FEBRUARY 29 2020 LISTENER 13
C
H
R
IS(^) S
LA
N
E
2008, he stood down during investigations of a
donation.
But an important difference then was that the
donation in question was alleged to have been
made to him personally. The transactions under
scrutiny now were between donors and the party’s
blind foundation. Peters’ actions and knowledge
will be investigated, but so far there’s no suggestion
- aside from that to be inferred from his own bellig-
erent swaggering – that he is personally involved in
any donation handling at all, let alone suspicious
accounting.
Clark had her notorious “swirl” stand-down
spell. She’d incant: “X cannot do his/her job
effectively while allegations swirl around him/her”,
and poof! X was gone until facts were officially
ascertained.
But she never had to swirl and rinse a minister
so critical to the survival of her administration as
Peters is to this one.
The Desfarges are effectively insisting that Ardern
blow up her own administration in advance of any
evidence. Peters is ridiculously proud and chippy,
but, actually, any party leader humiliated and
relegated for an as-yet-unsubstantiated allegation
that isn’t even against him or her personally would
have little choice but to pull the plug.
EXPEDIENT SCAPEGOATING
There’s also fairness. No one bayed
for National leader Simon Bridges
to stand down while the SFO
investigated his party’s donations,
and just as well, because no cur-
rent party member ended up facingprosecution. Until and unless Peters
is charged, it’s hard to see a case for
punishing him in advance.
The SFO and Electoral Commis-
sion’s job is to ensure compliance
with the law and punishment
of offenders – but only offend-
ers. They’re not there to touch
off vigilante or expedient scape-
goating in advance of justiceprocesses taking their course.
What if Ardern sacked Peters
now, the coalition crumbled and
we ended up having a chaotic snap
election ... and then it turned out
no one in NZ First had done any-
thing provably wrong? That would
be a monstrous injustice and a
blight on our democracy. Or, what
if someone in the organisation had,
unknown to Peters and others,
committed fraud or was seriously
incompetent?
In any case, les Defarges can rely
on Peters’ compulsive habit of land-
ing own goals, such as his gloating
over the pap shots some party sup-
porter apparently took of journalists
with the suspected leaker.
Epidemiologically, he’s the anti-
body that attacks its own immune
system, even if there’s no virus.
As history shows, Peters could be
as innocent as a spring fawn wear-
ing a daisy chain and still be relied
on to bluster and fume his way to
electoral peril. lWhat if it turned out
no one in NZ First
had done anythingprovably wrong?
That would be amonstrous injustice.