Kiwiblog

I highlighted Clare Curran saying “Farrar … is part of a group which is intent on censoring a prominent communication vehicle for the Labour Party” in a thread about NZ on Air. It seemed an obvious reference to NZ on Air being a communication vehicle for the Labour Party.

Now Clare has said she was referring to Red Alert:

Apologies for not being clearer. Labour’s Red Alert blog has been attacked by a number of anti Labour bloggers and commenters for a while. I was referring to this.

Farrar is part of this group.

Once again Clare is sadly wrong. She is infamous for having invented the Vast Right Wing and Non Labour Left Wing Conspiracy (VRWNLLWC), but now the conspiracy has expanded to include Labour activists!

Let’s look at who has publicly expressed doubts about Red Alert:

• Scott Yorke in August pondered if Red Alert is damaging Labour. Scott is a Labour Party member and activist.
• A senior Labour activist Patrick Leyland talks about the criticisms of Red Alert and how there needs to be better controls on it.
• Leftie Robert Winter is critical in this post.
• Zetetic at The Standard (the most Labour friendly blog out there) calls for Red Alert to be shut down or changed.
• Leftie Danyl Mc at Dim Post says it is mostly a train wreck.
• And Fairfax journalist Jon Hartevelt looks at its problems, but says tune it up instead of winding it up.

Painting this criticism as an organised conspiracy or group intent on depriving or “censoring” Labour of a communications channel, sums up all the problems Labour has. Rather than accept any of the criticism as valid, they see it as being done by enemies of Labour wanting to punish them.

And now here is the irony. I am not one of those who has been advocating Labour should close down Red Alert. In fact, quite the opposite.

For some reasons I get invited to talk on the Internet and politics on a regular basis. I’ve talked to classes at Victoria, Canterbury, Auckland and Massey universities. I’ve talked to rotary clubs, to legal publishers, to chambers of commerce and even the Business Roundtable on this area.

And you can ask anyone who was at any of those talks, what I said about Labour and Red Alert. They will tell you that I have consistently praised Labour for Red Alert, and think I think it is laudable that they are communicating in such a direct way.

Sure in the last year I have pointed out some of the SMOGs or Social Media Own Goals that have happened on Red Alert, but I always make the point that a political party has to accept there will be occasional own goals if you use this medium, and be tolerant of them – so long as people learn from their mistakes. I specifically say that overall I think Red Alert has overall been beneficial to Labour.

As I said, there have been hundreds of people at these talks, who can all back up that I have always spoken well of Labour for Red Alert, despite the occasional SMOG.

Those same attendees will also confirm that I regularly describe the National blog at nationalmps.co.nz as the greatest cure for insomnia ever invented. They are so mind numbingly boring, that I only subject my eyeballs to them around twice a year, as they start bleeding as I read about some organic carrot farm they have opened.

Of course to some degree this is a deliberate strategy by National. When in Government they want boredom, not excitement and controversy. What will be interesting is to see what National and Labour both do in the blogosphere, when they are in opposition and government respectively.

So if Clare really was referring to Red Alert, not NZ on Air, she got it absolutely wrong. The vast majority of the criticism of Red Alert is coming from the left, and I am one of the few people who has praised it in dozens of forums up and down New Zealand.

My view on Red Alert is that Labour should of course continue with it. I’d like all parties and MPs blogging. I do think for their sake they should look at how to reduce the number of own goals, but note you will never eliminate them entirely as blogging is not a medium you can control. My suggestion would be to have perhaps a couple of the less excitable MPs act as a sounding board and have them just eyeball posts before they get published, so they can point out that the way something is worded may lead to misinterpretation etc.

At the end a blog is just a tool. You don’t stop using a tool because you have some troubles with it. You just get better at using it.

Clare Curran blogs at Red Alert and contrasts two statements from me:

My views are simple. No Government should censor the Internet.

and

”perfectly reasonable for programmes that NZ on Air fund to have small scheduling restrictions during politically sensitive periods.

While Clare obviously disagrees, I don’t regard my views as inconsistent. I don’t think the Government should censor the Internet and I also don’t think the Government (through NZ on Air) should be getting involved in election campaigns. I want the Government to butt out of using its huge resources to tell us who we should vote for.

I have no problem with “advocacy” documentaries. But if the taxpayer funds them, then of course it is sensible to have NZ on Air able to say “Avoid the four weeks before the election as we do not want NZ on Air to be seen as getting involved in an election”.

Think if NZ on Air had funded a documentary on how power prices almost doubled under Labour and how they reaped in $3 billion of dividends from state owned power companies so they could bribe the electorate with KiwiSaver subsidies, and a TV broadcaster showed it the Thursday night before the election? I can only imagine the howls of outrage, and the calls for the NZ on Air Board to be sacked.

Clare’s summary was:

So it’s ok to censor the broadcaster and use the government agency that funds it to restrict New Zealander’s access to well produced evidence-based documentaries that raise legitimate concerns about important issues facing the nation during an election campaign.

That was no evidence-based documentary. It got basic facts wrong. It was partisan advocacy.

Inconsistent. I don’t agree with the scheduling of many programmes on television. I certainly don’t think that politicians should be interferring in, when and if material can be shown on television during an election campaign.

I agree politicians should not get a say on when material is shown. Last thing I want. But the NZ on Air Board is independent from the Government, and if they fund a programme, it is not outrageous that they can say don’t broadcast this show we have funded three days before the election, as that calls into question our neutrality.

Now as many have pointed out, one of the board members is a National Party office holder. He is also a very experienced broadcaster himself with over 20 years experience.  One can have a legitimate view that no one with political affiliations should be appointed to the NZ on Air Board. If Labour wish to promise they will never appoint someone with Labour links to NZ on Air, then I would hope National would agree to do the same.

But regardless, the NZ on Air Board is more than one person. The Board is:

• Neil Walter – Chair  (former MFAT Secretary)
• Nicole Hoey
• Michael Glading
• Stephen McElrea
• Caren Rangi
• Ross McRobie

Yes Stephen has “political baggage”, but that doesn’t mean the Board as a whole is in anyway political. Worth remembering that they are the ones who actually approved the funding for the documentary.

Anyway the most interesting part of Clare’s post is not what she said in the post, but later on in the comments when someone asked why she was blogging on this issue. She said:

His comments on Radio NZ this morning with regard to censoring the broadcast media contradicts his comments on his blog with regard to the internet. I pointed that out. Hypocrisy is important to point out when one is a political commentator in the public eye as Farrar is, and when he is part of a group which is intent on censoring a prominent communication vehicle for the Labour Party.

Well that is a fascinating view of what NZ on Air is for. Truly truly fascinating.

Incidentally Andrew Geddis at Pundit also is critical of what he has amusingly named the Farrar Rule. I won’t respond in detail to Andrew as I have a plane to catch, but he does mention how the Electoral Commission rejected complaints about the documentary.

It is worth pointing out that no matter what the substance of the TV programme was, it is exempt from being considered an election advertisement by virtues of S3A(2)(c)(ii) of the Electoral Act which exempts “the editorial content of a radio or television programme”. It may have issues under the Broadcasting Act however.

In the final week of the election campaign Labour MP Clare Curran blogged a picture drawn by a seven year old that asked John Key not to sell our treasures, fish and toys. I was critical of Clare’s decision to blog the picture, as were many of the commentators at Red Alert.

I have long held the view that children and politics are best kept apart, and never like seeing kids used in protest marches and the like. I stand by my criticism on that issue.

A couple of days later I had someone point out to me a photo on Facebook of some people in Dunedin waving Labour and Clare Curran hoardings at traffic. One of those waving a Clare Curran banner was a young girl, who looked around nine or ten.

With the previous issue fresh in my mind, I took this as evidence that Labour was happy to exploit children for political gain, and blogged the photo. In doing so, I made two mistakes.

The first mistake is that I assumed there was no legitimate reason for the young girl, to be out campaigning for Clare. I was wrong. There was an excellent and very positive reason for her to be doing so. It is not my role to specify what that is, but it was my error that I did not think of that possibility before I posted.

My second mistake is that regardless of what the reason was, I didn’t consider the impact on the young person of blogging their photo, and the comments it would attract. Yes, the photo was already public on Facebook, but I gave it more profile. Incidentally Tim Shiels (A Dunedin YN) also regrets publishing the photo. I deeply regret that my actions caused upset to the young girl concerned

In the heat of an election campaign, sometimes you over-react and get things wrong. This is one of those things I got wrong, and I do regret the impact it had on Clare and especially the young girl who was in the photo. They have my apologies, and I hope that next time in the same circumstances I’d do it differently, learning from my mistakes.

I blogged last week on how Trevor Mallard had joined the birthers and truthers with his bizarre conspiracy theory involving myself, Matthew Hooton, Bill English, the PSA and leftie academic Bryce Edwards.

Well as they say in x-files, Trevor is not alone in thinking the truth is out there. His colleague Clare Curran has weighed in alleging an even larger conspiracy. She tweeted:

@Whaleoil I think the point is that there’s a very cosy relationship between yourself, Farrar, Hooton, young Nats and the non-Labour left.

Clare has rumbled us. The conspiracy is not just Bryce Edwards. It is the entire non-Labour left. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC) is in fact the Vast Right Wing and non-Labour Left Wing Conspiracy (VRWNLLWC).

We meet monthly in an undisclosed location. I can’t reveal the name of our chairman (think higher than Bill English), but the participants include Russel Norman, myself, Metiria Turei, Matt McCarten, Hone Harawira, Chris Trotter, the Young Nats, Laila Harre, Matthew Hooton, Sue Bradford, Cameron Slater, John Minto, Nicky Hager, Danyl McLauchlan, NZUSA, Bernard Hickey, the PSA, Matt Robson, the Sunday Star-Times and X (a deep cover agent who is posing as a Labour MP).

Imperator Fish also reveals how the conspiracy came to light:

The Dunedin academic community is in shock today, after respected political scientist Dr Bryce Edwards admitted he was on the payroll of a despicable cabal involving National Party ministers and corrupt public service unionists.

The revelation came after Dr Edwards broke down in tears during a Q&A interview with Paul Holmes.

On the show, Dr Edwards admitted that he owed his extravagant lifestyle to the enormous amounts of cash being funneled into his bank accounts from the National Party, via David Farrar and Matthew Hooton and their PSA allies. …

Dr Edwards admitted to Paul Holmes that the money for the arrangement arrived every morning from a PSA courier

“The money would come in these brown paper bags, together with a handwritten note with my instructions for the day. It was more money than I’d ever seen in my life,” a tearful Dr Edwards admitted.

“I would always a cut to James Meager. The deal was that he would do my dirty work, when I didn’t want my name associated with something. In return he got 30% of everything. The rest was my own.

“I spent up bigtime. Fast cars, boats, a chalet in the Swiss Alps, but still I had more money than I knew what to do with.

“I knew I was in over my head, but I couldn’t say no. Here was I, just some nerdy politics lecturer, and suddenly I had cash to spend and all the hottest women in Dunedin wanted to be with me.”

Imperator Fish continues:

Dr Edwards told Paul Holmes that he had tried to escape from the arrangement.

“I tried. I told my PSA minders that I’d had enough, and that I was sick of having to write whatever they told me. That was my biggest mistake. The next day David Farrar turned up on my doorstep. I still have nightmares about what he did to me.

“After than I never questioned my orders.”

Trevor Mallard said he was delighted to have uncovered such a ruthless and cynical assault on democracy in New Zealand.

“I knew I was onto something as soon as Edwards started to say unkind things about the Labour Party. That was his first mistake. I’ve always said that as bad as the National Party may be, the real enemy are the traitors on the left.

“I’ve learned to uncover these conspiracies, having read The Hollow Men back to back at least fifty times. If Bryce Edwards isn’t a secret Don Brash supporter, then I know nothing.”

Again I commend Trevor and Clare for unmasking the great VRWNLLWC.

Clare Curran blogs at Red Alert:

If elected, we will introduce a Bill within 90 days to remove the termination clauses from the Copyright Act. Those clauses, which give the District Court the ability to impose account suspension as a remedy for infringing file sharing – can’t work in the long term.

This is a welcome policy from Labour. Congrats to Clare to have got Labour to change their position so radically. Three years ago the law was to require ISPs to terminate all repeat copyright infringers (based on accusation), and now it is to remove termination as an option.

This is a good example of the difference a dedicated spokesperson can make.

It is worth noting that the termination clauses are a “reserve” power at the moment, and can only be activated by Cabinet if they feel the current regime has failed to work. I don’t think it is likely they would ever be activated, but I certainly would much prefer the option is taken off the table – as Labour is proposing.

What this means, is that if a future National Government does ever try to activate the termination clause, it would be vigorously opposed by Labour as well as the Greens (and much of the community), which should reduce the chance of it happening also.

Labour will also undertake a review of the Copyright Act, with the aim of introducing a new Copyright Bill within 18 months that updates and extends the framework for digital copyright in New Zealand.

The first phase of the review will be to commission an independent analysis of the problems with the status quo from an eminent expert, such as the review Professor Hargreaves has recently conducted for the UK Prime Minister, and then consultation on a draft Bill before it is introduced.

New Zealand’s Copyright Act has been half-heartedly adapted for the Internet age.  Instead of more piece-meal reforms, we need to transform our digital intellectual property framework, to bring it into the 21st century and to promote innovation and growth in our economy

I’m supportive of this also. I hope any such review (if Labour do form Government) is what I would call a first principles review of copyright – asking what is the correct balance between economic protection and public use in today’s world. This is more than just asking how can we make the law better. I would see such a fundamental review as being more than an 18 month exercise.

The focus should also be on more than just digital copyright. We should also debate issues such as fair use vs fair dealing, protection for use for satire or parody etc. The debate should be about these basic issues, before we even get onto how then does it apply in the digital environment.

Overall though a very welcome announcement from Labour. Well done.

What a train wreck. I hardly know where to start.

Labour MP Clare Curran first blogged:

Have had a gutsful of the white-anting of Labour from both the right and the left of politics.

Then a second blog post:

And on another note, re white-anting; the attempts by the Greens to encroach on Labour territory is also happening in Australia.

The comments flowed quick and fast. Gregor said:

Greens white-anting Labour?

Surely you mean, contesting the same constituency rather than ‘encroaching’, right?

You seriously think you have the unquestioning allegiance of my vote as a worker?

And Sacha:

Is it seriously Labour policy to attack the party’s MMP allies now?

Followed by Curious:

Go look up the definition of democracy Clare, political parties put forward policy to convince voters to vote for them. This isn’t white-anting.

And Me Too:

As a Green Party voter and life-long unionist I am staggered by the suggestion that Labour ‘owns’ the area of labour rights.

Waiting for the justified mocking in the Dim Post blog… Despairing of there ever being a Labour-led government in this country ever again…

Dim-Post has obliged. I’ll come to him later.

Then Idiot/Savant from No Right Turn:

The concept that some votes are Labour’s exclusive “territory” is a perfect example of what is wrong with Labour ATM.

Wake up. There is no Divine Right in democracy. Votes don’t “belong” to your party – you have to earn them. And if you can’t, if other people are doing a better ob of appealing to your traditional constituencies, then you have no-one to blame but yourself.

Chris M:

I’m voting for Greens this year because Labour has failed dismally at representing itself as a viable alternative to National. You’ve broken election advertising/campaigning laws repeatedly, put up what was apparently only the barest resistance to National passing ludicrously bad laws, and to put it simply Phil Goff is a non-entity in the realm of potential leadership.

Then Regan:

I’m just as peeved as the next person that we’re losing votes to the Greens,but I know that politics is a competition and as such Labour has to earn its votes. As a Labour Party member, to make such a blatantly uninformed comment is exactly the reason why we’re doing so poorly in the polls, because Labour MPs are arrogant enough to assume they “own” votes

And Chris Trotter weighs in:

Well, Clare, if Labour really wanted to test the Greens commitment to building (or should that be re-building?) a strong trade union movement, it could simply ask for the Green Party’s support in re-introducing an industrial relations system in which every worker was guaranteed the protection of union membership, including automatic inclusion, at the time of hiring, in an industry-wide agreement setting forth minimum wage-rates and conditions.

Try that one on them. Hell! Try it on your caucus colleagues!

Matthew Dentith:

Really? So the Greens are stealing your rightful votes, are they? I didn’t realise that when I switched away from voting Labour to voting Green that I was being stolen.

Now after this barrage of criticism, from Labour and Green party members and supporters, you might think a conciliatory note would be struck. Instead Curran rips into them:

Listen to you all. Go and knock on some bloody doors will you and stop pontificating. Get down to South Dunedin and see what it’s really like. Foodbanks are empty.
People are desperate.

Yes I am angry and it shows.

Idiot/Savant responds:

Yes, and its terrible. But if you want to do anything about it, you actually need to persuade people to vote for you. Instead, you’re just arrogantly demanding we do, like some medieval king ordering his peasants.

Aaron adds in:

I’ve been fence-sitting between Labour and the Greens for a number of years now and recently took the plunge to become a full member of the Green party. Posts like this show this was the right thing to do.

The Green Party should send Clare some chocolates to thank her for recruiting on their behalf. David comments:

Clare: I am a trustee of a charitable trust that has, this month, raised over $10,000 for those in extreme poverty. I also volunteer for my local Green candidate’s election campaign. So, how about instead of pulling out childish attacks on people who could well be your supporters, you rethink your silly and sanctimonious attack on an ally?

Debbie jumps in:

Way to go Clare, You were the last labour MP I still had any respect for & you write this!? You own me? I’m poor & have always voted Labour so I ‘must’ vote for you now? I can’t make up my own mind? Maybe my mind just isn’t up to the job.

Danyl at the Dim-Post has a post well reading, including screen shots from Twitter. He says:

So I’ll be voting for the Greens this election, as previously stated. I’d like to vote Labour again in 2014 – but it simply wouldn’t be ethical to cast a vote for a party this dysfunctional, so there will have to be a lot of changes before I can switch back.

And getting rid of MPs like Claire Curran will be a big part of that. I’ll be casting my electorate vote for Grant Robertson, because he’s a good MP – but if you live in an electorate like, oh say, Dunedin South I think the best thing you can do for the left is cast your party vote for Labour or the Greens, or whoever, but cast your electorate vote for the National candidate. It won’t impact on the outcome of the election (unless you live in Ohariu) but it will send a message to Labour that if they force poor quality MPs on us in safe seats then they face the risk of losing that seat.

For my 2c worth I’m not that surprised by the blog post. I’ve often observed that most in National think Labour are wrong, but do not think those on the left are evil. However many in Labour believe that those on the right are evil people motivated purely by self interest. The consequence of this, is that they believe that it is treasonous for anyone not to support them in their mission to get rid of the evil right wingers. So if someone from the left criticises Labour, they are seen as traitors.

UPDATE: Also some comments made at Dim Post worth highlighting:

Me Too:

Really, she used to work in PR? Who for – Adidas? Telecom?

Russell Brown:

This is a disastrous blurt from Curran, not so much with the voters at large but with the kind of people who actually might be inclined to put a shoulder to the wheel as she would wish. Gawd.

Max:

I have worked for (in a parliamentary capacity) and door knocked for Labour in the past. But this just makes me mad, and the reason why I will also most likely vote Green.

Newtown News:

This sort of shit makes me yearn for the good old days of David Benson-Pope MP

Danyl again:

What gets me is that Curran thinks that door-knocking in her own electorate is some selfless act of charity that she does out of the goodness of her heart, and makes her a worthy person. Door-knocking is public relations! She does it because she’s the MP for that electorate and she wants to get re-elected to her extremely well paid job! So using it as a pretext to claim the moral high-ground is really repulsive.

Clare Curran blogs at Red Alert:

The trolls who inhabit this site are on notice.

You have been tolerated for long enough. Your tactics are increasingly obvious. Real debate is encouraged on Red Alert, but not trolling.

You will be banned without notice.

Banned for life without notice. Sounds a great way to get rid of dissenting voices. Will they rename Red Alert, Pravda?

I was going to put this post up a few days ago. Instead I ran a poll. As a litmus test. The results are pretty clear. Of the people who comment, most are put off by the tone of many commenters.

The poll was hilarious. There was no option to say that there was already too much censorship of the blog. The only options were to agree with Clare that something must be done or a couple of neutral options, in the best traditions of the Ministry of Truth.

Even then, only 26% of readers said they think the comments are dominated by trolling right-wingers. That means 74% do not. Yet that is taken as an endorsement to ban dissenting opinions – now known as trolling.

I have sympathy when it comes to genuine trolls. But I have a very transparent system for dealing with them.

In the last couple of weeks the intensity of trolling by anonymous commenters on Red Alert has increased.

I’d say that is directly related to the increasing stupidity of the posts. If you don’t want to be drowned in critical comments, then stop Trevor doing his texts from John Key and stop trying to link John Key to the Iraq War through a PR firm. Even your own supporters groan at such puerile stuff.

I was just about to sit down and blog about Labour’s pitiful rip-off of Whale Oil’s Texts from Helen, where Trevor did Txts from JK. I wasn’t sure what was worse – that it was unoriginal, or that it wasn’t funny, or that a man near 60 is doing teenage text speak or that it doesn’t even “fit”. It is well known Helen is an inveterate texter and keeps in touch with many of her former colleagues. While John Key and Jenny Shipley were never even in Parliament together.

But I don’t have to blog all that, as John Hartevelt has done it for me at Stuff:

Sigh. Another day and the Labour Party takes yet another turn for the cringe-makingly desperate.

The party’s chief strategist, their sharpest political mind and the chap responsible for winning the election campaign has this morning come up with this rather lame attempt at humour.

Trevor Mallard’s theft of an overused and not terribly funny concept from a right-wing blogger is just a bit sad.

If it was an isolated example of an odd attack on the PM, it wouldn’t rate a mention.

But ever since the intellectual excitement and esprit de corps that accompanied Labour’s tax policy announcement died down a fortnight ago, a steady drip feed of rather juvenile stunts – many of them played out unthinkingly online – has been issued from a few in the Labour caucus.

Mallard and the Dunedin South MP Clare Curran are the chief mischief makers. A missive from Curran last week seemed to subtly encourage readers to make some sort of a link between John Key and the 1991 US invasion of Iraq, on the grounds that a PR company hired by Tourism NZ to secure a spot for Key on the Letterman show was the same firm that had been criticised for its role “as mastermind for the Kuwaiti campaign”. Good grief.

These have got so bad, that even on Red Alert Labour MPs are getting a pasting for such idiocy. The response is for Clare Curran to do a poll asking people if they agree that Red Alert should be moderated more tightly, with no option for people to say that the censorship there is already way over the top.

Normally you would count on the campaign manager, being the one to tell MPs who are making the party look like idiots, to pull their heads in. But when it is the campaign manager himself leading the charge, well you really do have problems.

Clare Curran blogs:

The  public relations firm paid $10,000 to broker John Key’s appearance on the Letterman Show was Hill & Knowlton, the PR firm that became notorious for its involvement in the Kuwaiti embassy’s lobbying of congress to provoke a military response to the Iraq invasion back in 1991.

This involved creating an artificial scandal over Iraq troops murdering Kuwaiti babies in incubators, using the Kuwaiti ambassador’s family as stooges claiming to have witnessed these atrocities.

Congress bought it, and Hill & Knowlton was rewarded handsomely for their assistance in facilitating a military response.

Even Crosby Textor looks tame compared with these guys.

Boy that John Key is a real evil bastard. As Tourism NZ engaged Hill & Knowlton to work for them in the US, John Key is complicit in falsely claiming the murder of Kuwaiti babies in incubators.

This strategy is only slightly more subtle than Labour MP Stuart Nash, who tweeted yesterday:

Key is such a smug prick

It looks like Labour are planning a repeat of their 2008 campaign.

Danyl blogs:

Senior government Minister and key National Party campaign strategist Steven Joyce will be spotted to the Labour Party for the election campaign, Prime Minister John Key announced today.

The surprise announcement comes after weeks of dire polling for the Labour Party, compounded by a series of public relations fiascos. Joyce is regarded as Key’s closest advisor, and National’s strategic mastermind.

‘This will make the 2011 General Election a fair fight instead of a somewhat undemocratic cake-walk,’ Key said in his Beehive Press Conference. He added that came to the decision after speaking with Joyce, who ‘loves a challenge.’

Heh.

Joyce will work closely with senior Labour MP Trevor Mallard, who is currently running Labour’s election campaign. Joyce has insisted that the two men will work together as equals.

‘Trevor’s role will be crucial to our success’ Joyce announced in a joint press conference with Labour leader Phil Goff. ‘In light of recent information security problems, Trevor will safeguard our campaign strategy documents in a tent on the Auckland Islands.’

The Auckland’s are an unpopulated sub-Antarctic island group with no phone or internet access. ‘Everything depends on this,’ Joyce insisted, as Mallard’s tiny orange dinghy sailed out from Invercargill into fearsome three meter swells.

Well they will be safer there, than backing them up to the webserver.

In the interests of party balance, Labour has traded Joyce for Dunedin South MP Clare Curran, and she’s believed to be behind the Prime Minister’s shock announcement that he will conduct the remainder of his campaign in virtual reality environment Second Life, and prefix every single word he speaks with the letter ‘i’.

The Prime Minister’s fairy-winger avatar commented on the new strategy when he addressed an online press conference of goblins, virtual journalists and the National Party Cosplay Association this afternoon.

‘iI imay ihave imade a ihuge imistake,’ Key said.

I love the phrase “the Prime Minister’s fairy-winger avatar”

Damien O’Connor blogs at Red Alert:

I thought we lived in a free democracy. Since when did a sign become illegal when expressing an opinion or encouraging people to act? Does this ban all signs at marches that may in any way be linked to a movement or political party. The EC needs to pull their heads in. This is not the 1930s in Europe.

And Clare Curran chips in:

Hope the Electoral Commission is reading this. Is this what our democracy has come to?

I agree with you Damien

So Labour equate being forced to obey the electoral laws, as akin to Nazi Germany.  The sad thing is that they have got so used to being above the law, that they really do think it appalling that an independent agency will not kowtow to them. In fact the post is a barely veiled threat against the Electoral Commission.

What is especially ironic is that Damien voted for the Electoral Finance Act which would had far more restrictive laws, than the current Electoral Act.

Also in case people think Labour is right, and you can no longer wave a sign at a march – this is not the case. The only requirement is that the sign have an authorisation statement on it, if it can be considered an election advertisment. And this has in fact been the law for the last 15 years or so.

So what Damien is really complaining about is transparency. Transparency is what he compares to Nazi Germany.

As if one needed another reason why Labour is unfit for office, this is it.

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

Labour has been accused of “trying to have it both ways” on free trade, after one of its MPs raised concerns over the outsourcing of labour to India.

On her Twitter account yesterday, Labour MP for Dunedin South, Clare Curran, posted the question: “Wonder what we’ll hand over. More labour outsourcing?” alongside a link to a media report on negotiations for a free trade agreement with India.

Labour leader Phil Goff last week said Labour supported an FTA with India.

As trade minister in 2007, Mr Goff launched a feasibility study for the deal, which he said at the time “would have significant economic benefit for New Zealand”.

“We went into it, we laid the foundation, and were supporting this government building on that foundation,” he said last week.

Ms Currankeep said she did not have concerns about an FTA with India and that her statement had been particularly in relation to the outsourcing of contracts to countries like India.

Oh dear. So Clare is saying she is against free trade, if it involves a contract.

We own Phil Goff and Helen Clark a debt, for keeping Labour away from going down the failed path of protectionism. The FTA with China is a huge credit to them.

My concern is once Goff goes. Labour have already started backsliding on issues such as monetary policy, and my fear is that post-Goff they will join the Greens as an anti-trade party.

I hope not, as trade should be as bi-partisan as possible – and largely has been for the last 20 years or so. But it obvious from Clare Curran’s comments she doesn’t in fact support free trade, and she would not be alone in the Labour caucus with that view. To be fair, I suspect there are a few protectionists in National also.

Stuff reports:

Labour MP Clare Curran has been kicked out of Parliament for wearing a Highlanders Super Rugby jersey.

Curran appeared at Parliamentary questions this afternoon wearing the team’s old blue, gold and maroon kit in protest at the new lime green colour.

Speaker Lockwood Smith declared the jersey violated Parliament’s strict dress codes and ordered Curran to leave.

Labour colleague Trevor Mallard protested the decision.

I would have thought a rugby jersey was a pretty obvious “no” in terms of meeting the House dress code.

Personally I think the dress code should be relaxed so men do not have to have a tie and jacket, but even I would hestitate to suggest that rugby jersies should be acceptable in the House.

Her ejection from Parliament highlighted the lack of rules around what women should wear in the House, she said.

“I certainly never expected to be thrown out of the House for being a woman wearing a football shirt. I think it was an over reaction.”

She said she was surprised and would consider whether she would change and return to Parliament this afternoon.

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei left the House with Curran.

Turei later tweeted saying it was an example of sexism in Parliament continuing. “Has Ross Robertson ever been scolded for his sports team scarves let alone kicked out? No”

I hate it when people cry sexism mindlessly.  And this is mindless.

I have absolutely no doubt that a male MP would be kicked out by Lockwood for wearing a rugby jersey in the House.

If anything, the rules are sexist against men. The dress code for men is far more proscriptive than for women MPs.

An interesting new initiative from Labour. To have one of their MPs go onto the Trade Me message boards and diss your own social media campaign.

Whale has an unusual guest poster at Gotcha – Labour MP Clare Curran.

I wonder if the deal is reciprocal, and this means Whale gets guest posting rights at Red Alert?

Stuff reports:

Labour has called on the govermnment to halt all decisions on the broadband roll-out because the man responsible for designing it is at the centre of anti-competitive findings against Telecom which resulted in it being fined $12 million in the High Court yesterday.

Labour Communications and IT spokesperson Clare Curran says a cloud now hangs over the whole of the government’s broadband scheme as Bruce Parkes was named at the centre of the so-called ”two tails” case.

”The Government is trying to legislate for a 10-year regulatory holiday for Telecom, and Mr Parkes has been involved in the design. An independent review must be urgently conducted of both the process and system of the rural broadband initiative (RBI) and the Ultrafast Broadband scheme (UFB,” she says.

Curran says the review should be undertaken by an international expert as the New Zealand industry is too involved and inter-connected on these issues.

I think it is highly regretable that Labour have attacked a public servant in this manner, on the basis of something he did ten years ago when working at Telecom.  Bruce worked diligently for Telecom when he was there, as his job was to get favourable outcomes for Telecom. So through my work at InternetNZ, I often oppossed Bruce and his arguments at fora such as the Commerce Commission.

But he left Telecom, went out to work for Contact Energy, and also became a board member of Citylink. And some time after that got hired by the Chief Executive of the MED to head up their telecommunications section. At the time I commented I thought it was a good appointment – poachers often make the best gamekeepers. People are hired to do a job to the best of their ability, and it is silly to assume you know a person’s views on the basis of their previous jobs.

I am glad Telecom got pinged $12 million for their behaviour over data charges. I recall the days when they charged $1900/month for a product which today is under $100/month. This is why things had to change, and artly resulted in the operational separation of Telecom.

But to suggest that because of something that happend over a decade ago, that Bruce has some how contaminated the UFB and RBI process is unworthy. I’ve been critical of aspects of those processes myself, but smearing a public servant who can’t defend himself is not appropriate behaviour.

The PSA normally publicly defends public servants who get attacked by politicians. Why have they not spoken up on this case?

Phil Goff announced on Tuesday that his handling of the Hughes affair had in fact strengthened his leadership. In a bid to close the 20+ point gap with National, in the polls, the front bench signed off a series of further initiatives to strengthen his leadership and public appeal.

• Trevor Mallard to be arrested for the Crewe murders and Phil Goff to reveal he planted the bullet that framed Arthur Allan Thomas
• Clare Curran to be exposed as also having had a paper run in Andersons Bay, and that on the day of the Bain murders she delivered David’s papers for him. Goff to reveal he supressed this information from the public, to protect the innocent Bain
• Annette King to confess she ran an illegal brothel in her office,while Minister of Health. Evidence to be produced that four of her staff married MPs, for which King got a commission on each marriage. Goff was in on the scam as the marriage celebrant

The Court of Appeal has just released a decision, that may have political ramifications.

Erin Leigh has had her case for defamation restored, after the High Court had struck it out. This does not mean she will eventually win, but it does mean there will be a trial, which could include evidence from Labour MPs and their former officials.

Leigh was a whistleblower who alleged wrog-doing over the appointment of Clare Curran as  a comunications contractor to the Environment Ministry, on the recommendation of David Parker, the then Minister.

The Ministry provided a written and oral briefing on her to Trevor Mallard, who then said very uncomplimentary things about her in Parliament. She is not suing Mallard (as he is protected by parliamentary privilege) but is suing the Government for the contents of the briefings.

So the case will proceed to court, and it will be a very interesting case. I’ll let people know once a date is scheduled.

Hat Tip: Steven Price

No Right Turn has breathlessly labeled as corruption the Government’s announcement of the first ultra-fast broadband contracts.

Why? He blogged:

So, what does this look like by electorates? UFB will be rolled out to:

• Whangarei, held by National’s Phil Heatley, with a majority of 14,663;
• Hamilton East, held by National’s David Bennett with a majority of 8,820;
• Hamilton West, held by National’s Tim Macindoe, with a majority of 1,618;
• Taupo, held by National’s Louise Upston, with a majority of 6,445;
• Taranaki-King Country, held by National’s Shane Ardern, with a majority of 15,618;
• Tauranga, held by National’s Simon Bridges, with a majority of 11,742;
• New Plymouth, held by National’s Jonathan Young, with a majority of 105;
• Whanganui, held by National’s Chester Borrows, with a majority of 6,333.

So, the first thing to note is that only National-held electorates get broadband; those with Labour MPs need not apply (sorry, you voted for the wrong person and so must be punished). The second thing to note is the targeting of marginal seats New Plymouth and Hamilton West. It’d be interesting if someone who knew about IT policy used the OIA to delve into National’s rollout decision, but from here it looks like pure pork-barrel politics. And I don’t like it one bit.

Idiot/Savant is like the boy who cries wolf. He slanders so many people as corrupt, that it becomes a meaningless label. Basically it just all comes over as hysterical rants.

His idiocy was picked up and blogged by Clare Curran, but even Clare worked out what weak ground he and she were on, and later did updates backing away “before David Farrar at Kiwiblog has a go”.

I will indeed have a go at such gross stupidity, and even worse effectively slander. Where do I start.

1. National holds every single seat outside the four main cities (which due to their size are more complex decisions) except for Palmerston North. So I guess the first contracts should have gone to Tasmania, to stop them including National held seats.
2. Six of the eight seats listed are very safe seats with majorities over 5,000
3. This is not a case of some areas getting funding, and some not getting funding. All medium to large urban areas will be getting fibre to the home. This is purely an announcement of the first two contracts. Other contracts will be announced in the near future – the difference between being announced first and second is absolutely minimal.
4. Ever heard of MMP?

Clare initially blogged:

Steven Joyce is a crafty fellow. But even he will overplay his hand one of these days.

Then later as she realised every non metro seat bar Palmie is national held:

Oh and before David Farrar at Kiwiblog has a go and points out that Labour holds only Palmerston North of the general electorates outside the metropolitan centres, that’s true. But it would have been smart for the government to think about this. Instead it doesn’t look so good.

So Steven in the one blog post goes from the too crafty manipulator of funding to National seats to being not very smart for not thinking about the look. He can’t win can he!

Frankly I am sure Steven didn’t spend one second thinking about electorate boundaries with the contracts, and am personally very pleased with that.

Oh and here’s one for the conspiracy nutters. 25% of NZers will not be covered by the UFB initiative. And pretty much 100% of them live in National held seats. So 100% of people in Labour seats will get UFB and only around 65% of people in National sears. Yes, obviously pork barrel politics.

I previously blogged on how Trevor Mallard criticised Hekia Parata for attending select committees instead of campaigning for votes in Mana.

Now Clare Curran has done the same, and criticised Hekia for attending question time.

Hekia is campaigning non stop whenever she is not required to be at Parliament. But I for one think it is a good thing she actually is also doing the job she is getting paid an MPs salary to do, even if Labour think campaigning is more important.

Clare Curran blogs:

Do you want to contribute to Labour’s policy on open and transparent government?

Following the public event on OpenLabourNZ at the end of August a draft policy on open and transparent government is now available for comment.

If you would like to have a look at the draft policy it is now up on the wiki here.

You have until the beginning of October to comment on it. Your input and thoughts are welcome and important.

Labour will then have their conference in October, where their policy will be considered at a workshop, and hopefully work their way into the manifesto.

If you have a genuine desire to improve their policy, go to the wiki and suggest enhancements.

Some of the ideas which I hope make it into policy are:

• Open Parliament to the OIA within limits
• An OIA website with automatic release level
• Publish agenda of Ministerial meetings along with papers
• Public sector data and information should be seen as a “national resource” and be released free of charge as a matter of course with exceedingly rare exceptions
• All research done by ministries and their advice to the minister should be put on the internet in an easily searchable database
• All payments (and receipts) of Government should be available for scrutiny
• Create policies and guidelines to allow public servants to use social media
• That Parliamentary proceedings such as Select Committees be broadcast over the internet and television
• To help engage citizens, let’s run a contest. Let’s get MAF (or Landcare or both) to release four datasets and we’ll run a contest for the best mashup using the data. “Best” means “has the most value for NZ citizens.” The winner must be a Kiwi, and wins one hour of face-time with the minister of MAF.

To some degree this is the easy part. The challenge will be getting the party to formally commit to doing some of these as part of their manifesto.

For me that is a win-win. If Labour wins, then at least they will have some policies I approve of. And if they adopt some of these policies, it may encourage National in that direction also.

Some wonderful quotes from Hansard. First we have the General Debate of 24 Feb 1988:

From 1 April 1988 the rate of company tax will decrease from 48 percent to 28 percent, and that will create an environment in which enterprises can succeed—both New Zealand enterprises and those that are attracted from overseas. That, too, is the path to future sustainable growth.

So cutting the company tax rate to 28% in 1988 was the path to future sustainable growth, yet something he condemns today.

Then we have the Appropriation Bill (No 3) second reading on 10 November 1988:

Let us consider the Government’s track record. It has introduced a new taxation system that is closing off the loopholes that in the past made paying tax a voluntary exercise for many companies and some individuals. The top marginal tax rate was 66c in the dollar when the Government took office, but it is now half that level—33c in the dollar.

And reducing the top tax rate to 33% and closing off loopholes was also laudable according to Phil.

And finally the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (No 2) on 18 August 1988:

Taxation has gone from 48c and 30c in the dollar to 33c and 24c in the dollar. That reduction allows New Zealanders to keep more of their own money.

And an endorsement of dropping the top tax rate to 33% so NZers get to keep more of their own money.

Now to some degree all politicians will have made statements earlier in their careers, which they later change their mind on. However they tend to be fairly minor issues, not something as core as whether reducing the top tax rates is laudable or deplorable.  And these are not statements from when Phil was a Young Labour member, but as a Minister of the Crown.

Now in the budget debate the PM had a great time pointing out the massive hypocrisy in having the Opposition Leader condemn almost everything he had previously praised. And this is quite legitimate – it is not some sort of personal attack – it is highlighting changed policy positions. He then went on to talk about the budget itself.

Now Phil himself, and Annette, took Key’s speech in pretty good humour and were smiling at parts of it. They know that is what it is about. However the same can’t be said of some of the delicate wee flowers in his caucus who within seconds were whining on Twitter.

First Clare Curran complains:

Key starts his speech with a cheap shot. So Prime Ministerial!

That was in response to Key’s opening line that Shane Jones was really happy with Phil’s speech. Good God.

Then Clare complains further:

He’s a comedian. Does he take this country seriously! It’s embarrassing

So the PM is monstering you in the House pointing out (with considerable humour) that everything Phil Goff said is contradicted by what Phil previously said and your response is to complain he is being too funny.

But not just Clare. Iain Lees-Galloway joined in:

John Key thinks he’s on stage. What an embarrasment of a Prime Minister!

Personally I would be embarrassed to be tweeting such whines.

The trifecta was completed by Jacinda Ardern complaining:

hard to tell if this is a budget speech the PM is giving or a pep rally/stand up routine. yet to mention the actual budget.

I’m sorry guys, but it is such a bad look to be whining that your opponent’s leader is doing too good a job of winding his own troops up. Especially when your own leader’s speech was somewhere between awful and really awful (Goff generally has been much better in the house this year but his budget speech was just all over the place).

Finally Clare Curran declares:

Worst budget speech ever

People can watch the video and decide for themselves.

Last week Clare Curran blogged on #OpenLabourNZ, an experiment at a new way of developing policy.

Quite fittingly, the first policy they wish to try and develop this way is on “open and transparent government”.

Now this is not quite a write the policy by wiki:

Will you be writing Labour policy?
We want to be upfront with you from the beginning

Your input will contribute to Labour’s policy. The #openlabournz document will be taken as a key input for Labour to consider in developing its policy, noting the other drivers and that there will be changes possibly made between it and the final policy. However, please be assured that the final output will be of high quality, and that high quality suggestions are always taken very seriously in Labour Party policy development.

Labour is of course a political party and politics will dictate what the final policy looks like and how it is arrived at. Once the #openlabournz document is completed, we will keep you posted about where the policy is at, and where it ends up. Labour’s policy finalisation process is for Labour members and you’re welcome to participate in that next step through the usual route of joining the party.

I think this is a welcome initiative, and I certainly look forward to participating in it. I thought Labour did a good job of involving interested stakeholders in their change of policy on S92A, with open stakeholder meetings.

In a follow up post, Clare gets into the process:

This is a brainstorming phase. We want to hear all your ideas, suggestions, and the issues you think are important regards open and transparent government. At this stage any contribution is welcome and valid, no matter how left field. Blog posts, links to news articles and reports or research, commentary on what’s happening in other countries, your half thought through or fully structured thoughts, anything is welcome.

It would be great if you could use the OpenLabourNZ tag whenever you write about the issue. This will make it easier for us to find and aggregate your input.

Later on there will be a wiki also.

So what are my initial ideas for an open and transparent government policy.

1. My previous suggestion that all Cabinet level documents be automatically placed on the Internet by DPMC within six months of creation.
2. Expanding Parliament TV to include select committees
3. Requiring all payments (above a modest threshold) from a Govt agency to be listed on a central website
4. Requiring the Attorney-General to not just publish an opinion on BORA compliance for a first reading of a bill, but also at second and third readings

I am sure given time, I can think of some more. Readers are invited to contribute their ideas below, as these will all feed into the policy process.

Labour will be Government again at some stage. I welcome the opportunity to have input into some of their policies, even though I know I will disagree with many of them. Well done to them on their initiative.

Gerry Brownlee had fun in the House reading out extracts of Labour’s brand survey masterminded by Clare Curran.

[UPDATE: Watch the video of the House and especially the death stare from Clare Curran as Gerry mocks her brand survey. It's at 1:16.]

I didn’t realise that when Labour said it wants to show the electorate it has changed, it did not mean new policies, or a new frontbench, but a new logo and brand.

The full survey is here – Labour brand survey.

The first questions asks people to tick what values should be associated with Labour from the following list.

Enduring
Futuristic
Clever
Friendly
Practical
Classic
Excellence
Different
Honest
Vibrant
Professional
Feel good
Reliable
Bold
Unique
Dedicated
Conservative
Inspiring
Creative
Edgy
Positive
Out there
Consensus
New Zealand
Heritage
Trusted
Sober
Innovative
Integrity
Pacific
Non-confrontational
Caring
People
Fresh
Dependable
Approachable
Cheeky
Artistic
Colourful
Funky
Ordinary
Maori
Diverse
Distinctive
Sophisticated
Unusual
Memorable
Environment
Passionate
Dynamic
Cool
Modern
Happy
Retro

They have missed out the 31 words in the BSA survey!

Then people are asked to describe Labour in six words or less. Gerry’s retort was that he only needs one word to describe Labour. Sadly Standing Orders would not allow him to share that word.

We await seeing Labour’s new logo in the fullness of time.

Clare Curran blogs:

This is one of those times when the Opposition says the government’s done a good job.

Which I think it did last week in chairing the secret talks on ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) and gently pushing for transparency. I think they’ve listened to the people who are raising serious concerns about the secret trade talks and the rights of citizens.

After more than a year of sustained pressure, the countries negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) decided that the time is right to release the draft text of their work.

Kudos to the Government for their part in this decision. Not only did they obviously push for transparency, but chaired the session that finally got agreement from everyone to do this.

MFAT also hosted a reception last Tuesday where local stakeholders could meet the negotiators and discuss issues. This was a welcome initiative, and I found it quite useful. Was impressed when a couple of officials told me that they actually agreed with most of the points in the Wellington Declaration. Also had interesting chats with some of the EU negotiators over their copyright laws, and our S92A.

Clare also blogs on the software patents issue:

Giving the government more credit. Twice in once day. Phew.

Now don’t let your eyes glaze over just because I’m talking about patents! I’m giving the government credit so listen up.

The Patents Bill, which is about to come back before the House for its second reading was originally crafted in 1953 it was long overdue for a redraft.

One of the most interesting changes to the Bill is  a proposal to exclude computer software from being patentable, on the basis of it being, like books or movies or music, based on a concept and receiving protection under copyright. …

And Simon Power recently announced the Government would back the Select Committee’s recommendation, which I think is the right call. This is already the case in Europe.

Many software patents have been used to stifle competition or extort money from firms. A few years back a Canadian firm, DET, sent invoices to hundreds of NZ small businesses demanding royalties as they had a patent for mulit-currency e-commerce systems. The patent was eventually disqualified, but it took considerable effort.

The NZ Computer Society has backed the proposed law change, and a poll of their members found 80% support for that stand. Their letter to the Simon Power sets out the arguments well.

Good to see an Opposition Spokesperson taking the time to say “Hey we actually think the Government made the right calls here”.