Kiwiblog

Deborah Coddington writes in the HoS:

Why the fuss over charter schools? Given the hysterical ranting from teacher unions, you’d think we were returning to caning on the backside.

It won’t be compulsory for students to attend what are, essentially, alternative choices for parents to state or private schools. A bit like kura kaupapa.

But unions don’t like parental choice. They like telling parents what to do. Robin Duff, head of the PPTA, published an opinion piece comparing these evil charter schools with epic failures such as the Pike River mining disaster, the Global Financial Crisis and the grounding of the container ship Rena.

Charter schools also cause famine in Africa I understand.

The commonality is that none are accountable. But charter schools are accountable to parents, something that many state schools are not.

If parents can choose to stay or leave a school, that is the best form of accountability.

While the PPTA and NZEI remain firmly wedded to collective agreements, it will be difficult to introduce incentives to keep brilliant teachers in the classrooms when they must move into management for higher salaries. In union land, excellent teachers shouldn’t get more pay than incompetent colleagues on the same level because that’s not fair.

I say let each principal decide for themselves how much to pay the teachers at their school, within a total budget.

Deborah Coddington writes in the HoS:

It’s official: we’re a nation of idiots who can’t make decisions to save ourselves or take responsibility for our problems.

That’s according to two academics from Otago University, researchers in public health, Dr Gabrielle Jenkin and Penny Field, who specialise in the obesity epidemic.

Interviewed this week by Kathryn Ryan on National Radio, Field tossed off a comment which sent me into deep despair. Obesity, she said, was “not a problem with individual choice and self-discipline, which we’ve proved successfully doesn’t work”.

Instead it’s the fault of “big institutions and the market”.

Actually the problem is lack of market forces. Make overweight people pay more to fly, and pay more for healthcare and you’ll see more people lose weight.

This attitude from academics is patronising and silly. Yes, there are some grossly obese people for whom stomach-stapling is the only resort, so impossible is it for them to lose weight, but they’re a small minority.

For the rest of us, choice and self-discipline most definitely does work. Eat less food, whatever that may be, and exercise more. If we jettison that weapon in the weight-control battle, what next? Budgeting? Fighting fraud? Why bother prosecuting directors of finance companies who fail to protect the savings of investors by exercising self-discipline and choice, but excuse themselves by saying they were victims of the global financial crisis?

Jenkin’s final words were that the food industry needs to be held accountable for obesity. No. Individuals need to be held accountable and stop blaming food and its makers for their problem.

Hear hear.

A feisty column by Deborah Coddington:

I wouldn’t like to live next door to Nicky Hager. I sense, from his pontifications about New Zealand’s involvement in Afghanistan, that if he was my neighbour and my family was attacked, Hager would decline to get involved.

As well as other peaceniks, isolationists and John Minto-adoring surrender monkeys, I’d be left to fight my own battles. My fate would be packaged as “Other People’s Wars”.

Simplistic analogy, comparing domestic crime with international wars, civil or otherwise – do we turn our backs when viciousness is perpetrated against human beings just because they happen to live hundreds of thousands of miles away?

I presume the “surrender monkeys” were also against the NATO intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, despite the fact it saved tens of thousands of lives, and the territories are now relatively stable.

Deborah Coddington writes in the HoS:

But there is hope for equity from our youth. Midweek I co-judged, with David Farrar, a debate with the somewhat dodgy moot, ‘Politicians are even worse in the boardroom than in the bedroom’. Don Brash was host and I’ll say no more on that.

The occasion was launching Youth for Act and listening to the debaters – male and female – was encouraging. They want government out of our bedrooms, for instance, with same-sex marriage, not just civil unions. Racism does exist – Maori youth are busted for drugs, not white middle class, so legalise cannabis. Act, they said, shouldn’t just bang on about economic issues.

And here’s a good analogy they posited. If liberal parties just want individual freedom, like tax cuts, to enrich themselves, consider this: do you really think Sir Roger Douglas and Heather Roy voted against the banning of Kronic because they want to smoke themselves into a stupor?

Like Deborah I was encouraged by the debate, hearing young ACT candidates make the case for ACT to push social liberalism as much or even more than economic liberalism.

It was nice to hear passionate ACT candidates talking about the need for same sex couples to not be discriminated against, and to (as Deborah reported) argue that the current drug laws unfairly criminalise young Maori, as they are more likely to be searched for drugs.

The debate was about whether ACT should focus more on economic liberalism or social liberalism. There were good arguments on both sides, and of course the answer is in fact you should do both. But I tend to think it would be good to hear more from ACT on social liberalism, because their brand there has been unclear. No one doubts ACT’s commitment to economic liberalism, but they do wonder about the commitment to social liberalism.

Wouldn’t it be great I thought to hear Don Brash say something along the lines of “Yes we are going to get rid of the Maori seats, because race based seats are wrong – but we are also going to decriminalise personal use of cannabis, as our current drug laws unfairly penalise young Maori”.

Deborah Coddington writes in the HoS:

It’s election year and this year’s panacea is to close the gap between rich and poor. Expect more of this zeitgeist because some Kiwi journalists have just caught up with a silly book published in Britain two years ago called The Spirit Level.

Actually I have no problem with closing the gaps. I think that’s an admirable objective, but I suspect my aspirations are vastly different from those of some of my colleagues.

Because when most people talk about closing gaps between rich and poor, they want to drag the successful down to the level of the lowest, whereas I’d lift everyone up to the top, if I could.

Indeed. Any excuse to whack the rich pricks, which is why they have latched onto The Spirit Level (whose findings are shown in The Spirit Level Delusion to be cherrypicked to get the results they wanted).

If the gaps are really to be closed, spirit-levellers would have to go further and place handicaps on successful people to ensure they don’t find ways to break the mould.

Clever brains like Sam Morgan’s, for instance, which enabled him to come up with Trade Me, would have to be dulled with drugs.

Fashion designers like Denise L’Estrange Corbet, who sees beauty where I see bolts of cloth, would have to be blinded. Cut out Kiri Te Kanawa’s voice box – I think you get my drift.

I’m not a fan of the saying, “celebrate our differences”, but in this context it seems appropriate to trot it out. And why can’t we aspire to something higher than the middle common denominator?

It’s about time someone started championing the rich and successful in this country – they’re a persecuted minority.

I can only imagine the hate mail Deborah will get in the next edition of the HoS.

But she has a point. As a society we celebrate someone winning $1m in Lotto using blind luck, but condemn someone who after 30 years of 70 hour weeks, earns $500,000 a year as a chief executive.

Deborah Coddington writes in the HoS:

And what this census doesn’t reveal is how many women turn down requests to sit on boards as company directors.

Maybe they are smarter than men, and don’t wish to expose themselves, under the Companies Act 1993, to the legal and reputation risks when a corporate curdles from the heat and shareholders cast around for someone to blame.

Feminism, to a liberal, is not equality of numbers just to please the Human Rights Commission.

Equality is about freedom of choice. So long as women can choose to be directors of public companies, or run their own successful companies – such as Trilogy – or even eschew the red-tape hassles, Inland Revenue nightmares, staffing problems and opt to be an employee, then we shouldn’t fret.

I partially agree with Deborah, but not totally.

First of all I should state that I’ve served under four different board chairs on two different boards which I am or was a non-executive director or. All four Chairs were female, and I’ve actually learnt a lot about governance from them.

Directorships are not quite like other jobs. While some companies do undertake a public recruitment process for directors, other do operate very much on an invitation basis, and it comes down to whom the existing directors know.

So I don’t think the lack of women on commercial boards is just because women want to avoid the liability that comes with directorships. I think the “old boys” network is an issue. But I also note that more and more women are undertaking IOD company director courses.

And is there anything to suggest women on their boards would improve things? Might just as well put blow-up dolls around the board table.

I’m adamantly against any quotas, but boards work well if they have a diversity of experience and knowledge. And it is a fact of life that overall women and men respond differently to various stuff. You often have different marketing strategies for female and male customers. So having no women on your board, may mean a valuable perspective is lost.

But I do agree with Deborah that often part of the problem is women not putting themselves forward. In the political realm, some groups complain that women only make up around 35% of Parliament.

But I don’t think that this is because NZers are reluctant to vote for women. I think it is because relatively fewer women seek political office.

It would be interesting to see some stats on what percentage of nominees (those seeking candidacy) in the major parties are women, what percentage of candidates are women, and compare that to the percentage of MPs that are women. This would help ascertain whether the under-representation is because women do not seek nomination, or because they do not gain a candidacy or whether they do not get elected.

I’ve done a quick analysis of the 2008 election. In the 70 electorate contests, I’ve looked at the genders of the winner and runner up. In 34 seats they were both male. In just five they were both female. Of the 31 seats where they were of different genders, 17 had the male candidate win and 14 the female candidate.

Deborah is no fan of Rodney’s, so makes this column more significant:

The “Politician Wally Award” goes not to Rodney Hide but to the Act MPs who tried to dump him as leader. Hello? Heather Roy, Roger Douglas and John Boscawen – Hide’s the only reason you’re in Parliament, plus the only reason Act still exists, despite his stuff-ups and yes, they’re huge. I’m Hide’s least favourite person but the three coup plotters – who should be sacked except Act has no one credible to take their places – seriously underestimate his intelligence, his extraordinary ability to recover from disaster, and his single-minded determination to achieve his goals (think weight loss, going alcohol-free, winning Epsom).

You have a man down, you lift him up and carry him a while, not press his nose into the mud and think you can take his place.

Some good advice from Deborah.

An amusing profile of Bob Jones by his friend, Deborah Coddington.

As a teenager in the 80s I read all of Bob’s books and loved them. His “Letters” are a priceless read. I have only met him once – in 2007.

I was asked to come over to his office to join a discussion over the Electoral Finance Bill, and ways he could contribute to a campaign against it. I went over at 3 pm, expecting to be back at my desk by 5 pm. I staggered out of Sir Bob’s office, along with John Ansell, at around 4 am. During that 13 hours we drank many bottles of superb wine, and the only food we had was potato chips. I really could barely walk.

Anyway back to the profile:

“I had two MPs in my office last night but, unusually, we didn’t drink much because they left early. So-and-so and what’s-his-name? The duck?”

“Trevor Mallard?”

“Yes, Mallard. Only one glass each.”

Heh.

Certainly, there has been a vigour about his family life. Last month he told M2 Magazine: “I have vast numbers of children ranging from 4 to 40 years of age. All have been produced by diverse women without my consent, my participation having been fleeting.”

His correspondence with their various schools is one of the best parts of his Letters books.

Then there are some who painfully remember Jones’ own pugilism, including the time television reporter Rod Vaughan, determined to get an answer from Jones about the future of his New Zealand Party, flew by helicopter to Jones’ trout fishing patch at Turangi. Jones moved like lightning out of the undergrowth and punched Vaughan on the nose.

When fined $1000 in court, Jones asked the judge if he paid $2000, could he please do it again?

Never had a country been so united behind one man. I recall even the Governor-General was over-heard saying how much he approved of what Jones did. The video of the assault was wonderful theatre.

But the charmer also loves to shock. A few months ago he invited me to join him for lunch with Wellington lawyer Mai Chen. When Jones was informed by Chen that she doesn’t drink alcohol he claimed to be horrified: “You poor bastard. Tom Scott’s coming along. Deborah’s got no pants on (not true). There’ll be an orgy later (also untrue). I feel sorry for you.”

Heh.

Jones also has a thing about dark glasses, especially when worn on the top of the head. As if on cue, this bete noire popped up near the end of lunch.

As we filed out of the Arbitrageur restaurant Jones spied a woman sporting a flash pair of sunnies atop her blonde mane, and started muttering about people wearing sunglasses on their heads. I recognised the wearer as Wellington blogger “Busted Blonde”, and guessed, correctly, that Jones would be repaid the next day on her Roar Prawn blogsite.

The blog post is here.

But Jones enjoys fomenting mischief and critics should ignore him. He’s been insulting me for nearly 20 years and I’m not particularly thick-skinned. When he decided I should meet Colin Carruthers, I was instructed to not “dress like a whore, none of that paint smeared on your face, just lipgloss”.

When the progressing relationship pleased him, this unlikely Dorothy Dix offered more advice: “Don’t let him take you away to an island resort. At your age, you can’t be seen prancing around in a bikini. Get him to take you skiing so your body’s well covered.”

So how, my feminist friends ask, can you remain close to someone so obviously sexist? The Listener’s Jane Clifton, who has been his good mate since she was a “baby journalist”, gets the same queries and laughs them off.

“Way back before I even knew him well, someone wrote something spiteful and gutless about me and Bob wrote me this letter which was not just of comfort but which said, ‘the problem as I see it is that **** is a conspicuously hideous beast and you are not’. It was bloody useful and restorative to be told that. Bob saw an injustice, and was extraordinarily nice about it.

I love the story of how he paid his receptionist to change her name by deed poll.

Deborah Coddington writes:

I now see in my diary that the very same day I had an appointment with someone whom they really should have been concerned about.

A year later he would be placed very high on the Act Party list, only to hastily withdraw for “personal reasons” linked to an incident at his church in the early 1990s.

This is about the 2005 election. I don’t recall a highly ranked candidate withdrawing, but maybe others can?

I presume the “personal reasons” involve an altar boy or a nun or both

I support the provocation partial defence going, but Deborah Coddington gives an example to argue the other way:

This is no criticism of Mrs Elliott’s stoicism, but if I heard someone stabbing one of my daughters on the other side of a locked door, I hope I would react swiftly.

Proficient with firearms, I would fire through the door lock. Finding my daughter dead inside, I would shoot and kill the bastard.

I would re-load and shoot again to make sure he was dead – probably not 216 times.

I would call the police, I’d be arrested and charged with murder, and I’d throw myself on the mercy of the court.

Should this crime be treated on an equivalent basis as the crime committed by Clayton Weatherston? Is it comparable as that committed by him, or other crimes committed by, say, Paul Dally (the killer of Karla Cardno) or Jules Mikus (the killer of Teresa Cormack)?

And what about when it comes to sentencing – should there be any mitigating circumstances taken into account by the judge?

My response is that firstly she could claim self defence. It is reasonable to think that having killed her daughter, he may try and kill her.

But what if he had finished the job and was walking away from the house so there is no issue of self defence.

Well yes if you do shoot him then, you would be convicted of murder, not manslaughter if provocation goes. But there already is a huge degree of range in the brutality of murders. Being found guilty of the same crime does not mean you are the same of them.

And the key thing is the circumstances could be taken into account with sentencing. A Judge can give a lesser sentence than life under s102(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002.

In the conditions Deborah describes, a Judge could give a suspended sentence (no jail time unless you reoffend) for the killing.

An excellent column:

It’s about time parents formed a union equally as militant as the teachers’ unions and Principals’ Federation. Because who, in the current war over national standards in education, is sticking up for the kids?

A parents’ union – not a bad idea.

The education unions whine that if these standards proceed, media will publish them, parents will compare teachers and schools, and do what I and hundreds of other parents do – exercise choice. Well, we can’t have that, can we?

We’re trusted to choose our family doctor, our car, our fridge, our house, our MP, but when it comes to choosing the school our children go to, if the left have their way, we must go where the State dictates. Only those who can afford it are lucky enough to choose.

Spot on.

This all reminds me so much of that wonderful British comedy written by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, Yes, Prime Minister. I’m thinking in particular of the episode titled “The National Education Service” when the Prime Minister decides he will let parents take their children to any school they choose. Sir Humphrey explodes into protest: “That’s preposterous. You can’t just let parents make these choices. How on earth would parents know which schools are best?”

Sir Humphrey, the consummate bureaucrat, is then asked which school he went to. It was Winchester, he says, and it was excellent. And who chose it?

“My parents, naturally, that’s quite different. My parents were discerning people. You can’t expect ordinary people to know where to send their people.”

I’ve said this many times – Yes Minister was a documentary.

I have no doubt the leaders of teacher and principal unions, when they buy a car or house, compare brands, neighbourhoods, or performance. Why then, when parents must by law trust their most precious and loved children to other adults’ care, do these same unionists deny them the right to compare schools’ performance?

Hundreds of primary school principals are threatening to keep secret the standards data because it might lead to a “blame and shame” culture. That behaviour graphically illustrates where their best interests lie, and it’s not with their pupils. Perhaps they need reminding of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights – “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

Once the date is made available, I’m wondering how hard it would be to do a mashup with it on Google Maps. People could see schools in their local areas, and their assessment data. You could even add stuff in like decile ratings, level of school funding etc.

Deborah Coddington writes:

Despite the article’s intro, stating: “By changing the law to allow private management of prisons, we are giving ourselves a choice, writes Judith Collins”, the Minister didn’t actually write it.

When I checked with her office, a spokesperson confirmed it was written under instructions from the Minister but was essentially her article.

This must be the least surprising revelation of all times – that Ministers do not personally write articles they approve. Next we will learn they also do not write all their own press releases and speeches.  How shocking.

On Monday, the same paper’s political editor, Tracy Watkins, wrote an op-ed political essay, with her photo and byline.

I strongly suspect that if Tracy Watkins hired some underlings to write her articles for her, telling them what arguments to push, then signed off on the final copy before hitting the send button to the editor and claimed sole credit, she’d be fired. As would I, and justifiably so.

That is because Tracy is a journalist, not a Minister. Tracy’s sole job is to write stories. A Minister has around 100 other things to do like set policy, and approve spending. A Minister is not a trained journalist or writer.

But most MPs can’t write to save themselves, that’s why they rely on their staff to do it for them. So are they being honest when they claim sole credit for authorship of stuff they don’t actually write, even if it is their political philosophy?

I don’t think they do claim sole credit. Anyone who follows politics would know staff have a significant role in any written material.

I know from experience how disgustingly busy an MP’s life is, but in 2004 when this organ’s editor offered me this column, his facial expression said, don’t flatter yourself.

I was chosen, he said, because I was the only MP he could trust to write my own material.

Because Deborah is a trained journalist with 20 years experience.

Someone else does the brush strokes, chooses the colours, the MP signs the painting, all hell breaks loose. Someone else writes the sentences, chooses the adjectives and verbs, the MP signs the article.

What’s the difference?

Massive. It’s like not knowing the difference between cheating in an exam, and having someone help you with your homework.

Deborah slays some stupidness:

Last week Sir Jonathan said he was “unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate”.

According to this British toff, we should seriously consider contraception and abortion as weapons against climate change. After all, he reckons, every Pommie child in its lifetime will destroy more than two acres of “old-growth oak woodland”.

I suppose in New Zealand the equivalent would be trashing several hectares of native bush.

I look forward to the reaction from our Family First lobby on hearing New Zealand women, pregnant with a third child, can rush to a certified GP seeking an abortion on the grounds that a nice patch of West Coast beech forest is more important than human life.

Climate change as a reason for an abortion – now that would be a debate!

Deborah Coddington takes aim at the Film Commission:

So far, so good, until you get down to a miserable failure, The Ferryman, into which the commission poured $6m of our money, and which we could safely guess has not been seen by one person, save those who made it and maybe their mums and aunties.

Not one theatre bought this movie. The commission says 16,000 people have seen The Ferryman, but look closely and you realise this is based on a DVD being rented 13 times and seen each time by 2.5 people (was the third person half-asleep?). …

We spent $6 million on a film that not a single theatre would show?

We know 1330 DVDs were sold, but there’s absolutely no evidence – aside from marketing director Lindsay Shelton’s back-of-the-envelope workings – they were watched by 16,000 people. Let’s be generous and presume these DVDs were sold as rentals, fetching a top price of $25 each. That’s a return of less than $10,000 on an investment of $6m.

Sounds like mroe scrutiny is needed indeed. What I’m surprised about isn’t that the Film Commission lost $6 million on a film, but that tis loss has received such scant coverage, before COddington highlighted it.

Rodney may have his hands full with David Garrett. At Backbenches last Wednesday he surprised a few by advocating a Sheriff Joe type prison of war camp at Waiorou for hardened criminals, with food to cost only 75c a day instead of the current $5.

And the HoS reports he caused waves at Eye to Eye, and was allegedly drunk. However (and you have to look hard to find this, the show was recorded in June before he was an ACT candidate):

During the show, Garrett, speaking slowly and occasionally slurring, made rambling comments which were rubbished by the other panellists, particularly former Act MP Deborah Coddington.

My motto is to drink after the TV show, not before! Mind you on election night it was a mxiture of both!

Coddington said she was shocked by Garrett’s attitude: “He was really rude to me. He walked up and said `Deborah Coddington, my brother hates you’.”

She said recording was stopped several times because of Garrett’s behaviour but didn’t think any more about the incident until Act announced Garrett as a list candidate.

Which was some months ago.

Garrett confirmed he made the comment to Coddington.

“That was a stupid thing to say. But I might have said it stone cold sober.”

He denied he was homophobic and said the other panellists had not listened to his arguments.

“What I said was, paedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. Deborah Coddington just didn’t get it.

“I am not saying gays are the same as paedophiles. One of my closest friends is flagrantly gay. He was the MC at my wedding.”

Garrett said he “certainly regrets” his long lunch and had rung Hauiti to apologise. “It’s certainly not appropriate behaviour for an MP.”

Not a helpful story, but when I first read it, I thought this had just happened this weekend. It is somewhat of a different story that it was before he was even a candidate.

Oh and for the record homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Paedophilia is a psychological disorder.

Deborah’s column has a few things in it I can’tr resist responding to:

More puzzling than Helen Clark’s refusal to sack Peters is Key’s rush to judgment, ruling out working with NZ First before the committee’s report was tabled.

Key’s no crystal-ball gazer; he can’t know for sure NZ First won’t be back in November.

No. As he has said he would rather remain in Opposition than rely on Peters, as he can’t be trusted. It is called a principled decision. To be fair, it is also probably a recognition that such a Government would only last weeks or months anyway.

Contrast this with the National Party campaigning for convicted paedophile Peter Ellis’ innocence when he’d been found guilty by every court in the land.

How this is even relevant, I don’t know. But it is not National campaigning – it was Katherine Rich and Don Brash. But asking for a Royal Commission into the Ellis case (something I support) is not about campaigning for a paedophile – it is about campaigning for a better justice system.

Several years ago a National insider who quit the leader’s office told me if the party ever dies, trace the DNA back to McCully.

“He’s a trench fighter, and all his decisions are made according to what’s good for him. He was behind Jenny [Shipley] rolling Jim [Bolger], then he pushed Jenny over.”

This is why I responded, because I know this is false. McCully was not supporting Shipley. Far from it – he was a member of the Bolger team trying to defeat her coup. This is a matter of fact – many witnesses would testify to this.

A current National staffer says he overheard MPs discussing what they’d do about Peters if he held the balance of power after the election, and McCully expostulated; “The f***** wants my portfolio.”

This seems unlikely to me. Up until the donations scandal this year, National were actually quite keen to do a deal with NZ First. I know this, because it worried me. It was very well understood that Peters would keep Foreign Affairs and McCully was very relaxed about this state of affairs. This was common knowledge.

Peters has no-one to blame but himself. National were all set to do a deal with him if he made it back. But during the course of the last seven months, he has shown himself to be a man who can not be relied upon.

Deborah Coddington makes some good points o re Cullen’s attacks on Key:

If Otago University’s medical research department announced it had discovered a cure for cancer, which some years later turned out to be an over-hyped pill made of grass clippings, would we apportion blame to the current Attorney General and Minister of Finance because before he was elected to Parliament he lectured in another department at that university?

A good analogy.

I know who I’d rather have running the country’s economy in these increasingly depressing financial times – someone who’s been out in the real world and knows what it’s like to work in the private sector, where you’re only as good as your last transaction.

As far as I know, neither Clark nor Cullen have ever worked in the private sector, aside from I expect the odd part-time or casual job while studying.

Wow. I guess it is no surprise,but Deborah Coddington seems to really not like Rodney Hide, as the fomer Caucus colleague lets rip:

This week was very exciting for me because on Tuesday, after 12 months of abstinence, we finally got a television, just in time to watch the news with Glenn’s appearance before the committee in Wellington.

It’s a fabulous telly – big, flat screen and beautifully crisp, coloured pictures – but with such precision also comes shock.

The first thing we saw was Rodney Hide, just behind Owen Glenn, nodding, frowning, or shaking his head at committee members.

“Can we send the telly back now?” I asked my husband.

“I’ve suddenly remembered why I didn’t like watching.”

So the dislike is so strong, she hates even seeing him on TV?

I mean, it’s bad enough waking to Morning Report’s obsession with Hide’s Joe McCarthy-like allegations, but at least you can’t see him.

Then she compares him to Senator McCarthy. Never mind that if it were not for Winston’s complaint we would have never learnt from Owen Glenn that Winston solicted the $100,000 himself.

One year without television and suddenly he looks, to me, remarkably like Lockwood Smith. Do they share a personal trainer?

If anyone thinks Deborah is making a compliment, you are mistaken.

A cynic would say Hide snaffled a front-row seat to piggyback Glenn’s television coverage, but that’s unfair. The poor chap’s obviously hard of hearing and vision-impaired, and needs a forward position to understand all the proceedings, in case his pals Geoff, Sean or Duncan call for comment.

But someone could teach him sign language, or make a television series, Signing with the Stars, so poor Rodney needn’t camp outside the committee room for hours to bag the best seat.

I would have thought a former MP would know this. Rodney did not have to queue up at all. All MPs have the right to attend a committee as an observer, and they can just go in, when everyone else was queued up in advance. I know this for I was at the front of the queue and Rodney did not turn up until quite a bit later, and just went in, as did the other MPs.

On Wednesday night, when Winston Peters fronted to try to rebut Glenn’s evidence, there was Hide again, looking a little less chipper, but by this time even my horse felt sorry for him – clearly Hide hadn’t left his seat since Tuesday.

A bit like the urban-mythical one-arm bandit players at SkyCity Casino who don’t leave their stools for a comfort stop, Hide was looking desperate, cold and wasting away.

Umm no. Ask any journalist if Rodney has been looking any of those things. Could not be further from reality.

Every columnist is talking Peters, so I’ll take them all together. First of all Bill Ralston:

Meanwhile, that same morning, Winston was somewhere in Auckland in his ministerial limousine going stratospheric. For a man who has spent weeks dodging questions from the “meerkat” media he did something extraordinary. He rang Radio New Zealand and thundered he would convince Clark to keep him and “she will know these allegations are vile, malevolent, evil and wrong”.

This is again hypocrisy of the highest degree. When National was investigated by the SFO in 2002, for a cheque which passed through a trust account, Peters got up in Parliament and alleged a former Party President had stolen money from the party, and took a “cut” to bail out his company. Now that is a vile, malevolent, evil allegation if I have heard one.So naturally Trevor Mallard also jumped on the bandwagon and repeated it. There was no one at all in the media or public suggesting such a thing – the possibility was invented by Peters and Mallard.

While all Peters has to do at this stage is explain why donations intended for his party are not recorded as having reached it. The $25,000 donation from Bob Jones should have been declared either under his own name, or under the name of the Spencer Trust.

So far the participants he has identified in this “vile conspiracy” against him include me, the NZ Herald, the Dominion Post, TVNZ, TV3, Radio NZ, the Radio Network, the SFO, Act, National, and big business (except for those big businessmen who have funded him).

Hey don’t forget us bloggers. I want to be part of the conspiracy! Is there a joining fee?

Deborah Coddington has a novel definition of the moral high ground:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs could easily have sashayed offshore to some vitally important meeting, and left the Prime Minister to stave off the attacks.

Which she does admirably, I must say, shrugging away the poke, poke, poke from John Key, claiming the moral high ground by conceding a conflict of evidence given to the Privileges Committee by Owen Glenn and Peters.

So admitting that she knew for six months Peters was lying, and admitting it just before Owen Glenn is about to reveal you knew, is claiming the moral high ground? Well I choose the moral low ground then.

Coddington also suggests a deal with Labout to give Rimutaka to NZ First:

But they’ve overlooked a new development. Ron Mark is standing in Rimutaka, Paul Swain’s old electorate.

After Winston, Mark is NZ First’s best-known MP, and has a large following. He’s NZ First through and through – tough on crime, anti-foreign investment, against sale of state assets, working-class hero, bad boy made good. He’s also a bloody nice guy and with a careful campaign, and has a good chance of taking that seat.

Was this pre-arranged all along? It’s just too cute for Labour to stand a young unknown with no prospect of winning in such a safe Labour seat.

I am not sure Labour regard a member of Clark’s personal staff as a no hoper with no chance of winning. And I am also unsure how calling someone a paedophile under parliamentary privilege sits with being a bloody nice guy.

Kerre Woodham opines:

In all cases, Peters has held up his hands and protested, like Sergeant Schultz, that he knows nothing. Bob Jones said Winston asked for some dosh at a party; Winston says that’s not what he remembers.

Owen Glenn says Winston rang him and asked him for a donation towards his fighting fund; Winston says that is not his recollection. At all times, Winston plays the victim card.

Actually Peters is now more like Colonel Klink with Helen Clark better suited for the role of “I know nothing” Schulz, as it turns out she knew all along.

I used to think the world of Winston, but it’s been a long time since I found him principled or amusing. His posturing that New Zealand First is the only party not to sully its hands with trust funds and big money donations can be seen for what it is – bullshit.

And yet it was all so unnecessary. If Peters had been honest and upfront from day one, who would have cared?

Since 1996, NZ First has declared almost no major donors. Doing so would harm their PR crafted image of being anti big business, when the truth is they were majorly funded by big business.

Finally we have the Herald on Sunday editorial:

Regardless of the outcome of the SFO investigation, Peters will remain a man in a political mire of his own creation. The allegations in Parliament by Act leader Rodney Hide that NZ First was paid by Simunovich Fisheries in return for Peters’ backing off claims that the allocation of scampi quota was corrupt have been around for so long that a high-level independent inquiry is called for. But on the matter of the donation by expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn, which is still being investigated by Parliament’s Privileges Committee, Peters continues to be evasive and pedantic. Glenn may have shown himself to be unreliable as to the details of times and places but he did give $100,000 and described it in an email as given “to NZ First”. If Peters did not know that on the day that the email first surfaced, he should have taken steps to discover and divulge all the facts immediately. Instead, he said everyone else was mistaken or a liar.

The HoS overlooks the fact that at a minimum Peters knew Glenn thought he had donated back in February 2008, when Clark told him so.

National leader John Key, plainly sensing that public patience is exhausted, made a bold move this week in saying that Peters would not be a cabinet minister in a National-led Government – by extension ruling out NZ First as a coalition partner.

This is less a challenge to Peters than it is to Prime Minister Helen Clark who, whatever she might say about the need to be fair, has known about the Glenn allegation for six months. In giving Peters enough rope to hang himself, she may have put herself in the noose as well.

Deservedly.

This week, the suggestion emerged that Ron Mark may stand as NZ First’s candidate in Rimutaka. A victory there could get the party two, or even three MPs – one of them the leader. Were Labour to connive at that, urging tactical voting to allow a NZ First victory in the hope of getting the numbers to form a coalition, Clark would confirm the suspicion she is now quite properly under: that she will turn a blind eye to Peters’ shenanigans to hold on to power.

The Rimutaka candidate, Chris Hipkins, works for Clark. Is it possible Clark will instruct him to endorse Ron Mark if they get desperate to ensure Winston’s survival?

She must match Key’s boldness by cutting Peters adrift and naming the election day. A campaign that consigns NZ First and its leader to the pages of history will allow the country to focus on important issues.

More importantly, it will treat Peters’ childish attention-seeking with the derision it deserves.

That would be nice. More likely is Clark will put Peters back into his portfolios as soon as she can.

Deborah Coddington lets loose on John Edwards:

… since American politics – whether we like it or not – impacts on the world – we should all be grateful to this woman who has exposed Edwards as a liar, hypocrite, narcissist, and, ultimately, misogynist.

Edwards was always my least favourite Democratic candidate of the three of them.

It’s taken the “respectable” newspapers months to pick up on Edwards’ vainglorious behaviour. Broken first by the National Enquirer, it was ignored by the “mainstream media” until they finally conceded the tabloid was on to something.

It is worth recalling that the New York Times ran a massive story alleging that McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist. There wasn’t any evidence of this affair, just suspicions yet that was enough to make their front page. But with John Edwards, they ignored the affair for months and months despite the fact it was well known around the beltway, and had been covered at length in the tabloids.

I just wish Edwards had beaten Obama. If the Republicans had been handed this delicious news in the middle of the presidential campaign, McCain would easily be seated in the Oval Office, and the prospects of free trade for our agricultural produce, and New Zealand’s economy, would get a whole lot better.

Even Phil Goff is saying that NZ will do better in terms of a trade agreement, if McCain wins.

National has two Caucus parties a year – Christmas and mid year. I commented at last year’s Xmas party that it was a sign of the tide turning that several former 9th floor staffers were at the Nat’s Party.

Well I missed the late June mid-year  one (as I was overseas) but when I got back I heard proof positive that the tide has gone out for the Government. What was it? The fact that Mai Chen had turned up to the Nat’s party. Can there be any stronger sign of sniffing a change of Government?

One Nat staffer joked to me that they checked the mail the next day to see if Mai Chen had invoiced them for turning up!

Deborah Coddington writes in the HoS about how popular the party was:

It was standing room-only last week at the National Party’s caucus party. People love the winning side. High-class canapes, bubbly, scantily clad young women looking for socially acceptable partners, and not a karaoke machine within cooee (at least when I left to go to a drunken dinner with some Auckland legal reprobates).

I hear the dreaded karaoke machine did make an appearance later!

Deborah looks at all the money the Government is throwing away of trains and the like:

And if Sparc is planning to spend $5.5 million on a website, how much do other Government-funded bodies spend on their sites?

In fact, it’s hard to imagine how to spend this much on a website. I should know, I’ve just spent the past week using WordPress to set up a free one (check it out www.redbankjames.co.nz – I’ve even started a blog. After slagging bloggers for so long I’ve admitted defeat and joined them.)

Welcome to the blogosphere Deborah. And using blog technology to set up a web presence is a very smart idea. A blog is really just a form of content management system – and a CMS which is a lot cheaper and a lot mroe robust than many out there.

At least we’ve got Nicky Hager to amuse us. I’ve always misjudged Hager as someone who took himself too seriously but his latest “expose” is hilarious. If John Key had gone around the press gallery with releases headlined “National Uses Boris Johnson’s Spin Doctors” the hacks would have yawned and asked for real news, like what colour hair dye National’s backbench women use.

Breathless Hager, however, has found the sniff of a conspiracy. I look forward to more revelations, such as Boris’ sister being named Rachel – isn’t that a Biblical name? And wasn’t John Key’s mother a Holocaust survivor? Jewish conspiracy? I think we should be told.

Indeed.

Deborah Coddington writes in the HoS:

In Sydney it was lead-up to Budget week, with speculation aplenty about tax cuts, means-testing for wealthy baby-boomers and – something New Zealand could pinch – grocery credits instead of welfare handouts for beneficiaries with a record of abusing and neglecting their children.

Somehow I can’t see Ruth Dyson introducing a similar policy. If Judith Collins is Minister of Social Welfare after the election she might give it a go, but I fear the feisty Collins will be held in check by the National Party apparatchiks as Ruth Richardson was.

Personally I wouldn’t want to be the person trying to hold Judith in check

It does show again how much more moderate Australian Labor is. They’re introduced policies which are unthinkable for NZ Labour, and if National introduced would be savaged as bashing beneficiaries. Never mind it would be in fact designed to help children at risk.

What I like about the Australian policy is it does not impose the grocery credits on all beneficiaries, just those with a record of neglect. That way it does not interfere with the vast majority of families receiving a benefit, who are caring for their kids.

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.