Bill Birch

Winston Peters is “evil and cowardly” says Duncan Garner

The media tide is turning on Winston Peters.

Duncan Garner gave him a right good old kicking yesterday, calling him “evil and cowardly”…which ironically I called Winston Peters to his face on the phone, to which he replied that he would smack me up if I said it in person.

Poor Winston, what’s going on? It looks like you’re really struggling to land any decent hits in Parliament these days. It all looks a bit limp and sad.

You’ve been there since 1978, save for three years in the wilderness before this term. If you ever had the answers then you’ve had ample time to share them.

Instead, what did we see this week? You abusing your privilege of free speech by spewing vicious bile at an MP who is in Parliament only because you wanted him there. Brendan Horan is hardly the first NZ First MP selected for loyalty rather than ability.

Calling Horan the “Jimmy Savile of New Zealand politics” was evil and cowardly ? and you know it. If anyone makes any sort of claim against you, you’re quick to threaten legal action and demand retractions and apologies. But when you’re the one dishing it out those rules don’t apply: you can waltz into Parliament and get all the protection you need.

I have been threatened with legal action several times by Winston Peters, I once told his lawyer that I’d welcome the chance to explain just how Winston Peters won the Hunua by-election and he could tell Winston Peters that and see if he wants to continue the action. The man is a bully, a coward and yes he is evil.

I can’t help but point out the irony of it all to you. I remember covering a speech you made in Kawerau in 2008 and you had Horan along as your little sycophantic sidekick.

Horan was in awe of you, banging on to the journos about how you were an honest and loyal man who only wanted what was right for New Zealand. He told us you never took money from Owen Glenn and everyone was wrong to be questioning your integrity and honesty. Horan was really fired up that afternoon.

So how does it feel now he’s firing a few at you? Suddenly the spending from your parliamentary leader’s fund looks questionable ? despite your denials.

And Horan’s allegations might just be sticking too. Did you spend $20,000 on a computer system to aid your NZ First Party? That money you and all the other parties have in those slush funds has never been transparent.

Read more »

Cover up under Simon Bridges watch – Part 2

image001-1

While Labour and Winston Peters are using Parliamentary privilege to fire off stupid allegations at Judith Collins, they are ignoring a pile of incompetence within MBIE ? the very Ministry tasked with growing NZs business.

Part one exposed the dodgy behaviour of MBIE officials?under Simon Bridges? watch.

It raised questions about how MBIE officials are managing the Government?s procurement process, and how questions about dodgy union organisations are being deleted from Supplier Questions in GETS.

Maybe it was a simple mistake, but then again we all know the unions love to think they have union-friendly government officials in their back pocket.?Maybe that?s why they get an extra $500 for being a member of the unions.?If Labour and NZ First want to talk about corruption, they don?t have to look any further than that rort.

But back to Simon Bridges? MBIE officials.

This very same GETS RFP #448 then exposed a monumental flaw by the very officials tasked with advising Simon Bridges on his Employment Relations Amendment Bill.

In what is an astonishing revelation, MBIE advised – in their Supplier Questions about RFP #448 of 20 February 2014, that the Employment Relations Bill Part6A (vulnerable employees) doesn?t apply.

image002

Not sure how that works out for them.? Read more »

Cover up under Simon Bridges watch – Part One

In the posts about whether Simon Bridges should be considered a future National Party leader, I?ve blogged about concerns flowing into the tip-line from party supporters.

It’s Bridges cuddling of dodgy unions that most rankles. This may explain why he?s not showing the stones needed to see through the Employment Relations Amendment Bill ? a bill the left hate with a passion.

Remember, Bridges told Parliament ?the Government wants to ensure that employers have the freedom to complete and expand?.

While the rank and file liked the sound of that, by all accounts his union-friendly officials in MBIE were less than impressed.

These MBIE officials really don?t care for Bridges and are hedging bets that he won?t be Minister of Labour after?20 September.

It may also explain why his MBIE officials are keeping him in the dark about a little mess that shows they?ve been ignoring the Government?s own legislation.

It?s always the little things that upset the apple-cart, and while innocuous to most, little niggles tend to point to larger problems.

Thanks to an eagle-eyed reader, the question now being asked is who?s in control of MBIE?s (therefore the Governments) procurement processes? This little attempt by MBIE at a cover up deserves some sunlight.? Here?s part one.

It concerns a GETS RFP #448 for cleaning at 15 Stout Street, Wellington. It also mentions?our friends at the cartel like Building Service Contractors (BSC). ? Read more »

What on earth is going on in Hunua?

Yesterday I blogged about the Hunua electorate chair Ian McDougall trying to rig the selection for his favourite candidate.

This ratbag has chosen to give up his neutral position and force branches to vote for his chosen delegates.

Since that post the tipline has been running hot, with many other stories of dodgy dealings in Hunua by officials who are supposed to remain impartial and act as part of the broader National Party family.? Read more »

?There are many things I can accept about Winston Peters, but the one thing I cannot accept is he tells fucking lies.?

Cameron wrote this last year, and it has stuck in my mind as one of the best pieces of writing I’ve seen him produce. ?Due to his unique place in political history, we are afforded a glimpse inside a meeting that became a pivotal point in New Zealand’s political history.

A meeting, the results of which continue to reverberate through the political landscape like thousands of aftershocks.

Had those present known what would happen to New Zealand Politics because of this, would they have made the same decision?

by Cameron Slater

?it was a dark and stormy night? really it was, as best I can remember. It was in Wellington in 1992.

I was in Murray McCully?s office, observing (I guess you could call it that) a most memorable event. It was the night that key members of the National party caucus met in McCully?s office to draft the expulsion motion to throw Winston Peters from their caucus and to set in motion his eventual resignation from the party and the forming of NZ First. ? Read more »

Once upon a time…

…it was a dark and stomry night…really it was as best I can remember. It was in Wellington in 1992.

I was in Murray McCully’s office, observing (I guess you could call it that) a most memorable event. It was the night that key members of the National party caucus met in McCully’s office to draft the expulsion motion to throw Winston Peters from their caucus and to set in motion his eventual resignation from the party and the forming of NZ First.

Many MPs were there, including Doug Kidd, Doug Graham, Maurice Williamson, John Banks, John Carter, Wyatt Creech, Max Bradford, John Luxton, Philip Burdon and others, all perched on chairs, arms of sofas, tables and desks. Some like Ruth Richardson popped in for a few moments to read over the document, such as it was, and nod and give the assent or to suggest a change of a word or two.

I was there because my father had been summoned to help draft the motion, he was the Northern Regional Chair and sat on the party?management?council who were ultimately going to have to deal with the fall out. We were supposed to be going for dinner…we were very late.

It was a scrappy little document, much dog-eared and rumpled from all the handling and scribbling. Finally a call was made and Bill Birch was summoned and the drinks came out.

Bill Birch came down and perched on the edge of McCully’s desk, he was handed the scrappy little piece of paper…he pulled out his glasses, perched them on the end of nose and peered at the document. After a few moments he nodded and placed that piece of paper in his suit breast pocket. Then he picked up a Glass, it has barely a finger of Scotch in the bottom…and he toyed with it.

Someone asked in the hushed tones if this was the right thing to do…Bill Birch stared imperiously around the room and then launched into a quiet speech about all the things that he like about Winston…then all the things he could tolerate about Winston.

I can’t ?remember it word for word but Birch explained how he could accept his drinking, his drunkenness, his philandering, his absenteeism and many other faults…it was a substantial list…but he came to the conclusion.

“There are many things I can accept about Winston Peters, but the one thing I cannot accept is he tells fucking lies.”

And with that he put down the glass with the Scotch untouched, turned and walked out commenting as he went that he better go and tell the Prime Minister.

The next day Winston Peters was suspended from caucus and the rest, as they say is history.

It should be noted that ultimately Winston Peters tried to sue the party in?the?High Court when they subsequently banned him from standing, after his loss he resigned and formed NZ First contesting the 1993 election and winning Tauranga with Tau Henare winning ?Norther Maori.

I have never forgotten that night…for many reasons, but two which stand out was hearing Bill Birch swear, it was the first time and only time. The other was watching him toy with that glass as he listed Winston Peters’ many, many failings.

Now Winston has his own situations that has many of the hall marks of that wintry, stormy night in 1992.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story

Eddie/Mallard at The Standard is writing up a storm about a civil war that simply doesn’t exist and dreaming up factions that are a figment of Eddie’s fevered imagination…or is it Trevor Mallard’s fevered imagination.

Eddie/Mallard believe that the factions are:

  • the Collins faction ? socially conservative, the party?s Christian wing, economically pure (ie neoliberal) but not overly strong economically apart from on decreasing government spending;
  • the Brat Pack ? socially conservative but also more economically conservative, incrementalists who see the object of politics as being in power, transforming the country gradually, as a glacier carves a valley;
  • the Boag/Key faction ? socially liberal, economically neoliberal, old guard, who also want power for the long-run ? their next star after Key is Hekia Parata;
  • the Joyce faction ? socially liberal, small business mentality that the rules should be bent or discarded when they get in the way, not really ideological economically but probably tending to the libertarian way.

Where to start…The Brat Pack ceased to exist a long time ago. Tony Ryall does his own thing these days, Nick Smith is damaged goods, Roger Sowry left parliament three elections ago leaving Bill English as the last man standing. The Brat Pack was also a creature of Michelle Boag’s but she is about as popular as herpes right now. Bill English fell out with her a long time ago.

Bizarrely Eddie/Mallard suggest that there is a Boag/Key faction…this is specious. John KEy is his own man and not one to fall for the machination of Michelle Boag, even if she continues to claim that it was she and not my old man that?recruited?John Key to National. There simply isn’t a Boag/Key faction as Eddie/Mallard presumes. If there was then Bill Birch wouldn’t have been dispatched with a message for Boag telling her to wither and die, and to do it quietly, which was delivered last week.

There isn’t even a Collins or a Joyce faction. Again these are largely a figment of Eddies/Mallards?imagination.

Anyway the post suggests that Stephen Joyce and Hekia Parata are the dream team to take over from John Key.

There is are several major flaws in that thinking.

Neither is liked by their peers which is more important than the wishes and dreams of Eddie/Mallard. Also both are List MPs. Stephen Joyce won’t stand in an electorate due to his campaign manager duties and Hekia Parata has tried and failed twice to win a seat.

hard working electorate MPs won’t countenance a duopoly of List MPs leading the party. If they can’t win seats then they shouldn’t be leaders.

Like Trevor Mallard,?The Standard never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.?Basically?The Standard exists in a parallel universe inhabited by few others beyond the deluded Trevor Mallard.

Understanding Mallard – Part 1

Trevor Mallard is Labour’s campaign manager, so it is with little surprise that the campaign is going to be dirty with plenty of muck flung. Mostly it will be flung by him or his assistants.

Readers need to be aware of?Mallard’s?history though. His history of telling lies, and his history of defaming people under parliamentary privilege.

So I will start a series looking back at Labour’s campaign manager and his history of muck-raking so we can all be under no?illusions?that whenever he opens his gob it is likely to be pouring forth lies, innuendo, defamatory comments and muck.

Mostly his slurs and attacks are simply fanciful, given credence only in his twisted mind. But in his long parliamentary career he has never stopped doing it. He continues to this day. Let’s look at the 80s in today’s post.

Tuesday, October 13, 1987

PERSONAL EXPLANATION—APOLOGY

TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West): With the leave of the House, I want to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 171 in relation to a supplementary question I asked during question time, in which I alleged that the member for Tamaki was a patron of the Mongrel Mob. It has been pointed out to me that he is not the patron of that gang, and I want to apologise.

So he flung dirt at Muldoon and was wrong. He had to apologise.

Tuesday, March 22, 1988

TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West): I request the leave of the House to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 171, about compliance orders.

John Banks: Apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no discussion on this matter. It is a question of the House granting leave. Is there any objection to leave being granted? There appears to be none.

TREVOR MALLARD: When I spoke in the debate I made an error about the method of review of the appointments of chief executives. A review can be done by the High Court, but not by the Labour Court. Therefore the Governor-General cannot be affected. I do not retract the comments I made about the effect of compliance orders on Ministers of the Crown under other clauses in the Bill.

Labour at the time was trying to stop public sector workers who refused to join the PSA access to the the provision of the Labour Relations Act. Not only that?Labour’s Bill would have given the Public Service Association the statutory right, for the first time, to insist on compulsory unionism. But Mallard ruined his arguments by lying and then having to apologise tot eh house.

Tuesday, November 21, 1989

PERSONAL EXPLANATION—QUESTION OF THE DAY No. 5

TREVOR MALLARD (Hamilton West): I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation relating to a supplementary question I asked during question of the day No. 5.

Hon. W. F. Birch: What’s it about?

TREVOR MALLARD: The Opposition Whips have been briefed.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has given a brief explanation. Is there any objection to leave being granted? There appears to be none.

TREVOR MALLARD: During question of the day No. 5 I asked a supplementary question relating to payments for public relations contracts. I stated that the National Government had produced a green booklet with a photo of its current leader that promised 410 000 jobs, and that that booklet had gone to every household. I also implied that a company involving the member for East Coast Bays was involved. The member has indicated to me that I was wrongly briefed. I make it clear that I accept his word, and I apologise for any embarrassment that I have caused him.

Another day where Mallard has had to make a personal explanation in parliament about more lies he has told. This example is particularly interesting in that Mallard was spreading muck leaked to him from someone, and he got it wrong. It is exactly the same type of thing he doing to this day. Again involving himself in the affairs of another political party, receiving emails and txts from?affiliated?protagonists?including sitting MPs and even Ministers and then repeating those on his blog and in parliament as statements of fact.

Those examples are from the 80s….step forward just a few more years and Mallard was at it again.

Thursday, April 18, 1996

TREVOR MALLARD (Pencarrow): It became clear to me late yesterday that the information that I had that suggested that the Minister had said that President Mandela was “a fat, balding, Maori” was in fact incorrect. The information that the Minister had twice indicated that a photograph of President Mandela was a photograph of a Maori resembling President Mandela was in fact correct. I took some advice as to whether it was appropriate to apologise at that stage. The advice I got was that bringing it up again might in fact further embarrass our relations with South Africa, so I did not. But I do apologise to the Minister for the partial inaccuracy.

Another day ?a few later and he was smearing John Banks this time. Another apology. Getting the picture. Mallard lies, then he gets caught, then he has to apologise.

I will cover the 90s in another post. This could take a while there is so much material to work with. Mallard was a muck-raker then and he is a muck-raker now. He was wrong so many times then, he is still wrong today. When I call him an apologist you can see why, he spends a great deal of time apologising for his lies and smears.

More Nat Northern Region results

List Ranking Committee?

Successful list ranking candidates were;

  • Nick Albrecht
  • Diane Gribben
  • Kit Parkinson
  • Toni Millar
  • Roger Burrill
  • Cam Calder

Aaron Bhatnagar missed out by two votes, never mind, try again next year.

×