Kiwiblog

The Sunday Star-Times reports:

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide has said he will complain to the auditor-general over a donation to the campaign, because he believes it came from an entity with ties to the Manukau City Council, which Brown headed before becoming mayor of the super city.

Brown’s 2010 returns, filed on Friday, show a $3375 donation from the Counties Manukau Pacific Trust, which administers Manukau’s Pacific Events Centre.

I think it is essential the Auditor-General investigates, because the links between this trust and Len Brown’s campaign are numerous.

The CMPT is a charitable trust. Donating (money or services) to a political campaign goes against that charitable status, and the Charities Commission and IRD could well ask questions about this. The donation may put at risk the millions of dollars of tax free grants and donations they get. If I was a Trustee, I’d want to know who authorised this.

But not only is the CMPT a charitable trust, it is one which has been hugely funded by the ratepayers of Manukau. The CMPT was set up by Manukau Mayor Barry Curtis in July 2000. The Manukau City Council appoint two of the seven members of the electoral college that appoints trustees, and can designate sucessor appointing organisations for the other members.

Three, possibly four, CMPT people were on the eight strong Len Brown campaign team. Trustees Karen Avery and Mike Hutcheson were on the inner cabinet team of eight, plus CMPT CEO Richard Jeffrey. In addition to those three, it is rumoured that one key campaign staffer was also on the CMPT payroll, as well as the CEO. I won’t name him as it has not been confirmed, but I understand media have asked him if it was true, and he has not returned their calls.

Regardless, you have a hue cross-over between Len’s campaign team and the Trust. And who funds the Trust?

Well the Manukau City Council gave them a $9 million grant. Plus $385,000 a year in a service contract. And on top of that they have effectively donated all their land by way of a 99 year lease for $1/year. On top of that the ratepayers through the old MCC, guarantee a $7.5m overdraft facility for the CMPT.

This means that under the law, for financial reporting purposes, the CMPT is “considered a Council controlled entity”.

The CMPT incidentially has negative working capital of $500,000 and made a $652,000 loss last year, so you would think they would be focused on that – not on helping Len Brown get elected.

Having the CEO of a charitable trust that receives ratepayer funding, working for a partisan political campaign is a huge conflict of interest – made even worse by the fact he had the trust donate billboard space to the Brown campaign.

How much work time did the CEO spend on the Brown campaign? Is it true that another Brown campaign member was an employee of the CMPT – if so for how many months was he employed by both the CMPT and the Brown campaign?

And to make things even murkier, we find out that CEO Richard Jeffrey was one of the attendees at the secret Volare dinner, and has also just been appointed to a CCO for his services to the campaign.

This is the same Richard Jeffrey quoted in the Herald in July 2010 as praising Len Brown for his relationship with the events centre. The Herald forgot to mention that he was a member of the Brown campaign team in the article.

Nicky Hager and the Sunday Star Times have had Wikileaks hand over to them 1,500 cables mentioning New Zealand.

The main article reveals that last August saw the US Government restore New Zealand to full intelligence-sharing status.

They have a 53 page pdf of the cables here.

A story on journalists who have got state department visits is here.

Another story on the anti-nuke laws.

Danyl at the Dim-Post has sorted some of the cables into separate text files, with keywords.

Simon Lyall blogs on how one cable explicitly names the Deputy Director of the NZ SIS, which is a breach of the NZ SIS Act 1969, specifically s13A(1):

Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000, who (except with the written consent of the Minister) publishes or causes or allows to be published in a newspaper or other documsent, or broadcasts or causes or allows to be broadcast by radio or television or otherwise, the fact that any person is a member of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service other than the Director.

I guess the Sunday Star-Times decided that a maximum $1,000 fine is not much of a deterrent.

Having googled the name of the Deputy Director, it is fair to say that his involvement in the intelligence community is not exactly a secret – however his current role is.

Leigh van der Stoep in the HoS reports:

First-time offenders caught shoplifting, drunk in public or smoking cannabis are being let off with warnings as part of an ambitious police programme.

The policy, trialled in the Auckland region for more than a year and now going national, means police have discretion to let offenders off when they are caught committing crimes that carry a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

Offences such as shoplifting, breaches of liquor bans, possession of cannabis and disorderly behaviour fit the criteria.

For a warning to be issued offenders must also be remorseful for their offending and the victims must consent.

A warning is entered into the police system against a person’s name, and a trip to court and potential conviction are avoided. If the offender is caught a second time, the matter is elevated to the courts.

Seems entirely sensible. This should have happened years ago.

Matt McCarten writes in the HoS:

John Key, a successful corporate speculator himself, has announced that if the National Party is elected again then he’d see that as a mandate for selling off the rest of our public assets.

Except he has said no such thing.

David Fisher reports in the HoS:

The $12 million Fruit in Schools programme is helping keep kids focused and better behaved in the classroom, research shows.

Supplying fresh fruit to kids is a far better thing to do than turn schools into the food police and dictate what food items can and can not be sold.

The study found children eating fruit were more active, had healthier outlooks and behaved in a way likely to lead to better health choices.

Researchers also interviewed teachers and were told by 77 per cent that attention spans and behaviour in class were twice as good over the course of a year.

I’m not sure how you measure behaviour in such a way that you can proclaim it is twice as good, but regardless looks to be good results.

Tracy Watkins reports at the Dom Post:

Talk is swirling on the left and the right of the political spectrum about new political parties, just a year out from the next election.

Former National leader Don Brash is understood to be coming under pressure within Right-wing circles in Auckland to consider a return to politics, while former Green MP Sue Bradford admits she would consider a comeback under the banner of a new Left-wing party.

iPredict, an online futures market for politics, launched stocks yesterday picking the formation of a new Left-wing or Right-wing party before the election and raised the stakes by linking Ms Bradford and Dr Brash to their creation.

iPredict has a new right ring party (with Don Brash as a member) at 19%, and a new left wing party (with at least two of Harawira, Bradford and McCarten) at 41%.

I think they are both over-priced.

• New Zealander of the Year – Emma Woods
• Business Leader of the Year – Chris Liddell
• Politician of the Year – John Key
• Sportsperson of the Year – Ryan Nelson

I broadly agree with all those picks. The story on John Key noted:

Within the deep recesses of the Labour Party and elsewhere on the left, there is a lingering arrogance saturated with an intellectual snobbery which blinds and deludes its sufferers.

The second anniversary of John Key becoming Prime Minister has been and gone. But the self-satisfied superiority and smugness exhibited by his critics continues unabated.

They cannot bring themselves to accept that Key’s occupation of Premier House follows anything but a terrible mistake on the part of voters who will come to their senses in time for next year’s election.

The left dismisses the most popular Prime Minister in New Zealand’s recent political history as Smile and Wave John Key, Do Nothing John Key and Lucky John Key.

The left’s fatal error has been to constantly underrate Key in terms of ability and the fact that though he is of centre-right disposition, he is firmly at the moderate end of that broad spectrum.

Absolutely nails it.

In short, Key’s critics on the left still don’t get it. Maybe the Mana byelection will remove a few scales from a few eyes. It should. That result was a gruesome preview of the slaughter that may well be inflicted on Labour at the end of next year.

A warning. Let us compare to the first term of the Labour Government. The final poll in 2001 was on 13 December had Labour at 45% and National at 39% – a 6% gap. What will be the gap in the final polls this month?

Just the day after the NZ Herald praised Len Brown as “winning the battle for greater openness”, it is revealed that Len has used a secret trust to launder $500,000 of donations anonymously to his campaign.

Jonathan Marshall at the Dom Post reports:

the former Manukau mayor declared donations totalling $581,900.95, of which $499,000 was to the previously unknown New Auckland Council Trust. That meant he did not have to tell the Auckland Council electoral officer the names of most individuals and companies that contributed to his campaign because the trust was listed on his return as the main contributor.

Labour has spent the last five years railing against the use of secret trusts in politics, and here Labour Party member Len Brown is revealed to have used one. This is another example of the stinking hypocrisy of Labour.

They spent a year attacking Sam Lotu-lliga for being a Councillor and an MP, and then they endorse Jim Anderton to be a Mayor and an MP.

They spent five years attacking secret trusts, and they use one for the campaign for the most powerful directly elected job in New Zealand.

The Herald reports:

Mr Brown’s campaign manager, David Lewis, last night defended using the New Auckland Council Trust to protect donors’ identities.

He said the campaign raised money from hundreds of people from across the political spectrum who supported the mayor’s vision.

Most wanted anonymity “as per the current laws, simply because they are private persons with no interest in being in the media”.

The Electoral Act requires candidates to identify any donor contributing $1000 or more to a campaign, if they know the name of that person or organisation. But Mr Lewis said the mayor had “no idea who donated to his campaign”.

Oh what bullshit. Of course he knows.

The local electoral laws do not outlaw the use of secret trusts, as the national electoral law does. Even worse they on;y require the use of this secret trust to be revealed after the election. Think how many votes would have been lost if it had been revealed before the election that Len Brown had received $500,000 of donations filtered through a secret trust.

Now as I said, Labour and the Greens have spent five years railing against secret trusts in politics. I await those political parties condemning Len Brown for his $500,000 secret trust – so secret they have not even filed its trust deed with the Registrar of Trusts (they are not legally obliged to). Will media demand Len reveal who set the trust up, who the trustees are. How about even a partial amount of accountability and reveal the largest individual donation made to Len through the trust?

The Mayor of Auckland has powers beyond any other Mayor in New Zealand. Do Labour and the Greens not think we should know if someone donated $250,000 to Len?

Phil Goff in Sep 2008 said:

The National Party, at the last election, got $2 million from secret trusts, anonymously—secret donations. The country wants to know who those donors were, what their commercial motivation was in promising you that money, and in giving you that money, and they want to know what the National Party and Mr Key promised in return.

So what we should now hear from Phil Goff is:

Len Brown, at the last election, got $500,000 from secret trusts, anonymously—secret donations. The country wants to know who those donors were, what their commercial motivation was in promising Len that money, and in giving Len that money, and they want to know what the Len Brown promised in return.

Incidentally John Banks disclosed all his donations in excess of $1,000. Some of these were anonymous, and as with national politics there should be a cap on how big an anonymous donation can be – such as $1,000.

How many of Len’s donors have been appointed to his personal staff, to ratepayer funded jobs? How many were appointed to CCOs? We have no way of knowing, due to his secret trust.

I bear little hope that a man who spent six months fighting to keep the names of those invited to a ratepayer funded dinner secret, will reveal his major donors. But, the Government should look to change the law so the finance provisions of the Electoral Act apply to local body elections, to ensure Aucklanders in future know who are the secret funders of their Mayor.

Note that in my submission on the Electoral Finance Bill in 2007, I proposed that the law should require disclosure of donations through trusts.

UPDATE: The hypocrisy gets worse. Here is what Len Brown said a year ago:

“We have seen the dangers of big money entering national politics, with concerns over sources and transparency of party funding, and the emergence of third party campaigns. Local government has avoided these issues, but they could emerge were candidates under pressure to raise large sums in order to be competitive,” he said.

So Len Brown talked about concerns over transparency of funding, and then set up a secret trust which he funnelled $500,000 through.

Infonews reports:

Highly regarded current affairs programmes Q+A and The Nation will return to New Zealand television screens next year, with funding from NZ On Air.

The funding agency announced today it will continue supporting the two programmes through its special Platinum Fund.

NZ On Air chief executive Jane Wrightson said TVNZ will receive $798,000 to produce 38 episodes of Q+A. Front Page Ltd will receive $972,000 to produce 36 episodes of The Nation for TV3.

“Both series provide an important point of difference for television current affairs,” Ms Wrightson said. “Public funding allows such programmes to exist outside the demands of commercial prime time. Each programme provides a special opportunity for thoughtful interviews with leading news makers, accompanied by insightful analysis.”

I’m glad NZ on Air is keeping them both going. In an election year especially we need shows like them.

On Thu 16 Dec, Backbenches are filming their 2010 year in review program. It is at 8 pm, instead of the normal 9 pm, as it will show the following Wednesday.

Instead of it being four MPs, the panel will consist of four commentators – Bomber Bradbury from Tumeke/Citizen A, Jess Mutch from TVNZ, myself and Mark Unsworth.

The first segment will be the best and worst scandals of 2010. There are so many to choose from!

The second segment will be the best and worst generally from the Government and the Opposition.

And in the third segment we rate the MPs – the best backbencher, the best maverick, best rising star, biggest loser, biggest waste of space, biggest surprise best minister and who should be dropped from the list.

And finally we will look ahead to 2011 – the biggest events, biggest issues, and biggest contests as we see them.

Should be lots of fun, and some good diversity of views. Come along if you are in Wellington, and free.

This week Obama stuck a deal with Republicans which sees him try to revive the US economy with tax cuts instead of extra spending. Labour in NZ should take note. Obama has agreed to:

• Extend the Bush tax cuts for two further years which were due to expire at the end of 2010
• Reduce for one year the Social Security payroll tax from 6.2% to 4.2%
• Increase the threshold for the death tax from $1m to $5m ad reduce the rate from 55% to 35%

It will be interesting to observe the President’s poll ratings in the next month.

Whale Oil highlights how four of the secret appointments by Len Brown to CCOs were of politicians who failed to get elected in their own right.

One example is Mike Williams who was rejected by voters in standing for the Henderson-Massey Local Board, Wait­em­ata DHB and the Wait­akere Licens­ing Trust.

But Len has put him onto the Auckland Transport CCO.

Even worse, the appointments (done with no Council consultation – just a ratification vote) include two members of Len’s campaign team reports the Herald:

The mayor’s office has confirmed that two of the new appointees, Pacific Trust chief executive Richard Jeffery and Pacific business leader Pauline Winter, were members of Mr Brown’s election campaign team.

So of the 12 appointments Len made, four were of politicians rejected by the voters, two were of members of his campaign team, and one his controversial former CEO.

Something sunny for this morning. A cattle egret.

Today there’s a “work do”, so I suspect I’ll be replacing coffee with alcohol today.

Hope you all have a good day too.

Britton Broun at the Dom Post reports:

The battle to evict three gang-linked women from a Lower Hutt street looks set to go another round despite it already costing Housing New Zealand more than $550,000.

The Court of Appeal said yesterday that Huia Tamaka, Robyn Winther and Billy Taylor must take a different route to have any hope of overturning their eviction from Pomare’s Farmer Cres.

After 18 months and four levels of the legal system, the women will now complain to the Human Rights Commission that they were discriminated against because of their Mongrel Mob partners.

They almost sound victims, but the true victims are:

Information released under the Official Information Act reveals HNZ has spent more than $320,000 on security in the street since the women’s Mob partners allegedly terrorised another woman from Farmer Cres in February 2009.

Though all criminal charges were later dismissed, the state housing body has racked up legal fees of more than $240,000 to get the families out.

The lawyers at least will be happy.

Audrey Young in the NZ Herald reports:

Labour has again changed its position on the foreshore and seabed, withdrawing its support for the bill repealing the current law while it is part-way through the select committee process. …

And they note the multiple flip-flops:

* 2004: Labour Govt passes Foreshore and Seabed Act asserting Crown ownership, preventing Maori from claiming customary title in court, but setting up alternative regime of rights.

* 2009 April: Labour in Opposition renounces F&S Act saying it would support law restoring right to go to court.

* 2009 Nov: Leader Phil Goff says there is nothing wrong with the way F&S Act is working and repeal would be cynical.

* 2010 Sept: Labour supports new bill designed to repeal F&S Act.

* 2010 Dec: Labour withdraws its support for the bill.

If we wait long enough, I’m sure we’ll get position No 6.

Just got back from the Nats Xmas Party. Was, as usual, a very fun night.

Afterwards a fair few of us went into town. Discovered Green Parrot was closed, so hit Hummingbird and The Establishment.

I discovered that if at 2 am a journalist asks you “Who is the hottest member of the press gallery”, the only acceptable answer is “You”.

Any other answer is very very wrong. And trying to put your answer in context does not makes things better – in fact it is a situation like that which led to the phrase “When you are in a hole, stop digging”.

Trying to explain the subtle but importance difference between hotness and beauty also doesn’t work. At all.

Vernon Small writes in the Dom Post:

Only the God of politics could have delivered Don Brash walking a plank when his party was preparing to dump him. It took the same divine intervention to make John Key say he was going to lead “a Labour Government” when some hardliners in his party were worrying his compromising style would create a “Labour-lite” administration.

The same evil deity had his sport with Labour leader Phil Goff this week. First it made him refer to his finance spokesman David Cunliffe as David Caygill – reminding anyone who can remember that far back that he was part of the 1980s Labour Government and the legacy that Labour has been so keen to distance itself from.

Then he shot himself squarely in the foot by saying at least he had not said he would be the leader of a Labour government.

Well, if you say so, Phil.

And that quote also made Page 2 of yesterday’s Dom Post. It has not been a good week with a no confidence letter from Te Atatu, a speech that flopped, two gaffes and now Manurewa at civil war and a possible by-election.

If Mr Goff wants to increase his extremely slim chances of an upset at the next election, the process is all too slow and too late.

Of course, the received wisdom is that oppositions should keep their policy powder dry till close to the election when voters are focused, the media are more even- handed between the government and the opposition and your best ideas cannot be stolen by your rivals.

But these are not normal times.

Mr Goff is a decent and able politician.

But he is up against perhaps the most popular prime minister in his lifetime. If he and Labour seriously think that in a presidential-style campaign he can shade Mr Key they are dreaming.

If they think he can be sold as the experienced solid alternative – when Miss Clark failed on that score – they have not been watching the crises Mr Key had to negotiate in his first two years as prime minister.

It amazes me how badly Labour under-estimate John Key. You think they will have learnt by now. National never liked Helen Clark, but they always had a healthy respect for her political abilities. Labour seems to believe their own (plagiarised from right wing blogs) slogans.

Labour’s slim hope is that National will lose the election through a series of unforeseen errors or disasters or a severe downturn in the economy.

And that is not impossible. Unlikely, but can’t be ruled out.

Goff needs to do a re-shuffle to have a better chance of victory. The entire front-bench are Ministers thrown out at the last election. Goff needs to promote to the front bench and second row new MPs such as Robertson, Hipkins, Nash, Curran, Twyford and Shearer etc.

Labour DLEFlyer

This pamphlet would definitely count as electioneering if done during the regulated period. The rules before the regulated period are less strict, but I wonder if even under those rules whether this qualifies. To qualify it must “have a parliamentary purpose” and “not contain electioneering”.

Electioneering is defined outside the regulated period as “explicitly seeks support for the re-election of a member or party, explicitly encourages party membership or explicitly solicits financial support”.

This pamphlet pushes those boundaries to the max. I am unsure it has a parliamentary purpose – it does not mention Parliament at all, or any specific law. It is basically 100% propaganda.

The front half is simply a photo and what appears to be a campaign slogan.

The second half gets close to soliciting for votes (implicit not explicit though) saying “Things have got tougher under the National Government but Labour has a plan for the people of Waitakere and all New Zealanders”.

There’s a not a single word about what Carmel has done for the community, about how you can approach her office for assistance, about any local issues. It is 100% a rant against National and a list of campaign slogans.

In fact an identical pamphlet could run in every seat. Perhaps that is the case? Has any readers received similar?

Antonio Bradley at the Dom Post reports:

A vindictive former employee tormented a Hutt Valley family for 18 months, falsely convincing them through anonymous letters that their elderly father had been murdered in his rest home.

Peter Glen, 88, died of natural causes in March last year.

Five weeks later, his five grieving children began receiving poison letters claiming that a mentally impaired fellow resident smothered their father with a pillow.

“I saw him come out of your daddy’s room the morning he died with a pillow in his hand and a crazed look on his face. He really scares me. You must do something before he kills someone else,” one letter said.

Then, on December 23, they received a Christmas card, supposedly from the murderer, gloating about the killing.

“Finishing off your pappy with his own pillow was so much fun. The lingering rancid stench reminds me of the dark cold night. Now I have another odor to remind me of the old hag who ratted me out – Shes dead now too.”

Police began an investigation into the murder claims, interviewing staff at St Joseph’s Home of Compassion in Upper Hutt, as well as family of the residents.

They considered exhuming the body as the investigation stalled several times over the course of a year.

Eventually, they tracked down the offender by matching his handwriting, court documents show.

The man, 55, of Heretaunga, who is fighting to keep his name suppressed, appeared in Upper Hutt District Court yesterday and admitted sending the letters, pleading guilty to two charges of causing wasteful deployment of police resources.

He will face a maximum of three months’ imprisonment on each charge when he is sentenced early next year.

The death letters were designed to punish Mr Glen’s son, Vince, who was involved in sacking the man from his job as a Hutt Hospital storeman in August 2006, the family believe.

In his role as the hospital’s employee relations manager, Vince Glen conducted an investigation that found the offender guilty of serious misconduct. Vince Glen and his siblings spoke to The Dominion Post yesterday, and released the Christmas card to show how “sickening” it was.

It is a shame that all they could charge him with was wasting Police time. His actions were incredibly sadistic and cruel.

The Timaru Herald reports:

A poster featuring Timaru shoplifters has been temporarily withdrawn after a woman laid a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Authority over her inclusion.

The complaint can take two main forms:

1. I am not a shoplifter, have never been a shoplifter and should not be on the poster as I have never shoplifted.
2. I have shoplifted but it is a breach of my right to shoplift if you include me in the poster

Nothing in the article suggests it is scenario 1.

I groaned when I saw this headline in the Dom Post:

Paquin to become aunt

And the first sentence was:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman and his partner are to make Oscar-winning actress Anna Paquin an aunt.

You know, I really don’t think Dr Norman and Katya Paquin are having a baby just so Anna can be an aunt.

Yes Anna is a famous actress (and I am a huge fan of her acting ability) and it is to be expected that there might be some mention in the story that she is Katya’s sister and hence aunt to be.

But making the headline and lead sentence all about the sister is rather inappropriate in my opinion.

Anyway congratulations to Russel and Katya on their baby to be. I’m informed your lives will never quite be the same again – in a good way!

Listen and judge for yourself.