Hide shows way

Another week into the Peters row and the order of battle has become clearer, writes The Press in an editorial.

It is now obvious that New Zealand First has no intention of publicly accounting for its secret funding and that, of the other parties, only ACT is willing to press the issue.

That is a depressing comment on New Zealand politics. To many people it will confirm that our parties habitually put their own interests ahead of principle, and that they share an understanding that prevents the spotlight being shone brightly enough to illuminate the inner workings of their funding.

All political parties get donations; in Labour's and National's case the gifts are large and generally have been secret. Disclosure of the details of this money trail would not enhance the parties' images as battlers for the people's good, free from obligations to wealthy individuals and corporations.

The new electoral law for all its undesirable features will open funding to the public's scrutiny, but it will not expunge a history that is riddled with influence-buying and secret understandings.

The parties' shared entanglement in big money does not exonerate NZF's present behaviour. It, unlike the other parties, has consistently criticised influence-buying and the intervention of wealth into politics, and has proclaimed itself free of such contamination. Its claims are now shown to be a sham.

Winston Peters had the perfect opportunity to retrieve something from the ashes when he made a statement to Parliament on Wednesday. Under standing orders he was entitled to be heard in silence and not questioned, but he squandered that opportunity by failing to clarify the issues or answer the serious questions. Instead, Peters made a rambling and confusing attack on the media, his political opponents, and shadowy evil forces he alleged were out to get him.

It was in the worst sense a vintage Peters performance. His statement attempted to obfuscate and shift attention away from the issue of substance and onto the conspiratorial concerns of his bedrock supporters.

They may rally to the old cause, but the wider electorate is unlikely to be impressed. However, a tight muster of the faithful could be enough to return NZF to Parliament even if it fails to win Tauranga. This evidently is the conclusion of the main parties and explains their shadow boxing in the current row. They are busy doing the calculations of coalition-building.

Labour does not want to drive New Zealand First to the wall at this time when that would scupper the Government and perhaps prevent the re-establishment of the coalition after the election; National is keen to maintain good relations with NZF in the expectation that the Center-Right (which includes NZF) will emerge from the poll best placed to form a government. They are both praying that the electorate will eventually solve the Winston problem and remove the troublesome politician from their concerns.

The improbable figure of Rodney Hide arises from this wasteland of principle to carry the fight against NZF and its failure to account. His request to the Serious Fraud Office for an investigation takes the issue out of the hands of the politicians and places it in the hands of an independent organisation with considerable powers. The SFO can require that evidence be produced, and it is outside the authority of the Attorney-General.

If the SFO does investigate the NZF donations, the result will be the thorough scrutiny that the issues need if the political process is to escape the charge that it shelters unethical and perhaps illegal practices.

Hide, of course, has more than just a principled interest in this business, as the unedifying abuse between him and Peters in the House last week showed. But Hide has plainly enunciated the principles involved, the justified annoyance at their possible disregard, and has made the only significant effort to have them vindicated.

If he succeeds, and Peters is forced to face the consequences of his actions, no sympathy need be expended. Peters in this scandal has confirmed his reputation as the most cynical of New Zealand politicians, a harmful influence on the nation's public life and an unfit participant in government.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First

macnz   #1   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

This then is a disgrace and a dis-service to the public of New Zealand. It shows the politicians for exactly what they are. Dishonest, disrespectful and interested in their own survival with their snouts firmly submerged in the public trough. It easy to understand this with the majority being of such low quality that they would never in a million years get such a paying job in the land of the real. However there are a small group of Politicians who should be above the gutter and prepared to do something or expose all. Democracy has been eroding over the past few years with the legislature now being a mutual self preservation club for the ambitious and the not to bright. They dont give a shit for anything but themslelves and restricting the people with radical loser legislation. We see them now proven to be on the take and the other gutless party's back off simple ecause they are also. Wankers the lot of them....Time for a revolution..

Ad Feedback