Kiwiblog

The Dom Post’s Tracy Watkins has previously labelled the Electoral Finance Bill as based on paranoia. It’s a theme worth investigating.

I have a guest column over on Muriel Newman’s NZ Centre for Political Research. In it I note:

Even the media are not exempt from the restrictions on criticising the Government. The Minister of Justice has said that if a newspaper wishes to endorse a party, it can not do so unless it registers as a third party. The new law will restrict the traditional media exemption so that it only applies if material is written “solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers”. The use of the word “solely” means that media who launch campaigns (such as the NZ Herald campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill) may end up breaking the law and be prosecuted.

Now to be balanced, I’ll quote an e-mail from COG’s Steven Price who thinks I am reading too much into it:

Caught the end of the march today. You were warning the media that editorials would be caught under the bill. You read out the definition (“solely for the purpose of informing…”) but somehow neglected to mention the rest (“…enlightening or entertaining”). The “enlightening” bit has been added to the bill as originally drafted.

I have yet to see an editorial that didn’t plainly regard its purpose as to enlighten, even if it’s advising people how they should vote. If there is any ambiguity in the word, it will surely be resolved by a quick glance at section 6 of the Bill of Rights Act (a rights consistent meaning is to be preferred).

I mentioned in my reply to Steven that the partial quote used in my speech to the march was because I was not planning to speak and hence going off memory rather than having actual clauses to quote from in front of me.

Now while I am not going to argue law with Steven, I think the use of the word “solely” does create some problems for media, especially when the Justice Minister herself has said an editorial endorsing a party should be treated as a third party advertisement. An editorial’s purpose may be partly to enlighten, but is it solely to enlighten??

Anyway the point I want to make, is who on earth are we having to even have a debate on whether news media may be editorially restricted depending on how one interprets “solely for the purpose of ”

Let us look at the exemption in the current S221A(4) of the Electoral Act 1993:

Nothing in this section shall restrict the publication of any news or comments relating to an election in a newspaper or other periodical or in a radio or television broadcast made by a broadcaster within the meaning of section 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Now that’s a great statement.  “Nothing … shall restrict”.  A perfectly fine exemption.  Now has there ever been any horrendous (or even non horrendous) abuse of this provision that warrants a change? Had Radio NZ or TV Three or the Otago Daily Times ever abused this provision, so that it needs changing?

Of course not.   But the Electoral Finance Bill is based on paranoia.  God knows what fevered scenario they are worried about, but they felt it was necessary to replace this with EFB Clause 5(2) para (c):

any editorial material, other than advertising material, in a periodical that is written by, or is selected by or with the authority of, the editor solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers

So thanks to the paranoia about some unknown media bogeyman, editors throughout NZ have to get legal advice and face some uncertainity over the limits of their freedom of speech.  Is an editorial which says “Vote to keep the Government this Saturday” solely to enlighten? Is the Herald’s campaign against the EFB “solely” to inform.  How much risk is there that a Judge could find that that the Herald was not only informing or enlightening but seeking to persuade.  And hey the law basically says the media can not persuade.in election year.

Now Steven is right, that a sensible Judge will interpret the law liberally.  But we shouldn’t need to rely on that.  The media exemption in the current bill had never been abused, and even if one wanted tighter wording, the insistence on “solely” is very clearly a deliberate act to minimise the extent of the media exemption.

It was the same paranoia which led to the ridicolous statutory declaration regime being included in the original bill.  The same paranoia which led to the original ban on any communication which expressed a position on a proposition associated with a party.

And this is just one more reason why the EFB is bad law.

The UN Committee against torture has come out and said tasers are a form of torture.  Well yes they are if they are being used to punish someone.  But that doesn’t answer the question about whether they are a better option for armed offenders than merely shooting them through the heart.

I was interested to see who was on the UN Committee against Torture and after 20 minutes on the God awful UN site I found it.  10 experts – all I am sure fine upstanding people.  The countries they come from though are mixed.  five of them have good human rights ratings (from Freedom House) – Norway, Chile, Spain, Cyprus and the USA.  However we also have the reasonably repressive Senegal and Ecuador, the very repressive Morocco and Russia and the totally repressive China.  So the moral high ground is rather low.

Having said all that, I do repeat that I have some concerns with their use here.  Some Police have misused pepper spray and if they misuse a taser, the consequences can be fatal.  A taser should only be used when pepper spray would not be a safe option for the officer, and no action is not acceptable. They should be a substitute for pistols, not pepper spray.

Insert debate here.

The Government is spending a lot more money on what it calls public services.

Now if you had to guess what the relative rates of growth have been for bureaucrats as opposed to actual public health and education workers (ie teachers, nurses etc( what would you guess?  I’ll give some options:

1. Health and education workers growing four times as fast as bureaucrats
2.  Health and education workers growing twice as fast as bureaucrats
3. Health and education workers growing at the same rate as bureaucrats
4. Health and education workers growing at half the rate of bureaucrats
5. Health and education workers growing at quarter the rate of bureaucrats

The answer is on Stuff.

[This was posted as a comment, and has also been going around by e-mail. Worthy of a front page post]

Clark Lash’s Out at ‘Cannibal Bill’ Critics.
Monday November 26, 2007

Prime Minister Helen Clark has delivered a stinging attack on opponents of the Electoral Voter Consumption Bill. The controversial legislation that would allow Cabinet Members to kill and eat members of the public has been opposed by opposition parties and human rights organisations.

‘The critics of this bill are the usual hollow men that want big business and religious creeps to be able to buy and sell our democracy to the highest bidder,’ Clark announced at her post-cabinet press conference. ‘We intend to address the shocking corruption and anti-democratic practices showed by some groups and parties by devouring our enemies alive. This will act as a strong deterrent to future election buying attempts and it will also endow us with the strength and power of those we kill.’

The Labour Party introduced the legislation in response to a police investigation into the activities of senior Labour MP’s Trevor Mallard and Parekura Horomia. Both politicians have eaten numerous members of the public over recent months, but despite police raids on their offices and homes that uncovered human skeletons, frozen meat and rotting offal the police have refused to press charges, citing legal uncertainties and insisting that bringing charges would not be in the public interest.

‘The law around whether cabinet members can smash peoples skulls open and feast open the contents is unclear,’ Clark announced today. ‘All that this bill does is clarify the confusion surrounding this issue.’

National leader John Key has announced his attention to repeal the bill should National come to power in the next election. But in a rare display of disunity, former National Deputy leader Gerry Brownlee will be crossing the floor to vote in favour of the bill.
Mr Brownlee is currently under investigation by the police for his suspected involvement in the disappearance of political journalist Barry Soper.

The Dim-Post

The Herald reports on how the Government is planning to increase the age of adult criminal responsibility from 17 to 18, so we come into line with other developed countries and meet UN requirements.

The Police Association have said:

Police Association president Greg O’Connor has slammed the move as “absolutely and utterly ludicrous”.

“The age at which offenders are committing serious crime is dropping, not rising,” he said.

I’m curious as to the claim that all the other countries have the age ofcriminal responsibility at 18. Now it’s only Wikipedia, but a table there says:

UK (Scotland) 8
United States 10
Australia 10
UK (England) 10
UK (Wales) 10
Canada 12
Ireland 12
France 13
Poland 13
Austria 14
Estonia 14
Germany 14
Italy 14
Japan 14
Romania 14
Finland 15
Denmark 15
Norway 15
Sweden 15
Iceland 15

Now this may be more referring to the age at which you can be prosecuted (14 in NZ) but either way it shows we are at the top end of our peers already.

Despite the best efforts of Mild Colonial Boy, Hajnal Ban failed to get elected as a National Party candidate in Forde.

Ms Ban got 12.5% which wasn’t bad as the Nationals had never stood there before. The seat got picked up by Labor.

NZPA has details of the 40 charges against Taito Phillip Field. They are basically in five categories:

1. Ten of making false or misleading statements to the Ingram inquiry
2. Eight of procuring the making of false or misleading statements , mostly made to the Ingram inquiry by Thai workers
3. Five of procuring the creation of false or misleading documents, mostly invoices and quotations
4. Two of attempting to procure the making of false or misleading statements to police
5. 15 bribery charges relating to work carried out by Thai workers on seven properties Field owned

The 15 bribery charges need the permission of a High Court Judge, which was given.  That permission is under appeal but will not affect the other 25 charges.

I thought this might happen. Someone has put online a copy of the 155 page Police file on the “terror” suspects as a pdf.

The website it is on appears to be a group called the NZ Civil Liberties Union – a different group to the well known Council with a similar name. It is registered to a Michael Ross in Missouri.

So should the Police have prosecuted the 21 year old for having (consensual) sex with an 11 year old, who at 13 is now pregnant with their child?

I’m saying – absolutely.  If it was a 17 year old and a 15 year old, prosecution would be overkill.  But *no one* should be having sex with 11 year olds.

I’m up in Auckland most of this week, primarily for the Government’s Digital Future Summit.

For those who can’t attend in person,you can even attend through Second Life and watch video and take part in Q&A!  Also one can subscribe to the Digital Future Blog.

Rod Oram is chairing the summit and local speakers include Sam Morgan, Rod Drury, and Stephen Tindall.  Lots of Ministers – Cullen, Mallard, Hodgson, Cunliffe and Tizard also.

I’ll be especially interested in the session on digital access to rich media led by Bernard Hickey from Fairfax. Also the session on the national broadband map.

Of interest to many will be the speech (via video) from Sir Tim Bermers-Lee who as most will know invented the WWW.

I’m presuming that they will have tables and power supply so I can blog from the summit.  if not, may be light days on Wednesday and Thursday.

Chris Trotter was filling in for Laila Harre this morning on Nine to Noon.  And here is what he said on the Electoral Finance Bill after Matthew Hooton asked whether the risk of litigation outweighed the risks from having the 2008 election run on the existing Electoral Act:

Politically speaking I have to say that from the vantage of the left, it is a very dangerous prospect ….

In answer to Matthew’s rhetorical question, I don’t think it would matter at all if this piece of legislation was held over.

So even Chris Trotter is saying it would be better to stay with the existing Electoral Act (which would be policed relentlessly by the media and parties due to the climate) than proceed with such a badly drafted and confusing bill.

Otago University lecturer Bryce Edwards blogs on the Jane Clifton column on the Electoral Finance Bill:

Jane Clifton’s political column in this week’s Listener is a must-read for anyone interested in determining whether the so-called undue influence of money in politics makes the Electoral Finance Bill necessary. Clifton puts forward a very similar case to my blog post on Political finance and inequality in NZ, which challenges the simplistic assumption that economic inequality in New Zealand translates directly to political inequality.

Clifton’s column is excellent as dispelling the myth that people can and do “buy” elections.  As Edwards notes:

Clifton is undoubtedly correct – the proponents of political finance ‘reform’ regard civil society as being so weak and unintelligent that it needs protecting from being duped. She says the reality is that voters aren’t particularly easily swayed by third party political advertising: ‘What is the average voter more likely to think, confronted with a full-page newspaper advertisement by a union group or a business lobby?’ She concludes that voters are likely to be neither interested nor swayed by such obvious biased advertising.

Clifton astutely points out that the use of the ‘Brethren fiasco’ has simply been about creating a ‘moral panic about a menace that will never flourish in this country’. She is also rightly suspicious of the idea that the state can ever fairly legislate against political inequality: ‘The trouble with trying to legislate to control electioneering is, it can’t be done without either curtailing someone’s rights, or giving someone else an unfair advantage.’

And to keep Bryce company, we also have Therese Arseneau, a lecturer at Canterbury University.  She focuses on the destruction of our constitutional conventions:

The headline in a major newspaper was startling: “Democracy under attack”. More surprising, the democracy in question was not in Pakistan or Fiji, but in New Zealand.

The attackers were not foreign or domestic terrorists, but a Labour-led parliamentary coalition of the willing, and the means of attack was the rather innocuous-sounding Electoral Finance Bill and its companion Appropriations Bill.

Technically, this is just an ordinary government bill requiring no special treatment, but the importance of its subject matter, electoral law, makes it extraordinary.

Elections are the foundation of representative democracy. This foundation is supported on the bedrock of political equality and popular control.

Elections give the voter an equal say, not in decision-making, but in electing the decision-makers. Elections are also when elected representatives are held to account by the people they represent.

Elections in New Zealand have an added importance. Unlike in most other modern democracies, our Parliament is sovereign. It does not share power with an upper house or state governments. It is not limited by an entrenched constitution or Bill of Rights enforced by the courts using judicial review.

Popular control through triennial general elections is the only formal check on New Zealand’s Parliament. This necessitates a higher bar for making New Zealand’s electoral law.

Modern international best practice for dealing with fundamental electoral or constitutional reform spotlights the legitimacy of the process. Best practice requires a process that meets three tests: some measure of political neutrality, transparency, and substantive public input at a formative stage of the law-making process.

The process used for the Electoral Finance Bill has not adequately met these tests. Partisan politics have pervaded the process, thus failing the first and perhaps most important of these tests. Consultations on the bill before its introduction to Parliament were accessed on a partisan basis: Government allies were consulted, but opposition parties were not.

Before MMP, there was bipartisan agreement in Parliament that significant electoral change should have a cross-party parliamentary consensus that straddled both sides of the House. Governments’ unbridled power was bridled by consensus.

The waning of this convention has created a legitimacy vacuum. Rather than seeking a genuine consensus, the Electoral Finance Bill negotiations resemble an American Congressional mark-up session – a series of trade-offs conducted in back rooms with admittance by invitation only.

This new approach lacks transparency and fails the second test of best practice.

The process has only partially met the third test of best practice. The submission process did invite public input; and the many changes recommended by the select committee may be offered as evidence of the public’s influence.

But the input was not as substantive as it should have been. It occurred too late in the piece. Instead of proactively shaping the broad parameters of election finance reform, the public was forced to react to a poorly drafted bill.

The Electoral Finance Bill has shaken the public’s confidence in the fairness of electoral law. A new and improved process is needed to rebuild the public’s trust, and a better process will produce better, more legitimate electoral law.

The substance of the Electoral Finance Bill is bad enough, but the process is far worse – it is what will do the long term damage to this country.  Even the Greens admit that the process used by Labour has been appalling.

They have introduced the worst of American style electoral gerrymandering into the NZ constitution.  I mean if National wins and repeals the EFB, why should National include Labour in the replacement law at all?  Why shouldn’t National do to Labour exactly what Labour has done and write a partisan biased law in secret which has only one aim – to screw over its critics and opponents?

I mean how would this be for a replacement law:

• Scrap the taxpayer funded broadcasting budget
• Ban all advertising from parliamentary budgets
• Increase the spending limits to $10 million
• Ban Owen Glenn from donating (by changing the foreign exclusion to include non resident citizens)
• Make it illegal for money to be donated from an organisation affiliated to a political party
• Require each individual union member to tick whether or not they want some of their fees to go to a political party, and only those who tick have the stated proportion paid

Now I am not advocating the above laws.  They would be grossly unfair.  But this is what you could get if National played as dirty as Labour.  And all those who supported the Electoral Finance Bill would have no sympathy when they complain about the above.

Because once Labour have got away with such a partisan rewrite of the electoral laws, the incentive is increased for others to do the same.

60 years ago on Sunday New Zealand became legally fully independent with the adopting on 25 September 1947 of the Statute of Westminster Act 1931. Lewis Holden blogs in detail on this issue.

I have been a supporter of moving to a Republic for many years – mainly for reasons of identity and relevance.  And the Republican Movement is made up of people from many different political persuasions, all with different motivations – but all agreeing on the desirability of change.

But the issue that now motivates me most strongly to move to a Republic, is that opportunity it will provide for NZ to adopt an entrenched written constitution to protect the public from parliamentary supremacy as we currently have.

Now this is a huge turn about for me.  I’ve spent two decades opposing NZ having a supreme law.  I’ve argued in favour of parliamentary supremacy and against having Judges able to strike down laws.  I’ve argued that our constitutional conventions are as strong as if they were were formal law, and the system works well.  I’ve argued one generation of MPs should not be able to bind the next.

Why have I changed my mind?  Well quite simply it has been the destruction of these constitutional conventions under Helen Clark.  The Electoral Finance Bill is just the latest in a long line.  At first it was just relatively minor stuff such as abandoning the concept of Ministerial collective responsibility.  Then it was more concerning as her Government stopped consulting with the Opposition on previously bipartisan appointments. An early indicator of her contempt for the rule of law came with the retrospective amending of the Electoral Act to keep one of her Ministers in Parliament.

Time after time it has become apparent that my previous trust in MPs to respect our unwritten constitution was misplaced.  The attacks on the Chief Electoral Office and the Auditor-General should have rung warning bells also.

And then finally we have the Electoral Finance Bill – the final death knell of the constitutional conventions.  It has now become a prize for the victor thanks to Clark.  The damage this woman has done to our country will never ever be repaired.  You can’t just turn the clock back and go back to the good old days.  Hence the only way forward is to put in place an entrenched Bill of Rights which can stop laws like the Electoral Finance Bill.  A supreme law which the Prime Minister cannot avoid by bribing a few key allies.  A President whose job is to make sure the Prime Minister obeys the law, and is not above the law.

Trevor Mallard’s assault on Erin Leigh’s professional reputation represented all that is wrong with this Government.  It was a shockingly inappropriate attack on a young woman from a bullying Minister.  It was designed to scare any other public servant from telling the truth, with the clear implication they would also have their professional reputations smeared under the protection of parliamentary privilege.

I recommend people read this post made on Saturday about the extent of political involvement in the Environment Ministry with Heather Simpson writing the Ministry’s communications strategy.

Now as we know Mallard basically called Leigh sad and incompetent. The article on Saturday revealed how both her boss and the then Ministry CEO defended her work.  In fact she was labelled by her former boss as the best comms person he had ever worked with.

TV3 reveals that it is not only those two who have praised her work. Trevor failed to check with his own colleagues:

She says Ministers, like Rick Barker, Pete Hodgson, and outgoing MP Paul Swain all personally congratulated her for work in the past.

And:

Another 2005 reference from the Government’s Climate Change Office reads;

“Brilliant just brilliant, it sounds like I am really gushing about her, but she really was fantastic.”

Of course Helen Clark will do her normal routine with Trevor and in public pretend to be concerned with his behaviour, and in private congratulate him for performing the role she keeps him around for.

Also on the issue of Clare Curran and Erin Leigh, people must read Chris Trotter’s SST column.  Not only is it bloody funny, it also points the finger at David Benson-Pope as likely for being behind the Clare Curran revelations as he is battling her for his seat.  An intriguing notion.

Chapman Tripp lawyers David Cochrane and Linda Clark warns that the next election may be decided by the courts, not by the public, as the Electoral Finance Bill is so flawed.

Bluntly speaking, the law is unintelligible. There goes another convention. The rule of law depends on all law being clear enough so we can all know the boundaries of legal behaviour in advance.

This bill fails to define the boundaries. Instead we’re told that common sense will prevail.

But what is common sense in the midst of an election campaign? And what kind of law is it when no one can know what it means until someone tests it in the courts?

And you bet there will be law suits.  Unless the parliamentary exemtion clause is water tight (and the Electoral Commission seems to think it is not) then every MP who spends more than $20,000 in all of election year from both their party and parliamentary budget may face an electoral petition.  By moving the regulated period back to 1 January, anything published in an election year by an MP could face scrutiny by opponents, in an attempt to prove they have over-spent, and hence are voided out of the election.

The 20 most marginal seats might all face electoral petitions, to test how far the parliamentary exemption extends.

And remember the new Bill also removes the discretion from the electoral agencies as to whether they refer possible breaches onto the Police. The Police will need a specialist team working all year dealing with complaints over whether authorisation was needed on this pamphlet or even placard.

The Law Society has called on the Government to send the amended bill back to a select committee for further consideration. That would be the right thing to do.

Democracy and elections exist for the benefit of citizens, not politicians. Those same citizens should be given the opportunity to review the law that regulates their participation in the electoral process.

Those who are meant to run the election and enforce this legislation have asked for more clarity. They should get it and they cannot if the bill is rushed through in the last week Parliament sits.

The last minute changes to be made next week (partly in response to analysis on blogs) are no substitute for proper analysis and refining.  Every day I am noticing new loopholes or problems, and some of them have massive implications.

One of the hopefully many amendments National will be putting up to the Electoral Finance Bill is to remove the clause which will exempt MPs taxpayer budgets from being counted as election expenses.

Under the bill, as drafted, a pamphlet or newspaper advertisement promoting their policy commitments run by a party just before the election would count as an election expense, but if they fund it from their parliamentary budget then it would almost certainly be exempt – even though the wording would be identical.

This drives a stake through the integrity of electoral law as even resembling a level playing field.

That clause will allow the Labour Parliamentary Party to spend $1 to $2 million in the final week of the election, and not have one cent of it count as an election expense.

Simeon Brown is 16, and like most New Zealanders opposed to the Electoral Finance Bill. So in a commendable display of civic involvement he e-mailed various MPs asking them not to support the Bill.

Minister Chris Carter replied by asking him if he was a member of the Exclusive Brethren.

Now as it happens Brown is not a member – he is in fact a Baptist.

But Chris often talks about the importance of human rights and minority rights. I could have sworn the Human Rights Act includes freedom from religious discrimination.

No Minister of the Crown should be applying a religious litmus test to their constituents.

Peter Costello has announced he will not seek the Leadership of the Liberal Party, and also stand down as Deputy Leader.  One has to feel sorry for him – so long waiting for the top job and now not worth having when it is finally his.

This now provides fascinating opportunities.  Turnbull is not that popular with his colleagues (he was the Chairman of the Republican Movement).  Tony Abbott may stand, and he is a brawler who would be an effective opposition leader.  A good team could be Abbott as Leader and Turnbull as Deputy and Finance.  Turnbull is very committed to massive tax reform.

It will be interesting to see who stands.

Matt McCarten has written a scathing column on the double standard that senior public servants seem to enjoy, compared to ordinary workers. His complaints:

• Rickards remaining on full pay for over three years, and getting a new car to boot, and then finally possibly a golden handshake
• Mallards slugs an opponent, keeps his job, arguably gets a promotion and is placed in charge of the country’s employment laws and work behaviour
• Logan and Prebble both keeps their jobs despite an unjustified sacking on their watch

His final paras:

Mind you, the above nonsense seems almost reasonable when compared to a senior cabinet minister who, when he assaults a work colleague, is put in charge of our country’s employment laws and work behaviour. The new minister’s department upholds the right of employers to dismiss their employees for taking sickies, turning up late for work, swearing, falling asleep and other such misdemeanours.

There is a parallel universe in New Zealand where our masters at the top of the taxpayer-funded food chain are paid upwards of 10 times the salary of the average worker and never get the sack no matter what they do.

George Orwell in Animal Farm, was right: some workers are more equal than others.

I have no problem with public sector heads being paid large salaries (however I will note their pay rises have been greater than those in the private sector) but there is a real issue around lack of accountability.

The HoS has an article on how government policy may put up used car prices by $5,000 or so.

Now from a totally selfish point of view, this may not be all bad.  It means poorer families won’t be able to afford cars, which will reduce congestion on the roads for those who can.

So maybe it is part of a Labour/Green master plan to drive poor people off the roads so that rich people spend less time in traffic jams?

A few of us had an election night party at Auckland Girl’s place.  We were originally planning some sort of drinking games around the results but the way the results came out made that difficult. Plus in the end a vodka shot per seat changing hands would have turned painful.

It was a good crowd, and we stayed with the election coverage until Kevin Rudd’s victory speech (which we got via the BBC as TVNZ had stopped by then).  Then at that point in time, Water Girl proposed we hit town and do Karaoke.  Sadly, by then we had drunk enough that this seemed a good idea.

So headed into town with Water Girl, Argie Girl and Court Girl.  Sadly with Steamboat’s demise we carried onto the K Club.  Once there I ran into a couple of mates of Clint Heine’s (wave to Clint), and then they were joined by some friends, including a member of this year’s VUWSA Exec who reminded me I had blogged about some of her extra-curricular activities.  I begged forgiveness as one can only do when less than sober.

We also had Andrew Falloon and a mate join us, so our little group ended up being a dozen or so.  Falloon and I had several dances together, which probably could form good blackmail photos for Andrew’s future political career.  I also had a few dances with other people!  I managed to avoid singing, but the girls made up for that with some very good vocals. Plus my singing is the only think that can make my dancing look good in comparison.

Got home a bit after 4 am and was amused that on the way home I managed to buy a copy of the SST as it was so late.  Got woken up at midday to both my home phone and cell phone ringing in tandem.  Not a pleasant sound.

But anyway was a damn good night.  Election night parties are always fun – no matter whether you win or lose, you have an excuse to have fun.

As expected Kevin Rudd won, and with a very decent majority – it should be enough to keep him in for at least two terms.  It will be very interesting to see how Kevin Rudd goes as PM – he has committed to implementing a large amount of Liberal Party policy such as $38 billion of tax cuts.

Howard looks to have lost his seat also, and has endorsed Peter Costello as his successor.   My preference would be for Malcolm Turnbull to take over, but if Turnbull is sensible he will let Costello take the party into the 2010 election and then take over.

The final result looks to be 86 seats for Labour which is a massive gain of 26 seats.  The Coalition has dropped to 62 and two Independents. 29 seats went to Labour while the Libs picked up three from Labor.

The Senate sees 18 seats go to both the Coalition and Labor, and three to the Greens, giving a new balance of Coalition 37, Labor 32, Greens 5, Family First 1 and Independent 1.  Rudd may have some challenges there.The Democrats are finally wiped out and the Greens do well with 9% of the Senate vote.

In hindsight it is a pity that Howard did not retire last year with a legacy of four election wins and 10 years as PM.  But sadly very very few politicians ever go out on top.  I like the US term limits in that they do mean you go in, do a good job, and then move on without trying to keep the top job forever.

Many journalists have referred to Bill English’s second reading speech on the Electoral Finance Bill as excellent. And indeed it was.

Thanks to You Tube, here it is for those keen.

Erin Leigh predicted that the result of her whistle blowing on how Clare Curran was hired to push the Minister’s political agenda, would be that she would be attacked. And true to form Trevor Mallard did so the next day, labelling Ms Leigh incompetent.

Can you imagine the chilling effect that has on other whistleblowers – to have your name and reputation smeared under parliamentary privilege – you may be unable to gain employment in your profession again if they believe him.

Now I have no first hand knowledge of Ms Leigh’s competence, but here’s what her former boss, and his former boss have said (from NZPA story):

She won support from former ministry communications manager Neal Cave, who said her work was top-quality.

“She was exceptional and she was valued very highly. The best comms person I’ve ever worked with,” said Mr Cave.

Wow – the best he has ever worked with. So do we believe him or Trevor Mallard who said:

Erin Leigh had repeated competence issues

Maybe we turn to the former CEO Barry Carbon:

Barry Carbon, ministry chief executive until March last year, said he also had no problem with Ms Leigh’s work.

So who did have a problem?:

She claimed she had to change a draft communications strategy on climate change so often because Prime Minister Helen Clark’s chief-of-staff, Heather Simpson, kept ordering alterations.

So let us see if have this right:

1. The PM’s chief political operative personally oversaw the Environment Ministry’s communications strategy on climate change to make saw it fitted Labour’s political agenda
2. David Parker personally suggested or requested that a Labour Party activist and communications strategist be hired by the Ministry
3. The Ministry hired her, breaking its own rules to do so, without any competitive tender.
4. Several of the Ministry staff saw her appointment as inappropriate and as political interference, and Leigh resigned about it
5. The Minister’s Office tried to talk her out of resigning (not the Ministry)
6. Madeleine Setchell is hired as the Communications Manager for the Ministry
7. She is effectively sacked at the request of the Minister because her boyfriend works for John Key
8. Meantime the Electoral Finance Bill is introduced which will severely restrict third party and political party advocacy for all of election year instead of just the last 90 days.
9. And the same Bill will not restrict Government Departments such as the Environment Ministry from running a multi-million campaign in line with the communications strategy written by Heather Simpson and Claire Curran
10. By coincidence this multi-million dollar campaign will not mention Labour, but will use the same key messages, colouring and themes as Labour’s re-election campaign.

I hope the Environment Ministry will reveal exactly what changes Heather Simpson was making to their communications strategy.