Time to lay down law to Winston
Serious Fraud Office (SFO).
Instead of properly taking this on, Ardern has hidden, as politicians often do, behind the perceived inappropriateness of commenting while some process is still active.
Sometimes this waiting game is both useful and sensible – politicians shouldn’t talk too much about murder trials before they finish.
But in this case it makes no sense. Ardern has repeatedly told media that she won’t comment on the NZ First Foundation case because the SFO still had to decide to investigate it, and she didn’t want to ‘‘pre-empt’’ it.
This would wash if Ardern was about to say that NZ First was criminally liable. It’s true that the Electoral Commission did not say that in its statement, although it did make clear that it in fact
say something like that without more investigatory powers, hence the referral to the police.
But there are ways of commenting on things without alleging criminal conduct. It is the lifeblood of adversarial politics.
Following the Electoral Commission’s finding, Ardern would have been totally within her rights to say, at the very least, that she thought these donations should have been declared to the commission. She could have said she was disappointed that a coalition partner appeared not to have been as fulsome as it could have been with informing the authorities – all without alleging any kind of crime. Trying to hide your donations, even legally, is a political act that politicians should be happy to talk about.
This silence got even louder on Thursday when it became clear that NZ First had some kind of involvement in two covertly taken photographs of journalists reporting on the Foundation story, which found their way on to a right-wing blog. Peters told on Tuesday that ‘‘we took the photographs just to prove that’s the behaviour going on’’, but later backtracked to say a supporter just to see the journalists and thought he or she should snap a photo.
Because of this shifting story, there is a muddle over exactly how involved NZ First and Peters are, a muddle that would best be sorted out by Ardern demanding a fuller explanation from Peters.
Any level of involvement in this kind of tactic – clearly designed to intimidate journalists – is worth condemning, and you can bet that, if Ardern was in Opposition, she would manage it.
Instead she’s not commenting, saying it is a ‘‘matter for NZ First’’, while her office notes that she speaks about ministerial decisions and comments, not about things said as party leader.
The thing is, the Cabinet Manual does have a section about ministers upholding and being seen to uphold ‘‘the highest ethical standards’’ at all times, not just when doing ministerial business. Ardern has all the ammo she needs to give Peters a dressing-down over this, but instead she defers. Things don’t have to be illegal to be wrong.
Worse, this rot of silence has also infected the Green Party, which, as a confidence and supply partner, has plenty of legitimate room to criticise such tactics. You don’t need to tear the Government up or demand that Peters is fired – you can just say what the journalists’ union said, that Peters needs to explain himself and apologise.
Instead the Greens just talk about how the law needs to be changed – which most people agree with, but isn’t the point. The topic at hand isn’t underhanded but lawful behaviour, it’s stuff that is potentially illegal – hence the police referral. The party should grow back its spine.
It is blindingly obvious why Ardern is so blind to Peters’ actions. He is not the kind of man to take a telling-off sitting down, and it would probably all get messier as Peters extracted some kind of utu for her daring to criticise him.
But she is the leader of this Government, and of a party that is vastly larger in both power and popularity. Her words set the standard of behaviour for ministers – she is in this sense the most powerful political pundit we have. It’s well past time she found that voice.