Kiwiblog

The media had a field day reporting and condemning the travel subsidy for MPs. For weeks on end we had story after story. But there was one story the media forgot to cover. It was the one about their massive travel subsidy to attend CHOGM in Trinidad and Tobago.

You see seven journalists flew to this lovely resort location on the PMs RNZAF aircraft. APN had one person attend, Fairfax one person, TVNZ and TV3 had two each and Getty Images also had one person. And they only had to pay $100 each.

Now if these media companies had to pay themselves to send their journalists, it would costs at least $4,000 economy to get there (including stop over). So this is a 97.5% subsidy for their travel costs. Or a savings of around $27,000 for the owners of those media companies.

If it is reprehensible that MPs get a 10% to 90% travel subsidy, then where has been the media outrage at this 97.5% travel subsidy?

What if a blogger decided he would like to attend a CHOGM in Trinidad and Tobago and got a lift over there with the PM for $100? Would that suddenly become a media story? You bet it would.

Now I am not saying that the media should not be allowed to travel on board the RNZAF plane if there is capacity. I’m not even saying that there shouldn’t be some cost saving for them (mind you 97.5% seems extreme). I am saying that it would be nice if they were as transparent about their own travel subsidies, as they were over those of the MPs.

Some Left-wing bloggers such as No Right Turn and Labour MP Grant Robertson are crying foul over the government’s use of urgency and getting stuck into Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee.

Now Labour are being rather hypocritical here, and I will explain the different sorts of urgency. In essence there are four version of urgency. They are

1. Extraordinary urgency. This is incredibly rare and can only happen if the Speaker consents to it. It tends to be used for tax bills only, and means the House sits without pause (except meal breaks) until the bills covered by the extraordinary urgency are passed.
2. Urgency to pass a bill through multiple stages. This is when the House goes into urgency (which means longer sitting houses) to pass a bill through all stages, without referring it to a select committee. This is generally quite undesirable as bypassing select committee both robs the public of a chance to submit, but also means drafting flaws are less likely to be corrected.
3. Normal urgency. This extends the sitting hours of the House, and effectively cancels question time, but bills do not generally go through more than one stage at a time.
4. Urgency with question time.This is when the Government goes into urgency to extend the sitting hours, but modifies it so the House can still have question time every day. This reflects the importance of the Opposition being able to hold the Government to account through question time.

Now a lot of people don’t realise that the House normally sits for relatively few hours each week. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays it sits from 2 until 6pm, then 7.30pm until 10pm. On Thursday it sits from 2pm until 6pm.

That’s 17.5 hours. That sounds like quite a bit of time for the government to pass bills. But remember that Question Time happens each day between 2pm and 3.15-3.30. On Wednesdays there is a general debate between 3.30 and 4.30. And every second Wednesday is a members’ day, when the government can’t advance government business.

All this means that in a normal week, the government gets only around 12-13 hours (depending on how long Question Time lasts) to pass Bills. Every second week it gets only 7.5 hours! I won’t even get started on urgent debates (granted by the speaker), motions of condolence, etc, all of which take more time. Overall it tends to mean less than 10 hours a week on average to actually pass laws.

Urgency means that the House extend its sitting times. From the day after the motion is moved (so Wednesday if moved on a Tuesday) the House sits from 9 am to midnight, which is 13 hours a day excluding meal breaks.

In theory the House could sit until midnight Saturday, which would be 58.5 hours. In reality normally the House still rises on a Thursday, so the extra time gained is Wednesday and Thursday mornings plus Thursday evening.

This is what the government has been doing lately – just extending the hours on Wednesday and Thursday.

The problem of lack of time to pass Bills is not one that has just affected this government. That is why Labour is being totally hypocritical over the use of urgency. Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins in particular know better given they were advisors to the last government. Dr Cullen regularly put the House into urgency between 1999 and 2008 and a helpful reader has done the numbers for me.

In the 1999-2002 Parliament, Labour took urgency 22 times and extraordinary urgency twice. 23 bills passed their 3rd reading under urgency. Indeed in Labour’s first year in office, they took urgency ten times.

In the 2002-2005 Parliament, Labour took urgency nineteen times and a massive 78 Bills passed their 3rd reading under urgency!

In the 2005-2008 Parliament, Labour took urgency ten times and 48 bills passed their 3rd reading under urgency.

Urgency was often moved in October, November, and December of each year under Labour, as the end of the year approached. That’s what this government appears to be doing as well. It’s nothing to do with poor House management – it’s simply extending sitting hours in the traditional pre-Xmas period.

The other thing that I want to stress is that urgency normally  means question time is not held, how ever National has consistently arranged urgency so that question time is still taken, ensuring Ministers remain accountable to the House. This was very rare under Labour.

I expect as the Parliamentary term goes on the use of urgency will decline a bit. Further down the track the government might like to take a look at the sitting hours and practices of the House. Should the House sit regularly on Thursday night for example? Is there potential to have the House sitting regularlyin the morning even while select committees are considering Bills?

Personally I would change Standing Orders also, to reflect the different types of urgency. I personally would not call merely extending the sitting hours “urgency” if question time (and members day) is retained. I would also look at whether the Speaker’s permission might be needed for urgency which is used to bypass select committee, to make it harder for Governments to do so.

The Press reported:

Labour yesterday called on the Government to stop taking big profits from the electricity state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

“The Government could do this today, with the instant result of lower electricity prices for hard-working Kiwi families and better security of supply from renewable energy,” Labour energy spokesman Charles Chauvel said.

The Government should tell electricity SOEs to cut dividend payments and invest the money in renewable generation that could flatten power price rises, he said.

I have previously blogged on the hypocrisy of Labour preaching lower profits, after it banked $3.1 billion in dividends from energy companies during their term of Government.

A Ministry of Economic Development energy outlook released this week says wholesale power prices are likely to rise by 40 per cent over the next 20 years.

That is much less than the near-50 per cent rise in some residential tariffs over the past five years.

40% over 20 years sounds a lot better than 50% over five years!

But is this standard hypocrisy, or even worse hypocrisy than normal? Because before Charles become an MP, he was a Director of Meridian Energy.

In fact Charles was Deputy Chairman of Meridian Energy in 2005. And what was the company’s net profit after tax in 2005/06? It was $857 million.

Yes in 2005/06 Meridian had an EBIT of $1.03b on gross revenue of $2.22b. Now some of this was from a one off sale, but that money could have been used to lower power prices, as Charles now claims should be done.

Now maybe in 2005/06 the Government was short of money, and didn’t think it could manage with a lower dividend and profit. So what as the deficit in 2005/06? Oh no – it wasn’t a deficit. It was a whopping $11.5b surplus.

So where was Charles in 2005 demanding Meridian pay a smaller dividend, when the Government had an $11.5 billion surplus? Oh he was writing the cheques out.

And now in 2009, when the Government is running a deficit of $7.2b (over 11 months), Charles and Labour cry out to make Meridian less profitable as he says a dividend of $294 millions is far too high.

I am going to enjoy repeating posts like this, everytime Labour call for reduced profits from Energy SOEs.

Chris Carter is competing with his Leader for hypocrisy. Earlier today, I quoted Phil Goff arguing against mining on the conservation estate, and pointed out the Pike River Mine on DOC land was approved in 2004 by the former Labour Government.

Now today, we have Chris Carter blogging, and he says:

The DOC estate – some 30% of New Zealand’s land area – not only brings millions of tourists to this country, but also ensures that all Kiwis have access to quality outdoor pursuits, and that we are world leaders in protecting our unique biodiversity. …

So much for Mr Key and the National Party being ambitious for New Zealand!  I guess they’re being ambitious for the fishing industry, the mining industry, …

Now for those who don’t know, Chris Carter was the Conservation Minister who approved the Pike River Mine in 2004. He approved it over the objections of his own department who told him not to.

Now I think Carter made the right decision in 2004. But as he tries to portray himself as the protector of conservation lands against the mining industry, it is worth reminding people of those inconvenient facts that they hope we will forget.

Really Phil Goff needs to stop opposing everything that happened under Labour, just because National may do them also.

First we had him attacking a tertiary funding cap that his Government put in place in 2007.

Now we have him saying:

Labour leader Phil Goff said mining conservation land went against the 100% Pure New Zealand brand

The Pike River mine is on conservation land, adjacent to and in the Paparoa National Park. It was approved by the Government in 2004. And who was Government then?

So once again Phil attacks the Government for merely thinking about doing something that happened under his Government.

This is not the way to build up credibility.

The Waikato Times reported:

At a time when unemployment is rising, Waikato University will next year be turning away people because of restrictions on student numbers, according to Labour Party leader Phil Goff.

Sounds awful doesn’t it. Then later on you read:

In 2007, the Tertiary Education Commission capped equivalent fulltime students at tertiary institutions until 2010.

Oh 2007. Wait, wait, who was the Government in 2007? No, no don’t tell me – let me guess.

Going back to the Rankin appointment, I can’t help but highlight this:

Green MP Sue Bradford said National was subverting the commission through political appointments, and accused it of sabotage.

Oh yes we can’t have political appointments to the Families Commission. I was thinking just that the other day as I sat in the Backbencher watching the former Chief Family Commissioner yell abuse and heckle National MPs, thinking this is what his job as a Labour List MP is about.

Pleased to see the Press has amended their story and deleted references to Rankin’s family.

Kiwibank has spent millions of dollars on its nationalistic, almost xenophobic, campaign against Australia and Australian owned banks.

So I had to laugh when I read in the ODT that Kiwibank is using an Australian-based call centre.

I’ve been looking back through what Labour said when they established the NZ Super Fund in 2000, and it is gold. Their protests about the Government moving to reduce the level of contributions into the fund are hypocrisy of the highest order.  Let me quote from Dr Cullen’s Q&A when he launched it:

How will the government pre-fund future New Zealand Superannuation costs if there are insufficient surpluses?

The government will make contributions to the Fund from available surpluses. Where these are insufficient for making the required contribution a reduced contribution would be made.

John Key and Bill English are doing exactly what Michael Cullen said would happen. Not only do we have an insufficient surplus – we have a decade of deficits.

This also shows up those morons who argue the Fund is not funded out of surpluses, but is just like any other competing area of expenditure. In Labour’s own words:

The government will make contributions to the Fund from available surpluses.

And further:

What level of surpluses will the government need to run to pre-fund future NZS costs?

The actual contribution will be determined by the size of available surpluses. Future governments may, however, decide to make contributions at the required rate even when surpluses are less than this rate.

Once again a clear statement that the contributions are determined by the size of the surplus. And while they have indicated that yeah if the surplus drops a wee bit, you might have a slightly higher contribution than the surplus – there is absolutely no suggestion that if you are running a $6 billion deficit you’ll put in a $2 billion contribution.

Labour’s hypocrisy on this could almost enter the Guinness Book of Records.

But wait there is more:

What are the benefits of setting up a fund versus paying off debt?

We are balancing two fiscal priorities in paying down debt and pre-funding superannuation. It is important to keep government debt low and we have set out long-term objectives for debt that will ensure that it remains low. However, we believe we can achieve these debt objectives and smooth the costs of superannuation at the same time.

So the fund was linked to keeping debt low. Debt is now projected to increase by around $80 billion or so. It is set to treble in less than a decade.

Debate is now over.

Oh this is almost priceless hypocrisy. John Key is being criticised for daring to have a holiday from Xmas Eve until middle of this week. How dare he spend time with his wife and children. But even better is look at who is making the criticism:

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark, on holiday in Europe, criticised the Government for taking a “laissez-faire” approach to the economic crisis.

“The rest of the world is aware there’s an economic crisis on, they are aware there’s a huge international crisis in Gaza, and the New Zealand government is on holiday,” she said.

“At the end of the day, when you’re elected, you don’t have a 100 per cent holiday.”

Okay, get this. They quote Helen Clark, from her holiday in Europe, criticising John Key for being on holiday. Seriously – how pathetic is that.

Even worse, is to have Clark talk about how when you are elected, you can’t have a 100% holiday. Is this the same Helen Clark who when PM had her holiday arrangements in such secrecy that not only did the media not know where she was, neither did her own staff, with one exception?

I’ve all along said the Fees Maxima policy was stupid. Now look who is campaigning to get rid of it? The man who introduced them – Steve Maharey.

But, he says, individual policies should change over time, and one on which he will campaign is the fee maxima.

“When I put that policy in place, it was for three years. It’s now five years and it urgently needs to be changed.

I say get rid of it for all universities except Massey

NZUSA is quoted in The Press:

The rise in compulsory add-on fees at tertiary institutions is under fire from the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations.

Hmmn, compulsory add-on fees – such as oh all those compulsory student association fees that NZUSA fights so hard to defend.

I’m sure what NZUSA meant is they’re against rises in compulsory add-on fees, except those done by student associations.

From Winston’s blog:

One of the biggest problems we have in New Zealand is that we judge the morality of larceny in accordance with the scale of it. Low socio-economic individuals who find themselves on the wrong side of the law are dealt with more harshly than those who take tens of millions in shonky deals and set up family trusts to hide their assets. In fact, in some cases, the unscrupulous rich are held up as role models of our society. These people have the cheek to hold themselves up as true pillars of the community, when they are really part of the rotten foundations.

Setting up trusts to hide your assets. Disgraceful indeed thunders Winston.

Hat Tip: Roar Prawn

Helen Clark is misleading people by saying it is up to the Privileges Committee to work out the conflict between what Owen Glenn says, and what Winston Peters say.

It is not, and I predict the Committee will not. It is because the facts which are in dispute between Glenn and Peters are not material to the issue of privilege. They are very material to issues of lying and hypocrisy, but not material to the specific issue of privilege before the committee.

The issue before the Committee is whether or not the Register of Interests declaration by Peters is correct or not. Peters has asserted it was correct, as the donation was to Brian Henry, not Peters. Owen Glenn agrees with him on this point – the donation went to Henry to pay for legal fees.

The area where they disagree is whether or not Peters knew of the donation and whether or not he solicited the donation. Now these are irelevant to the issue of privilege, if the donation is deemed something which doesn’t constitute a gift or payment of a debt.

So Helen Clark’s insistence that it is for the Privileges Committee to resolve the conflicting evidence, is wrong and misleading. The conflict of evidence relates to whether or not Peters is a liar and hypocrite, not whether his MPs Return was accurate.

Winston Peters has stated that he only knew Owen Glenn had given money to Brian Henry when Henry told him in July 2008. Owen Glenn has said Peters solicited the money in 2005, knew of the donation, and thanked him for the donation in 2006 or 2007. There is no way to resolve those statements. It is impossible. The Privileges Committee can not do so, and it is not their job to do so.

Helen Clark sacked Lianne Dalziel for lying. She sacked David Benson-Pope for lying. It is the PM’s job to sack Ministers if they lie. But in this case she refuses to take any action. She could have resolved this months ago but is playing the same corrupt game she played with Taito Philip Field – trying to pass the buck to a body which is not empowered to discover the truth – because it is not an issue of privilege – it is an issue of lying and hypocrisy.

The EPMU is holding a march in Auckland this afternoon for worker’s rights.

I guess the right to stand for Parliament for the party of your choice is not one of them.

I have managed to obtain from a helpful staffer the full collection of quotes from Helen Clark and Michael Cullen on debt. Now remember they have been saying that going from gross debt being 20% of GDP to 22% of GDP is absolute lunacy and madness. So how does this measure up with their past statements. First Dr Cullen:

“The previous government had established a 30 percent of GDP target when the Fiscal Responsibility Act was passed in 1994, and had reduced it to 25 percent in 1999. When we came into office that year we made the judgement that the Crown finances and the state of the economy could not sustain that lower target, so we restored it to 30 percent of GDP.” – Michael Cullen 18 May, 2004, Speech to Chen Palmer & Partners Business and Government Seminar

So National had a target of 25%, and Labour increased it to 30%. yet now they are saying 22% is lunacy and madness.

And now Miss Clark:

All these quotes are from 1994, when debt was in excess of 50% of GDP!!”

“I am pleased that economic growth has produced enough tax revenue to declare a surplus and repay debt. But I am appalled at the rate at which debt repayment is occurring at the expense of families, and schools and other essential social and public services.” - Helen Clark (July 1994) Speech Auckland Labour Regional Conference

“The Government is putting an undue emphasis on debt repayment at the expense of our failing services and infrastructure in New Zealand,” - Helen Clark (June 1994) Opening address to the Massey University Winter Lecture Series.

“We agree that we should be aiming to ensure that the ratio of debt to GDP in New Zealand is not out of line with other smaller industrialised countries. But Labour does not accept that having the smallest debt to GDP ratio in the OECD is an important goal. Nor do we believe that reducing our debt quickly should take precedence over improving the living standard,” - Helen Clark (July 1994) Speech to Northern South Island Labour Regional Conference.

“At Budget time our net public debt was equivalent to 42 per cent of GDP – down from 48 per cent a year earlier… Given those figures, it is hard to believe that the international credit rating agencies with which the Government is so besotted can have any real concern at our current level of debt,” - Helen Clark (June 1994) Waikato Labour Regional Conference.

“The Government is obsessed with debt reduction over all other needs for spending,” - Helen Clark (July 1994) Speech to Wellington Labour Regional Conference.

So when gross debt was over 50% of GDP, Clark time and time again attacked reducing that level of debt, and specifically advocated investing money into infrastructure instead.

I trust we will hear no more hysteria from Helen or Michael on a gross debt setting of 22% of GDP!

Oh I do love journalists who do research. Fran O’Sullivan has found these quotes:

Where’s the audit trail? Precisely into which account went this cheque?”

“On whose behalf was the cheque to be held and what happened to this money? Is there any significance that … was in serious financial trouble?”

“Why is the Serious Fraud Office taking so long to find the answers to these questions?”

“I say the whole thing stinks.”

Fran tells us that we might expect these to be quotes from Bob Jones or Rodney Hide asking about the investigation of NZ First finances. But in fact they are quotes from the Rt Hon Winston Peters in 2002 demanding the SFO get to the bottom of National’s funding.

Fran notes:

This is the real reason why Peters should be judged guilty by his political peers of the “H” word – hypocrisy.

By failing to publish a clear audit trail showing just how Sir Robert’s $25,000 donation found its way from the Spencer Trust into NZ First’s coffers, or the way in which the amount was disbursed on NZ First’s behalf, Peters invites a tsunami of disbelief which might easily be turned back by a simple disclosure.

As to whether the SFO will investigate:

The SFO, which is now deciding whether it should formally investigate Hide’s complaint, will tread carefully.

But it must be consistent.

It launched a formal investigation into National Party donations in 2002 after a former official – assured of anonymity – revealed the party still had unanswered questions over discrepancies between the amount its fundraiser had expected from Fay Richwhite interests and what arrived in the party’s accounts in 1996. …

The SFO ultimately cleared the National Party of any wrongdoing.

If Peters, his party and his lawyers have nothing to hide they should demand answers to the questions.

Otherwise they lay themselves open to new claims that “the whole thing stinks”.

The SFO decision will be pivotal.

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.

This is a long detailed post. Half of me says I shouldn’t bother doing this, but I think it would be useful for the record to illustrate that the very deceptive practices that Nicky Hager condemns in The Hollow Men, are in fact used by Hager in The Hollow Men.

The material I am going to focus on has been used by Nicky Hager in the Hollow Men, and has featured in the play and in the just-released film.

If you attended the Wellington premiere of the Hollow Men last weekend will have been given a flyer for the film. On the front page it features a quote from what is said to be an email from Peter Keenan to Don Brash. The line is: “Political war is about evoking emotions that favour one’s goals….while mobilizing passions of fear and resentment against your opponents.”

That rather nasty quote, along with others in the book, is used to introduce the alleged malicious intent behind the Orewa speech on Treaty issues. Hager would have you think Keenan was telling Brash that this is how he should operate and in Hager’s book (refer bottom of p85) this line is presented as Keenan “quoting with approval United States Republican strategist David Horowitz”.

But, as with pretty much everything in the Hollow Men, Hager stripped out the context of the quote to distort the meaning. In fact in this case he manages to reverse the meaning entirely.

What Hager failed to mention was that those words were actually from a six page bullet point summary, sent as an attachment in an email, of essays in two books by David Horowitz. The attached document was a straightforward summary of what somebody else had written. Those that want to check what follows can simply get the books: The Art of Political War and other Radical Pursuits, and How to Beat the Democrats, and other Subversive Ideas. They are interesting essays, regardless of what your political views might be.

The so-called quotes from Peter Keenan, are actually direct quotes from the summary he compiled of the Horowitz articles. This was not an instruction or advice from Keenan to Brash on what Brash should do, but part of a six page book summary.

It turns out that, in the articles summarized by Keenan, Horowitz was describing how the political left conduct their political battles, and pointing out how hopeless the political right is by comparison. He is reminding conservative politicians that they need to engage at an emotional level if they want to be as effective politically as the left. The quotes attributed to Keenan are in fact Horowitz describing how those on the left operate.

Here are a few more quotes from that bullet point summary to give you the flavour of what it was about. Hager didn’t use these. To put this in an NZ context, I have substituted “the left/left-wing” for Democrats, and “conservative” for Republican.

“The right often seem to regard political combat as they would a debate at the Oxford Union, as though winning depended on rational arguments. The audience is not made up of academics. You have 30 seconds to make a point. Even if you had time to make an argument, the audience in the middle (the ones you need to reach) are not paying attention or would not get it.”

“The left come to party politics out of socialist organisations, trade unions, and an assortment of social crusades (abortion, racial grievances, and environmental concerns). They are combat-ready before they begin their political careers. Conservatives train in boy scout troops and graduate to chambers of commerce and rotary clubs. Except for the pro-life missionaries in the conservative coalition, Conservatives are innocents abroad when it comes to political war.”

The so-called Keenan “quotes” that have been referenced in the Hollow Men book, play and film, are drawn from a section which summarises what Horowitz calls the Four Principles of Politics: ie. politics is a war of Emotions, of Position, is about Fear, is about Hope. Hager pulls quotes from the summary explanations of these points. I will give you the full quote (which was itself a summary of a fuller treatment by Horowitz in his book), and highlight what Hager used:

Politics is a War of Emotions: For the great mass of the public, casting a vote is not an intellectual choice, but a gut decision, based on impressions that may be superficial and premises that could be misguided. Political war is about evoking emotions that favour one’s goals. It is the ability to manipulate the public’s feelings in support of your agenda, while mobilising passions of fear and resentment against your opponent.

Politics is about Fear: You must not only convince a majority that you are their friend, you must get them to fear your opponent as their enemy. Anger, fear and resentment are the most potent weapons in the Left-wing arsenal. They are powerful emotions that drive voters to the polls, and if they are not countered these emotions will bury your Gold Stars every time.

Horowitz used the term “Gold Star Republican” to describe the typical managerial type of conservative who thinks he can have a calm, rational debate on policy and win the day.

Thus, by stripping all the context from this “quote”, Hager completely misrepresents Keenan.

If you look at the e-mail in context, the obvious and reasonable interpretation of all of this was that Keenan was warning Brash what he was up against, and encouraging him to try and connect emotionally with the audience, use less technocratic language, and so forth. In the fuller treatment in the book, regarding the politics of fear, Horowitz writes:

“No matter how much conservatives may deplore such tactics, no matter how fervently they wish that electoral contests would turn on good policies and good principles, it is not in their power to change the reality of political war”.

Lets finish here with another couple of bullet points from that summary document, quotes that Hager could have used, but for obvious reasons did not.

“The left rely on Bribery and Fear. Much of the electorate has an enthusiasm for big government. Voters look to government for entitlements, looking to the political left to supply them. And the left recruits its supporters through taxpayer-funded programmes that buy their votes. The obstacles to this tendency is the individualism of the culture, the bankruptcy of most of the left’s programmes (poor incentives, no allowance for individual responsibility), and the political right itself which is infused with middle-class energy and entrepreneurial values and collectively represents the politics of reform.”

“Marxism may be dead, but a Marxist morality play provides the ordnance for left-wing political attacks…..In political battle the political left provides the search and destroy teams that accuse the right of racism and sexism, of polluting the environment and of abusing old people, women and children. The passions that motivate the political left are self-righteousness and hate.”

Looking back at the Labour Party’s 2005 campaign, and the way Hager has operated here, this analysis looks rather perceptive.

What is clear from all this, is that the use of that quote in the flyer for the film, and in the book, and in the play, was shamefully dishonest. Hager in his book, Dean Parker in the play, and Alister Barry in the film, all feature this astoundingly dishonest so-called “quote” – deliberately out of context and misapplied – to cast a malicious light on some simple briefing material forwarded to Brash.

Hager and Barry, if they wish to display the integrity they claim to champion, should order the current flyer to be shredded, and the film reworked to be at least marginally more honest.

Although integrity seems to be in short supply here. Some centre left bloggers have noted with disapproval that the film uses some covert filming of Peter Keenan. Grant Robertson said:

The only bum note in the documentary for me was the use of what appeared to be covert filming of Brash’s speech writer Peter Keenan.  Shots of him opening his curtains in the morning, and reading the paper just felt a bit creepy to me.

I am yet to see it, but when I heard about it, creepy is indeed the word for it.

And Danyl at the Dim-Post:

Even more ill-conceived are the other shots of Peter Keenan. One of the most interesting characters in Hager’s book the former economist privately disagreed with his leader’s racial policies even while he was writing the speeches promoting them. Keenan’s emails are quoted extensively in the film over shots of him wandering around inside his home watering his plants and reading the newspaper. The footage is hand-held and appears to have been shot covertly from a distance; Keenan does not seem to know he is being filmed and these sequences all have a queasy, paparazzi-cum-stalker like quality to them. Instead of questioning Kennan’s ethics as a speech-writer I found myself doubting Barry’s ethics as a director.

Danyl also noted:

As with his previous films, Barry makes extensive use of archival footage accompanied by voice-over narration; various experts including political scientist Jon Johansson and Christchurch Press political editor Colin Espiner provide additional commentary (although Espiner agreed to be interviewed by Barry he was not told it was for The Hollow Men).

Stephen Stratford at NZBC comments:

Why on earth would Barry not have told Espiner the purpose of the interview? And having interviewed Espiner, why did he not interview Keenan instead of stalking him in this, frankly, creepy way?

If you won’t front up to your subject and talk to him, you shouldn’t pretend that what you do is journalism. And if you don’t tell someone whom you do talk to what the real purpose of the interview is, you are engaged in deception. Isn’t that what The Hollow Men was all about?

The irony is rich isn’t it? A deceptive book and a deceptive film that take the moral high ground to lecture on deception?

Finally let’s finish on a lighter note. The flyer to the film also features a quote from a Keenan email to Brash, this time a genuine one. It is “the secret of success is sincerity and conviction…once you can fake that you’ve got it made”. That quote is so obviously Peter winding Don up, with a joke that reworks a well-known line by Groucho Marx, that it is amazing Nicky Hager didn’t get it. So Hager quotes a Groucho Marx joke as if it was serious political advice.

Hager, Parker and Barry need to get out more. Those on different sides of politics hold different views about which policies will build a better nation. When you start assuming that people who hold different views from you are in some way evil, then what you need is to get counseling – not write a book, play or make a film. But hey when the Government will give you money to do so, one can understand some of the motivations.

Now this all raises a wider question: given the scale of misrepresentation in this instance, it is impossible to take anything else in this book at face value. If you can make something sinister out of material like this, you can do it with anything. Removal of context is the simplest way to deceive.And unlike blogs where you can link through to the full quote, Hager’s works leave you blind as to the context.

Hager subtitled his book, A Study in the Politics of Deception. It was indeed – but maybe not in the way he intended.

Well even though Winston has said it is all lies, Sir Robert went on to Radio NZ this morning to discuss his donations. Extracts from the NZPA story:

Sir Robert today confirmed to Radio New Zealand he made a $25,000 donation to the party for the last election (2005).  He had now written to NZ First president Dail Jones after speculation that money he donated had not got to the party.

I believe a number of donors are now asking where their money went. Owen Glenn thought he donated to NZ First and it went into Winston’s legal expenses. Sir Robert thought he donated to NZ First and it went into The Spencer Trust – the second secret fund we have learnt of this week.

Sir Robert also said he had made large contributions to NZ First in the 1990s when the party was being established.  “I’m not worried about the $25,000, that’s not a lot. I’m worried about the other $150,000 he took off me in the early days,” he said.

And these have never been disclosed. Now before the 1993 Electoral Act was amended in 1995 they might not have to have been. If they were paid into a Trust and the Trust donated to NZ First or paid bills on its behalf, then that should have been disclosed.

Sir Robert said he hated NZ First’s attacks on Asians but the last time he saw Mr Peters “a lot of drinking went on” and Sir Robert begrudgingly gave $25,000.

Note that Sir Robert has said explicitly Winston was directly soliciting the money – something he denies he ever does.

Sir Robert said the cheque was written out by one of his staff members to Spencer Trust — described by The Dominion Post as sometimes being used to pay NZ First bills.

There had been payments of $50,000 “here or there” to other parties, Sir Robert said. He would be concerned if donations to the party never reached the party.

Sir Robert has said he has not voted National since 1981 so unlikely to be National.

“I’ve never been approached by the Greens and Maori Party, I must confess,” Sir Robert said.
He did not like the thesis of the Maori Party and wouldn’t have given them money but asked if he would give to the Greens he said: “I probably would, but I don’t want to say that”.

Frog better get onto this!

Also interesting stuff on the money Brian Henry solicited:

In Parliament yesterday National MP Judith Collins, a lawyer, said Mr Henry could not run a trust account.  “He is a barrister sole, and one of the things about barristers is they don’t have trust accounts,” she said during the general debate.

“They are not audited. They are not subject to Law Society rules about trust accounts and the reason is they don’t hold other people’s money.

“They simply render an account and it gets paid.”  Ms Collins said she had been a lawyer for more than 20 years and had been a member of the Auckland District Law Society and the New Zealand Law Society.

“I have never once come across a situation where a barrister’s job is to ring up people in Monaco and ask them to pay $100,000 into a fees account,” she said.

“I have never once heard of it and I sat for years on the complaints committee of the Auckland District Law Society…not once did we ever hear anything about barristers ringing up trying to solicit money for their clients’ fees.”

It is indeed very unusual for barristers to be involved in the money side of things – that is meant to go all through the solicitor.

Now people may be interested in NZ First’s disclosed donations of over $10,000 since 1996:

1996 Peter McCardle $10,000
1996 Charles Sturt $12,500
2002 WestpacTrust $10,000
2002 Gold Times Sports $15,000
2003 Contact Energy $10,000
2004 Contact Energy $10,000

This is a very low level of disclosed donations. Every minor parties like the Alliance have disclosed far more than this. Now looking at this you would think they have not had any donors of over $10,000 since 2004. And in fact we know there have been significant donations of over $10,000 for the benefit of NZ First and Peters.

There are two issues with The Spencer Trust. The first is NZ First’s of trust funds to hide donor’s identity. This is perfectly legal but something he has railed against in public. So total hypocrisy.

The bigger issue is why there is no record of The Spencer Trust donating to NZ First. Because by not disclosing its relationship to NZ First, it removes the ability of the public to be critical of the use of the trust fund. You see people know National gets large donations from the Waitemata Trust. National then has scrutiny from the media and the public on those donations and their political image gets somewhat tarnished by the use of the Trusts (even though quite legal).

But what NZ First appears to have done is kept the existence of both the “legal fund trust” and the Spencer Trust a total secret, hence removing the ability of the media and the public to pass judgement on their practices. This is of course a lack of transparency that is worse than anything Peters has criticised other parties for.

And if the Spencer Trust has been paying bills on behalf of NZ First, then that could well be seen by electoral authorities as an effective donation which should be disclosed.

How many more secret trusts are out there?

UPDATE: Extracts from the transcript are after the break:

(more…)

Phil Kitchin in the Dominion Post reveals another secret donation to NZ First – $25,000 from SIr Robert Jones in 2005 and $50,000 in 1993.

Neither of these donations has ever been declared.

The 2005 one went into The Spencer Trust, which is administed by Wayne Peters – Winston’s brother.

Now there are three issues here for NZ First – their brand, their hypocrisy and legal issues.

Brand

NZ First has portrayed itself as the party of the underdog fighting wealthy interests. But in the last few days we have learnt that NZ First and/or its leader has received donations from a foreign resident billionaire, a foreign resident family worth around $180 million and a local millionaire worth $400 million or so.

NZ First has purported to be a party funded by lots of $20 and $50 donations but seems to have more mega rich donors than anyone thought. What is the average NZ First supporter or MP thinking?

Hypocrisy

As detailed in this Dom Post story, Peters has railed against secret donations, against the use of trusts funds to collect donations etc.

It is becoming clear that NZ First has been engaging in the exact behaviour it has so criticised over the years. In fact its behaviour has been less transparent it seems than those it criticised.

Legal

Now it is (or was) legal for someone to donate to a trust and for the trust to then donate to a party. However the party has to declare the donation from the trust, and NZ First has never ever disclosed a single donation from the Spencer Trust. People go on about the Waitemata Trust – but at least people know that exists and how much it donates to National. Until today The Spencer Trust was unknown to almost everyone (I actually first heard about it and a link to NZ First last year), so this is a level of transparency which is rock bottom.

Now accounts are audited, so how come there are no donations recorded from the Spencer Trust to NZ First? Well according to the Kitchin article, it simply just pays bills on behalf of NZ First.

Sound a familiar method of operation? And all impossible for an auditor to detect.

However I suspect the legal position is that paying a bill on behalf of a party counts as an donation to the party, and should have been declared.

The Electoral Commission needs to decide if it has a role here. The time limit for prosecutions over the 2005 election return has passed, but the 2007 return might now be questioned if this behaviour is not a one off. If the allegations are correct and the Spencer Trust is paying bills on behalf of the party, then that is an issue to be investigated.

Finally in the interest of balance, we quote the denials given to the Dominion Post:

Mr Peters, who is in Singapore, would not comment yesterday. Responding later to written questions about Sir Robert’s donation going to the Spencer Trust, he would say only that the information was “not factual”.

Is he saying Sir Robert is mistaken?

Early this week The Dominion Post asked a spokesman for Mr Peters if a trust run by his brother had sometimes paid NZ First bills.

Through the spokesman, Mr Peters said: “That is a lie.”

And that is a clear cuit denial. So what does Sir Robert say:

When contacted yesterday, Sir Robert said he was making his own inquiries with NZ First officials and would not comment further at this stage.

Sir Robert is a straight shooter. I look forward to hearing his comments once he has made his inquiries.

Winston says that donations by wealthy racing industry families did not affect NZ First’s racing policy.

I actually believe him on this.

I generally have a firm view that money follows policies, not policies follow money. Unions donate money to Labour because they like their policies, Labour doesn’t design policies just to attract donations from unions.

But here is Winston’s problem. He has spent over 15 years alleging that policies do follow money. That MPs are venal and corrupt and will sell favours to donors.

So if people see something wrong with the Velas donating to NZ First, it is because of the climate that Winston and others have created.

Take National’s ACC policy. Now National introduced private competition to ACC in 1998, and had it as policy in 2002 and 2005 and again in 2008. National is a party which for 50 years has generally favoured more private sector involvement.

So I see nothing sinister in National’s ACC policy. But Winston and his mates allege (without foundation) that the policy was purchased by the insurance industry through alleged donations to National.

The mythical $1 million donation would seem an incredible waste of money to “buy” a policy considering National has had the same policy for over a decade.

So Winston is a victim of his own scandal-mongering. He can’t get away with a stance that other parties sell their policies to large secret donors, but he does not.

Winston says the donations are all legal. Yes indeed they appear to be. However it is apparent that arrangements were made to allow one family to donate in excess of the disclosure limit through (legally) routing it through different people and companies. Just as National has legally routed donations through its former Trusts. Perfectly legal, but designed to avoid disclosure of large donors.

So I do believe Winston in relation to the Velas. He has not (from evidence to date) broken any law and I don’t think he exchanged policies for donations.

But the reason people think that the donations may have influenced his policy, is beacuse Winston keeps insisting that is what parties and politicians do – sell their policies to donors. It is a classic case of tainted by your own rhetoric.

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!

Claire Trevett in the NZ Herald does a first class job of skewering Peters with his own hypocrisy:

If Winston Peters had succeeded in getting a bill for tough disclosure laws through Parliament in 1995, he could now have found himself jailed by his own law.

Ouch.

Mr Peters has spent his career railing against secret donations, including presenting a bill to Parliament in 1995 which required disclosure of all gifts and donations above $500 from individuals and companies.

The Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts Bill covered all kinds of donations to MPs, candidates or parties and any who failed to declare them faced jail for up to 12 months or fines of up to $20,000.

Wait, wait – let’s just make the law retrospective!

The bill was part of a campaign against links between big business and political parties that Mr Peters openly admitted was to “seriously damage the ability of the National Party to raise funds from corporate supporters without that fact becoming public knowledge”. In its first reading, he said “comprehensive and timely disclosure” of gifts and donations was essential to bring “undue influence … out of the shadows”.

So let us make sure we have this right. Peters proposed a law to bring donations out of the shadows, and then when the NZ Herald sucessfully exposes a $100,000 donation to his legal expenses, he calls on them to resign in disgrace?

“It seeks to reassure the public that influence cannot be bought when policy is formed before an election, that the voting intentions of those they elected cannot be subverted by powerful interests and that governments, once in power, cannot be improperly influenced by money pledged towards their re-election.”

Hmmn, improper influence. You mean such as having someone lobby to be given a diplomatic appointment who has publicly donated the PM’s party $500,000, secretly loaned them $100,000 interest free and secretly paid off $100,000 from the Foreign Minister’s legal expenses?

Or do you mean offering a small party $250,000 to support the Government after the election?

However, it is not the first time money from unknown sources has appeared to pay Mr Peters’ legal funds. In 1997 a mystery donor paid Mr Peters’ $125,000 bill in the Selwyn Cushing defamation case after Mr Peters was fined $75,000 in costs and $50,000 in damages for comments he made about Mr Cushing.

Seeing Brian Henry has revealed who donated the $100,000 in 2006, maybe he could reveal who paid the $125,000 in 1997?

Mr Peters has also criticised parties for appointing donors to Government-selected positions.

He said giving jobs in return for political donations was “the way it goes, unfortunately, in this country”.

He said a separate commission should be established to appoint people to such positions.

And Mr Peters would like to nominate Mr Owen Glenn and Mr Brian Henry to sit on that commission

It has now been over two and a half days since the explosive news that Owen Glenn did donate $100,000 – to Winston Peters’ legal expenses. Regardless of the legal issues over technicalities this is a major political issue regarding transparency – especially as Glenn was lobbying Peters (and Clark via Williams) for a diplomatic appointment.

So how have the major left wing blogs covered the issue?

The Greens’ Frog Blog has not said a word (except for a humourous reference in passing) yet has managed almost a dozen posts on other issues . And what of the Greens MPs? Russel Norman spoke volumes on National’s secret trusts. Has he not been motivated to even say a single word of concern?

Russell Brown devotes oh one paragraph to it today, and expresses no view at all on the rights or wrongs. He merely finds it funny that it involves a stolen e-mail. On that issue Russell might note that Owen Glenn has not in any way claimed the e-mail was stolen or that he is upset it was. He may like to reflect on why that is!

No Right Turn has, as expected, condemned it. While sometimes I get very upset with his posts (and I am sure vice verssa) he does consistently show the difference between a principled left blog and one which doesn’t want to upset mates in Government.

Tim Selwyn at Tumeke puts himself in the same category as No Right Turn, with his post.

The Standard has managed five posts since then, and of course none at all on the issue. When they do blog, it will be to say that it is all nothing to do with Helen.

The self-proclaimed funny and cool 08wire (run by a recent former staffer for Clark) hasn’t managed to find anything funny to say on the issue.

It would be too much to expect Labour candidates Grant and Jordan to have commented, but how about Tony Milne?

The Progressive’s unofficial Prog Blog has said nothing on the issue.

Some of the smaller blogs have commented I am sure – I’ve only had time to check the larger ones out.