Kiwiblog

No Minister has a copy of a letter to the Auditor-General asking them to investigate the extra funding Jim Anderton gets (both personally and for expenses) by purporting to be the leader of a political party.

Sadly it will not be successful. Standing Order 34(1) is clear:

Every party in whose interest a member was elected at the preceding general election or at any subsequent by-election is entitled to be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes.

So under the rules of Parliament, Anderton is entitled to still be seen as a Progressive MP (and Leader) even though he has announced they will not stand a party list in 2011, and has endorsed Labour and encouraged all his members to join Labour.

But as with Bill English and his housing situation, it is not just about the “entitlement”, it is about the perception and Anderton fails on the perception front. He gets an extra $13,500 a year salary and no doubt an extra $2,700 a year superannuation. And his office gets an extra $100,000 a year budget. Total extra cost to the taxpayer over three years is $348,600.

Had to laugh reading a recent Q&A transcript:

PAUL:  But what is he doing?   Is he handing the Progressives to Labour, is that what he’s doing?

MIKE:  There’s nothing to hand across – except this.  There’ll be 38 activists who’ll want to go on the party list, who’ll want jobs in head office, in the leader’s office and they represent frequently the most unpleasant and the most unattractive side of the left.  And they will burrow in – they’re the chardonnay socialists who use the word mate because they think workers use it, and then they go to their vineyards and call each other furtively “comrade”.   They are not pleasant and they are not votable.

It will be interesting to see how many Progressive activists get places on the Labour List. In the meantime Jim keeps claiming extra salary and funding by pretending to be a party leader.

From Q&A today:

JIM: Ha-ha. Well, I’ve had a bit of experience winning electorates and any analysis of the election result last time would show that the National Party is not as secure as commentators think. For example, they have nine electorate seats that come within a two party swing of less than 3%, now that is relatively easily won in a contest like this. And you only need Wigram on top of that and one more seat for Labour to hold more electorate seats in Parliament than National. I don’t think that’s a common understanding of the election system at the moment.

PAUL: No, let’s be clear about that. National have nine seats and was left with less than a 2000 majority.

JIM: that’s right, that’s less than 2000 votes.

But Jim is wrong. National has only seven, not nine seats, with a sub 2000 majority. They are (in order) New Plymouth, Waitakere, West Coast-Tasman, Otaki, Auckland Central, Hamilton West and Maungakiekie.

The eight most marginal seat for National is Rotorua which has a 5,065 majority – that is larger than Anderton’s own majority of 4,767.

His adding his seat to Labour’s total is silly also, as one could add ACT’s to National. National has 41 seats and Labour 21. For them to get more electorate seats they need to win 11 seats. The 11th most marginal seat for National is Taupo with a 6,445 majority.

PAUL: but to change the government the Nats have to lose 4,000 votes in each electorate is what you also told them, then it starts to look a bit harder doesn’t it?

JIM: No, well that’s the total, but actually on a two party swing National only have to lose 1900 votes and Labour gain 1900 votes so that’s not as big an order as it looks in the first instance. Look, Paul, all I’m saying to you is that I ran an election in 1981 with Bill Rowling where the Labour caucus had a coup against Bill Rowling in the middle of an election campaign and we still ended up winning more votes than National but we lost the election because there was no proportional representation system then.

Jim again gets it wrong. The attempted “fish and chips” coup against Rowling was in December 1980. The election was in November 1981.

PAUL: But essentially you have come home haven’t you, Progressives can now joined the Labour Party as well as the Progressives and Progressives are not going to stand in Constituency seats in the next election.

JIM: No, they’re not going to stand as a List but we can stand in constituents like mine for example.

Great strategy. Split the centre-left vote to make it easier for National candidates. Thanks Jim.

PAUL: But with Progressives now being able to join the Labour party, essentially you’ve rolled over haven’t you, I mean it’s the beginning of the end for the Progressives. The only reason the Progressives still exists, or are going to continue to exist can I suggest to you is that the public pays the party $164,000 of taxpayers money for the Party expenses and you get $13,000 more for being the leader. Isn’t that the only reason for the continuation of the Progressives?

JIM: No, you’re absolutely wrong Paul. The Government or the Parliamentary Services Commission pays no money for the Party, the Progressives pay their own money, and the money that’s paid to me as an Electorate MP and as Leader of the Progressives in parliament is for Parliamentary purposes, that’s for the work that I do, I have 1500 constituents coming through my electorate office each year and we help them sometimes in matters of life and death – and it’s a privilege to do so – and that’s why my electorate office is funded and why my parliamentary office is funded.

But the point Anderton passes over is his funding is enhanced because of the convenient fiction that he is a party leader.

JIM: That’s rubbish. I continue because people in Sydenham have voted for me for 25 years, I probably hold the Guinness Book of Records for representing the largest number of parties in the same electorate, increasing my majorities most of the time. The people of Sydenham have the right to say that and that’s what they’ve been saying.

1996: 10,039
1999: 9,885
2002: 3,176
2005: 8,548
2008: 4,767

Again Jim is wrong. And when he waka jumped from the Alliance in 2002, his majority took a big hit.

Words I never thought I would say. But Jim’s Bill is a good one:

Jim Anderton has drafted a Bill designed to stop current members of parliament from standing for election to parliament in a by-election. …

“It’s a nonsense that people can stand for election to parliament when they’ve already members of parliament,” says Member of Parliament for Wigram and Progressive leader, Jim Anderton

“What would rate-payers think if a member of a city council stood in a by-election to become a city councillor?”

“There should be a rule that if you want to stand in a by-election, you first resign your seat in parliament.

I support this bill. Certainly to select committee at least, but also all the way (if it is drawn out) unless there is a very persuasive argument against it.

One can argue that there should be no restrictions on the rights of electors to vote for whom they like. But I believe term limits (for example) on the US Presidency enhance democracy, not detract from it.

There are two objections to List MPs standing in a by-election. The first is the huge advantage they get with taxpayer resources.

The second is that the result of that by-election is that an additional MP enters on that party’s list, who was not the person who attended meet the candidate meetings etc. You vote Twyford, and get Tizard etc. And unless you have bloggers there to point this out to voters, they may not realise this!

A third minor point is you could get a minor constitutional crisis if a List MP is elected as an Electorate MP in a by-election and they do not resign their list seat before they the writ gets returned for the by-election. They would then have to continue on as  both and electorate and a list MP, and while I doubt they would be allowed two votes, it would be messy. Would they get funding for both their roles etc?

Now my support of Anderton’s bill is no criticism of List MPs who have stood as candidates in by-elections. Doing so was within the rules. But the rules should be changed.

What if everything you knew about politics came from the internet?  What if people based their vote on which politician was the most popular on Facebook or Bebo?  It’s unlikely and a bit of a nightmare scenario really but on-line sources of information are becoming increasingly important for voters. 

To test my vague theory in New Zealand politics, I searched on Facebook for each party leader and examined the groups supporting and, in some cases opposing, them.  Here are the results:

John Key (National) – 14,388 supporters.  Interestingly the “I HEART John Key” and “Scientologists for John Key” groups have exactly the same number of members.  I’m presuming they are the same people.

Helen Clark (United Nations) – 5, 408 supporters.

Phil Goff (Labour) – 1,112 members of a group wanting him to be Prime Minister in 2011 and 3 in a quite different group who think he is a DILF.  Look up what it means at your peril.

Rodney Hide (Act) – 719 supporters.

Russel Norman (Green) – 567 supporters.  His on-line presence grew significantly when I spelled his first name correctly in the search field.

Metiria Turei (Green) – 339 supporters.

Winston Peters (Retired) – 236 supporters for Prime Minister, 11 supporters for next year’s Dancing with the Stars.  Both quite terrifying prospects really.

Jim Anderton (Progressive) – 17 supporters, much higher than expected.

Pita Sharples (Maori Party) – No Facebook groups supporting him but a couple which are worryingly opposed (and in apparent breach of Facebook policies).

Tariana Turia (Maori Party) – No Facebook groups supporting or opposing her.  There is one offering to be a support group for Mrs Turia going back to school but the tag is “just for fun – outlandish statements.”

Peter Dunne (United Future) – Mr Dunne does not have an official supporters group.  The group “I lost my phone drinking in London – numbers please!!! (Peter Dunne)” is almost certainly not him.  Peter Dunne does not strike me as the kind of man who, under any circumstances, would use three exclamation points.

NZPA reported:

The Progressive Party is effectively standing aside at the next election and its members have been told they are free to join Labour if they want to.

Back on May 31 I blogged that the Progressives appear to be defunct, and it looks like we were right.

The ”convenient fiction” that they are still a party gets Anderton an extra $100,000 a year in taxpayer resources for his office. His total parliamentary funding is $250,580 + GST.

Anderton personally gets paid an extra $13,500 salary for his fictional role as a party leader.

A spokesman told NZPA the Progressive Party would not run a candidate list at the 2011 election and would not campaign for the party vote.

I expect Anderton will announce his retirement in due course.

The Herald on Sunday notes (after we blogged it):

The public pays $164,000 a year to Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party – which sits with Labour, speaks with Labour, votes with Labour, and now campaigns for Labour.

Yep.

Dr Joe Atkinson, a politics lecturer at Auckland University, said the Progressive Party funding was “an anomaly of MMP” as Anderton operated as a Labour MP. Anderton, the sole Progressive MP, sits on the front bench of the debating chamber among Labour MPs, and is the Labour opposition’s spokesman on agriculture.

Associate Professor Andrew Geddis, a constitutional law expert at Otago University, called the Progressive Party as “a convenient fiction”.

That is a great term – a “convenient fiction”. Superb. Anderton is good at these – in 2002 he remained in the House as an Alliance MP even though he had left the party months earlier.

The Progressive Party is allocated $100,000 a year plus $64,320 for electorate funding. And, as an MP and party leader, Anderton receives a salary of $144,500 a year. Anderton was defiant: “What’s the big deal?” he asked.

What is the big deal says Jim? Well Whale responds by quoting Jim:

NZ Herald, May 27 1999, by Vernon Small

News of the extra funding for the list MP and Mana Wahine Party leader provoked outrage yesterday among Opposition MPs, who alleged it was a jackup.

“In my view this action suggests someone who has no chance of being elected as dog-catcher … has been granted over $77,000 on an annual basis for helping to keep the Government of the day in power,” said Alliance leader Jim Anderton, from whose party Mrs Kopu defected.

Mr Anderton said he would seek a review of the funding decision, which follows official parliamentary recognition of Mana Wahine and grants the one-MP party $77,186 for research and office expenses.

…..But Mr Anderton said the funding brought the political process further into disrepute, and he would investigate ways, including a judicial review, to overturn it.

My goodness – back then it was a big deal when it was another MP in a convenient fiction party. Arguably Kopu’s party was more legitimate as it actually contested the ensuing elections.

And further:

The Press, 27 May 1999, Edition 1, on Page 1

Alliance leader Jim Anderton said the payment of extra money to Mrs Kopu was an outrage. He will write to the Parliamentary Services Commission seeking an urgent review of its decision.

He said the action of giving Mrs Kopu the money, and the way the rules had been changed to allow it to happen, “comes as close to being fairly described as corruption” as anything he had seen in his 35-year political career.

So when Jim does it, it is no big deal. When Mrs Kopu did it, it was close to corruption.

Whale Oil has called time of death on the Progressives. I think he is right. Why:

1. Long-term Anderton/Progressive strategist John Pagani is Labour’s Mt Albert Campaign Manager, as confirmed on Q&A this morning
2. Progressive Deputy Leader is pictured on Labour’s Mt Albert’s campaign website with a Labour rosette
3. Anderton is effectively a Labour MP, as they have made him their Spokesperson on Agriculture.

Should Anderton still be treated as a party leader? His salary is set at $144,500 instead of $131,000 due to this status.

What other perks does Anderton get by being a party leader?

1. Ability to have the taxpayer pay for his spouse to accompany him on overseas parliamentary travel
2. An extra $100,000 of taxpayer funding ($164,320 instead of $64,320

One can argue that as the Progressive Party is not contesting the by-election, it is natural for them to support Labour. Having the Deputy Leader of one party wearing a rosette for anotehr is unprecedented.

Put it like this. If ACT did not contest a by-election, would you ever see the ACT Deputy Leader wearing a National rosette out campaigning for the National candidate? Of course not.

Two hilarious moments in Parliament. First we had Anderton wasting his one question a month, trying to be pious as usual:

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) to the Prime Minister: How many jobs will be created for unemployed New Zealanders as a result of the reinstatement of the titles of Knight and Dame Grand Companion in the New Zealand honours system?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : None will be created and none will be lost. The member misunderstands the purpose of reinstating the titles.

A nice swat away. But Anderton persists and persist and finally we get:

Hon Jim Anderton: What items on the list of things the Government has made its higher priorities in Government will do the most to reduce the impact of global recession: bringing back knighthoods, a national cycleway, or privatising prisons?

Hon JOHN KEY: All three can play a part in helping our economy to grow. I am surprised, I have to say, that Mr Anderton has come down to the House today with this primary question. Funnily enough, I took a moment out of my busy schedule to have a look through the archives, and I noticed that in 1997 the Hon Jim Anderton introduced the Exceptional Service Honour (Posthumous Recognition) Bill. He sought to have that bill passed, and, lo and behold, the bill—which he waxed lyrical about, but I will not bore members with it—would have conferred an honour with the status of a knighthood. That was what the bill was trying to do. Jim Anderton not only tried to create his own new honour, with the status of a knighthood, in 1997; he actually had tried it once before, in 1991.

Hilarious. Anderton twice introduced a bill to give the equivalent of a knighthood to someone who died in WWI 90 years ago, and he is stupid enough to them try and ask a question complaining about the Government “wasting” time on knighthoods. To say people were laughing is putting it mildly.

Whichever staffer dug that piece of info up, deserves a jellybean.

Then we had Sue Moroney going on about pay equity to Pansy Wong. And I loved this exchange:

Sue Moroney: Why did the Minister ignore a protest on this issue by school support workers in Hamilton on Friday, and then, just minutes later, tell the Hamilton International Women’s Day Symposium that the gender pay gap was too large in New Zealand and she wanted to do more, when her Government is actually guilty of doing less?

Hon PANSY WONG: I hardly ignored the handful of protesters in Hamilton. I actually told them to please take care and not get too wet.

Wonderful answer. She told them not to get too wet.

The Herald canvasses the parties on whether there should be a freeze on contributions:

Should the Government suspend contributions to the NZ Super Fund?
* National: Won’t rule it out.
* Labour: No
* Greens: Yes
* Maori Party: No policy
* Act: Yes
* United Future: No
* Progressives: No

The best argument for common sense comes from Russel Norman:

But Greens co-leader Russel Norman said last night that in the present context, New Zealand should suspend its contributions.

“We are borrowing in order to invest in pretty uncertain financial markets at a time when the Government’s fiscal position is rapidly deteriorating and it’s really worried about its gross debt level.

The scond stupidest statement is from Phil Goff:

Labour leader Phil Goff strongly opposes any suspension of contributions of about $2 billion a year.

“The pensions of tomorrow need to be protected today.”

So Phil thinks borrowing today, which will need to be repaid tomorrow, will protect he pensions of tomorrow. That has to win some prize for stupidity.

Then we have Jim:

Progressives leader Jim Anderton said that “raiding the piggy bank today means there is less in the piggy bank when it is needed”.

Jim thinks you can fill up a piggy bank by borrowing money for it. This is like telling your child that even though they did not have any left over pocket money, they should go borrow some money, and stick that borrowed money in a piggy bank, so they will think they have saved some money.

UPDATE: Whale calls Labour’s borrow to save plan as their “Blue Chip” plan for our future. That’s a good way to look at it. I mean think if a finance company did what Goff and Anderton did, and said we will secure your future by borrowing money you don’t have, to save money for you. The SFO would be talking to those directors in very quick time!

Somewhat annoyingly, the EFA Repeal Bill is not yet online. But Parliament started the first reading debate on it yesterday, and the Herald reports that it was encouraging:

When Labour’s electoral spokesman David Parker stood to speak in last night’s first reading of the bill to repeal the EFA, he was quick to follow his leader Phil Goff and get Labour’s backdown on record.

“So we do concede that there are imperfections with the existing law, that it did produce an overly complicated regime, that it can be improved.”

It prompted MP Jonathan Coleman to yell “so you’re admitting you got it wrong” . Mr Parker – to his credit – refused to rise to the bait and just agreed, in triplicate.

“I have already admitted that. I’m happy to do mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa again. There were imperfections.”

I thought Parker handled himself well, and with dignity.

Yesterday, Labour and Progressives leader Jim Anderton said they would support its repeal after getting assurances National was genuine about working with them on a more enduring replacement.

Only the Green Party is refusing to support the repeal, saying while it was flawed it remained better than the previous law.

And this tells us more about the Green Party, than anything else.

Mr Anderton put in a plea for National not to take vengeance, saying he accepted it was “aggrieved” by what had happened and believed the EFA needed to be replaced.

“Just as we on this side of the House have come to this view, I ask those on that side to be constructive.”

And sadly Jim Anderton is right. I know there are times when I want “utu”, but at the end of the day the Electoral Act is too important to become a plaything for the Government of the Day.

Mr Parker, Mr Anderton and Greens co-leader Russel Norman all stressed that they stuck by the principles of the EFA – and any replacement had to address the transparency of funding of political parties, as well as limits on how far other people and groups could go in campaigning for a party in an election campaign.

I don’t think there is any serious opposition to transparency around party funding.

The issue of restrictions on third parties is more divisive. Ironically the way it is worded about “limits on how far other people and groups could go in campaigning for a party in an election campaign.”, well the limit is $0. It is illegal under both the old and the new law to publish any advertisement campaigning for a party, without the party’s permission – and the cost comes out of the party’s limit.

What Parker and Anderton really mean is they want limits on how much third parties can spend attacking political parties.

I think the bigger issue is around transparency of third party advertising, rather than limiting it. I also think one needs to look at carrots, not just sticks, when it comes to third party activities. I’ll blog in ore detail some ideas at some stage.

NBR reports that the Police are not prosecuting Jim Anderton for breaches of the Electoral Finance Act, despite a referral from the Electoral Commision. Naturally Jim has concluded that this means the Electoral Commission were wrong:

Progressive leader Jim Anderton has criticised the Electoral Commission for referring a complaint that he breached the Electoral Finance Act (EFA) to the police.

Mr Anderton said today that the police had written to him advising that there had been no breach of the EFA. …

Mr Anderton said the complaint was frivolous and a waste of police time.

He accused the commission of taking a cavalier attitude.

“The decision to refer these complaints just before the election, when even the most cursory examination should have shown no offence had been committed, showed poor judgement,” Mr Anderton said.

Actually the Electoral Commission set out a very detailed case as to why they beleived Anderton had breached the Act – he was using taxpayer resources to send out unauthorised material with the Progressives campaign slogan on it.

The fact the Police are not prosecuting is of no surprise. The history of the Police with electoral law enforcement is rather woeful.

Jim Anderton has announced he is forming an Opposition coalition with Labour and will be the coalition Agriculture Spokesperson.

Why doesn’t he just admit his party serves no useful purpose, and join Labour again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two interesting statements from the Progressives:

The Herald reports:

Progressive leader Jim Anderton made an unorthodox and brazen pitch to the elderly yesterday for New Zealand First voters to back him.

He made the bid on the basis that the New Zealand First leader Winston Peters might not be re-elected to Parliament after a series of inquiries into donations to his party.

So Jim is saying Winston is goneburger, so vote for me.

But the real quote that needs more attention comes from Deputy Leader Matt Robson, appearing on Back Benches.

They were talking about the US election and Obama and McCain. Wallace Chapman mentioned that McCain was around the same age as Jim Anderton, and Robson’s nasty littlre retort was:

But Jim can put his hands up over his head and claim victory, McCain can’t do that

How disgusting is that? To denigrate a man who is crippled due to years of torture as a prisoner of war? From Wikipedia:

In August 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain. He was subjected to rope bindings and repeated beatings every two hours.

Some of the injuries came from his initial treatment when shot down:

Some North Vietnamese pulled him ashore, then others crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt and bayoneted him.

Now this is a war crime and against the Geneva Conventions. Robson has spent a lifetime going on about the Geneva Conventions, and war crimes, but then shows his real colours, by justifying the torture of McCain (after Paul Quinn pulled him up for his offensive comments), and bayoneting of a wounded surrendered solider on the basis that McCain had taken part in a war that killed a lot of people.

People should look at the video at the link above (just after halfway in chapter one) and see how gleeful Robson is in mocking McCain’s injuries and how unrepentent he is when challenged on it.

I thought it was interesting how restrained everyone was. Winston, for example, was being very constructive and making serious points. Maybe they all realised the usual squabbling would sit badly with voters in such uncertain economic times.

Not sure if there are any winners or losers from it. How did others find it?

I’ll start with Colin Espiner:

On the privileges committee report, I think the committee did an excellent job. It cut through all the Peters verbiage and red herrings and bluster. It simply didn’t believe him and rightly found him guilty of misleading Parliament. It recommended his censure. That is an extremely serious step, and any minister of the Crown would be sacked for such a finding.

Indeed. Someone commented the last Mp to be censured was in 1975. Could the historians amongst us find the last time a Minister of the Crown was censured and lost his job.

Except Winston Peters. Labour’s handling of this crisis has been nothing short of shameful. Every day Prime Minister Helen Clark and her deputy on the committee, Michael Cullen, have found a different excuse for why Peters should not be sacked. There is simply no wiggle room left. So instead they’ve started attacking the committee itself. And this is perhaps the most shameful approach of all. The privileges committee used to be seen as beyond reproach – powerful, elite, Parliament’s highest body. Its decisions were unquestioned.

Labour claims the committee has been politicised and it has – by Labour and NZ First. The only attempt to hijack its findings was made by those members, not those who questioned Peters and found his answers wanting. How Labour can say it is National that has hijacked the committee when its own support parties – the Greens and United Future, and the Maori Party – all sided with National and Act beggars belief.

I think it is the maxim that if you repeat a lie enough time, then some people will believe it.

If, in Parliament today, Labour again attacks the committee and tries to vote down its findings, Parliament will have reached a new low in my opinion. Labour should accept that it lost the fight at the committee and respect its majority verdict. That’s what happens in our justice system when you’re found guilty by a jury of your peers.

I predict Labour will spend most its time attacking John Key and not taking the censure seriously.

Next we have John Armstrong:

Winston Peters’ letter of resignation as a minister ought to be on the Prime Minister’s desk this morning.

It won’t be. However, the damning report of Parliament’s privileges committee demands nothing less, even though its finding that Peters is in contempt was not unanimous.

You really have to wonder sometimes why Helen Clark refusesto take any meaningful action against Peters. Instead she runs attack lines on his behalf against the Privileges Committee and the SFO.

But he cannot get such accusations to stick when it comes to the Greens, United Future and Maori Party representatives who made up the remainder of the majority view. Those parties had no axe to grind with Peters. They simply reached the only conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence – that Peters had “some knowledge” of Glenn’s intention to make a donation.

The next time Clark runs the line that the Privileges Committee finding is politically motivated, ask her why Peter Dunne (one of her Ministers) and Russel Norman support the finding?

The big question is whether she can ever trust him again. With National not wanting a bar of him, it would now seem inconceivable that Peters could again become a minister even if Labour wins the election.

Not at all. If Peters makes it back and can give her a fourth term, of course she’ll have it back. Why else would you go through all the pain now, if not to do a deal later.

Labour’s reluctance to upset Peters with rigorous questioning during his appearances in front of the committee was understandable given Labour’s dependence on him for the past three years and conceivably for the next three as well. But it is to Labour’s eternal shame that it behaved thus.

In the end, the majority verdict is a victory for principle over expediency and for the integrity of the privileges committee.

Eternal shame is a good phrase.

We also have Frog from the Greens:

It does make me wonder weather the Team LPG fanboiz should really be getting so grumpy at Green supporters for not wanting to declare our undying love to Helen Clark and Labour. Because it seems from its recent behaviour that Labour has already found its preferred coalition partner, and it’s Winston Peters, come what may. But then I guess Labour doesn’t have so much to gain from a internet campaign for Team LNZF?

Can one imagine Helen Clark defending a Green MP to the extent she has defended Winston?

You also have comments from two of the MPs on NZPA. First Peter Dunne:

United Future leader Peter Dunne said he had gone into the committee with an opinion: “I entered the committee thinking this was probably a beat up.”

But after hearing evidence he changed his mind.

Mr Dunne said Mr Peters had repeated opportunities to give his side.

“Really I think the committee genuinely tried to get to the bottom of what went on and reached its conclusions accordingly.”

Mr Dunne said crucial for him was contradictory evidence and then “cute” recall of events by Mr Peters’ lawyer Brian Henry after evidence was presented.

So Dunne went from thinking it was a beat up, to deciding on the evidence that Peters knew about the donation and should have declared it.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman disagreed [with Helen Clark]. He said he went into the inquiry with an open mind and based his decision on the evidence put before him.

So is Helen calling Russel tainted or unfair?

Dr Norman said the committee’s chairman, National MP Simon Power, ran a fair process.

In fact even Michael Cullen went out of his way to say that Simon Power was very fair as the Chairman. I think that is a huge credit to Simon for the way he has conducted himself.

As one minor example of his integrity I was talking to him on an unrelated issue a few weeks ago. I had heard on the radio that Owen Glenn would be testifying but not whether or not it would be in person or by video conference. So I just asked Simon whether it was in person or not as I happened to be speaking to him. Simon, just to avoid even the possibility or suggestion of having an inappropriate conversation, just referred me to the press release the Committee had put out. Now I wasn’t asking for anything which wasn’t public, but Simon erred on the side of caution by not even answering my question but just referring me to the press release. He has bent over backwards to be fair and impartial in this matter.

Finally, I note that Jim Anderton is going to show a tiny amount of spine and abstain rather than vote against the Privileges Committee recommendations. Don’t give him too much credit though as he repeat the bullshit from the PM that the process has been unfair to Winston. He does at leats ping Peters for his hypocrisy:

“NZ First was clearly accepting donations at a time when it was attacking everyone else for taking money from big business. For that the party has some explaining to do to the voting public,” Mr Anderton said.

Perhaps Mr Anderton could offer an opinion on whether he, as a member of the Cabinet, felt he should have known about the donations from the Velas to Peters, when he voted to go along with Winston’s generous funding for the racing industry?

Family First has rated every party leader for their “family friendliness” as they see it. This is a great idea, as those who agree with Family First’s values can use it as a positive guide, and those who disagree can use it as a negative guide. More lobby groups should do this sort of stuff.

The overall ratings (in order) for each Leader is:

1. Winston Peters 77%
2. Peter Dunne 69%
3. Pita Sharples 57%
4. Tariana Turia 54%
5. John Key 54%
6. Jim Anderton 38%
7. Rodney Hide 31%
8. Jeanette Fitzsimons 15%
9. Helen Clark 8%

Winston is the poster boy for social conservatism which is why it is so hilarious that so many on the left are doing everything possible to defend him.

There were 13 issues or votes they judged the Leaders on. I list them below, along with how I would have voted on it if I was an MP.

1. Prostitution Bill- DPF support – 0
2. Civil Unions – DPF support – 0
3. Relationships Bill – DPF support – 0
4. Parental Notification for under 16 abortions – DPF support – 1 (I support notification, not approval)
5. Euthanasia – DPF support – 0
6. Care of Children – DPF oppose – 1
7. Marriage Amendment (define as man/woman only) – DPF oppose – 0
8. Anti-Smacking – DPF oppose – 1
9. Easter Trading – DPF support – 0
10. Easter Sunday Trading – DPF support – 0
11. Drinking Age to 20 – DPF oppose – 0
12. Street Prostitution (Manukau) – DPF oppose – 0
13. Electoral Finance – DPF oppose – 1

So if I was a party leader I would be scored 4/13 or 31% – the same as Rodney Hide.

Dear me. Jim Anderton and his party have been referred to the Police for a second time by the Electoral Commission. This maintains the perfect record of parties that voted for the EFA breaking it, and parties that voted against it not yet having fallen afoul of it.

Jim did not include a promoter authorisation statement (again) on his e-newsletter. He offerd an impressive range of defences against breaking the law:

1. Parliamentary Privilege – “He suggests that the issue is governed by parliamentary privilege and that the Electoral Finance Act makes no intrusion on this process”
2. Just press statements – “Mr Anderton asserts that the material is not an election advertisement because it contains press statements and statements of policy.” Jim doesn’t realised he voted for a law that covers press statements also.
3. Jim is an Editor – “He further asserts that if the content is found to fall within the general definition of an election advertisement in section 5(1) of the Act that the material falls within two exemptions: section 5(2)(b) editorial material in a periodical”
4. Jim is a blogger – “and section 5(2)(g) personal views published on the internet.”

The Electoral Commission provide some useful reasoning in their decision, relating to what is an advertisement:

The Electoral Commission accepts that accounts or reasoned criticisms of policy and accounts or reasoned criticisms of actions or inactions generally are not “reasonably” regarded as election advertisements, as such categories are essential to informed democratic elections. The Commission considers material which essentially is mere exaltation to vote in a particular manner or self promotion, or abuse, or slogans, generally falls into a different category. Such material is persuasion without an information basis. While commonplace, it is not essential in the same way. Material in this latter category properly falls within election advertising constraints.

Jim’s problem is he abused John Key and repeated the Progressive’s campaign slogan. The abuse is deemed a marginal call and he escapes on that, but gets sunk by using their campaign slogan.

While context and circumstances will be important, passages which amount to election advertising are not saved simply because they occur within a wider range of material which is not election advertising.

This has always been the case. If part of a publication is an advertisement, the whole publication is.

The Commission point out the editorial exemption for a periodical is only for a “newspaper, magazine, or trade or professional journal” so MPs e-newsletters do not qualify.

As for parliamentary privilege:

The Commission has accepted that proceedings within the House are protected, despite the Act, by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It also accepts that parliamentary privilege can extend more widely. However, the Commission does not accept parliamentary privilege prevails over the Act so as to exempt such communications between MPs and the public from constraints on election advertising. If such an important and wide exception had been intended, it is likely that an express exclusion would have been included in section 5 (2) as is the case with certain other matters.

The Commission found overall that it was an election advertisement, that Jim Anderton was the promoter of it, and that in their opinion Anderton broke the law so they have referred it to the Police.

I suggest all MPs and parties should read the decision in full. It is one of the more detailed decisions they have published.

Prog Blog is an unofficial blog on behalf of Jim Anderton’s Progressives.

Last week they did a blog post about a quote from John Key saying “Young people are a group I’m passionate about”.

They commented beneath that

“So is Gary Glitter”

The post has now been deleted but it is still in Google Cache.

Someone e-mailed me this a few days ago but I only noticed the e-mail today. Some other blogs highlighted this earlier.

Hmmn, and even though the page has been deleted, it still shows up on their main site.

I think media should be asking the Hon Jim Anderton who writes Prog Blog for them, and does he condone comparing John Key to paedophile? Will someone offer an apology at the very least?

People said this would be a very dirty campaign, but not even I thought it would be that dirty.

Jim Anderton released National’s draft health policy yesterday, and look at the headlines:

Nats plan spending spree on health

Surgery boost promised in Nats’ health policy

Seriously you can’t buy headlines that good.

The policy details, as leaked to date, are:

• over $100 million a year of taxpayers’ money on new health projects
• a spending spree on new operating theatres – building 20 operating theatres over three years. Capital cost $165 million over four years.
• Training an extra 750 health workers. Cost around $20 million a year.
• Giving a 30 per cent health insurance rebate, up to $500 a year, to those aged 65 or older. Cost $40 million a year at first.
• Gradually increasing medicines funding to match Australia’s per-head level. Initial boost of $20 million a year.
• Prostate cancer testing programme for men over 50 with a close family history of the disease. Not costed.
• Developing a dental assistance programme for over-65s. Not costed.
• Giving an extra $15 million to hospices.
• more state-funded use of private hospitals
• a star-rating system for district health boards
• the number of bureaucrats would be capped
• losses of health workers overseas would gradually reduce because of tax cuts
• voluntary bonding would be offered in return for student loan debt write-offs in hard-to-staff places and specialties
• will maintain the Government’s budgeted health spending projections – “not a dollar less than Labour”.
• maintain the current universal GP subsidy system, including the fees review process
• fund Plunketline
• funding 12 month access to breast cancer drug herceptin

This is only the draft policy of course, but I can’t wait until the final policy is released. More theatres, more medical staff, more medicines funding and a rebate for over 65s who have private health insurance – all going to be damn popular.

UPDATE: National has now released the official policy, or at least part one of it.

The Herald says the SFO should remain:

There are good reasons to retain the Serious Fraud Office. One of the most obvious was mentioned last week by the Finance Minister, Michael Cullen, when he noted New Zealand was facing the most complex and challenging economic forces for 20 years. The fall-out from this will demand a dedicated fraud-detection agency.

Several commentators have said that in the midst of finance company collapses in entirely the wrong time to abolish them.

To suggest, however, as Progressives leader Jim Anderton has, that this inquiry was initiated by the SFO to serve its own purposes is ludicrous. Even greater depths of shamefulness were plumbed by the Prime Minister yesterday when she claimed it was “almost certain” the SFO tipped off National about its intention to investigate NZ First. The two extraordinary accusations suggest nothing less than a wilful and self-serving Government campaign to undermine the credibility of one of its own law-enforcement agencies.

And what do you call a Government which campaigns against its own law enforcement agencies?

Harsh times inevitably bring to light practices that tend to remain concealed when things are going well. Already, the SFO is investigating the Blue Chip property companies that went into liquidation this year owing $80 million to 2000 investors, and Bridgecorp, a finance company that owes about $500 million to 18,000 depositors. History suggests other probes will follow. This mocks the Government’s claim that substantial white-collar crime is no longer part of the landscape, and that it is safe to dispense with the agency.

But what about the sucessor?

There is little chance that alleged rorts by finance-company executives would be tackled adequately by the police’s Organised and Financial Crime Agency, which, according to the Government plans, would absorb the SFO. The Police Minister, Annette King, has admitted the agency’s focus would “very much” be gangs, as part of a strategy of getting tough on organised crime. The type of investigation typically undertaken by the SFO would not be a priority, and would also be seen as far more onerous than tackling gang activity. Fraud is the the most difficult of crimes to detect and prove its intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Indeed.

Some people are having a hard time working out when no means no. NZPA reports:

National Party leader John Key has ruled out working with New Zealand First leader Winston Peters post-election altogether and says opponents are wrong to suggest that would change if he was struggling to form a government.

For those who are slow, John Key has explicitly ruled out Peters, even if it means he won’t become Prime Minister after the 2008 election.

Today Dr Cullen criticised Mr Key for his hardened position, saying he was disregarding natural justice and not letting inquiries finish before passing judgement.

“John Key’s stance shows that he has no respect for basic New Zealand values of fair play,” Dr Cullen said.

Mr Key said that the bar he set for who he would work with was higher than if they were cleared by investigations or not.

This is what Labour don’t understand. Labour’s bottom line is merely that an MP hasn’t actually been convicted of a crime. They don’t see any need to have the bar any higher than “has not actually been sent to jail”.

Mr Key ruled out having Mr Peters as a minister, forming a coalition with his party or entering any kind of support arrangement with NZ First.

“The lot. . . we have categorically ruled him out altogether.”

So what part of that is hard to understand?

Progressive leader Jim Anderton, speaking on TV One’s Agenda programme this morning, said Mr Key was not being brave and knew Mr Peters may not be in a position to negotiate following this year’s general election.

“I’ll give you this prediction that if Winston is there and he has the numbers to make John Key the prime minister you’ll find John Key finds very quick reasons why Winston’s a man of high integrity fast.”

Mr Key responded: “As is so often the case Jim Anderton has got it wrong.”

No means no.

Also on Agenda Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said it was up to her party, but her preference would be not to have to work with Mr Peters.

“If you’re sitting around a Cabinet table with someone you have to be able to trust them, you have to be able to take their word.”

That is a good start. But would the Greens give confidence and supply to Labour/NZ First, if they themselves are not in Cabinet?

United Future leader Peter Dunne said in the first instance his party would base who it worked with on policy. However the fact that Mr Peters let the controversy draw out without giving straight answers would be a factor “you take into account as to whether you can do business with that person subsequently”.

Goodness, that was almost a position Peter took!

Just remember these two lines:

A vote for NZ First is a vote for a Labour-led Government

A vote for Labour is a vote for Winston Peters in Government

First we had Winston Peters smearing the SFO, basically saying they are corrupt and would be investigating him because of criticisms he made a decade ago about them.

Then senior Cabinet Minister Jim Anderton on Agenda smeared them, saying he thought they were motivated to investigate Peters to stop the agency being wound up (never mind all the staff have jobs in its sucessor agency).

Now we have Helen Clark herself smearing the SFO, saying:

“I find the National Party’s statement and timing interesting because I would say it’s almost certain they got a tip from the Serious Fraud Office that it was about to move,” Miss Clark said today on TV One’s Breakfast programme.

“I challenge them directly to come clean because I think it’s a very serious thing if an agency like the SFO is leaking to the Opposition.”

This is unbelievable. This is not an Opposition politician accusing the SFO, but the Prime Minister of NZ. She is issuing public challenges through the media, when as PM she can ask the SFO directly if they leaked.
What do you call a Prime Minister and Government which attacks and smears a body investigating a Minister for corruption? Reminds me of Italy I have to say.

John Key ruled Winston Peters out the day Owen Glenn contradicted Peters, saying Peters had solicited the donation. But Helen says it is “almost certain” National has been tipped off about the announcement the next day. Well what proof does the Prime Minister has to be “almost certain” in smearing the SFO?

And here is the irony. When National was investigated by the SFO in 2002, a politician was tipped off by the SFO. Not allegedly, but confirmed by the SFO. That politican was Helen Clark through Mark Prebble.

National was obviously very upset that Helen Clark was told in advance, and attacked the SFO for that. But here is the difference – National did not allege something unproven. They reacted to being told by the SFO that it had informed DPMC of the investigation into National.

If Helen Clark has some proof that the SFO tipped off National that they would announce the formal investigation the next day, she should provide that proof. Otherwise she should stop smearing them.