Kiwiblog

Deborah Coddington refers to one of the contributors to the Hollow Men as “Steven Price, a Wellington blogger with a law degree”.

I don’t know of a Steven Price who is a blogger.

I do know of a Steven Price “with a law degree”, just as I suppose Milton Friedman is someone “with a law degree”.

I presume she is referring to the Steven Price who is or has been an Adjunct Lecturer at Victoria Law School and a Fellow in Law and Journalism.

“Blogger with a law degree” doesn’t sound quite as good as “Law Lecturer and expert on media law”.

To be fair to Deborah, she is not alone in calling non-bloggers bloggers. The PM does it also.

The HoS reports that Michael Cullen might refer allegations that National used the leader’s fund to pay for a postcard mailout by the horseracing lobby to pundits, urging them to vote National.

But don’t you love the irony of the response from the Auditor-General’s response:

Auditor-General Kevin Brady said last night he would not be looking into the postcard claims as legislation validating “everything like that” had already been passed

I’m sorry but that is priceless. Cullen’s own legislation has removed the ability of the Auditor-General to investigate. Now that’s karma for you.

For the record, if (and that is a big if) National did fund material from the leader’s fund that urged people to vote National, that is quite wrong, and the cost should be refunded, even though we are probably only taking a few hundred dollars. But until there is confirmation of the wording of any such material, the cost, and who did pay for it, I wouldn’t jump to conclusions based on the book.

UPDATE: In this SST story, it is clarified that in fact the material in question was paid for by the party, so just a beat-up.

The HoS reports that the waterfront stadium championed by Mallard and Clark is almost certainly dead.

They speculate that rather than go with Eden Park, the North Harbour stadium is looking attractive.

At this rate it might come to the Cake Tin, when all othe roptions are exhausted

Several spam comments a minute have been getting past the blog spam filter which had had me junking comments as fast as they come in.

As a temporary measure I am delaying publication of comments for manual approval. If the built in Movable Type spam filter doesn’t get better at blocking the spam, then I may hev to look at putting back the “Are you Human” test.

Effing spammers!

Sent to me by Owen McShane:

The Auckland Blues manager sends scouts out round the world looking for a new player to hopefully win them the Super 14. One scout informs him of a talented young Iraqi winger. The coach flies to Iraq to watch him, is suitably impressed and arranges for him to come over to play for the Blues.

Two weeks later, The Blues are 30-0 down at home to the Crusaders with only 20 minutes left. The coach gives the young Iraqi winger the nod to go on. The lad is a sensation, scores 6 tries in 20 minutes and wins the game for the Blues.

When he comes off the field he phones his Mum to tell her about his first day playing rugby for the Blues. “Hi Mum, guess what?” he says. “I played for 20 minutes today, we were 30-0 down, but I scored 6 tries and we won.Everybody loves me, the fans, the players and the media, they all love me”.

“Great,” says his Mum, “now let me tell you about my day. Your father got shot in the street, your sister and I were attacked and beaten, and your brother has joined a gang of looters, all while you were having a great time.”

The young lad is very upset. “What can I say Mum, I’m so sorry.”

“Sorry?!” says his Mum “Its your fault that we moved to South Auckland in the first place!”

People upset with New Line for dumping Peter Jackson to produce “The Hobbit” film can sign their names to an online petition.

I am signature number 12,082.

The NZ Herald has a good set of Internet stories currently.

First off is the ongoing problems for Ihug, now into the third week, and how they are losing customers. I have thought myself about moving but have decided not to (at this stage) as generally service has been excellent, and I do want to give the new owners, Vodafone, an opportunity to invest into Ihug and hopefully offer some exciting voice and data products. Ihug are saying Telecom is causing many of the problems for them. Without details, one is naturally sceptical of this claim when other ISPs seem okay. Ihug need to communicate with its customers as to what the problems are, and what the timetable for proposed remedies is.

Then we have the Consumer’s Institute complaining about Xtra’s advertising of an “unlimited internet usage at maximum download speeds” package which isn’t.

Team Talk has purchased Citylink, with management taking a minority share. David Ware is a canny operator and I expect this will be all good for Citylink. Citylink have 150 km of fibre in Wellington. I just wish they would lay another 200 metres along Hobson Street to hit my apartment block.

Vodafone has launched a video calling service for just $6 a month, to other Vodafone users. Telecom have been signing up six times as many mobile customers as Vodafone recently, so this is meant to reverse that.

Disney are producing TV episodes for mobile phone viewing. Only in Australia at this stage.

And the wireless broadband spectrum is going to be auctioned off next year, This may be quite critical for future development.

This is why I love being involved in the Internet industry – there’s so much happening with new products and services,

First up the Wellingtonista blog has its first annual awards. Go there and vote Wellingtonians.

Spare Room alerted me to this hilarious Jib Jab summary of the Shawshank Redemption. That film is my favourite of all time, and the summary is hilarious. Go view it now.

Ruth Berry’s article in today’s Herald is very perceptuve and well informed. It gives a really good over-view of the decisions before National, and where people stand. Specifically she covers

* the different strengths of John Key and Bill English for Leader
* the pros and cons of who should be Deputy to Key
* the core group who have been pushing for Key
* that Key’s votes on social issues more reflect his electorate’s views than his personal ones (this is the case for quite a few National MPs)

An interesting study into median family income from Auckland University. It has found that median income has not increased despite more women working, as less men are in full-time employment.

But what I find interesting is that from 1981 to 1991 (Muldoon/Labour rule) the median gross income of all families dropped from $37,463 in 1981 to $33,227. Then from 1991 to 2001 it increased to $37,665

Of course you might think the lead researcher is some right-wing researcher who favours National. But as it is Professor Peter Davis, I doubt it!

Finally a quote from another team member:

“What’s scary in New Zealand is that it hasn’t got better under Labour. There are more people in employment, but it’s low-paid employment.”

I can’t recall a week in politics with more major stories in it, than this one.

We have had:

* The two waterfront stadium votes
* The announcement of the Hager book
* The Investigate expose of David Benson-Pope’s kinky antics (aarrgh with photos – I may never look at a clothes pin again without flinching!)
* The resignation of Don Brash
* The release of the Hager book
* Positioniong for National’s leadership and deputy leadership

So naturally I wonder what bad news has the Govt quietly released under the OIA this week

The Auckland Regional Council has voted 0-12 against the proposed waterfront stadium. They also voted 12-0 for Eden Park.

The ARC voted unamiously against it. A small majority on the ACC voted for a waterfront stadium, but only if they move it from its present location eastwards, which may not be possible.

Surely the proposal is dead? Mallard to do a press conference in 30 minutes on it.

The injunction has been lifted and Scoop and NZPA have started to report on extracts from the book. My comments are based on the extracts only. Unless the author would like to e-mail me a pdf of the whole book, I won’t be able to read it until I return home in two weeks.

Scoop has a fairly lengthy article on it.

Scoop highlights that Brash was advised to get irritated if a line of questioning goes a certain way, Good God this happens with every party I am sure (which they acknowledge). I am sure Helen was told to pretend to be annoyed at Trevor for his comments in the House. Hell in preparation for the Keep It 18 press conference, I suggested that if any of the youth reps are asked if they have ever got massively drunk, they respond by asking the journalist the same question and refuse to answer. This is bog standard stuff, and like making a sausage is not pretty in public but not exceptional.

I was surprised to find out the apparent gaffe in revealing to Noelle McCarthy that Brash had met with the EBs, was in fact a rehearsed line scripted by Richard Long. Nothing exceptional in this again, but I am intrigued as to why they wanted that info out there, and why they let it be assumed it was a gaffe. I’m not sure if the book gives the context.

With the EBs, there is one email which was sent on behalf of the EB to Brash, Key and Steven Joyce outlining in May their intention to spend a million dollars “getting party votes for National”. This is called the smoking gun e-mail.

However it overlooks one obvious thing – that the nature of the campaign changed after getting advice. In fact we already know most of this from the Chief Electoral Office who said the EB approached him saying they wanted to campaign to get Don Brash made PM, and he advised them on what they coudl and could not do..

My understanding of the likely sequences of events (and this is not inside knowledge, just comes from me having asked a few questions over the last few months) is:

1) EB approach National (unsolicited) and say they want to spend a million dollars getting party votes for National.

2) National advises them (as it advised several other groups) that they are welcome to campaign, but need to do it in such a way it does not form part of National’s campaign.

3) EB approach Chief Electoral Officer and he advises them on what sort of wording is and is not acceptable so that they do not break the law.

4) EB amend their campaign so it complies with the law by not directly advocating votes for National..

Now one may claim that the overall aim was always to gain votes for National, but I am sure if you ask any union which does their own independent advertising, they would admit they of course want votes for Labour, by way of attacking National. But one frames the campaign in a way which complies with the law.

Now the article claims several National MPs or officials lied in denying knowledge of certain activities. I can’t comment or judge how true this might be without the book, and am sure the people concerned will speak up for themselves.

It is also claimed that it was a deliberate strategy by some in National to keep the EB’s identity as the authors of the pamphlets hidden. If accurate, this was the wrong thing to do. I have always advocated that the EB have a right to campaign, within the law, as they see fit. But they should have held a press conference to announce what they were doing. The public rightfully do not like the lack of disclosure. I would have thought people would have learnt the lesson from the last Auckland mayoral campaign where the copying of an NBR article attacking Hubbard backfired when the story became who was behind it.

But to confuse things, NZPA refers to another planned EB campaign on the issue of repairing defence links, but that the EB “agreed today to publicly take ownership of the campaign to avoid conspiracy theories” and “had agreed to say they had advised all political parties about the advertising campaign”.

Now this never happened it seems, but this is what should have happened. The EB campaign on an issue openly. I can’t tell enough from the story as to why this other campaign never happened.

My overall impression from the stories is that there is nothing in here which will indicates misbehaviour by National as a whole. I am sure a year’s worth of e-mails to and from any party leader would have similar. The two things which cause the most concern are:

(a) that some in National seemingly were aware the EB planned to keep their involvement secret, and did not counsel them otherwise. This, while not illegal, was a mistake.

(b) That the denial of knowledge of the EB campaign by some MPs, is not consistent with the e-mails in the book.

However I would caution not jumping to conclusions until one has heard context and explanations.

The book, while unhelpful to National (as I am sure a hypothetical book based on secret tape recordings between Helen, Trevor and Heather would be be equally unhelpful) doesn’t seem to live up to its hype. But again this is based on media extracts only.

Well as usual not much sleep on the flight to London. So I got to do the following over 25 hours:

Movies

Pirates of the Carribean II
My Ex-Girlfriend is a super-hero
Superman Returns
Toy Story
MASH (1970 Movie)

TV

Two and a Half Men x 1
Malcom in the Middle x 2
Will & Grace x 1
Bad Girls x 7
Torchwood x 2
Blackadder Unaired Pilot x 1
House x 1
Stacked x 1

Books

The Gifts of the Jews – How a tribe of desert nomads changed the way everyone thinks and feels, by Thomas Cahill

Conqueror’s Moon by Julian May

Destiny by Fiona McIntosh

The Kalahari Typing School for Men by Alexander McCall Smith

Oh plus with multi-tasking I finally cleared my inbox to zero unread items for the first time in ages! It’s sometimes nice to be trapped on a plane.

Despite being Leader for just over three years, I believe National will remain very fond and grateful to its 10th leader – Don Brash. Very rarely for an outgoing leader, he leaves the party polling significantly higher than Labour, and with greatly increased membership.

After the 2002 disastrous result of 21% (which was not just due to the then Leader I should point out), there was speculation National was finished as a major party that could compete with Labour. Mike Williams spoke openly how we may now have a Scandinavian model where there is not one dominant centre-right party, but three or four. This is what he wanted. No-one thought National could seriously challenge Labour in 2005, and indeed some said that it might never challenge them again.

In 2002 National only got twice as many votes as NZ First. In 2005 National had its best result since 1990, and by comparison got 6.5 times as many votes as NZ First, with National’s vote increasing from 425,000 to 890,000!!

I also believe NZ owes him a big debt for his original Orewa speech. It changed the political landscape, and very importantly brought to an end the near automatic practice of accepting the conventional wisdom that the Treaty of Waitangi meant that every law, every strategic plan must somehow pay homage to it. For the first time we had an honest debate about what does and does not the Treaty mean. Labour tried to label him a racist, and then did a poll driven backtrack, saying they agreed with him on need not race. Of course that was only spin, but nevertheless a significant concession.

I was lucky enough to work with and for Don – both formally during his time as a candidate, MP and Leader, and informally over the last couple of years since I left Parliament. I recall with some amusement that when he became Leader he did his 1st Caucus reshuffle. I had the job of checking prior to the press conference that no portfolios had been missed out (previous reshuffles had accidentally left Biosecurity with no spokesperson) and there were around 15 missing. When I gave Don the list of missing portfolios, I was delighted when he responded most of them were deliberate and that we no longer needed spokespersons for every cause people invent.

I also recall at functions etc that Don had the somewhat rare trait amongst MPs for wanting to actually engage in discussion. At functions the job of an MP is to meet as many people as possible, and hence spend no more than a minute or two with each person – you work the room. But sometimes Don would end up spending 20 minutes chatting to a group of us on issues such as finding that balance between what is popular and what is right. He actually enjoyed the engagement, and it was great to be able to have in depth discussions with the Leader on political issues.

Yet despite all he achieved, it had been clear for some time that a change was likely. Don’s biggest weakness is also his biggest strength – the fact he was not seen as a typical politician.

To put it baldly, Don’s major failing was that he was a very bad liar. Helen on the other hand is a first class liar. Now I should explain – I don’t mean deliberate totally incorrect falsehoods – MPs (including Helen) avoid those sort of lies as much as possible. It’s more the ability to obfuscate, to confuse, to even deceive the questioner. Don had the annoying habit of actually answering the questions people put to him, rather than answering the ones he wanted them to ask. The rare time he tried not to answer the question (often necessary), it was obvious – he was not skilled at such obfuscation.

I don’t mean this quite as cynically as it sounds. MPs every day get asked questions which they don’t want to answer, and part of the skills required is to not give an answer which is unhelpful. For example if hypothetically a journalist asks what the Caucus position on nuclear ships is, the answer should be “no change to the current policy is contemplated”, rather than “Well we think the ban is daft, but its popular so 18 out of 29 MPs voted to keep the ban”

The other weakness was, in my opinion, trying to be overly fair, and not not pragmatic enough. I don’t mean pragmatic policy-wise (The 2005 policy was relatively moderate) but pragmatic politically. The example here is the Exclusive Brethren, After it was revealed that some Brethren members had hired a private detective, the obvious political response was to use it as an opportunity to say one will not meet with the Brethren again.

But on Agenda a few weeks ago, Don tried to be fair. He made the very reasonable point that probably not all Brethren were involved with the decision to engage the private detective and it may be unfair to blame them all, for the actions of a few. He also made the point that the Brethren may turn up to public meetings. All very fair and reasonable to the Brethren, but not the political response needed. What was needed was a “I am shocked by the hiring of the private detective and will refuse to have anything to do with the EB in future”.

I was in fact shouting at the TV that morning for Don to say exactly that. But he didn’t. It gave Labour the room to suggest National might be connected to the private detective hirings, and it was 36 hours later that the required unequivocal statement was made. But it was too late, and in my opinion the Agenda interview was a turning point for many, where they felt that despite all of Don’s other skills, he was going to be a high-risk option for the next election.

To become Leader of the Opposition after barely a year in Parliament is an incredible feat. To double your party’s vote is also an incredible feat. To go head to head with a Prime Minister who has been in Parliament for 24 years is also no mean feat.

In fact both Don and John Key were first termers last election, both up against MP who had been there 24 years and having served in Government in both the 1980s and for the last six years. They both did incredibly well to keep the contest competitive (esp with Labour over-spending by $800,000) and now it looks to be John Key’s turn to take on the organ grinder instead of the monkey

I could have sworn John Key lived in Auckland, and was MP for Helensville. But no The Press runs the headline “Nats turn to South for Leaders” on the basis John lived in Christchurch as a child.

Good God – anything for the local angle. If he once drove through Palmerston North, no doubt the local paper will claim him for Manawatu!

The Auckland City Council has voted 13-7 for the waterfront over Eden Park, however it wants the exact location to move eastwards along the waterfront. Later today we’ll find out what the Auckland Regional Council will do.

The vote breakdown was:

FOR

Doug Armstrong
Leila Boyle
Bill Christian
Glenda Fryer
Dick Hubbard
Bruce Hucker
Linda Leighton
Toni Millar
Scott Milne
Graeme Mulholland
Richard Northey
Noelene Raffills
Vern Walsh

AGAINST

Neil Abel
Cathy Casey
Christine Caughey
John Hinchcliff
Penny Sefuiva
Richard Simpson
Faye Storer

I was in LAX having flown over from Auckland. The flight recontinued to London at 1.00 p.m. so just as it took off from LAX with me on board, Don Brash resigned as National Party Leader. If only they had Internet on Air NZ flights!

When I switched my phone on at Heathrow, there was a text message asking “Have you heard about Don?”. The fact that I didn’t then have to ask what was the nature of the news is as good a sign as any that it had been near inevitable these last couple of months.

I’ll post my thoughts on Don and his leadership in another thread. I’m sad to see him go, but glad that he made the decision to resign, rather than have an actual leadership challenge.

I understand Caucus will meet on Monday to elect a new leader. This will almost inevitably be John Key. There may not even be a contest. In theory the Deputy Leadership doesn’t have to come up for a vote, as there is no vacancy.

I’m pleased to see that Don is planning to stay on as an MP, and may take on a significant portfolio.

If John becomes Leader, one key challenge for him will be who replaces him as Finance Spokesperson to go up against Cullen. Bill English as a former Finance Minister seems the most logical. I would also expect a reshuffle which could range from minor to significant. At a minimum I would expect a couple new faces on the front bench. Names which pop up are Lockwood Smith, Wayne Mapp and David Carter. But this is all getting ahead of actually having a leadership ballot.

Finally my thoughts go out to all the staff of Don’s office. Their contracts terminate with the Leader, and while most will be reapointed by the new Leader, it is never a nice process to go through – finding out who stays and who doesn’t. I went through around seven or eight of these and even if you survive (as I did), it’s very hard seeing some of your colleagues and friends let go.

I said a couple of weeks ago that I’m a huge fan of the Wellington stadium, and that I wasn’t opposed to the principle of a “national stadium” on Auckland’s waterfront/ The decision is between expanding Eden Park and the waterfront stadium. The issues for me, with weighting, are:

Location 25%
Cost 20%
Design 15%
Time 15%
Environment 10%
Governance 10%
Funding 5%

Location

This one is easy. A location which is walkable from the CBD, has good public transport nearby, and which has local bars for the after match functions does make a huge difference to attendances. The waterfront location is far superior to Eden Park.

I’d give the Waterfront 9/10 normally, but as there are some issues over exactly where on the waterfront it might go only 8/10. Eden Park gets 2/10.

Cost

Eden Park has already had its cost blowout from $120 million to $385 million. So only 5/10 for them.

The waterfront starting estimate is $500 million. People expect it to increase to a billion or so. And with no tendering for base construction and no price caps it will increase. Add on a labour shortage and prices can only go up/further. So 2/10 for Waterfront.

Design

Eden Park design is okay – say 6/10. The waterfront design is labeled the bedpan so need more be said. It’s a 3/10. If they went with the waka design I’d give it a 9/10.

Time

There are no serious concerns over Eden Park finishing on time. So 9/10. The waterfront proposal is more uncertain. In fact we won’t know until mid next year if it can even be built on the waterfront. And already injunctions are sought over lack of consultation. The risk that we default on the RWC hosting rights is not insignificant. 3/10 for waterfront.

Environment

Eden Park does affect nearby residents but they knew that when they purchased properties there. The height of the proposed waterfront stadium appears to be greater than “official graphics” have shown” and it will block many views. Eden Park 6/10, Waterfront 3/10.

Governance

Eden Park has a Trust Board in place who are responsible for redeveloping Eden Park. This proposed waterfront stadium has no owner, no manager, no governance, no structure. Governance is not a minor issue to be worked out afterwards. Who will oversee the construction? Civil Servants? A committee of ACC, ARC and NZG reps? Who has legal liability for issues. Who funds a cost blowout?

Eden Park 8/10, Waterfront 1/10

Funding

This isn’t what the cost might be, but how equitable is the proposed funding between ratepayers, taxpayers and tourists.

The waterfront proposal can only be funded by a bed and hotel tax on tourists. This is manifestly unfair as tourists will be a very very small portion of users of the stadium over its life. A tourism tax is not a tax NZ needs.

Eden Park will be funded by primarily ratepayers, with some taxpayer support. This is how Wellington’s stadium was funded. SO Eden Park 7/10 and Waterfront 4/10.

Summary

Totalling them up, Eden Park gets a 5.7 and the Waterfront a 3.9. That feels about right to me. Eden Park is marginally above the pass line, and the Waterfront is a fair way below it.

The tragedy is there is no option which one can score a 7 or higher. If work on a waterfront proposal had started a year ago, then many of its low marks could have been made higher. Carlaw Park had great potential also. But you can’t develop a proposal in secret, give people two weeks to decide on it, and then expect it to work. I mean the design is in fact not even a design, but a design concept. Just not enough homework and facts done to make voting for the waterfront proposal sensible or safe. Of course that won’t stop many Councillors doing just that!

Dr Cullen is complaining about National getting off “scot-free” for its GST mistake. My God does he have no shame.

Even with the GST mistake, National total election spend was only around $1,000 greater than the limit. Labour over-spent by a whopping $800,000, still deny they did anything at all wrong, and got off scot-free. And they had to be dragged screaming and kicking into paying it off – something National had agreed to from day one.

Yes Labour overspent by 33.5%, and National by 0.55% and Cullen has the gall to talk about getting off. I do wish a journalist would ask him how he can condemn National getting “off” when Labour has got off the same thing, for 70 times as much money.

Another question to ask him is whether it is a good example for the Attorney-General to constantly encourage an organisation to deliberately break the law.

A few people have asked how the road trip ended, so here’s Day Three for the record.

Left Wanganui late morning. When I asked the hotel what time checkout was, the reply was “Any time you want”. Nice.

You can see the Wanganui River as we drive along it,.

Driving along SH1 we tossed a coin to decide between Marton and Bulls. Marton won. So through Marton we went and then a further coin toss had us heading to Fielding. We continue to plough our way through Simon Power’s electorate but then we note we are heading towards Palmerston North. No, no, no we cried but the rules are the rules. However we were saved just on the outskirts of Palmie with a bypass to Ashurst, and tails won it for us. We were just a few hundred metres from the city centre.

Driving eastwards we see the Manawatu Wind Farm. It’s a great sight and I wish we had more of them. God damn NIMBYs.

Then the coin confirms we are heading to SH2, so over the Manawatu Gorge.

Now heading South we come to the hallowed Tui Brewewy in Mangatainoka. The only Tui sign in the country that says “Yeah left”.

Tui also has a mighty big welcome mat.

After passing through Eketahuna we phone up a friend who was born there to hassle him.

And finally we hit the Rimutakas, where visibility was an optional extra. Cliffs, trucks and fog is always such a good combination.

Left Auckland 2 pm Tuesday and got to Wellington 4 pm Thursday. Travelled a but over 1,000 kms on SH1, SH3 and SH2 plus many other roads. A very fun road trip. Plan is to repeat it next year in the South Island.

An Auckland CBD resident, Susan Grimsdell, has started an online petition against the proposed waterfront stadium. It’s at http://www.petitiononline.com/1stadium.

One more way to have your say!

TVNZ reports an injunction application has been filed with the High Court to prevent the Auckland City and Regional Councils from voting on the waterfront stadium proposal.

I am not surprised. In fact it was first on Dean Knight’s blog that the possibility of action under the Local Government Act was mooted, on the grounds of inadequate consultation.

Two weeks to decide on a billion dollar project was always ridiculous.

The Investigate Blog says they will be breaking a major story in the near future. Hopefully not while I am on a plane!

Someone in National should get a prize for nice lateral thinking. The money owed to broadcasters due to the GST error on election broadcasting is to be spent purchasing broadcasting time on behalf of charities. A real win-win.

National pays the $112,500 it owes, and wants to pay, in a way which doesn’t break the law. The broadcasters get the money, and some charities get to benefit from it all.

Nice, very nice.