Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Police will be using their discretion as motorists adjust to the pending law that bans use of handheld cellphones while driving.

Good. Not that it affects me as I have handsfree.

From Sunday, motorists must have a handsfree device if they want to use their mobile phone. If they’re caught using it without one, they face an $80 fine and 20 demerit points.

I’ve still yet to see any research from overseas showing a reduction in road tolls, after such a law change.

National road policing manager Superintendent Paula Rose said staff had been told that a period to allow the “bedding in” of the legislation was appropriate. …

Ms Rose doesn’t answer the phone when she’s driving. Instead she puts it in the boot, so if it does ring, she can’t get to it to take the call.

Ummm, does the Superintendent’s phone not have an off button? Putting it in the boot seems somewhat unnecessary.

She said she was excited about the new law because New Zealanders might think more about driving safely.

“In policing we’ve seen some really stupid things – people getting changed, putting their makeup on, eating their breakfast.

Personally I think a ban on women applying makeup while driving is more pressing!

The Herald has some details:

• Malaysia is NZ’s eighth-largest market.
• NZ exports to it were worth $1 billion last year, and has grown 80% since 2004
• 99.5 per cent of NZ exports will be duty free within seven years.
• Kiwifruit exports will be duty free by 2012 – current tariff is 15%
• A “most favoured nation” clause which means Malaysia will automatically extend to New Zealand exporters the benefits of any other concessions it makes in subsequent free trade deals with other partners

The FTA negotiation started under Labour in 2005 and was concluded this year.

I’ve never met Peter Zohrab, but most people online in the 90s would have seen his posts on Usenet about the feminazis. Anyway, at the weekend I happened to be searching the NZPA database on my name (looking for an old article) and I saw an article with a quote about how I should be convicted for my comments re Clayton Weatherston.

I thought I would recall such an article, so I opened it, and it turns out it was a press release (NZPA carry them if you pay for it) from a “PeterDouglas” which I am sure is abbreviated from Peter Douglas Zohrab.

I enjoyed his press release so much, I just had to share it.  The amazing thing is he turns up to select committees also, and uses much the same language. Extracts:

The female-dominated professions of Psychology ( http://equality.netfirms.com/ispsycho.html ) , Law ( http://equality.netfirms.com/islaws.html ) , and Journalism ( http://equality.netfirms.com/ismedia.html ) have generally very low standards of intelligence and non-existent standards of political objectivity. This no doubt results from being dominated by women who are more interested in people than in ideas, and who see a clitoro-centric universe as their Feminist birthright.

A clitoro-centric universe!

Now, this Associate Professor of the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behaviour in a given context finds it “hard to imagine” why a man would not act like a robot in an extremely stressful immediate context, which itself was the culmination of an extremely stressful ongoing context.

This just reinforces my impression (from long and varied experience of them) that Western universities ( http://equality.netfirms.com/iseducat.html ) are little more than instruments for the fulfilment of Lesbian Feminist fantasies. It is impossible for men to do well in universities, when competence in man-hating is a prerequiste for achievement and promotion. Universities should all be abolished, the staff sacked, and the education system rethought from square one.

I’m curious as to what is a lesbian feminist fantasy, and you subscribe to it on Sky?

Michael Laws is an honorary girl. Of course, he is — otherwise the female-dominated media wouldn’t allow him to have a newspaper column.

Of course that is the reason!

1. Scrubone blogs that the Obama Administration have now actively tried to ban Fox News reporters from a press poll interview. Who would have thought Muldoon’s tactics against Tom Scott would be emulated by the US Democratic Party.
2. Whale Oil blogs a 2008 invitation to a fund-raising dinner with a Labour Cabinet Minister, and highlights their hypocrisy in attacking ACT for doing the same thing.
3. Stephen Franks blogs on his experiences with ACC reform.
4. Aaron Bhatnagar blogs in favour of Rodney Hide’s plan to force local Councils to do the equivalent of the Government’s PREFU, or pre-election fiscal update. I agree.
5. Homepaddock covers the Wanaka “perfect woman” contest. They have to open a bottle of Speights without a bottle opener, change a tyre, back a truck, clear 10 balls from a pool table, sky dive, swing a gate, shear a sheep, shoot clay birds, and hit a target with water from a fire hose. The winner was Melissa Brewster, a helicopter engineer!

Maryan Street blogs:

Am off right now to Kuala Lumpur to witness the signing of the NZ-Malaysia Free Trade Agreement. This is in keeping with the Labour, and now National, tradition of the Minister of Trade inviting the Opposition Trade Spokesperson along to such events. This isn’t just good politics – it’s good business.

Our business leaders need the security of knowing the policy rug isn’t going to be pulled out from under them at the end of a short electoral cycle. This is about NZ Inc and both Labour and National get that.

Yep. If only someone could convince the Greens and Winston First, and oh yeah the Maori Party also.

Europe and the US are retreating behind protectionist doors, but there are some really encouraging movements in Asia, and we are fortunate to be their neighbours.

The SST reports:

Finance minister Bill English has signalled the government will next year get tough with tax-dodgers by closing loopholes that allow wage earners to avoid paying their share of tax.

The IRD says the government is missing out on $300 million a year because of wage earners who squirrel away money into trust accounts to avoid paying the top income tax rate. More is lost because of earnings that are “sheltered” by a company created solely to avoid tax.

Not sure how you can legislate to fix that.

The IRD, in its latest submission to the Tax Working Group, says the problem is that New Zealand’s multitude of tax rates is encouraging bad behaviour.

Oh I am sure it is.

It said the trust account and company tax rates were too far out of line with income tax rates. Taxpayers were placing income in a trust account, paying 33 cents for every dollar earned, rather than the top rate of 38c. Another common ploy was for individual taxpayers to “shelter” their money by creating a company so that they paid 30 cents of every dollar earned in tax rather than the top rate.

The preferred solution is to lower the top tax rate – in fact that is the Govt’s official goal – to have a top tax rate of 30% for individuals, companies and trusts.

The IRD says that when the top income tax rate of 39 cents (now 38 cents) was applied to earnings of $60,000+ in 2000, a flood of taxpayers rearranged their finances to avoid the new regime.

I understand the number of people who declared they earned exactly $60,000 increased literally exponentially.

English said large-scale “legitimate avoidance behaviour” by higher-income earners undermined the goodwill of lower-income earners.

“It’s quite telling that there has been virtually no growth in the number of people paying tax on $1 million of annual income, since the 39 cent top personal tax rate was introduced 10 years ago.

So reduce the incentives for avoidance and cut the top tax rate. When Muldoon’s top tax rate of 66% was dropped to 33%, it killed off much of the avoidance industry. Cullen recreated it.

Also some of the reason for no growth in people paying tax on a million dollars of income, is they have gone overseas.

“As a country, we want families, businesses, accountants and lawyers looking at how to unlock greater income and productivity, not working out how to minimise their tax.

“We don’t want people spending their time and resources trying to avoid tax. We also don’t want IRD devoting all its time to chasing tax and compliance issues.”

Then again drop the top tax rate!

The SST reported:

THE GOVERNMENT will become one of the biggest players in the commercial property services market following Quotable Value’s (QV) takeover of DTZ.

QV has been in negotiations to buy the New Zealand arm of DTZ, a large publicly listed valuation and property management company based in the UK.

Neither company was responding to calls on the subject last week, but the Sunday Star-Times understands that DTZ’s staff have been told the takeover will proceed and both sides have been putting the finishing touches to the deal.

QV is a state-owned enterprise and its takeover of DTZ will create a property services company with turnover of nearly $70 million, making its easily the biggest property services company operating in the commercial property market.

While in one sense it is good to see an SOE operating commercially and making good commercial deals, it concerns me that they do so with taxpayer money, and an implicit Government guarantee.

Much the same happened when Kordia purchased Orcon. A smart strategic buy for Kordia, and some useful finance for Orcon, but should the NZ Government own an ISP and a commercial property company?

The Government has promised not to see any SOEs during this term. I hope that they have a more flexible policy for the 2011 election, which would allow the Government to exit areas that are commercially competitive.

The Dom Post Editorial:

According to Mr Key, as many as one-in-five pupils are being left behind. The consequences of that are as inevitable as they are disastrous. Without basic literacy and numeracy, there is little chance of succeeding in 21st century New Zealand society. It is no coincidence that research last year showed 90 per cent of prisoners are “functionally illiterate” – their reading and writing skills are inadequate to cope with the demands of daily life.

No coincidence indeed. The degree of hearing loss in prisoners also suggests not just a correlation but a causative effect.

The desire of parents to have clear, honest, specific and regular feedback on their children’s progress, achievement, and strengths and weaknesses in language the parents understand is reasonable. Parents – and, through them, their children – need to know how they are performing, and in a meaningful way. Despite some teachers’ belief that revealing to pupils and their parents that they are performing below the national standard will hurt their motivation, engagement and self-esteem, the alternative is cruelly unfair. Allowing parents and pupils to falsely believe they are performing adequately is a sure step to failure.

And this is not comparing to some standardised median or mean. This is not about ranking kids within a school, within a decile or even nationally. And it is not about ranking schools. It is simply about letting parents know if their child is able to do the basic numeracy and literacy skills that are expected of a child of that age.

British research suggests that putting too much emphasis on literacy and numeracy, and on the achievement of national standards in those areas, can see other parts of the curriculum squeezed into oblivion.

A nation of spellers who can add up but have little grasp of science, small exposure to the arts and only the occasional foray into physical education while at primary school, is not going to enjoy success either.

I agree. But basic literacy and numeracy helps immensely with science, the arts and even physical education.

There is no room for debate in one area, however. The decision by teacher and principal groups to boycott the announcement of the policy cannot be allowed to develop into an undercutting of its implementation. There are still murmurs of inflating assessments so that schools are seen to be performing well.

Teachers are public servants and that means they must follow the policies put in place by those who represent the people, the government of the day, regardless of their own personal views. They cannot simply decide to ignore them.

I hope they do. But at times I get the feeling they want to be the equivalent of the British coalminers union of the 70s.

Tom Pullar-Strecker reviews the fibre investment plan:

Communications Minister Steven Joyce appears genuinely chuffed with the financial model for the ultrafast broadband initiative that he and his team of cerebral but experienced advisers have dreamt up.

The plan released on Wednesday is certainly ingenious.

The fact Steven is one of the very few MPs that has owned and run a major business, made him the ideal Minister for this portfolio.

The Government will, if necessary, foot the entire bill for rolling out fibre-to-the-street, minus any construction overruns, while private investors in local fibre companies (LFCs) will only buy back their share of the infrastructure as they connect up homes and businesses.

That could help nullify the “Catch 22″ that threatened to leave the initiative stillborn – private investors couldn’t guess their return without knowing how ubiquitous the national network would be, which would depend on other investors’ assessment of their likely return.

And Steven has first hand experience of the need for commercial investors to be able to estimate returns.

There is another reason to take the initiative more seriously.

Instead of injecting a “one-off” $1.35 billion into the public-private partnerships in the vain hope that would be enough to garner sufficient private investment to get the whole job done, the Government is now considering investing far more over time. Investment vehicle Crown Fibre Holdings will be to recycle receipts from private investors as they buy shares in LFCs, after the first fibre customers sign up.

The Government’s investment at any one time will be capped at $1.35b, but the total it commits over the life of the scheme could be double or triple that.

“$1.35b is what Crown Fibre Holdings will have access to in order to fund the infrastructure,” says Mr Joyce. “There is certainly the possibility that some or all of the money will be reinvested, but it’s simply too soon to say how much will be reinvested or how many times that might occur.”

Does this mean 75 per cent of people can be assured of getting fibre within 10 years? Hardly. But instead of scuppering the scheme, if $1.35b is not enough to get the job done, it might simply take longer.

This is the most critical part. The big question I, and others, have had, is what if the planned level of investment is not enough to get to 75% of NZ. Do you then scrap the plan, or do you accept a lower coverage target. The answer is neither – you just recycle the crown investment, so you get there eventually, even if it takes a bit longer.

I am going to be fascinated to see what offerings are made by the various telcos, ISPs, lines companies and local government.

This photo is from the Dom Post. When I heard someone had gone off the Rimutaka Road, and fallen 200 metres, I said they must be dead. Yet somehow the driver survived. He should indeed go buy a Lotto ticket, as suggested by a rescuer.

The Herald editorial says:

According to retired Court of Appeal Court judge Justice Ted Thomas, the present trial system is “brutalising and distressing” for complainants in sex cases. For that reason, it is unsurprising that many victims of rape are deterred from coming forward. Ways must be found to reverse that and to act on a Ministry of Women’s Affairs study that concluded only 13 per cent of sexual violation cases reported to police ended in conviction.

I agree. But I also note that already the NZ Herald is using the wrong stat from the MWA study. That 13% includes complaints found to be false, and I am sure the Herald is not wanting to imply that there should be more convictions based on false complaints. The figure the Herald should be citing is that only 20% of “valid” complaints led to a conviction.

A core recommendation would allow an accused’s past sex convictions and the complainant’s past complaints to be disclosed. This would address the considerable public disquiet following the acquittals three years ago of former policemen Brad Shipton, Bob Schollum and Clint Rickards on sex charges in the Louise Nicholas case. After the trial, it was revealed that Shipton and Schollum were already in prison after being found guilty in 2005 of the pack rape of a young woman at Mt Maunganui in 1989 – information that could not be disclosed to the jury previously.

Other taskforce proposals include giving judges the ability to direct juries that they may draw an “adverse inference” if an accused opts to stay silent, and to also direct that “beyond reasonable doubt” does not mean “no doubt” the accused is guilty.

In essence three major changes are proposed

1. Allowing details of previous convictions
2. Allowing a jury to draw an adverse inference from an accused staying silent, and presumably not testifying
3. Stressing that reasonable doubt does not mean no doubt

There are reasonable arguments for and against such changes. My position though is that any such changes must apply to all criminal cases, not just sex cases. Why would you give more (or less) rights to those accused of murder, kidnapping, grievous assault, armed robbery etc etc.

It would be seriously unjust that if someone is accused of killing someone they have the right to remain silent, but if they are accused of rape, they lose the right to remain silent (without adverse inferences).

Also why would you have a system which allowed a jury to know someone accused of rape had a previous rape conviction, but not that someone accused of armed robbery had previous convictions for armed robbery?

On the left is Nick Bryant, Ministerial Press Secretary. On the right is Nick Griffin, Leader of the British National Party. Cactus Kate wonders if they were separated at birth?

Last week I saw a report that there was now a register of official descriptors for MPs. I could not find it on the Parliamentary websie but a kind journalist sent me a copy, which I have uploaded – Register of Descriptors – Final.

There has always been tension over how List MPs describe themselves, as in some cases the terms they have used makes it sound like they are the electorate MP. So (for example) a List MP can not claim to be the “List MP for Wellington Central” or “Green MP for Wellington Central” but can claim to be a “Wellington List MP” etc.

Anyway Lockwood has decided to regularise it, and get each MP to submit all the possible descriptors they want to use, so they are all approved in advance. This is very sensible as it means no argy-bargy later on.

Here are some of the more interesting descriptors:

Catherine Delahunty List member based in Thames; MP Thames; Green List MP Thames;

I didn’t know Delahunty was Thames based, as Jeanette is based there also. Weird to have two List MPs in the same town.

Sue Kedgley, Auckland Green Party List MP; Green List MP Auckland

Could have sworn Sue was in Wellington, but maybe she has been exiled to Auckland since Russel became an MP.

Russel Norman MP; Russel Norman Green Party Co Leader; Green List MP Wellington South

Just Wellington South?

Jacinda Ardern Labour Member of Parliament, Labour List MP, part of the Bay Labour Team

The Bay Labour Team? Sounds like a relay race team!

Brendon Burns Christchurch Central Labour MP working in Marlborough, Labour MP working in Marlborough

Pretty unusual to have an electorate MP have responsibilities for an area so far from his electorate, especially when there is a List MP so close by.

Hon Maryan Street, Labour List MP, Working in the Nelson
Region; Labour List MP working in the Selwyn Region

So Maryan has to look after both Nelson and mid to south canterbury. Again would have thought more sensible to have her do all the top of the south island and one of the many Chch MPs look after Selwyn.

Hekia Parata, National List MP; National List MP Raumati Porirua Wellington;Greater Wellington Region; Greater Porirua Region; Kapiti to Karori

I quite like the Kapiti to Karori tagline.

Paul Quinn, National List MP; Championing the Valley

I wonder what Lockwood would say if you wanted your tagline to be “glad I don’t live in the valley”

Michael Woodhouse, Your National Government’s representative based in Dunedin

Good God – is he wanting students to burn his office down?

I’m sort of glad John Key is overseas at the moment, as he may be worried about my quotes of late in the Dominion Post.

On Friday, Chris Trotter’s column quoted:

These dark musings were not helped by David Farrar’s “Kiwiblog” posting an item purporting to prove that John Key is the antichrist.

And then on Saturday the Dom Post quoted me in their review of Key’s first year as PM:

Right-wing blogger David Farrar saw elements of Helen Clark and Rob Muldoon in Mr Key’s handling of the Rugby World Cup broadcasting rights fiasco.

So over one weekend I am quoted in the paper as having compared John Key to the antichrist, to Helen Clark and to Rob Muldoon.

I’m not sure which one he might find most offensive

Discovered by accident, while out driving, Mangakino. It is by Lake Maraetai. We have so many hidden beautiful places in NZ.

This photo is taken at the lakeside, where they have a nice little grass area and a mobile cafe.

The SST reports:

A CONTROVERSIAL blogger is struggling to convince his insurance company he is clinically depressed in order for the policy he depends on for his livelihood to be reinstated.

Cameron Slater, who writes a right-wing blog under the name Whale Oil, has received about $100,000 a year under an income protection insurance policy, due to depression he claims has left him unable to work since the collapse of a business five years ago.

Despite his condition, Slater has spent the last four years developing his blog, pouring his energies into the project fulltime. But two months ago his insurance company, Fidelity Life Assurance, cut off his benefits, saying their specialists had determined he was no longer unfit to work. …

His recent engagement covering the Tua-Cameron boxing bout on Twitter had left him shattered the next day.

“I can put on a good face but the next day I’m a wreck.” …

He said that for confirmation of his mental health status, his insurance company needed to only look as far as a Facebook group which had 82 members, including a number of MPs, called “People who think Cam Slater is nuts”.

“Even my enemies say so,” he said.

Maybe Fidelity could hire Cameron, if they don’t think he is nuts

Matt McCarten writes:

I attended the Council of Trade Unions biennial conference in Wellington this week. It was the first time in a decade that trade union barons turned up when Labour wasn’t in power. …

Key finished his speech, bravely took questions from the floor and good-humouredly responded to all attacks.

I can’t recall how often PMs Bolger or Shipley addressed the CTU Conference, but it wasn’t that regular and I’m not sure they ever agreed to have an open mike at the end of the speech. And it has become quite a hallmark of Key that he will take questions, even from the most hostile audience. Long may it last.

When one union, aligned strongly with the Labour Party, blamed him for its current pay problems he reminded them he’d been the Prime Minister for a year during a recession whereas Labour had governed for the past nine years when there were surpluses.

Key cheerfully suggested that maybe the blame for their low wages was best directed to the Labour Party. That shut them up.

Heh.

It was my first opportunity to assess both Key and Goff as presenters and leaders. Key was at the top of his game – warm, respectful, self-assured.

He exuded confidence and sometimes even bordered on belligerence. When union boss Andrew Little queried the Government’s intention over ACC Key dodged the question.

Instead, he jabbed a cheap shot at Little, who is also the Labour Party president, referring to him as the next leader of that party.

Probably was a cheap shot, but some shots are too tempting to pass up!

But his flippant dismissiveness aside, his support for low-paid workers seems heartfelt and genuine. Key isn’t a great political orator but came across as decent and likable. Only a fool would believe Key can be taken out by Goff any time soon.

And this is from the leader of NZ’s most militant union!

Goff is a polished performer and his speech the following day pushed all the right buttons for his audience. He is a man under pressure but he’s a pro from way back.

However, I couldn’t help feeling Goff’s delivery was a campaign stump speech written by one of his staff. Unlike Key, it felt that he was talking at the audience rather than to it.

It is an interesting observation from Matt, as I had much the same reaction when they both spoke at the Family First organised Forum on the Family. Goff was very good, very professional and performed well. But Key, especially in the Q&A, can connect with the audience in a way Goff can’t.

Trevor Mallard was a distraction sitting behind Goff all through his speech, visibly chewing gum like some sort of goon from central casting.

Maybe Labour’s image consultants could have a word with their in-house gangster next time he accompanies his new leader.

Sounds like a bit of bad blood there, which is interesting as if Labour wins, Trevor will probably be Minister of Labour.

An amusing profile of Bob Jones by his friend, Deborah Coddington.

As a teenager in the 80s I read all of Bob’s books and loved them. His “Letters” are a priceless read. I have only met him once – in 2007.

I was asked to come over to his office to join a discussion over the Electoral Finance Bill, and ways he could contribute to a campaign against it. I went over at 3 pm, expecting to be back at my desk by 5 pm. I staggered out of Sir Bob’s office, along with John Ansell, at around 4 am. During that 13 hours we drank many bottles of superb wine, and the only food we had was potato chips. I really could barely walk.

Anyway back to the profile:

“I had two MPs in my office last night but, unusually, we didn’t drink much because they left early. So-and-so and what’s-his-name? The duck?”

“Trevor Mallard?”

“Yes, Mallard. Only one glass each.”

Heh.

Certainly, there has been a vigour about his family life. Last month he told M2 Magazine: “I have vast numbers of children ranging from 4 to 40 years of age. All have been produced by diverse women without my consent, my participation having been fleeting.”

His correspondence with their various schools is one of the best parts of his Letters books.

Then there are some who painfully remember Jones’ own pugilism, including the time television reporter Rod Vaughan, determined to get an answer from Jones about the future of his New Zealand Party, flew by helicopter to Jones’ trout fishing patch at Turangi. Jones moved like lightning out of the undergrowth and punched Vaughan on the nose.

When fined $1000 in court, Jones asked the judge if he paid $2000, could he please do it again?

Never had a country been so united behind one man. I recall even the Governor-General was over-heard saying how much he approved of what Jones did. The video of the assault was wonderful theatre.

But the charmer also loves to shock. A few months ago he invited me to join him for lunch with Wellington lawyer Mai Chen. When Jones was informed by Chen that she doesn’t drink alcohol he claimed to be horrified: “You poor bastard. Tom Scott’s coming along. Deborah’s got no pants on (not true). There’ll be an orgy later (also untrue). I feel sorry for you.”

Heh.

Jones also has a thing about dark glasses, especially when worn on the top of the head. As if on cue, this bete noire popped up near the end of lunch.

As we filed out of the Arbitrageur restaurant Jones spied a woman sporting a flash pair of sunnies atop her blonde mane, and started muttering about people wearing sunglasses on their heads. I recognised the wearer as Wellington blogger “Busted Blonde”, and guessed, correctly, that Jones would be repaid the next day on her Roar Prawn blogsite.

The blog post is here.

But Jones enjoys fomenting mischief and critics should ignore him. He’s been insulting me for nearly 20 years and I’m not particularly thick-skinned. When he decided I should meet Colin Carruthers, I was instructed to not “dress like a whore, none of that paint smeared on your face, just lipgloss”.

When the progressing relationship pleased him, this unlikely Dorothy Dix offered more advice: “Don’t let him take you away to an island resort. At your age, you can’t be seen prancing around in a bikini. Get him to take you skiing so your body’s well covered.”

So how, my feminist friends ask, can you remain close to someone so obviously sexist? The Listener’s Jane Clifton, who has been his good mate since she was a “baby journalist”, gets the same queries and laughs them off.

“Way back before I even knew him well, someone wrote something spiteful and gutless about me and Bob wrote me this letter which was not just of comfort but which said, ‘the problem as I see it is that **** is a conspicuously hideous beast and you are not’. It was bloody useful and restorative to be told that. Bob saw an injustice, and was extraordinarily nice about it.

I love the story of how he paid his receptionist to change her name by deed poll.

Matt Nippert from the HoS profiles retiring Green MP Sue Bradford. A long article – here are some extracts:

Greg Fleming, founder and head of the arch-conservative Maxim Institute, has clashed repeatedly with the Green MP in recent years. On smacking and prostitution reform Bradford describes the organisation as a “deadly enemy”, but Fleming says he’s sad to see a fellow ideologue go.

“The thing that’s been delightful about our friendship – and we’ve disagreed over almost everything – is that she’s actually very clear about why she believes what she believes,” says Fleming.

A nice compliment.

She says she had high hopes that Jim Anderton’s breakaway party could shatter the male-led old boys’ club of national politics. “But of course in New Labour I was right back into an old patriarchal model – with bells on.”

Bradford quit in 1990, barely a year after she had joined, and refused to take part in the Alliance because of bad blood with Anderton. She joined the Greens in 1998 only after they split from the Alliance.

(Asked about his brief political liaison with Bradford, Jim Anderton declined to comment.)

Sue just got out early. Jim made very clear later on that he would leave unless complete control of the party was ceded to him. McCarten and Harre refused, so he bailed.

While Bradford was able to eventually recruit both John Key and Helen Clark into her drive to remove the Section 59 defence, resulting in a resounding 113-7 victory when the third reading was passed, her inability to connect with the public has been labelled a “catastrophic failure of propaganda” by a source who previously worked for the Greens.

“It ended up being labelled a bill against smacking, which it never was,” says the source.

It did not start off like that. The original bill merely removed S59. But the final bill was a bill against smacking. It basically said you can use reasonable force in numerous situations except correction.

Turei defends the change, saying it has been a conscious process.

She does not openly criticise Bradford, but it’s impossible to hide Turei’s differences with the MP who unsuccessfully battled her for the leadership.

Turei explains the evolution in Green thinking: “I don’t want to
exclude people who don’t hold that old left-wing culture, that can’t relate to that old 1970s hard-core working-class struggle.”

While Turei insists that Green policy remains unchanged, she supports moving the party away from under Labour’s wing and into a position where they could – conceivably – work with National in the future.

Says Bradford: “I’ve always been clear that if we wanted to be a party that would enter coalition with National, I would leave it.

As I have said numerous time. The Greens will never choose a National-led Govt over a Labour-led Govt. But they need to be able to hold open that possibility to stop Labour treating the like a doormat.

The most I would ever expect to see between the Greens and National is an agreement to abstain on supply and confidence.

THERE’S ALSO the possibility of a return to politics – albeit not in Wellington. Auckland Supercity mayoral candidate and Manukau Mayor Len Brown has expressed an interest in having her around the council table.

“I do support Len Brown for mayor and think he’s a great guy, and I live in Manukau at the moment,” she says, non-committally.

“Standing for council would be a big job and I think the process of forming tickets and who will be on those tickets will be tense. I don’t want to cut off the option, I’m quite open to it, but that does not a campaign or ticket make.”

Not yet, but Deputy Mayor of Auckland must be a tempting prize for a woman who quit national politics partly because she never got to be a Minister. I can’t imagine Sue would want to just be a Councillor, so if she is on the ticket, it will be fair to assume she has been promised the Deputy spot.

The HoS reports:

The Labour leadership is embroiled in a murky polling operation run by a senior MP who has instructed volunteers to deliberately deceive people about their identities and the reason for their calls.

The polls were being run from Parliamentary offices by former Cabinet minister Rick Barker, who has admitted instructing staff to use false names and claim they were calling from a company that no longer exists. …

Details of the polling emerged after a volunteer involved approached the Herald on Sunday claiming the practice was “unethical”.

The volunteer, who is a Green Party member, said it was run by Barker and, when the volunteer participated, took place in Barker’s office at Parliament on October 14.

The volunteer said Barker instructed all the helpers, including a Parliamentary staffer, to say they worked for a non-existent company called “Data Research”, and to not disclose that they were really working for the Labour Party.

A search at the companies office for the former Data Research finds the company, when registered, had two directors – a Robert Bateman Allen and a Trevor Colin Mallard. Now nothing wrong with that – in fact the problem arguably is that they did not keep the company registered, while using its name.

Labour Party president Andrew Little last night said all polling was out of Phil Goff’s Leader’s Budget. Little said he knew nothing about the operation. “It would concern me very deeply,” he said.

This surprises me. In no way doubting Andrew’s word that he knew nothing – just surprised that the parliamentary wing would keep their polling operation secret from the President.

Barker, when questioned, initially said: “I don’t know what you’re talking about”. When provided with details, including dates, Barker said he would call back.

Two hours later, Barker rang and admitted he had encouraged the use of false names by callers.

Wow, Barker lied to the media. That gives him a real credibility problem. I doubt it was a memory problem, as the phoning took place just ten days ago.

Labour whip Darren Hughes, who sits on the party’s leadership council, said he was aware of the polling. He said Barker had spearheaded three polls.

But Hughes defended the use of false names and for callers to not identify that they were representing the Labour Party.

“The name of Data Research was used to get as close to a scientific result as you could, to not influence results because of the way that people feel about a particular party.”

What a mess. The party president says he knows nothing about is, and is deeply concerned. Rick Barker lies, saying he knows nothing about it, until flushed out. And Darren says it is all okay.

Now I will back Darren up on one point. If a party is conducting a poll themselves, they don’t want to use their own party’s name because it does influence the responses, and you do want it scientific.

However as I said, the preferable way to deal with this is to have an actual company registered like Data Access, so you can legally say you are polling on behalf of that company.

He said the use of false names in polling was common: “I’m sure that half the people try to sell us things on telemarketing aren’t giving us their real names.”

Here I disagree. Of course callers should use their real names. They don’t have to give out their surname and home address, but why wouldn’t they use their real first names?

A spokesman for Goff said the leader of the opposition was not available to answer questions, but he had consulted members of the leadership council and been told the method of polling carried out by Barker was a mistake. “It won’t happen again.”

So the President knew nothing, the MP whose office was used lied about it, the whip defended it and the leader said it was a mistake and won’t happen again!

I think Labour need to work on their internal communications and messaging!

Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff said the details of Barker’s polling operation raised serious questions and could breach the Privacy Act.

I imagine Commissioner Shroff’s concerns would be over what happens to the individual responses. Does Labour destroy the individual responses once they have summarised the results, or do they enter in the responses against their electoral roll database to assist with voter targeting? If they do undertake the latter, that would be a very serious breach of the Privacy Act.

This graph shows the net monthly migration figures for New Zealand citizens/nationals.

As you can see January is the month when we lose the most Kiwis, with the trend being to decline during the year. But in 2009, the net departures have fallen away much steeper than normal, and it is possible we may achieve a net gain (for NZ nationals) in one of the last three months of 2009.

The last time this happened was in December 2003.

The net loss in September 2009 was 304, which is the second smallest September loss since 1990.

The Greens often go on about how they are a party of principle and policy and veer away from personal attacks, and smears. They seem to have forgotten to tell on of their senior office holders.

For some reason someone at The Standard posted a photo of MPs Bakshi Singh, Melissa Lee, Bill English and John Key – asking which one is not like the other.

Toad responded:

Nah, it is that the three on the left have substantive allegations of corruption against them personally. The allegations against the one on the right are “only” of covering up the allegations against the others.

A bit like a line-up of Brad Shipton, Bob Schollum, Clint Rickards, and John Dewar.

Well done Toad, you score bottom of the barrel this week.