Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Former Labour ministers Mita Ririnui and Parekura Horomia were sent 186 reminders and requests between them over their credit card spending, a Weekend Herald investigation has found.

Official figures made public this month show Mr Horomia, MP for Ikaroa-Rawhiti, was the most lax of all MPs. Between 2003 and 2008, officials had to send him 94 requests for receipts or reminders of the spending rules.

Close behind, list MP Mr Ririnui received 88 requests between 2004 and 2008, and four letters requesting more details of spending.

That is basically a reminder every three weeks, that got ignored. It’s not three strikes and you’re out – it’s 94 strikes and you remain on the front bench.

Meanwhile, Progressive MP Jim Anderton this week repaid more than $700 in personal expenses put on ministerial credit cards during a trip to Rome and Malaysia in 2008.

Mr Anderton said he was “deeply upset” the money had not been repaid immediately after the eight-day trip.

He had written a cheque for the outstanding amount after the trip.

“Inexplicably, the cheque was mislaid.”

Jim said it was outrageous to expect him to pay using two separate credit cards when checking out. The above shows exactly why that should happen – because them there is no chance of reimbursement cheques being “mislaid”.

UMR have just released a poll of 350 people (through an online panel) from Christchurch. Their findings:

• Unprompted Mayoral choice is Jim Anderton 46%, Bob Parker 21%
• When asked head to head it is Anderton 61%, Parker 30%
• Parker has 49% disapprove and 35% approve
• Anderton has 21% disapprove and 63% approve

Things are looking good for Saint Jim to be getting his hands on the Mayoral credit card.

Air New Zealand have got into the fun with this advertisement for their $20 specials. Heh.

More details coming out today. The Press reports:

Progressive leader Jim Anderton racked up a $22,000 bill on his ministerial credit card during a month-long trip to Europe in 2003.

He also spent $324 on a gift from Kirkcaldie & Stains before leaving on the trip.

The cash splash while in Europe  from April 9 to May 3 included $3500 at Hotel Hilton in Frankfurt, $3400 at Hotel Conrad in Dublin, $2600 at the Palace Hotel in Helsinki and $1000 at a restaurant in Vienna. His wife and private secretary went with him on the trip.

At the Frankfurt hotel he spent about $2100 on “room charges”. No details are provided in the documents.

How do you rake up $2,100 in room charges??? That would tire even Shane Jones out.  I sure hope there are some details.

It also wasn’t easy on the tax-payer’s back pocket sending Mr Cosgrove and his wife to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. The accommodation for the nine day-stay in an executive deluxe room at China World Motel alone was $6,388.

A spokesperson for Mr Cosgrove said the hotel was designated by the Chinese government, with the Minister not allowed to choose.

Then Prime Minister Helen Clark agreed Mr Cosgrove had to go but questioned the length of the stay in a hand written note on the proposal for overseas travel.

I have no issue with the Minister of Sport attending the Olympics.But like Helen, I would question whether nine days is excessive.

Stuff also reports:

One night at a top-end London hotel in Mayfair cost the tax-payer $1435.93, Ministerial credit card receipts reveal.

Labour MP David Cunliffe travelled to London in his capacity as the Minister for Communications and Information Technology in March 2007.

The receipt from the staff credit card used to pay for the trip shows Cunliffe and one other person booked two rooms at The Westbury Hotel in Mayfair, London.

The Westbury is a five-star hotel on London’s exclusive Bond Street. The hotel charged $441 per night for each of the two rooms Cunliffe booked. Lunch at the hotel cost $117 and breakfast was $66.

I thought the opening sentence is actually a bit misleading as one could assume the $1,400 is the room rate. Only later on do you see the actual room rate is NZ $441 a night which frankly is pretty damn reasonable for London.I don’t see anything inappropriate there.

In the Herald, Chris Carter defends his spending as “minor mistakes”:

* $607 for some campaign posters and 14 British Labour Party coffee mugs:

“We had visitors [to the office] every hour and we served tea and coffee. While in a bookshop [in London] we bought 14 cups – they’re bright red and say ‘Labour’ on them. We could have bought cups in Briscoes but these had ‘Labour’ designs.

I’m amazed that this one was approved by Ministerial Services. The taxpayer should not be funding campaign posters from the UK and if a ministerial office needs some coffee mugs then one can get some very nice one locally for around $5 each – from Briscoes in fact. It looks like the “Labour” cups cost around $40 each.

A $5507 bill for car travel in Adelaide:

“We were told by Ministerial Services in Wellington that when a Minister goes to Australia you must use cars provided by the Australian Government because of security reasons.

“They’re horrendously expensive but that’s how it was. [We were] a prisoner of the Australian rules and had no choice. I would have been just as happy in the cheapest taxi.”

I am highly highly suspicious of this claim, and hope media ask some more questions on it.

My understanding is that many Ministers use taxis in Australia. I think Anne Tolley recently went there for two days and her taxi bills were around $80 to $100. So this requirement or policy Carter refers to has either lapsed or never existed.

Also remember that Chris Carter had the rental hire in his partner’s name in the Northern Territory. How would that be possible if the Australian Government really insisted that you had to use Government limos if you are a visiting Minister.

I think some calls to the Australian DFAT are in order!

The Herald reports:

Mr Anderton said his staff were yesterday unable to locate evidence the expense was repaid but had contacted Ministerial Services and hoped to locate the documentation today. He rejected the suggestion there was anything improper about paying for personal items on his ministerial cards.

“Be sensible about this – these corporate cards pay for the hotel and all the things attached to them.

It’s just silly to think you’re going to carry a number of cards and pay for this on one and that on another.”

As a Minister Jim Anderton would have signed a form promising not to use it for personal use. Ministerial Services had explicit policy that this was the case. So what we see is the typical Anderton arrogance is that the rules don’t apply to him. He says so long as the items are reimbursed, there is no issue.

What he calls “silly” is exactly what you should do. I’ve often split the bill when staying at a hotel.

When I worked at Parliament, I probably travelled domestically more than most staffers, as I had to go around every MPs electorate office to do training. Now before people get excited, you won’t find five star hotels on my bills, but more typically a motel in Matamata costing $70 and a meal costing $15.

It was quite common that only the room would be charged back to Parliament, and any personal extras (no not movies) you’d pay for on your own card.

What Jim Anderton doesn’t get is that he does not get to decide the rules. If the rules said that Ministers can charge personal expenses to their cards, so long as they reimburse them within 20 days, then that would be fine. But the rules don’t say that. They were explicit that you should not do this, and Anderton just chose to ignore it. At least other Ministers offered excuses or admited they were wrong. Anderton is genetically incapable of doing so.

Over the last year Labour have made numerous attacks on National MP Pesata Sam Lotu-Iiga as was on the Auckland City Council when he got elected to Parliament, and continued doing both jobs until recently.

Now personally I don’t regard being a Councillor as a full-time job. In fact one of the problems in local government is that it has become a full-time job for too many Councillors. But there can be no doubt at all that being Mayor is a full-time job, especially Mayor of the second largest city in New Zealand.

So what did Labour MPs say about being a Councillor and an MP:

People of the Tamaki Maungakiekie deserve better representation than a sometime City Councillor, says locally based Labour MP Carol Beaumont

“The people of Maungakiekie deserve a fulltime MP to represent their views; likewise the people of the Tamaki Maungakiekie ward of the Auckland City Council deserve a fulltime City Councillor – at the moment they are being short-changed by Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.

Can’t be clearer than that. Labour said doing Councillor and MP was wrong.

So why are they all so enthusiastically backing Jim Anderton to be a Mayor, an MP and a party leader? Once again they just come across as a hypcritical bunch of snake oil salepersons.

Auckland based Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni said: “ensuring Pacific Island people are well represented in local Government is an important issue. Mr Lotu-Iiga should have stood aside immediately after becoming an MP so as to allow someone better placed to fulfil the responsibilities of the role – he’s doing a disservice to the public by doing the two jobs.

That’s two Labour MPs saying you can’t do both.

Associate Pacific Island Spokesperson Su’a William Sio, who is a former Manukau City Councillor, said when he entered Parliament midway through 2008 he resigned from the council immediately because it was impossible to do justice to both jobs.

And a third Labour MP. So where are their voices now? Why has a journalist not gone to those MPs and asked them if they agree that Jim Anderton can not be a Mayor and an MP?

“Labour is also concerned that National is allowing Maungakiekie MP Pesata Sam Lotu-liga to participate in debate on, and vote on, this issue. He is an Auckland City Councillor and clearly has a conflict of interest. It’s bad enough that he’s double-dipping by drawing a salary for both jobs.

And that is a fourth Labour MP against doing both jobs.

The Herald looks at the Tuhoe negotiations:

At the best of times, reaching a comprehensive settlement over Waitangi claims is a delicate and tricky matter. But for a number of reasons the Tuhoe negotiations are proving especially difficult, and not just because some people in the National Government are becoming increasingly worried that their party is earning a reputation among voters for conceding too much to the Maori Party. …

But what makes the Tuhoe claim especially difficult is that the tribe is seeking a major concession that departs radically from precedents set in other Waitangi settlements. After two years of negotiations, Tuhoe remains adamant that ownership of Te Urewera National Park is at the top of its agenda.

If the Government were to concede, the resulting settlement would go far beyond any similar previous arrangements in which iwi have obtained significant areas of Department of Conservation land only to return them immediately as part of the deal. For instance, Ngai Tahu gave Aoraki/Mt Cook back to the nation after its settlement.

At a practical level, the Tuhoe claim seems to envisage something similar inasmuch as it promises that public access to some of the country’s most beautiful land would not be compromised in any way. But, importantly, it goes much further in aiming to take over the ownership and financial management of the land from the department after a 10-year transition period.

Given the justice of its claim, there is no question that Tuhoe is in line for major concessions and a payment that will be close to the Tainui and Ngai Tahu settlements of $170 million each. All the most recent historical research suggests the Tuhoe people were treated exceptionally harshly and that they are owed a full apology and generous compensation.

Tuhoe was always going to be the most challenging negotiation.

The Dom Post says Jim Anderton must choose between Mayor and MP:

Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton is a man untrammelled by self-doubt.

In a political career that stretches back 45 years to his days on Manukau City Council, he has been a member of four political parties and fallen out with virtually every high-profile figure he has worked with. Never does it appear to have occurred to him that he could be in the wrong.

So true.

Hence it comes as no surprise that Mr Anderton believes he can perform the roles of MP for Wigram and Christchurch mayor at the same time. He is mistaken.

They are both fulltime positions. One is based in Christchurch; the other is split between Christchurch and Wellington. Both carry fulltime salaries.

Anderton will earn a total of just over $400,000 (including super and allowance) or over $7,500 a week doing both jobs.

Christchurch ratepayers are paying good money to be represented by a mayor who devotes his energies to advancing the city’s interests. He cannot perform that role if he is spending several days a week in Wellington.

Taxpayers are paying good money to Mr Anderton to represent the interests of his electorate in Parliament. He cannot perform that role from the mayoral chambers.

One could clone Saint Jim.

However, it is not Parliament’s role to serve as a safety net for politicians who would like new jobs but are not sure whether they are going to get them.

If Mr Anderton wins the Christchurch mayoralty in the October local body elections, he should resign from Parliament. In fact, he should give thought to resigning ahead of those elections, or at least take unpaid leave for the duration of the campaign, as many other candidates for public office are obliged to do.

Just as he will not be able to represent Wigram’s interests in Parliament if he becomes mayor, so he will not be able to do so on the campaign trail.

Saint Jim has a private members bill that requires an MP to resign from Parliament if they contest a by-election. Yet he thinks he should be able to contest a Mayoral election as an MP.

The Press looks at the UK:

For the Lib Dems, electoral reform is at the top of their wishlist in any deal, whether it be a formal coalition or the sort of support arrangements common in New Zealand, with either Cameron’s party or Labour’s Gordon Brown.

This stance is not surprising given last week’s disproportionate election result. While the Lib Dems got 23 per cent of the votes cast, which was a disappointment following polls showing them at abound 30 per cent at one point, they won about 200 fewer seats than Labour, which gained 29 per cent of the vote. At the other end of the scale, the Tories gained 36 per cent of the vote, but won about 47 per cent of the seats.

These sorts of outcomes are as palpably unfair and undemocratic as was the unreformed voting system in New Zealand, and Nick Clegg should hold firm to his party’s proportional representation policy as he talks to Cameron and Brown.

And the ODT:

The election result has presented Mr Clegg with choices: going into government with the old Conservative foe, risking alienating many in his own party ranks; or throwing in his lot with Mr Brown and a governing coalition otherwise comprising a number of smaller independents, the chief danger of this being the perception of Labour, a distant second in the poll, as tarnished.

This could work against any subsequent referendum on electoral reform, thus defeating the chief purpose of such an alliance.

The markets, already spooked by Greece, have shown their impatience.

Mr Clegg’s role as “king-maker” – one he might have formerly anticipated with some eagerness – has been served up by the voting public along with a generously sized poisoned chalice.

We await the outcome with fascination.

As predicted, Jim Anderton has announced he is running for Mayor of Christchurch. His ticket will be “The People’s Mayor” – a slogan used by Dick Hubbard in Auckland.

It reminds me of the maxim about names of countries. Any country that insists in having “democratic” in its name, basically never is. And if they also have “people’s” in their name, they invariably oppress the people. Hence North Korea is called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Other examples were how Poland was called the People’s Republic of Poland from 1952 to 1990. Now this does not mean Jim is going to institute single party rule, it just is a reminder about how people use the term “people’s” when they wish to hide behind it. I suggest people chat to some former Alliance activists about how much Jim cared about involving them in decision making

He is insisting that if he runs, he will not resign as an MP, but do both jobs. Now I think one can reasonably assert it is possible to be, for example, a junior backbencher and a city councillor. Tough, but not impossible. But to assert that one can be Mayor of New Zealand’s second largest city, and also a party leader in Parliament shows what Jim really thinks of the people. The Mayor got paid salary and fees in the last year of $215,000 and Jim is maintaining that it is a part-time job.

Jim will in fact be a triple dipper. Because he will also be maintaining the fiction he is a party leader, and attract appropriate funding for that role. So what will be the total cost to the taxpayer of Jim continuing as an MP and party leader for a year, if he is elected. It is:

1. Salary $144,500
2. Superannuation $33,235
3. Personal Expenses $14,800
4. Leader’s Budget $164,320
5. Research Budget $20,000
6. Support Budget $64,260
7. Staff $158,500
8. Travel/Accom $73,827
9. Communications $13,942

That is a total cost of $689,384 or almost $700,000.

Now of course some of these costs would be incurred by a new MP, if Anderton wins and resigned. But the difference is he or she would not also be Mayor of Christchurch, and Parliament and his or her electorate would be getting more of their time in return for that investment.

No Right Turn blogs:

This is simply wrong, and Anderton’s offer to donate his salary doesn’t make it any less so. The people of Christchurch deserve their mayor’s full attention. Likewise, the people of Wigram and those who voted Progressive last election deserve their MP’s full attention. While Anderton says he can cope with both jobs, no-one will believe that, and if he is elected, someone will feel shortchanged. As for his misplaced sense of frugality, screw the money. It’s democracy, and you pay whatever it costs to deliver it.

But in addition to being wrong, its also stupid. Who wants half a mayor, or one with an eye on Wellington as well as Christchurch? Anderton has just given people a solid reason not to vote for him.

But the last word of Jim’s mayoral ambitions should go to a former Prime Minister – David Lange.In his book “My Life” he wrote of Jim’s bid to be Mayor of Auckland in 1974. Lange was also standing on the ticket:

“Like the other candidates, I contributed $50 to pay for an advertisement in the New Zealand Herald in support of the Labour ticket. When I opened the paper to look at our advertisement I saw a photograph of Jim Anderton and no mention of any other candidates. Here was a warning of much to come.”

Need more be said!

A few hours after I blogged that Jim Anderton would be announcing before Monday his mayoral bid, he put out a release confirming that he will be announcing on Sunday.

Now on Sunday he will not just be talking about his Mayoral bid, but also his seat and his party. Here are my predictions for what he will say:

1. He is standing for Mayor, probably on the 2021 ticket
2. He will not resign as an MP even if he wins the mayoralty
3. The Progressive Party is over, and members encouraged to join Labour (which most have anyway)
4. The Labour candidate for Wigram in 2011 will be Megan Woods (failed Mayoral candidate in 2008). Of course Jim can not single handedly select Labour’s candidate but there will be some sort of deal around this in exchange, for Progressives merging with Labour

Anderton will try and claim he can be a major city Mayor and an MP, by donating one of his salaries to charity. But that is not the only expense. By claiming to be a parliamentary party leader he gains extra taxpayer funding of $100,000 for his office, and he gets paid paid an extra $13,500 salary.

As I blogged yesterday former Labour MP Kerry Burke may stand also, and former Alliance MP Liz Gordon is already a declared candidate. I suggest any aspiring Christchurch City Councillors speak to Liz (or any other former Alliance MP) about what life will be like if Jim is Mayor. Jim does not believe in collective decision making. He believes in Jim decision making. Jim is to democracy what the Pope is to sex – they both claim to support it, but only on their terms.

The Press reports:

Former Environment Canterbury (ECan) chairman Sir Kerry Burke has resigned from Left-leaning political group Christchurch 2021, but he denies the move is intended to clear the way for an independent run at the Christchurch mayoralty.

Burke said he would decide next month whether to run against Mayor Bob Parker in the October local body elections.

He said Christchurch 2021 had become caught up in “narrow partisan interests”, and he hoped a more diverse political group would be formed.

“This should not be seen as a calculated means of opening up a run for the mayoralty,” he said.

In his resignation statement, Burke said Christchurch 2021 had “lost the breadth of opinion it contained a decade ago” and was “increasingly intertwined with parliamentary agendas”.

I suspect what has happened is that Burke has found out that Jim Anderton will be announcing he is standing for the Mayoralty this week (before Monday). Anderton will be endorsed by the 2021 group (Labour/Progressive in drag) and hence Burke needs to have resigned before that happens.

Anderton will be a strong contender against Bob Parker. However if Burke stands also, that may split the centre-left vote and keep Parker as Mayor.

The Press reports:

Political veteran Jim Anderton may yet run for the Christchurch mayoralty after earlier ruling it out.

Speculation is rife over who will be the Left-leaning 2021 group’s candidate to stand against Mayor Bob Parker.

Anderton yesterday refused to say if his name would be on the ballot.

“I can’t rule it out, and it is not ruled in either,” he said.

Despite being aged 72, Anderton would be a strong challenger to Bob Parker. If he won, I expect Megan Woods to stand for Labour in the by-election.

It would e very interesting for the City Councillors if Anderton did become Mayor. Anderton is well known as an autocrat who hates dissent, and believes decisions are best made by him, not by a Caucus. He even left his own party he founded because they refused to hand over supreme power to him.

So an Anderton-led Council could be a fairly unpleasant experience – not for the Opposition Councillors, but for his own team.

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.