ZB

Kate Hawkesby: It's a rare day, but I agree with Winston Peters

Author
Kate Hawkesby,
Publish Date
Wed, 4 May 2022, 7:18am
Winston Peters. Photo / NZ Herald

Kate Hawkesby: It's a rare day, but I agree with Winston Peters

Author
Kate Hawkesby,
Publish Date
Wed, 4 May 2022, 7:18am

It’s a rare day I find myself agreeing with Winston Peters, in fact I’d go so far as to say it’s never happened. But given the circumstances of yesterday, I’d have to agree with Winnie; Trevor Mallard has lost the plot. 

I mean I have actually used those exact words about Trevor Mallard before. When he spent half a million taxpayer dollars on a playground slide at Parliament, when he played the protestors the Macarena and set sprinklers in them, when he made false rape allegations and then used taxpayer money to fund his legal defence.

Also when he kept leaping to Ardern’s defence when she was a newly appointed PM and he seemingly thought it was the 1800’s as he constantly spoke on her behalf, all the times he’s thrown people out of the House for no reason other than a pet peeve with them. I mean the list is endless. 

This guy is well past his use by date and I have no idea how he still gets to be there at all, let alone in charge of anything. If anyone should be banned it should be him. So if you’re not up with Mallard’s latest losing of the plot, he’s banned Winston Peters from parliament. Just like he’s banned Matt King, and every other person who turned up to the protest. Banned them for two years. Winston Peters has labelled this move ‘dictatorial’ and in line with ‘a banana republic’. It’s hard to argue.

Peters also says New Zealanders should not put up with such "totalitarian behaviour". I find myself still agreeing with him.

He also points out the PM shouldn’t put up with it either, but as we know, she tends to put up with everything, sack no one, hold no one accountable and when it comes to Mallard in particular, manages to turn a blind eye. What's the deal with her and Mallard? Does he have something on her? She seems so powerless around him.

So Winston’s taking legal advice, and knowing how litigious he is, this may cause pause for thought on Mallard’s part. Has he been too hasty here? Is it going to cost him a fortune in a legal drama? 

Whose money will he use to fight that drama if and when it does unfold? How much of a headache does that give the Government? How many bad headlines do they want?

Crucially, I think Mallard has to ask himself, why does he behave this way? Why is he so driven by anger? Is he spending too  much time on Twitter? Because I can tell you from out here in the real world, his antics are going down like a cup of cold sick. And the one thing Winston is good at – and remember I’m no Winston fan – but the one thing he is good at, is zeroing in on stuff the public hates. He’s got a good sense of this stuff.

David Seymour’s called Mallard ‘petulant’ and says it’ll wind up in court, it’s petty and gets us nowhere (again). Luxon has been more diplomatic and said it’s a matter for the Speaker, in fact he echoed the PM who said the same thing.

Which brings me to my next question, why is Luxon being so soft? Opposition is where you land the big hits and be bold. “A matter for the Speaker” sounds like a pass on a really simple question. But then again the Nats don’t have a lot of love for Winston so they probably don’t care.

But power hungry, plot-losing Mallard is a worry.. and what’s also a worry, is that I’m now agreeing with Winston Peters.