The reaction to the despicable outburst from the Deputy Prime Minister at the weekend highlights this. To be very clear, there is no justification for the remarks Peters made comparing the previous government – in which he was Deputy Prime Minister for three years – and its co-governance policies to Nazi Germany. His comments were no more than a very cheap attempt to gain a headline, and one more in a long line of racial slurs that he has used over the years to maintain his appeal to the egregious bigots who are his constituency.
But calls for the Prime Minister to discipline him over his remarks misunderstand the power of the Prime Minister in a coalition government. According to the Cabinet Manual, the Prime Minister is the head of government and responsible for the overall conduct of its policy. Ministers are responsible to the Prime Minister for the implementation of government policy as agreed by the Cabinet. The specific party responsibilities of both the Prime Minister and other Ministers are separate from their governmental responsibilities. As Speaker Margaret Wilson ruled in 2008, “The Prime Minister is not responsible for the decisions of another party.”
The Prime Minister’s official powers in a situation like last weekend’s speech are therefore quite limited, especially so since the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that he was speaking as the leader of New Zealand First. Therefore, no matter what he thought of the comments, the Prime Minister had virtually no room to act, unless he felt that the comments risked the stability of the whole government, which they did not.
While that may be the official perspective, the political reality is somewhat different. Although the Prime Minister clearly disapproved of what was said, his limited ability to act left a public perception of weakness on his part, and a feeling that once more his errant deputy had been able to get away with it.
This is, of course, precisely what Peters was seeking. Ever since the coalition was formed, he has been jostling to assert the superiority of his flawed experience over the politically inexperienced Prime Minister, and the ACT Party leader. Peters wants to be seen as the dominant power within the government, even if his party is the smallest part of it. The weekend’s remarks were thus a continuation of the pattern established at the media conference announcing the formation of the coalition last November when Peters used the occasion to launch his extraordinary claim that the media had been bribed.
So far, both the Prime Minister and the ACT leader have lacked the political skills to counter this behaviour. Consequently, they have ended up treading around their fair-weather partner on eggshells, too wary of giving him any opportunity to walk away from a coalition, as has happened previously. This simply reinforces his contention that he and by (distant) association New Zealand First, hold the real power within the government.
Under the coalition agreement, New Zealand First is supposed to cede the Deputy Prime Minister’s role to the ACT Party in just over a year’s time. In the meantime, a near certainty is that there will be more outbursts of the type seen at the weekend as New Zealand First seeks to retain its political relevance. All of which will make the Prime Minister’s already difficult political management that much more challenging.
Another near certainty is that as each new situation unfolds, the populist media will demand the Prime Minister act, and lambast him when he cannot, rather than calling out New Zealand First’s behaviour for what it is.
It all stems from a failure to move beyond the bipartisan world of the old First-Past-the-Post system. While there is still a government and an Opposition as there was previously, governments and Oppositions today are multiparty in nature. They work together on the issues they agree upon and retain their own positions (and identities) on those where they differ. But the confrontational nature of our Westminster political system means too many observers still see the political contest in the black and white terms of the past.
Yet the concept of one government composed of many parties is not a difficult one to grasp, although it does require more subtle understanding than the commentariat often demonstrate. The same applies on the other side of the fence as well, where there seems to be a constant struggle to work out where Te Pati Māori – which by its own admission operates on a different social and cultural paradigm – fits.
None of this is a justification of the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments last weekend, more an attempt to explain the wider circumstances behind them. It is a task that might reasonably have been expected of the media present at the time, but they were too readily seduced by the immediate, salacious drama of the remarks themselves to want to look too closely at some of the underlying realities.
That was exactly what Peters wanted, and, like puppets on a string, they duly obliged him.
Peter Dunne, a retired Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who represented Labour and United Future for over 30 years, blogs here: honpfd.blogspot.com - Where this article was sourced.
The Prime Minister’s official powers in a situation like last weekend’s speech are therefore quite limited, especially so since the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that he was speaking as the leader of New Zealand First. Therefore, no matter what he thought of the comments, the Prime Minister had virtually no room to act, unless he felt that the comments risked the stability of the whole government, which they did not.
While that may be the official perspective, the political reality is somewhat different. Although the Prime Minister clearly disapproved of what was said, his limited ability to act left a public perception of weakness on his part, and a feeling that once more his errant deputy had been able to get away with it.
This is, of course, precisely what Peters was seeking. Ever since the coalition was formed, he has been jostling to assert the superiority of his flawed experience over the politically inexperienced Prime Minister, and the ACT Party leader. Peters wants to be seen as the dominant power within the government, even if his party is the smallest part of it. The weekend’s remarks were thus a continuation of the pattern established at the media conference announcing the formation of the coalition last November when Peters used the occasion to launch his extraordinary claim that the media had been bribed.
So far, both the Prime Minister and the ACT leader have lacked the political skills to counter this behaviour. Consequently, they have ended up treading around their fair-weather partner on eggshells, too wary of giving him any opportunity to walk away from a coalition, as has happened previously. This simply reinforces his contention that he and by (distant) association New Zealand First, hold the real power within the government.
Under the coalition agreement, New Zealand First is supposed to cede the Deputy Prime Minister’s role to the ACT Party in just over a year’s time. In the meantime, a near certainty is that there will be more outbursts of the type seen at the weekend as New Zealand First seeks to retain its political relevance. All of which will make the Prime Minister’s already difficult political management that much more challenging.
Another near certainty is that as each new situation unfolds, the populist media will demand the Prime Minister act, and lambast him when he cannot, rather than calling out New Zealand First’s behaviour for what it is.
It all stems from a failure to move beyond the bipartisan world of the old First-Past-the-Post system. While there is still a government and an Opposition as there was previously, governments and Oppositions today are multiparty in nature. They work together on the issues they agree upon and retain their own positions (and identities) on those where they differ. But the confrontational nature of our Westminster political system means too many observers still see the political contest in the black and white terms of the past.
Yet the concept of one government composed of many parties is not a difficult one to grasp, although it does require more subtle understanding than the commentariat often demonstrate. The same applies on the other side of the fence as well, where there seems to be a constant struggle to work out where Te Pati Māori – which by its own admission operates on a different social and cultural paradigm – fits.
None of this is a justification of the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments last weekend, more an attempt to explain the wider circumstances behind them. It is a task that might reasonably have been expected of the media present at the time, but they were too readily seduced by the immediate, salacious drama of the remarks themselves to want to look too closely at some of the underlying realities.
That was exactly what Peters wanted, and, like puppets on a string, they duly obliged him.
Peter Dunne, a retired Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who represented Labour and United Future for over 30 years, blogs here: honpfd.blogspot.com - Where this article was sourced.
15 comments:
Well Peter you dropped out of government as you knew you were going to loose Winston is back there gaining popularity because he is prepared to say the things that people want said virtually nobody takes any notice of the media and most people have worked out that the opposition are irrelavant.
I wonder Peter, if you'd have been more accepting of his comments if he'd compared undemocratic co-governance to apartheid in South Africa. Or would that also have been a "despicable outburst" in your opinion?
I suspect he deliberately used "Nazi Germany" because he knew exactly how the MSM would react. But, unless his only purpose was to bait them, he needs to have a follow-up action plan to take them to task over their biased, inaccurate and one-eyed reporting. We wait with bated breath.
Whichever one he used, the point was to highlight what can happen in extreme cases when one race has preferential rights and privileges over all other races. And that most certainly is not democratic but I didn't pick up any concerns about that in your article.
Considering you think that claims the MSM were effectively bribed by Labour via the PIJF are "extraordinary" does make me question how aware or widely read you are.
In fact your main concern seems to be procedures and powers afforded to the PM in a coalition government.
You seem far more interested in the minutia than the big issues, Peter.
I am still a bit confused by this. The transcript of the speech made no mention of it. It seemed it was a bait dangled by journalists afterwards that led to the discussion. Simultaneously the media had already constructed the Chumbawanga story and were ready to run that at the same time.
I only got to the 2nd paragraph of that.
The medial manipulation of comments wants despicable. What Winston said was factual.
Correction, Mr Dunne:-
Winston Peters did not compare co-governance Labour policies with Nazi Germany.
He did not mention co-governance at all.
He was responding to the racist claim made by Waititi that Maori genes were superior to other genes.
I am not a Peters fan!
I have both read a transcript of Mr Peters' speech and listened to the appropriate bit.
Mr Peters said no such thing. In fact he stated obvious truth, that favoring one race over all others leads only to a bad outcome.
Being a leftie I suspect Mr Dunne is deliberately not telling the truth.
Your lot lost Mr Dunne and I, for one, am still laughing
Your article is a bit misleading Mr. Dunne.
One wonders if you have had a share of the MSM money.
Please get your facts right and not simply repeat the media drivel. Your credibility is on the line
This post is a classic example of how intelligent people can be so blinded by their bias, rendering their high IQ effectively useless. Learn to listen with your ears and read with your eyes Mr. Dunne, it can be illuminating.
Peter, the Maori party website mentioned they have superior DNA. Does that imply non Maori people are inferior? Waititi has also threatened (as evidenced in a video clip) ‘violence’ against those he disagrees with including the majority of white people. Our MSM deliberately misrepresents anybody who doesn’t agree with their far left socialist view. These being the same views held by our left leaning political parties. Include in this mix the deliberate attempts by our education/ academics to rewrite both our history and school curriculum which paints white people as bad colonisers destroying the existing peaceful, nature loving indigenous Maori.
Then…… compare the above to the early days of the Nazi party rising to power. The Nazis held the view that Jews were inferior, they threatened violence against anybody who opposed this view, they ensured the media assist them propagate their racist views, their supporters destroyed educational and history books.
Winston Peters made an accurate comparison.
Mr Dunne, you have been to too many parties to now have any real understanding of politics and cultural affairs. Go back and read Doug Longmire’s comment. And after that read it again. I voted for NZ First with the expectation there would be a brake on some of the more unpalatable policies of National and ACT. I certainly do not regard myself as an egregious bigot. Do your readers a favour and edit those words out of this blog piece.
The media selectively edited their reporting of the speech to claim the Nazi Germany sentence was directed at co-governance. It wasn’t, Winston clearly linked it to Te Pati Maori’s claim of superior Maori DNA.
This piece and the PM's comments do neither protagonist any credit. They both clearly failed to read/listen to what the DPM actually said. I'm no fan of the DPM, but he does on many occasions hit the nail fairly on the head as he did so in this instance. Both Mr Dunne and the PM should pull their woke, ill-informed heads in, as they both owe the DPM an apology.
I note that my intemperate comments on this article, quite rightly, did not pass muster with the moderator. I would like to say thank you to the guys (and guyettes!) who have had their comments published and done it in a far better and more comprehensive way than my pathetic effort.
Perhaps to focus your thinking Mr Dunne you could tell us if you think Rawiri Waititi's beliefs in the long discredited theories of eugenics were what you would have expected of a politician from:
a: Switzerland
b: Serbia
c: Isis
d: Nazi Germany
e: The Maori Party
f: Never, ever , ever, from any New Zealand Political Party.
Every one who has read your article Mr Dunne would appreciate your most speedy reply.
Post a Comment