Kiwiblog

It is important to note the following:

Mr Dunne vigorously defended himself yesterday, saying he had actually ended up voting for the legislation he had been lobbied to vote against.

Parliament’s Hansard records of the time back his claim.

Phil Kitchin (and Oskar Alley) shows his independence by revealing that Peter Dunne also gets a mention in the Meurant papers with a $5,000 donation linked to his vote on a UN fishing plan. Dunne is denying a link.

While on a much much smaller scale than Winston (who appears to have had his entire policy process for sale), even one case like this is a cause for concern.

I agree with the Greens with their call to have a commission of inquiry into the Winston Peters cash-for-policies allegations. It goes without saying that any party implicated, should also be included in the terms of reference.

One News revealed tonight that Winston Peters aggressively pushed for Owen Glenn to be appointed Consul to Monaco, despite denying he did so. The Government has refused for eight months to release this information, but finally the Ombudsman forced it out of them.

The documents show Peters on multiple occassions asked for progress and was reported to be testy that MFAT were taking so long to do it. Watch the video for the full details. MFAT concluded:

A report prepared in November concluded that the position was marginal and if it did go ahead they recommended another candidate named Franco Repetto, saying he lived in Monaco full time while Glenn was there just three months a year.

Now it has been established that Winston Peters knew about the donation when it was made in 2005. It was also cleared with Mike Williams at the time, and Helen Clark knew about it either also at the time, or at the latest in February 2008.

Clark sat on this info for at least six months, claiming not to know if it was true. This is despite the fact she would have been aware that Peters had been aggressively pushing for Glenn to be appointed Consul.

Did Clark notify the Cabinet Secretary or the MFAT CEO about the (then alleged) donation from Glenn to Peters? Did she tell them that Owen Glenn had confirmed to her he made a donation?

Clark’s ethics are amazing. She is aghast at Gerry Brownlee having 1,000 shares in Contact Energy several years ago, yet she has no problem with her Foreign Affairs Minister receiving $100,000 donations from individuals and then aggressively pushing to give them a diplomatic appointment.

This is not an isolated case. Clark knows that the Vela Family have donated around $250,000 to NZ First and indeed $40,000 to Peters personally (paying off the Clarkson debt). And she knows that Peters forced her Government to agree to very generous funding of the racing industry, against advice of officials.

And what is her response to this? Totally unconcerned. She keeps paying Winston a Ministerial salary even though he won’t even front up to a debate on foreign policy. She says she’ll happily work with him after the election, so long as it increases her chances of desperately clinging to power.

The hypocrisy of her suggesting Peter Dunne should relinquish a Ministerial warrant for expressing a post-election coalition preference, while keeping Winston on despite multiple proven lies, false evidence and basically corrupt behaviour.

This is Helen Clark’s world. If you are willing to vote for her to remain Prime Minister, she will turn a blind eye to any amount of misdeeds or worse. Hence in her mind there is nothing wrong with calling for Peter Dunne to resign his warrant, but keeping Winston Peters on.

This reinforces for me why we need an Independent Commission against Corruption. She covered up over Taito Philip Field with an inquiry given no powers. She kept quiet for months about Winston, and the latest stuff with Shane Jones is being dealt with by way of a Departmental inquiry which by definition can not investigate the Ministers involved.

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

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

It is significant that Peter Dunne has not just indicated a preference for National, but ruled out supporting a Labour-led Government after the election. There are probably a variety of reasons for this:

1. Genuine horror at what a very left Government with up to 15 Green MPs would be like. He realised there would be no shift towards the centre if Labour gets re-elected but a big big shift to the left.
2. A realisation that he may have trouble attracting support from voters wanting to change the Government unless they knew for sure a vote for United Future would be a vote for change. Now one can say that a vote for National, ACT or United Future are all votes to change the Government.
3. An assumption that in a Government made up of Labour, Progressive, Greens, NZ First and the Maori Party there would be no room for him in a role of any significance.

I welcome United Future’s decision. There are some people who won’t be able to vote National, but would feel able to vote United Future, and now they can do so knowing it is a vote to change the Government.

Also Peter Dunne is a highly experienced and capable Minister, and Governments need those. Dunne’s tax policy of three rates – 10%, 20% and 30% is a very good policy, and I would be happy to have him push that along in Governmeent.

Peter packs them in, in Timaru.

But to make up for that Bob Jones says something nice:

Much more of this could induce such voter distaste that the surprise beneficiary could be Peter Dunne, as voters accord him points for staying above the fray. Right now, there’s a market opening for gentlemen politicians.

I’ll start with Colin Espiner:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next we have John Armstrong:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eternal shame is a good phrase.

We also have Frog from the Greens:

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

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

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

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

But after hearing evidence he changed his mind.

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

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

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

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

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

So is Helen calling Russel tainted or unfair?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Jones is as interesting as always:

Helen hinted at a fear- mongering campaign about secret National agendas to sell off state assets. It won’t work against Key as his open countenance screams believability. He’s one of those rare individuals who’s a natural smiler and, as a result, to whom people warm.

A natural smiler – a nice phrase and true.

The Greens are an enigma. They could inherit disenchanted Labour votes but that depends on their new co-leader’s ability to dispel their basket-weaving, folk-dancing, hand-wringing imagery. Now everyone’s green they may be deemed irrelevant.

Heh.

Dunne is the town bike of politics. He’s available to anyone who will have him but the ravages of a quarter-century’s political promiscuity have induced an electoral impotence and the time can’t be far off when voters put him out to pasture.

Ouch. The town bike of politics. Bob did stand against Peter in 1984.

Winston’s shenanigans aside, thanks to the evil Electoral Finance Act inhibiting public participation, this election augurs poorly on the entertainment front. Thank goodness we have a fascinating US presidential race to keep us amused.

Yep. Much more interesting.

The Dim-Posy has done a party profile of United Future. Hopefully this will be of a series, and Danyl will cover all eight parliamentary parties plus the Family, Kiwi and Taito parties.

Some extracts from his excellent profile:

Founded In: 2000 AD as the scriptures foretold

Policy Achievements: Creation of Families Commission, nationwide marketing campaign for Families Commission, improved car-parking and creche facilities for Families Commission Staff. Proven history of improving business card design for Families Commission management.

Party Leader: Hon. Peter Patrick Caiaphas Dunne

Early Life: Born and raised in Pohatu Marine Reserve, attended Canturbury and Massey University, was voted audience favourite at Napier Marineland 1974-77.

Strengths: Can kill a grown man with a single stroke of his mighty flippers.

Weaknesses: Can easily become entangled in discarded plastics.

Campaign Strategy: Speak on behalf of the great silent majority of New Zealanders who have never heard of him and will vote for somebody else.

Very good. I can’t wait to see National’s.

The Infrastructure Forum had six questions:

1. How will you stop the risk of power blackouts?
2. Will you privatise power generation SOEs to get more competition and lower prices?
3. How will you get broadband into more homes and businesses?
4. What changes will you make to the RMA?
5. Do you support more protection for businesses at risk from the ETS?
6. Do you support carbon credit allocation based on carbon intensity

Gerry Brownlee

1. Energy Policy released details improvements to both security and supply. Planning for far more growth than Labour. Major consent decisions to be made within nine months
2. No SOE sales
3. Ran out of time
4. Referred to in 1
5. Not a yes/no answer but said credit allocation should be decided by a select committee process and a National ETS will do that. Gave a great example of how concrete plants in Europe will pay far less for carbon credits so just force industry offshore.
6. Ran out of time

David Parker

1. Record investment in energy under Labour. National did not invest in the 1990s
2. No
3. Broadband essential. $500 million fund next five years. WIll not favour incumbent.
4. Does not accept RMA is a barrier
5. Missed
6. Missed

Jeanette Fitzsimons

1. One can have security by over-building capacity so it is wasted every year but the peak year. Not efficient. Better to have a standby plant. Says we had a 1 in 60 dry year. Third way is make smart adjustments to demand to reduce at times of shortage and that is what is missing.
2. Will not sell SOEs. Rejects that it would lead to lower prices.
3. Supported LLU. Broadband key to reducing transport. But not support large state investment.
4. Most changes Gerry wants to RMA already done. Problem is implementation and no national guidelines.
5. Trade-exposed businesses are already highly protected. Some businesses may end up with surplus credits without reducing emissions.
6. No – an intensity basis will lead to continued emissions.

Rodney Hide

1. Does not think we can rule out all the power generation methods the Greens do. Need to reduce cost of capital by lowering taxes.
2. Yes would sell them. No sense in Govt owing competitive businesses. Ownign them locks up taxpayers money and limits companies ability to raise capital for investment it deems necessary.
3. Broadband important but regulation stopping its rollout. Need a stronger economy to be able to afford it. Against National’s policy in this area. Investment is slowing down due to uncertainity.
4. Private property rights need to be enhanced, The RMA damages these rights.

Peter Dunne

1. Rejects ideology. Needs security of supply. Say question is an alarmist straw man. Currently power is an un-cordinated jigsaw (so why are we paying $90 million a year to the Electricity Commission then). Agrees we have had over supply in past – supports smaller local plants but big hydro plants.
2. I think it was a no.
3. RMA needs national policy guidelines. DO not throw away RMA – streamline it and keep core principles.
4. Missed.
5. Do not support further protection to at risk businesses as we do not know enough about impact.
6. No does not support but is subject to how the Act works out. Reason they oppose bill is because so much is uncertain and is being rushed through purely for political gain. Wants it passed by 1 April 2009.

Peter Dunne arrived late for the minor party leader’s forum (it wasn’t his fault – he was given wrong time) towards the end of the question time. Sean Plunket said that what he proposes is we now have Peters speak to us, and then go to lunch.

Rodney Hide pipes up “Or we could all go to lunch, and then have Peter start speaking”. It was very very funny.

We have five Finance Spokespersons after Winston pulled out. They are:

1. Bill English, National
2. Dr Michael Cullen, Labour
3. Russel Norman, Greens
4. Peter Dunne, United Future
5. Sir Roger Douglas, ACT

Each was asked three questions:

1. Will you cut company and personal tax and by how much and when?
2. Will you have a cap on government spending as a percentage of GDP?
3. Will you include labour and environmental restrictions in free trade agreements

Bill English

1. Yes we will lower tax rates. Details soon. Important to do so to put cash in pockets, but more importantly incentives to work, save and invest. Also want a more efficient tax system.
2. No as GDP goes up and down. Focus on quality of spending not a set target. Expect PREFU will show Crown is in deficit. So period of restraint needed. Govt spending excluding welfare growing at 8% per annum. Can’t carry on at that rate so will slow growth down, but will still grow in absolute terms.
3. Not desired, but US Congress turning protectionist and they may demand them so we may need to be flexible. Generally supportive of Govt work on FTAs.
4. Generally comment: no more cheap credit – growth will come from earning it and need to lift productivity.

Personally I think a target for expenditure as a percentage of GDP would be a very good thing.

Sir Roger Douglas

1. Could reduce personal and corporate tax to under 20%, maybe even 16%. Also could lower GST to 10%.
2. Need to say yes to this, so one can say yes to Q1 (he answered in reverse order). Says Govt expenditure should be held at rate of inflation of 2.5% and population growth of 1%. So an annual 3.6% increase only. Sounds good to me!! Any increase over 3.6% should be met with savings elsewhere. If we hold expenditure to 3.6%, each household will pay $13,000 less in annual taxes in 10 years time. Govt expenditure has increased under Labour by $17 billion, after taking inflation and population growth into account. That is $220 a week per household. What did you get for that $220 a week? Could you have spent it better yourself? No equity or fairness without efficiency in expenditure. Thinks expenditure of 25% of GDP is a good target.
3. Support free trade agreements without these restrictions

I have to say Sir Roger was brillant. He may get some very serious support for ACT if enough people hear him. Very smart to not talk about slashing expenditure but just propose keep spending to inflation and population growth. Families can relate to that.

Peter Dunne

1. Would cut personal taxes on April 2010 to 10% for income to $12K, 20% to $38K, above $38K at 30%. Supports income splitting. And align business and trust rates at 30%. Should do regular tax reviews, rather than wait 12 years between tax cuts (hear hear).
2. No set cap. GDP not sole measure of wealth of economy. Does have concern over current level of spending but more concerned about quality and direction of spending. Proposes merging some DHB functions centrally such as equipment purchasing. A spending cut may lead to a service cut – $50 million into IRD so it can answer phones quicker as an example.
3. Supports FTAs. Don’t need specific standards on environment and labour, as they are dealt with in the wider business environment. We are most trade dependent nation in the world.

Dunne did well also. Some nice specifics.

Dr Russel Norman

1. Wants a transition to a sustainable economy. More ecological taxes and reduce taxes on income. Incentive then to reduce scarce resource use and pollution. Wants incentives to use less water. Supports ring fencing of losses on investment propoerties. Not supporting a decrease in overall tax – just how it is made up.
2. Does not have a policy for a cap on spending. It is about efficiency.
3. Does support standards, but notes usually just involves consultative committees.
4. General comment on need to prepare economy for higher oil prices. No other party has policy around this.

Dr Michael Cullen

1. Lowered company rate to 30% and legislated for three rounds of personal tax cuts. Also increased depreciation rates and R&D tax credits.
2. No. Spending at he moment same as 99/00 as percentage of GDP. Goes up and down. A cap is artificial.
3. Yes will try and include these standards as agrees with Bill needed for US Congress
4. General comment on the need to lift exports from 30% of GDP. New tertiary funding policy is essential. Backed Clark up on how our bottom 30% of school leavers are very poor. Middle and top are both very good. More rail needed plus more roads. Also roll-out of broadband is important. Higher savings needed and our capital markets are very weak. Sustainability also important.

All five spoke well and knew their stuff. I do have to say I think Sir Roger was by far the best – both his level of detail, his forceful arguments and the actual policy. I would put Peter Dunne second best.

I don’t think Bill English came across that well. Not due to him (Bill was very much on top of the arguments), but because he could not give any details of the tax policy yet (which I think would have been popular). Would have been good though if National had decided to release some sort of business policy today, so there is something new. Maybe that will come in a later session?

Regulatory Responsibility Act

A question on whether they would support a Regulatory responsibility Act.

English says there is support for defining the principles of good regulation, and using the bureaucracy to fight the bureaucracy so regulations can not proceed without ticking all the boxes which justify the regulation. Also said very keen to reform RMA. Bottom line is would support some sort of RRA.

Douglas supports a Minister of Regulatory Reform and an RRA.

Dunne says ironic to use legislation to fight against legislative regulations. Thinsk local govt sector is more of a problem.

Missed what Norman said.

Cullen says will make process too bureaucratic.

Company Tax Rate

EMA Northern advocated cut company tax rate to 20% as lead to more investment and eventually more tax paid over ten years.  Cullen attacks dodgy modeling of EMA. Says we have had lower company tax rate for most of last 20 years than Australia.  English says 20% rate would be fantastic but priority for now is reducing personal tax rates. If we drop company tax rate to 20% without personl rates going down, many more people will alter their tax affairs to take advantage.

EMA’s Thompson replied that when company tax rate has been cut in the past, the level of company tax has still risen.

Infrastructure

Cullen made good point that not all infrastructure contributes to economic growth – new planes for Air Force for example. But roads do.

Dunne strong support of PPPs and infrastructure bonds.

English – planning debt 2% of GDP higher than Labour but still one of lowest in developed world. Govt is running cash deficits also. National’s infrastructure plan is a prudent investment. Also thinks Govt manages assets badly, and there is room for improvement. PPPs not just about money, but about getting private sector skills around risk and management. Bill much better on this stuff. Lots of people commented at the tea break that they thought not enough detail on the earlier stuff, but very strong on infrastructure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what part of that is hard to understand?

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

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

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

No means no.

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

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

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

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

Goodness, that was almost a position Peter took!

Just remember these two lines:

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

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

An interesting discussion on Agenda this morning.

Jeanette Fitzsimons said Peters has shown a contempt for the public and the public’s right to know. It is not just a matter of illegality.

She was asked if she could work with NZ First in a governing arrangement. Fitzsimons said that the party decides that but her personal viwe is you have to be able to trust someone around the cabinet table, you have to be able to trust and take their word and know it is not going to take weeks and weeks before questions are answered and only under coercion. She personally would be uncomfortable in a governing arrangement with NZ First.

Good on Jeanette for saying that. Not as strong as Key, but if the Greens won’t back Labour if they keep clinging to Winston, then he has no power even if makes 5%.

Peter Dunne hedges his bets and says he does not think either major party will want Peters and that NZ First will not be re-elected. However says he will decide on policies only, and not rule Peters out.

Jim Anderton says issue for Peters is not so much legal but hypocrisy of railing against donations from big business and taking them secretly.

Fitzsimons says she is most concerned about the fihsing issue, and wants it investigated.

Barry Soper has ripped into Anderton for saying the media have tried and convicted Peters in public.  He points out that teh media have been unable to get a single useful explanation from Peters for months on end and it is thanks to the media these issues have come to light. Says Anderton should applaud media if they believe in transparency. Anderton responds weakly.

Anderton now talking about the Brethren. Yawn. Now he is alleging the SFO is compromised as investigating Peters keeps them alive.

Dunne says he has no problem with Key ruling Peters out, and suspects he has wanted to for some time. Says he “fully understands” that John Key needed to put a marker in the sand.

UPDATE: A friend points out to me that Jeanette is a very polite person, and her comments indicating diffculties serving with Winston was Green Speak for “Fuck Off”

I hope so! Removing Winston from power (only the public can remove him from Parliament) is something all parties in Parliament should agree on. It should not be a partisan issue.

Scoop’s Gordon Campbell continues his series of interviews with party leaders. This one is with Peter Dunne.

Campbell: The evidence for the prosecution would be the story that you started reading Hansard when you were twelve –

Dunne : Fourteen.

Good God, I didn’t start until university!

Campbell: Do you think any of the Christian-based parties will cross the 5 % threshold this year?

Dunne : No. United Future is not in that camp, not any more.

Campbell: You’ve been through your prayer meeting phase ?

Dunne : Well, we were never really in it. I certainly wasn’t. But we had some people who imagined that United Future could become New Zealand’s version of the Taliban.

Harsh rhetoric, but similar to what Mark Blumsky said, based on his experiences there also.

Dunne: Yes, and my own view is, that in today’s circumstances for a whole variety of reasons, technology being amongst them, the procedure of a woman, her doctor and two certifying consultants is somewhat cumbersome. I think probably, you should be looking at the woman, her doctor and informed consent. I have a very strong view that – and I appreciate the moral issue involved here – but the moral issue is actually the individual’s morals. I don’t think it’s a matter of the state imposing a moral code. I mean, there is a moral dimension as to whether you should have an abortion and that issue is still there – but that’s not a call that the state should be seeking to make on behalf of the people involved.

A pretty sensible view in my opinion.

Campbell: You’ve governed with Roger Douglas before. Would you like to again?

Dunne : No.

Campbell: Why not?

Dunne : Roger was dynamic to work with in the circumstances of the 1980s, which was big ideas, bold change et etc. The problem with Roger and the whole Act Party is that they’re trapped in a time warp, at the point when Roger was sacked. The world has moved on. The implicit mantra is that if we all went back to 1987 and picked up where we left off, things would be different. Its rubbish.

ACT people won’t like this, but Dunne does have a point here. There is sometimes a lack of reality about where NZ is at today, as compared to 20 years ago. The sense of crisis of the 1980s is not the same challenges we face today.

Campbell: If the Emissions Trading Scheme involves any extra costs whatsoever to taxpayers, would you oppose it?

Dunne : I want to know what those extra costs are, for a start.

Campbell: Understood. But from your statements, it sounds as if there is anything at all extra on household costs. you will oppose –

Dunne : If there’s anything extra that is not properly compensated then yes, we would oppose it.

Pretty clear.

Campbell: Is there one thing left that you want to achieve before you leave Parliament ?

Dunne : My personal biggest ambition in whatever time remains to me is the whole question of national identity, constitutional change and the path towards a republic. On the weekend I set out a timetable by which we could, if not get there, at last resolve the issues…. by 2017.

And that would be good. Labour’s shattering on the constitutional conventions over electoral law have pushed me 100% towards supporting a written constitution, to safeguard fundamental rights.

The Herald reports on the increasing signs by Peter Dunne that he wants to work with an expected National Government after the election. This is no surprise – Peter has been a Minister in a National-led Government before.

It will be interesting to see what United Future announces as its policy for post-election negotiations. In 2005 both UF and NZF said they would give first preference for forming a Government (subject to negotiating an acceptable agreement) to the party with the most votes. NZ First have confirmed that is their policy again, but I am not sure if United Future have.

Income splitting is in the news as Peter Dunne has finally got the Government to publish a discussion document on it. For those who don’t want to read the whole 29 pages, Brian Fallow has a good summary of the issues in the Herald:

Broadly speaking, the left is not keen because it is not well targeted at relieving child poverty, the extent of which the Child Poverty Action Group’s report this week makes clear.

Income splitting is no use at all to single parents, who have the hardest row to hoe.

And it is seen as favouring a 1950s model of the family – with mum at home baking biscuits and looking after the children – that bears little relation to the realities of modern times.

At the same time, the right isn’t keen because of the opportunity cost: like any other targeted tax relief, it reduces how much would be left for across-the-board tax cuts.

Fallow also notes that lowering the top tax rates would reduce much of the demand for income splitting. It is that high 39% marginal tax rate that makes income splitting so attractive.

In terms of who would benefit:

The most populous part of the income distribution among couples consists of families whose main breadwinner earns between $50,000 and $60,000 and his or her partner up to $40,000.

About 70,000 families fall into that group and they would stand to gain between $1000 and $3000 a year.

The largest gains, however, would be among couples with larger incomes.

The biggest gain, nearly $9000 a year, goes to a couple where one partner earns $120,00 a year and the other earns nothing.

His conclusion:

Many families are under pressure, no question. But income splitting only benefits some of them and only because of the structure of the income tax scale. Either flatten it or put more resources in Working for Families. But spare us any more complexity in the tax laws.

Bill Ralston writes in the HOS:

Communications Minister David Cunliffe had an instant knee-jerk lame response to Key, claiming the plan lacked detail and credibility and “smacks of opportunism”. As most politicians are opportunists (and Cunliffe is certainly no exception) his cries that the scheme would reinforce Telecom’s monopoly position lacked credibility.

I am one of those who regard Cunliffe as generally having done a very good job in the portfolio. But his response to the plan has almost universally been seen as unwise, and making it harder for Labour to come out with its own response.

Quite how he arrived at the conclusion Telecom would be the big beneficiary of the plan is beyond me as Key had said in the speech that one of the principles guiding his government’s investment would be that there would be open access to the fibre network and none of the current players would be able to line their pockets at the public’s expense.

Indeed, they were critical principles.

New Zealand First blindly followed the anti-Telecom line and Act retreated into some doctrinal babble about how governments should not spend money.

Peter Dunne justifiably spat the dummy at the critics’ “Think Small” approach, saying “Surely the point is that widespread, superfast broadband is a good thing for the New Zealand economy and the only question is how do we get there?”

He went on to wish, without much hope: “It’d be excellent if politicians spent more time working out the answer to that question and not simply whacking each other over the head and feeling they’ve accomplished something”. Fat chance.

It is election year. One party could announce it had found a cure for cancer and the rest of the parties would argue against it.

Oh yes, John Key would then be accused of ignoring AIDS

Peter Dunne makes a useful contribution to the political debate on broadband:

“Everyone agrees that’s a good idea, but all we’ve heard so far is the Minister of Communications carping that National is being opportunistic and handing too much monopoly power to Telecom; New Zealand First is similarly outraged that Telecom is getting too much money; and ACT has delivered the standard libertarian rant that hates the Government collecting or spending any money at all.

“Surely the point is that widespread, superfast broadband is a good thing for the New Zealand economy and the only question is: how do we get there?

“It’d be excellent if politicians spent more time working out the answer to that question and not simply whacking each other over the head and feeling they’ve accomplished something.

“If direct government investment like Mr Key proposes is not the answer, then I’d like to hear two things from the critics – first, what is the alternative, and second, why has it not happened to date,” said Mr Dunne.

A useful challenge.

NZPA reports:

United Future leader Peter Dunne today said a cross-party conference was needed to sort out problems with the Electoral Finance Act.

“No one, whether they were for the Act or against it, could have imagined the extent to which it is now intruding into every aspect of political life and the uncertainty it is causing for election officials, political parties, MPs and candidates.

On the contrary not only did I imagine this, I wrote extensively about it. I submitted to the Select Committee about it. And also amendments which would have helped make it better were voted down by Labour, Greens, NZ First and oh yes United Future.

“We cannot carry on with so much uncertainty and the flaws in the legislation need to be sorted out immediately in the interests of a fair election process this year.”

The easiest thing would to be change the regulated period back to 90 days.  Having it for all of election year has indeed played havoc with parties and others. Even asking people to renew a lapsed membership gets caught up. A party talking to supporters in February who have asked to hear from that party gets caught up.

He said the problems should be sorted out by MPs rather than the courts.

Why? The MPs are the ones who stuffed it up in the first place, and have a huge self interest.  Certainly it would be good to have a law with less uncertainty around it, but remember Annette King told us all how this was a good law and the law of common sense would sort it all out.

He said it should be made clear that taxpayer-funded party literature that did not solicit votes, money or membership was not attributable election expenditure.

No, no, no. The law has never ever exempted taxpayer-funded literature in the past. Giving MPs free rein to loot the taxpayer for their campaigns is not the answer. But moving the regulated period back to a more sensible time frame would mean that MPs could do their normals comms for most of the year, and then stop using taxpayer’s money for the last 12 weeks of the campaign.

Changes should also be made so the home address of a party’s financial agent was not required on advertising authorisations. 

There we are agreed. But Bill English’s bill to fix this is not going to be debated in time unless leave is granted for it to move up the order paper.

The Herald reports that calls for Peters to be sacked as Foreign Minister (he could be moved to another portfolio) are growing. Business representatives who are still in China are said to be furious and Phil Goff has been trying to calm them down, agreeing it was a “bullshit” situation. Those effectively calling for him to go include:

• Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association chief executive Alasdair Thompson
• Bob Fenwick, a past president of the NZ Export Institute
• Revenue Minister Peter Dunne

The fact Peters is not just quietly voting against (or abstaining) but has launched a high profile campaign  in NZ against it with newspaper ads is what has them fuming, plus his insistence he will state his views against it when overseas as Foreign Minister.

Martin Kay in the Dom Post covers in more detail the Revenue Minister’s views on Peters:

Mr Dunne, UnitedFuture’s leader and revenue minister, said Mr Peters would fly in the face of “all conventions about good government” if he spoke out against the FTA as a minister. “I can’t see how you stay on that basis.”

… Mr Dunne told Newstalk ZB the FTA was central to the Government’s foreign policy and Mr Peters had to represent that.

Kay also covers the issue of Labour’s about-face on this:

Dr Cullen’s insistence that it is all right for Mr Peters to speak against the deal contradicts comments he made soon after Mr Peters was appointed, when he said the FTA was one of the “highest foreign policy goals”.

His insistence that Mr Peters is free to criticise the deal overseas also appears at odds with a Cabinet circular that says he must speak for the Government “on all issues” when out of the country.

Colin Espiner in The Press also quotes Dr Cullen yesterday:

“I think that people understand very clearly that the confidence and supply agreement provides that Mr Peters is bound on matters purely of foreign policy …”

Now recall that in 2005, Dr Cullen stated in Parliament that the China FTA was one of the Government’s “highest foreign policy goals”.

Just been listening to Larry Williams and Peter Dunne referred to Winston’s position as untenable and agreed he should resign.

I think it is very news worthy that one Minister of the Crown has called for another to be sacked.