that the media, both ancient & modern (to use a hymnal title), detests? Is it because he refuses to dance to the tune of the media? Does the media have a rigid agenda of ‘let’s get Peters’? Why does the word ‘populist’, when applied to a politician, in this case WP, generate such agitation and opprobrium amongst the media? Does the media consider itself the guardian and upholder of a nation’s political morals and ethics? Is what the media considers proper the only true way?

The sentimental outpouring about Made in NZ, Buy Local, Support Small Business, is noble and admirable, but is it either practical, or practicable? NZ is a drop in the ocean compared with other major trading partners, and the best we can probably do is 'Buy NZ' - if it's Good Value (in every sense).

All that said, I think NZ needs to look hard, and soon, at alternatives to China for trade, namely India and SE Asia, even Britain which - let's face it - is going to need trading partners like never before. The question remains however - at what price?

Max Ritchie said...

Scott: could you explain your plan to encourage manufacturing please? And what will you manufacture? We have a pretty good record of assembly (at really significant extra cost) but I can’t see us manufacturing cars, trucks, computers, smart phones or trains. But you have a different take on that so it’d be good to have some detail. And I too would like to hear how Karl duFresne can be defined as part of the elite. I would have thought that he’d be as far from the NZ elite as it’s possible to be.

Karl du Fresne said...

Hugh,
I’ll try to answer your points one by one.
1. “What is it about Winston Peters that the media … detests?” I’m not part of the media pack so can’t speak for them, but I don’t think they detest him as you suggest. Peters and the media engage in constant jousting, but it’s my impression that most political journalists treat this as akin to sport. Ask yourself this: why is Peters, uniquely among New Zealand politicians, habitually referred to in the media by his first name? That suggests a degree of affection (one that I believe is woefully misplaced). If there’s an adversarial relationship between Peters and the press gallery, I’d suggest that the tone is entirely set by him. Alone among our politicians, he resents being held accountable and appears to consider it impertinent of reporters to ask him questions that other ministers accept and politely answer as part of the job. And I don’t just mean questions aimed at trapping him; I mean any questions, no matter how legitimate. No other politician habitually snarls at journalists the way he does. But then he learned from the master, Robert Muldoon. If anything, I think political reporters defer to Peters far too much. He intimidates them and they let him get away with it.
2. I agree there’s nothing intrinsically dishonourable about populist politics and have said so many times. Given a choice between populism and dominance by an elite, either of the left or the right, I’d go for populism every time, provided it’s not the rank form of populism that incites hatred and vileness. But while it suits Peters to play the populism card, and the media tend to slap that label on him, I question whether he meets the definition. The word “populist” implies someone in touch with the public mood, but NZ First won only 7% of the vote in 2017 and Peters lost his own seat. It’s only because of a warped electoral system that Peters wields power; it has nothing to do with popular support.
3. Why does Peters generate such agitation and opprobrium from the media? Well, as I’ve already said, I don’t think he does. But since you raise the point, I’m surprised he doesn’t generate more, since it’s my opinion that no one in my lifetime has done more than Peters to bring politics into disrepute.

hughvane said...

Fair do Karl, and thank you for making the effort to answer my posers. Evidently we view Mr Peters and the relationship between himself and the media through different eyes.

Switching track - and I hope you will take up this issue as a matter of import - what are we to make of the breathtaking duplicity of the Minister of Justice, Mr Andrew Little, on the one hand vilifying police for using facial recognition technology in search of criminals, versus his silent capitulation to the extended police powers to enter homes, without a warrant, in search of errant Covid isolation/separation citizens? As I understand the matter, the new powers were carried through as part of the Budget, when it is nothing of the sort. It is a further advancement of State control over people’s lives at a time of deep anxiety and uncertainty.

Ruaridh said...

The home entry powers had nothing to do with the ongoing budget process but, to come to the the real point, I can do no better than rehearse these points recently made in the public domain by a friend and colleague:

”The Government exists to protect the rights of the people, and to provide for their protection from foreign and domestic threats, to provide for the protection of their persons and property by a defined and clear Rule of Law framework and to allow individuals to choose for themselves how they will live their lives within the law both socially and economically. The role of the Government is therefore very limited and certainly not extensive.

At the moment the involvement of the Government in the lives of its citizens is highly invasive – reminiscent of a dystopia – and the current situation will extend into Alert Level 2. And how long will that last? How long will we be subjected to decrees and proclamations from bureaucrats in Wellington? Do we really need to be patted on the head and told how good we have been by those who are meant to serve us? Do we really need to be told that because of the idiocy of the few all of us may suffer restrictions. That sounds like patronising school teacher-speak to me.

So how long will it be? Until we get a vaccine? Or some other equally distant event? By the time we finally emerge into Alert Level 0 – if we ever do – the population will be so habituated to the 1:00 pm update that free will and freedom of choice will have vanished.

It will be the Government who will be telling us how to live our lives – as I said in an earlier post

“what to buy, how we should do this and how we should do that, and gradually we are allowing other people to do our thinking for us. The time will come when no longer will we make our own decisions, but some “big brother” will tell us what to do and what to think. We will be told who is good and who is bad, whom we shall love and whom we shall hate.””

Doug Longmire said...

Thanks Karl,
you have summed it up extremely clearly and accurately in your response to Hugh. Peters continues to act as if he were not accountable to anyone. He gets belligerent with reporters who ask awkward questions. The MSM are clearly intimidated by him. Yes - Just like Muldoon.

Scott said...

Karl and Max,
This is not a personal attack. What I would say is that Karl is a journalist and gets his money from his brains. He writes his columns, takes his pay, probably lives pleasantly in the Wairarapa and can afford to sip his short Blacks outside the local café in the Masterton sun.

The New Zealand worker, who works off his own sweat and labour, has not had it anywhere as good. Basically Rogernomics deliberately shafted New Zealand businesses and New Zealand workers and outsourced everything to China. Take an example. My wife used to work for a suit manufacturer in Naenae. They used to employ 100 machinists, local women, to make the suits. These were skilled good jobs for these women that put bread on the table of their families. The managing director of the firm under Rogernomics was in despair. He had the latest machines, but how could he make suits and sell suits when he was paying his workers at the time say $10 per hour and because of Rogernomics, suits were being imported from Fiji where they paid their workers probably $10 per day or less? So those jobs all went to Fiji. Is that right?

Now I appreciate this is a difficult argument to make because everyone is addicted to cheap overseas goods from China. But that comes at a huge cost to the New Zealand worker and anyone wanting to start a business. Because China can basically dump goods here at below cost and drive any aspiring New Zealand manufacturer out of business.

But that has been the price of the theory. That has been the price of globalisation. Now yes there were shoddy goods back in the 70s. But I also remember the warehouse and the cheap tat from overseas that was available and was no good. And quite frankly it's no better, it's tat but it's cheap.

Is it really not possible for us to have any protections at all for New Zealand businesses and the New Zealand worker? I think it is. I think we have sacrificed generations of New Zealand workers for the sake of cheap goods from China that are often of poor quality and are dumped on our markets and strangle local businesses and local entrepreneurs.

The New Zealand economy should be structured for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Not just knowledge people who work off their laptops and are quite comfortable. But the person who earns a living from the sweat of their brow.
The earthquake in American politics in 2016 was caused by the populous revolt against the elite's who outsourced everything to China. We made the same mistake in my opinion by outsourcing everything to China.

It's time we got our New Zealand economy back. It's time we started making things again. This is a call for national greatness.

Max Ritchie said...

That’s an interesting proposal, Scott. Who gets to choose what is imported and what is not? Manufacturing in NZ will lead to massively increased prices, so will you ban imports or do it with tariffs? And where will sell our products? China buys our milk powder because we buy its “tat”. Every item of clothing I’m wearing this morning was made in Asia, most of it good quality, imposed by Rockport and Land’s End. I suspect your plan would result in expensive, poor quality goods. I recall the days of import licensing when I bought Monarch shoes and wished I could buy English ones. And will you manufacture everything? In my previous post I asked you about cars and electronics etc - any answer?

Max Ritchie said...

And just to add to my last comment, m not rubbish in the idea of manufacturing in NZ, it’s just that we have to be enlisting - with a small population and Labour laws and culture which makes sweatshops unlikely, it’s almost impossible to produce consumer goods at an acceptable price. Chocolate and tinned fruit are no problem but clothing such as your wife’s suits are very difficult. I bought a high quality jacket from Working Style for $700, made in Chine. I can’t see local manufacture competing on price or quality.

Max Ritchie said...

That should have been “I’m not rubbishing”

Hilary Taylor said...

As far as being referred to by their first name in the media surely Jacinda is Queen. And is not only tuned into the public mood but creates it. A series of unfortunate events has polished her credibility to a high sheen for many, even while turning off those for whom she comes across as vacuous & lacking heft. But this is about Peters...who needs to 'leave the building', thankyouverymuch.

Doug Longmire said...

Has anyone got any thoughts on the latest illegal, criminal, with threats of criminal assault issued, blockade of a State Highway on the road to Cape Rienga? This was shown on TV1 news last night.
Funny how the TV cameras could get there, but the NZ Police failed to show (Can you see why I call them the Police Farce) This is, quite simply,totally racist non-application of the rule of law.

david said...

Scott blames Douglas for destroying jobs in New Zealand, a view that seems to be held by many. Yet unemployment in New Zealand was quick to recover and our economy was much stronger as a result. The jobs that were lost in manufacturing were replaced by jobs elsewhere. A lot of the new jobs were in the service sector, so instead of paying someone to reassemble car engines that had previously been assembled in Japan, or making suits that can be made cheaper in Fiji, we are employing people to make flat whites or mow lawns. We can afford to pay people to make flat whites because we are not spending absurd amounts of money on poorly assembled cars. The net effect is that we have a car and a coffee - ie we are better off. But there are things we can and should make in New Zealand. For example the new carriages for the Tranz Alpine express were built in New Zealand after seeking tenders world wide. It was possible because a small order for equipment that is non-standard is expensive for international companies who are used to designing and tooling up for hundreds of units at a time.