Kiwiblog

Labour have learnt nothing from the Electoral Finance Act. It was a partisan attempt to skew the electoral laws in their favour. And they have done it again their announcement of an expert panel to review electoral administration and political party funding.

Electoral law does not belong to Labour. It represents the basic constitution of our country. And once again they are desperately trying to bring in further state funding of political parties.

Labour have announced the expert panel just weeks out from a general election. That is bad enough and a breach of conventions. A panel which reviews electoral law is a bloody significant appointment. But they totally failed to consult the Opposition on its composition. Electoral law issues should be as bi-partisan as possible. Sure at the end of the day, parties may have to agree to disagree, but you do not start off the process by excluding the major Opposition party.

I made this point back in June, when the proposal was announced. I said:

1. The independent experts must be chosen by a super majority of parliamentary parties, not just by the Government of the day. The formula which I like is that any appointments must be agreed to by party leaders representing over 75% of the MPs and over 50% of the parties in Parliament. This means that not only must both major parties agree, but so must at least half of the minor parties.
2. The issues, terms of references and high level process must also be signed off by that super-majority. The most unforgivable crime that Labour and the Greens have done with the EFA is to treat electoral law as a bauble for the winner, rather than a bipartisan constitutional law.
3. Issues referred to a Citizen’s Jury should be in totality, not just a narrow aspect such as taxpayer funding of political parties. It is ridicolous to exclude from consideration all the issues dealt with by the Electoral Finance Act. In fact the EFA should be abolished immediately upon a change of Government, and a citizen’s jury could be used as part of the process of consulting on and determining its replacement.

You see the concept of a panel of exports and a citizen’s jury is not without merit. But as usual Labour’s desperation to skew everything, destroys what should be a worthwhile endeavour. Now that was not just my view back in June, but also Green co-leader Russel Norman agreed partially with me:

David Farrar says some silly National Party things about the citz assembly but he also makes some good points over at Kiwiblog. He says the political party buyin should be as broad as possible – I agree with that but don’t know how to acheive it give the politicisation of the issue.

He also says that the terms of reference should be broad. I agree that they should be broader than simply ’state funding of parties’ but after talking to Jonathan Rose (an expert on citz assemblies) I’m not sure the ToR should be too broad. He says that if they’re too broad the assembly lacks focus. maybe there is a compromise in there somewhere.

So did Russel stand up to Labour and say don’t just appoint a panel without consulting the other parties. We insist you go to National and ask if they have any recommended panelists and what they think of the ones you propose? No they roll over, as usual:

“The Forum will provide much needed independence in the review of election funding”, Green Party Co-Leader Russel Norman says.

Independent? When the Government hand picks the panel that will advise them?

“While the Act was needed to close loopholes in the law revealed at the last election, we need a more inclusive and disinterested process to further consider the bigger picture of political party and election funding.

“We hope that all New Zealanders will support this process and that we can find a place to have some non-partisan reasoned discussion about the future of our democracy.”

Non-partisan??? Fuck all hope of that considering there was *zero* consultation with the Opposition.

Now I am not attacking the integrity of any the three panelists. I know two of them, and they have a lot to contribute in this area. However the Government has obviously chosen the panel, based on the known viewpoints of some of them. Associate Professor Geddis has written supportively of state funding on many occassions and in the Press described the issue as:

This failure to really debate the pros and cons of public funding is regrettable. The public was never given the choice of whether it would rather politicians get their money from large, hidden, private donations or taxpayer grants.

Now if the citizens assembly gets the choice described to them in that terms, I can guarantee you what they will say. Just as if you describe it as “Should parties raise their own money from volunteers and supporters or take it from unwilling taxpayers” you would get a quite different result from the assembly.

Now I am not saying Geddis, would put choices in as crude terms as he did in The Press article. He has written some very useful stuff on the issue. I am not even saying I would not have him on the panel. What I am saying is that the process has been tainted from the very beginning by the lack of consultation with the Opposition.

Also ironically Andrew Geddis now is the victim of something he advocated against:

First, the failure to consult with opposition parties before introducing the Bill to the House leaves it vulnerable to allegations of partisanship. Electoral law should not be, nor be seen to be, a vehicle for one party to gain an advantage over others.

Geddis is right. Maybe he should have made a condition of his participation on the panel, being that the Government consult on its membership.

The panel and assembly should be terminated if there is a change of Government. However I would advocate that a National-led Government look at using a similiar mechanism in reviewing parts of the Electoral Act post-election. And they should consult with and get buy-in from all the parties on the composition and terms of reference of such a panel.

The NZ Herald has reported on the comments by Electoral Commission CEO Helena Catt, which I blogged about yesterday.

The head of the Electoral Commission has warned that the law she is charged with overseeing is having a “chilling effect” on public participation in the election.

I would encourage people to keep that quote and at every Meet the Candidate’s Meeting they attend ask Labour, NZ First and Greens candidate a question along the lines of: “The CEO of the Electoral Commission has said the Electoral Finance Act is having a chilling effect on public participation in the election. Why did your party pass a law that has achieved the exact opposite of its stated intention – discouraging people from political involvement?”

Minister of Justice Annette King would not respond to Dr Catt’s comments, saying Dr Catt was an independent commissioner and “she’s entitled to say what she likes”.

Isn’t it sad when the Minister is actually unable to rebut the central proposition that her pet law has had a chilling effect on people’s participation in the electoral process?

The Police Association has attacked Police Commission Howard Broad for letting the taser decision (which is his) be used as a political delaying tactic in Parliament yesterday.

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said that while frontline officers should have been celebrating, the decision instead “highlights the politicisation of the highest levels of police”.

They are strong and damning words from the head of the police union.

The Police Association are also upset that the Goverment has decided to ban Police Officers from serving on local authorities. The flip-flop puts sees Labour now supporting NZ First on this issue.  Probably part of of a deal on the ETS.

Annette King tells the Police Association off for being ungrateful:

“Quite frankly, I am very disappointed Greg O’Connor and the association have used that sort of language. The reality is that New Zealand police have never had a better period than they have had under this Government.”

Yes Greg. What would you know about the Police. Listen to the Minister, shut up and be grateful.

I thought of trying to cover question time from Parliament (you can apply for a one day pass) but wasn’t sure if they have a power supply handy there, so decided to watch it on TV and blog it from home.

Wilson is speaking now, defending her decision yesterday to take Peters’ word that Hide’s question was covered by a case before the courts. She is saying she had no choice but to take the word of an MP, as it is extremely serious if an MP misleads the Speaker.

Annette King has chosen today, of all days, to make a Ministerial statement that tazers are being introduced. This is a good decision, but MPs are suspicious of the timing. By making the statement today, it leads to a debate which delays question time and general debate. She could easily have delayed the decision until tomorrow.

Brownlee is laughing at the ploy saying King just announced a decision that isn’t even final, but just in principle. He is pointing out that many more major decisions never get Ministerial statements, and there was no need for it to be made today

Brownlee is right – it is a ploy to give Clark and Peters more time to work out their stories. The decision is being made by the Commissioner, not the Minister.

Gerry finished by suggesting the tazers may be used on Winston later in the week.

You know it is a setup to delay, when Dail Jones then gets up and says he agrees this is a serious issue which should be debated by the House.

… Fuck I am bored with tazers. Bring on the main show.

Rodney is now using the tazer debate, to attack Peters. Cullen is running interference for Peters which gives you some idea of how desperate they are to cling on.

… Now onto question one. Question Two is the big one.

Clark has said she does have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs!!!! She is clinging to him.

She is not even suspending him. She says she will just wait for the Privileges Committee to report.

Clark keeps saying there is a conflict of evidence. But that does not mean she can not act. She knows Glenn is telling the truth, and is just trying to cling on to power.

Dail Jones is desperate. He is suggesting the Owen Glenn letter is a forgery. Fuck the man is a moron or does a good job of impersonating one.

Key has pointed out that if she is implying Owen Glenn paid to the Privileges Committee.

Peters is clinging to the fact that Glenn donated to his legal fees not NZ First. But that is a red herring for the issue of his denial that he did now know of the donation until July 2008.

Peters is basically calling Glenn a liar. He may regret that.

God Clark is desperate. She is saying that as the letter is to the Privileges Committee, not from it, there is nothing for her to do.

Clark keeps talking about waiting for teh trial. But this is not about whether or not Peters broke standing orders. It is about whether or not he is a liar. And she sacked Lianne Dalziel for lying and David Benson-Pope for lying, without needing a “trial”. She is using the Privileges Committee inquiry as an excuse for inaction.

Someone shoot Dail Jones. He is now asking for all the National MPs on the Privileges Committee to be thrown off it. Clark is almost agreeing. No-one can say National is going soft – that is for sure!

Wilson is doing better today I have to say.

Okay onto the next question. Who cares. General Debate will be fun.

Maurice Williamson on Agenda yesterday confirmed that National would look to speed up construction of new roads with private-public partnerships and tolls.

The party’s transport spokesman, Maurice Williamson, said yesterday that commuters could face bills of up to $50 a week for tolls of $3 to $5 a trip on new motorways or similar “roads of national importance”.

But he believed that most people, if given a choice between tolls or queuing on free roads, would gladly pay.

Also free roads are not free. They are just funded through petrol tax. I think it is vitally important that users of roads pay for them, and tolls are better at doing that, plus will allow for some roads to happen, which would not have happened otherwise.

He believed an obstacle to public acceptance of tolls had been removed by a new law requiring all money raised from fuel taxes to be paid into the national land transport fund.

“I think New Zealanders will now say, ‘Well okay, if it is going to provide a solution to a problem I face and you are not stealing my petrol tax, well then I’ll go for it’.”

Another policy Labour stole from National!

Transport Minister Annette King accused Mr Williamson of not thinking his toll plans through properly.

She said that even if the $365 million Albany-to-Puhoi toll road, to open early next year, had “maximised” use, a $2 toll would still pay only half its cost.

So what? Half is better than none.

But she said the Labour-led Government believed strongly there was a place for PPPs.

But I thought they were evil privatisations in drag?

Mr Williamson listed these possible candidates for tolls:

• Auckland’s next crossing of the Waitemata Harbour (expected to cost at least $4 billion).
• Auckland’s motorway tunnels through Waterview on the western ring route ($1.9 billion).
• A 19km motorway extension to Warkworth or beyond ($1 billion-plus).
• Completion of the Waikato Expressway on State Highway 1 ($1 billion).
• Kopu Bridge, on the way to Coromandel Peninsula ($32 million).

Don’t forget Transmission Gully!

Claire Trevett takes a look at Annette King – it’s a good balance piece:

It has been a month of rare public relations blunders for King, whose portfolios are critical in an election year in which law and order and rising living costs will be the main acts on the voters’ playbill. …

Her handling of the Electoral Finance Act has also lacked the robust counter-attacks she makes on National over law and order issues.

To be fair to Annette it is a pig of a law to have to defend. However her law of common sense quote will haunt her for ages.

King has assiduously built links with those in the mid and back benches and developed a strongly loyal following.

When Shane Jones needed a makeover, it was “Aunty Annette” who told him to have a shave and get a new suit.

Darren Hughes is another acolyte and her willingness to talk MPs through both portfolio and constituency problems has ensured few, if any, dislike her.

King is loyal to Helen Clark and is one of the first called to the Prime Minister’s office in times of trouble. But she is not so close as to have alienated those who may feel aggrieved at being overlooked for promotion in favour of other Clark favourites.

Come the time Clark decides to go, or caucus decides it for her, it is likely to be King to whom many turn for guidance and to nurse the party through its transition phase without turning into a scene from Lord of the Flies.

Her influence will also be a potent force should she decide to harness it in favour of any individual contender for the leadership.

She is unlikely to want the top job herself. Nor, despite her competence, is she suited for it.

Viciously defensive over her personal life, she will not want the scrutiny that comes with the job.

She resists media throngs, and while she can bang heads with the best of them in debates over general policies in Parliament, her disposition makes her unsuited to spear-head pointed attacks.

The most she can drum up against Bill English – even at his most irritating – is “Mr Nasty”.

But when sniffing the wind to see to whom Labour will look for a future leader, it would pay to check whose barbecues Annette King is going to.

It is true Annette has no real enemies in Labour. And even in National she is not regarded badly. They enjoy denting her reputation – but she doesn’t exude the smugness and arrogance of some of her colleagues which turns it from professional to personal.

I love the description of Darren Hughes as her acolyte. What a great term. Mind you Darren has the amazining ability to be everyone’s acolyte – almost uniquely he is warmly regarded by Clark and Goff. If Labour go into opposition it would be worth watching Darren as well as Annette for their moves.

The ODT looks at who will be the new leaders for Labour:

However, within Labour circles the speculation has started on likely replacements. …

But if Labour loses and the election result is close, party sources believe Trade Minister Phil Goff is the principal candidate for the job.

He is seen as a safe replacement who would not shift Labour markedly away from its centre-left position.

Goff is centre-left but more centre than left. He would be far more in touch with the electorate and less likely to make massive blunders such as Clark’s positioning over Section 59.

Police Minister Annette King is seen as the logical deputy leader for Mr Goff, to give the party a gender balance and an Auckland-Wellington split.

Gender balance will be important for Labour. I am not sure King is looking to spend another nine years in politics though. Also her star has dipped this year.

If the polls hold up, Labour could lose up to 18 MPs, including electorate members.

If the defeat is not too broad, Mr Goff will be challenged by Health Minister David Cunliffe and Labour Minister Trevor Mallard.

The conventional wisdom is Cunliffe will stand against Goff. I can’t see Mallard being a contender after his demotion last year.

Both would bring with them an image problem.

Mr Cunliffe was identified early in his career as a potential leader, but has earned the disdain of some colleagues for his “superior” attitude.

However if he has Helen’s backing against Goff, I would not count him out.

A decimation of Labour will see other candidates chancing their arm in the belief that it will take Labour six years, or two terms, to win office.

Energy Minister David Parker and Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove will mount challenges.

Neither is particularly popular with colleagues, and Mr Cosgrove will be a fiercer competitor than Mr Parker.

Parker for Leader? I’m sorry but my first reaction is has the ODT gone mad? But then I realised no they are just parochial and feel the need to include a local person in the speculation.

Mr Cosgrove has been a member of the party since he was 14, and is a protege of former prime minister Mike Moore.

Which is about as helpful in Labour as being endorsed by Dick Cheney is in the US.

Mr Parker is seen more in the mould of former prime minister Sir Wallace (Bill) Rowling, and would offer a leadership style out of step with modern politics.

Hmmn, the ODT has a point. Parker is a lot like Rowling.

Also in the mix at this level will be Building and Construction Minister Shane Jones, a Maori MP of whom was expected great things.

He is said to be “hugely bright” but pompous and obviously ambitious.

I think they have the hugely before the wrong word

My genuine best advice for Labour after the election would be Goff Leader, Cunliffe as Finance and Street as Deputy.

Hat Tip: Homepaddock (which is now a daily read)

Tomorrow will be a nad news day for the Government with 1,000 or more truckies planning to protest against the increase in road user charges announced by Annette King on Monday.

It will be the first ever national protest by the trucking industry.

The issue is not so much the 7.5% increase per se, but the fact it was imposed with no warning period.

What I find interesting is the increasing trend for groups to be more assertive against the Government, as they calculate the probability of a change is likely, so the fear of retribution is reduced. We see school principals going to Close Up as another example. Something which would never have happened I suspect in earlier years. The same thing happened in 1999.

Congratulations to Annette King for successfully stealing National’s policy to allow the Police to issue instant domestic orders to protect family members,

The current system of protection orders is highly ineffective and far far too many people die or are beaten at the hands of their partners. Reform is long overdue.

One of the opponents of the Electoral Finance Act died yesterday – Grey Power President Graham Stairmand. My condolences to those who knew him – I had not had the pleasure.

On the same day a dedicated group of around 40 anti EFA protesters led by John Boscawen protested outside the venue for Helen Clark’s post-budget speech. Not PC has photos.

Neither of these are reasons why the EFA should be repealed. The ultimate proof of the stupidity and far reaching effects of the Electoral Finance Act comes in this story by Audrey Young.

All references to a “Labour-led Government” were deleted from the Government’s press releases on the Budget for fear of breaching the Electoral Finance Act.

People laughed and jeered at me when I said that the law was so bad it even included press releases, but it does. It is the height of stupidity that one can not even refer to the name of the major party in power in a press release.

Labour should just admit they fucked up, and it is a stupid law. It is probably going to stop their biggest ally from running the campaign they want, and it stops them even mentioning their party’s name in press releases.

“We were advised that the use of the term ‘Labour-led’ in the Government releases could be seen as coming under the Electoral Finance Act and obviously that would not be appropriate because they were Government publications, not Labour Party publications.”

That is a quote from Michael Cullen. Bet he would like to give Mark Burton and Annette King the bash.

It believed the term could be seen as promoting Labour and could therefore meet the new definition of election advertisement under the act.

That would have meant that the material should have been authorised by Labour’s general secretary and financial agent, Mike Smith, and possible prosecution of the Secretary of Treasury, John Whitehead, because Government departments are banned from publishing election advertisements.

Indeed.

Dr Cullen’s own Budget speech contained the term twice but he said he had received advice that because it was a speech in Parliament, parliamentary privilege applied.

It gets even more insane. If it were not for parliamentary privilege, then speeches in Parliament might be illegal election advertisements.

I’m serious. It is time to repeal the law. If it is not repealed before the election there will be court cases galore. Electorate MPs will be fighting off electoral petitions for months and months. By-elections may change the result of the election.

Some may claim that no one thought the law would end up being this far reaching. That is not true. There were warnings and warnings. Submissions were made. Protests were organised. It was all predictable. The Government even gave up trying to defend it and retreated behind their “law of common sense”.

Someone should go ask Annette King how common sense required budget press releases to not mention the name of the major party in Government. You can mention it in 2009 and 2010 but not in 2008 or 2011 as they are election years. You could not get more absurd.

If they will not repeal the law, a compromise would be to return the regulated period to 90 days. This would allow MPs to actually mention the name of their party in press releases for most of the year!

Just to show that there is no shame, have a look at how Labour Ministers both claimed wrongly a National MP had said something he had not, but then how nasty they get, and how the Speaker protects them. From yesterday:

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What changed between the time when David Cunliffe, the then Minister of Immigration, was briefed, as he now alleges, on completion of the Oughton inquiry in July of last year, and when he himself was fully briefed in December last year on the Oughton report—what changed between then and April this year, when the Oughton report was exposed to public scrutiny, other than the fact that the cover-up was over?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: In order to assist the member, I tell him that the previous Minister was not briefed in December. I was the Minister at that time.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I said you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No, the member said “the Minister at the time”, and “the previous Minister”.

Now have a look at the Hansard.  Lockwood clearly refers to David Cunliffe as per-December and Cosgrove as the Minister in December as he says “he himself” in the question to Cosgrove. Cosgrove is clearly wrong with his insistance Lockwood had it wrong.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’re wrong.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I think we may need stretcher-bearers for one particular member. This is a serious issue, and should be dealt with in a serious way. We may need stretcher-bearers for the other Dr Smith. Can I say—

Now again remember Cosgrove is in the wrong here, and Nick Smith is correct in backing up Lockwood. So what does Cosgrove do – resort to the normal smear they use against Nick.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: There is a point of order; it will be heard in silence.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister, in reciting my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s question, was mistaken in his restating of the course of events. In response to an interjection from me saying that he was wrong, I was then subjected to personal abuse. I think it would be helpful if Dr Smith re-asked his question—in which his dating and timing were correct—because it seems that the Minister was confused about the question that my colleague Dr Smith was asking.

Nick doesn’t respond to the taunt, but just makes the point that the Ministers were mistaken so the question should be re-asked, so the Minister addresses the correct question.

Hon David Parker: I, as well as Minister Clayton Cosgrove, listened carefully to the question, and I am clear that the question that was asked included the imputation that the Minister was the prior Minister, not the current Minister, and that is the point to which Mr Cosgrove was responding.

David Parker jumps in, and also has it clearly wrong, as the Hansard shows.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank members for their interventions. I think if members would keep the noise down, it would be easier to hear. As I have said, interjections do occasion responses. Would the Minister please just respond to the question as succinctly as possible.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would appear that confusion has arisen around my question. It was very clear. I would be very happy to repeat it to avoid that confusion.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think we should take it in the order it was. I am happy to look at the Hansard. I heard it also in the way that, I am afraid, others did. The member, obviously, feels that he did ask another question. As I said, I am happy to go and look at it later. Could we have a succinct answer to the question, and there is always an opportunity to ask another question—there are still supplementary questions available.

And now the Speaker also gets it wrong, and even worse won’t let Lockwood re-ask the question, despite the fact clearly the Ministers misheard what he said.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are on question No. 8 and we have had Dr Nick Smith running interference on every question across the House. He is not asking questions; he is just interjecting and yelling out personal comments. I think we have just about had enough today, and I ask you to require him not to continue going on in that fashion.

Annette seems to have missed the log in her own colleague’s eyes.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, I think that today comments have been made from all sides of the House. Obviously, it does create disorder, and it has. Members have noted the comments that have been made from all sides of the House on this matter. Could I please ask the Minister to succinctly address the question, and then we will ask Dr Smith to ask the question again. Thank you.

And then the Speaker totally confused says Cosgove will answer/address the question, and then have it re-asked!!! And then it isn’t!

Labour have been warned many times over their repeated goes at Nick with references to taking pills, and now out on a stretcher. That is bad enough at any time, but Labour may wish to consider the old saying that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

John Armstrong notes that Labour were talking humility at their weekend conference. He has a challenge though:

The real test, however, of whether this new humility is anything more than cosmetic is whether Labour is willing to ‘fess up to the complete and utter shambles that goes under the name of the Electoral Finance Act.

It would be hard to find another piece of legislation where Labour has not only got it so wrong, but also looked so arrogant in refusing to admit it.

Designed to stymie National booking an election-year splurge of advertising, the law has turned into the political equivalent of Frankenstein’s monster, paralysing parties’ communication with voters in ways that even the law’s biggest critics did not envisage.

Ahem, cough. With modesty I point out my blog post of 3 December 2007 where I said:

Now combined with the extension of the regulated period to all of election year, it means that anything an MP spends on publicity next year *may* be able to be counted as party or candidate expenditure under the Act, even if approved by the Parliamentary Service.  It will have to be seen as encouraging or persuading people to vote, but that is not always clear cut as we saw with the pledge card.

So MPs had better be very careful with spending their $65,000 parliamentary budget.  If $5,000 of that $65,000 they spend ends up classified as election advertising, and they have spent $16,000 directly on the campaign, then bang they have overspent and they are out of Parliament.

Every letter, every advert, every newsletter will be scrutinised for electioneering.  There could be multiple election petitions to get rulings on what is or is not an election advertisement and does it qualify for the parliamentary purposes exemption. Where onece you could avoid this uncertainity by just not spending any of your parliamentary budget on advertising in the last 90 days, now you will have to second guess all your expenditure all year long.

Armstrong continues:

Labour’s arrogance has started to wilt as it has become more and more difficult to ignore or explain away the ever-rising number of glaring faults and inconsistencies emerging in the legislation.

It is noticeable Labour is no longer defending the measure with any vigour or enthusiasm. It has instead resorted to hurling petty insults at Bill English for relentlessly highlighting the fact that the act is unworkable.

Yeah, eight years of hard work by Annette King to give herself one of the best reputations for competence, has disappeared in a few short months.

Armstrong concludes:

As much as can be ascertained, Labour is contemplating grasping this nettle one way or the other. When tackled on the subject, the Prime Minister has been choosing her words very carefully. She has ruled nothing in. But neither has she ruled anything out. Watch this space.

The only amendment Labour will be interested is is one which allows them to spend taxpayer money on advertising without restriction. But hey they can introduce such a law change, but I sure as hell look forward to select committee submission on it.

The Herald quotes Labour Party President Mike Williams:

Labour President Mike Williams is calling on the Electoral Commission to abandon its policy of not pre-approving party election advertisements to avoid confusion over what will or will not count.

Mike, Mike, Mike. There’s no need. Just apply the law of common sense as Annette King declared.

And Mike, have you thought that the reason the electoral authorities have not been so willing to declare what is permitted under the Electoral Finance Act is because even they have no fucking idea what parts of it mean?

Did it not even trigger a moment of concern Mike, when the CEO of the Electoral Commission took the unprecedented step of going on National Radio to publicly state how the then proposed law was unclear and confusing?

Did you not even pause for a second to consider that having Annette “common sense” King get up and declare one day what her view of “parliamentary purpose” is, and then the next day say how she got it wrong and you should just listen to what all the MPs views are in Hansard, might just possibly introduce some uncertainty in the law?

And Mike most of well why should the electoral authorities tell you in advance their view of material, when the last time they did it, your party lied to them, ignored them, broke the law and then attacked the electoral authorities as having got it wrong?

The Dom Post editorial is to the point:

There are ominous signs that Labour has learned little from the pledge card debacle of 2005 and will adopt the same shameful approach to the use of public money for its campaigns in 2008, The Dominion Post writes.

Not quite true. They have learnt to change the law so there is less chance they will get caught.

Its defence of its breach of the Electoral Finance Act over a booklet pubished using public money hints at a smoke and mirrors exercise to skip round the legislation it pushed through last year with the stated aim of cleaning up the electoral process and make everything above board.

And there is a lot of interest over how much money went on that booklet. I am hearing well into six figures. The big question is whether that election advertisement also counts as an election expense or does it qualify for the special Labour inserted exemption of being for parliamentary purposes.

It is a dangerous game and Labour MPs and party bosses should be left in no doubt that legal jiggery-pokery will be seen for what it is – yet another attempt to push the law to the very limit, and achieve more state funding of political parties by stealth.

Indeed, that was the purpose of the Electoral Finance Act and the Validating Act. To make legal their previously illegal expenditure funded by the taxpayer.

Labour has already misled the public over questions of political funding and embarrassed itself in the process after party president Mike Williams failed to mention a $100,000 loan from millionaire Owen Glenn.

And let us not forget the mystery of the NZ First donation – there one moment, gone the next.

Now it has distinguished itself by being the first to be named as breaching the Electoral Finance Act, though it will not be prosecuted, with the Electoral Commission unsurprisingly deciding that the booklet, We’re Making a Difference, is election material, designed to encourage people to vote in a particular way and needed to follow the rules for that and carry an authorisation from the party’s financial agent, along with that person’s home address.

Indeed.

More worrying, though, are the comments Finance Minister Michael Cullen made in Parliament in response to questions over the breach.

Dr Cullen explained that two pieces of legislation covered the spending on the booklet – the Electoral Finance Act that everybody outside Parliament must work under, and the Parliamentary Service Act, which gives MPs virtually open slather when it comes to spending the public’s money on their re-election, after they rewrote the law rather than accept Auditor-General Kevin Brady’s findings that they had been spending money on campaigning illegally.

Dr Cullen told Parliament that while the Electoral Commission determines what is election spending, “matters that are properly authorised as being for parliamentary purposes do not count as election advertising for the returns of expenses”, adding that “parliamentary purposes “cover a wide range of activities by members of Parliament”.

This is what Labour wanted the law to say. But they knew the backlash would be too great if they explicitly said “Anything with the crest on it is exempt” so they stuck in a parliamentary purposes exemption without defining what it means, with the highlight being Annette King recanting on her own definition after she realised it would rule out material such as their pledge card and the election booklet that was complained about.

The implication is clear. It means, as National deputy leader Bill English said in Parliament, that the Electoral Finance Act has been made a mockery of, and that “alongside the election expenses that are tightly monitored there is now a large slush fund of millions of dollars that political parties can spend in an election year”.

That is what Labour wants. But the law on this issue is yet to be decided. No one really knows what this parliamentary purposes exemption will mean.

That is simply unacceptable, and if Labour persists will rightly be seen as cynically manipulating the loopholes of a system it set up in the first place.

The loophole is deliberate.  We saw that with Annette King’s reversal of her own definition.

NZPA reports on a flaying Bill English gave Annette King in the House yesterday over breaches of the Electoral Finance Act – they’re all being done by the three main parties which voted for it.

Keeping Stock has the exchange from Hansard – go read the whole thing.

A further example that Bill didn’t even use was the launch of the Tongan branch of Labour a few days ago.  Huge banners supporting Labour on the TV news, and no authorisation statement on them at all, plus other electoral breaches.

Also very amusing to see Winston trying to help Annette out. Winston, whose was so outraged that the media asked questions over his secret donations to charities (instead of the taxpayer), that he has now directly threatened the media with a review of media ownership laws.

Such a good look to have a senior Minister threaten the media with a change to media ownership laws, because they question him in a way he does not like.

Bill Ralston and Fran O’Sullivan both write in the HoS on the Hawke’s Bay DHB. We’ll let ladies go first, and quote Fran first:

Atkinson believes the inquiry should have addressed other issues that the former board recently uncovered. These include the secret emails between Hausmann and the executive, which Ryall told Parliament showed Hausmann changed tender documents to his advantage. Ryall said both parties withheld these and they came to light only after independent forensic analysis of the back-up tapes.

This also highlights why independent external inquiries with powers to compel evidence are preferable, to inquiries like Ingram and this one which are limited in what they can do.

And now Bill speaks:

When neither you nor your spouse is having an affair it is probably best that you do not write letters and make public statements denying any shagging is going on.

This is political common sense 101, yet former Health Minister Annette King has done exactly that in a breathtaking act of stupidity, neatly adding the missing ingredient of sex to the scandal surrounding the Hawkes Bay District Health Board.

I said much the same. An MP or spouse having or not having affairs is not a matter for the media, but by having written the letter (while Minister of Health), it has meant the issue does hit the public domain.

After the board was controversially sacked by new Health Minister David Cunliffe, King went public, alerting media to the sex rumours. Now, when confronted by reporters with questions about the letter, she accuses the media of being part of a “dirty tricks campaign” and refuses to confirm the letter exists, saying she cannot find it on the ministerial database, avoiding the question of whether she wrote it privately to the board employee.

Heh, I am trying to imagine the look on the face of the Ministerial Secretary if it had been done through the office and entered into the database. First of all how do you classify a letter which threatens someone over alleged affairs by the Minister’s spouse. I doubt it would fit in any of the standard categories!

The report is more interesting for what is not in it than what is. It doesn’t cover whether King should have appointed Hausman; it doesn’t comment on the fact that board staff gave Hausman tender documents ahead of rival bidders; it doesn’t look at Lind’s involvement with the whistleblower or Hausman’s company.

Yes, once again anything like the above was ruled out of the terms of reference.

Perhaps most of all, the report failed to acknowledge that the DHB became a “culture of mistrust and dysfunctional” only after King appointed Hausman.

And it was all predictable.  Appointing a board member against the advice of the Chair flies in the face of good governance. If you are going to do that, you should replace the Chair.

Meanwhile, Cunliffe continues to threaten the sacked board with further investigations of what it may have been up to, King burbles on about a dirty tricks campaign against her and the combined local bodies, and the sacked board prepares for legal action against the Government.

It is a mess that won’t go away until there is a full, transparent, independent inquiry into what happened.

Indeed. And if we don’t get one in 2008, maybe a new Government can order one in 2009?

There is a somewhat bizarre story in the Dominion Post about Annette King allegedly writing a letter to a HB DHB employee regarding rumours her husband was having an affair.

I’m only covering this because it is in the media. A couple of people have made comments in the past on this blog alleging such an affair.  I immediately deleted them, and will do so to any comment on this thread which makes accusations of that nature. I don’t really care if it is true or not and don’t see it as relevant.

What I find bizarre is if a warning letter was written to Jacqueline Parisi, because according to the story she is the one who alerted Ray Lind to the rumours. Now normally one would be grateful if someone informs you of rumours you are having an affair.  So, why would you write a letter to that person? Let alone send it to the CEO to give to the employee.

And if you are Minister of Health at the time, it appears unwise to write to a DHB CEO on a personal issue, asking him to deliver a personal letter to an employee.
I know a couple of high profile people who have had to put up with malicious gossip allegaing affairs with a particular person, and their response is to have their lawyer write a letter to the person spreading the rumour – instead of them personally writing. That is the safer course of action. Or of course not to put anything in writing at all is an option.

By having written a letter while Minister of Health to a DHB CEO and employee, King has given the media the excuse to write about the issue.   The media never need much of an excuse to cover an issue like that – the Brash alleged affair went public based on a report of a discussion at a private Caucus meeting.

Like with Don Brash and Je-Lan, Annette King and Ray Lind have my sympathies for their private life becoming a media issue.  Despite my policy differences with her, I have always regarded Annette King in a positive light, and she was a very likeable opponent in 1996 when I was part of the National campaign team in Rongotai.

But the letter (if it exists – it seems even that is disputed) seems unwise. As I said, it gives the media an excuse to write stories about it.  I do have to say that personally I fail to see the relevance – I can’t see how any of this is relevant to the issues around the Board and conflicts of interest in contracts.

There are numerous stories in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board report.

First the main Herald story by Paula Oliver:

But it is what was missing from the report which will be the subject of ongoing argument.

The review did not canvas questions of whether former Health Minister Annette King should have appointed Mr Hausmann to the board.

The panel decided that topic was out of the scope of its report.

The report also did not delve into allegations that the board’s chief executive Chris Clarke colluded with Mr Hausmann over a contract.

The treatment of the whistleblower who drew attention to the conflict also was not canvassed in the report.

Yep, it all comes down to the terms of reference.  This is how the Ingram Report found Field had done no wrong, yet the Police have laid dozens of charges against him. Ingram was only allowed to look into Field’s actions as a Minister. Likewise this report was not allowed to cover Annette King’s actions or the actions of management.

John Armstrong writes the report vindicates David Cunliffe’s decision to sack the Board:

Health Minister David Cunliffe professes to be satisfied with the damning findings of the independent review of Hawkes Bay’s troubled district health board.

Satisfied? Cunliffe should be satisfied – deliriously so. If his Beehive office were not so cramped he would have been excused performing cartwheels across it.

But he notes:

While Cunliffe can claim to have been vindicated, King, however, cannot claim to have been cleared by the report in terms of the wisdom of appointing Hausmann to the board.

Determining that it was outside the scope of its terms of reference, the panel rejected the board’s request to examine King’s role.

Marty Sharpe in the Dom Post focuses on the former Chair, KevinAtkinson, calling it a whitewash:

Kevin Atkinson, sacked with the rest of the board last month, says the “weasel word” report is a “whitewash in every sense of the word”. He urges the auditor-general to investigate.

But Health Minister David Cunliffe says the report, which criticises the board for failing to meet basic conflict of interest procedures and highlights major rifts with senior management, justifies his decision to sack it.

There certainly was a rift with senior management. But if I was a director and my senior management had been secretly taping conversations, improperly allowing a fellow director preferred access to RFP details, not implementing board decisions etc then I might have a rift also.  Whose fault the rift is, is something that was out of bounds for the report as management were excluded. The Auditor-General is his report on one contract found much to criticise.

NZPA reports today that the Minister denies any political interference with the report, and that there is more information to come out.

Finally the Dom Post editorial says the report misses the big picture:

The report makes no comment on the wisdom of former health minister Annette King appointing Mr Hausmann, the managing director of a company with significant interests in the health sector to the board, no comment on the wisdom of board staff giving Mr Hausmann a tender document ahead of rival bidders for a district health board contract and no comment on the appropriateness of the board’s former chief operating officer Ray Lind, Mrs King’s husband and now an employee of Mr Hausmann’s company, secretly recording a meeting with the whistleblower who first questioned the appropriateness of an e-mail from Mr Hausmann to a staff member.

Mr Wilson says that is because the focus of the review was governance. But given the disquiet created by the sacking of the board just 72 days after it was elected, the existence of a substantially different draft report, the contents of which the National Party has begun dripfeeding in Parliament but which The Dominion Post has been prevented from reporting by lawyers acting on behalf of the director-general of health and Mr Hausmann, and the relatively narrow focus of the inquiry, the report will not be the end of the matter.

The board was clearly remiss in its handling of conflicts of interests. Quite possibly it deserved to be dismissed. But the wider question of whether or not Mr Hausmann should ever have been appointed to the board has not been addressed. Nor has management’s role in the debacle.

The region has been poorly served by the board, board staff and government ministers.The only beneficiaries are the National MPs campaigning to retain the Napier and Tukituki electorates later this year.

Indeed it is far from over. The number of unanswered questions remains high.

After days and weeks of the Minister and Peter Hausmann suggesting that the final MOH report would clear everything up, hey presto it is released today and by avoiding minor little issues such as why someone with such massive conflicts was appointed in the first place, it gives people a tick.

The report is on the MOH website and is a massive 190 pages. The report itself is very fine within its careful terms of reference (and has some very good recommendations).  Things people should note are:

• management’s conduct and performance was excluded.  Now recall there was a near civil war between the governors and management, and only the governors were reviewed.
• The deletion of e-mails is not covered
• The treatment of the whistleblower is excluded
• The taping of conversations by Ray Lind is not covered
• The Minister’s decision to appoint Hausmann is out of bounds
• Any disclosures by Hausmann prior to appointment are not covered

You see it all is like Yes Minister taught us.  Frame the terms of reference correctly and you are guaranteed a report which will not cause problems.  Clark did the same with the Ingram Report.  This casts no aspersions on the report writers, but shows the limitations of the type of inquiry chosen.
Despite that the report by no means “clears” Hausmann. On numerous occassions it states he should have acted differently. But in the end I don’t think Hausmann is the main issue here. Other board members are also slated.

The report makes clear Hausmann had been working with the DHB since 2003 on possible public/private joint ventures. It is exceedingly clear Annette King should never ever have appointed him to the DHB.  With all respect he was probably the most conflicted person in NZ with regard to that particular DHB.  Her decision went on to cause almost all the problems.   If she had left him off the board, his company might today be engaged in a happy partnership with the DHB.

Despite the criticism of Hausmann in the report, I’m prepared to give him some benefit of the doubt and say he did try to do the right thing most of the time.  But his company was so involved with the DHB at so many levels, it was always going to be near impossible – you had DHB managers asking him for advice all the time.  He probably should have been appointed CEO not a DHB member.

If one really needs to point fingers I think DHB management is a place to start. Numerous board decisions were not implemented, and it is the DHB CEO and senior staff who should have been providing the advice to DHB members on handling conflicts. The fact the CEO was tied up in the middle of all the problems made things worse.

Finally the report notes:

As such, the views contained in the draft reports were preliminary views expressed at the time that the drafts were provided. The Panel now considers that a number of these preliminary views were wrong.

That is an extraordinary change for a draft to final report.  I will be very interested in seeing the draft report when it comes out.

And the question once again I would ask if why did Annette King appoint Hausmann?  Officials in MOH and DPMC were concerned.   She did not follow best practice with an interview panel. She ignored the concerns of the current Board Chair. His conflicts were probably bigger than any other person in NZ for that DHB. She claims it is all because she chatted to him at some cocktail function and was impressed by him.

David Fisher puts his investigative skills to good use in the latest issue of The Listener. The article will not be online for a week or so, so I really recommend people interested buy a copy.  Some key points I noted:

• The e-mail between Hausmann and CEO Chris Clarke in January 2006, discussing details of the contract Hausmann was tendering for, was only accessed by Board Administrator Deborah Houston as she was filling in for his PA. Hence there may have been many more e-mails like that.
• King’s appointment of Peter Hausmann was at whim, and while legal (she can appoint anyone she wants) failed to follow best practice by having the potential appointee go before an interview panel.
• The Cabinet Appointments and Honours Committee staff alerted King’s office to the extent of Hausmann’s conflicts of interest
• A senior Ministry of Health staffer wrote a letter describing Hausmann’s appointment as posing a “huge risk”.
• Peter Hausmann asked for an inquiry not just into his own actions, but for a full review of the Board’s performance and governance. The Ministry of Health advised there was no need for this, and that it should be into Hausmann’s conflicts only as they believe “these are prima facie serious matters”.
• Pete Hodgson ignored the Ministry advice, and by making the review so much wider, meant the review took much much longer to complete, which in itself led to greater dysfunction.
• Ray Lind recorded several conversations with staff and board members, without telling them at the time.
• These secret recordings were only discovered when PWC audited the e-mail system and found Lind had e-mailed himself a copy – the e-mail had been deleted but was on the backup tape.
• Hausmann had access to the RFP months before his ten competitors did, and at least one of them complained about the lack of time to respond when it went public
• The e-mails to and from Hausmann regarding the RFP were deleted from the DHB’s e-mail system. This is arguably illegal under the Official Information Act.
• The only backup tape which had the e-mails was May 2005, and of the 12 backup tapes given to PWC, it was the only one damaged.
• DHB Management were severely criticised by the Audit Office for another (Wellcare Education) contract they gave to Hausmann’s company.
• An e-mail from Hausmann, after he was appointed to the Board, was sent to a senior manager extensively advocated on behalf of Wellcare Education, which Hausmann’s company’s owned.

The failings of both King and Hodgson, but also Lind and Clarke seem numerous. Deleted e-mails, official advice ignored, preferential treatment, secret recordings, appointments without interviews, to name a few.

What Annette King has yet to answer is why she appointed Hausmann? She says she just met him and as impressed with him.  But why did she ffail to follow best practice? She says she was not legally obliged to do so.  Fine, we know that.  But the question is why did she not have an interview panel as normal?

And has Pete Hodgson explained why he ignored the advice from Ministry officials who had no political interest in the outcome? Did he talk to King before making that decision? Did he talk to Hausmann, Clarke or Ray Lind?

And why did DHB management not once, but twice, fall over themselves to give preferential treatment to Hausmann?

The Hive has been running a series of posts suggesting Cullen will roll Clark.  I offer no opinion on that probability of that scenario, but they have asked me for my thoughts on who would be the best Deputy to a PM Cullen.

It would have to be a woman, to keep the gender balance happy.  Labour’s rules are full of gender balance requirements. If an electorate turns up to their national conference with more men than women, they get hauled before some sort of Spanish inquisition where they have to justify their lack of gender balance, and if they can’t do so thhey lose most of their voting rights.

Annette King has always been the logical choice, but recent events are damaging her star. And the rumour is that she plans to resign in late 2009 or eary 2010 to bring Andrew Little in through a by-election.

Lianne Dalziel has been a very solid performer, but Deputy would be a stretch. Maryan Street is a possibility one day, but has not been in Cabinet long enough. However if one wanted a dark horse to bet on, it would be Street. Dyson is too polarising, even though she is on top of her portfolios.

The Herald has an item over election material by Labour without authorisation.  Justice Minister Annette King still seems unaware of parts of her own law.  They quote:

Justice Minister Annette King told Parliament the booklet was produced in October and paid for in November, before the Electoral Finance Act took effect on January 1.

It is a well known and long standing principle of electoral that it does not matter when something was produced or when something was paid for.  It is all about when it is used, when it is published or distributed to the public.

 There is a very useful article in the Dom Post with Annette King commenting on her appointment of Peter Hausmann to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board:

Former health minister Annette King is standing by her decision to appoint Peter Hausmann to Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, and says she was not advised against doing so.

That is a peculiar thing to say when it is later reported:

Former board chairman Kevin Atkinson, who was sacked with the rest of the board last week, told The Dominion Post he advised Ms King on two occasions – in person and over the phone – to delay the appointment of Mr Hausmann till the tender process was completed.

and

An internal ministry e-mail from a senior analyst to the ministry’s DHB governance manager, Bruce Anderson, dated August 28, 2005, and obtained under the Official Information Act, identifies the ministry’s concerns.

The ministry advised that Mr Hausmann’s position on the board, even if he did not take part in discussions about the contract, would not address the public’s perception of fairness and might deter other companies from bidding for the tender.

King goes on to say:

Ms King said Mr Hausmann was appointed with the expectation that his conflicts of interests would be managed.

“Most potential board members do have potential conflicts of interest,” she said.

“That is not the issue. It is how they are managed and the disclosure of them.

“If handled at a governance level appropriately, these are not a problem.”

The issue of conflicts of interests is a vital one for DHBs. If they do not manage them well, then you can end up with what happened in Auckland with a massive laboratory testing contract cancelled by the High Court. So this is not a minor issue.

But Annette misses the major point. Yes many DHB members have conflicts of interests – but these are generally the result of DHB elections. Voters tend to vote for anyone with Dr in front of their name. The whole point of the Ministerial appointees is to balance the Board up with people not conflicted. And sure some Ministerial appointees may have minor conflicts but this was the largest possible conflict one could have – heading up a company which would tender for a $50 million contract.

Managing such a conflict is always going to be very very tough, even if everyone behaved perfectly (and there seems to be some evidence they did not). You see it is not just about having the DHB select the best company for the contract, but being able to manage that contract afterwards. If the contractor doesn’t perform as well as expected, it is a awful situation to manage if the contractor’s CEO sits on your own board.

I don’t subscribe any evil ulterior motives to Annette King in her appointment of Hausmann. I just can’t understand why she would have done it. The Board Chair was advising against it (and it is very very rare to appoint a Director against the wishes of a Chair), the Ministry of Health raised issues about it, and she knew he was going to be tendering for a major contract. Why create all these problems which could have been avoided by simply not appointing Hausmann or appointing him to another DHB where he wouldn’t have been conflicted?

Let me put it another way. If Annette King had not insisted on appointing Hausmann, does anyone think the DHB would have ended up sacked as has now happened?

This is not to say Hausmann himself is to blame (I do await the reports with interest though), for he was placed in a position by King where fallout like this was almost inevitable.

UPDATE: Tony Ryall has read in the House from some explosive e-mails, and has also alleged they were not given to the inquiry but recovered by forensic experts in London. I’ll blog the Hansard when it is available.

Bill Ralston thinks National hasn’t done a good enough job with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board sacking, and that what happened there is a bigger scandal than anything to do with Owen Glenn.  He paints a nice succinct picture:

A wee while back, Annette King was Minister of Health. Her husband, Ray Lind, was the chief operating officer of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.

Against the wishes of many on the health board, King appoints Peter Hausmann to the board. Hausmann runs a company called Healthcare New Zealand and many on the board fretted that he, as a supplier to health boards, would have a conflict of interest as a board member. King appointed him anyway.

It is still a mystery to many why King insisted on appointing someone who would be so conflicted.  Was there no one else?

In a very short time, the chairman of the board discovered Hausmann was involved in email discussions over a tender for a multi-million-dollar contract from the board he was a member of.

Which he had promised he would not do.

A woman whistleblower in the board’s administration brings this to the chairman’s attention.

She alleges Annette King’s husband, Ray Lind, as a senior manager put pressure on her because she blew the whistle. She ends up being restructured out of her job and an employment dispute ensues.

And don’t forget the secret taping on conversations. Also do not forget the DHB CEO is a former staffer for Helen Clark.

Meanwhile, Ray Lind quits and goes to work for Hausmann.

And as the inquiry goes on, Hausmann I think tried to bill the Board $500,000 or so for his legal fees.

Flak flies, King is reshuffled out of the portfolio, her successor dithers about sorting out the rolling brawl between the board and its managers over various contracts being awarded, and the people of Hawke’s Bay respond by backing the chairman and his board supporters by resoundingly re-electing them.

Normally the good people of Hawke’s Bay will disagree on whether the week starts on a Saturday or a Monday, plus every other issue known to man.  One should not under-estimate how rare it is to be able to unite every local body in the region against you (for sacking the board).

An inquiry into the murky goings on at the DHB rumbles away while there is yet another cabinet reshuffle and two-gun David Cunliffe takes over the job and refuses to confirm the chairman in his job.

Then, just 72 days after the re-elected board takes office, Cunliffe sacks them. He says the organisation is “dysfunctional” and it has a “rapidly deteriorating” financial situation. Actually, it’s only $7.7 million in the red, within its target range of coming out plus or minus 1 per cent of its revenue. David Cunliffe might not have noticed, but there is not a DHB in the country that hasn’t had financial problems and the Hawke’s Bay board’s problem is minor.

Indeed it is not clear at all why this Board was sacked when there are other boards who deserve sacking more.  There was no intermediate step taken such as a Crown Monitor. And also unknown is how many of the problems were caused by the Government’s own review taking so long to resolve, and the failure to confirm the Chair.

Cunliffe whinged to me that the board had publicly criticised him and the Health Ministry. Diddums. When you are in politics sometimes people have a go at you.

And he had attacked them publicly.  It must be a new rule that criticism can only be made public in one direction.

He accused the board of having a dysfunctional relationship with its management. Hell, if the management had been getting up to half the shenanigans the board alleges, no wonder the place was dysfunctional.

The concept of allowing staff to choose their governors is a new one for me.

Cunliffe added another reason for sacking the board was that hospital clinicians were critical of it. When are doctors ever happy with their DHB? Besides, only two out of 120 clinicians at the DHB have ever publicly had a go at the board and one of those has since quit.

And the local head of the doctor’s union publicly backed the Board Chair.  This is very unusual for a union head.

Sorry, David Cunliffe sacked the democratically elected Hawke’s Bay DHB because it was causing his Government grief and the board was exposing something rotten that began with the disastrous mistakes of Annette King.

One has to ask once again, why appoint someone to a board who you know is about to have a major conflict of interest with that board?

Audrey Young profiles the leader in waiting for Labour, and also looks at the far more interesting issue of who would be Goff’s Deputy.

First she look at if Labour loses:

Being Opposition leader is one of the worst jobs in politics, especially up against a new Government enjoying a honeymoon with the public.

The leader has to have the skills to prevent the defeated party tearing itself apart – and this is where Goff would be weakest – be the toughest opponent to a Government that has just been given a mandate to do what it is doing, and have public appeal.

It is a job for the toughest. Few in Labour ranks could handle it well.

Clark could but there’s no satisfaction in going backwards. Michael Cullen could but he would be yesterday’s man. Annette King could but does not want it. Mallard would have been a rival to Goff had he not played fast and loose with his own reputation.

Lianne Dalziel revels more in backroom work than public profile these days.

Clark would indeed be a formidable Opposition Leader.  But I can’t see her wanting to have that job for long unless someone like Little was in Caucus who given time could beat Goff.  Cullen and King don’t want it.  Mallard does but has struck himself out literally. Maharey has gone and Dalziel’s sacking from Cabinet for lying would be recalled too often.

If Labour wins, the situation is a bit different:

A return to power by Labour at the next election reduces the alternatives.

Clark could then hand over to a new leader (and Prime Minister) before the 2011 election. Again that could still be Goff if none of the new generation have scrubbed up well enough.

But by then Shane Jones, now in his first term, may have acquired some of the necessary communication skills and party political experience necessary to lead Labour.

Indeed if Labour do win again, some alternatives to Goff will have time to prove themselves.

And then the deputies:

The best the next generation could hope for under a Goff leadership would be as deputy.

David Cunliffe has ambition, is handling the front bench well, and has definite public appeal but his perceived arrogance makes him unpopular in his own caucus.

Maryan Street has ability but, with less than one term, very little political experience. However she may have a rapid rise owing to the thinning ranks of capable women in a party where gender balance is important.

Street fighter Clayton Cosgrove would be invaluable to the party in Opposition but does not have broad enough appeal to make it to the top two.

King it seems does not want Leader but maybe could be persuaded to be Deputy. If Cunliffe survives Health I could well see him moving into Finance – but that may be seperate to Deputy. Street has been effective behind the scenes but too early to know if she move into a public leadership role.  She has been Party President though. Jones as Deputy is a possibility also.

Audrey then sums up all the candidates:

THE NEXT LABOUR LEADER

PHIL GOFF
Best bet since Maharey announced he was quitting and Mallard wrestled Henare in the corridors of Parliament.

ANNETTE KING
More respected in the caucus and as able as Goff, but colleagues know better than to ask. She would refuse. She has found love and will do nothing to compromise it.

AND THE NEXT GENERATION…

SHANE JONES
The perfect candidate on paper, expert in Maoritanga and Harvard-educated, but the first-termer is not experienced enough and not steeped in party culture.

DAVID CUNLIFFE
Has won over the public for his strong leadership in health but has still not won over his caucus, who have as little regard for him as they do for his ego. Could be deputy material.

CLAYTON COSGROVE
The Mike Moore acolyte has won respect from the Left of the party for his ability to put differences aside – but not that much respect.

DARREN HUGHES
Clever, witty and able but needs another six years under his belt to shake off the kid-brother image and show his serious side.

MARYAN STREET
A classic modern Labour MP – policy-driven feminist with a strong human rights bent – not as scary as she sounds. Could be an a contender for deputy to Goff.

DAVID PARKER
Bright, methodical, a details man but has too much of an academic approach to the job.

ANDREW LITTLE
Ruled himself out of Parliament next term but could do a Bob Hawke after 2011 if other leadership combinations have failed.