arron-winston-e1593520733700

PoliticsJuly 1, 2020

The curious case of Winston Peters and ‘Brexit bad boy’ Arron Banks

arron-winston-e1593520733700

The bankroller of Nigel Farage’s Brexit campaign has spent most of 2020 in New Zealand, where he became an ardent supporter of Winston Peters and the NZ First Party – and the feeling appears to be mutual. Justin Giovannetti on the puzzle of a polarising British political figure and a small party in a small country on the other side of the world.

One of the fathers of Brexit has spent much of the past five months in Auckland, where he enjoyed the sea breeze, watched the UK’s mishandling of Covid-19 from afar and became a vocal online supporter of Winston Peters.

Arron Banks, a brash British entrepreneur who amassed a fortune before throwing himself into the leave campaign, financed and directed one of the most aggressive groups pushing for Brexit. Unexpectedly, Banks and the Leave.EU campaign have over recent months become champions of a small political party more than 10,000 miles away: New Zealand First.

Despite New Zealand’s distance and near irrelevance to Brexit, a group that rose to prominence and power during the leave campaign has now chosen to promote the New Zealand deputy prime minister and his party.

Arron Banks, left, threw millions behind both Nigel Farage’s political party Ukip and the Brexit campaign. Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images

In numerous tweets over the past months, Banks and Peters have expressed strikingly similar opinions and concerns. The largely British audience of Banks and Leave.EU have been served dozens of retweets of material from NZ First and its leader. A handful of memes highlighting Peters have also been created.

The account’s nearly 295,000 followers have learned about the future of certain statues and placenames in New Zealand, allocations of the Provincial Growth Fund and the slaying of a police officer in Auckland. The British audience has also been told about the deputy prime minister’s thoughts on the singing of ‘Swing Low, Sweet Chariot’ at English rugby matches. The last few months have seen more weight given to views expressed by Peters, who leads a New Zealand party of nine MPs, than those of the British prime minister, Boris Johnson.

“If we start taking these calls to stop singing ‘Swing Low’ at rugby matches seriously then where does it stop? Getting rid of our All Black haka because it’s too threatening or culturally inappropriate for non-Māori to perform? Get a grip,” Peters tweeted on June 19.

“Well said,” responded Banks.

Leave.EU has also created several posts about New Zealand’s wins against coronavirus and thanked Peters for his leadership in the crisis – no mention is made of the prime minister, Jacinda Ardern.

After Peters spoke with the Telegraph’s weekly politics podcast Chopper’s this week, the support of New Zealand’s deputy prime minister for a new yacht for the Royal Family was turned into a graphic by Leave.EU.

On June 9, the group shared a Covid-19 meme quoting Peters as saying “we can’t just run the country for the timid, we’ve got to run the country for those who want to be free.” Peters made the statement on Newstalk ZB the previous day when asked about New Zealand’s pending move to level one and the prospect of a “trans-Tasman bubble” with Australia.

Intended for a British audience, the Leave.EU post added that “Coronavirus has become a religion of fear, and fit and healthy people at virtually no risk refuse to live their lives. Enough is enough!” There was no mention of the fact that New Zealand had successfully eliminated the virus from the community.

While the two men might politically be fellow travellers, the level of interest shown in Peters and New Zealand is hard to explain.

Last week The Spinoff reached out to Banks and asked to speak with him about his interest in Peters. He has a winning record as a campaigner, with his fingerprints all over one of the greatest political upsets of the past decade. Banks has also shown a knack for using social media to connect with voters who are overlooked by political parties. That touch would be an asset for Peters and NZ First, which polls show could be facing political oblivion in September.

After a day of trying to reach Banks on his mobile, he responded via email last Wednesday afternoon and said he could speak later in the evening at around 9.30pm New Zealand time. He was back in the UK, he said, and would be free to speak then.

He said he’d prefer to call. Unfortunately he didn’t. The next day he said in an email that the call would need to be postponed until the following week. He hasn’t responded to a series of emails or phone calls since to reschedule. He has continued to tweet throughout that time.

The Spinoff wanted to ask Banks whether he has a role in NZ First’s campaign preparations before the general election. Whether, during his months in New Zealand, he met with Peters or offered him advice. And whether it is a coincidence that in tone and even in style, NZ First’s online presence has begun to take on a flavour of Leave.EU over the past few weeks.

On Tuesday morning, the Spinoff reached out to NZ First for comment on the connection with Banks and the group.

A party spokesperson directed The Spinoff to Darroch Ball, a list MP based in Palmerston North. The spokesperson said Ball was now responsible for the party’s communications and would field the questions for Peters. Ball did not respond to seven phone calls and text messages over the following six hours. The spokesperson did not respond to four additional phone calls, but in a text message directed the Spinoff to a second spokesperson. As of last night that second spokesperson had not responded to any of four phone calls and text messages.

Banks entered New Zealand on January 12, long before most people became aware of the threat posed by Covid-19. His son entered a term exchange at an Auckland school and he wanted to be near him.

When Covid-19 struck, he found himself on the other side of the world from half his family. Speaking with an American-based website from the deck of his Auckland rental, Bank said he’d been running daily in the orchards and was “quite chilled out actually” in New Zealand.

He said he found in New Zealand an older version of his home country. “New Zealand does remind me of happier times in the UK … and I’ll certainly be back next year,” he tweeted before his return to the UK in the past few weeks. He has continued to tweet about Peters since leaving New Zealand.

A self-described Brexit “bad boy”, Banks made his money through his ownership of insurance companies. He also owns African diamond mines. In 2017, Britain’s Sunday Times said he was worth about NZ $480 million. Through his support of the UK Independence Party and Leave.EU, he is believed to have made the largest donations in British history by an individual to a political campaign.

The former head of UKIP, Nigel Farage, has also expressed admiration for Peters in the past. Farage and Peters have bonded over cricket and a political platform built on opposition to immigration.

The Eurosceptic leader and Banks have worked closely for years. The pair helped turn the Brexit vote into a question where British voters could express a grievance with the way the country was changing under what they characterised as a smug ruling class. Opponents saw it as a way of expressing xenophobia through the ballot box.

While there is little legally stopping Banks from helping Peters with advice, any personal monetary contribution would be capped at $50. Certainly the two men appeal to a similar demographic, said University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis, but that doesn’t mean Banks should be invited into New Zealand’s political system.

“The form of politics that led to the Brexit vote, which Arron Banks was involved with, was typified by rampant misinformation and appealing to naked prejudice in the electorate. My view is that importing that type of politics into New Zealand would be detrimental to our democracy,” said Geddis.

Banks, whom Farage has described as “pugnacious”, wrote in his book The Bad Boys of Brexit that political campaigns should be blunt, edgy and controversial to create media attention and garner free publicity.

On June 12, a combative Peters put out a statement decrying the “woke generation” after the statue of John Hamilton was winched from the central square of the city named after the British captain.

The statement was blunt, edgy and controversial.

“Why do some woke New Zealanders feel the need to mimic mindless actions imported from overseas,” asked Peters in the statement, where he shared his “disgust” with people calling for the statue’s removal. In his parting words, Peters said they need to: “Deal with it, grow up and read a book.”

The fiery statement followed days of attention from Banks and Leave.EU on statues being pulled down in the UK. Did one of the men most closely tied to Brexit give Peters the idea to go after the woke generation? Is one of the most polarising figures in Britain leaving an imprint in New Zealand politics? We don’t know. And no one seems to want to answer questions about it.

Keep going!
Todd Muller said that candidates who may or may not represent the LGBTI community are not a priority for the party. In 2020, that’s not good enough.
Todd Muller said that candidates who may or may not represent the LGBTI community are not a priority for the party. In 2020, that’s not good enough.

OPINIONPoliticsJuly 1, 2020

The National Party is failing the queer community, again

Todd Muller said that candidates who may or may not represent the LGBTI community are not a priority for the party. In 2020, that’s not good enough.
Todd Muller said that candidates who may or may not represent the LGBTI community are not a priority for the party. In 2020, that’s not good enough.

Headlines about the ‘world’s gayest’ parliament only serve to highlight how far behind National has fallen on queer representation, writes Sam Brooks.

On Monday, the Australian Associated Press reported that New Zealand is on the brink, if current polling persists, of achieving the “gayest parliament in the world”. There are currently seven openly queer* MPs in our parliament, which could increase to nine and even to 11 if the Greens manage to increase their vote. 

That’s something to celebrate. As Louisa Wall told the AAP, “numbers do matter. We have a critical mass with high visibility and we’re seen as valid.” She’s right; visibility is validity. If you see yourself represented, whether it’s onscreen or in parliament, you believe you have a right to exist, a right to be heard, a right to be seen.

What can’t be celebrated is National leader Todd Muller’s comments in that same article. Since the resignation of Chris Finlayson in 2019, National has had zero openly queer members on its party list. But Muller doesn’t think that matters all that much.

“It is not something I’m particularly focused on, ensuring that we find someone who may or may not represent the LGBTI community,” he said. “The key thing is that you have a party that has a track record of being open to the diversity of this country, as it is becoming increasingly so in terms of cultural, sexual orientation, perspectives of life.”

That’s the kind of inability to read the room that has marked the first two months of Muller’s leadership. “Not something I’m particularly focused on” is a diplomatic way of saying “it’s not a priority”. When I asked him whether he really thought “being open to diversity” is enough, this is what he said:

“I would welcome having more National Party candidates in the future who are openly gay, with the hope they could become Members of Parliament someday. I think that would be a very good thing for the party. I do think it is important that the party I lead is open-minded to how society and sexual orientation is evolving. I would hope that a more diverse range of candidates putting their hands up for National would then flow from that.”

Todd Muller stands in front of flags, one of which was famously hung upside down.

To interject briefly: It goes without saying that the National Party should have more queer people on its list. Our political parties should reflect the country. But chances are, if you’ve got a room full of 47 people (again, if current polling persists), and not a single one of them is a queer person, there’s a problem with your room. “Welcoming” more queer candidates is not the same as actively seeking to include them.

Muller went on to tell me this: “I gave a speech in my home town of Te Puna recently where I talked about the value of feeling loved. For me, families are the fundamental units of our society and for them to thrive they need love – be they a traditional mum-dad-and-kids family or a family where it’s mum-and-mum or dad-and-dad. Families form communities and communities expose us to more ideas and perspectives than we gain from our own family alone. 

“So I strongly believe that my party, and indeed any government I lead, should be focused on supporting families of all shapes, sizes and sexual orientations.”

Here, I absolutely agree with him. Communities expose us to more ideas and discussion than is available to us from our own family unit. That Muller, and the party he leads, is at least nominally focused on supporting families of all kinds is a good thing.

Muller closed his response to me by saying he didn’t think “the National Party has historically been closed-minded to LGBTI issues, nor do I think not being openly gay is a barrier to effectively representing the LGBTI community. The 27 National MPs who voted to make same-sex marriage legal in 2013 – including Maurice Williamson’s now-famous ‘big gay rainbow’ speech – would be a notable example.

“I agree that lived experience plays a big part in how someone performs as a politician. But, as I say, being open-minded to diversity is the important thing for me.”

One speech seven years ago does not a party direction make. And those last two sentences are, frankly, contradictory. You cannot simply be “open-minded” to diversity while acknowledging that lived experience plays a big part in how a politician performs, or the roles they are given. You need to do the work; you need to welcome people in, not just unlock the door and assume they’ll turn the handle.

Queer people are the most politically engaged people I know. Because we have to be, frankly. We live without many of the same rights afforded to everybody else – for example conversion therapy is still legal in this country, and queer men who have had any sexual activity are still not allowed to donate blood – and so we have to be invested in dismantling the systems and laws that prevent us from having them. Equality is a fight for queer people, as it is for many marginalised communities. You’re more likely to know how to swing a sword if you’ve had reason to pick one up in the first place.

I’m aware that it’s true that if a queer person wanted to become active in National Party politics, they probably could. The party has previously been home to out gay MPs Chris Finlayson, Paul Foster-Bell and Marilyn Waring (on a technicality, given she was outed in the 70s but only came out officially well after she left parliament).

But let’s face it: National has not been great to the queer community. Right now there are still 15 members on its list who voted against same-sex marriage, one of the most basic landmarks of queer rights. Despite what Todd Muller claims, there is no real “track record” of the National Party being open to diversity when it comes to the queer community. Open to publicity is not the same as being open to diversity. With the exception of the tokenistic, obligatory appearances at Pride events (and the occasional Express cover), this is not a party that has historically valued the queer community. Voting records matter, not hashtags.

Look, there are definitely people in the queer community who vote National; some are literal card-carrying members of the party. It’s a dirty secret that not every queer person is actually invested in progressing the rights of the community. They have other priorities, politically and socially. It’s not pretty but it’s true. There are many in the queer community who agree with National’s policies, or at the very least feel alienated by the policies of the left. They deserve to be represented in their party as well. 

Chris Finlayson during the official opening of the Pukeahu National War Memorial Park on April 18, 2015. (Photo: Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

But no matter how much you agree with a party politically, nobody wants to be the only queer in the village. You might feel special for a moment, but there’s only so long before you become a target. It was only nine years ago that, according to Green MP Kevin Hague, then attorney general Finlayson was called “tinkerbell”  by Trevor Mallard and Clayton Cosgrove (proof, should you need it, that the centre-left is hardly perfect in this regard). Even worse, you become an example to point to; you become the party’s technicality. Nobody gets into politics to be a technicality.

It’s a sad fact that if National wanted more queer representatives in its ranks, it would probably have them by now. But that kind of representation has clearly never been something that the party has valued, and it’s very hard to start the inclusivity race a couple decades behind everybody else.

It’s 2020. If your party does not represent the demographics of the country, it does not represent the country. If you’re not practising active, effortful inclusion, then you’re practising exclusion. Having a nice, pre-cooked phrase about being open to diversity doesn’t change that. If you’re failing to accurately represent the queer community, you’re not just failing that community. You’re failing the country. 

Muller has said that he’s picked his shadow Cabinet based on merit and talent. I don’t doubt that, in his mind, he selected the best people in the room. But how can you pick the right people for the job if those people aren’t even in the room?

*This article uses the term ‘queer’ as an umbrella word to cover the wider rainbow and LGBTQIA+ community. This is the author’s choice, but he does acknowledge that other members of that community may wish to identify themselves differently.