Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Labour MP Phil Twyford will not seek nomination for the Mt Albert by-election, resolving the party’s Tizard dilemma. …

This “Vote Twyford, get Tizard” scenario was portrayed as a problem for Labour, particularly by right-wing blogs.

Labour leader Phil Goff was initially reticent when asked if he wanted Ms Tizard back and the party used a polling company to test voter feelings on her re-entering Parliament.

Mr Twyford has lived in Kingsland for 20 years, and was favoured to take over the seat from Helen Clark until the Tizard dilemma was raised.

There is a view that Labour’s party hierarchy placed too much emphasis on the effect of Mrs Tizard’s return, to the detriment of Mr Twyford.

Labour leader Phil Goff said the party had not panicked, but rather was unsure how the electorate would react to voting for someone who was already in Parliament and getting someone else.

I first blogged on their “Tizard problem” on 16 December 2008. I said:

So you see the problem for Labour. Either Helen has to stay on for the full term, or someone other than Twyford is the candidate, or they risk the public working out voting for Labour will bring a plonker back in on the list and losing your predecessor’s seat in a byelection would see Goff rolled.

Goff could not risk that possibility.

The Dominion Post predicted on 1 January that Clark would go off overseas in 2009, and that Twyford would be her replacement. It took a few months for thr media to start to pick up the issue.

The Herald on 11 February stated Twyford was the likely sucessor.

On 14 February in the Dom Post was the first mention of Tizard after Clark’s candidacy for the UND job went public (also first covered on Kiwiblog). It was more factual than stating it was an “issue”. On 25 February the Dom Post still reported Twyford as the favourite.

On 25 March Newstalk ZB was also picking Twyford.

That night on TV, was the first real mention in the media of the Tizard dilemma, following leaks from Labour that they were working on keeping her out.

So you read it here first three months early! And of course repeated a few times since to remind people. I never really thought Labour would blink, but they did! T be fair to Labour, it may not just have been fear of losing the seat (it is their safest seat after all), but equally fear of how having Judith return would lead to merciless teasing in the House.

Over on Whale Oil, he has a screenshot of a Facebook discussion where Peter Dunne comments to Mark Unsworth (who was exressing sorrow that Twyford misses out because of someone else’s face not fitting) that the problem was not just Tizard but also Burton, Okeroa, Gallagher, Hereora, Wall and Soper being next on the list!

Now Tizard may still end up an MP. It just needs a Labour List MP to die or resign. Let us hope they all get their flu injections!

The Dom Post reports:

Business studies lecturer Hamish McCracken, Auckland city councillor Glenda Fryer, Auckland University politics head tutor Meg Bates and employment lawyer Helen White have all confirmed their candidacies.

I would be surprised if McCracken has much of a chance. Not based on any specific knowledge, but the reality he has stood many times before for Labour and never been ranked highly. In 1999 he was no 60, in 2002 no 52, in 2005 no 49 and in 2005 no 50. I can’t see a fifth time lucky.

Bates is well regarded and well connected as a former electorate agent. Her age will be a factor though. Helen White could do very well too – she has a professional career established, and has union support.

Fryer is more unlikely, but not as unlikely as McCracken. She doesn’t particularly represent rejuvenation, and her Auckland City Council junket draconian attempt to ban sign billboards will be fresh in some minds.

But the potential candidate cited as Miss Clark’s favoured successor, list MP Phil Twyford, is still deciding whether to put his name forward a week before nominations close. Mr Twyford said he had discussed the matter with senior party members, but declined to comment further.

Twyford is a popular and respected MP for Labour. Definitely one of the stars of the future, and no doubt wants a safe seat as security. But by pure bad luck the Tizard issue is a real factor, and no one knows how much. So his choice is does he go for Mt Albert in 2009, or wait for another safe seat to come up, such as Mt Roskill in probably 2014?

At Backbenchers last night they discussed the Tizard issue, and it is fair to say no one was wamly welcoming the possible return. In fact there was a hilarious moment as Wallace Chapman went up to the loudest noisiest most partisan pro-Labour table, and asked them if they wanted Judith Tizard back in Parliament. One of them fell mute, while another could only repeat the official script that the issue is about the best candidate, not about who comes in on the list. You know there are problems, when not even your most partisan crowd supporters will say on camera they want Judith back.

And over on Labour Grassroots, members and supporters are not keen. Some quotes:

Suzanne says:

Headlines that say “Goff: Happy to have Judith Tizard back” says nothing to me about a party that wants to revitalise, bring in some new faces, get behind some issues that central Aucklanders care about.Like the Supercity, the environment. If Labour is behind Tizard it makes a mockery of the party recreating getting more in touch with its grassroots.

And Tanya:

Still, the voters are pretty MMP savvy these days, and I believe will be annoyed at Goff for backing Tizard back into parliament, after the voters said no.

And Darren:

Well said, Suzanne. I could not agree more. Labour needs ‘new blood’ everywhere, and to be SEEN to be bringing new faces in at every opportunity. Ms. Tizard did not strike me as a particularly effective MP. Certainly her hand on the on the intellectual property tiller steered it way off course and into the sea of stupidity…. witness the mess of s92a!?!

Her electorate obviously didn’t think she did a good job either, so why the hell would Phil want her back? Regardless of his motivation, which was obviously to keep Tizards’ supporters happy in touchy electoral times, it just makes our Parliamentary leader look horrendously out of touch.

And finally Caitlin:

This whole hullaballoo about Judith Tizard was started by media rumours (probably started by political opposition) and while some Labour activists and supporters may have qualms, we have to continue to pull together as a party to make sure we win this seat. We can’t be complacent – an assumption of victory was one of the problems with the Auckland Central campaign.

Caitlin is right that a party needs to be unified to win, but how motivated will supporters be to bring Judith back into Parliament?

There is also an associated danger with all this. The media will cover the by-election, and the media always have to have some big issues for the by-election. In TKC it was Stratford Hospital. In Tamaki it was send Wellington a message. Now with Mt Albert there may be no big issues on policy – National has just won an election and has gone so centrist it is probably going to even cancel the future tax cuts a couple of weeks before the by-election. So it is hard to see that there will be major policy issues at play in the by-election (unless the Govt decides to knock down 400 local homes for a motorway). But if there are no major policy issues, then issues such as the Tizard dilemma will become a major issue, because the media will make it an issue. They’ll do vox pops on the street asking people about it. They’ll do electorate polls and publish them. People will ask questions at meet the candidate meetings.

Now maybe Mt Albert voters won’t give a damn, even if the media do. They might only care about who will be their local MP, not who will enter Parliament as a result of their vote. But this is the fun thing with by-elections – they are notoriously unpredictable – and with the Greens planning a vigorous campaign, it really will be interesting.

UPDATE: Today’s Dom Post editorial talks about the Tizard issue, noting:

Though the parliamentary party is in capable hands leader Phil Goff and deputy Annette King are respected for their knowledge Labour must nonetheless now find a new generation of leaders to carry the party forward.

How ironic, then, that the departure of Miss Clark and Dr Cullen might reopen the door for two has-beens, Damien O’Connor and Judith Tizard. …

A party that is poised to welcome back Mr O’Connor and Ms Tizard is far from positioned to resume the Treasury benches.

NZPA reports:

The New Zealand Herald on Monday reported that Labour used UMR Research to hold focus groups meetings of Mt Albert voters. One question asked about Ms Tizard in terms of well-known people or celebrities standing for politics.

Mr Goff defended the use of focus groups saying they were a good way of getting a sense of local issues and how people would respond to particular candidates.

And they are common in national politics, but very rare for a by-election, And you have to wonder who will get to read the results of the focus groups? Will everyone at the selection meeting get it, or just the head office appointees?

“I think what we want from Mt Albert actually is a local person, a person who can identify with the needs and aspirations of the people of Mt Albert,” he told TV One’s Breakfast programme.

He disagreed the expensive measures showed Labour was nervous. “I’m not nervous about the outcome, I think we will win Mt Albert but we’re not complacent about that.”

They are very expensive. And Labour generally is thought to be very short of cash. That suggests how seriously they are taking this.

Mr Goff said when a vacancy came up on the list it was automatically filled by the next person on it.

Unless you are in the Green Party and they threaten and harass you to give up your list seat to let someone lower down the list enter Parliament.

Asked how he felt about the potential return of Ms Tizard, who lost Auckland Central to National’s Nicky Kaye, Mr Goff said: “I am very happy to see any former Labour colleague back in parliament.

That’s Nikki incidentally. And if Goff is so happy, why is he spending so much money focus grouping how the public will respond?

“Judith Tizard is a very experienced member, very well respected particularly in the arts and culture community where she has worked so hard for so long.”

If Judith does return, that will make her one of the most experienced members of the Goff team. The only Labour MPs who will have greater Ministerial experience are Goff and King.

So will Goff appoint Judith to Labour’s frontbench? Her experience would suggest she is a logical choice. At a minimum he would have to have her in the Shadow Cabinet, you would think.

And what portfolios will he give her? She is the third longest serving Minister. Cunliffe is doing quite a good job in Finance, so maybe Education or Health?

The NZ Herald reports:

The Labour Party is sounding out Mt Albert voters on the byelection – including asking whether they want a “celebrity” MP and testing feelings on Judith Tizard re-entering Parliament.

Labour commissioned UMR Research group to hold several two-hour, focus group meetings of Mt Albert voters in the lead-up to the byelection, following the resignation of former Prime Minister Helen Clark.

Now focus groups are part and parcel of politics. However this is the first time I can recall a party commissioning one (or several) for a by-election. Polls are relatively common, but focus groups less so.

And when you consider that Mt Albert is Labour’s safest seat, that gives some indication as to the degree of nervousness within Labour’s ranks. You see focus groups are not cheap. I do not know UMR’s fees, but for four or five focus groups, the cost I suspect is a five figure sum.

So why would you spend so much money on such a safe seat? Because you are worried you may lose it to a Vote Twyford, Get Tizard campaign. There is no doubt that Twyford is the preferred candidate – but they are nervous over the power of such a campaign. They failed to get Tizard to relinquish her list place, so they are testing the waters.

Interestingly the Electoral Finance Act is no longer in force. So there is no $1,000 limit on an individual or organisation running its own education campaign in the by-election. A group could use direct mail to send a personalised letter to every voter (costs around $20,000) explaining how a vote for that nice Mr Twyford will result in that nice Miss Tizard becoming an MP again. And it could quote from various newspaper articles about the desirability of this. Maybe it could also remind people of s92A, what people say about it, and how Judith says it is a good law that should not be changed. Will Mt Albert residents want their Internet access at risk, if they vote for that nice Mr Twyford? Well, okay – that is probably stretching things too far – but you can see how much fun a third party campaign could have.

Anyway back to the article:

One participant said they were asked about Ms Tizard as part of a wider question about “celebrity” or well-known people standing for politics. Examples included Michael Jones, television presenter Paul Henry, comedian Mike King, actor Oscar Kightley and NZX boss Mark Weldon.

The focus group indicated concern about the possibility of a “Vote Twyford, get Tizard” campaign impacting on Labour’s chances.

That is an interesting sentence. Presumably the Herald has been in contact with one or more of the persons who took part in the focus groups. And they “indicated concern”.

Ms Tizard lost the Auckland Central seat to Nikki Kaye but would re-enter Parliament to fill list MP Phil Twyford’s list spot if he was the party’s Mt Albert candidate and won. The participant said the group members were asked what they knew about Mr Twyford – who lives in Kingsland and is favoured by Helen Clark.

There is another risk to having Tizard come back in to replace Twyford. No less than losing MMP. You see the Government has pledged to have a referendum on MMP. Now personally I don’t think people will vote for change (partly thanks to John Key). but if I was running an anti-MMP campaign, then I would use the Mt Albert by-election as a reason to dump MMP – the fact defeated electorate candidates can come back on the list.

Labour’s intensive polling of Mt Albert voters indicates the party is nervous about holding on to the electorate, which has always been viewed as a safe Labour seat, and where Helen Clark was MP for 27 years.

Just 2000 votes separated National and Labour in the party vote last election – and National’s popularity has soared since then.

Yes but the correct comparison is CR to CL on the party vote and that is 55% CL to 40% CR.

Labour Party president Andrew Little confirmed that the party had commissioned the focus groups and was polling in the electorate. He said it was common to test for important local issues.

Polling is more traditional. In Labour’s case it is going to be combining the polling and focus group results. The difficult scenario for them is if the poll shows that say Twyford can win the seat by 5% or so, but the focus groups show up to 10% of voters could change their votes if exposed to a Vote Twyford, get Tizard campaign. The question for Labour then is – do they risk it? Or in the words of Dirty Harry – do you feel lucky today punk?

If the polling shows Labour/Twyford way way ahead, then they can select him without worrying about a Twyford/Tizard campaign. But if things are closer, the head office may plump for another candidate such as Meg Bates.

Does anyone know the date of the selection meeting for Mt Albert for Labour? I understand media are allowed to attend and report on them, so I might pop along for the fun!

There has been some interesting commentary on Clark’s valedictory speech – mainly commenting on the total lack of reflection that she ever did anything wrong.

Guyon Espiner blogs:

Her valedictory was like her premiership: cautious and competent; meticulous and managerial.  I’d hoped Helen Clark might show us a flicker of feeling; a sliver of humanity; a scintilla of humility. …

It was similar when she spoke to us on TVNZ’s Q+A show last Sunday. There was no acknowledgement of her mistakes. Could she not have conceded to mishandling the anti-smacking law? To rushing the Electoral Finance Act? To being a little too lenient in her handling of Winston Peters?

I don’t think she considers any of them mistakes. Just as she has never conceded she was wrong to sign paintings that others painted. Her career has been marked by a refusal to say sorry and to blame everyone else.

I think she owed it to Labour to show a little contrition about the election defeat.

Clark sticks to the line that New Zealanders only voted National because they felt they could have the same policies with a new face. With that statement there is the underlying belief that before too long voters will realise the grave mistake they made in throwing her out.

The Dim-Post has a shorter version of the Clark speech:

The NZ Herald has upgraded Judith Tizard from a dilemma to a time-bomb.

Judith sees her return as a matter of  demographics:

Ms Tizard said Labour would be silly to buy into the “Tizard dilemma” and try and keep her out.

“If there is not a place for a 53-year-old woman who has been in elected positions for 26 of her 31 years, I guess I would want to know what the problem was.”

Well obviously I do not speak for Labour, but my responses would be:

• It’s nothing to do with your gender or age
• It is about rejuvenation – Labour got kicked out at the last election, and Labour won’t win next time unless they have some fresh faces

Labour leader Phil Goff said the Tizard dilemma was a “red herring”, but refused to openly back her return.

No shit.

From The Standard.

The Herald rates the chances of potential contenders for the Mayoralty of Auckland (assuming the Government adopts the key recommendations):

They are:

1. John Banks – the front runner
2. Len Brown – good to very good
3. Mike Lee – good
4. Bob Harvey – average to good
5. Paul Holmes – average
6. Peter Leitch – poor to average
7. Andrew Williams – poor
8. Judith Tizard – poor
9. Blair Strang – dead on arrival

I have not read the full report yet. It will be interesting if the vote for the Mayor is FPP or STV.

Claire Trevett has a good article on the pending Mt Albert by-election but makes one big error:

National’s candidate in the 2008 election was Ravi Musuku who has said he wishes to stand in a byelection. However, if he won, it would mean their bottom list MP – Aaron Gilmore – had to leave.

No, no, no no. This is not the case. To be fair to Claire many many people think this is the law, but it is not. Proportionality is not maintained if a by-election sees a seat change hands. There is no way at all a List MP can ever be forced out of Parliament because of a by-election (or an electoral petition). They are there for the whole term unless they do something stupid like become a Dutch citizen.

Helen Clark’s departure will force a byelection in the Mt Albert seat she has held for the past 28 years.

The Herald understands Labour expects to stand a newcomer in the seat, rather than a sitting list MP – as part of its efforts to refresh its ranks.

The effect of standing a newcomer would be to block Judith Tizard from returning to Parliament on the list.

The Mt Albert seat is a Labour stronghold and new list MP Phil Twyford, who lives in the electorate, was previously tipped as most likely to take over.

However, Labour has reconsidered. It would mean Damien O’Connor returning to Parliament to take up Mr Twyford’s list spot – leaving the next spot open for Judith Tizard to take up when Michael Cullen leaves, as he is expected to later this year.

Its a bit unfortunate for Twyford, but things have changed in recent weeks. I blogged in detail about the problem of how a Twyford win could bring Tizard in, as long ago as last year. I concluded:

So you see the problem for Labour. Either Helen has to stay on for the full term, or someone other than Twyford is the candidate, or they risk the public working out voting for Labour will bring a plonker back in on the list and losing your predecessor’s seat in a byelection would see Goff rolled.

Now there was a general expectation that Judith would not want to return, and maybe they could get Burton, Okerao, Gallager and Hereora to stand aside also. She has no rapport with Goff, has no chance of getting a senior role, and lost a seat that Labour has held for 95 years. But multiple sources have confirmed that she is absolutely hellbent on returning as she wants to “restore her reputation” and also defend s92A – she even lambasts her former colleagues as not understanding it.

You can imagine the panic this has caused in Labour’s ranks. It would be near impossible for Labour to lose Mt Albert, but the thought of the by-election becoming a referendum on what Aucklanders thing of Judith is the stuff of nightmares for them. So Twyford loses the chance to have a safe seat for 2011.

On the plus side, if Twyford is patient he might be able to grab Mt Roskill in 2014

Newstalk ZB reports:

Ms Clark’s departure from Parliament has been expected since Labour’s election loss. When she does go, it will mean a by-election in Mt Albert which Miss Clark has held comfortably since 1981.

New Labour MP Phil Twyford, who stood on the North Shore at the last election, is favourite to stand as the party’s candidate in the seat. However, a surprise pick could be former Auckland Central MP Judith Tizard, who has been seen several times in recent months around Parliament and is eager to get back into politics.

The irony is that even if Twyford is the candidate, him winning the seat would see Judith return to Parliament (if Damien O’Connor replaces Michael Cullen first). So no matter who the candidate, is – a vote for Labour could be a vote to return the creator and remaining sole defender of s92A to Parliament.

The Dom Post on Saturday looked at the battle for Mt Albert within Labour:

Party sources say the leading contender to replace her is newly elected list MP Phil Twyford, who unsuccessfully contested the North Shore electorate last year.

Ha I have been saying that for months.

Two women are also bidding for the job: Auckland City Eden-Albert councillor Glenda Fryer and deposed cabinet minister Judith Tizard.

I’d be amazed if either of them were selected.

Under the Electoral Act the vacant list seat would be filled by the next unelected person on Labour’s list former Corrections minister Damien O’Connor, who lost his West Coast seat. He famously submitted his resignation to Miss Clark last year in a text message from Hong Kong Airport. She did not accept it.

Mr O’Connor could not be contacted, but if he turns down the invitation the next person on the list is Miss Tizard.

Yes Judith could be back either way, as Cullen retiring and Twyford winning Mt Albert would bring two people in on the list – O’Connor and Tizard.

I understand Labour sources are fairly relaxed about O’Connor coming back in. He didn’t do great as a Minister but has rural appeal, which they need.

Labour’s nighmare is the block of five after O’Connor. They are:

1. Judith Tizard
2. Mark Burton
3. Mahara Okeroa
4. Martin Gallagher
5. Dave Hereora

So the rejuvenation caused by Cullen or Clark going would be to bring back in an MP who lose their seat, and who has no chance of ever making Cabinet agin – or to bring in (Hereora) an MP who was so invisible that he made Larry Sutherland look like a dynamic high profile MP.

The next on the list after Heroera is Louisa Wall. I rate Wall pretty highly – she’s smart, good on policy, and articulate. She did not make many friends in Labour though, hence her low list ranking. However after her is Lesley Soper, whom no one in Labour wants back, so I understand their aim is to get Wall in to replace Cullen or Clark (whomever goes second).

But to get Wall in, they have to convince not one, but five former MPs to stand aside. As the Greens found out with Mike Ward this can be easier said than done.

Helen doesn’t want to spend the next three years as a backbench Opposition MP. And Phil Goff doesn’t want her to overshadow him. So normally we would expect to see a by-election in Mt Albert next year.

But it is proving rather difficult for Labour. You see Michael Cullen, being a List MP, will probably resign from Parliament in early 2009. This will bring in No 37 on the Labour List, Damien O’Connor. Now some in Labour probably think Damien should give way to new blood, but they’ll tolerate him returning.

Then we have Helen resigning, which will trigger a by-election. Labour will need to select a candidate for this seat, and let there be no mistake – Helen will pick the candidate. And who is favoured to get her blessing – List MP Phil Twyford. Twyford is highly regarded.

But here is the problem, Twyford is already an MP. So what happens if he wins the Mt Albert by-election? Well he would then resign his seat as a List MP, and that would bring in the next person on the Labour list. And who is No 38? It’s Judith Tizard!

Now Helen has won Mt Albert with some big majorities, but a lot of that has been personal. The party vote has been much closer. And if Mt Albert voters works out that voting for Twyford means Tizard returns to Parliament, then the seat could fall to a good National candidate. I can imagine a lot of money would be spent pointing out the nightmare scenario.

Now some might say, it’s easy. Just get Judith to agree to stand aside. After all, she probably doesn’t want to be back there by herself.

But who is next on the list. Well the next four candidates are Mark Burton, Mahara Okeroa, Martin Gallagher and Dave Hereora. The four stooges without the humour. Persuading Mt Albert residents to vote for any of those to return to Parliament could be a challenge.

So who is next in place 43? Louisa Wall. Now I think Louisa was a talented MP and would be a boon to Labour’s ranks. But she is seriously unpopular with many of her colleagues who don’t want her back. So who is next at 44? Lesley Soper – she would attract more shoe throwing in a Labour Caucus meeting than George W Bush attracts in Iraq.

Spots 45 to 49 are all vacant as they won their electorate seats. Finally in spot 50 you have Hamish McCracken. Well at least he is an Aucklander. However having been given three unwinnable seats and rankings in a row, he is hardly in high favour.

So you see the problem for Labour. Either Helen has to stay on for the full term, or someone other than Twyford is the candidate, or they risk the public working out voting for Labour will bring a plonker back in on the list and losing your predecessor’s seat in a byelection would see Goff rolled.

So I am picking Helen won’t be going anywhere until they work out a way around their dilemna.

I’ve previously blogged on whether specials may change any allocation of List MPs. The other question is whether any seats held by narrow majorities could change due to specials. The answer is yes, but unlikely.

The most marginal seat is New Plymouth – Jonathan Young got 48.6% of the vote to 47.6% for Harry Duynhoven. There were 32,029 valid votes. There are 2,351 known specials for the seat and we estimate 1/70th of the 32,000 overseas specials, so the numebr of specials is predicted to be 2,808.

The specials would have to be 6.1% better for Labour and worse for National for Harry to win. Or in other words they would need to go Harry’s way 53.7% to 42.5%.

In Auckland Central Nikki Kaye beat Judith Tizard by 1,181 votes. However there are a large 6,420 specials plus overseas votes. Niiki beat Judith 43.0% to 38.8%. Judith would need to win the specials 49.5% to 32.3% to close the gap.

In Christchurch Central, Nicky Wagner would need specials to go her way 53.3% to 32.2% – 12.1% better than on the day.

New Plymouth looks to be the only seat which could seriously change, and even that isn’t very likely.

Danyl has been busy, I do not know where to start.

We have Maori Party split over Coalition Deal

The Maori Party have been offered entrenchment of the Maori seats and a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act in exchange for fifty of their young every month for three years. …

It is understood that Sharples is deeply opposed to the proposed scheme while Tariana Turia is a strong advocate for Key’s right to hunt, kill and mount unemployed Maori youths, describing it as enhancing his rangatiratanga and sending a strong message to young Maori that if they study and work hard they will not be cut down in their prime by Key’s poison-tipped crossbow bolts or torn apart by his pack of savage dogs.

A resolution to the impasse was reached late last night, when the Maori party co-leaders met for a cup of tea to confront the problem. After a short, congenial discussion Dr Sharples drained his mug of Earl Grey and then slumped to the floor unconscious.

And Tizard dismisses ‘rogue election result’:

Outgoing Auckland Central electorate MP Judith Tizard has assured staff and family that she will not be stepping down as an MP in spite of her loss to National Party candidate Nicky Kaye in last weekends General Election.

‘I certainly never heard anything about any election,’ Tizard told the Dim-Post this morning. ‘And if there was something like that going on I like to think I’d be one of the first to know.’

Upon being informed of the results Tizard was quick to dismiss their significance.

‘I don’t think this represents the true wishes of the people of New Zealand or the people of Auckland Central,’ Tizard said. ‘This is clearly a rogue election result with no real impact that the media is beating up in order to sell more papers.’ …

Tizard has also confirmed that she will be maintaining her full contingent of staff and offices, rejecting the suggestion that she would now have to make her own dinner reservations and purchase her own plane tickets as ‘the worst kind of hate speech’.

Incoming National MP Nicky Kaye has advised she is negotiating a solution with Paliamentary Services, Tizard’s private secretary and an Armed Offenders unit.

Oh that was priceless.

The NZ Herald looks at Auckland Central, Epsom and Maungakiekie.

Auckland Central:

That is not troubling the motivated Kaye, who is running a vigorous and old-fashioned door-knocking campaign. National Party sources say that although raised in conservative Epsom and Kohimarama, she is more socially liberal and environmentally active than most in the party.

On the other hand, Tizard has more than 40 years of family political history and nous to draw on. Name recognition, strong links with the gay and other communities and being a junior minister in transport and the arts help. Then again, she has received criticism for her now-defunct role of Minister for Auckland Issues.

Epsom:

Worth, who became a list MP, is standing again, but says he is firmly concentrating on increasing National’s party vote of 58.5 per cent in 2005 to 70 per cent.

“How people decide to cast their constituency vote is an issue for them.”

With Act polling well below the 5 per cent threshold to gain list seats in Parliament, National needs Hide to win Epsom and hopefully provide two or more Act MPs for a National-led coalition.

Maungakiekie:

Labour is replacing one unionist (Mr Gosche is a former national secretary of the Service and Food Workers Union) with another, Carol Beaumont, secretary of the Council of Trade Unions. …

Samoan-born Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga is the National candidate. Not only is he among a new bunch of young, highly educated 28-to-45-year-olds offering new blood and values for National, but he is also part of an attempt to boost the party’s ethnic diversity.

I blogged a few days ago, quoting Colin Jackson who attended a meeting with Judith Tizard to discuss concerns over the new copyright law. The law requires ISPs to terminate Internet access to repeat copyright infringers, and there is a push on for this to mean those merely accused of copyright infringement, as opposed to those convicted of doing so.

Colin blogged:

Judith Tizard spent 30 minutes telling us why the change had to be made. She began by strongly expressing her anger that we had complained to her at this stage in the proceedings. None of us, she said, had been to see her before this on this topic. When we protested that we had worked with the Select Committee, which had removed this provision – and balanced it with one which made licence holders liable for false accusations – she said that this was completely inappropriate of the Select Committee, because Cabinet had already decided this was going ahead. We should not have been surprised, we were told, that this provision was reinserted by the government at the last minute before the bill was passed.

Now this story has been picked up on other blogs, including Boing Boing. Boing Boing is one of the top ten blogs in the world for readership. Millions of people read it. And this is what they have just read:

New Zealand’s copyright minister starts screaming when asked whether it’s fair to cut people off from the Internet on the basis of three unsubstantiated accusations of copyright infringement.

Boing Boing further note:

Of all the unreasonable and awful proposals to come out of the entertainment industry, none is so bad as the three-strikes rule, a rule that would leave everyday people vulnerable to having the connection that brings them freedom of speech, of assembly and the press, the link that connects them to family, school, work and government, terminated because someone, somewhere made three accusations of copyright infringement, without having to offer a shred of evidence.

What I found most interesting what as the viewpoint from Judith that it was “inappropriate” for a select committee to make changes to a bill which differ from what Cabinet agreed to. This is a novel way of looking at the role of Parliament.

Colin Jackson from the Open Source Society has blogged a meeting between ICT reps and the Government over the new legal requirement for ISPS to terminate someone’s Internet account purely on the basis of allegations of copyright infringement.

The clause in question was in the original bill, and removed by the Select Committee (unanimously) as unnecessary as ISPs already terminate for illegal activity. The Select Committee also added on a clause to penalise people (up to $100,000 fines) who made false allegations of copyright infringement. This was also unanimously agreed to.

The Government then introduced at the Committee of the House stage an Supplementary Order Paper that reveresed both these changes made unanimously by the Select Committee. They put back in the provision for an ISP to be forced to terminate a customer merely on allegations of infringement, and even worse removed the penalty for false complaints.

What I found interesting from Colin’s blog was this explanation for why it was put back in:

When it opened, Judith Tizard spent 30 minutes telling us why the change had to be made. She began by strongly expressing her anger that we had complained to her at this stage in the proceedings. None of us, she said, had been to see her before this on this topic. When we protested that we had worked with the Select Committee, which had removed this provision – and balanced it with one which made licence holders liable for false accusations – this was completely inappropriate of the Select Committee, because Cabinet had already decided this was going ahead. We should not have been surprised, we were told, that this provision was reinserted by the government at the last minute before the bill was passed.

That is an interesting view on the roles of Select Committee. That it is completely inappropriate of them to mack changes that go against Cabinet policy.

So why do we bother with select committees?

I blogged last week on the new copyright law, and how the provision about ISPs having to terminate Internet access for repeat infringers was causing huge problems.

The good news is the Government seems to be listening. IT Brief reports:

The government has bowed to unprecedented ICT industry pressure, announcing a four-month moratorium on Section 92A of its new Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act.

Communications minister David Cunliffe revealed the back-down during the InternetNZ TVNZ7 Internet Debate held on Tuesday night, saying the delay would give the industry and content providers time to come up with an alternative approach to controlling copyright on the internet.

The debate incidentially went really well I thought. Possibly could have been a bit shorter, but we had a good mixture of politics and policy. There was some generally good natured sparring that kept it interesting, but also some useful and interesting policy discussions around broadband, copyright, filtering etc.

From a technical point of view it was pretty seamless as we took questions from journalists, from the studio audience, from the online chat channel and also video questions through Skype. The InternetNZ staff and TVNZ staff and contractors did very well making it happen. Several people said they would like to see more debates with that interactive format.

Damien, Russell and Fran were all good at challenging the MPs, quite aggressively at times.

The funninest part for me was Maurice WIlliamson saying he had no idea why he voted for the new copyright law, as it is such a stupid law. I thought Maurice did very well, but in fact all four MPs did well with strengths in different areas.

You can view the video of the whole thing at debate.net.nz.

Anyway back to copyright. The Dominion Post also reports:

Paul Moreno, a spokesman for Justice Minister Judith Tizard, said a delay to regulations required to put the cut-off clause into force was being considered, and that the delay might be “endless”.

“Judith is of the mind that Internet access is almost a human right now, similar to water and electricity.”

But Ms Tizard then appeared to toughen her stance, stressing that the Government was concerned to protect copyright holders.

And it is important to protect copyright holders. But look at the gap between the possible interpretations:

Ms Tizard would not say whether the intention was that the cut-off threat should apply only to people who had been repeatedly convicted of copyright offences, or to those who had been accused of infringements by bodies such as the Recording Industry Association – indicating it had been left deliberately unclear.

“The intention of this provision is to provide a framework for the ISP industry and rights holders to develop an efficient and effective mechanism that is workable for both parties.”

Telecommunications Carriers Forum chief executive Ralph Chivers said if the former definition was used, that might be one solution.

But Recording Industry Association chief executive Campbell Smith said that would not be acceptable as it would require copyright holders to sue infringers to prove their guilt. “That is just impractical and ridiculous. I don’t think that is what was intended.”

Instead, ISPs should cut off customers who infringed copyright after notifications from rights holders, he said.

Losing your Internet access on the basis of unproven accusations is not a goer for me.

Danyl M has done many a fine satirical comment here, under the tagline The Dim Post. I’m delighted to have spotted he has set up his own Dim-Post blog. I suggest people subscribe to it.

His latest effort is on Judith Tizard’s interview:

‘I think my most significant achievement in the past eighteen years has been to serve as an MP for eighteen years,’ she said. ‘That’s not something you can achieve in just a few months. It takes at least a decade.’

Also he ponders what Helen Clark will do when she retires, with the top choice being:

Publish ‘Fisting Ian’, a weekly magazine featuring speculative stories about the sex life of reporter Ian Wishart

And also over the weekend he reveals how the Green Party will vote for Labour’s law to outlaw the Green Party:

The Labour Governments proposed bill to dissolve the Green Party took a step closer to being passed into law today after Green leaders Jeanette Fitzsimons and Russell Norman confirmed that they would vote in favour of the legislation.

The Environmental Electoral Vengeance Bill is currently before the Justice and Electoral select committee. If the law is bought into effect then membership of the Green Party will become a criminal offense punishable by ten years in prison and fines of up to three hundred thousand dollars.

‘This bill clears up many of the problems caused by potential Labour supporters casting their votes for inappropriate parties,’ Justice Minister Annette King announced during a pre-committee press conference. …

Green Party cooperation was critical to passing the controversial law. The National Party withdrew its support when Justice Minister King introduced an amendment incorporating National into the bill.

While the National Party will not be outlawed, votes cast in favor of the opposition party will be transfered to Labour and counted in their favor. Under current polling this will see Labour voted back into power with approximately 110 seats and able to govern alone. National leader John Key has condemned the bill and criticized King’s handling of the legislation, although he has confirmed that if he somehow becomes Prime Minister he will not seek to change the bill in his first term.

That one hits the mark on so many issues. Labour’s outrageous electoral gerrymandering. The Greens willingness to support Labour no matter what, and National’s tendency to condemn things but not change them

I’ve added The Dim Post to my blogroll as a Centre blog. Danyl is really a bit of a leftie, but his humour hits all sides, so in the centre he sits for now

Herald on Sunday did a profile yesterday on Auckland Central MP Judith Tizard. Judith is somewhat controversial, but I have to say that my professional dealings with her on Internet issues have always been cordial and constructive, and she has been a very regular attendee of the Parliamentary Internet Caucus.

I’m not sure though what her Cabinet colleagues will think of her description of Cabinet meetings:

But after 18 years in Parliament, Tizard’s never been a cabinet minister, despite putting herself forward in 1999. Again she shrugs it off, “Helen’s view was that I was more useful working across portfolios.”

But would she like to become one?

“Umm, no I don’t think so, it’s an awful waste of a Monday.”

I’ve heard many descriptions of Cabinet but a waste of a Monday has not generally been one of them!

Judith Tizard, as Associate Transport Minister, has ruled out any chance of dropping the speed limit to reduce carbon emissions. Good. Nice to see a firm decision from the Minister.

People may have noted over time how Labour seems to try and turn every Government opportunity into a partisan event for Labour. One disgraceful recent incident was the attempt to have a medal ceremony for bravery awards in the Labour Party Caucus room.

Murray McCully points out in today’s newsletter the Music Month launch this week:

New Zealanders are now familiar with the sense of entitlement that has become the hallmark of the Clark Labour Government.  Another little reminder of this most unlovely characteristic came this week with the launch of New Zealand Music Month.  Most would consider such an event an opportunity to celebrate the achievements of the New Zealand music industry.  But for Judith Tizard and her colleagues it was merely another opportunity to utilise taxpayers’ funds to undertake a bit of gentle marketing for the Labour Party.

The New Zealand Music Commission receives over $1million a year from the taxpayers of New Zealand.  Some of these funds, no doubt, were used to host this week’s Music Month launch event in Wellington.  And a small clue as to the political character of the event may lie in the fact that the National Party spokesman on Arts and Culture, Christopher Finlayson, was not invited to an event hosted by a taxpayer-owned body – the NZ Music Commission.  Never mind.  We are sure that Mr Finlayson as a scholarly and courtly individual will most certainly not harbour a grudge if he finds himself as Minister for this body in six months time.

Stung by her shameful exclusion from the group of prime female vocalists who entertained the Labour Party Conference (the various nicknames for which do not bear repeating in a newsletter with such a cultured readership)  Ms Tizard was apparently determined to make amends.  She climbed onto the stage to accompany musician Chris Knox (yes, the same one you would have seen performing at Labour Party conferences). And witnesses report that she would indeed have made a valuable addition to the Labour Conference quartet.

Towards the end of the Knox/Tizard number, she was apparently joined by completely non-political and dispassionate media commentator Russell Brown (yes, the same one used by state television on channel 7), at the same time as Knox could be heard by the video microphones making a disparaging remark about National MP Katherine Rich.  All in all, another day in the life of the New Zealand Music Commission branch of the Labour Party.

This is not an isolated incident. People will recall the disgraceful behaviour towards Don Brash a couple of years ago at another government funded arts event.

The Dominion Post also has an article on the launch and reports on Judith’s response upon being told she failed music quiz (to be fair I am sure I would fail it also):

“I don’t know the details, honey; I just write the policy and ask for the money.”

Indeed. And very successful at it also – the asking that is.

Aaron Bhatnagar had Judith Tizard bail him up and tell him he was a disgusting individual. What did he do? Speculated ten years ago (yes ten years ago) to her niece about Judith and Mat Rata. Good God – that is holding a grudge.

Conservator Occidentalis notes that Grant Robertson may be breaching the Electoral Finance Act. How? His website is authorised by him, not by his financial agent. Now a candidate is his or her own financial agent until he or she appoints one, but Grant appears to now have one, as their details have appeared on other material.

Guido Fawkes has the wonderful screen shot of senior Labour Minister Harriet Harman appearing to back Boris Johnson for Mayor of London.

So how did this happen?

username : harriet
password : harman

Yes that was the username and password for her blog. Someone should be shot. Guido notes the Government is looking to make it a criminal offence to be reckless resulting in loss of data!

Been meaning to blog on this since the changes to the Copyright Act were passed on Tuesday with all but the Greens and the Maori Party against. It would be a very very close call, but if I was a (non whipped) MP I would probably have voted against as the law is so inconsistent. The major points:

• One can now legally format shift music (say from a CD you purchase to an Ipod), but music labels can opt out of allowing this in their sale conditions.
• However you can not format shift other works, such as a movie from a DVD to your laptop or to a Video Ipod.
• It is legal to record a TV programme to watch it later, but you can only legally keep it for as long as is reasonable to have viewed it at a more convenient time.
• ISPs have been given an exemeption for their technical operations, such as caching files, which in theory can breach copyright.
• Content Hosters though have only limited liability for material uploaded by their customers. If they receive a complaint alleging a copyright infringement, the ISP becomes liable unless they delete the material. This means in the case of disputes, the ISP has to act as Judge and Jury or risk being sued, and there is some evidnece from overseas that (for example) the Church of Scientology uses such copyright laws as a way to silence critics.
• A “notice and notice” regime was rejected in favour of the US style “notice and takedown described above. The NaN regime would have meant that if a content hoster receives a complaint, they must pass it onto their customer. If the customer does not respond or agrees to remove the material, then it is taken down. However if the customer disputes they are infringing copyright, then the ISP is not held liable, but merely provides the customer’s details to the complainant so they can negotiate or sort it out in court directly.
• The law enshrines special protection for technological protection devices, even though they can sometimes restrict people from legal actions such as making backup copies, or format shifting. TPMs are hugely unpopular and most of the music industry are dropping them.

Has been lots of comments in various areas. First of all Canadian Professor Michael Geist (a expert and advocate for fair use copyright laws) says the law isn’t great but a lot better than what was planned for Canada. He thinks the parts dealing with circumventing TPMs are pretty good.

Steven Price has an excellent post on the notice and takedown regime, its strengths and weaknesses.  I think the Minister, Judith Tizard, has also indicated they will look in future at stronger fair use provisions, which could help.

Russell Brown blogged on the law also.  InternetNZ (I chaired their working group on this issue) calls it a missed opportunity, which it is.

On the bright side, the MPAA is looking a movie download site in NZ, where people can purchase movies. This is a laudable idea, as it is important that people are given legal avenues to access material. We have had the situation in the past where one could not purchase music legally for your Ipod in NZ, and where popular TV shows are not available here for months and months after they show overseas.  The world is a global market, and making works available globally for legal purchase and download will help reduce illegal downloads.

After some searching (the Parliament website could do with a new content page), I’ve found the full return for MPs as at 31 January 2008, which has been in the media yesterday and today.

Items I found interesting:

• Jim Anderton makes us invest our money in Kiwibank, while he puts his money into the Commonwealth Bank of Australia – one of those foreign banks he used to rail against
• Steve Chadwick has a family trust called the “Gonzo Family Trust”
• Helen Clark owns five houses. One of those “rich pricks” pushing up house prices.
• John Key got tickets to the RWC Semi-Final
• Winston owns no house in Tauranga (he now lives in Auckland)
• Judith Tizard has shared ownership of a house in Coromandel. With whom?