HoS editorial leads to some wishful thinking!
Pinocchio Peters - Mike Moreu 15 July 2008
The Herald on Sunday editorialises on Poohgate.
The trouble with occupying the moral high ground is that the only way out is down. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has spent the weekend of his party’s 15th-anniversary conference trying to finesse his late, lame admission that expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn did, in fact, make a $100,000 payment, the existence of which Peters has so vehemently denied.
But what is plain is that he did not tell the whole truth about the matter.
The Herald on Sunday titled the editorial:
Peters skidding on a slippery slope from moral high ground
Adam doubts that Peters ever had the moral high ground, certainly not in this commentator’s eyes. Be that as it may, the editorial makes a number of sound points and raises questions over who should have known what and when.
The HoS notes:-
Peters presumably wants the public to accept that it did not occur to him at any time to wonder whether the money ended up in another account. Such an omission would be scandalous and lazy in a journalist; in a politician under fire, the most charitable explanation for it is carelessness. It certainly does not accord with the high standards of accounting he expects – indeed demands – from others.
Quite right. Indeed, for many years Peters has specialised in fomenting perceptions of scandal or corruption, yet has signally failed to bag any real scalps. Though he has never seemed to mind using Parliamentary privilege to make his accusations.
Adam was pleased to note the concluding paragraphs to the editorial:-
Peters, who is lauded on the party website for his tenacious pursuit of fairness and accountability, may like to explain who decided – and when – that the money should go into the legal fund. Barely three months out from an election in which he looks very unlikely to take Tauranga and with his party vote languishing below the threshhold, he would be wrong to hope that this matter will go away.
Whether an unequivocal explanation would be enough to save Peters’ political bacon is a moot point. He has gained and maintained political power by resort on the hustings to a crude populism that has tended to appeal to ignorance and prejudice or rely on meaningless gimmickry like the SuperGold card for senior citizens.
He may be past his use-by date in any case. But now, more than ever, the man who has campaigned on his commitment to keeping the big players honest, cannot afford to be – or even to seem to be – evasive.
It has been good to see the MSM bestir itself to tackle Peters. It would be good to see this continue, not just in respect of Peters, but other issues generally.
Whether or not the issue will gain sufficient traction to persuade New Zealand First supporters to ‘wake up and smell the coffee’ remains to be seen, given what has been reported of their views so far.
What Adam would really like to see is the NZ Police and the Electoral Commission to bestir themselves to investigate as to whether there has been any breaches of the law, without waiting for someone to lay a complaint.
Surely, there have been enough questions raised in respect of this issue, that those responsible for enforcing the law actually investigate to see if the law has been complied with.
Would that be too much to hope for?
Is Adam’s wish really such an outlandish one?
Is such a wish unreasonable?
Is it so wrong, to want Peters to be judged by the same standards that he has always said should be applied to others, such as transparency, honesty and compliance with the law?
Can Adam be confident that these wishes will be fulfilled?
