Kiwiblog

Many people liked Jeanette Fitzsimons because she rarely did snide attacks on other MPs. The Greens boast about how they don’t do personal attacks. However Russel Norman can’t resist a small amount of putting the boot in:

An interesting aside to the Phil Heatley saga.

I have been calling on central govt to consider sewerage systems as important infrastructure and financially support communities like Whangarei to upgrade them. There were 45 raw sewerage discharges last year in Whangarei, many of them in the Harbour. Yuk.

Phil Heatley, the local member, dismissed my suggestion that central government should help Whangarei clean up its harbour with the comment that:

“Russel Norman’s got plenty of reasons to spend other people’s money” (Whangarei Leader 16-2-10).

It turns out that Phil too has plenty of reasons to spend other people’s money. But it seems we have different priorities.

People in glasshouses should not throw stones. Maybe someone should remind Russel about how two of his MPs were illegally both claiming an accommodation allowance for the same house – which happened to be owned by the Greens Super Fund.

Let alone how the whole system of having the Greens Super Fund own the Houses that taxpayers paid for, was designed to maximise their entitlements to the accommodation allowance.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Green MP Sue Bradford’s sudden retirement from Parliament yesterday reflects little credit on her party. With typical candour she declares her decision was prompted by the party’s co-leadership election a few months ago, which she lost to a young Maori, Metiria Turei.

Normally this would sound like sour grapes but whatever one thinks of Ms Bradford’s politics, she does not seem to suffer from wounded pride or excessive self-importance. She is remembered for the indignities she was willing to suffer in the years before entering Parliament when she was pictured in every small protest sit-in, usually being carried away by the police.

This is true, but I still regard it as a bad look for an MP to bail out of Parliament just a few months after they got elected.

Being elected to Parliament is a huge privilege, and MPs are elected for a three year term. It is one of the downsides of MMP that List MPs especially are being shuffled into and out of Parliament outside the electoral cycle.

I think no MP should bail out of Parliament early, unless it is for ill health, or to take up an appointment.

When Jeanette Fitzsimons relinquished the female co-leadership this year Ms Bradford was clearly the strongest candidate to replace her, and she knew it. Ms Turei was barely known outside the party and Sue Kedgley, another previous campaigner who has found her feet in Parliament, seemed not to be interested.

I’m not sure I agree. First of all Turei was deemed the favourite to win at a very early stage. Secondly the skills at being a good legislator (which Bradford was) are not necessarily the skills of leadership. Leadership is about taking people with you – and I think Bradford has never shown much in the way of skills there.

So why did Ms Bradford miss out? It is reasonable to conclude the Greens wanted a different face. They are a party sensitive to demographic character, as evidenced by co-leadership from different genders. Ms Turei offered youth and ethnic diversity. In the four months since her election she has not shown much else.

A party that puts appearances before substance is making difficulties for itself.

The Herald overlooks another issue – maybe the biggest issue. Bradford has rarely been involved with environmental issues. Her causes are social justice. In fact some in the Greens had grumbled her fights for so called social justice diminished the Greens branding as an environmental party.

Russel Norman (who like Bradford used to be a communist – Marxist not Maoist though) also has a background more on the social justice side, than the environmental side. Since becoming co-leader his focus has changed – but nevertheless I think a combination of Norman and Bradford would have weakened the Greens brand as an environmental party – and I suspect this was a factor in Turei’s victory.

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

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

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

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

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

Rodney Hide (Act) – 719 supporters.

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

Metiria Turei (Green) – 339 supporters.

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

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

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

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

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

The Herald reports that Russel Norman thinks he can beat Melissa Lee:

The One News Colmar Brunton poll on Sunday gave Labour’s David Shearer a 38-point lead over National’s Melissa Lee.

Dr Norman was six points behind Ms Lee in the poll of 500 residents which had a 4.4 per cent margin of error.

That is not a very helpful statement. The 4.4% margin of error is for a result of 50%. Lee got 15% and Norman got 9%. The margin of error for each (at 95% confidence) is 3.2% and 2.5%.

So what is the probability that Norman actually was ahead of Lee? I have a spreadsheet that calculates these things and it is only 0.21%.

Of course things may change from when the poll was done.

Amazing what a by-election can do, as Russel Norman and John Boscawen have revealed some of their expenses:

The Green Party co-leader Russel Norman pays $340 a week to rent a house in the Wellington suburb of Hataitai. He lives there with his partner Katya Paquin, who is also employed full-time by the Greens in Parliament.

It is against the rules to hire your partner (or other family members) as your executive secretary or electorate agent, but it is okay to have them work for other MPs in the party, or in the Leader’s Office.

Because Wellington is home, he is not entitled to claim expenses of up to $24,000 for accommodation in the capital.

Not doing a Bunkle/Hobbs – good.

Paquin sometimes accompanies Norman on out-of-town trips. Norman says the two ran up $15,828 in publicly-funded air travel in the first four months of this year.

That is a hell of a lot of flights – especially for a Wellington based MP. The vast majority of the travel will be to Green party events. Now I’m not saying this is bad – just that one should be upfront about recognising the benefits parties get from having MPs who can travel at no cost to the party.

There is potentially a small conflict over Paquin accompanying Norman. I have no problems with modest travel for spouses, but because Paquin is also a staffer it does raise some issues. You see normally if a staffer travels with an MP, the cost is charged to that party’s parliamentary budget, which is limited.

But if a spouse travels with an MP, that is a general cost to Parliament, and means the party’s parliamentary budget is not impacted.

Norman also spent $3794 on taxis and hire cars, but emphasised that he had not been claiming any taxi and accommodation expenses in the Mt Albert campaign.

That’s $250 a week on taxis – guess the buses do not come enough.

“When in Wellington, I generally catch the bus to work at Parliament. I often get a taxi home when the buses have stopped,”

At $250 a week, I’d say the taxis are more than just going home at night.

Norman says his travel expenses may be higher than many other MPs, because as co-leader of the Greens he is required to attend events and meetings around the country.

Yep, and many of these will be Green Party events. I don’t think it is practical to try and differentiate these from other events MPs travel to, but it is worth remembering that when the Greens call for further taxpayer funding of parties, that parties already receive considerable benefits from parliamentary funding.

Boscawen:

The Auckland-based MP pays $160 a night to stay in the Bolton St Hotel, three minutes’ walk from Parliament.

He ran up $3500 in hotel expenses in the first five months after the election. he expects to claim up to $6000 on Wellington accommodation expenses this financial year, which ends next month.

Sounds like John only comes to Wellington when the House is sitting.

Boscawen estimated his domestic air travel will have cost the taxpayer up to $13,000. That included regular travel between Auckland and Wellington, and two trips to Christchurch.

He was also claiming for two return trips to Wellington made by his partner Jane, one for the opening of Parliament and the other for his maiden speech. “She is entitled to have travelled far more frequently, but works five days a week,” he says.

Boscawen also flew business class to Vietnam and Japan last month as a member of the Speaker’s Tour, at an estimated public cost of $10,000.

Act MPs are opening an Auckland office, but Boscawen did not know how many items costing more than $500 he would buy. As for alcohol bought for Parliamentary business? “I do not drink alcohol,” he says.

No scandal there.

Matt McCarten looks at Mt Albert again:

Goff’s photo opportunity last Sunday with the accepted nominees was to showcase their line-up. Goff obviously wanted to be seen as stamping his leadership on the party when he announced he had interviewed all the nominees. But selections are for the party organisation, not the caucus.

I know of no previous example in which the parliamentary leader gets this involved. It’s the party president’s job to manage selections. So it speaks volumes that the Labour Party president, Andrew Little, wasn’t even in the picture.

I’ve never heard of the party leader interviewing candidates. Poor Mt Albert electorate seem to be getting little say – which makes the slogan of “Put Mt Albert first” rather ironic.

Even Goff’s rather public recruitment of getting an outside high-profile candidate seems to be backfiring. The extraordinary opinion of Goff’s favourite, David Shearer, that we should use mercenaries in international hotspots is a real clanger.

The Labour Party is opposed to the privatisation of prisons, but I’m not sure how Goff spins his way out of his candidate supporting the privatisation of war.

Labour should be very grateful that McCarten is not going to be involved in the Mt Albert campaign. Why? Well on Thursday night a high profile left winger told me that if Shearer is the candidate, someone should arrange a dozen teenagers dressed as mercenaries to follow him about everywhere he goes – not saying anything or doing anything – just silently standing there as guards.

I thought this was a brillant idea for a party of the left to do (Nats can’t do it as they agree with Shearer on privatisation). The Greens get sniffy about such stunts. But, think of the fun if McCarten was involved. I still remember his chicken suit from the 1998 TKC by-election – it probably cost National 2,000 votes. McCarten would probably not just have a dozen mercenaries on the campaign trail, but have them wheeling a coffin about too.

With Shearer now causing serious concerns among the locals there is a real potential that any successful nominee will have minority support in the electorate and that Labour’s head office will effectively make the decision for them.

The Greens will be silently praying that Labour picks Shearer.

The Greens have always resented the way that Labour has taken them for granted and constantly sniggered about their MPs behind their backs. The Green candidate and party co-leader, Russel Norman, knows he has a golden opportunity to brand his party’s message and differentiation from Labour.

Byelections are unpredictable. At present, no one would pick Norman to win. But as someone who has managed a few close-call byelections, I know that a third party candidate can pull it off, given the right circumstances.

I agree. And they can have a powerful message about tactical voting to get a Green electorate MP to help Labour have a guaranteed coalition partner in future.

If the polls during the campaign start to show a trend toward the Greens, then anything is possible.

A lot will come down to Labour’s selection today.

Phil Goff, making a virtue out of necessity, has adopted the bloggers line of warning that as the other parties are putting up List MPs, someone on their list will enter Parliament if they win. And with the story that ACT will probably put up John Boscawen, this is very true.

So who will enter Parliament, if various List MPs contest and win the seat?

If National’s Melissa Lee is the candidate, then Cam Calder, No 58 on National’s list, becomes an MP. How it works is Melissa resigns as a List MP once she is the MT for Mt Albert, and this creates a list vacancy for National. Cam was an MP for a few days after the 2008 election but lost his seat when specials changed the final allocation. Calder stood for Manurewa and was a dental surgeon, but now is the clinicial director of a medical and sporting equipment company. Also Cam is a mad keen petanque player and actually sit on the executive committee of its global governing body.

If Russel Norman wins the seat for the Greens, then David Clendon, No 10 on the Greens list, becomes an MP. He actually lives in Mt Albert.

If John Boscawen wins the seat for ACT, then Hilary Calvert, No 6 on the ACT List, becomes an MP. Hilary lives in Dunedin and is a lawyer.

Oh dear. This is from bFM today:

GOFF: Well what, what will happen is all of, all of Labour’s candidates are non-Parliamentarians so whoever, ah, is selected it’s the candidate, ah, if they go through to win in the by-election then they simply, ah, are additional an electoral MP for, ah, the Labour Party replacing Helen Clark. So the numbers stay the same. Now what, what will make, ah, the Labour candidate, I think unique amongst the major contenders is that the other two contenders are both sitting MPs, ah, Melissa, well they think they will be. Melissa Lee is the hot on favourite for, for the National Party. She’s already a Member of Parliament of course, a list member of Parliament, ah, as is, um, Russel, um, oh God, forgot his surname, ah, Russel, help me out [laughs], the co-leader of the Greens.

PRESENTER: Russel Norman.

GOFF: Norman, yeah that’s the one, ah, so, ah, Russel and Melissa are already Members of Parliament and I guess that might, ah, cause some electors to reflect. Well, why would we vote for an existing Member of Parliament because they’re already there? But, but if either of them were to win then, ah, of course somebody else would come off the list in their party.

That’s the one!

You could understand him forgetting the name of say Larry Sutherland when Larry was an MP. Larry probably even forgot his own name. But the co-leader of their biggest ally!

Back on 16 April I blogged:

Mt Albert is already one of the strongest seats for the Greens. So how would they get Labour voters to vote for the Green candidate? Apart from the fact it won’t bring Judith Tizard back into Parliament?

You make two cases to the voters of Mt Albert:

1. It is almost impossible for Labour to be able to form a future Government unless the Greens are in Parliament. Former partners such as the Alliance and NZ First have disappeared and United Future and Progressive and one MP parties now. The Maori Party is currently very hostile, but even with the Maori Party, Labour without the Greens would need more votes than it has ever got before. Bottom line is Labour needs the Greens in Parliament.
2. The Greens need the safety net of an electorate seat. They are the only party in Parliament without an electorate seat. In two of the last four elections, they have just scraped in above 5%. If they drop below 5% with no electorate seat they are out of Parliament, and may never return.

Voters can grasp how to be strategic in MMP. They did it in 1996 in Wellington Central and 2005 in Epsom. No reason Mt Albert can’t do it in 2009.

So the Greens should go all out to win the seat. So who do they stand? The next candidate on their list, David Clendon, lives in (or near) Mt Albert I think, but he isn’t a heavy hitter. A by-election is like a mini general election in just one seat.

Normally I would say stand a co-leader.

Now I did then say that Norman is probably too associated with Wellington, but nevertheless think I get partial credit for predicting this story in the Herald today:

The Greens are showing Labour no mercy, with co-leader Russel Norman aiming to stand in the Mt Albert byelection, a move that will increase National’s chances of dealing Labour a humiliating defeat.

I would not rule out the Greens managing to win the seat. Look at these:

1. ACT came second to National in TKC in 1998 by only 988 votes
2. Alliance came very close second to National in Tamaki in 1992
3. Alliance came second to National in Selwyn in 1994 by only 428 votes
4. Social Credit won East Coast Bays in 1980 by 951 votes

Third parties historically do very well in by-elections, as people vote tactically. It will be very interesting to see some early polls in the seat. If they show Norman at over 15%, then I would say it could be game on.

A bad-tempered e-mail forwarded to me reveals that Green Party co-leader Russel Norman has written to political scientists Nigel Roberts and Stephen Levine to try to stop them publishing the research of an academic opponent of the Electoral Finance Act. Levine and Roberts are currently editing their traditional post-election book due out soon, and the book contains a chapter written by University of Otago political scientist Bryce Edwards who is evaluating the impact that the EFA had on last years’ election campaign. Norman has emailed them to essentially say that they shouldn’t be publishing it and that Edwards shouldn’t be researching in this area.

The email from Norman, which was sent to Edwards, and which he kindly forwarded to me, is rather extraordinary, and gives an interesting insight into how thin skinned the Greens (or Norman anyway) is of dissenting views. Despite having a PhD himself, Norman is clearly he’s no fan of academic freedom. Edwards has been widely published and reported on in the area of political finance, yet according to Norman, Edwards, “lacks academic credibility in this area”. Could it be that Norman still can’t handle having the EFA criticized? It seems that Norman and the Greens have dug themselves into a hole on the EFA, and while everyone other former fan of the now-repealed legislation has given up trying to defend the indefensible, the Greens are tying themselves up in knots over it all. They are in a political bunker on the EFA and the idea of an opponent of the EFA researching the effect of the legislation is just too much for them.

Worse than that – in Russel Norman’s view – Edwards has said some critical things about the Greens on his blog! Oh dear. Norman says in his email to Edwards, which Norman also creepily sent to the book editors, ‘you have demonstrated a long history of bias against the Green Party, and you have consistently made untrue statements about the Green Party’. Geez, is Norman turning into Winston Peters?! Norman says: ‘Your previous writing leads me to the view that you are simply unable to give a dispassionate academic account of the EFA’s impact on political parties due both to your virulent opposition to the EFA and to your one-sided and inaccurate commentary on the EFA and the Green Party’. Norman or his staff seemingly went through two and a half years of writings by Edwards to compile their dossier on him.

In fact Norman’s email tirade reads like something Rob Muldoon might have said when he was at his worst. The National Party gets requests from lefty academics all the time, but I doubt that the party then sends out hostile replies that question the academic’s integrity because they might be politically biased! I thought that everyone now accepts that academics have their own biases and that for them to pretend otherwise is just a sham.

Put it like this. Jane Kelsey has well known views on free trade. Think how much outrage there would be if the leader of the National Party fired off an e-mail to senior academics saying Kelsey should not be allowed to publish academic reseaerch on free trade, because she doesn’t support it, and she is biased against parties that do support it? There would be an avalanche of outrage – the Association of University Staff would leap in to defend academic freedom etc. Luckily most National MPs have better things to do than try and get academics prevented from publishing academic research.

And funnily enough, Russel Norman’s nasty little email was actually in response to Edwards kindly inviting Norman to have an input into his research. Considering the Green Party had problems obeying the EFA, I would have thought they would have wanted to detail these problems so a replacement law can avoid the mistakes of the EFA.

Just watched the first Q&A. Overall pretty good.

The Guyon Espiner interview with Key was solid. He probed Key on lots of areas – and Key actually revealed quite a bit of stuff we didn’t know.

The panel was Therese Arseneau (who is permanent) and Phil O’Reilly and Russel Norman. I did find it unusual that you would have the leader of an opposition party as one of the panelists discussing the interview of the Prime Minister. I would have thought MPs should only ever be interview subjects, not panelists discussing other MPs.

The second interview (done by Holmes) was with Andrew Little. I was amused to see footage of Andrew in the mid 80s (when I first met him) and even more amused that they dug out a televised exchange between Andrew as NZUSA President telling Tertiary Education Minister Phil Goff that he is talking nonsense and Goff asking Andrew to stop talking over him. The moderator was a very dapper Lindsay Perigo!

I thought it was revealing when Andrew said “Labour has Phil Goff as its Leader – it only has one leader – it’s Phil Goff”. I was waiting for the “for now”

Andrew did say that he had criticised Labour in the past as EPMU National Secretary. I think he misses the point that yes he did in the past, but now he is Labour Party President he could never criticise Labour publicly.

More revealing I thought was that he appeared to be saying he would be a President more in the style of Judy Kirk – behind the scenes, than Mike Williams who was very high profile.

Andrew finished by saying his record shows that he is very professional (and to be fair to Andrew few would dispute that) when dealing with workers issues, and already has been working with a number of Ministers.

Holmes asked if he would stand for Rongotai if Annette King stands for Mayor and vacates her seat before 2011, and Andrew kept his options open saying he has not considered that scenario. I read that as a “yes”.

I was surprised Holmes was relatively tough on Little. In my mind I saw Guyon as doing the tougher interviews, and Holmes doing the slightly less pointed ones. But Holmes pushed Andrew quite hard and asked some very good questions.

Therese made a very interesting point about Andrew’s two hats that he may build up a bigger media profile than Goff, because he is so often in the news as EPMU National Secretary.

Russel Norman made the point that while it is good to see Labour promoting insulating homes now, that getting them to agree to the package before the election was like pulling teeth.  Normal also acknolwedged that National is wrong footing Labour by doing things both on the right and the left.

Overall the panel discussion moderated by Holmes went very smoothly I thought.

I think that TVNZ will be pretty pleased with their first episode.

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

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

The best argument for common sense comes from Russel Norman:

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

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

The scond stupidest statement is from Phil Goff:

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

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

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

Then we have Jim:

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

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

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

The Greens cement their position as extremists, by announcing they are going to vote against the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act.

Russel Norman say:

The Electoral Finance Act can be better but even now it does a lot more good than bad.

More good than bad. I wish I could live in that universe.

This just shows what antipathy they have for people spending their own money on having a voice, rather than looting the taxpayer for funding.

The Herald on Sunday interviews Katya Paquin, partner of Green co-leader Russel Norman, as she battles a brain tumour, first diagnosed in 2005. It is hard to imagine how challenging coping with that must be, and one can only hope that upcoming surgery is as sucessful as it can be.

Paquin and Norman met through the Greens, when she was an intern and Norman a secretary.

Paquin heads up the Green’s advisory unit, and has a law degree and honours in politics.

Her sister Anna Paquin, is of course the famous actress. A new series in the US called True Blood has Anna in the lead role as Sookie Stackhouse and I’ve watched the first couple of episodes. You almost do not recognise Paquin at first as she has long blond hair, and has that Southern US accent down so well. It’s a great TV show, which will get a cult following I predict.

Apart from the personal stuff on Paquin, there are some interesting political points in the interview:

The couple’s combined dedication to the cause goes back to their first meeting at work. Their common aim now, apart from conquering Paquin’s tumour, is to help the Greens get across the 5 per cent vote threshold at the general election.

This is the major challenge for the Greens – to stay in Parliament. As I have said previously I think a different strategy could have them close to 10%, but the polls have them perilously close to 5%.

It’s a campaign that will be run very differently this time around, they say, a campaign which will be strictly independent from Labour. There will be no “Jeanette and Helen limo” shots after Labour’s deal with New Zealand First in 2005.

“I felt she [Clark] sold us down the river,” says Norman. “I think it was a bit of a shock to the party, to all of us.

And if NZ First makes it back, Clark will choose them over the Greens again. Could anyone imagine Helen Clark spending so much political capital on defending Jeanette Fitzsimons or Norman himself?

Based on the polls Labour is “clearly” in trouble and “those polls have been pretty consistent”.

With the Greens now wary of Labour, Norman says they would consider working with National.

“It depends on policy. If we could have an agreement on a public transport system for Auckland, reduce our greenhouse emissions – for us it’s about policy gains so we will work on that basis with whoever, that’s what it’s got to be about.”

I don’t think there is any question that the Greens, if in Parliament, would always vote to have a Labour-led Government over a National-led Government if they are in a position to decide. This is of course why Labour takes them for granted.

However if National can govern without the Greens, but is still willing to negotiate a policy agreement with them in exchange for perhaps an abstention on confidence and supply, then it would be worthwhile to at least try and form an agreement. It might in the end prove impossible, but it would be nice to be able to say “We agree in these areas and will work together”.

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?

Labour have learnt nothing from the Electoral Finance Act. It was a partisan attempt to skew the electoral laws in their favour. And they have done it again their announcement of an expert panel to review electoral administration and political party funding.

Electoral law does not belong to Labour. It represents the basic constitution of our country. And once again they are desperately trying to bring in further state funding of political parties.

Labour have announced the expert panel just weeks out from a general election. That is bad enough and a breach of conventions. A panel which reviews electoral law is a bloody significant appointment. But they totally failed to consult the Opposition on its composition. Electoral law issues should be as bi-partisan as possible. Sure at the end of the day, parties may have to agree to disagree, but you do not start off the process by excluding the major Opposition party.

I made this point back in June, when the proposal was announced. I said:

1. The independent experts must be chosen by a super majority of parliamentary parties, not just by the Government of the day. The formula which I like is that any appointments must be agreed to by party leaders representing over 75% of the MPs and over 50% of the parties in Parliament. This means that not only must both major parties agree, but so must at least half of the minor parties.
2. The issues, terms of references and high level process must also be signed off by that super-majority. The most unforgivable crime that Labour and the Greens have done with the EFA is to treat electoral law as a bauble for the winner, rather than a bipartisan constitutional law.
3. Issues referred to a Citizen’s Jury should be in totality, not just a narrow aspect such as taxpayer funding of political parties. It is ridicolous to exclude from consideration all the issues dealt with by the Electoral Finance Act. In fact the EFA should be abolished immediately upon a change of Government, and a citizen’s jury could be used as part of the process of consulting on and determining its replacement.

You see the concept of a panel of exports and a citizen’s jury is not without merit. But as usual Labour’s desperation to skew everything, destroys what should be a worthwhile endeavour. Now that was not just my view back in June, but also Green co-leader Russel Norman agreed partially with me:

David Farrar says some silly National Party things about the citz assembly but he also makes some good points over at Kiwiblog. He says the political party buyin should be as broad as possible – I agree with that but don’t know how to acheive it give the politicisation of the issue.

He also says that the terms of reference should be broad. I agree that they should be broader than simply ’state funding of parties’ but after talking to Jonathan Rose (an expert on citz assemblies) I’m not sure the ToR should be too broad. He says that if they’re too broad the assembly lacks focus. maybe there is a compromise in there somewhere.

So did Russel stand up to Labour and say don’t just appoint a panel without consulting the other parties. We insist you go to National and ask if they have any recommended panelists and what they think of the ones you propose? No they roll over, as usual:

“The Forum will provide much needed independence in the review of election funding”, Green Party Co-Leader Russel Norman says.

Independent? When the Government hand picks the panel that will advise them?

“While the Act was needed to close loopholes in the law revealed at the last election, we need a more inclusive and disinterested process to further consider the bigger picture of political party and election funding.

“We hope that all New Zealanders will support this process and that we can find a place to have some non-partisan reasoned discussion about the future of our democracy.”

Non-partisan??? Fuck all hope of that considering there was *zero* consultation with the Opposition.

Now I am not attacking the integrity of any the three panelists. I know two of them, and they have a lot to contribute in this area. However the Government has obviously chosen the panel, based on the known viewpoints of some of them. Associate Professor Geddis has written supportively of state funding on many occassions and in the Press described the issue as:

This failure to really debate the pros and cons of public funding is regrettable. The public was never given the choice of whether it would rather politicians get their money from large, hidden, private donations or taxpayer grants.

Now if the citizens assembly gets the choice described to them in that terms, I can guarantee you what they will say. Just as if you describe it as “Should parties raise their own money from volunteers and supporters or take it from unwilling taxpayers” you would get a quite different result from the assembly.

Now I am not saying Geddis, would put choices in as crude terms as he did in The Press article. He has written some very useful stuff on the issue. I am not even saying I would not have him on the panel. What I am saying is that the process has been tainted from the very beginning by the lack of consultation with the Opposition.

Also ironically Andrew Geddis now is the victim of something he advocated against:

First, the failure to consult with opposition parties before introducing the Bill to the House leaves it vulnerable to allegations of partisanship. Electoral law should not be, nor be seen to be, a vehicle for one party to gain an advantage over others.

Geddis is right. Maybe he should have made a condition of his participation on the panel, being that the Government consult on its membership.

The panel and assembly should be terminated if there is a change of Government. However I would advocate that a National-led Government look at using a similiar mechanism in reviewing parts of the Electoral Act post-election. And they should consult with and get buy-in from all the parties on the composition and terms of reference of such a panel.

Three minor “leaders”

1. Rodney Hide, ACT
2. Russel Norman, Greens
3. Derek Fox, Maori Party

Russel Norman

Environment movement needs to move beyond treating humans as a virus infecting the planet. Not about just doing less bad, but more good. Business sector is key part of this.

Need to transition to a sustainable economy. I then drifted off as various enviromental and resources issues were outlined. I do find the Q&A sessions much more useful than just plenary speeches.

Rodney Hide

Talked of Sir Roger’s goal to beat Australia by 2020 – and not just in the rugby or the netball. Says he loved it. Much more inspiring than some OECD average.

Said that he wanted Sir Roger around cabinet table as if he could convince a Labour Cabinet the merits of free market policies, sh should be able to do the same with a National Cabinet

Repeated Douglas on holding govt spending to inflation and population will allow a personal and company tax rate of 20%.

Derek Fox

I’ve got bored with the leaders and am working on some further Winston stuff, so no summary of Derek. Generally not a useful content compared to the Q&A which I thought worked very well.

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.

The NZ Herald reports:

The immediate past president of the Bar Association, Jim Farmer, QC, says the Law Society could be interested in the way Mr Henry is paid. …

Mr Henry told the committee that none of Mr Glenn’s $100,000 was used to pay for the $40,000 paid to Mr Clarkson’s solicitor for the costs settlement in March 2006.

How can he know this? If $100,000 from Glenn went into Henry’s bank account and he paid $40,000 to Clarkson from the same account, then it is all mixed in together. Possibly the $100,000 went into his business account and he paid the $40,000 from his personal account – in which case that conclusion would be more warranted. This would be the correct way of doing it, as the $40,000 Henry paid is not a tax deductible expense. It was not a debt he owed, so he should have paid it out of his after tax income, not his pre-tax income.

And while they are not issues for the Privileges Committee, I have received expert advice that the $40,000 payment was a gift to Peters and should have had gift duty paid on it by Henry. If Henry failed to pay gift duty on it, then Peters is liable for the gift duty.

Dr Norman raised the question of the $40,000 costs and said yesterday he had received a tip-off that it could be an interesting line of questioning. He said the $40,000 payment was more clear-cut than the Owen Glenn donation. “It’s absolutely black and white.”

Mr Peters had a personal debt and Mr Henry paid for it, he said.

“If you have got a debt and someone pays it for you then you should declare that someone had paid it, even if you don’t know who did.

Russel Norman is quite correct that the $40,000 is black and white compared to the other issues.

“There is just some pool in which debits and credits seems to float. It’s incredible – in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars both ways – and it is very hard to prove anything.”

One question is why is it done in this way? Why not set up a legal trust with some trustees to fundraise for the legal bills? Have WInston declare his beneficial interest in the trust. That is how Nick Smith did it, and would seem to be a far more appropriate way to do it.

Dr Farmer described the relationship as “extremely unorthodox”.

Being paid by some third party [Owen Glenn] and the client not knowing was unheard of, he said.

So was the personal payment of $40,000 by Mr Henry.

“I think it might be of concern to the Law Society,” Mr Farmer said.

“Is it right for a barrister to receive $100,000 from a third party where there has never been a fee note rendered to the solicitor instructing him? I would have thought the Law Society would have real concerns about that.”

The president of the Auckland District Law Society, Keith Berman, said it was also very unusual.

“The issue which is uncertain is whether Brian is handling money on behalf of a client or just receiving money in payment of a bill. But as I understand it, he doesn’t issue a bill.”

Interesting issues indeed.

Tracy Watkins writes in the Dom Post:

But Mr Henry’s disclosure that he personally paid the $40,000 in court-ordered legal costs against Mr Peters means it could be considered a gift.

Mr Peters and Mr Henry were at odds over who made the payment, with Mr Peters suggesting he had paid it himself.

How can you not know whether or not you paid $40,000 to Bob Clarkson? If it was $400 maybe, but $40,000?

For that long Sunday afternoon:

The NZ Book Council have a very cool website to encourage reading. They’ve done it as a Windows operating system.

Scrubone does a fisking of No Right Turn’s outrage at National over citizen juries. Also on that issue, Russel Norman at Frog Blog agrees with some of my suggestions around Citizen’s Juries – specifically the need for multi-partisan agreement not narrow agreement.

Paul Walker responds to Matt McCarten’s hysteria over the Business Roundtable.

Whale Oil likes his stats comparison with Kiwiblog. Obviously girls and guns work

Craig Foss looks at how Dr Cullen is financing his tax cuts – he is borrowing $6.4 billion and also selling $6.4 billion of financial assets breaking one of his four tests. This last one is particularly cunning as it allows him to claim gross debt remains on track. This si why net debt is the better indicator.

Colin Espiner reviews the Reserve Bank MPS and the polls.

Bernard Hickey believes Alan Bollard has gone soft on inflation, as does the Westpac Chief Economist.

Just go read the column.

The Dominion Post is also not impressed with the Greens putting aisde their party list they were elected on in 2005, to leapfrog Russel Norman into Parliament.

Those pondering whether to cast a Green Party vote can pore over the details and the rankings, weighing the merits of those at the top of the list against what other, smaller list-based parties have to offer.

They should be aware they are wasting their time.

The appointment of Green Party co-leader Russel Norman as an MP shows that, when push comes to shove, the Greens will put party needs above voter preference and shuffle the deck to deliver the MPs the party wants rather than delivering the ones on the list the public voted for.

This is the key issue. It is nothing personal about Russel who I am sure will become an MP anyway later this year. It is about whether or not you respect the list put up at an election.

Those who argue that what the Greens are doing is not wrong, should consider the logical ultimate outcome of that argument. If List MPs are there purely as creatures of the party – to be elected and retired at whim, then why even have a public list before the election? Just tell the party they have X MPs, and they can appoint whomever they want as MPs at any time.

Putting Dr Norman into Parliament this late in the electoral cycle will not see him contribute hugely to the work of Parliament. What it will do is give him a platform from which to expound his views, and access to the resources, such as taxpayer-funded air travel, that give MPs a massive advantage in campaigning nationwide.

Indeed. This is being done not to further the work of Parliament, but to allow greater use of taxpayer resources for their election campaign.

The Herald reports on how the Greens want to get a Citizen’s Jury on the issue of state funding of political parties underway as soon as possible, so National can’t abolish it after the election.

Now if done the right way, I am quite a fan of citizen’s juries. But everything about this is being done the wrong way.

The outcome has been predetermined. Instead of being set up in bipartisan fashion on matters such as the type of electoral system, it has been set up to deliver just one result – increased taxpayer funding of political parties. Labour and the Greens both want that as the outcome, tried to do it through the EFA, and having somewhat failed are now trying to do it again.

Labour are quite simply corrupt when it comes to electoral law issues, and any process which involves them as Government choosing the expert panel which advises the Citizen’s Jury should be treated as naked self interest. Hell Mike Williams will probably end up as the Chair.

The Greens are little better than Labour in this area. They have absolutely no comitment to a fair process unless it achieves the outcome they want. Look at the Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering? That had it all – independent commissioners, scientific evidence, hearings etc. And the moment it didn’t recommend what the Greens wanted – they attacked it.

So this process is a total sham. It is designed for one purpose only – to let Labour and the Greens use more taxpayer money on their election campaigns. After what Labour and Greens did with the EFA, they should frankly be seen as incompetent to have a say on these issues.

Now this is not to say the concept of Citizen’s Juries do not have a place in electoral law making. I think they do. They can provide some very useful input if done the right way. But the way I would use such Juries are as follows:

1. The independent experts must be chosen by a super majority of parliamentary parties, not just by the Government of the day. The formula which I like is that any appointments must be agreed to by party leaders representing over 75% of the MPs and over 50% of the parties in Parliament. This means that not only must both major parties agree, but so must at least half of the minor parties.
2. The issues, terms of references and high level process must also be signed off by that super-majority. The most unforgivable crime that Labour and the Greens have done with the EFA is to treat electoral law as a bauble for the winner, rather than a bipartisan constitutional law.
3. Issues referred to a Citizen’s Jury should be in totality, not just a narrow aspect such as taxpayer funding of political parties. It is ridicolous to exclude from consideration all the issues dealt with by the Electoral Finance Act. In fact the EFA should be abolished immediately upon a change of Government, and a citizen’s jury could be used as part of the process of consulting on and determining its replacement.

It is a shame that what is a perfectly fine concept is being damaged by its use by the Greens and Labour in such a partisan fashion. I mean Russel Norman is already calling for its timelines to be determined so that National can be attacked over it, rather than any sense of what a proper time-frame would be.

Mike Ward has succumbed to the pressure and has agreed to refuse his place in Parliament so Russel Norman can use taxpayer funded resources to campaign.

I blogged a couple of weeks ago that the Greens were trying to do two things – both of which work sit badly with me. The first is having MPs resign before for their term in Parliament is up, purely for tactical partisan reasons. You rejuvenate a party at elections, not between them.

The second is changing the order of the list post election. The Greens put a lot of stress on the fact their members rank the list, yet they have ignored the will of their members who ranked the 2005 party list – the only one which the public have had a chance to vote on with their party vote.

There is no way one can stop an MP resigning early, but one could have a simple law change to remove the ability for a list candidate to refuse to become an MP. They could still be elected and then resign, but that extra step might stop them from doing private deals to change the effective order of a list post-election.

Let ti be noted that Phil U was right when he blogged in January that there was a plan to put Russel Norman into Parliament before the election by having Nandor fall on his sword. I linked to his story and it then became a major news story – sadly with no crediting Phil as the original author.

There would be significant advantages to the Greens to having Russel, who was only No 10 last time, be in Parliament this year so he could campaign around the country funded by the taxpayer, as other MPs are.

For this to happen, they needed three things. Nandor to agree to resign. Catherine Delahunty to agree to refuse to be an MP, and for Mike Ward to refuse to be an MP.

Mike has refused, as he should. Incidentially Ward was ranked dismally low by the party hierarchy in their initial list ranking for 2008 and massively promoted by rank and file members. But his 2008 list ranking is not important – his 2005 one is.

There were two things which the Greens were trying to do, which sit badly with me. I’ll take them one by one.

1 – MPs resigning before the election

Labour is more guilty than the Greens here, but the idea of a party list is not to shuffle MPs off half way through a parliamentary term at whim. MPs are elected by the NZ public to serve three years and in all but exceptional cases they should. Steve Maharey becoming a VC is a worthy exception (yes I know he was not List but same principle). And Bolger becoming Ambassador is another. And few would fault a Party Leader from departing the scene once they are no longer leader. But these are rare exceptional circumstances.

Generally the public have the right to expect that the MPs they elect by voting for a Party and that party’s list, are going to represent the public throughout the term of Parliament. No wonder there is resentment against MMP when List MPs are treated purely as creatures of the party.

Labour since the election has dispatched Jim Sutton (No 11 on list, No 4 on effective list), Di Yates, Ann Hartley, and Georgina Beyer.

2 – Changing the order of the list post-election

Pressuring candidates to stand aside for someone more lowly ranked to become an MP is also anti-democratic and flys in the face of the public making an informed choice by voting for a party with an expectation of who will be MPs.

The Green Party members ranked Mike Ward No 8  and Russel Norman No 10 last election. People voted for the Green Party on the basis. Yes I know very few voters would now the exact details of the list, but that is not a reason to ignore its importance. If you argue who is on the list does not matter, then why not allow parties to have blank lists and let them appoint who they want at any time to be an MP for them.

For that is what the Greens, and to a degree Labour, have tried to do.  Have the party rather than the public determine who becomes an MP.