Kiwiblog

Oh my God. How can this not be a caption contest. Remember they should be funny, not nasty. And try to not make them too dirty.

Photo from Heather du Plessis-Allan on Twitter.

Question 3 yesterday:

Dr Russel Norman: Why is he ignoring the advice of the OECD, the IMF, and the Savings Working Group, that have found that New Zealand is now an outlier in not having a comprehensive tax on capital gains, the absence of which seriously undermines Government revenue, and also directs capital into the non-productive sector, the housing sector?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think this is the week to be looking closely at the IMF

Heh.

Green co-leader Russel Norman tweeted:

Call me old fashioned but aren’t we different to terrorists because we don’t assassinate people and we adhere to rule of law?

As most of the world celebrates, the Greens demonise the United States.

Does Dr Norman think that the US should have knocked on the front door of the highly fortified compound, and asked bin Laden to come out and surrender? That would have probably resulted in a death toll of hundreds – and possibly lead to bin Laden escaping.

When will the Greens realse that heading up a terrorist army is not the same thing as being some thug who held up a dairy with a gun.

The US action was legal under US law. It was authorised, and bin Laden was a legitimate military target. Again, he was not some bank robber, but head of a global army of terrorists.

Also Dr Norman misses the key point of terrorists. Terrorists deliberately attack civilians and the more dead civilians the more sucessful they deem their attack to be. In military operations, the more dead civilians, the bigger the failure it has been.

I groaned when I saw this headline in the Dom Post:

Paquin to become aunt

And the first sentence was:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman and his partner are to make Oscar-winning actress Anna Paquin an aunt.

You know, I really don’t think Dr Norman and Katya Paquin are having a baby just so Anna can be an aunt.

Yes Anna is a famous actress (and I am a huge fan of her acting ability) and it is to be expected that there might be some mention in the story that she is Katya’s sister and hence aunt to be.

But making the headline and lead sentence all about the sister is rather inappropriate in my opinion.

Anyway congratulations to Russel and Katya on their baby to be. I’m informed your lives will never quite be the same again – in a good way!

Some common sense from Phil Goff on the China protest issue:

Labour leader Phil Goff said there mistakes on both sides.

“The Chinese security guard had no right to seize the flag from Russel Norman. There is an absolute right of peaceful protest in this country that we must uphold.”

And I agree. They had a right to stop Norman from advancing any closer, but they had no right to try and hide his flag. They were clearly wrong to do so.

But Mr Goff said Dr Norman could have acted with more restraint.

“Did Russel Norman behave with the dignity you might have expected of an MP? I think he might have learned from (former Greens leader) Rod Donald’s lesson of standing back, giving a bit of space, making the point, but not being confrontational.”

Exactly. He was advancing on the Vice-President and got very very close to him. If he had done what Rod Donald did, then the fracas would never have happened. The suspicion is that maybe he did it deliberately.

Mr Goff said there needed to be a clear protocol allowing peaceful protest but at the same time giving space and dignity to visitors.

Yep. If MPs wish to protest on the forecourt they have every right to. But they don’t have the right to impede the right of overseas leaders from entering buildings, or to be so close to them they represent a threat to their dignity (such as having a flag thrown over them) – NZ in fact has an obligation under Article 29 of the Vienna Convention:

The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.

This is why John Key apologised – not for the protest by Norman, but the failure in security that allowed him to get within spitting or throwing distance.

He said there was some confusion which could have been avoided on Friday.

“A quiet word beforehand between Russel Norman and the diplomatic police could have set a situation where a protest could have been made without the incident occurring.”

Exactly. Bravo to Phil Goff for taking a fair approach on this.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key telephoned the most senior minister in the visiting Chinese delegation to apologise for the scuffle during the arrival of Vice-President Xi Jingping at Parliament.

I can understand why the PM felt it was necessary – because the screaming yelling protester was not just a member of the public, but a leader of a parliamentary party.

But having said that, I don’t think it was appropriate for the PM to apologise. He is not responsible for Norman, and by doing so may confuse the difference between the Government and the Parliament.

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully has also called for a full report on the incident from his ministry and he would like to see a protocol developed between the Speaker and protesting MPs for future visits.

This I think is a very good idea. The right to protest must be protected, but this doesn’t mean you allow protesters to get within a couple of metres of visiting VIPs – even if an MP.

If Norman had not been advancing on the Vice-President, this incident probably would not have happened. As a contrast Chris Trotter remembers Rod Donald:

My abiding memory of this remarkable man – my friend – Rod Donald, will be of him standing alone at the foot of the parliamentary steps, his face a mixture of sadness and defiance, holding up the forbidden Tibetan flag. It was a noble protest – and all the more effective for being conducted not by some raggle-taggle band of New Age anarchists, but by a senior Member of Parliament and party leader, dressed proudly and patriotically in his best, New Zealand-made, suit.

No advancing on the Vice-President, no shouting, no scruffling. That is the way to do it if you want to be an MP making a protest.

I am no fan of China’s repression. I think there should be protests when their VIPs visit. If the Greens had organised a Free Tibet protest outside Parliament, I might have even gone along to it.

Now having said that, it is clear that engagement with China is the only sane course of action. Refusing to trade or talk to them would be stupid. The trick is getting the balance of engagement and protest right.  And broadly you expect the Government to engage and civil society to protest. There is a time when Governments also protest – but that tends to be in response to specific events.

UPDATE: Colin Espiner blogs:

I know it’s fashionable to hate the Chinese, and everyone wants a free Tibet.

So much so you’d think they were handing them out in Weetbix packets.

But while I’ll probably get into trouble with the Left for saying this, I’m sorry, but Green Party co-leader Russel Norman was an embarrassment to himself, Parliament, and New Zealand with his protest against the Chinese vice-president’s visit last week. …

When I heard that Norman’s flag had been “trampled” I thought that was a bit on the nose, too, so I took a look at the video.

Strange how none of the many cameras there – both still and TV – managed to capture the so-called attack, or the flag trampling.

What they did capture, though, was an MP behaving in a way that no self-respecting member of Parliament with any dignity should behave.

Don’t get me wrong. I fully support Russel Norman’s right to have his say. This is a free country, unlike China.

But sometimes, I think the RIGHT to free speech and EXERCISING it are confused.

For example, I can walk down the street and tell someone I don’t know that they’re fat. I have that right. But to do so would be impolite and irresponsible.

One of the deals of having freedom is the responsibility that comes with it over how you use it.

A point well made.

If Russel Norman was a private citizen he’d be banned from the steps of Parliament as a protester. He’d be behind the gates further down, where he could yell and scream to his heart’s content.

But he’s not a private citizen. He’s a member of Parliament. An employee and a representative of the people.

That meant Norman got to go right up to the Chinese VP, yell in his face, and wave a flag at him.

Unless the video I saw has been doctored, I saw Norman lunging at the VP and then yelling “give me my flag back” after one of his security guards grabbed it.

Colin makes the same point I have made – it was a long way removed from what Rod Donald did.

Superb as usual:

Foreign Minister Murray McCully has been severely reprimanded by Chinese Ambassador Zhang Limin for exercising poor judgement when using his Ministerial credit card, the Chinese Embassy announced today.

Previously Prime Minister John Key has defended McCully’s $2000 laundry bill and high alcohol expenditure but the Chinese Ambassador has overruled Key’s position, calling McCully’s spending ‘unseemly and non-magnificent’, and issuing a formal reprimand of the Foreign Minister.

‘We feel the Minister’s level of decadence is inappropriate and counter-revolutionary,’ the Ambassador announced. ‘This behaviour is not acceptable from Party functionaries and will not be tolerated.’

McCully has accepted the censure and thanked the Ambassador for his criticism. ‘Only through the wisdom of his Excellency can I reform my thoughts and become a better servant,’ McCully told reporters, speaking from a pool of mud outside his home where he has kneeled prostrate since receiving the rebuke yesterday. ‘I am chastened but also joyful and eternally grateful.’ …

… ‘We thank McCully for his good and faithful assistance in enlightening Dr Norman’s speech,’ the Ambassador said in his statement. ‘With great perseverance and skillful self-discipline the Snail will once again enjoy the favor of the Dragon.’

To ensure widespread coverage of the censure Chinese Embassy officials decreed that publication of the statement was mandatory for all media outlets. The Dim-Post is joyful to be of service in this matter.

I trust all blogs will comply with the mandatory reporting.

The Herald reports:

Dr Norman’s protest was in contrast to that of the late former co-leader of the Greens, Rod Donald, in 2005 against Wu Bangguo, chairman of the National People’s Congress.

Mr Donald’s was a silent protest and he sought advice from the Speaker at the time about where to stand – some distance from his target.

New Zealand security and police stood with Mr Donald and refused to let Chinese security stand in front of him and the Tibetan flag he was holding.

Dr Norman was jostled as he held the flag aloft and moved chanting towards Mr Xi, arriving at Parliament’s Beehive entrance.

He was a metre or two from him.

One of at least two dozen officials travelling with Mr Xi covered the flag with his umbrella.

Seconds later someone grabbed the flag from him and dropped it.

Dr Norman stopped chanting “Freedom for the people of Tibet!” and started yelling “Give me my flag back” and “Don’t bring your undemocratic practices to our country”.

I think Rod Donald showed how to do a protest with dignity.

The Chinese officials should still have not touched Norman’s flag or person, but you do wonder if Norman was trying to get them to do exactly that by advancing on the Vice-President.

Stuff reports:

Green MP Russel Norman had a Tibetan flag torn from his hands by a member of Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping’s entourage when he arrived at Parliament today.

Dr Norman said he believed it was one of the vice president’s security guards.

Arriving in a convoy of around six vehicles with a police escort, the guards initially tried to shield the flag with their bodies and umbrellas before it was torn from Dr Norman’s hand with a member of the vice president’s entourage standing on it as the VIP was rushed through the front entrance of Parliament.

“I think it’s pretty outrageous that Chinese security can come to our country and push around an elected Member of Parliament simply because you’re standing up for democracy and freedom in our own country on our own parliamentary grounds,” Dr Norman said afterwards.

“I mean, the Chinese security guards, they elbowed me out of the way, they put an umbrella over the top of me and they took the flag out of my hands and trampled on it.”

With some blood on his hand following the scuffle, Dr Norman said he had never experienced such treatment on Parliament’s grounds, he said.

“We were roughed up, they grabbed us and pushed us around.”

The Chinese security guards obviously exceeded their brief, and there should be consequences for that. Unless Dr Norman was a physical threat to the Vice-President, they had no right to manhandle him. Keeping an embarrassing sign out of sight is not a legitimate reason.

We had much the same in Dunedin in 2008 when Pete Hodgson manhandled a protester who was holding a sign up behind Helen Clark, which the cameras could see. Hodgson was investigated for assault in that incident, and the Chinese security should also be investigated for assault.

Personally I think Dr Norman looks like a prize idiot when he acts as a lone protester rather than a party leader – but he has the right to do so.

Jane Clifton writes:

Green co-leader Russel Norman worked up quite a head of steam in Parliament yesterday about the menace posed to New Zealand by its predatory neighbour. …

But Dr Norman was plainly unconvinced. And when he pointed out that the Australian-owned banks that dominate the New Zealand banking system had self-interestedly repatriated 85 per cent of their profits during the recession, when New Zealand really needed the money, Mr English didn’t disagree that Australian shareholders did not have this country’s interests at heart.

But still the ripples of amusement continued.

Dr Norman’s final question brought the mirth right out into the open. “If Kiwibank is sold to Australia, will the Government require Kiwibank to change its theme song from God Defend New Zealand to Advance Australia Fair, or perhaps to Advance Australian Profits?”

Mr English grinned broadly as he answered: “I would find that question easier to answer if it were not asked with an Australian accent.”

For the MP warning against callous, grasping Australian “eeen-terests” and “proi-va-toi-sation” is himself … an Australian (though now a New Zealand citizen).

“Good onya, Digger!” enthused Maurice Williamson.

Reminds me a bit of the former NZ First MP Peter Brown who would launch tirades against immigrants, despite being himself an immigrant from the UK.

For the record Russel has been an Aussie for 30 years and a Kiwi for up to 13.

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?