Winston Peters’ fight against 'filthy' politics

POLITICAL ROUNDUP

Dr Bryce Edwards

Winston Peters is taking legal action against nine individuals

No one should have been surprised by Winston Peters taking action this week over what he calls “filthy politics.” After all, he signalled before the election that he was determined to use the law to get justice. And although most of the media reaction has been negative, it really is understandable that he is still seeking answers.

The new deputy prime minister is taking the action against nine individuals, including former National prime minister Bill English, the head of the Ministry of Social Development, and Newshub political reporter Lloyd Burr. It’s all because he believes that the personal information about his superannuation overpayment was deliberately made public at the height of the election campaign. For more details of the legal action, see Nicholas Jones’ Winston Peters' legal action a 'personal matter', Ardern says

Newsroom co-editor Tim Murphy was also served legal papers by Peters’ lawyers, and he details the court action in Winston goes fishing. Murphy explains Peters is seeking a judgment related to a “breach of privacy” and is requesting those served provide all sorts of records of communications relating to the Peters superannuation scandal in order to discover who is responsible for the breach of his privacy. 

The best discussion and examination of the law around this case is by Mai Chen, in her article published today, No quick resolution in Winston Peters superannuation leak case. She explains how the court process is supposed to work, and concludes: “The likelihood is that it will take several months for the court to determine the matter – longer if there are appeals.  If the court grants Peters' applications, and he finds what he is looking for, then the substantive claim for breach of privacy will then be determined against the alleged leakers.”

Much of the case revolves around the fact that Peters’ superannuation information was provided to government ministers by the Ministry of Social Development under the so-called “no surprises” policy, in which officials make politicians aware of anything that might affect their job. And it is the decision by the Ministry’s boss, Brendon Boyle, to inform ministers that Peters is also challenging. 

Tracy Watkins reports what Peters’ affidavit has to say on this: “The briefing, while required by the National Party government, has to the best of my knowledge no basis in law. The no surprises policy is considered by myself and counsel to be both a breach of the Privacy Act requirements and the duty of care to protect my client's private information held by the MSD” – see: Winston Peters looks to sue over pension leak

No surprises in Peters’ fight
Although the legal action has been portrayed as a surprise, Peters was clear during the election campaign that he intended to pursue the issue after the election. For example, Claire Trevett reported at the time: “Peters said he would speak to his lawyer about his options and was determined to get to the bottom of the matter so people could have confidence when dealing with government departments” – see: Winston Peters calls in the lawyers, claiming character assassination attempt

The same article reported “Labour leader Jacinda Ardern said there was a need to get to the bottom of it to ensure people's privacy was protected by government departments” and said the episode fed the “perception that dirty politics was rife”. And Peters was inclined to use even more colourful language to describe what had happened, claiming that he was the victim of “filthy politics” and that “it's deceitful, it's duplicitous, it's all the worst elements of dirty politics."

Peters supported by left and right bloggers
If Peters is correct and there was an orchestrated attempt to turn voters against him by using state-provided information to the media, then surely Peters is to be encouraged in his bid to find justice. However, it’s hard to find much published support for his endeavour. The exception is Lynn Prentice, writing at The Standard, who says Suck it up, political sleazers

Prentice argues that the leak of Peters’ private information was “clearly politically motivated”, and the whole operation was “a classic dirty politics ploy.” Therefore Peters’ legal fight is to be supported: “Frankly, win or lose, it is just another round in the continuing battle to reduce the garbage in local politics that National and Act seem to like adorning themselves in. It should also be a round in making public servants accountable for who they choose to share private information with, and that includes with their current political masters. I wish Winston Peters and his legal team the best of luck with cleaning this kind of trash out of our local politics. I’m sure that there will be a lot of other people cheering him on in his search for personal responsibility and liability over politically motivated privacy breaches.”

From the opposite side of the political tracks, blogger Cameron Slater is also in solidarity with Peters against this “dirty politics.” He has written comprehensively about the case on his Whaleoil blog – see: Winston starts dropping lawsuits on media and Nats

Slater points the finger at National’s leadership: “This also shows that the deliberate leaked attack against Winston Peters, those involved, and the subsequent actions show where the election was lost. No doubt the discovery process will find that it was in fact a deliberate strategy of National, and one which ultimately backfired. It was a poorly executed and ultimately short-sighted smear job on Winston Peters by the so-called ‘brains trust’ of National’s campaign team. It also shows that the real dirty politics players inside National, who have never appeared in any of Nicky Hager’s books, are in fact those aligned with Bill English.”

Bad blood with National
The launch of legal action is a sign that Winston Peters is in revenge mode, according to Patrick Gower: “Winston Peters search for ‘utu’ is now clearer than ever before. Not only has he dispatched National into Opposition – now he has targeted them with legal action over leaking his pension details. It will now be obvious to most New Zealanders that there was way too much bad blood between National and Winston Peters for them to form a government together” – see: Winston Peters deepens 'utu' with legal action over pension leak

Of course Lloyd Burr reported at the time of the superannuation scandal: “Winston Peters is on the warpath over who leaked details of his pension over-payments. The New Zealand First leader says he's the victim of a privacy breach, claiming it's dirty politics orchestrated by the National government – and he'll ‘lodge a serious action’ when his lawyer returns from an overseas holiday today” – see: Winston Peters accuses National of 'filth and dirt'

Despite the fact that Peters had clearly signalled his intentions to pursue legal action, some political journalists are now suggesting this week’s move is an indication that New Zealand First never would have chosen to go into coalition government with the National Party. 

Here’s what Newstalk’s Barry Soper says: “It was just over a week later that the same three Nats filed into the coalition casino with the gambler Peters, who unknown to them, or anybody else for that matter, had already laid his cards on the table. The dealing had been done. Like all good gamblers, Peters kept a stony face, letting them believe they were still in the game whereas in reality they'd been dealt out when the court papers were filed against them. The notion that he could now be sitting at the same cabinet table with them is beyond comprehension. But they were playing blind, so for that matter was Labour. If they'd known of the court papers they might not have been so generous. But Peters played on, playing one side off against the other until he struck the jackpot with Jacinda” – see: Pension papers is why Wily Winston Peters went with Labour

The New Zealand Herald has published an editorial today along similar lines, saying “the main reason this lawsuit is unwise is it discredits his post-election negotiations and inevitably reflects on the government he has chosen. It is now obvious there was extremely little possibility he could work with Bill English, Paula Bennett, Steven Joyce and Anne Tolley since he had initiated legal action against them the day before the election. Why he put them and the public through three weeks of uncertainty only Peters knows. It is hard to avoid the conclusion it was to increase his leverage on Labour” – see: Peters' suing of ex-ministers discredits negotiations

The latest NZ Listener magazine is also extremely critical of Peters’ legal action, saying “for him to proceed with this action now does far more to lower his reputation than the pension controversy” – see: We deserve better than Winston Peters' legal stunt.

The main point of the editorial is to say: “Legal action confirms he harboured a material distrust of National. How can we not believe he simply used those talks for bargaining leverage, with no intention of doing a deal with National?” The Listener thinks the action is somewhat bullying: “It’s also appalling that he has included a senior public servant and two former political staffers in his discovery claims, knowing, as he must, how hard it is for such employees to defend themselves in a politically charged situation. And it’s an ogreish and futile act for any politician, as Peters as done, to demand that journalists disclose sources.”

Media freedoms under threat?
The Herald editorial provides a further argument against Peters taking legal action over the scandal: “It is disturbing that Peters seeks to have journalists reveal their sources through court discovery procedures. He evidently wants the court to order them to hand over phone records, notes and emails relating to his superannuation overpayment. His attitude to news media going about their job leaves a lot to be desired and may come to pose a threat to press freedom if he now uses his position to try to put his antagonism into law.”

This is another aspect of the case that Mai Chen discusses in her article, suggesting that the journalists involved might attempt to “claim privilege under section 68 of the Evidence Act 2006, which allows them to withhold information that might disclose the identity of an informant.”

Additionally, she says they “may try to argue that there should be no discovery because Peters' substantive claim will fail, either because disclosing the information about his superannuation was not highly offensive to start with or because the disclosure was in the public interest having regard to Peters' position as leader of the NZ First Party.”

Finally, Toby Manhire has also expressed his concern about media freedoms – see his article on The Spinoff: The brand new Deputy PM just served papers on the media and that is not good at all. After expressing disappointment in the deputy prime minister starting his new job in this way, he reminds him of the other lawsuit he has promised against a broadcaster: “And if he’s determined to continue waging war on the media, hasn’t he got enough on his plate already, what with that lawsuit he promised he’d filed against Mark Richardson, for comparing him to pus?”


11 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

11 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

He is like a spoilt little brat.
No decent policies but wants attention anyway he can get it.
Make the most of it Winnie ,your time is up.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Although I have never been a Winston Peters supporter it is not hard to see elements of "dirty politics" here. It was deliberate and well orchestrated to undermine Peters/NZ 1st.

There is also a pattern here. It must have come from the similar sources that released details about ongoing investigation about Hurimoana Dennis of Te Puea Marae (court case on currently) when he criticised the Nat govt for not doing enough for the homeless after his meeting with Paula Bennet. Releasing info about investigation regarding Mr Dennis was the "dead cat" tactic.

While there is speculation in some circles this will damage Peters, if there is substance in the legal action it may enhance his reputation. It all depends who gets caught in the investigation and fallout.

Why is Mr Peters action different from Mr Key and his "tea pot" saga and concerns about freedom of journalist different then the attack on Peter Dunne and his meeting with journalist ? Did not the Beehive security team access mobile phone records and texts ?

Two sets of rules.....a bit like the Paradise Paper tax system !

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I wonder if Labour can now use "Winston Peters" and "Good Faith Bargaining" in the same sentence?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

In your "fight against dirty politics" Mr No. Give yourself an uppercut.
Make that two uppercuts.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

As I've noted numerous times over recent years when the discussion point has been Winston Peters, his core motivation of remaining in politics is to exact revenge on National. This goes a long way back, the pension papers saga is merely more recent fuel added to the long time burn

People talked before the election about Winston wanting to create his legacy. I think it is unfolding before our eyes

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Keep that talk up

Dirty politics will keep National out of power for years. Kiwi's are sick of it and yet these mongrels only seem to keep up their dirty tricks.
They might not be so smug if Winston wins his case but then the NZ judiciary favour blue bloods over normal kiwi's

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Completely wrong interpretation Winston's motivation. And your high dudgeon about dirty politics being a characteristic specific to National is more than a little off the mark. The 99 to 08 regime had a tawdry accumulation and Winston, well, someone else has referred to pots, kettle and black marks

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

He is the worst

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

How is it dirty politics for THE TRUTH about Winston's Peter's National Super overpayments to come out? This is a public figure, the now Deputy Prime Minister, an MP and the leader of a minor political party, a decade's long champion of the elderly and Superannuitants who should know the various rates and entitlements of National Super off by heart. I'm sorry but Mr Peters under these circumstances, should not get nor does he deserve the benefit of privacy or silence. He is not an ordinary citizen. In fact, given the nature of his overpayment, he has questions to answer if nothing else than to establish his competence in the handling of his own personal affairs.

The Deputy Prime Minister does protest too much.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Privacy law. Breaches of the same. National's history of underhanded leaks and use of personal info.

Simple stuff.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

So what? None of that, if true, should prevent the people from knowing that Winston Peters was overpaid his super for SEVEN YEARS, given the nature of that overpayment and his position as a public figure and member of parliament.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.6832 0.0022 0.32%
AUD 0.9014 -0.0006 -0.07%
EUR 0.5819 0.0016 0.28%
GBP 0.5162 0.0020 0.39%
HKD 5.3367 0.0172 0.32%
JPY 76.8200 0.2020 0.26%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1281.7 4.400 2017-11-21T00:
Oil Brent 62.3 0.340 2017-11-21T00:
Oil Nymex 56.8 0.410 2017-11-21T00:
Silver Index 17.0 0.120 2017-11-21T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NASDAQ 6820.6 6862.7 6790.7 1.06%
DJI 23500.2 23617.8 23430.3 0.69%