Dom Post on NZ First

Almost overlooked their editorial this morning:

The “over-enthusiastic supporter” on whom Winston Peters blamed the breach turned out not to be someone with only a tenuous connection to the party, but Tommy Gear, a friend of the NZ First leader and a man who has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Parliamentary Service for work done for NZ First.

He is more than a friend. According to the electoral roll, Winston lives with Mr Gear in Tauranga.

But if readers think it is a source of concern that a man on the parliamentary payroll is unaware of the rules governing political advertising, it gets worse.

Even within NZ First few know what Mr Gear has done to earn a salary of up to $50,000 a year. And neither Mr Peters nor the Parliamentary Service is prepared to say.

We could run a guessing competition, but I think that could get messy!

Mr Peters, who has refused to even confirm that Mr Gear works for NZ First, has responded to questions with his usual belligerence. “Print one thing wrong, sunshine, and I will sue you.” The Parliamentary Service refuses to say what Mr Gear does, how much he is payed, what hours he works, or even whether he is still on the payroll. Pay and hours are a matter for the MP and the staff member, says general manager Geoff Thorn.

That is an outrage. Mr Peters demands transparency and accountability of others but, as ACT leader Rodney Hide has rightly pointed out, he “can’t answer the most basic questions to do with public money and his own behaviour”.

Yay Rodney.

Only slightly less outrageous is the refusal of National to comment on what is clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

It is hardly surprising that Mr Peters is refusing to talk about his relationship with Mr Gear. It is only a few weeks ago that he refused to reveal to which charities NZ First had given the $158,000 it misspent during the last election campaign rather than return it to the public purse.

But the main Opposition party should have something to say about public money being spent in such an unaccountable fashion. That National does not suggests either that it does not want to invite scrutiny of its own use of parliamentary funds, or it does not want to alienate a potential coalition partner.

The latter I would say. Good to see they are not staying totally quiet on this latest issue.