The Dim-Post

June 10, 2013

What does Peters have?

Filed under: intelligence,Politics — danylmc @ 2:39 pm

Bryce Edwards asks on Twitter:

Does any really believe that Winston Peters has copies of the Dunne/Vance emails? I think he’s probably bluffing on this one.

It’s hard to imagine how Peters could get his hands on these. Peter Dunne is hardly going to pass them on. If Andrea Vance had a senior Minister leaking her sensitive documents she’s hardly going to destroy his career by betraying him to Peters for no apparent gain. If any of the Ministerial Services IT staff had accessed Dunne’s email account it would show up in the audit trail and they’d lose their jobs.

But we do know that Dunne passed on 44 ‘edited’ emails to David Henry, and that Winston Peters seems to know a great deal about what’s been happening inside the Henry inquiry. He knew they’d interviewed Dunne, that they didn’t do so under oath, and that he wasn’t releasing his records. So my guess is that Peters has the emails that were handed over to the Henry inquiry. If that’s the case then Dunne was very wise not to hand over the rest of his correspondence.

21 Comments »

  1. On face value, we can probably get rid of the GCSB and just let Winston handle intelligence gathering.

    Comment by Gregor W — June 10, 2013 @ 2:51 pm

  2. What audit trail. There is even less security on Exchange 2010 than older versions. There is tracking after mail leaves the building but that does not give access to content

    Comment by Ron — June 10, 2013 @ 3:03 pm

  3. The PM’s office are providing Winston with the ammunition. They’ll have access to all details of the Henry investigation but not the non-released emails. Winston is bluffing about having those emails. Just like he bluffed about having the copy of the teapot tapes (he’d had a briefing of the content). He’s hoping that there’s enough in them that Dunne will leave parliament rather than release them – and he may well, if there’s anything that damages him morally he’ll be gone in 2014 anyway. Best to leave with reputation (officially) intact.

    The interesting question is why the PM’s office would be dealing with Winnie. It could be that they simply want rid of Dunne (in which case I’d love to know what he’s actually done), it could be that they’ve decided WP is the best bet they’ve got come 2014 and they’re making sure he’s on the dance card as of right now.

    Given the right/far right ructions within National I suspect it’s the latter. I also suspect there’s no real concern from team Key/English (who are more closely aligned now than they have been since Key took over, so much so that I’d describe Key as being in the English camp) about halting asset sales as they’ll have dealt with the two most strategically important sales – MRP and Meridian.

    Some on Labour’s right would like to use a coalition with Winston because it would reduce the Greens’ negotiating power and increase theirs as they would be the “keepers of Winston” (note who walked out with him).

    Similarly Key/English would appreciate the chance to use a coalition with Winston to put the Collins crazy right camp out of its misery and reassert it’s center-right credentials. It should be noted here that the fact Key is dealing with Winston show just how far the PM has moved from the faction that ran him up to start with (and that includes an arch-anti-Peters contingent including Jenny Shipley and Michelle Boag).

    The bad news for people who want a Labour/Greens government is that it’s simply not going to happen if Winston gets across the line. And he will because the only people who would actively oppose him are Dunne and Banks. And they’ve got their own problems to worry about…

    Comment by Marx Barks — June 10, 2013 @ 4:07 pm

  4. Winston can make a pair of twos seem like a royal flush🙂

    Comment by Rob — June 10, 2013 @ 4:17 pm

  5. “So my guess is that Peters has the emails that were handed over to the Henry inquiry.”

    So you think there was a leak in the leak inquiry?

    Comment by izogi — June 10, 2013 @ 4:36 pm

  6. If you parse his language carefully, he only has ‘electronic records’ i.e. a list of phone calls and/or emails – he would have matched up time periods with numerous communications between Dunne, the reporter and the news stories
    Look at Winston’s oral question last week where he cited particular DomPost stories and dates

    Comment by Mike — June 10, 2013 @ 7:33 pm

  7. The interesting question is why the PM’s office would be dealing with Winnie. … it could be that they’ve decided WP is the best bet they’ve got come 2014 and they’re making sure he’s on the dance card as of right now.

    My money’s on that one too. Seeing to it that Winston First stays above 5% is very much in National’s interest for the next election.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — June 11, 2013 @ 6:34 am

  8. The biggest problem for National isn’t how to get Winston Peters into coalition with them, or even that National voters will switch to Labour to keep Peters out. It is the worry that lots of their voters will simply stay at home rather vote for to put Peters into government with Key. Hence the scaremongering aimed at framing the Greens as the lunatic tail wagging the Labour dog – the hope seems to be that feat of the Greens will herd the reluctant middle class Nats into the ballot box to vote for their man Key again next year.

    Comment by Sanctuary — June 11, 2013 @ 7:20 am

  9. Before you rush to blame dark forces in the PM’s office, ask cui bono? How does the PM benefit from undermining a relatively stable ally? He doesn’t imo. Having this dirty linen washed publicly would be pretty low on his wish list. Peters is just too unreliable to be groomed this way. This morning he wanted key to use the gcsb to access Dunne’s emails.

    Comment by insider — June 11, 2013 @ 9:36 am

  10. He knew they’d interviewed Dunne, that they didn’t do so under oath…

    Well, I knew they didn’t interview Dunne under oath, and so would anyone who cared enough to look. David Henry lacked the power to require the giving of evidence under oath or otherwise.

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — June 11, 2013 @ 10:55 am

  11. But how could anyone know that David Henry didn’t seek to do so, despite the lack of any legal authority? Hmmm? Answer me that one!

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — June 11, 2013 @ 11:13 am

  12. Mr Key saying that Winston does not have them is a bit too clever. Winston has never said that he had the emails. Winston is predictably dripping what he does know in the same way as over the tea tapes. He never said he had copies of those tapes either. We have to listen carefully to his wording and assume nothing.

    Comment by xianmac — June 11, 2013 @ 11:50 am

  13. Hmmm? Answer me that one!

    The lack of a charge under section 6 of the Oaths and Declarations Act? He could be fined 25 pounds!

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — June 11, 2013 @ 11:59 am

  14. > We have to listen carefully to his wording and assume nothing.

    We always have to listen carefully to his wording, because the bugger likes to mumble. He was in classic mumble mode when interviewed by John Campbell last night. I think he mumbles more when he’s trying to fake it.

    Comment by Ross — June 11, 2013 @ 12:39 pm

  15. >Before you rush to blame dark forces in the PM’s office, ask cui bono? How does the PM benefit from undermining a relatively stable ally? He doesn’t imo.

    If the ally is fucked in a way that could easily come out at any time, and that seems to be pretty obviously the case since Dunne is falling on his sword, then it’s to National’s advantage to be “stern” about it. I think they’d rather have Dunne than Peters any day, but whatever has been dunne can’t be undunne. So Peters is in a powerful spot whether Key likes it or not.

    >It should be noted here that the fact Key is dealing with Winston show just how far the PM has moved from the faction that ran him up to start with

    I find that hard to believe. I don’t think he’s moved. He’s just realized that NZ has moved, and knows that another term rides on political compromise as the only path. It could work.

    The Greens are making the sensible move of asserting their primacy over NZ First, in a Labour coalition. Why shouldn’t they? They will almost certainly have more support, and their support will be crucial to Labour. There is essentially no chance of Labour without the Greens, barring huge poll movements.

    Labour could be owning this. They are really faced with a binary here – waffling in the middle can’t work if the potential coalition partners won’t have a bar of each other. They have to build up the coalition they have, and that really means actually owning that they must work with the Greens. I don’t think they will do this, though. They’d rather be powerlessly stuck between the Greens and NZ First in a coalition, or actually let the Nats have another go, than to decisively pick a path that is ironically, left wing. This has always been the way for the left. On the right, they’re all natural allies in what they consider their natural right to rule in a conservative way. They just have to convince waffling centrists they won’t be too radical. But on the left, the choice is for change, and there are many ways to change (whereas there’s only one way of staying the same), so they are always divided.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — June 11, 2013 @ 2:00 pm

  16. “They’d rather be”, actually, I can pretty much tell you this is entirely wrong. Labour would much prefer to work with the Greens. The big question is: do the Greens have the numbers?

    Comment by Keir — June 11, 2013 @ 5:18 pm

  17. >Labour would much prefer to work with the Greens

    Why is that never delivered as a message from Labour? It’s always about how the Greens stole their votes, and have loony policies and Labour should move to recapture that space.

    >The big question is: do the Greens have the numbers?

    A more useful question, which doesn’t leave Labour as a helpless spectator just waiting their turn, is to ask how Labour can move so that both they AND the Greens pick up sufficient numbers so that they could actually have the coalition you say they want.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — June 11, 2013 @ 6:29 pm

  18. I do not recall Peters claiming that he has incriminating emails (he may well have seen them, or one, or some).

    I suspect that he has been told by some one or more people who have had access to to the emails (one or more) what is in them.

    I would be very surprised if he could ever produce physical evidence of what is them.

    If he does a very interesting deal has been struck in the murky subterranean swamp of media and parliament..

    Comment by peterlepaysan — June 11, 2013 @ 6:43 pm

  19. Why is that never delivered as a message from Labour? It’s always about how the Greens stole their votes, and have loony policies and Labour should move to recapture that space.

    Hang on, so Labour should do a thing that the Greens never do, and commit to a specific coalition partner?

    As far as the “loony policies and Labour should move to recapture” goes, those two are contradictory aims! If the policies are loony, moving to recapture that space is loony… I just don’t think Labour is any harder on the Greens than the Greens are on Labour.

    Labour’s not there to do the Greens’ work for them. If the Greens want to be part of a Labour-led government, they need to show up with the voters/MPs to make it happen. If they can’t do that, I don’t see why Labour’s obliged to make it work for them, any more than the Greens are obliged to make a coalition with Labour work if Labour doesn’t bring the numbers to the table.

    Comment by Keir — June 11, 2013 @ 7:04 pm

  20. If Labour MPs have any difficulty in deciding between a left-leaning, socially progressive, environmental party and a conservative/authoritarian party with a history of racist itch-scratching, then they should probably reconsider their party’s purpose. Or their own.

    But since they have a leader who publicly states that left and right don’t actually matter, we should hardly be surprised.

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — June 11, 2013 @ 9:25 pm

  21. >Labour’s not there to do the Greens’ work for them.

    With cooperation, it could actually be Labour doing Labour’s work for Labour. Outside of politics it’s known as synergy.

    >Hang on, so Labour should do a thing that the Greens never do, and commit to a specific coalition partner?

    I’m not saying they have a moral obligation to do that. I’m saying it would be practical for them to do that.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — June 13, 2013 @ 2:10 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: