Kiwiblog

The Press reports:

Waimakariri Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove faces a crushing defeat as a new poll shows his National rival, Kate Wilkinson, has opened up a huge lead in the seat.

A Fairfax Media-Research International snap poll in the seat put Wilkinson on 53.9 per cent of decided voters against 36 per cent for Cosgrove. The only consolation for Cosgrove is that the poll of 250 voters had a margin of error of 6.2 per cent and a high proportion of undecided voters – 23.5 per cent.

The poll also showed a huge lead for National of 71.9 per cent to Labour’s 17.4 per cent.

That compares with 2008 when National won the party vote in the seat by 49.4 per cent to 33.9 per cent for Labour.

Paul Epplett of Research International said his best explanation for the huge shift in support was related to the earthquake and polling on that had been positive for National.

This will worry Labour greatly, to be 18% behind in a seat they currently hold. Having said that, the party vote figures look a bit extreme to me, so I wouldn’t take the exact margin as gospel.

But what will be worrying Labour, is if one seat they hold now has them 18% behind, what about the others? Their next most marginal seats are Rimutaka, Christchurch Central, Palmerston North, Wellington Central, New Lynn, Hutt South and Te Atatu.

UPDATE: Whale has a post pointing out that the woman in the advertisements Cosgrove is running who says “Why I’m voting for Clayton Cosgrove” is not even registered to vote in Waimakariri – she is on the Te Tai Tonga roll. He couldn’t even find someone from his electorate to endorse him so he got a union official

Claire Trevett at the Herald writes:

Act’s Epsom candidate, John Banks, and party leader Don Brash are campaigning separately, but Mr Banks denies he is promoting himself at the expense of his party to try to win the Epsom seat.

Asked on Campbell Live what brand he was presenting to Epsom voters, Mr Banks said, “Brand Key”, and talked about the popularity of Prime Minister John Key and ensuring National remained in power.

It’s certainly true that John Banks is downplaying the ACT brand, as he needs National voters to tactically vote for him.

But Banks is not the only candidate debranding himself from his party. Whale sent me this photo.

He is the 6th highest ranked Labour MP, and he won’t even put the party logo on his advertisements.

Jordan Carter has blogged on the now well publicised accusations over what was said and denied at the Rainbow Wellington election forum. A number of Labour Party candidates and supporters have all accused ACT candidate Stephen Whittington of getting it wrong.

Well to para-phrase Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they. But Green MP Kevin Hague has backed Whittington’s version of events. Now unless one subscribes to Labour’s mad theory of a vast right wing and non-labour left wing conspiracy, I think we can trust Kevin Hague as an honest witness.

With that in mind, Jordan may regret the title of his blog post – a clarification for some liars out there.

Does this mean he is calling Kevin Hague a liar?

I get a mention also, which I need to respond to.

This has been amplified today by that well known defender of the rights of queer people, David Farrar, on his blog KiwiBlog, and by Whittington himself in a media release.  The result is this Stuff story “Labour accused of homophobia cover-up” by Andrea Vance.

Now the reference to me as a “well known defender of the rights of queer people” is obviously meant to be sarcastic and imply I am insincere when it comes to this issue, and just using it to score political points.

I think my record stands for itself. I have blogged in supports of gay issues such as civil unions, gay marriage and gay adoption on scores and scores of occasions. I actively lobbied in favour of the Civil Union Bill, assisting Tim Barnett with it.  I blogged in 2004 how great the Civil Unions Bill party was to celebrate, and how great it was to be a very small part of helping something positive happen.

Unlike many in Labour I have been willing to criticise MPs from my own party on these issues. At the time of the Civil Unions Bill I blogged somewhat critically of some of the speeches from MPs against, including National MPs. The following week my public criticisms were raised in Caucus (so I am told, I don’t attend of course) by some of the MPs I had criticised, asking for something to be done to shut me up.

Also just last year I blogged quite harsh criticisms of a Cabinet Minister for comments which I thought were taunting a gay MP. It actually turned out (once I saw the video and wasn’t just going off the NZPA report) that I had misinterpreted the comments, and it was a fairly good natured exchange, so I actually was unfairly critical of the National Minister. But again, note I was publicly critical.

So even though Jordan was using the term sarcastically, I think I have been consistent in my advocacy on gay rights. Perhaps my crime is actually being heterosexual and a National supporter – after all how can a straight right winger be anything but insincere on gay issues?

Farrar’s allegations are nonsense.  He (and Whittington) are lying when they say that Grant and Charles denied Trevor’s ‘tinkerbell’ stuff.  They did no such thing.

Well let me quote Kevin Hague:

Green MP Kevin Hague, who was also at the meeting, backed Mr Whittington’s version of events. “My sense was that Charles and Grant were denying that Mallard and Cosgrove had abused Chris Finlayson in a homophobic way.

Also Jordan and Grant’s version of events are not even backed by Chauvel himself. In the Herald he said:

Mr Chauvel said he had never heard anybody refer to Mr Finlayson by that name “and if I did hear it, I would tell them that was unacceptable”.

So Charles was denying anyone had ever said it. So now the list of liars is Stephen Whittington, myself, Kevin Hague and Charles himself.

They would have been stupid to. The remarks were well covered at the time.  We told Trevor what we thought. Making slurs like that in Parliament is totally unacceptable.

They were well covered at the time. Do you know why? Because I blogged about them. Off memory there was no publicity around this until I highlighted this. No one in Labour did anything about Trevor and Clayton until there was adverse publicity.

And don’t think it was only the three times it has been recorded in Hansard. Hansard only records comments if made in a speech or if an interjection is responded to. I understand Trevor and Clayton has yelled out Tinkerbell to Finlayson on numerous occasions – but as Finlayson ignored them they do not get recorded.

So good on Jordan and others for telling Trevor (and hopefully Clayton) to stop. But did you say anything publicly like I have with National MPs?

What they denied is that Mallard is homophobic. They are right.  Trevor has been a staunch defender of social liberal causes and was a key player in the fight to decriminalise homosexuality in the 1980s. His voting record on queer rights issues is perfect.

I tend to agree that Trevor is not homophobic. He is just someone willing to use homophobic comments to attack other MPs. It’s much the same with Winston. I don’t think Winston really hate Asians. I think he just knows it is effective to bash Asian immigration, so does it to be popular.  I note Jordan has not said whether or not he thinks Clayton is homophobic.

In terms of the argument that someone can not be homophobic because they have a perfect voting record on queer right issues. By that logic, Senator Larry Craig can’t be homosexual because he has a perfect voting record against queer rights. I think behaviour counts as much as one’s voting record.

So my message to Whittington and to David Farrar is: stop lying on this point.

I trust Stephen’s integrity, just as I trust Kevin Hague – a gay Green MP who politically has nothing to gain by backing up the ACT candidate’s version of events. And then add onto that the fact that Chauvel has said he has never heard anyone refer to Finlayson by that name, and I am very comfortable with what I have blogged.

Jordan would do well to stop shooting the messengers. If only he spent as much time condemning the remarks publicly when they were made, than denying they were denied.

For someone who is a social liberal, David sure does spend a lot of time stirring up nasty stuff.

I love this Orewellain view of the world. If I was a Labour activist who criticised a National MP for denying homophobic comments from other National MPs, I would be trumpeted as the good guy, and the National MP would be the nasty guy.

But no God forbid that I criticise a Labour MP/s because in the heat of a debate they made the wrong call and embarrassed by the mention of these homophobic comments by colleagues they tried to bluff it and deny said comments had been made.

I can only conclude that criticising a Labour MP for anything at all, is automatically nasty stuff.

On that note I’ll talk about why I did the series of posts on Charles Chauvel. It is not because he is gay as Charles has suggested, or because some mythical polls show him leading in Ohariu and Peter Dunne has put me up to it.  It is because I received information (from a number of sources, including people in his own party) that revealed he was doing shameless self-promotion to a degree that was deceptive.

In the past I have been complimentary of Charles, such as when he was moved to the extended front bench, noting:

Chauvel was a no brainer.  … Chauvel to environment is logical and what I predicted. He is one of the few MPs who understand the complexities of the ETS etc.

And before the reshuffle I said:

But a couple of others would also be contenders on merit for the front bench, or at least the front row of the cross-benches. Charles Chauvel and Grant Robertson would be the two strongest contenders. …

I also blogged in favour of his private members bill on credit reform going to select committee.

Charles is not the only MP who is a self-promoter. All MPs are (by necessity) to some degree. But I think where most MPs are under-graduates, Charles seemed to be well on his way to a PhD in it, so I called him out on some of his practices. No conspiracy, no homophobia, nothing to do with Ohariu. At the end of the day if you don’t write letters praising yourself and send them out to people, then there is no way I can be sent a copy of them to blog about it.

UPDATE: Whale Oil has blogged that the video of the House shows Chauvel was present when Mallard used the term, and sitting just three seats along and one back from him.

UPDATE2: The Secretary of Rainbow Wellington has released his summary of the meeting based on his detailed notes. Tony Reed’s summary states:

The Banks issue was taken up further and the Labour MPs reminded us of his homophobic actions in the House when Chris Carter came out as the first openly gay MP. Stephen agreed this was wrong, but in turn accused Labour MPs of making homophobic remarks about Chris Finlayson, a charge which was hotly denied.”

I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology for being called a liar.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove has been forced to defend himself after calling an MP “Old Sooty” during a parliamentary debate.

He says the insult was aimed at Health Minister Tony Ryall.

However, his fellow politicians assumed the remark was directed at Samoan-born, Auckland-raised National MP Sam Lotu-Iiga, who had just addressed the House. …

Last night Mr Cosgrove said the row was “PC gone mad”. The comment was made while Parliament was in urgency last Thursday to pass Budget legislation.

“I’ve called Tony Ryall Sooty for years … Sooty and Sweep are glove puppets.

I’ve always thought of Mr Ryall as a glove puppet, he does what the Government wants. In no way was it directed at Sam. End of story. I think people need to get a life.”

He agreed it was “unfortunate” his remark was misinterpreted: “I understand what the term means if used in the way suggested.

“It is a concern.”

Mr Lotu-Iiga, the MP for Maungakiekie, said Mr Cosgrove approached him the next day.

“He said it wasn’t directed at me. I didn’t hear it at the time. If it was directed me, it’s a reflection on him.”

Mr Borrows said he was watching the debate on TV.

“Clayton followed Sam Lotu-Iiga and he was referring to him quite a bit.

“The camera was flicking back to him and in the last 30 seconds of his speech, he referred to `old Sooty over there’.

“I put it together in my head that he making a racist comment which brassed me off.”

 So did Clayton call Sam “Sooty”, or was he referring to Tony Ryall? My first thought was to check Hansard, to see if they have a record of Clayton ever using that term before.

In May 2009, he also used the term. He said:

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Exactly. What all of them have done—and old “Sooty” in the front row in the pink shirt ought to remember, because he—

I think it is fair to conlude that it probably was Tony Ryall wearing a pink shirt that day (Tony is well known for his colourful shirts and ties), so this supports Clayton’s contention that the remark was aimed at Tony.

So I have to go with the facts here and say that Clayton is not guilty of calling a Pacific Island MP “Sooty”.

But considering the term “Sooty” has a number of slang meanings, some of which are equally objectionable, maybe Mr Cosgrove might want to stop using the name alltogether when referring to any MP at all.

Labour have announced:

Labour Party organisations in these electorates will hold their confirmation meetings shortly:

• Bay of Plenty Carol Devoy-Heena

Lost in 2008 by 17,604 votes. Ranked 76th (2nd bottom). I think Tony Ryall can relax.

• Botany Koro Tawa

Ranked No 65. Lost by 10,872 in 2008. Not a lot of new blood coming through is there!

• Christchurch East Lianne Dalziel

An MP since 1990.

• Coromandel Hugh Kininmonth

Lost by 14,560 in 2008. Ranked 75th (third bottom)

• East Coast Moana Mackey

Lost by 6,413 to Anne Tolley. List MP since 2003.

• East Coast Bays Vivienne Goldsmith

Lost by 13,794 to Prince of Darkness. Ranked No 67 in 2008.

• Hamilton East Sehai Orgad

2007 President of compulsory Waikato Student’s Union. Stood for East ward of Hamilton City Council in 2007 and came 10th.

• Hauraki-Waikato Nanaia Mahuta

MP since 1996

• Helensville Jeremy Greenbrook-Held

Very appropriate Jeremy stands against John Key as he writes so many letters to the editor complaining about the Government.  2005 President of the compulsory VUWSA. Is standing for Henderson-Massey Local Board in 2010 elections.

A little known trivia fact is that a few years ago Jeremy and I co-authored a petition to Subway asking them to reverse their sacking of an employee for sharing a free $2 staff coke with a friend.

• Manukau East Ross Robertson

MP since 1987.

• New Plymouth Andrew Little

Former President of compulsory VUWSA, and NZUSA. Labour Party President.

• Rotorua Steve Chadwick

Lost her seat in 2008 by 5,065 votes. MP since 1999.

• Selwyn David Coates

Lost in 2008 by 11,075 votes.Ranked No 74 (fourth bottom) on list.

• Taranaki-King Country Rick Barker

Now this is weird. Barker presumably can’t get nominated again in Tukituki, so desperate to carry on has headed to the west coast. Has been an MP since 1993.

• Waimakariri Clayton Cosgrove

MP since 1999. Holding on with a 390 vote majority.

• Wellington Central Grant Robertson

Former President of compulsory OUSA and then NZUSA.

• Wigram Megan Woods

2007 Mayoral candidate against Bob Parker.

If the list above, is Labour rejuvenating, then someone has a sick sense of humour. Their only new candidates are from compulsory student associations.

Of their 2008 candidates, the ones standing again were all ranked in the bottom dozen, and lost by huge majorities.  Where are the Kate Suttons, Michael Woods, Conor Roberts, and Louisa Walls  who all actually have some talent?

Air New Zealand have got into the fun with this advertisement for their $20 specials. Heh.

More details coming out today. The Press reports:

Progressive leader Jim Anderton racked up a $22,000 bill on his ministerial credit card during a month-long trip to Europe in 2003.

He also spent $324 on a gift from Kirkcaldie & Stains before leaving on the trip.

The cash splash while in Europe  from April 9 to May 3 included $3500 at Hotel Hilton in Frankfurt, $3400 at Hotel Conrad in Dublin, $2600 at the Palace Hotel in Helsinki and $1000 at a restaurant in Vienna. His wife and private secretary went with him on the trip.

At the Frankfurt hotel he spent about $2100 on “room charges”. No details are provided in the documents.

How do you rake up $2,100 in room charges??? That would tire even Shane Jones out.  I sure hope there are some details.

It also wasn’t easy on the tax-payer’s back pocket sending Mr Cosgrove and his wife to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. The accommodation for the nine day-stay in an executive deluxe room at China World Motel alone was $6,388.

A spokesperson for Mr Cosgrove said the hotel was designated by the Chinese government, with the Minister not allowed to choose.

Then Prime Minister Helen Clark agreed Mr Cosgrove had to go but questioned the length of the stay in a hand written note on the proposal for overseas travel.

I have no issue with the Minister of Sport attending the Olympics.But like Helen, I would question whether nine days is excessive.

Stuff also reports:

One night at a top-end London hotel in Mayfair cost the tax-payer $1435.93, Ministerial credit card receipts reveal.

Labour MP David Cunliffe travelled to London in his capacity as the Minister for Communications and Information Technology in March 2007.

The receipt from the staff credit card used to pay for the trip shows Cunliffe and one other person booked two rooms at The Westbury Hotel in Mayfair, London.

The Westbury is a five-star hotel on London’s exclusive Bond Street. The hotel charged $441 per night for each of the two rooms Cunliffe booked. Lunch at the hotel cost $117 and breakfast was $66.

I thought the opening sentence is actually a bit misleading as one could assume the $1,400 is the room rate. Only later on do you see the actual room rate is NZ $441 a night which frankly is pretty damn reasonable for London.I don’t see anything inappropriate there.

In the Herald, Chris Carter defends his spending as “minor mistakes”:

* $607 for some campaign posters and 14 British Labour Party coffee mugs:

“We had visitors [to the office] every hour and we served tea and coffee. While in a bookshop [in London] we bought 14 cups – they’re bright red and say ‘Labour’ on them. We could have bought cups in Briscoes but these had ‘Labour’ designs.

I’m amazed that this one was approved by Ministerial Services. The taxpayer should not be funding campaign posters from the UK and if a ministerial office needs some coffee mugs then one can get some very nice one locally for around $5 each – from Briscoes in fact. It looks like the “Labour” cups cost around $40 each.

A $5507 bill for car travel in Adelaide:

“We were told by Ministerial Services in Wellington that when a Minister goes to Australia you must use cars provided by the Australian Government because of security reasons.

“They’re horrendously expensive but that’s how it was. [We were] a prisoner of the Australian rules and had no choice. I would have been just as happy in the cheapest taxi.”

I am highly highly suspicious of this claim, and hope media ask some more questions on it.

My understanding is that many Ministers use taxis in Australia. I think Anne Tolley recently went there for two days and her taxi bills were around $80 to $100. So this requirement or policy Carter refers to has either lapsed or never existed.

Also remember that Chris Carter had the rental hire in his partner’s name in the Northern Territory. How would that be possible if the Australian Government really insisted that you had to use Government limos if you are a visiting Minister.

I think some calls to the Australian DFAT are in order!

The Dom Post reported:

Police Commissioner Howard Broad has a chauffeur as the force slashes its vehicle fleet and considers selling stations and houses to cut costs.

Police are defending the driving position, despite claims that some community constables have lost their cars to help shave $21 million off the police budget. Police are selling up to 340 vehicles and are considering selling stations or housing to help make budget savings.

Police National Headquarters said a “logistics and project officer”, who is a sergeant, acted as a driver for Mr Broad, but said he also had other duties. These included organising security and providing support to Mr Broad while he was on the road.

I think the story is a bit of a beat-up, but often people will use it to score points. But look at this. First the Minister:

Police Minister Judith Collins backed the role. “He has got to be available to take urgent phone calls of a critical nature at a moment’s notice.”

Then the union:

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said he believed the driving job was “an absolutely essential role”. He agreed that some officers would question it continuing while cars were being cut from the fleet, but said it was a completely separate issue because Mr Broad would have a car regardless.

And then the Opposition:

Labour law and order spokesman Clayton Cosgrove said the role was justified. “[The commissioner] is on deck 24 hours, seven days a week and he is running a department of in excess of 10,000 people.”

Well done Clayton Cosgrove. Being in opposition doesn’t mean having to criticise everything.

The Herald reported:

“We’d only go down the private route if we thought we were going to get a more cost-effective service,” Mr English said. “So over the next 12 months or so we’ll see whether the publicly funded and run prisons can give us better management of the prisons and less escapes, if the other arrangements look like they will give us a worse service then we won’t go with them.”

Labour’s law and order spokesman Clayton Cosgrove said the jury was still out on whether private prisons offered maximum value for taxpayers’ money.

Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but this seems a less hostile tone to the private sector that usual for Labour. Cosgrove has just said the jury is out, rather than state an ideological hatred opposition to having the private sector involved. I’m hoping this is deliberate and this is progress.

I blogged earlier today about Clayton Cosgrove’s comments. On Nine to Noon politics Matthew Hooton called them unhelpful. That was restrained to Laila Harre who said:

I think Matthew’s description of Clayton Cosgrove’s comments as unhelpful should be restated as “disgraceful”.

Matthew responded he was being subtle, and Laila said that in relation to Clayton Cosgrove there is no need to be. She continued:

His comments are utterly disgraceful.

Finally Laila said she was ashamed to see Labour behave like this. I suspect many in Labour feel the same.

The HoS Editorial attacks critics of the proposed Maori prison unit:

It is dispiriting to hear the word “apartheid” bandied about in such circumstances. That word applied to a particularly loathsome kind of institutionalised racial oppression written into law in a specific time and place. Under the guise of separate development, it deliberately maintained one racial group as an underclass. Tackling the appalling Maori imprisonment rate cannot reasonably be seen as oppressive towards non-Maori.

Those who seek to depict it as an easy ride for which an inmate qualifies simply by virtue of his skin colour are being at least mischievous, if not reactionary.

So who is this reactionary critic, the HoS refers to? It can only be Clayton Cosgrove, whose PR said:

“Punishments for violent offenders who commit crimes against ordinary New Zealanders should not be based on an accident of birth and that is exactly what the Government is proposing.

“Targeted rehabilitative programmes delivered within the mainstream prison system are appropriate and their benefits should continue to be explored.

“Unfortunately the Government is not proposing to do this; it is proposing to develop an entirely separate set of punishments and of privileges based solely on race.

“Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples stance is an insult to victims of crimes.

“A rape victim or victim of any violent offence should know that their offender will be punished equally no matter what their race.

“Dr Sharples seems to care little for victims of crime if he believes that allowing violent offenders to go flatting or be given special privileges based on race is an appropriate punishment.

As others have noted this was a total misrepresentation of how these units would work – no one would be sentenced to them. Towards the end of their sentence they may qualify to go there to increase their chance of rehabilitation.

Some commentators have compared Cosgrove’s outburst to Don Brash;s Orewa speech. Now personally I feel such a comparison is very unfair to Dr Brash (Brash never used such inflammatory language) but let us accept it is in the same vein . Now my spies have dug out a SST newspaper story from February 2004, in response to Orewa. Quotes include:

[MP] yesterday compared Brash’s rhetoric to that of Australian ultra-nationalist Pauline Hanson, who also used the “one people” line to argue against special treatment for Aborigines. …

“If Dr Brash continues with these coded messages of division, then you’re going to see that behaviour coming to a pub or a street near you. And that would be a tragedy.”

“If Dr Brash is not careful, his legacy to this country will be the politics of divisions, the Hansonite politics,” he said.

“Brash has gone too far. He’s Xeroxed off Pauline Hanson’s words and Pauline Hanson’s campaign strategy. Those words are a code for division, a code for unrest, a code that tore Australia down the middle.”

So who was this MP viciously attacking Don Brash for his Orewa speech, and comparing him to Pauline Hanson?

It was a Clayton Cosgrove MP.

So will Clayton Cosgrove MP compare Clayton Cosgrove MP to Pauline Hanson?

Is this new strategy approved by Phil Goff and Parekura Horomia?

The birthplace of Labour, West Coast-Tasman went to National on the party vote by 11%. In 2005 the had a 3% margin. Damien O’Connor had a 1,500 majority and lost to Chris Auchinvole by 1,000 votes. Auchinvole (who once famously told Parliament you pronounce his name like it was Dock in Cole or a rude version that is easy to work out) wan a strong campaign with 160 hoardings and a large campaign team. O’Connor is first in on the Labour List, so if Michael Cullen retires he will be back as a List MP.

National finally won the party vote in Nelson. Labour won it by 6% in 2005 but National has a 5% lead in 2008. And no one was surprised that Nick retained his seat, although his majority did shrink from 9,500 to 7,900.

Kaikoura was marginal in 2002 and today the party vote was won by 23%, up from 9% in 2005. Colin King doubled his 4,700 mJority to 10,100.

Clayton Cosgrove did well to hold on in Waimakariri with 500 votes against the competent and hard working Kate Wilkinson. National won the party vote by 15%, up from a 0.3% margin in 2005. Cosgrove’s 2005 majority on new boundaries was 5,000.

Christchurch East remains red with 45% party vote Labour to 36% for National. However that 9% gap is a lot less than 24% in 2005. Dalziel’s 11,000 majority halved to 5,500 – still very safe. However National now has a List MP in the seat and will have hopes for when Lianne retires.

Christchurch Central was a great battle. Labour won the party vote by 1.4% and held the seat by 900 votes only. Nicky Wagner ran a very strong campaign but seats ending in Central are very hard to win for National. In 2005 the party vote margin was 22% and the majority for Barnett was 7,800.

Ilam has National 53% to 27% on the party vote. Gerry Brownlee also drives his majority from 5,500 to 10,800. This may finally stop Gerry from referring to his seat as marginal

Wigram saw Labour win the party vote by just 2%. In 2005 it was 12%. And Jim Anderton scored a fairly safe 4,500 majority despite new boundaries.

Finally we have Port Hills. National won the party vote by 16%, yet Ruth Dyson held the seat by 3,100. In 2005 Labour won the party vote by 12% so there was a massive swing there, yet Dyson’s majority shrank from just 3,600 to 3,100.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both would bring with them an image problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think they have the hugely before the wrong word

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

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

Colin Espiner analyses what is happening with Clayton Cosgrove and the Real Estate Bill:

But Jones has been left in the shade by Cosgrove. We’re getting used to the minister’s “I’m gonna run dodgy real estate agents out of town” Bush-isms but things reached a new level this week when the MP for Waimakariri pulled the old “If I’m too tough then too bad” line out of the hat.

“National Party leader John Key has admitted that reform of the sector is needed but he opposes the (Real Estate Agents Bill) because he doesn’t like my tough guy approach,” said Cosgrove with a straight face. Shrugging off what was left of his self-effacement, Cosgrove went on: “If protecting consumers from getting ripped off and supporting honest real estate agents is being tough, then I am guilty as charged.”

Good grief. It’s Cosgrove versus Key at the OK Corral.

I have praised Cosgrove in the past for his tough line in an industry which needs reform, but his ego seems to now be taking over. There are times when you have to talk tough, and times when you need to work constructively and a good Minister knows when to deploy both.

Cosgrove made a couple of other quite extraordinary claims during the week, too. First, he said real estate agents had met top Fairfax executives in an attempt to heavy them into writing nicer things about the industry, and threatened to pull advertising if they didn’t agree.

Then he said National had stitched up a secret deal with the institute to overturn the Real Estate Agents Bill if it got into government. He even hinted the institute was funding part of National’s election campaign.

He made these claims without any proof, besides the hearsay claim of an anonymous real estate agent-turned-informer, who claimed he’d heard institute president Murray Cleland tell a regional branch meeting in Palmerston North about it.

Hmmn, is that the same anonymous person who told Trevor Mallard about the anonymous American bagman?

And of course National MPs have met with the institute – as have Labour MPs, and indeed MPs from all parties. It’s called lobbying. What Cosgrove is trying to say, however, is that meetings with the Government are fine, but meetings with newspaper executives or the National Party are immediately suspicious.

Having done some lobbying myself (for InternetNZ mainly) one often meets with MPs on select committees outside the formal meetings. It is totally standard practice, and usually invaluable to increasing understanding of the issues. And normally you get a sympathetic hearing but no  guarantees, as parties need to undertake their own discussions at Caucus level on how they will ultimately vote.

One of the reasons for Cosgrove’s anger could be the fact that his bill is losing support. NZ First has indicated it has problems with it, National says it won’t vote for it, and neither will United Future or Act.

But he may be the victim of his own moderate success as a politician, too. The tough-guy routine works OK for a while, but at some point change needs to be effected by getting alongside your enemies, not trying to run them out of town all the time.

Cosgrove could probably have kept both National and NZ First onside with a little attitude change on his part, but he doesn’t appear to have cottoned on to this yet. If he wants to become more than just an attack politician, Cosgrove needs some lessons in diplomacy.

I think Clayton would be wise to listen to Mr Espiner. It would be a shame if some needed reforms do not happen, because of the way he manages the Bill.

The Herald looks at three new Ministers under pressure.

First is Maryan Street who spent all of Wednesday defending the $65,000 conference at Tongariro Lodge (ably backed by various Labour blogs) to then have the carpet pulled out from under her by the PM who declared yesterday it was totally unacceptable, the Minister was wrong, the Chair had been reprimanded and the CEO should have her salary docked.

Clark’s response, while somewhat over the top, is the one Street should have had from the beginning. I do think David Parker went far too far when he actually said he thought the CEO should have their pay docked – does the man not know anything about employment law and undue pressure? Anyway Clark understands that the issue is the nature of the resort. As I said – hold it at Rotorua Novotel and there would be no issue.

It didn’t get better for Street as it was revealed there was a second plush conference in 2003 at the Heritage Hotel & Spa du Vin. Meanwhile the Hawke’s Bay DHB couldn’t help scoring a point, pointing out their retreat for managers cost only $180!

What is surprising is the Street ignored Clark’s advice not to defend it, but did anyway – and then got over-ruled. Street has impressed many for her abilities to date – it remains to be seen.

Then you have Clayton Cosgrove, as more and more questions are asked about what he did or did not know, and how he has claimed there has been no cases of corruption – directly contradicting answers from his predecessor, Again Cosgrove has generally been astute championing populist issues. Hell even I cheered him on as he deals to elements on the real estate industry. But he does appear to have shown a remarkable lack of curiousity when it comes to a less populist issue – the Immigration Service.

The Herald also looks at Parker dealing with both the power shortage issues and the Emissions Trading Scheme. I have to say Parker baffles me. He came in as a potential star and I was initially a fan as he actually had a sucessful business background and appeared to be quite snesible and moderate on economic issues.

I’m not sure what has happened, but he really is struggling for credibility. He is almost cut out of the decision making process on the ETS, and just does not inspire confidence at all. I’m not saying this because he is Labour. Many of their Ministers are quite competent – I just don’t like their policies. I thought Parker would be one of the better ones, but I remain unconvinced.

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

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

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

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I said you.

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

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’re wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the Mary-Anne Thompson scandal first was exposed (and kudos to One News who did the hard work making this all public), I tended to think it would not reflect much on Ministers, and was a case of inappropriate judgement which had been reprimanded. But the growing evidence is of another shabby little cover-up. Why do I say this? Well let us start with what was said in Parliament yesterday:

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Given those terms of reference, why does the Minister allege that that inquiry was merely a matter relating to the employment of a staff member, when the actual final report of the inquiry was Review of Apparently Unlawful Immigration Decision?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The matter, as the member states, was in relation to an unlawful immigration decision actioned by an individual or individuals.

Note the stress on being actioned by individuals. This leads us to:

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, those members preordain the answer to the question, which speaks volumes about them. The advice that that Minister received was the same advice that I received—that matters related to individual employees are employee matters. He was advised of that. He noted that it was a matter for the chief executive, because there is no employment relationship between Ministers and departments, and that is where it stands. He acted by the book. And I say this: if my predecessor or I had intervened unlawfully against section 33, I bet members $100 that that member would be asking a different series of questions about why Ministers had overreached their authority and breached the law. They cannot have it both ways, and the member knows it.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is this Minister telling the House that the then Minister of Immigration, David Cunliffe, knew about the inquiry by David Oughton into unlawful decision-making in his department in April last year, yet never asked for or received a copy of the completed inquiry report, nor asked for a full briefing on that final report? Is that what he is telling the House—that David Cunliffe never asked for a full briefing on that final report?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No. I admire the member’s ability to twist words. What I am saying is that in April the Minister was briefed, and, latterly, in respect of the report, the Minister, like me, had no right to demand, and was precluded from demanding, a copy of that report or the contents—

Hon Bill English: That’s rubbish.

One has to stand back for a second to think about this level of sophistry. The issues is here that the NZ Immigration Service broke the law, broke its own policies, and made decisions it had no power to make – only the Minister could make. Now of course any such breaking of the law and policies has to have been done by individuals – there is no other way a Department can act except through individuals. But to then claim that the report is off limit to the Minister is ridicolous.

The Dominion Post reports on concerns (which I blogged on Wednesday) that the SIS did not pick up any issues in their vetting.

NZPA reports on the problems within the entire Pacific division:

Last night One News said it had obtained, under the Official Information Act, information showing about 60 people work in the division, and that in three years from 2004, 19 cases of serious offences were proven including theft, bribery and fraud. From the 19 cases, nine people were fired or resigned. Three were referred to police.

I suppose these are all employment issues also, which means nothing to do with the Minister.

But get this little gem, also from NZPA quoting Mary-Anne’s lawyer:

Ms Aikman said it appeared the SSC had known about allegations against Ms Thompson for four years but nothing was ever said.

Four years? Please tell me you are kidding.

I am not sure the problems in the Immigration Service can be fixed from within. When you consider the lies in unison scandal (which the parent Department also tried to whitewash), I think a Commission of Inquiry may now be needed.

Good God. The State Services Commission announced yesterday that it has referred Mary-Anne Thompson to the Police in reference to her claimed academic qualifications.

If this is correct, it is very concerning, and even sadder.

Meanwhile The Press covers the cover-up:

In Parliament, Acting Immigration Minister Michael Cullen admitted the Government found out about the allegations against Thompson in April 2007, but said it was a matter for the department’s chief executive. …

Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove is overseas but said through a spokesman that he became aware of the allegations against Thompson only when he was briefed by Blake in December. “He did express his concern about it (to Blake), but he cannot get involved in an employment matter.”

While the Minister can not direct the CEO to take action against any individual staff member, a Minister could very easily say that he regards the situation as totally unsatisfactory, wants action, will make the report public etc etc.

Oh yes. Ministers can only get involved when a staff member has a boyfriend who works for National. But hey having staff in a Department break policies, intimidate staff and give preferential treatment to family members is not something they can get involved in.

As predicted here for weeks, the “independent” Ministers has by pure coincidence turned down approval for the Canadian bid to buy a partial stake in Auckland International Airport.

The Canadians only wanted 40% of the shares, with a reduced 25% voting strength. Ironically many of the current shareholders who wanted to sell are foreign.

It is sad to see a Government so willing to do the right thing with the China FTA and ignore NZ First type xenophobia, yet succumb to it on this issue.

The Canadians have a pretty good chance of getting the Ministers’ decision over-turned in Court as it was obvious they pre-determined the matter before they even considered it. From what I can tell, reading the decision, the neutral officials in the OIO concluded allowing the investment would be beneficial to NZ, but the Ministers substituted their own political judgement.

People have been expecting NZ First to start bashing Asian immigrants for months, to try and lift their poll ratings like it did in 1996. Peter Brown’s outburst yesterday was not him just thinking aloud, but part of a planned strategy. It had to fall to him, as Winston being Foreign Minister can’t do it directly.  He is now refusing to comment on his own Deputy Leader’s comments.

The EMA Northern have condemned (hat tip: The Hive) NZ First and Brown:

Comments by New Zealand First MP Peter Brown are racial stereotyping of the worst sort, says Alasdair Thompson, chief executive of the Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern).

“It was post war migrants like Mr Brown who brought here the bigotry of the British class system and a rabid form of unionism,” Mr Thompson said.

“Mr Brown should stop being hypocritical.

And the Auckland Chamber of Commerce weighs in:

“Asian New Zealanders, and those overseas, should see this for what it is: a pathetic piece of political posturing by a minority party.

Hon Chris Carter:

 ”I think he’s absolutely being racist,” Carter said. “He shouldn’t be condemning people because of their race or culture.”

Hon Clayton Cosgrove:

 Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove told NZPA Mr Brown’s comments were ironic, given that he was a “native born British chap”.

He hoped Mr Brown did not “take his own advice” and return to the UK.

We wait to hear what the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Leader of New Zealand First has to say on the issue.

On a slightly related note, it reminds me of a further Cactus Kate story from Tuesday night. As we were heading along Blair Street, we ran into Keith Ng. Cactus looks at Keith somewhat warily when I mention he blogs for Public Address. I then mention he won a Press Council complaint against Deborah Coddington over her Asian crime story, and Cactus literally leaps forward and embraces Keith in full bear hug, finally releasing him after thanking him for his work.  It was very very funny.

A massive 63% of shareholders (close to 90% when you exclude the Council stakes) have agreed to sell their Auckland Airport shares to the Canadian pension fund.

Why so many?

Simple.  The Government’s actions have driven the current share price down so much, that it has made the Canadian offer much more attractive.

The next step, assuming over 50% have also voted for the bid, is for David Parker and Clayton Cosgrove to pretend to impartially consider the bid.  They will go through the farce of asking for reports, and taking time to make a decision, and then shock horror they will turn it down.

And then the Canadian pension fund will haul their little behinds into court, and point to massive and compelling evidence they predetermined the matter because persons no less than the Prime Minister (who can sack them) and the Finance Minister (who controls their budgets) has made it very clear they are expected to turn the bid down.

And so the Canadians will get their 24.9% voting share – which is less than the current level of overseas voting strength I suspect.

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.