Kiwiblog

I had to laugh at Labour List MP Carmel Sepuloni trying to insist on Breakfast TV that it had been a great week for Phil Goff.  It was like a finance company spokesperson trying to insist they were sound.

Where do I start. First the Herald reveals that Phil Goff did not tell them the sob story he fed to them, owned a total of three properties, and it was not the case of someone with no assets being forced out of their family home. It was just a case of someone being unwilling to sell their property investments for a loss. I hope this story appears in as prominent place in the print edition as yesterday’s story.

Now even before this episode was exposed, Guyon Espiner blogged:

Labour’s ill-judged foray into the benefit policy debate – offering the dole to anyone who losses their job regardless of their spouse’s income – is a strategic blunder which ignores these basic facts of political life….

Labour now claims it isn’t going to allow the dole to be paid to anyone, regardless of income. But that’s a back down because that is exactly what they were saying on Monday.

You could sense the desperation on Monday after the story was broken in the Herald. Goff had clearly blurted out the story too early because Labour party officials and MPs were scrambling to fill in the details as other media worked to follow up the story.

On Tuesday Goff was desperately trying to claim that he was talking about the principle of middle income people not missing out on welfare and not the details. All the more reason then for not announcing the plan until the details are worked through.

Guyon makes it fairly clear Goff personally blundered by making policy up on the hoof. Guyon also covers their banking inquiry:

I see Labour is having another go. Having failed to win a proper select committee inquiry into whether the banks’ interest rates are too high, they are teaming up with the Greens and Jim Anderton to hold their own “inquiry” – one with no standing, no authority and no power.

Essentially they’ll be sitting in a room, preaching to the converted. Looks like a gimmick to me. Looks like Labour hasn’t fully realised it was turfed out of power.

Indeed.Hat Tip: Keeping Stock

John Armstrong writes this morning:

This has been an especially awful week for Phil Goff. It is not just that the Labour leader has made two blunders – the first being a policy mishap and the second being caught out by failing to reveal pertinent information. It is that a pattern of bad judgment calls is starting to emerge. That will be causing his colleagues some serious concern.

The problem for his colleagues is the lack of options. After 2011 there will be options, but there are not yet.

Twice within the past two months, Goff has sought to cause National discomfort only to end up pinging himself by failing to disclose facts which ended up being revealed by his opponents to his embarrassment.

The first example was Neelam Choudary, the Indian woman who alleged former minister Richard Worth sexually harassed her. She turned out to be a Labour Party activist.

The latest example is a Helensville man, Bruce Burgess, who seemed the perfect example of the kind of middle-class distress Goff had been talking about when he floated a shift in Labour policy so the dole would be paid to redundant workers for up to a year regardless of the income of their partners.

There is a warning in Armstrong’s writing. Having twice sat on highly relevant information, the gallery is going to be far more suspicious of any information from Goff in future. His effectiveness will be reduced due to this.

Goff is kidding only himself if he thinks this new information would not change people’s perceptions of Mr Burgess’s predicament.

Labour knew Mr Burgess owned the properties. It should have dropped his case immediately it knew that. However, presumably Goff was blinded by Mr Burgess being one of John Key’s constituents. The Prime Minister had done nothing to help him. Goff could see the headlines before they appeared. Through his own fault, they have ended up being the wrong ones.

The information totally changed people’s perceptions. Just as Choudary’s identity did also. I actually felt a bit guilty, at the time, for blogging yesterday on the Burgesses as I felt sorry for them being on the verge of losing their only home. While still sympathetic they are in tough times, the fact they have two other properties means they do have options – far better options than most families.

If he fails to win in 2011, Goff knows his party will look for someone else to lead them into the next election. If he keeps performing in the fashion displayed this week his colleagues might start asking themselves whether they should not look elsewhere before then.

I think Goff is safe until 2011, again due to the lack of alternatives.

Duncan Garner also blogs:

Labour sat on the fact he owned three homes. To Labour it was irrelevant to its case – that hardworking Kiwis are missing out under National.

How many Kiwis can cry poor with three homes? It’s a bad look Labour – and I suspect you know it.

Can you imagine how Helen Clark, as Prime Minister, presented with this sort of information – would have acted?

She, and/or Michael Cullen would have not only crucified Burgess – but she or he would have damn well made sure John Key was cut into three pieces,

So Labour needs to go away and look at what it’s doing.

It needs to take a breather. Goff has been too damn keen this week. He’s cocked up. He’s acted like a cut snake.

And finally we have Colin Espiner:

Labour’s also attacking the appointment of former National leader Don Brash to the new productivity taskforce, calling him a stalking horse for privatisation. Goff says it will lead to a renewal of ideas soundly rejected at the 2005 election.

Actually, as Key pointed out in the House yesterday, National wasn’t “soundly rejected” at the 05 election – it only lost by the narrowest of margins. And it was probably the Exclusive Brethren that spooked voters more than National’s privatisation agenda.

Indeed. Mps who call Don “Lord Voldemort” may want to reflect on the fact he got only 2% less than Helen Clark in 2005, and that their references to him as such actually alienate a large segment of the population. Anyway back to Goff:

Goff had another terrible day in Parliament today after the case of poor old Bruce Burgess, a constituent in John Key’s electorate no less, who having worked hard all his life now couldn’t get any assistance from the state after losing his job.

Labour shopped the story to the Herald this morning, which ran it without question. Trouble was, poor old Bruce owns two rental properties besides his lifestyle block in a leafy part of Helensville – in other words, he has assets of at least a million dollars. Now, that doesn’t mean he isn’t suffering, but that wasn’t the picture presented to the public by Goff or the Herald this morning.

Also, according to the Government, Bruce is eligible for $92 a week state assistance – something that wasn’t pointed out earlier either.

Once again, an issue that should have run in Labour’s favour ended up backfiring badly.

So this is what Carmel Sepuloni calls a great week for Phil Goff. I’d love to see what she calls a bad week.

Tags: Bruce Burgess, carmel sepuloni, Colin Espiner, Don Brash, Duncan Garner, Guyon Espiner, John Armstrong, Labour, Phil Goff

Duncan Garner blogs:

So the Maori Party offer Key the seats he needs to get over the line. Without Sharples and co, Key could struggle to get a second term.

He wants a second term – he doesn’t want the t-shirt saying: ‘I was a one term PM.’ And he’s being helped by Labour and particularly tough old Trevor Mallard. Mallard appears to be alienating the Maori Party MPs as each day passes.

I couldn’t help but witness the tension between Mallard and Hone Harawira and Te Ururoa Flavell in Parliament this week. The more Trevor needles them about their relationship with the Nats, the longer the marriage will last.

If Labour wants a shot in 2011, I suggest Goff grab Trevor by the neck and give him a smack in the chops – if he won’t then at least get Tau Henare to throw in the peoples elbow.

Mallard is seriously affecting Labour’s future chances of having any decent relationship with the Maori Party. One Maori Party MP this told me this week, “Trevor can get f….. and so can Labour in 2011.”

Assuming Anderton retires in 2011, this leaves Labour with only the Greens. Labour have an opportunity to have a better relationship with the Maori Party now that the author of “haters and wreckers” and “last cab off the rank” has been exiled overseas.  But to date they seem to be doing their best to push the Maori Party towards National – and that may be a decision they bitterly regret.

Hat Tip: Blaise Drinkwater

Tags: Duncan Garner, Labour, Maori Party

Matthew Hooton has a long post on why he thinks Duncan Garner was right to run the tape, but to put it in context. But he also gives an example of how the media may be relaying a lit, by not insisting on the full tape. His example is:

Labour Spy: Do you reckon Obama can win?

Key: Oh, I hope so, he’ll be a great president.  I’m actually looking forward to meeting him if I become Prime Minister.

Labour Spy: But you don’t think Americans will elect a black president?

Key: Sure they will.  There have been black mayors, black governors, black Secretaries of State, this is just the next step.  Sure there is still a lot of racism in the US – I saw it when I lived in New York, even way up in the North-East, and it is worse in the South - I still think Obama can win and it will be good for the world.

Labour Spy: Oh come on, New Zealand wouldn’t elect a bloody Maori boy PM ….

Key: Just wait a second.  I suppose you’re one of these racists who says ‘the American people aren’t going to elect some nigger boy their president, let alone have that black wife and those black kids in the White House.  He’s not even really an American’  … but if you think that you’re in the wrong party pal.

Labour Spy: Maybe, thanks for your time Mr Key.  I’ll go and talk to Bill English now.

And of course all that would be handed to TV3 is:

the American people aren’t going to elect some nigger boy their president, let alone have that black wife and those black kids in the White House.  He’s not even really an American’

Now that is a made up example by Matthew but a useful example of why it is important for media to treat extracts with caution. And remember this Keystone Kop who did the taping was deliberatly trying to entrap people by saying things he did not believe in.

Tags: Duncan Garner, Matthew Hooton, secret recordings

Duncan Garner blogs:

The H-fee fiasco hasn’t blown up. Well it has – but it’s a minor smoke bomb and it’s exploded in Labour’s face.

Labour had hoped that Key signed off on the $66m Elders – Equiticorp foreign exchange scam in 1988. It would ha ve been gold wouldn’t it?

The signature looks the same – but it’s not Key.

Labour’s President Mike Williams spent a few days in Melbourne last week pouring over the 24 kilograms of papers. But he couldn’t access to the court documents easily.

He had to use the Australian Labour Party’s top lawyer to get a court order – through a judge – to get to the documents.

So who paid for the top lawyer and who paid the court filing fees? Was it the Labour Party?

Tags: Duncan Garner, H-Fee, Mike Williams, smears

For professional Winston watchers, the Campaign 08 discussion on Peters is worth a watch – just click play on the main page. Peters refused to appear but Phil Kitchin, Duncan Garner, Vernon Small, Bill Ralston and Barry Soper discuss his highs and lows.

Tags: Barry Soper, Bill Ralston, Duncan Garner, Phil Kitchin, Prime TV, Vernon Small, Winston First

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

The most popular nominations in each category are:

MP of the Year

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

Labour MP of the Year

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

National MP of the Year

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

Minor Party MP of the Year

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

Press Gallery of the Journalist

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

Public Servant of the Year

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

Enjoy voting.

Tags: Audrey Young, Bill English, blog polls, Colin Espiner, David Cunliffe, Duncan Garner, Gerry Brownlee, Grant Liddell, Guyon Espiner, Helena Catt, Hone Harawira, John Key, Kiwiblog, Michael Cullen, Owen Glenn, Phil Goff, Pita Sharples, Rodney Hide, Simon Power, Sue Bradford, Winston First

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

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

The questions were:

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

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

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

Media	Mean	Median	Mode	Minimum	Maximum	Range
NZ Press Assn	6.1	6	6	4	9	5
Newsroom	5.8	6	5	1	10	9
Trans-Tasman	5.5	6	6	0	8	8
NZ Herald	5.3	6	6	0	8	8
Scoop	5.2	5	5	0	10	10
Newstalk ZB	5.1	6	7	1	8	7
Listener	5.0	5	3	1	8	7
NBR	4.9	4	4	1	8	7
Radio NZ	4.8	6	3	1	9	8
Radio Live	4.4	5	1	1	8	7
Sky/Prime News	4.3	5	5	0	7	7
The Press	4.2	5	1	1	7	6
TV Three	4.1	5	6	0	8	8
Dominion Post	4.1	4.5	1	1	7	6
TV One	3.9	5	5	0	6	6
Maori TV	3.7	4	5	0	6	6
Herald on Sunday	3.5	3.5	7	0	7	7
Sunday Star-Times	2.7	3	3	0	5	5

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

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

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

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

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

Media	All Mean	Nats Mean	Others Mean	Difference
TV One	3.9	6.3	2.2	4.2
TV Three	4.1	6.2	2.6	3.6
Maori TV	3.7	5.2	2.5	2.7
Sky/Prime News	4.3	5.5	3.3	2.2
Sunday Star-Times	2.7	3.5	2.1	1.4
Radio Live	4.4	4.8	4.2	0.6
Radio NZ	4.8	5.0	4.6	0.4
Dominion Post	4.1	4.2	4.0	0.2
Herald on Sunday	3.5	3.5	3.5	0.0
Newstalk ZB	5.1	4.8	5.4	-0.6
The Press	4.2	3.8	4.6	-0.8
NZ Herald	5.3	4.2	6.1	-1.9
NBR	4.9	3.3	6.1	-2.8
Listener	5.0	3.3	6.3	-3.0
NZ Press Assn	6.1	4.3	7.4	-3.1
Trans-Tasman	5.5	3.3	7.1	-3.8
Scoop	5.2	2.8	7.0	-4.2
Newsroom	5.8	3.0	8.0	-5.0

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

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

The Nat MPs also rated the online media very lowly.

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

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

Journalist	Mean	Median	Mode	Minimum	Maximum	Range
John Armstrong (NZH)	6.4	7	2	2	10	8
Peter Wilson (NZPA)	5.8	5	5	3	8	5
Audrey Young (NZH)	5.7	6.5	7	0	10	10
Ian Templeton (TT)	5.6	7	7	0	9	9
Jane Clifton (Listener)	5.6	6	6	2	9	7
Barry Soper (Sky & ZB)	4.9	5.5	7	1	9	8
Ian Llewellyn (NZPA)	4.9	5	5	1	8	7
Vernon Small (DP)	4.6	5	6	1	8	7
Colin Espiner (Press)	4.5	5	6	0	8	8
Guyon Espiner (TV1)	4.4	5.5	7	0	7	7
Tim Donoghue (DP)	4.1	4.5	2	1	9	8
Brent Edwards (RNZ)	4.1	4	4	0	7	7
Tracy Watkins (DP)	3.8	4.5	6	0	7	7
Duncan Garner (TV3)	3.7	3.5	3	0	8	8
Gordon Campbell (Scoop)	3.6	5	5	0	7	7
Ruth Laugeson (SST)	2.7	2.5	2	0	6	6

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

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

Journalist	All Mean	Nats Mean	Others Mean	Difference
Laugeson	2.7	4.2	1.6	2.6
Clifton	5.6	7.0	4.5	2.5
Soper	4.9	6.2	4.0	2.2
Campbell	3.6	4.8	2.8	2.0
Edwards	4.1	4.8	3.5	1.3
Llewellyn	4.9	5.2	4.7	0.5
Young	5.7	6.0	5.5	0.5
Garner	3.7	3.5	3.9	-0.4
Espiner G	4.4	4.2	4.6	-0.4
Wilson	5.8	5.5	6.0	-0.5
Armstrong	6.4	6.0	6.8	-0.8
Watkins	3.8	3.0	4.4	-1.4
Donoghue	4.1	3.2	4.9	-1.7
Small	4.6	3.2	5.6	-2.4
Espiner C	4.5	2.8	5.8	-3.0
Templeton	5.6	1.8	8.5	-6.7

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

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

Tags: Audrey Young, Barry Soper, Brent Edwards, Colin Espiner, Duncan Garner, Gordon Campbell, Guyon Espiner, Herald on Sunday, Ian Llewellyn, Ian Templeton, Jane Clifton, John Armstrong, Maori TV, Media, NBR, Newsroom, NewstalkZB, NZ Herald, NZPA, Parliament, Peter Wilson, Prime TV, Radio Live, Radio NZ, Ruth Laugeson, Scoop, Sky TV, SST, The Listener, The Press, Tim Donoghue, Tracy Watkins, trans-Tasman, TV3, Vernon Small

David Cohen at NBR has done a new and improved test of whether you are a journalist, and it even tells you what sort of journalist you are. Extracts:

1) You are walking down the road and you come across the scene of a recent mass shooting.  The dead and dying are scattered all over the place.  You:
a.     Give first aid to the injured yourself
b.     Call an ambulance
c.     Call Jim Tucker to figure out the most culturally appropriate course of action
d.     Take photos on your mobile phone and post them on Scoop

4) A “death knock” is:
a.  When an undertaker comes to your house
b.  The noise your car makes when it is 100,000km overdue for its service
c.  An unfortunate practice whereby journalists inflict themselves in an intrusive and callous manner upon the relatives of people who have recently died in tragic and/or brutal circumstances
d.  The noise inside our head the morning after drinking far too many flaming maitais

And the scoring system:

Mostly As:  you are Barbara Dreaver.
Mostly Bs:  you are so overwhelmingly boring people could actually be killed by the dreariness of your writing and it would be a major public health hazard if you ever became a journalist.
Mostly Cs:  You are Keith Ng.
Mostly Ds:  You are Duncan Garner.

Heh heh heh.

Tags: Barbara Dreaver, David Cohen, Duncan Garner, Keith Ng, Media, NBR

I’m sure all the media will be reading Cactus Kate’s comments on what she calls the Soper Syndrome – hot aging male journalists.

Kate proclaims the following as hot:

• “Baron” Barry Soper
• “Gorgeous” Sean Plunkett
• “Pitt-Clooney” Stephen Parker
• “Chess Champion” Vernon Small
• Richard Long
• Richard Griffin

The only one she marks down is Duncan Garner who gets “not hot yet”.

I think Kate is protesting too loudly here. Those of us who knew Kate before she was a blogger recall a small period of time when she had a small crush on Mr Garner. And when I say small crush, I mean raging stalker like obsession. Luckily Duncan got married, and Kate got distracted!

Tags: Barry Soper, Cactus Kate, Duncan Garner, press gallery, Richard Griffin, Richard Long, Sean Plunkett, Stephen Parker, Vernon Small

Duncan Garner blogs the questions he wants answered:

1. Who set up the Spencer Trust?
2. Who donates to it?
3. What is the money spent on?
4. Does New Zealand First receive money from the Trust?
5. How much?
   
6. Why isn’t it declared? (Donations to parties over 10k must be declared)
7. What else does the Trust spend its money on?

And none of them answered.

But Winston will not answer these questions. He can’t. Answering them will only confirm what he and his party are up to. His MPs are in the dark – they know nothing. They trudge to Parliament each day – grasping some pre-written patsy question to ask their leader.

Like, why did Condi Rice come to New Zealand and would it have happened under any other Foreign Minister? How embarrassing for them. What sycophants.

They owe their jobs to Peters. None would make it under their own steam. Barbara Stewart. Ever heard of her? Now Peters is making his MPs look like the hopeless docile poodles that they are. And these people call us meercats!

I understand several gallery offices now have pictures of meerkats up on their walls. One journalist told me of an e-mail they got complaining on behalf of the meerkats with the comparisons to the media!

A member of the press gallery, taken from Wikipedia.

Peters now has no credibility. He does not believe in being accountable. His only defence is attack. He has promised on three occasions this week to ‘clear things up’. He hasn’t. What are you so embarrassed about Winston?

Journalists are asking legitimate questions. Peters hopes his loyal 5% still agree with him. And unlike Helen Clark, Winston doesn’t need to appeal to the masses. He needs 5% percent. This will be hurting him in Tauranga. I don’t think he can win the seat. Can he get 5% – perhaps not, though it’s too early to write him off.

I think Peters is now toast in Tauranga. Their chance of survival is making 5%. It is possible that there are enough stupid people to get a boost in the polls from his antics. But will he retain that support (if he even gains it) through until the election?

And Duncan concludes on trusts:

Trusts by their very nature are set up to hide things – established to protect people, their money and assets. National has the Ruahine and Waitemata Trust. The Labour Party also declares a legal trust fund for those who want to give to the party on the quiet.

But all these trusts are declared. They have been for years. Peters has kept his quiet. Even from his own people. Only a select few knew about it.

The point here is 25K was solicited from Sir Bob Jones by Winston Peters and his party hacks. Jones has a right to know if it ever went to the party. And so does the NZ public.

The Spencer Trust looks like a secret slush fund. And the Right Honourable Winston Peters doesn’t deserve the title.

I do not think the media will stop asking questions on this, even though there is no chance Winston will ever usefully answer them.

Tags: anonymous donations, Duncan Garner, meerkats, Spencer Trust, Winston First

Yay at long last TV3 Political Editor Duncan Garner is blogging, and he says what he thinks on it:

To believe Winston requires you to believe the unbelievable.

Like;

When Winston Peters held up the big NO sign in February in response to questions about whether Glenn had donated money, Winston’s lawyer Brian Henry didn’t pick up the phone either before and after – and say arrrrhhhh, Winston, he flicked us 100k 18 months ago.

And remember this so called policy of Henry’s is not required by any outside force. It is in fact just a decision made between him and Peters that allegedly he would not tell Peters who donated. Now the reason you would do this is to protect Peters, but when it becomes clear that more damage is being done by not telling him, it is almost unthinkable he would not have told him earlier.

Peters credibility has been damaged. He’s turning defence into attack. It’s all he’s got left. Helen Clark’s silence is remarkable but not surprising. She needs him if her Government is to make it through to the election.

Remember when Phillip Field’s discretions were only “judgement issues” according to Helen Clark. Lets see what the judge says about those “judgement issues.”

Yes Clark has a fine track record here.

Auditor General Kevin Brady should investigate Peters. He’s nailed Labour before. He’s got the guts to nail Peters. The IRD should look at the tax status of the donation. The Privileges Committee should start its kangaroo court – at least it would provide some theatre.

Agreed.

Peters may have used up his nine lives. He voted to end secret and covert funding – yet took it on the side. Indeed, it was so secret, we’re meant to believe he didn’t even know.

He should resign. The saga is a disgrace. And on his way out he should apologise to the NZ Herald Political Editor Audrey Young who broke the story.

That is a big call, but a correct one. If after the revelation he had admitted the public has (as John Key puts it) been misled by him, then maybe it is survivable. But his outrageous continuing attacks on the NZ Herald for exposing his secret donation are the worse form of bully boy politics.

Imagine if the Exclusive Brethren loving Nats had denied getting 100k then coughed up under pressure.

Would Peters go easy on John Key? Would Helen Clark stay silent, muttering, “it’s a party matter”? You know the answer.

And imagine Phil Goff? I think his head would actually explode as he shouted himself hoarse on it!

Tags: anonymous donations, Brian Henry, Duncan Garner, Helen Clark, hypocrisy, Owen Glenn, Winston First

I happened to be in Parliament on Wednesday when TV One showed their hilarious news item with Brian Connell telling Chris Faafoi to “piss off” as Faafoi asked Brian 18 times whether his wife was travellng with him to Europe.

A number of MPs inquired of assembled press secretaries whether this was now recommended response to media questions, and practised out loud this new form of parliamentary answer.

Faafoi deserves a prize for his tenacity, including waiting outside the toilet to carry on the questioning.  Mind you Duncan Garner would have probably followed inside

I’m a bit surprised that Brian didn’t say “Yes my wife is coming with me, as we already spend half the year apart. And it will actually save the taxpayer money as two economy class fares is a hell of a lot cheaper than one business class fare”.

Faafoi did have a right to ask the question, and that answer would have been more constructive I suggest!

Tags: Brian Connell, Chris Faafoi, Duncan Garner, overseas travel, perks, piss off