Kiwiblog

Oh dear Helen Clark has done what John Key once did, and accused Audrey of getting it wrong. And Audrey isn’t wrong:

The Prime Minister got it badly wrong on Newstalk ZB this morning.

She said the Herald got its story about Labour’s promise for a job search allowance wrong.

It did not. The allowance will be available only to a person made redundant whose spouse is working. We said that.

It will not be income-tested against the working spouse’s income. We said that. …

The Prime Minister’s office has been unable to state this morning where the Herald got it wrong. …

The Herald did not get it wrong.

The Herald did not take the same angle that some other news outlets did that all people who lose their jobs will get the allowance.

That may have the impression the PM was trying to convey but that is not correct.

So the Herald interfered with the spin. Bad Herald.

NZ Herald Political Editor Audrey Young looks at the attack ad run by Labour against John Key. SHe blogs:

The pictures chosen did get me wondering though. Having chosen such an aggressive photograph of John Key for the first picture in the ad, I wondered whether the Labour leader’s attempt to portray Key in last week’s television debate as aggressive at home was quite the error it appeared to be at the time.

Perhaps it was part of a wider strategy to try to convince the public the John Key you see in public is not the real John Key.

I think Audrey may be onto something here. Clark may well have tailored her comments in the debate to support the theme her attack ads were going to take.

Adam Smith at The Inquiring Mind comments:

… was the Helen Clark attempt to portray Key as some sort of tyrannical figure at home part of a wider strategy as suggested by Ms Young above. Was Helen’s tantrum part of some misbegotten plan? Has Labour embarked on a dirty tricks campaign?

Adam then looks at how after losing the debate Clark accussed Key of losing control and having a tantrum. He concludes:

Perhaps there is something in what Audrey Young is suggesting after all. …

it is fascinating that Audrey Young thinks Clark and Labour fully capable of such a strategy.

Now remind Adam which party is supposed to be employing evil spin doctors. Who is going on about trust all the time?

Personally I have no problem with the TV advert Labour are running. May they keep running it. I do still have a problem with the PM’s suggestion that John Key shouts in anger at his wife and children, and the only thing worse than her saying such a thing in the heat of the moment would be her saying such a thing as part of a deliberate campaign to paint him that way.

The Herald rates the debate. First Audrey Young:

The debate brought out the best in John Key. He looked human, he talked about real people, real redundancies and up against the policy supremo, he more than held his own. She was awful to begin with, talking mainly in theories and statistics. Berating him over the Springbok tour was a mistake.

She was more convincing when talking up her leadership record. She had by far the best campaign launch on Sunday but he wiped the floor on the debate.

Then John Armstrong:

While there was little to separate the pair in a pretty even contest, John Key has to be declared the winner of tonight’s debate. …

In a tight battle, he even scored points at Clark’s expense. She was as rock solid as always, but predictable.

Key will have consolidated support for his party. National’s wobbly election campaign is back on track.

Fran O’Sullivan was the only dissenter:

Gripes aside: Clark scored best on the issue du jour – the international credit crisis. She has a post-election plan. Key doesn’t.

Key was initially ineffectual letting Clark walk over him (shades of Don Brash). He recovered and successfully challenged Clark’s rhetoric on climate change and crime.

Then we have NZPA Political Editor Peter Wilson:

John Key might not have been around politics for long but tonight he matched Helen Clark’s formidable abilities and vast experience as the National and Labour leaders went head to head in the campaign’s first TV debate.

Audrey Young does a Q&A with Rodney Hide. Some extracts:

You have a pledge card of 20 key policies. What are the most important three?

There’s no doubt the economy, no doubt the crime policy – three strikes and you’re out – and no doubt dumping the emissions trading scheme, all of which we differ from National on.

Do you believe in the public health system?

I believe that the state health system has been a failure and that what it does is take our money and then ration health care by queuing us up in pain and agony.

I much prefer that we use the private system and focus the Government’s attention on ensuring that everyone has access.

I believe the Government’s job should be to ensure access, not to be running the hospitals.

Voting is now open in the 2008 Kiwiblog Awards. They close at 3 pm Friday 3 October. You can vote in the sidebar.

The most popular nominations in each category are:

MP of the Year

• Rodney Hide – not even a finalist last year but a popular nominee for his campaign to expose Peters, amongst other things
• Bill English – a repeat nominee – his year of picking apart the EFA was often cited
• Pita Sharples – has become the Maori MP, Pakeha love to love, and helped position the Maori Party as Kingmakers.
• Phil Goff – a China FTA plus a possible United States FTA endears Goff to many readers

Labour MP of the Year

• Phil Goff was nominated by many but disqualified as the 2007 winner
• Michael Cullen cited by many for his mastery of the House
• David Cunliffe also impressed several with his determination to improve the Health sector
• Winston Peters was nominated multiple times in this category, so who are we to stand in the way of the public!

National MP of the Year

• Simon Power had the most nominations, having impressed with his constant highlighting of law & order problems, and also superb Chairmanship of the Privileges Committee.
• John Key is still the country’s Preferred PM
• Bill English was disqualified having won this category last year
• Gerry Brownlee also often nominated for his take no prisoners methods in the House

Minor Party MP of the Year

• Rodney Hide a popular nominee for many
• Pita Sharples had 12 nominations in this category – will it be Minister Sharples in a few weeks?
• Sue Bradford has had a quieter year than 2007 when she was runner up, but still gained some nominations
• Hone Harawira also gained multiple nominations – the once reviled radical has been impressing a few people

Press Gallery of the Journalist

• Audrey Young – Winston still has not apologised to her, but she was a favourite nominee amongst Kiwiblog readers
• Duncan Garner – his “straight talking” doesn’t always win friends in Parliament, but has proven popular with some readers
• Guyon Espiner – cool, clam and collected – the most viewed gallery reporter has some fans
• Colin Espiner – the blogging journalist has many online fans

Public Servant of the Year

• Grant Liddell – the SFO Director was a multiple nominee for doing what was right, regardless of what the Government wanted.
• Owen Glenn – okay not technically a public servant, but many nominated him for having performed a public service.
• Helena Catt – the Electoral Commission CEO wins the sympathy and nominations of many for having to try and work out what the Electoral Finance Act actually means, and for her willingness to criticise the law she has to enforce.

Enjoy voting.

Last week I set up an online survey for MPs, asking them to rate various media organisations and senior gallery journalists on a scale of 0 to 10. Just under one quarter of MPs responded, and the results are shown below.

As the media often rate how well MPs are doing, I thought it appropriate to reverse this and ask the questions in reverse. The media are a hugely powerful filter, and it is appropriate (in my opinion) to have some focus on how well they are perceived to be performing.

The questions were:

1. For each media organisation please give them a rating from 0 to 10 for how well you think they do in their parliamentary reporting. This should take account of all relevant factors – accuracy, fairness, thoroughness, relevance, substance etc.
2. Now for some individual senior members of the press gallery, please rate from 0 to 10 how well you think they perform at proving fair, accurate, unbiased and informative reporting on Parliament. You can skip any that you do not feel able to rate.
3. Finally can you indicate your party grouping as National, Labour or Other. Your individual identity is not sought by us, and we have no way or interest in identifying individual respondents. However we would like to summarise results for all MPs and by the three groupings to see if they vary by party grouping.

It is important that these be read in context, so make the following points:

1. This is the opinion of MPs only. It does not set out to be an objective rating, and should not be seen as such.
2. MPs get reported on by the gallery. While this makes them the group of NZers potentially best able to have an informed opinion on the media (which is why I surveyed them), it also gives them a conflict of interest. MPs may score journalists lowly due to personal run ins with them, or the fact they are too good at their job! This should be borne in mind.
3. I only e-mailed the survey to the 121 MPs, but it is possible that one or more responses was filled in by a staff member who has access to the MPs mailbox. I think this is unlikely, as most staff are very professional. However MPs were not required to prove their identity to vote, as confidentiality of individual responses was important. You need to know the Survey URL to be able to vote.
4. National MPs made up 43% of responses, slightly above their numbers in Parliament. Minor Party MPs were also slightly over-represented, Labour MPs under-represented and some MPs did not give a party identification.

NZ Press Association tops the rankings with a mean or average 6.1 rating – and received no very low ratings from anyone. The two Internet agencies were in the top five, indicating MPs like the fact their releases are carried in full. Trans-Tasman also does well.

Television generally gets ranked lowly with all four stations in the bottom half. Sky News actually ranks highest.

Radio is middle of the field with NewstalkZB being the highest ranked radio broadcaster.

The newspapers range the spectrum. The NZ Herald is up at 5.3, Press at 4.2 and Dom Post at 4.1. I would have them all higher, but this is a survey of MPs, not of my views.

Now the sample sizes are of course very small (but of a limited population) but let us look at how National MPs ranked media compared to all the other MPs:

National MPs ranked the four TV channels much higher than other MPs did. Maybe this is minor parties upset that they do not get on TV much?

Despite the generally accepted lean to the left of Radio NZ, National MPs ranked Radio NZ higher than other MPs did. And while some on the left attack the NZ Herald at favouring National, National MPs actually ranked them lower than other MPs did. The Listener and NBR also get accused of leaning right, but again get ranked lower by National MPs.

The Nat MPs also rated the online media very lowly.

Now the journalists. I decided not to list all members of the press gallery, but only those who are relatively senior, and are more likely to have a reasonable number of MPs have formed opinions about them. Looking back I could have included more.

If any journalist is unhappy about being missed out, happy to include you next year. Now again it is worth remembering these are only the opinions of those MPs who responded to my survey – it is not an objective rating.

John Armstrong tops the ratings, followed by the NZPA Political Editor Peter Wilson. Generally MPs ranked journalists slightly higher than media organisations. As can be seen by the minimum ratings showing, some MPs were very harsh handing out zeroes. Did WInston multiple vote? (Note I have no idea if Winston did vote)

And once again we compare responses between National MPs and other MPs.

Again very interesting. The SST is generally seen as hostile to National, but Ruth Laugeson is ranked much higher by National MPs, than by other MPs. Likewise the Gordon Campbell and Brent Edwards (both left leaning) are ranked higher by National MPs than other MPs.

Also for some reasons National MPs ranked Ian Templeton very lowly. Maybe they don’t like his weekly chats with Clark and Key, ignoring the lesser MPs?

Audrey Young has a very useful blog entry analysing what Winston says now, and what he said before the truth came out.

As readers will know, Winston is outraged because the SFO passed on evidence to the Privleges Committee that proved Peters and Henry lied. In Winston’s world it is outraegous if law enforcement agencies expose his lies.

Audrey notes:

Peters confirmed that the Spencer Trust had reimbursed his lawyer Brian Henry the $40,000 Henry had personally paid for costs awarded against Peters in the Tauranga electoral petition, talking to drive-time host Larry Williams on Friday night:

This is quite crucial because if anyone but Peters paid that $40,000 debt then beyond doubt that had to be declared on the Register of Pecuniary Interests.

”Mr Henry paid the money initially. He was later reimbursed out of the trust account from the Spencer Trust funds. In that sense yes,” Peters said. ”But that was a trust to assist the New Zealand First Party and any actions it might take. What’s wrong with that?”

What is wrong is Winston failed to disclose this. Just as NZ First failed to disclose donations from the Spencer Trust.  This is not a series of one off “mistakes”.

The great service done by the SFO investigation has been to expose the failure of NZ First and Peters personally to disclose funding from the Spencer Trust. And in case anyone really thinks it was all a mistake – consider the fact that these “mistakes” only came to light due to the SFO. Peters did not at any stage move to correct on his own initiative his public statements. He only admits to something once law enforcement agencies pry it out of him.

It means that the information Peters gave in a speech on August 20 to supposedly “clarify” what had been said about the $40,000 at the privileges committee two days earlier was actually not true.

“Mr Henry paid the money [$40,000] to ensure the bill was paid in time – and he was later reimbursed by myself,” Peters told Grey Power in Upper Hutt.

“He checked his records yesterday and found this was indeed the case.”

A clarifying letter was sent to the privileges committee to that effect.

People should be very aware of this point. The lie which has been exposed by the SFO is not about what was said at Privileges Commitee in response to Russel Norman. Most people would accept that you could be mistaken when responding to an unexpected query on the spot.

But what we have here is Peters claiming two days later, in a formal speech, that he had “checked the records” and Peters had reimbursed Henry. And they were so certain of this info, they sent a letter to the Privileges Committee stating this.

Their claim and letter was false. The Prime Minister once again keeps Winston with his baubles of office despite the fact he has been exposed at deliberately deceiving the public and the Privileges Committee. This was no mistake made in the heat of the moment. It was a statement made two days later which they claimed was based on a check of records.

Peters’ admission about the reimbursement also raises questions about whether the $40,000 should have been declared to Parliament in 2007 in the Register of Pecuniary Interests.

There is no question that it should have been.

We now know the Spencer Trust was run by Winstons’ brother, law partner of his brother and a staff member in Winston’s office. And it paid personal bills on behalf of Peters. So Audrey reminds us of this press conference:

Q: Mr Peters are you seriously saying that people are meant to believe that you don’t know what the ST is used for?
A: Yes I do. You know why? Because those are the facts.
Q: We asked your brother yesterday and he wouldn’t answer the question.
A: Well Audrey you should show a bit of knowledge, experience and a bit of commonsense, right? Go and ask him again.
Q: Who should we ask?
A: You’re entitled to ask it all the questions you like.
Q: But you’re not answering them.
A: How can I answer them if I’m not in charge of the trust.
Q: Because you know what that trust is using the money for.
A: Sorry I don’t.
Q: Really?
A: Well I just said no I don’t.

And as you read what are really bare faced lies (unless you think Winston can somehow not know that the Spencer Trust paid a $40,000 debt on his behalf), remember once again that Helen Clark has no problems keeping Peters on.

Audrey also goes back to the original Privileges Committee hearing when Brian Henry lied and insisted he paid for it personally (you would know the difference between paying $40,000 out of your own pocket and temporarily paying $40,000 and getting reimbursed). He obviously did not want to admit the Spencer Trust effectively paid for it, so in response to an incredulous Wayne Mapp:

Mapp: Are you seriously suggesting that you would’ve paid $40,000 in court costs which were against Mr Peters and you advised Mr Peters of that fact, and that Mr Peters would not have understood that that would’ve effectively come out of the $100,000 – well the donations received?

Henry: Mr Mapp, I’m not ‘seriously’ saying it; I am saying it. I’m not suggesting it. I’m telling you exactly what I did…..So don’t slur it – this is what I did. I’d like to finish with Mr Mapp….Mr Mapp I am telling you what I did. So please do not slur it or belittle it by saying ‘Are you seriously suggesting….’ This is actually what I did. You mightn’t like it but that’s what I did.

Such outrage, all faked.

Whale Oil also blogs about further revelations from Spencer Trustee Grant Currie. On radio Currie said that they spent money on behalf of NZ First, after consulting with “someone” who was not a duly elected office holder of NZ First. That someone would be McClay on behalf of Peters I suspect.

You have to wonder if there is a single MP or office holder in NZ First with any spine? The party president didn’t even know of the Spencer Trust. Money meant for NZ First went into the trust, and then spent on behalf of the party bypassing the authority of the NZ First President and Board.

I blogged yesterday on what Winston claims happen. It is fit only as a bedtime story for five year olds, or the Prime Minister.

Today I am going to blog what I think actually happened, and how Winston created this trouble for himself. This is based on the evidence to date, and some guesswork.

He started off only being hypocritical, but in hiding that hypocrisy he eventually told a lie, and then to cover that lie up, he had to tell many many more. Here is my timeline of events:

1. In August 2005 Peters asked for a meeting with Glenn. They met, and then his staffer Roger McClay asked for a donation to NZ First which was declined. It is fascinating that NZ First tried to solicit money from Labour’s largest donor prior to the 2005 election. One can speculate on why they thought this would be productive and whether this indicated they had already decided to back Labour, but that is not germane.
2. In late November 2005 a staffer (probably Roger McClay) approached Glenn again for a donation to the petition. That staffer probably had the discussion with Glenn, that Henry claims he had. They do not want to reveal that it is probably Roger McClay as the thought of Winston not knowing the fundraising details of his own staff is even more unlikely than their other stories.
3. In December 2005 Peters directly solicited a donation for the Tauranga electoral petition, pretty much the way Owen Glenn describes it with a phone call on 5 December, another call after that, and then the 14 December call. All the evidence supports this. The reason Glenn now said yes is because he saw it as helping Labour, and he checked with Mike Williams who said it would not be unhelpful.
4. Peters obviously took the call from Glenn, and then told Henry to send the bank account details.
5. The request to Glenn to keep the donation confidential was important. The NZ First brand was built on anti big business donations, and accepting $100,000 for legal expenses would weaken their brand.
6. If Glenn had said yes to the original request to donate to NZ First, then that would have been paid to the Spencer Trust I am sure. It was vital that the public never know of the funding from big business. Peters and Henry had constructed things very carefully so they could avoid disclosure (arguably) legally. At this stage nothing has been done wrong, save the hypocrisy and maybe the failure to disclose on the Register of Interests (the way they structured it gives them an arguable case though).
7. Then on 15 February 2008, Owen Glenn revealed he had donated to another political party (which is how he saw it). That got some minor interest in the media as to which other party.
8. Even worse on 19 February 2008 he revealed he was in line to become Honorary Consul to Monaco, that Helen had already approved it, and he was just waiting for Winston to “get off his arse and do the paperwork”.
9. At this point Peters would have realised it would be a bad look if the public realised Glenn had donated $100,000 to benefit Peters, and he was under consideration for Consul. Plus it undermines their no big donor brand. So he would be worried. But as long as Glenn kept the confidence it was al okay. Only Peters and Henry (and maybe McClay) knew of the donation. The media could guess but could not prove.
10. But then disaster struck in the form of Dail Jones on 20 February 2008. He revealed to the media that there had been a large mystery donation to NZ First in December 2007 and that it was closer to $100,000 than $10,000. Owen Glenn also refused to rule out donating to NZ First, saying through his PR firm that people should speak to the party. This created huge media interest.
11. Now people (including me) started adding 2+2 together to get 5, and thought the December 2007 donation was from Owen Glenn. Peters furiously denied it. Peters was right ironically.
12. Peters was furious as the allegation was wrong. There were two secret donations – not one. And Dail Jones had accidentally come close to exposing both of them. The allegation that the Nov 2007 donation was from Owen Glenn was wrong, but to prove it wrong would have meant revealing the Spencer Trust. No wonder he was furious at Jones (to be fair to Jones he just told the truth and if you run a secret trust without your Party President in the loop, you run the risk he may blunder into it)
13. Now again at this stage no lies had been told. It was all hypocritical but Peters denials had been correct.
14. The next day Helen talks to Owen Glenn and he informs her of the donation. She rings Peters and he denies it to her. Now probably in Peters’ mind he did not lie, only deceive. He would have been careful to use language which ruled out a donation to the party or to him, but not to his legal fees.
15. The fact he doesn’t contact Glenn to ask what this is about, is incidentially proof he obviously knew. If he did not know, he would have asked. Now again at this stage no major lie, just some deception.
16. On 24 February he does another half lie denying there was any mystery donation at all. In fact there was – from the Spencer Trust. Peters probably justifies this because the Spencer Trust is not a mystery to him, and he knows the $80,000 was made up of individual Vela cheques of $10,000 into the trust, so in his mind there was no big anonymous donation.
17. On 28 February 2008 we have the infamous “No” press conference. In hindsight this was a fatal mistake. By going so over the top, he cut off his wriggle room for later. He thought he was on safe ground denying Owen Glenn donated to NZ First, but he also said No to Guyon Espiner saying “Can I just clarify with you. Are you saying you have never received one dollar from Owen Glenn or any associate of Owen Glenn” and that was right on the edge of being a lie. The trouble with having a big No prop, is you can’t suddenly stop using it, so he waved the No sign again. A big mistake.
18. Now at this stage Peters has not told a fully formed lie – many half lies, but he looks to have got away with his denials as no one asked exactly the right question. Again it is because Peters knew exactly what the donation was about, that he could so carefully deny it.
19. Then in July 2008 someone leaked to Audrey Young the e-mails between Owen Glenn and Steve Fisher where Glenn says “Steve – are you saying I should deny giving a donation to NZ First?? When I did?”. She published these on 12 July 2008.
20. Peters responds that Glenn did not donate to NZ First. This is technically true. Glenn referred to NZ First when he should have said Winston’s legal bills. Winston is a great nit picker and puts huge reliance on the difference. At this stage again no outright lie from Peters.
21. But he again becomes his own worst enemy when on 14 July he attacks the NZ Herald can calls on Tim Murphy and Audrey Young to resign. He offers them a look at the party books. He does this because he knew the donation went into Brian Henry’s account. But he is most unfair in attacking the Herald. He knows that email is from Owen Glenn, and they reported it in good faith. It is not the Herald’s fault that Glenn used loose language around his donation. His attack is over the top and Peters at his worst. It is one thing to deny the accuracy of the e-mail by playing semantic games, but it is another thing to try and take the moral high ground as Peters did.
22. On the 16th of July he again reassures Clark again there has been no donation to NZ First. Still not lying (but certainly deceiving) as the donation was to his legal fees.
23. Around this time Peters and Henry would be terrified that Glenn will eventually speak to a journalist and reveal details of his donation.  The Herald also prints a further leaked letter from Glenn to Peters and they must wonder what else is still to emerge. I have little doubt phone records will show them in constant communication that week. So they decide to pre-empt it by announcing it on 18 July 2008.
24. That day Peters’ mother dies. I do not think so badly of them that they choose to announce it that day because of her death. I think they had already decided on that day (Peters had been overseas and they wanted to do it when he was back in NZ) and decided to carry on, even after she died. That’s still pretty low though. With the NZF conference starting the next day they needed to get it out of the way.
25. Peters and Henry had a big big choice ahead of them. Do they reveal that Peters knew of the donation? They could argue that he had never denied a donation to his legal fees. Technically he had never lied until then – only deceived. But Peters would know that having waved that no sign around at the press conference and called on the Herald staff to resign and apologise, he would get somewhat crucified if he revealed he was playing at semantics and he did know of a donation – but it was to his legal fees, not him or his party (as he saw it). Ironically in hindsight that would have been the path of less pain.
26. So they made a fatal mistake. They told a bare faced lie. They both did. On 18 July 2008 they announced that Brian Henry only informed him of this at 5 pm that day. Peters explictly said that up until then he had been “unaware of the source of any of the donations for legal expenses”. That was the start of the end. Up until then they were only half lies, or deceptions (in politics there is a difference).
27. They had to ten resort to further lies, to back up the big lie. How did Henry get in touch with Owen Glenn?  On 20 July they claimed a tip off from someone whose name Henry could not recall, but was not Peters or Mike Williams. Another deception which turned into a lie. They probably mean McClay, and he probably was involved at first but as the e-mails and phone calls prove Peters was in the loop the whole time. It was not a case of McClay or Peters knowing – they both did.
28. Incidentially on 21 July the Vela donations came to light, but that is a story for another day.
29. Peters lied again on 25 July when he said in a written statement “The Glenn contribution went to my barrister Brian Henry. As soon as I learned of it I informed the Prime Minister and alerted the media.” Once you tell one lie, you have to keep lying.
30. Peters and Henry both lied again to the Privileges Committee on 19 August 2008, saying again he never knew of the donation. Note neither of them gave testimony under oath, so they can not be done for perjury.
31. Henry also claimed on 19 August “I phoned Owen Glenn and he forwarded $100,000 which was paid to me on account of my fees”. This has been proven false. Glenn phoned Peters.
32. Owen Glenn’s letter was published on 26 August 2008, along with one from Peters’ respomding to it. Peters again lies repeating that he had no knowledge of any donation.
33. On 28 August Helen Clark reveals she knew back in February 2008 of the donation, from Owen Glenn.
34. On 4 September another Glenn letter is published. He details the phone call and e-mail. Peter Williams tables a statement claiming Brian Henry spoke to Owen Glenn on two occassions.
35. On 9 September Glenn testifies and provides proof of the phone call from him to Peters and the e-mail seven minutes later from Brian Henry.
36. On 10 September, Peters testifies again. Peters admits to conversation with Glenn but denies money discussed.
37. On 16 September Henry testified again. He admits that the client in the e-mail was Peters but still insists somehow Peters never knew of the donation. Phone records also prove Peters called Henry straight after the Glenn phone call.

I am pretty confident that this is close to what happened. It explains everything. Peters at first did not lie but he then realised he had gone too far in playing semantic games with the media to reveal he knew of a donation to his lawyer. So on 18 July he told a lie. And that one lie on 18 July led to dozens and dozens more lies as they tried to concoct a story about how Glenn could have donated without Peters knowing. I suspect they also exchanged conversations with McClay for conversations with Henry.

The moral of the story is the same as for Richard Nixon – it is the cover-up that gets you in the end!

As amazingly it looks like Helen may not sack Peters at all now, three journalists have their say. First Audrey Young compares the testimonies:

There is one piece of evidence that could possibly salvage Peters and Henry and that is a record of a phone call, if one existed, from Henry to Glenn in the last three months of 2005.

It would not be hard for Henry to authorise his phone company to release that to the committee in order to save his “blood brother” and himself.

Any half decent lawyer would have produced this weeks ago. Actual evidence, as oppossed to conspiracy theories, are what is needed. If such evidence is produced, I suggest the Privileges Committee should ask the phone company in question to authenticate the evidence.

Doubtless there are some holes in the testimony of both Glenn and Peters but on the whole, you could drive a Tonka toy through Glenn’s and a Mack through Peters’.

Nicely put.

Peters suggested that just because some people at a lunch at the Karaka sales did not hear Peters thank Glenn for his donation, then he couldn’t have thanked him.

Or that because Peters has good manners (well, especially where wealthy folk are concerned) if he had known about the donation he would have thanked Glenn for it.

Yep, that was his serious argument. That he would have thanked Owen earlier than Karaka if he knew of the donation. This is why I compared it to a five year old.

Once Clark reads the transcript of the hearing, she will see that Peters does not really have a defence.

Or just read the NZPA story on how he gave three different explanations during the one session.

Colin Espiner blogs:

The difference between his testimony before the committee and that of Owen Glenn was stark. Glenn relied on facts – emails, phone logs, sworn statements from witnesses. He went through his evidence carefully and methodically. He answered questions directly, without embellishment. There was no exaggeration. He stuck to his story. He was a very credible witness.

Peters, on the other hand, led the committee a merry dance. He disputed virtually every point of Glenn’s evidence, but with nothing besides his own self-described faulty memory to back up his evidence. There were no phone logs, no emails, and only a statement from his own lawyer in his defence – and even that appeared to contradict Peters’ evidence to the committee.

On television later that night, Peters looked half-way believable in the short clips that were shown. But to sit there and watch him desperately try to explain why his lawyer Brian Henry had emailed Glenn with his bank account details just minutes after Peters had finished speaking to the billionaire was to witness a drowning man gasping for air.

He floundered, he splashed, he spluttered. But in the end Peters simply couldn’t find any credible explanation for Glenn’s hard evidence. The best he could come up with was that he might have told Henry to email Glenn, at Glenn’s request, but he had no idea why or what for and didn’t think it proper to ask.

Frankly, if the committee members believe that then they also believe in the tooth fairy.

Yet Helen still clings on to Winston.

And Bill Ralston:

He admits having a phone conversation with Glenn but cannot recall if money was discussed. In fact he thinks they didn’t discuss money. What then did they talk about? He cannot recall.

Within minutes of that phone call Brian Henry, on the advice of his “client”, emailed Glenn with bank account details for the money to be paid. Peters has no idea whom the “client” might be that Henry refers to and no idea why Henry might be sending bank account details to Glenn.

This is just nuts. Compared with the clear concise testimony given by Glenn to the committee, backed by physical evidence, Winston Peters’ statements lack any credibility and he produced no physical evidence to rebut Glenn.

Nuts indeed.

It makes Richard Nixon look like the model of integrity and truth.

Both Audrey Young and Colin Espiner blogged yesterday on Winston Peters. I’ll start with Audrey:

It has become a lot clearer now as to why the Labour spin machine has been in overdrive for months over Owen Glenn’s character – and it has been awful.

Note how Audrey says Labour has been denigrating Glenn, their largest donor, for months.

They were worried about what he would say about them, not just Winston Peters.

And he has said it – that he consulted Mike Williams before ringing Peters on December 14 to agree to give him $100,000 for the Tauranga electoral petition.

And more importantly that he told Helen Clark back in February that he had given Peters $100,000 for Peters’ legal fees. He reiterated that point at a press conference this morning at the Hilton Hotel in Auckland.

And the records back Glenn. He had brunch with Mike Williams and phoned Winston at 11.30 am Sydney time. It would have been mere minutes after Williams had left, if he had left. Glenn says there is no way he would have donated without Labour’s okay, which he got from Mike Williams.

Williams’ reputation has already suffered badly from the Labour Party conference episode – he denied having endorsed the distribution of Government literature when a tape recording proved he had actually said it was “a damned good idea”.

He lied about something he said in front of 500 people, so indeed his denials in this case have to be judged in that context.

Labour has been saying for ages it would be terrific if Owen Glenn appeared in person before the privileges committee because people could assess for themselves his credibility – or lack of it; how easily confused he gets.

Having heard him at privileges, seen him on Campbell Live, heard him being interview by Kathryn Ryan on Nine to Noon and heard parts of the press conference at the Hilton today, it is hard to fault his credibility.

Michael Cullen tripped him up over one of the paragraphs of his testimony – the matter of whether he had called Winston or Winston had called him in early December.

But Glenn has been cogent, coherent, sane, sharp, in command of his senses and memory and very colourful.

Indeed. And he has factual evidence that supports his version of events – a version that has never significantly altered.

It is hard to imagine how Peters and Brian Henry can counter the damning phone records and email testimony.

And they failed to do so yesterday.

If Glenn is telling the truth, then how can Peters and Henry account for the “third person” – the alleged client they told the privileges committee existed.

I would bet money that the alleged third person is Roger McClay, whose taxpayer funded job appeared to be raising money for NZ First and Winston.

And how they account for the press statement issued on July 18 a few hours after Peters’ mother died saying Henry had just told him about the Glenn donation.

I feel sickened at the thought of it.

That’s an honest raw emotion. And it is sickening when you think of it. Owen Glenn has proven beyond reasonable doubt Peters solicited the money and knew of it. So if you believe Owen Glenn (and Peters has failed to cast serious doubt on it), then Peters knew all along, and hence the announcement of his “having just found out from Brian Henry” on 18 July was a deliberate decision to release the information a few hours after the news of his mother’s death filtered out.

I also feel sick even typing the above, but that is the only conclusion one can draw, if you accept Owen Glenn’s version of events. I know that is ultra harsh, but again unless Owen Glenn is a pathological liar, then the decision to release the truth about the donation was deliberately timed.

Colin Espiner looks at Labour’s role:

I thought Clark suffered a rare pasting in Parliament this afternoon, with National leader John Key finally getting on a roll and managing to land a few punches on the Prime Minister: “The reason she has never sacked Winston Peters is  because she is up to her eyeballs in this and what happened yesterday was that the truth jetted into town.”

It was a great line – so good he repeated it at least three more times. It’s a pity National didn’t follow this up with a more sustained assault rather than reverting to business-as-usual questions. But Key was right, however; Clark is up to her neck in this fiasco and it’s plain she’s had enough.

At a minimum Helen Clark knew the truth in February 2008. However she may have known as far back as December 2005. She was never asked in the House yesterday whether or not she had any discussions at all, of any sort, with Mike Williams over Owen Glenn helping out with the Tauranga electoral petition. She was asked some questions on her knowledge, but said (off memory) that she had not had a conversation of that nature – it was a denial of a specific allegation, not a denial of any conversations at all with Williams in 2005 over Glenn.

I reckon if she does sack Peters she will call the election date as well. It would be a good way of brushing the ongoing fiasco off the front pages and cutting Peters and his party loose. Not that she’ll need to do that – NZ First will be furious if she sacks Peters before the privileges committee reports back and its agreement with Labour will be toast.

That won’t bother Clark – the last time she needs NZ First’s votes is later today, when the Emissions Trading Scheme has its third and final reading.

But NZ First will have a point. Clark has long championed Peters’ right to due process and natural justice. Sacking him half-way through the hearing would be a bit like the judge at a murder trial telling the defence that she’s heard enough – just take him out the back and hang him.

But politics doesn’t really operate like a court – even at the privileges committee, supposedly one of the highest courts in the land. Politics is neither as orderly as a court nor as fair.  And it’s becoming obvious that Peters’ right to natural justice exists only as long as it is politically expedient for Clark to allow it.

There’s no question she is running out of time. Peters is an albatross around her neck and if she doesn’t cut the strings soon she will sink along with him.

I hope she delays the decision as long as possible then!

As I blogged yesterday, the key issue is not so much whether Clark sacks Peters, but whether she rules out a post-election deal with NZ First.

John Key has said he will not strike a deal with NZ First, even if it means staying in Opposition rather than becoming Prime Minister. Will Clark rule out a deal if she sacks Peters, but somehow NZ First gets back in?

UPDATE: My wish is granted. Clark is delaying a decision until next week, after Brian Henry’s next appearance.

Owen Glenn has told the truth in his letter to the Privileges Committee.

Mr Peters sought help from me for this purpose in a personal conversation, some time after I had first met him in Sydney.

Bang.

I agreed to help in the belief that this step would also assist the Labour Party, in its relationship with Mr Peters. I supported the Labour Party.

Of course having Labour’s major donor fund Winston, helps Labour. This might explain why Labour has been trying so hard to not have the facts come out.

There is a wider issue I will return to about the propeity of Labour’s major donor also donating to Winston’s legal expenses and allegedly attempted to the Maori Party, and the pressure it can put on them to keep Labour in office.

I understand that Mr Henry is Mr Peters’ lawyer. I do not know Mr Henry. I do not believe that we have met. I do not recall that I, or my assistants, had any discussion or communication with Mr Henry other than to receive remittance details.

If Glenn is correct, this means Henry has not told the truth in saying he contacted Owen Glenn and solicted the donation himself.

Mr Peters subsequently met me socially at the Karaka yearling sales, I believe in early 2006. He thanked me for my assistance.

This has Peters dead to rights.

One has to remember that Winston has not just told a minor fib to get out of a situation.  He (if you beleive Glenn) has lied massively and repeatedly to everyone. He feigned outrage at his press conference. He held up the no sign. He demanded Tim Murphy and Audrey Young be sacked for exposing the truth. He defamed them by suggesting they fabricated the e-mail.

I’ll be writing a lot more on this, but for now I just want to say thank God Owen Glenn told the truth, when there would have been huge pressure on him to be evasive or even deceptive. For that alone, he should be made Consul to Monaco

As Winston rails against power prices, and blames then on the electricity reforms, Audrey Young dips into history to remind us that NZ First voted for and supported the reforms!

Mr Peters cranked up similar sentiment in his keynote speech to his party’s annual conference on July 20.

“With power prices going through the roof, why are we not amalgamating the power companies created during the mindless National Party reforms?”

Mindless National Party reforms? Max Bradford? Yes, but Mr Peters has created the fiction that New Zealand First opposed them.

In fact Mr Bradford had strong support at the time from National’s coalition partner from December 1996 to August 1998, New Zealand First.

Now was this grudging support?

And not just the sort of passive support a party gives when it might be swallowing a dead rat or a dead fish of a policy.

When Mr Bradford as Energy Minister held a press conference to announce his reforms, New Zealand First deputy leader and energy spokesman Peter Brown was at his side.

Mr Brown, who is still energy spokesman and deputy leader of New Zealand First, said during the third reading: “This bill will deliver cheaper power prices for the consumer. It will start with the split of ECNZ. With the baby ECNZs, Contact Energy and the private generators, we will have true competition in this country for wholesale electricity … Innovation and efficiency will come in, and the price will go down. The splitting of the lines and the energy business will ensure that the price will go through to the consumer at a lower level. That will be a win-win situation for the consumer.”

Sounds like hearty support to me.

Audrey concludes:

So the next time Mr Peters asks an audience “who did it?” the full answer is that he could not have done it without New Zealand First.

More journalists should do this. The major parties are held to account for their voting record, but often NZ First attacks something that they voted for previously, and it escapes without scrutiny.

Let us start with John Armstrong:

If that was not enough, there were further shockwaves with yesterday’s Dominion Post making fresh allegations surrounding NZ First’s handling of donations, questions about whether the racing industry source of those donations has compromised Peters as Minister of Racing and claims that taxpayers paid his lawyer’s legal bills through Parliamentary Service funding.

Those allegations were largely unsubstantiated, making it fairly easy for someone with Clark’s experience to bat away the resulting questions. She may have only brief respite, however. The confidence with which the newspaper made the claims suggests it has the documentation to back them up – with maybe more to come.

Indeed, and remember Phil Kitchin here is the journalist who exposed Donna Awatere-Huata and the Police misconduct in Rotorua.

Peters dismissed the article as “a smear campaign of unsubstantiated allegations”. But Clark realises, even if Peters won’t, that such responses are no longer satisfactory given the seriousness of the allegations he is facing.

Well they had a photocopy of a cheque on their frontpage. That seems to have a degree of substantiation. But as Armstrong notes, Peters has problems claiming it is all lies, because he said exacly that about the NZ Herald e-mail. He said they fabricated the e-mail and that they were lying and they were not.

She urgently needs to move this dreadful mess off centre-stage – both for her sake and Peters’. She has accordingly dropped big hints to relevant Government agencies to investigate the claims if they see fit.

Those agencies are an ever-lengthening list – Auditor-General Kevin Brady; the Registrar of MPs’ Pecuniary Interests, Dame Margaret Bazley; the Electoral Commission; Inland Revenue; Parliament’s Speaker and privileges committee; the Cabinet Office; and even – as Clark mentioned – the police.

Ever since the issues of Taito Philip Field, I have believed that NZ now needs an Independent Commission against Corruption that has powers to investigate all aspects of corrupt or highly unethical behaviour from Ministers, MPs and other very senior holders of public office. Having six different inquiries taking place like a fragmented jigsaw is not as good as one competent investigation with full powers.

I would love National to pledge to establish such a Commission. It would be a noble thing for them to do, as their own Ministers would be the first one to be subject to its scrutiny – but it is needed as we have seen in recent years with Field, Awatere-Huata, the various Immigration Service affairs, the Benson-Pope affair etc.

Audrey Young reports:

Questions were also raised in Parliament as to whether Mr Peters declared that his party had received substantial donations from the racing industry, where the Vela brothers are big players, before negotiating the post of Racing Minister with the Prime Minister.

And then proceeding to force Cullen to such generous funding of the racing industry that they ignored strong Treasury advice against it.

Incidentally while the Velas have New Zealand citizenship, like Owen Glenn, I understand they are (or were at least) officially foreign residents and only visitors to NZ for tax purposes . So once again the great crusader againgst foreign investment is revealed as having his major funders being foreign residents.

New Zealand First did not dispute reports that Mr Henry had been paid an amount from the Parliamentary Service last year but that is understood to have been for contracted work on the Electoral Finance Bill, not for litigation.

Jesus Christ – $45,000 for advice on the Electoral Finance Bill. Considering how often NZ First keep breaking their own law, they should ask for a refund.

But she appeared to be thrown by a question from Green Party co-leader Russel Norman on non-declaration of possible conflicts of interest.

He asked: “Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs was involved in negotiating the very substantial tax breaks that this Government has delivered to the racing industry; if so, in those negotiations, did he declare the very substantial donations that New Zealand First had received from the racing industry?”

After over a week of silence, it is good to see the Green Party finding its voice.

Mr Peters’ New Zealand First colleagues all took turns to ask questions focused on an aspect of his achievements as Foreign Minister.

This was so sad, I actually felt sorry for them. Like lemmings, one after another asked a pitifully sycophantic question to Helen lauding the fact Winston had gouged the taxpayer for more money for MFAT or the such. None of them were allowed to even try and engage on the central issue of the secret donations.

What was also interesting is that NZ First asked more than their four allocated supplementaries which means Labour must have donated some of their quota to their good mates in NZ First.

Mark Keating does an op-ed on the taxation issues around the donation. This is a fuller version of what I summarised yesterday. I did find this line very funny:

Mark Keating is a senior lecturer in tax law at (ironically) the Owen G. Glenn Business School of the University of Auckland

Heh.

Finally we have Rod Emmerson:

Just spot on.

There is now no doubt the e-mail published by the NZ Herald was not a forgery. And few would doubt that the publishing of that led to the revelation that Winston Peters had personally benefited by a $100,000 donation from Owen Glenn to his legal costs.

Anyone with has campaigned on transparency would say that the NZ Herald has done nothing wrong in publishing a true e-mail which resulted in the public gaining knowledge about a secret donation.

So I, and others, was wondering about whether Winston Peters would be man enough to apologise to Audrey Young for calling her a liar, and maybe even to her editor Tim Murphy for calling for them both to be sacked.

Alas the Herald on Sunday reports:

Yesterday Peters renewed calls for Murphy and Young to “do their duty and resign”.

Isn’t that incredible? The man literally has no shame.

Anyway NZ First is now officially the party in favour of large secret donations to top up MPs pay. No, seriously. This is what Brian Henry said:

He said politicians were “poorly paid” and needed donations, and he would continue to fundraise.

“They’ve got a temporary job, and they can’t afford litigation. They just don’t have the money.”

Yes Winston is very poorly paid on $200,000 or so a year. And his poor temporary job has only lasted 27 weeks. I’m sorry I mean 27 years (out of the last 30).

And as for being able to afford litigation. Well I’m sympathethic to MPs who get sued doing their job and need help with the costs of defending a lawsuit. But it is worth nothing that of Winston’s 14 law suits – almost all are him suing other people – not getting sued.

Audrey Young blogs yesterday:

Here at the party convention at Alexander Park he has held perhaps the most graceless press conference he has ever held, and that takes some beating.

And No, to the dozens of inquiries: Peters has not apologised for the personal abuse levelled at me last Monday when he employed the bazooka strategy – fire so many missiles at somebody else that people forget what you are supposed to have done. Though I did receive one from a very decent member of the caucus.

There are some decent MPs in NZ First and I suspect they are very distressed to find out that all their railing against secret donations in politics only applies to everyone but their Leader.

I wonder why he was able to find the answer to the Glenn donation question in July when in February after apparently exhaustive questions were asked about the $100,000 Dail Jones thought he had seen in the party’s accounts, no answers were turned up.

This is one of those big unanswered questions. Is the $100,000 donated to Peters’ legal fund in 2006 the same close to $100,000 sum that went into a NZ First account in late 2007. If the money has even temporarily gone through an official NZ First bank account, then there are serious implications.

Bill Ralston has his say:

Winston Peters’ embarrassing admission, despite months of blustering denials, that he had received a $100,000 donation from businessman Owen Glenn poses some real risks, not only for himself but for several other political players. …

Instead, he will be wriggling under reporters’ questions about his party’s murky funding structure and what exactly Glenn may have wanted in return for his generosity.

It is obvious from a leaked letter from Glenn published in the Weekend Herald last week that Glenn clearly believes he is still in the running for the honorary consul-general role in Monaco, a position Peters, as Foreign Minister, has the power to grant.

Peters has said they have not yet decided if they even need a Consul in Monaco. However the Government in 2004 clearly  decided they do not. So why is the Government reviewing a very recent decision, apart from the fact a wealthy donor has said he wants the job?

A good question is what role did Williams play in backing the expensive Tauranga electoral petition after the last election?

It was that legal action, along with 13 cases since 1991, that ran up the legal bill that Glenn helped pay off.

It is understood Williams did a lot of the calculations on election spending by National’s Bob Clarkson that Peters’ lawyers used to try to challenge his election.

There was indeed talk of Williams helping with the unsuccessful petition. Was Mike Williams the person who arranged for Owen Glenn to donate to Winston’s legal expenses?

And finally the Herald on Sunday Editorial:

The trouble with occupying the moral high ground is that the only way out is down. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has spent the weekend of his party’s 15th-anniversary conference trying to finesse his late, lame admission that expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn did, in fact, make a $100,000 payment, the existence of which Peters has so vehemently denied.

But what is plain is that he did not tell the whole truth about the matter.

Indeed it is only due to the NZ Herald, and other media, that the truth has come out. And Winston’s position is they they should be sacked for having got the truth out of him.

They then post a very valid question:

But why should he know nothing of contributors to funds that assist his personal legal battles? If a Chinese wall is to be erected at all, it would be much more logical that it be around the party accounts, with which Peters appears to have been more familiar than his erstwhile president. And in any case, Glenn’s email makes it plain that he thought he had contributed “to NZ First”.

Yes party leaders should be kept away from the party’s accounts, but it is arguable he actually needs to know who donated to benefit him personally. And make no mistake paying off his legal bills has the same effect as giving him cash directly – a bigger bank balance for Peters.

The truth has come out. Winston Peters has announced that Owen Glenn donated $100,000 in 2006 towards the costs of the Tauranga electoral petition.

Peters has said he knew nothing at all about this donation, until he was told today by his lawyer Brian Henry.

Amazing that Owen Glenn would know how to donate to the legal fund, and would never have mentioned at all to Winston that he had done so. And amazing that the legal fund is so robust that $100,000 turns up in it and you never ask your lawyer where it came from.

Anyway for a start Winston Peters owes Audrey Young a huge apology.

NZPA reports on Winston’s comments at the airport:

Today Mr Peters again said there was no donation.

“I don’t know whether there are any emails at all, whether they’ve been doctored whether they’re in part. I’ve never seen them,” he told reporters.

“The editor of the New Zealand Herald and the Herald journalist Audrey Young can see NZ First’s accounts and talk to our independent auditors, but when they find nothing I want them to both apologise to the public and then resign…

“Don’t you guys get it one of your colleagues is a liar and if she doesn’t like that tell her to sue me.”

In a statement to NZPA, Herald editor Tim Murphy said the paper stood by the story and Young.

“The issue here is simple: Owen Glenn says he donated to New Zealand First. Winston Peters has said and continues to say that Glenn didn’t. The story, based on explicit emails, highlights that gap,” he said.

“The responses by Mr Peters, while strident, do not explain that gap and continue to leave open to interpretation all kinds of possibilities for funding assistance for his party and its interests.

“In the circumstances, we see no value in the offer of examining New Zealand First’s `annual accounts’.”

This is an extraordinary attack on Audrey Young. He seems to be basically accusing her of fabricating or doctoring the e-mails. Now the problem with this theory is what Steve Fisher and Owen Glenn have said:

The Dom Post has comment from Steve Fisher:

Mr Fisher confirmed to The Dominion Post yesterday that he had been in email contact with Mr Glenn in February, though he no longer had copies of those emails.

Advice quoted in the emails was in line with what he been advising Mr Glenn at the time, though he could not recall “the exact wording” and did not know if Mr Glenn had given money to NZ First. He did not know how the e-mails had entered the public arena.

So Fisher is saying the e-mails are in line with his recollection.

And what some have overlooked is Audrey Young actually managed to talk to Owen Glenn on Friday about the e-mails and here is what he said:

Last night, Mr Glenn was in Monaco, and when asked why he had not said in February that he gave money, he said: “I made a decision not to say anything to anybody because there was so much controversy about everything. I was just there to open the business school so I just didn’t want to get caught up in anything … I elected not to say anything.”

So Glenn didn’t use that opportunity to deny the e-mail is authentic or that he donated.

The stakes are very high. Peters has called for the Herald Editor (Tim Murphy) and Political Editor (Audrey Young) to be sacked. But quite what for, I am not sure.

Audrey Young blogs on the Crosby Textor issue, and there is one startling revelation:

She [Helen Clark] would not rule out push-polling either from Labour – something that Key categorically ruled out from National in the coming election campaign – but only “honest” push-polling.

So Helen Clark has refused to rule out push polling. Is this not massively more newsworthy than National using the same consultants as they have in the previous five elections?

Now I await all the left bloggers to condemn the Prime Minister for not ruling out push polling. How long shall we hold our breath for?

Two different takes on Goff’s comments from the gallery. Colin Espiner says they are no gaffe at all, while Audrey Young calls them an extraordinary lapse. Taking Colin first:

Fourth-ranked Labour Cabinet minister Phil Goff has really put the cat amongst the pigeons this morning by admitting he’s interested in the leadership.

Granted Goff didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know already. You’d have to be deaf and blind to not know the Mount Roskill MP has been grooming himself to take over from Helen Clark ever since the pair left university.

Heh harsh, but true.

It’s also true that Goff has never denied he was interested in taking over, either. But I can’t recall him ever being quite so explicit as he was in a partial transcript of an interview he gave to Alt TV, which airs tonight.

Ues it is normally done by nudge nudge wink wink.

Given the opportunity to explain himself to reporters this morning, Goff didn’t resile from his remarks – in fact he said he stood by them. He added that Labour was the underdog going into the election, and that clearly some people felt it was time for a change.

So is Goff saying people think it is tme for a change of government, or a change of leader?

Now, full marks to Goff for honesty, but it’s a well-known political convention that senior ministers don’t upstage their leader by talking about defeat in an election year, particularly when the party is staring down the barrel of a walloping.

And they most certainly don’t start speculating about the process involved in a leadership change, bloodless or not, should that party be defeated.

The question, then, is was Goff simply having an off day or was he being disingenuous? Did he make a faux pas or is this part of a wider game plan on his part?

I’m going with the latter option. Goff has been in politics almost as long as Clark. He knows the score. There is no way he would have made these remarks without an end-game in mind.

That’s a big call, but Colin is right that Goff is no novice. As Foreign Minister Goff is well trained in never saying anything without careful thought. And if you look at the actual video of him on Alt TV, he seems very clear with what he is saying – it was not something “tricked” out of him.

Consider also his track record. Goff was one of the gang of four who went to Clark’s office in 1996 to ask her to step down. He held an infamous barbecue at his house in 1999 to which Clark was not invited and rumours have persisted ever since that it was to canvass leadership options.

I seem to recall some “BBQ at Phil’s place posters going around Wellington at the time!

So what’s Goff’s end game? I’m not for a minute suggesting he would sabotage his party. Nor do I think there is even the remotest chance of a leadership spill before the election.

But it is clearly in his interests for Labour to lose, and lose badly. That would prompt a clear-out of the current leadership and its allies and give him the opportunity and the mandate to rebuild Labour and take it in a new direction.

I think his comments to Alt TV, repeated again this morning, were a reminder to his supporters and the wider public that Phil Goff is still in the frame, biding his time, waiting for his opportunity.

When you are 27% behind in the polls, it is normal and natural to start thinking of post-election positioning. Certainly there will be no moves before the election at all, but the list ranking for Labour will be very interesting to watch.

Now Audrey Young has her take:

Phil Goff has breached political convention and openly admitted that not only might Labour lose the election but, if so, he could be interested in the leadership.

While both those things are widely known, it is not done speak aloud about alternative leadership or admit the possibility of defeat. That is politics 101.

Goff’s offending comments were made a couple weeks ago to Oliver Driver’s niche TV show Let’s be Frank and will screen tonight on Alt TV.

They are an extraordinary lapse for such a seasoned politician and canvassing the issue of defeat and leadership is the last thing the Labour Government needs in Budget week of election year.

Yes, an unusual pre-budget announcement – ‘We might lose and if so I want to be leader’.

He reiterated his comments that Labour could lose. He used a little more discretion today on the leadership question, but still implied it could be up for debate soon: “There is no question about leadership at the moment,” he said. “There is 100 per cent support for Helen Clark and I have been 100 per cent in support of her right through this office.”

The use of the term “at the moment” is very significant. It is the traditional phrase used to send a signal.

After being caught unawares in the stand-up outside the caucus room Goff could be heard having strong words with his press secretary.

Dr Cullen’s office has also been having staffing issues. It can get very stressful there when things look grim.

Colin Espiner has a blog post and an article on the breaches of the Electoral Act by Labour.

I was interviewed on ZB late yesterday afternoon about this. I seem to be the only person defending the decision of the Electoral Commission to warn rather than refer to the Police, in regard to Labour’s breach of the Act.

Colin in his blog says:

There’s a certain poetic justice to the news that Labour breached its own Electoral Finance Act with the distribution of a pamphlet boasting the Government’s achievements that did not carry the correct authorisation.

This draconian and extremely complex new law was rammed through Parliament by Labour late last year, and we all suffered through many lectures from Justice Minister Annette King about the “common sense” new regulations and how the Electoral Commission wouldn’t prosecute where offences were “so inconsequential there is no public interest in doing so.”

So who’s the first party to break the new law? National, which railed against it? Nope, Labour. It might be only a minor breach – not putting an authorising agent’s name on the brochure. But hey, a breach is a breach and there’s plenty of egg on Labour faces today. …

Cullen talks of the good advice the commission has handed down to all parties, a timely warning about being careful to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, but the simple fact remains that Labour broke the law and it’s not going to be prosecuted. Again.

Any of this sound familiar? There are a couple of precedents. Such as, ooooh, off the top of my head, the $400,000 pledge card illegal expenditure, which the police decided was illegal but decided not to prosecute because it wasn’t in the public interest.

Then there’s the police decision not to prosecute Trevor Mallard for punching Tau Henare, not to prosecute the Prime Minister over the speeding motorcade, not to prosecute David Benson-Pope for bullying, and not to prosecute the Prime Minister over Paintergate.

Meanwhile, National MP Shane Adern gets prosecuted for driving a tractor up the steps of Parliament and Nick Smith for contempt of court.

The commission decided in its ruling to let Labour off with a warning and to refer any future breaches (most likely by other parties) to the police. That’s certainly very lucky for Labour, and the problem is the commission risks looking like a Government toady for not having a little more backbone.

Certainly National can be frustrated that once again, Labour appears to have got off scot free. “Do as I say, not as I do” seems a fairly apt expression here.

Indeed, it is the hypocrisy rather than the lack of referral to the Police which is the issue for me.

Then in Colin’s article:

The Government has been left red-faced by an Electoral Commission ruling that it breached its own controversial Electoral Finance Act by distributing pamphlets without the correct authorisation on them.

Labour got off with a warning, however, after the commission decided not to refer the matter to the police.

Cullen said the Electoral Finance Act provides a very broad definition of what election advertising was.

The pamphlet contained “simple statements of fact” about what the Government had done.

What I love is Dr Cullen almost complaining that the Act provides a very broad definition of what election advertising is, as if that had nothing to do with him or the Government.

Meanwhile Audrey Young Mike Houlahan works on what may be the bigger issue. Does the taxpayer funded booklet have to be included in the party’s expense return?

Yesterday Dr Cullen indicated that he believed such literature was exempt from the expenses returns set out under the Electoral Finance Act. He told Parliament two different forms of legislation governed whether taxpayer’s money could be spend on election adverts. “The Parliamentary Service Act governs what members of Parliament can spend money on. The Electoral Commission determines what is election advertising.

“Matters that are properly authorised as being for parliamentary purposes do not count as election advertising for the returns of expenses.”

However, Electoral Commission spokesman Peter Northcote said unless a booklet such as We Are Making A Difference was being handed out by a Member of Parliament in their capacity as an MP, it would count towards election expenses.

“Just because something is funded by Parliamentary Services does not automatically mean that exemption applies,” Mr Northcote said.

If Labour’s financial agent does not include the cost of that booklet in their election return, then they should expect to be defending that decision in court.

I was thinking last night about what would be a good April Fool’s post to do.  And I came up with the idea of blogging that NZ First had agreed to pay the txapayer back their $158,000.

But sadly the reality has made the joke no longer funny.

NZ First have stated they have started paying the money to charities, but in secret donations!!! Yes they will not tell us who they have donated it to, but we are to trust them.

Isn’t this ironic.  They receive a secret donation so they can make secret donations. And this is the party of transparency.

Audrey Young lets rip in her blog.  It is a great read.

Winston is dooming his party to oblivion with these tactics.  He and his candidates will be defending this decision at every campaign meeting, instead of getting to promote their achievements.

Anyone visiting certain blogs on the left in the last few weeks may have noticed one of their 17,628 posts on their insistence that John Key has a secret master plan to lower wages in NZ. This is all based on a reporter’s notes of a conversation in a cafe (not a speech to a business audience as they stated) between Key and a Kerikeri business woman.

Now the newspaper in question has come out and said that if what Key had said left the impression he wanted to lower wages, that would be incorrect.

This of course has led to even more fanatical claims that this statement by the newspaper is something sinister – as if MPs have never ever complained before to a media outlet about a story which they think left the wrong impression.

Audrey Young blogs some perspective on the issue:

There is a certain amount of rubbish being pedalled by the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union about the Herald’s involvement in the saga over whether or not John Key told the Bay Report in Northland he wanted wages to drop.

What a surprise.

The Herald was actually first to cover the claims about the John Key and lower wages story after Labour had been on the case for a few days, and that was at the suggestion of the Herald editor.

Oh no there goes the conspiracy theory. Or perhaps the Editor was just trying to make up for 91 years of no charity

Something else to keep a little perspective on this saga – what was run today in the Bay Report itself was a “clarification”,not a correction or a retraction.

It would suit National, Labour and the EPMU if it were a correction, but any fair reading of the “Point of clarification” would see that the paper is not disowning the reporter’s transcript. It is is saying that if what Key had said left the impression he wanted to lower wages, that would be incorrect.

There is quite a difference.

“From an examination of the interview, and the context of the comments made by Mr Key in relaitons to the loss of skilled workers from New Zealand to Australia, the Bay Report now accepts that was not intended and that impression would be incorrect.”

It all comes down to an unclear context for the comments.

There wouldn’t be a journalist or news outlet in the country that has not been lobbied by politicians about a story they have taken exception to. Labour does it too.

I have it on very good authority that Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey rang the chief executive of Radio New Zealand (yes, management) last year because he was so pissed off at an interview conducted by Sean Plunket.

And that really was naughty. And MP can complain to any media organisation about coverage they don’t like. Except the Broadcasting Minister should never be the person who personally rings the CEO of a public broadcaster the Minister is responsible for- if it deals with content of a news story.

UPDATE: The Dom Post covers the story. An extract:

“The approach was not in the form of a demand and no other requests were made. Following an examination of the transcript of the interview and the context of the comments made by Mr Key during the interview, the editor agreed readers may have gained an incorrect impression and a clarification was warranted,” Mr Simons said.

He said the wording of the clarification, published by the Bay Report, was edited in the normal manner by the editor of the newspaper.

“The wording was discussed and agreed prior to publication by the journalist who wrote the original piece and the subeditor who edited the story,” Mr Simons said.

An anonymous spokesperson for The Standard said that they would be issuing an apology for their 11,879 posts attacking Mr Key, now it is clear everyone agrees John Key does not want wages in NZ to drop.  However they said all the editors are out today skiing on Mt Hell skifield today, after an unusual freezing over the entire Hell region, so the apology will have to wait until they finish skiing.

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.

Audrey Young says Winston’s semi-answers to dates raise more questions than they answer.  She asks:

My colleague Claire Trevett made a valiant effort yesterday to get Peters to clarify what he actually believes is wrong. But his answers force us into guesswork.

Does Peters say it is wrong because it did not happen or because he knows the reason it happened?

Does Peters say it is wrong because he knows the donor, meaning it can’t be called anonymous.

Does Peters say it is wrong because it came from a named trust account?

Is it wrong because it is not a donation but a loan?

Does Peters say it is wrong because the donor, if there is a donor, calls it a donation to Starship Foundation rather than to the party (it formed a large part of the party’s $158,000 cheque to the charity – which has since been rejected – as the part’s substitute for repaying Parliament the money it unlawfully spent last election).

May be that is the reasons Owen Glenn won’t confirm or deny whether he gave money to New Zealand First when he is willing to be unequivocal about other parties. Maybe Glenn thinks he gave a donation to Starship via NZ First.

Maybe someone asked Glenn for confidentiality. Glenn did himself nor New Zealand First any favours by declining to be upfront over a donation to the party.

Whatever the answers to the questions, $100,000 is a helluva lot to be “wrong” about.

The public has a right to know whether Peters is adhering to the same high standards of transparency he has advocated for other parties.

Winston may try and get out of this with his usual bluster.  I don’t think that will be enough.