Kiwiblog

The Taranaki Daily News reports:

Labour Party top-dog Andrew Little could step forward for a tilt at the New Plymouth electorate seat in next year’s national elections.

Mr Little, the party’s president and touted by many as a future Labour leader and prime minister, has refused to rule out the possibility.

“It’s certainly no secret I want to get into Parliament next year,” he told the Taranaki Daily News yesterday.

“As to how I do that, or where, I’ve made no decisions.”

He said he hopes to have made a decision within the next two or three months and wouldn’t rule out running in New Plymouth.

This is no surprise. The fact that Labour did not open nominations for New Plymouth at the same time as the other seats they lost, was obviously to keep options open for their President.

Andrew can of course just place himself at No 3 on the list, and be assured of entering Parliament that way. However a seat is almost a pre-requisite to becoming leader.

The city electorate is often viewed as a swing seat come election time and in 2008 National candidate Jonathan Young squeaked in past Labour’s 15-year encumbent MP Harry Duynhoven, with the tightest margin in the country – just 105 votes.

Mr Little has strong personal and family links to New Plymouth, having grown up here.

It was a very tight contest between Young and Duynhoven, but that is not the same thing as being a marginal seat between National and Labour.

While the electorate vote margin was only 0.2%, the party vote margin was a whopping 19.1%. Now nationwide the party vote margin was 11%, so 19% is a huge amount.

Harry Duynhoven had 13% of National voters, voting for him as the candidate. Will Andrew Little attract 13% of National voters?

It is a difficult decision for Andrew. His four main options are:

1. Stand for Rongotai, with Annette King going list only, allowing Annette to retire easily if Labour lose in 2011.
2. Stand for Hutt South if Trevor decides to retire in 2011 to become a full time blogger
3. Stand for New Plymouth.
4. Stand list only

No 1 is what I would go for if I was Andrew. There are rumours that Darren Hughes may seek that nomination though, and Annette is very good mates with Darren and would probably support him. It is also possible Annette will want to keep her seat, as many would see her going lost only as an indication she is not confident they will win the election.

No 2 depends on whether and when Trevor makes a judgement call that Labour are unlikely to win in 2011. He has said he doesn’t want another term of opposition. But I think Trevor still thinks the Government is on the verge of collapsing and is looking pretty comfortable where he is.

No 3 is Andrew’s for the taking. But the big negative is that he may lose, and lose big – which would not help him with his leadership aspirations.

No 4 is the default fall back option. As President, he would receive a massively high rating. But no one has yet become Prime Minister without not just a seat, but in fact a safe seat,

The HoS discloses another Labour MP, Iain Galloway-Lees, was involved in their internal polling operations. No suggestion he did anything wrong – just that he helped recruit volunteers and was in attendance.

More damning is the editorial, titled Labour loses moral compass.

This is a time, not for elegant mendacity, but for simple truths.

Senior Labour MP Rick Barker ran a publicly-funded political poll from his Parliamentary office last month.

And, when confronted last week by a Herald on Sunday journalist, he initially denied knowledge of any polling.

To me, the poll itself is not that significant a story – but the denial and attempted coverup is what has pissed off the media.

This was dishonesty.

It was dishonesty of the sort that former Labour Cabinet minister Lianne Dalziel displayed, when she denied knowledge of a leaked immigration report in 2004. Yet that was a foolish deceit, made by an impassioned minister in the heat of the moment. Dalziel, at least, had the grace and integrity to resign from Cabinet.

No such integrity is shown by the Labour Party under Phil Goff.

Ouch.

Rick Barker refuses to admit his intent to deceive. And worse, his party’s parliamentary leadership has largely backed him.

Labour, it seems, has lost its moral compass.

Labour has focused on defending the poll, but has failed to address the more serious issue of Barker lying to the media.

They conclude:

Goff has just cowered and, when confronted by political reporters outside the Labour Caucus room with nowhere to hide, obfuscated.

Labour’s leader must now stand up and take responsibility for the deception that was conducted with funds entrusted to him by Parliament.

Barker should be sacked from all his Caucus responsibilities. Hughes, too, must be left in no doubt about how repugnant his rationalisations are.

These, then, are the simple truths that are demanded of Labour’s tarnished leadership.

And these are the truths Labour has forgotten.

I actually feel a bit sorry for Labour over this. Normally this would be a one day story. But there is a bit of a political news vacuum, so it has ended up in the media most of the week. Part of this is because of their inept response to the story, but part of it is just bad timing.

The Dom-Post has a scathing article on Labour, mainly arising from the internal polling story in the Herald on Sunday.

I was chatting to a journalist about this last night, and we were both surprised the story has gone on for so long, as one could mount a defence for different aspects of what happened.

I think the reason this story got resonance is the combination of issues. It wasn’t just doing polling under the name of a non registered company (which other parties have done in the past), but the fact they also told pollsters to use fake names, were doing it from Parliament, that Rick Barker lied about it, that the Labour President knew nothing about it, and the the Whip defended it and the Leader condemned it.

Again you can reasonably debate about whether or not it was legitimate to do from Parliament (and could well be so, depending on the questions), and whether the fake names of pollsters really matters. But it is having all the issues combined together which makes it really messy for Labour – and Rick Barker lying about it, which is what has really hurt them, and may explain why the story keeps going.

The other factor might just be a lack of much other political news, and nature abhors a vacuum.

The editorial says:

Some things are just plain wrong.

It is wrong for political pollsters to lie about who they represent and wrong for a politician to pretend no knowledge of activities he is orchestrating from his parliamentary office.

A politician who cannot see that he has outlasted his use-by date. The politician concerned is former Labour Cabinet minister Rick Barker. …

He suggested the volunteers use false names when making the calls, and, when questioned by a reporter about the operation, he said: “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

It was only when the reporter revealed a thorough knowledge of the subterfuge that Mr Barker admitted its existence and his role in it.

That is not acceptable. Truth is not a negotiable commodity.

There is a golden rule amongst MPs. You may be evasive to journalists, even a bit deceptive. You can be unhelpful. You can stonewall. But you should never ever tell a blatant lie – as in something you know to be totally false.

To the credit of Labour Party president Andrew Little, he dissociated himself from the phoney operation and is seeking a meeting with party leader Phil Goff to discuss it.

The same cannot be said for senior Labour whip Darren Hughes, who is fast building an unwanted reputation for himself as an apologist for indefensible behaviour on the part of his colleagues.

Ouch.

“I’m sure that half the people who try to sell us things on telemarketing aren’t giving us their real names,” he said by way of justification.

He could have added that noms de guerre are commonly employed in several other professions – prostitution and pole dancing being just two – but he and Mr Goff would be advised to consider what sort of company they and their colleagues wish to keep.

Defending the advice to use fake names for callers was a mistake. There is no need to not use people’s real christian names.

As I said on Sunday, there are legitimate reasons a political party wanting to conduct a poll itself (rather than pay an external company to do one) doesn’t want to use its own name – it does skew the responses and the results.  However it would have been smarter for Labour to have kept the company whose name they were using registered.

The subterfuge raises obvious questions about Mr Barker’s moral compass, but his conduct also hints at a deeper malaise within the Labour Party. It is a malaise composed, in equal parts, of arrogance, bitterness and sloth.

Wow, this is a tough editorial. I’m not sure “sloth” is an apt description, but won’t argue against arrogance or bitterness.

Labour’s MPs resemble grumpy, disinherited members of the landed gentry who have been turfed out of their comfy gentlemen’s club for not paying their subscriptions and are trying to fast talk their way back in past the doorman.

It is what they called in Canada, the “culture of entitlement” that the Canadian Liberal Party had.

The HoS reports:

The Labour leadership is embroiled in a murky polling operation run by a senior MP who has instructed volunteers to deliberately deceive people about their identities and the reason for their calls.

The polls were being run from Parliamentary offices by former Cabinet minister Rick Barker, who has admitted instructing staff to use false names and claim they were calling from a company that no longer exists. …

Details of the polling emerged after a volunteer involved approached the Herald on Sunday claiming the practice was “unethical”.

The volunteer, who is a Green Party member, said it was run by Barker and, when the volunteer participated, took place in Barker’s office at Parliament on October 14.

The volunteer said Barker instructed all the helpers, including a Parliamentary staffer, to say they worked for a non-existent company called “Data Research”, and to not disclose that they were really working for the Labour Party.

A search at the companies office for the former Data Research finds the company, when registered, had two directors – a Robert Bateman Allen and a Trevor Colin Mallard. Now nothing wrong with that – in fact the problem arguably is that they did not keep the company registered, while using its name.

Labour Party president Andrew Little last night said all polling was out of Phil Goff’s Leader’s Budget. Little said he knew nothing about the operation. “It would concern me very deeply,” he said.

This surprises me. In no way doubting Andrew’s word that he knew nothing – just surprised that the parliamentary wing would keep their polling operation secret from the President.

Barker, when questioned, initially said: “I don’t know what you’re talking about”. When provided with details, including dates, Barker said he would call back.

Two hours later, Barker rang and admitted he had encouraged the use of false names by callers.

Wow, Barker lied to the media. That gives him a real credibility problem. I doubt it was a memory problem, as the phoning took place just ten days ago.

Labour whip Darren Hughes, who sits on the party’s leadership council, said he was aware of the polling. He said Barker had spearheaded three polls.

But Hughes defended the use of false names and for callers to not identify that they were representing the Labour Party.

“The name of Data Research was used to get as close to a scientific result as you could, to not influence results because of the way that people feel about a particular party.”

What a mess. The party president says he knows nothing about is, and is deeply concerned. Rick Barker lies, saying he knows nothing about it, until flushed out. And Darren says it is all okay.

Now I will back Darren up on one point. If a party is conducting a poll themselves, they don’t want to use their own party’s name because it does influence the responses, and you do want it scientific.

However as I said, the preferable way to deal with this is to have an actual company registered like Data Access, so you can legally say you are polling on behalf of that company.

He said the use of false names in polling was common: “I’m sure that half the people try to sell us things on telemarketing aren’t giving us their real names.”

Here I disagree. Of course callers should use their real names. They don’t have to give out their surname and home address, but why wouldn’t they use their real first names?

A spokesman for Goff said the leader of the opposition was not available to answer questions, but he had consulted members of the leadership council and been told the method of polling carried out by Barker was a mistake. “It won’t happen again.”

So the President knew nothing, the MP whose office was used lied about it, the whip defended it and the leader said it was a mistake and won’t happen again!

I think Labour need to work on their internal communications and messaging!

Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff said the details of Barker’s polling operation raised serious questions and could breach the Privacy Act.

I imagine Commissioner Shroff’s concerns would be over what happens to the individual responses. Does Labour destroy the individual responses once they have summarised the results, or do they enter in the responses against their electoral roll database to assist with voter targeting? If they do undertake the latter, that would be a very serious breach of the Privacy Act.

Well I would blog it, but there isn’t one. Instead we have a range of reactions from Labour that vary from no comment to trying to rewrite history.

What is especially shameful isn’t just that the Labour leadership and other MPs defended a corrupt MP. But they defended an MP who was exploiting the most vulnerable members of society and treating them as close to slave labour. He got his mate the Associate Minister to get them into NZ, and they worked unpaid for weeks or months on end making Field richer.

Field was everything the Labour Party claims to be against. And all his sins and abuses were detailed by Ingram. And even then they defended him. Clark even said he could return to the Ministry one day – compare that to Key on Worth.

Labour Ministers said there was no issue about his having slave labour work for free on his properties as hey were contractors, not employees!! And never at that time was there a denouncing of what Field did – because they needed his vote.

So did we get it last night. No. First Eddie from The Standard tried to rewrite history in a fashion that could make for a George Orwell novel. He said:

Good on Clark for sacking him as a minister when the allegations first came out.

She never sacked him. And even after the Ingram report came out, she refused to rule out he could be re-appointed to the Ministry.

Another liar at The Standard claims I invented the quote from the PM “the only thing of which Taito Philip Field is guilty is being helpful“.

What a disgusting lowlife. A sycophant who won’t criticise his own party for their disgraceful defence of Field, he just invents lies. Here is the full story on 13 September 2005 from Newstalk ZB. It is in the NZPA database and is no #1436468. I don’t expect an apology because I wouldn’t accept one from the anonymous coward.

Helen Clark says Taito Philip Field was making representation on someone’s behalf with regard to Thai man in Samoa The Prime Minister says the only thing of which Taito Philip Field is guilty is being helpful.

The Labour MP and State Minister has become involved in the efforts of a Thai man seeking residency. The man is waiting in Samoa for his application to be processed after he was denied refugee status.

Sunan Siriwan has been given a job by Taito Phillip Field to tile a house in Samoa.

Mr Field has written in support of the man to Associate Immigration Minister Damien O’Connor.

Helen Clark says Mr Field was making representation on someone’s behalf as MPs often do. She says if they cannot do that, they might as well shut the electorate office doors.

Then we have the Labour MPs, instead of their apologists. The Herald reports:

The man who replaced him as MP for Mangere, Sua William Sio, said he acknowledged the court’s decision, but would not comment further.

Wow that is a condemnation. Maybe he held back as his own office staff are under investigation over an alleged immigration scam.

Labour leader Phil Goff said: “It’s disappointing that a parliamentarian was found guilty of that conduct.

“The verdict is an indication that whatever you are in society you are equal under the law … the law has followed its course.”

Disappointing? It is a disgrace. And not a word on Labour’s defence of Field as a man of integrity whose only sin was to work too hard. And not a word of sympathy for Field’s victims – the so called “strugglers” Labour claims to champion.

Stuff reports:

Labour chief whip Darren Hughes said the party acknowledged the verdict, but had no further comment.

Labour have had months to prepare for this verdict, and this is all they can say.

Unless someone from Labour’s parliamentary wing  does a sincere apology for their behaviour over Field, the conclusion many people will reach is they are unfit to hold office again, and that their so called concern for the welfare of vulnerable New Zealanders is insincere.

Yes, oh yes. Darren Hughes has fallen into Steven Joyce’s trap. Look at this wonderful press release:

“The people of Mt Albert are very clear. They want a deep tunnel. Labour supports that view,” Darren Hughes said.

And Labour will force all taxpayers to for up an exra $1,000 or so to keep a few hundred voters happy.

Labour will spend $3 billion on a tunnel, so long as they retain the Mt Albert seat. Darren shoudl be the Senator for Alaska!

“It is disappointing that from what Transport Minister Steven Joyce has said today, it is clear the Government is not prepared to fund the option of a deep tunnel that the people of Auckland overwhelmingly support.

Bzzt. Not the people of Auckland. The people of Mt Albert may support the $3 billion tunnel, but I know which option Auckland motorists and taxpayers will support.

“Instead it will go with a compromise that provides second-best solutions for the people of Mt Albert and the future needs of Auckland.

Actually the reoad will be more future proofed, as it can easily be expanded to six lanes – unlike the tunnel.

“Melissa Lee’s candidacy has now been thoroughly undermined by Prime Minister John Key who is effectively dismissing her views as irrelevant,” Darren Hughes said.

“Mr Key knows the people of Mt Albert are overwhelmingly opposed to the surface option, and that Melissa Lee is completely out of step with local opinion.

And here Darren falls for it again. His only focus is the by-election. Yes it is quite possible this will make it easier for Labour to retain the seat. But they will now be painted as the worst sort of pork barrel politicians who even in a global recession are prepared to fritter away between $1 billion and $1.7 billion on buying a few hundred votes.

Labour are so focused on the by-election they have forgotten the real game is about the 2011 election.

From Hansard today:

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister—or the country—have any confidence in the transparency and honesty of the Minister of Finance, who, while ramming through legislation before Christmas without subjecting it to the scrutiny of a select committee, deliberately suppressed and withheld from the public and parliamentarians the advice he received from his own ministry that the fundamental parts of that legislation were deeply flawed?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I have complete confidence in the Minister of Finance. If we want to have concerns about Ministers of Finance, maybe we should have concern for a former Minister of Finance, who may well find himself in breach of the Public Finance Act.

Ouch. Does JK know something or was it just a general reminder? Remember you can be prosecuted for breaching the Public Finance Act.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister categorically assure the House that National is not concealing Treasury advice or other departmental advice against any of the legislation now being introduced in the House today under urgency?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I can confirm that the Government is not concealing any briefings or hiding anything from the House. If the member wants to talk about concealing things, maybe he should go and ask people in his own research unit about that, because the last time I saw them they were concealing the booze from the parliamentary Christmas party.

There were gasps to that one. Talking of which what has happened to the thieves?

David Garrett: Can the Minister confirm that the prefab prison—when it is built—will not have underfloor heating, plasma televisions in every cell, and expensive gymnasium facilities, and that criminals in those facilities will be required to work?

Hon SIMON POWER: I can advise that there will be no underfloor heating or plasma televisions in a new prison. Inmates will have appropriate exercise facilities, rather than the type of gymnasium I saw at one of the new prisons built by the previous Government. It seemed flash enough to charge a joining fee and for yearly membership.

Heh annual gym membership fee indeed.

Sandra Goudie: Has the Minister received any other feedback on the cost savings from building prefabricated modular units?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes. The Leader of the Opposition has criticised the Government’s plan to save taxpayer dollars, stating that “If you are short-sighted enough to build something cheap and nasty you will be rebuilding before very long.”, and “When you are building a public institution, you build it to make it last.” That is a surprising claim, when the four prisons built under Labour, where costs blew out by half a billion dollars, have already racked up $9 million in repair bills.

Amazing what you learn once you are n Government.

Hon Annette King: Can she confirm that rather than sitting on its hands, as she claimed, Labour in Government reduced the unemployment rate from 7.5 percent to 3.8 percent through active labour market policies that saw 140,000 fewer people on the unemployment benefit, and if the previous Government’s policies did nothing, which programmes has she cancelled since she became Minister?

Here Annette tells a big porkie. Labour did not reduce the unemployment rate from 7.5%. It was 6.2% at the end of 1999 and at the end of 2008 it was 4.6% – a 1.6% reduction that averaged 0.18% a year reduction. Incidentially the unemployment rate under National declined by 2.5%, which was an average 0.28% a year reduction. And if you discount the nine months of 1991 before National’s policies such as the ECA kicked in, then the reduction was 4.7%, or an annual 0.57%.

Bottom line is Annette lied, and that the unemployment rate declined far more under National in the 1990s, than Labour during their nine years.

Hon Darren Hughes: Why did the Minister reopen the debate on Transmission Gully when it was the preferred route of the previous Government, and continues to be the preferred route of the Wellington region; and is it not a little hollow to claim, as he tried to yesterday, that the Crown contribution was unfunded, when it has been earmarked in the Crown accounts since 2005 when the Wellington regional transport package was first announced?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I raised it because the previous Labour Government, which was in office for some 9 years, raised expectations regarding this route that were unfunded at the time that it left office. It suggested that $400 million would be allocated to complete the $1 billion project, but left the remaining $600 million to be funded by local bodies in the region. A regional fuel tax was talked of as a means by which that might happen; I am informed by the ministry that a Wellington regional fuel tax in the order of 13.5c per litre would be needed to fund the $600 million that the Government of the time left unfunded, so it could be described as more of a wish than a plan.

Nice line – more of a wish than a plan.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does the Minister agree in principle with the proposal for the Government to provide alternative funding for community law centres to ensure they do not need to drastically cut services at a time when demand for those services will inevitably increase; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON POWER: I can assure the member that I am taking this matter extremely seriously. This Government is committed to access to justice for all, not just for those privileged few who can afford to access such redress as that offered by, for example, the Supreme Court. Coincidentally, the drop in community law centres’ funding is roughly equivalent to the $4.3 million that was committed by the previous Government to the bronze plating of the new Supreme Court.

And that’s a home run!!

What I found most interesting is that Lockie is taking a strong line with Ministers about answering the question, if it is the primary question. He basically said that if the primary question is asking for some fact or figure, the Minister must provide that as they have hours to prepare for it.  I think it is excellent that he is raising the bar in this way.

I repeat what I said earlier: where primary questions are laid down clearly, members of the public expect an answer. When Ministers are answering questions, they can expect that the answers they give may be further questioned by members of the Opposition.

I was worried about how Lockwood may go as Speaker as he was not a lawyer or a standing orders expert. But he seems to have turned a potential weakness into a strength, noting today:

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any further assistance on this matter. I do not want to take up further time of the House. Had the Prime Minister not wished to answer the question, he could have made it very clear that he believed the question was out of order. The Prime Minister seemed to answer it with some enthusiasm. That entitled the Leader of the Opposition to ask a further supplementary question, and I believe that is the way the House should flow, in good order. We do not need to get too precious and pedantic about these things.

This is like a good rugby referee – making sure the “game” keeps flowing. Of course one has to follow the rules, but a but of latitude is a good thing.

Of course not having Winston there does make it a lot easier!

My day started in Auckland. I stayed up there for an extra day as National’s Northern Region had its Christmas Party on Sunday Night. The Regional Chair spoke about how well the Party did locally n both the party and the electorate vote.

John Key gave a very funny speech. There were serious parts about the future of mass membership parties, the financial crisis etc but I remember the part about his son ringing him up a few days ago, from the place he was babysitting at and complaining he was hungry. When John asked what he was meant to do, he was informed that as Prime Minister he can surely arrange for some pizzas of he can run the country. The story continued with how impressed the Pizza Hut staff were to have the PM call in an order, and now that they have his cellphone number they let him know how he is doing in the job

This morning I was on the same flight as Helen Clark, and in fact was set to be just behind her in the queue to board the plane. I was just about to greet her automatically with “Good Morning Prime Minister” until I realised that of course is no longer the salutation. I actually had to stop and think for quite a few seconds about what the correct greeting would be, and settled on “Miss Clark”. But by then she had left the line.

Headed into Parliament a bit after 1 pm, and for the first time in nine years sat on the side of the visitors gallery opposite the Government benches. It was nice to be able to see the Nats back on the Speaker’s right.

There was a TV set up in the gallery, so we could see the three Commissioners cross the road and walk through the grounds and corridors of Parliament to the House. The Governor-General is not allowed in the House so he sends three Commissioners to do the opening. They were the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief High Court Judge.

Dame Sian read out the various proclamations and asked the MPs to elect a Speaker. The Commissioners then exited the House and the Clerk of the House proceeded to swear MPs in. They come up in alphabetical order and are grouped by whether they swear or affirm the oath and on whether they speak in English or Maori.

Lots of MPs did modified versions of the oath, as their way to try and score a point. It got a bit tiresome really, as after they did their version, they then did the official one. Several MPs tried to add on references to the Treaty of Waitangi (including a European MP), and Sio tried it in Samoan before doing it in English. I did have to laugh though at Hone Harawira’s one which bore no resemblance at all to the oath as he went on about a duty to Te Tai Tokerau, Aotearoa, his constituents, the public etc. He then did the much shorter standard one.

The funniest part was when they called Darren Hughes and Parekura Horomia up together. This was a slip up as Parekura was to do it in Maori, and Darren in English. Rather than make a fuss Darren said it in Maori with Parekura – he didn’t even do a Milli Vanilli but managed the words well.

Then the election of Speaker at around 2.45 pm. Lockwood was the only nominee and certainly looked the part. He did a really good acceptance speech and referred to being in Parliament when Speaker Gerry Wall threw out the PM and the Opposition Leader on the same day. He said he hoped not to emulate that record but would do so if it was necessary!

This then led to several other MPs telling uncomplimentary stories of Speaker Wall (generally regarded as worst Speaker in living memory) as they congratulated Lockwood. Talking of Lockwood, Audrey Young has a blog on what she sees as his strengths and weaknesses for the job.

Normally after the House elects a Speaker-Elect (believe it or not the GG has to confirm them in the role), the Speaker-Elect travels to Government House to be confirmed and ask the GG to respect the privileges of the House etc. But as Government House is being renovated, we got a rare treat and MPs (and their guests) got to witness the ceremony being held in the Legislative Council Chamber. Took around half an hour all up.

As we were waiting I was chatting to a Minister about special votes and overseas votes and how he was keen for me to do some analysis around them. As I agreed to do so, one of the new Labour MPs sitting just in front of us turns around, and says she’d like a copy also

Actually I’ll probably stick it on the blog once I do finish it, as it is all sourced from public information.

After the GG/Speaker ceremony, there was a function in the State Banquet Hall, hosted by the GG. Got to meet a few of the new MPs I had not yet met, which was nice. What was funny was when talking to one new Labour MP and her husband, the photographer asked if we wanted our photo taken together. I quipped that it would probably knock 1,000 votes off her majority so we declined

Finally as I was leaving Parliament, I had the good fortune to be on the forecourt just as Emma Daken arrived. I blogged about Emma a few days ago – she is walking the length of New Zealand to raise money for cystric fibrosis research. MP Katrina Shanks pointed her out to me. Katrina, like many MPs, has been really supportive of Emma’s efforts. She’s now raised $21,000 but still some way off the $50,000 target. You can donate online to here at this site. I find what people like Emma are doing is really inspiring in its selflessness.

So a pretty full day. Tomorrow is the state opening and the GG reads out the speech from the throne. After that I expect the House will elect a Deputy Speaker, two Assistant Speakers and also appoint MPs to Select Committees. They will then start the address in reply debate, but also go into urgency to introduce and pass some of the laws they promised.

The maiden speeches will start tomorrow, and the best speeches you will ever hear in Parliament are (in my order) valedictory speeches, maiden speeches and then speeches on conscience issues. With 35 MPs that is a heck of a lot of maiden speeches (I guess Sir Roger won’t get one though) so I doubt I can cover them all, but will try to cover a few of them anyway.

Whanganui had a 3% lead in the party vote in 2005, and this expanded out to 22% in 2008. And the 3,500 majority for Borrows goes to 6,000.

Rangitikei sees a 25% lead in the party vote and Simon Power moves his majority from 9,000 to 11,000.

Tukituki has an 18% lead in the party vote, and a 2,600 majority for Craig Foss gets a boost thanks to Labour’s sacking of the local District Health Board to over 7,000.

Palmerston North has been held by Labour since 1978. The party vote was narrowly won by National but Labour’s Iain Lees-Galloway held off Malcolm Plimmer by 1,000 votes.

Wairarapa has National 17% ahead on the party vote. And John Hayes turns the seat safe with a 2,900 majority converting to 6,300 in 2008.

Otaki was a huge battle. I’ve door knocked Otaki in the past and it is not natural National territory in the Horowhenua parts. So winning the party vote by 8% is good for National after trailling by 3% last time. Darren Hughes put up a huge fight to protect his sub 400 majority but Nathan Guy grabbed the seat by almost 1,500.

In Wellington, Labour does a lot better starting with Mana. Labour remains 6% ahead on the party vote but reduced from 18% in 2005. Winnie Laban’s 6,800 majority shrinks only slightly to 5.300.

Rimutaka was the last hope for NZ First. Labour won the party vote there in 2005 by 11% and in 2008 by 0.3%. On the electorate vote just as narrow with Labour’s Chris Hipkins pipping Richard Whiteside by 600 votes. Ron Mark got a credible 5,000 votes but stll trailed by 7,000.

Hutt South is home to Wainuiomata and Trevor Mallard. Trevor delivered a party vote margin for Labour of 4% and a 3,600 majority for himself. In 2005 the party vote margin was 14% and the personal majority 6,600 so some movement there.

Rongotai is now the home of the Labour Deputy Leader. But even before her ascension, Rongotai gave Labour a massive 11% margin on the party vote – 43% to 32% for National. And her personal 13,000 majority in 2005 was only slightly dented to just under 8,000. If that is her low tide mark, she’ll be happy.

Wellington Central saw in 2005 a party vote for National of just 33%, Labour 43% and Greens around 16%. In 2008 it was National 36%, Labour 34% and Greens around 20%. Marian Hobbs had a 5,800 majority and Stephen Franks cut that to 1,500 against new MP Grant Robertson with some Green party votes giving Robertson their electorate vote to keep Franks out.

Ohariu was assumed by almost everyone to be safe as houses for Peter Dunne. But it got close this time. First on the party vote, National beat Labour 43% to 40% in 2005. This time it was 47% to 33%. On the candidate vote Peter Dunne dropped from 45% to 33% making him vulnerable. National’s Katrina Shanks lifted her vote from 21% to 26% and Labour’s Charles Chauvel from 26% to 30%. The Greens candidate got 7% of the vote and may have ironically saved the seat for Dunne.

• Leader: Phil Goff
• Deputy Leader: Annette King
• Finance: David Cunliffe
• Foreign Affairs: Helen Clark
• Shadow Leader: Michael Cullen
• Senior Whip: Darren Hughes
• Junior Whip: Steve Chadwick

Congratulations to Phil Goff for achieving his long held ambition, and without even a ballot. He will be a very happy chap tonight. Annette is probably taking up the Deputy more through a sense of duty than ambition. She will be a key person in keeping people happy.

Overall looks pretty sensible to me.

We also have the unusual situation where Clark remains as Prime Minister for another week or so, despite no longer being party leader. I don’t thik there has ever before been a leadership change before the new Government has even been sworn in.

Cameron has put onto You Tube our interviews with some of the candidates. Each video is only around two minutes as they answered our five question quiz. I’ll do three of them here and the others later today. The questions were:

1. What is the biggest issue for the voters of your electorate?
2. When did you first stand for election of any sort – was it at school?
3. McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden?
4. What will you do with the tax cuts you just got?
5. Goff or Cunliffe?

Above is Darren Hughes. Darren also answered questions on whether “Gingas” should be given the vote, and he advocated that not only should they be allowed to vote, but that they should be elected in large numbers. It was a fun interview!

His first election was in Standard Four when he won Class Captain in a landslide. He is backing Obama/Biden but was originally a Hillary supporter. His tax cuts have gone towards increasing his mortgage repayments.

For the Goff vs Cunliffe question, Darren just assumed we were talking about Labour Leadership but went on to say the next Leader has yet to be born, but he will happily serve them once they are

Nathan Guy is above. Nathan’s biggest local issue was infrastructure, including Transmission Gully. At school he was elected Chairman of the Student Council. He backs McCain over Obama and then delivered such a word perfect piece on the importance of tax cuts that I suggested the Chief Whip had written it for him (he is Chief Whip for those who don’t get it). On Goff vs Cunliffe he said he does not care but Clark is gone!

And finally Hekia Parata. Hekia named three big issues of lifting productivity and incomes, access to quality education and roading/infrastructure. Hekia’s first political act was taking her third form class on strike in protest over not being able to read the Little Red Schoolbook. She had no idea what was in it but was offended they were told they could not read it. Hekia also mentioned at the end of the story that the Deputy Principal was her father so one can guess how well that went down! Hekia was also elected President of the Waikato Students’ Union.

Hekia said she is concerned about McCain’s age and Palin’s experience so thinks Obama/Biden is a better choice. Says tax cuts are too little too late and taxes should have been reduced a bit every year – not just once at the end of nine years.And finally she dodged the Goff vs Cunliffe question by choosing Key and English.

The Blogmobile had its first official outing to the Kapiti Coast on Sunday. It does take a while to get use to the size and bulk of the vehicle. You do not want to have to slam the brakes on suddenly, so you drive quite cautiously. Mind you, still over took a couple of cars on the way, which surprised them!

I also found no problems working on the laptop while Cameron drove. The Vodafone data card kept a signal the entire trip. And the mat on the table stops the laptop moving about.

Mid afternoon we went to a Waikanae function for Nathan Guy – had 100 or so people there to hear Gerry Brownlee speak. We then had some refreshments at a VWRCNZ farm a few kms north of Waikanae before heading to the Meet the Candidates Meeting in Raumati.

Raumati is actually in Mana electorate, but close to the Otaki boundary so there were candidates there for both electorates. Seven of the candidates (two Nats, one Labour, two ACT, one NZ First and one Progressive) did our five question quiz for the video camera, and I’ll link to their videos later on.

The candidates speaking were:

1. National – Nathan Guy (Otaki) and Hekia Parata (Mana)
2. Labour – Winnie Laban (Mana) and Darren Hughes (Otaki)
3. ACT – Mike Collins (Mana) and Peter McCaffrey (Otaki)
4. NZ First – David Scott (Otaki)
5. United Future – Robin Gunston (Mana)
6. Greens – Michael Gilchrist (Mana)
7. Progressive – Josie Pagani (Otaki)

Each party had eight minutes (they could split between them) to talk, and the topic was meant to be on making communities safer. After that there was an hour of questions from the floor.

All the candidates got a pretty good reception, but David Scott got heckled a fair bit when he spent too much time talking about how wonderful Winston was, and not enough on the actual topic. We got this a bit in the interview also when David said the most critical issue facing voters is getting Winston back into Parliament! I actually know David as he is the ex-husband of a former National MP!

Nathan and Hekia were both very good. Nathan is one of those MPs who speaks to you, not at you – never speaks down at all. And Hekia was wonderful as she gave some great examples from her own family about the challenges parents can have in having their kids safe. You could feel the connection with some in the audience.

Winnie and Darren both gave very polished performances also. Darren uses humour very well, and strikes an easy rapport with people. They were both very on message and avoided stuff which turns off people like blaming crime on a budget from 17 years ago.

Gunston and Gilchrist made no blunders and reflected their party stances as expected.

Likewise Peter and Mike from ACT pushed their party’s policies on law and order. They had one negative moment when Peter pushed Sir Roger Douglas and the generally elderly audience reacted as if he had tortured a cat. But during question time it seemed apparent they had some people agreeing with them on law and order policies.

But the real interesting candidate for me (and no not just because I know her) was Josie Pagani. In fact Josie scared me. She sounded like a Tory, while advocating socialist policies. Now this is really dangerous!! A definite wolf in sheep’s clothing!

She managed to defend the anti-smacking law while at the same time condemning the political correct environment that spawned it by talking about how her kids get reflection notes or some bullshit from school now, and what the hell do they mean. So she had all the audience nodding and agreeing with her, and then artfully adds to her story by saying that violence against kids is horrific though and if we need a better law to make it clear, then she is all for it.

One of the questions was on whether the drinking age should be lifted to 20. I resisted identifying myself as a co-ordinator for the Keep it 18 campaign . It was interesting how the candidates split.

In favour of 20 was the Greens, Progressive, NZ First United Future and one of the Labour candidates (Laban). Now it is a conscience issue but I found it interesting that you had Greens and Progressive agreeing with the more socially conservative parties.

In favour of 18 was both ACT candidates, both National candidates and Darren Hughes from Labour. Hekia Parata did make the point that she did not support lowering it to 18, but now it is 18 one can’t turn it back.

Afterwards we gave Peter and Mike a lift back to Wellington. They were impressed that we had on board a box of ACT’s 20 point plans – Rodney never misses an opportunity and got them for Cameron.

I’ve stolen this image from NZPA. It thought people would like to look at it, while they have recalled for them these quotes:

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister promise the House that tonight at the opening of the Auckland business school she will sit with Owen Glenn and allow herself to be photographed with him?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, but I can assure him she will not be hongi-ing Tame Iti at the same time.

Instead Michael gets to do the hongi.

Trevor Mallard: How can he, when he knows someone is facing very, very serious charges under the Arms Act-and that is a matter of public record-put himself in a position where he is seen to endorse the mana of that individual by greeting him in the way he did? I cannot believe that any responsible politician in New Zealand would endorse Tame Iti in the way that John Key did at Waitangi. It was absolutely wrong, and I think it shows-and I have to be very careful with my words here-that he lacks what is necessary to be a strong leader who is prepared to stand up for his principles and stand up for what is right for New Zealand. That is what he showed us when he put himself in the position where he endorsed Tame Iti in that way.

So Trevor is saying Michael Cullen is not a responsible politician? And that Cullen endorses Iti? ANd that Cullen is not a strong leader and Cullen does not stand up for his principles and Cullen does not stand up for what is right for NZ. Wow Trevor is very harsh on Cullen.

Mallard again: First of all, I ask John Key the same question I asked him last week. It is a question that I will ask him every time I have the opportunity. Why did he not have the courage to turn his back on Tame Iti when Tame Iti approached him? We expect someone of principle, someone who aspires to be the Prime Minister, to say “I will not cuddle up to someone who is charged with serious firearm offences.” We expect someone like him to have the courage to front up in these matters, or, in this case, to not front up-to turn his back, to walk away, and to say it is not appropriate to meet with someone like that, to hongi, to give endorsement, and to give approval. Every single week that we have the opportunity to do so we will ask that question, until John Key gets off his backside, gets into this House, and answers that question

So will Trevor also ask this every week of Michael? Why didn’t Michael Cullen have the courage to turn his back and walk away instead of cuddling him?

Hon DARREN HUGHES : I seek leave to table a photograph of John Key hongi-ing with Tame Iti, who is currently on bail and facing serious firearm charges.

And Darren jumps in also. I hope Darren will also seek leave to table the photo of Michael Cullen and John Key.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radio NZ has a four minute item on Internet campaigning, You Tube etc. They talked to myself, “Steve Pierson” from The Standard (who used his real name for the interview which is commendable), Darren Hughes, and Jo de Joux. Won’t have any revelations for those already online but will have been interesting to the wider listeners I hope.

Doing one of my semi-regular spots on ZB’s Faceoff Panel from 11 – 12 today, for Wellington listeners.

Labour Minister Darren Hughes is on also. He’s a great guy, so I am sure we will have fun.

Topics include the Speaker’s Tours and Auckland Airport.

UPDATE: Was fun.  When Darren started going on about strategic assets, I asked him to provide a list.  He responded with “anything in my electorate” which was very witty. He kindly gave me a lift to near Lampton Quay afterwards.  When the driver asked where exactly he should let me off, Darren suggested where-ever the traffic is busiest

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.