Kiwiblog

Lyn Prentice at The Standard blogs on what Rochelle Rees (his niece) did after she discovered her boyfriend (Rob Gilchrist was spying on her and others for the Police):

I flew down to Christchurch and installed spyware on Rob Gilchrist’s phone to monitor his phone calls and text messages, and a script on his computer to continue sending his emails to me. I also downloaded the past 12 months of his phone bills from telecom, and managed to decrypt documents in his emails that had been encrypted.

I did say it was monumentally stupid of Gilchrist to ask his geek girlfriend to fix his computer when he has been using it to file spy reports on her. And I think morally she has every right to snoop through his stuff, considering the huge betrayal of trust Gilchrist did to her, and others.

Lyn notes:

In effect she had access to a large amount of the ongoing and past dialogue between Rob and his police handlers. This makes some of the statements made by Howard Broad in the last few days somewhat hilarious. He badly needs to get on top of what his officers are doing, if only because otherwise Rochelle can tell him.

It sounds like the Police should be somewhat concerned.

There is an arguable case that Rochelle may have broken the law as it relates to unauthorised computer access. But the Police would be foolish to even consider charging her, as the double standard would be immense. And personally I’d actually donate to her defence.

The big question I am still fascinated by, is why Gilchrist did it, and did he offer his services to the Police, or did they actively try to enlist him?

All_your_base at The Standard has a very generous post on the maiden speeches of Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and Melissa Lee.

I’ve just watched the first part of the Address in Reply debate which included maiden speeches by two new National Party MPs – Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and Melissa Lee. They were impressive. This in itself should provide some cause for concern for Labour but more ominous should be the signal that while this year’s election is over, National’s campaign for 2011 has already begun.

I doubt very much that Sam and Melissa’s names were drawn from a ballot.

They were not. It is a rare privilege to move and second the Address in Reply debate, and the honours normally go to two new MPs whom are judged by the party leadership as having bright futures ahead of them.

In their speeches both made much of the changing face of the National Party. If I heard her correctly, Ms Lee will be New Zealand’s first Korean MP and the first female Korean MP in the world outside of her mother country. Mr Lotu-Iiga scored a convincing victory in the previously Labour-held Maungakiekie electorate. Both MPs spoke confidently in english, in their native tongues, and in Maori. If Labour was ever becoming complacent about the continued traditional support of the nationwide ethnic community, the approach National took today should be a wake-up-call.

Both speeches were excellent. I blog some quotes below.

Finally, I may have missed something but it would have been nice to see even a few of the members of the Labour caucus cross the floor to congratulate the new National Party MPs as did those from other parties (including the Greens). You don’t have to like it, but for the time being you might just have to suck it up.

Yeah maiden speeches are generally a time to put party differences aside.

NZPA reports on parts of Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga’s speech:

Education, family and faith mean a lot to new National MP Sam Lotu-Iiga.

The Samoan-born MP was the first to give a maiden speech in the new Parliament which opened today.

He recalled a childhood in Mangere, where extended family at times swelled the numbers in the household to 16, and sacrifices his parents made.

“My parents suffered and endured a great deal just so us children could live better lives. We were not a wealthy family but we were rich in spirit, resourceful and determined to succeed in this country.”

While he thanked his wife Jules and family, several watching in the audience openly wept. His own voice broke when he talked about his late daughter who he was sure could hear his words. “I miss you and I love you.”

Sam’s family has had huge challenges this year.

Mr Lotu-Iiga said he was raised with strong family values, Christian principles and a strong work ethnic.

“I was taught at a young age that education was the key to a successful future.”

Educated at Auckland Grammar School Mr Lotu-Iiga went on to study at Auckland University to attain BCom/LLB and MCom(Hons) degrees. He also holds an MBA from Cambridge University (Queens College).

I’ll link to the full speech once I have it.

Melissa’s maiden speech was also very personal and moving:

It is with great honour that I deliver my maiden speech not only as the first MP of Korean descent in New Zealand, but also the first Woman of Korean descent to become an MP outside of Korea. It is indeed humbling. It is truly a sign that the world has come of age in a global sense. It’s also a step toward realizing our Prime Minister’s and the National Party’s vision, to make our parliament more diverse and truly representative of the population that now make up our country.

I am also very pleased to be giving my Maiden Speech in this House, at a time when New Zealand has chosen to say NO to a party, whose policy gained support from people who “dislike” people like me – simply because of my ethnic heritage. Call it irony or just a fortunate turn of events that with the exit of that party, comes the first minister of Asian origin in the Cabinet. New Zealand has come of age it seems by saying we have no room at this inn for racists. It is the dawning of a new era, and it is my privilege to be a part of it.

NZ First did run shocking campaigns targeting immigrants based on their race. I actually don’t think Peters himself was racist, but think he did set out to appeal to people who believed in a white only immigration policy, such as his Deputy Leader appeared to.

KA MIHI ATU KI TE TANGATA WHENUA,.. OTIRA KI NGA WAKA HUHUA KATOA I WHITI MAI I TE MOANANUI A KIWA, MAI I HAWAIIKI NUI, KI AOTEAROA.
I pay homage to the tangata whenua … To all of the canoes that crossed the Pacific Ocean from Hawaiiki to New Zealand.

NA RATOU TE ARA I WHAKATAKOTO, OTIRA, NA RATOU TE OOHAAKI I EA AI TE KORERO, HE IWI KOTAHI TATOU.
They paved the way, and they initiated a unity that has made us who we are today.. We are one people.

PERA I A RATOU.. I HAERE MAI AU KI KONEI MA RUNGA I TETAHI WAKA I TE TAU WARU TEKAU MA WARU.
Like them, I too arrived on a waka in 1988.

ENGARI KO NGA HOE O TOOKU WAKA, HE PARIRAU KEE… A, I TERE AKE TE HAERE I TERA O NGA WAKA A NGA TUUPUNA.
The only difference was that my oars were replaced with wings and it travelled much faster than that of the ancestors.

KA AWHI AU I A AOTEAROA, KA AWHI MAI A AOTEAROA I A AU, I TENEI RA KO AU TENEI KUA PUAWAI.
But as I embraced New Zealand, it embraced me back, and nurtured me into what I have become.

I TENEI RA,KA MINAMINA AU KI TE KII.. NOOKU ANO HOKI TENEI WHENUA, NOOKU HOKI TENEI TURANGAWAEWAE.
Today I can honestly identify myself as being a New Zealander, and Aotearoa being my home..

I love the symbolism of a Korean born MP, speaking in Maori, to explain how she has become a New Zealander.

The full speech is over the break.

(more…)

As I landed back in Auckland from Great Barrier Island, my e-mails started to hit the Blackberry. And one of them was from a National Researcher saying they are looking forward to me turning up to work at 8 am Monday.

I was initially bemused until I followed a link to discover an Inspector Clouseau has got excited at The Standard as the metadata in the election analysis I did has the document author as “Parliamentary Service”.

So am I a secret staffer for the National Parliamentary Research Unit? Did I somehow forget to disclose on my disclosure statement that I had been hired?

Alas no. As many commenters pointed out, the obvious answer is the correct one. I first did an election analysis for National in 1999 and every three years have saved a copy and used that as the template for the new analysis. This means the document still lists the original author and company. Some of my docs still show the author as Ministerial Services and that was a decade ago!

But for those who like the conspiracy theories, here’s a photo taken from election night:

Now people keep asking me how do I find the time as one person to blog so much material, plus have posts appears late in the evening and early in the morning?

Well is it possible there are in fact four DPFs? D1 (me) does the 6 am to midday shift. Then I hand over to D2 who covers it until 6 pm, D3 until midnight and good old D4 who does the night shift? Could this celebratory photo in fact have been Team Kiwiblog celebrating their year long vigil?

Remember the truth is often stranger than fiction!

There’s so many positive stories I don’t know where to start. Alphabetically maybe with Audrey Young yesterday:

Popular Westie Paula Bennett is the big winner as Minister of Social Development and Employment – one of the biggest jobs overseeing the biggest ministry with the biggest budget.

It has gone to someone with just three years as an MP who has drawn on the DPB herself in the past as a solo mother .

Key said it was not it risk. It is but it one worth taking. She proved herself an able politician quickly in opposition embarrassing plenty more seasoned MPs in Government in early childhood education.

Most people are celebrating Paula’s story of having been a young Maori solo mother, working all sorts of low paid jobs to earn some extra money, educating herself, becoming an MP, winning Waitakere and then becoming Minister of Social Development. It’s a great aspirational story. Alas, the bitterness has not ended with the election campaign, with Clinton Smith labelling her “thick as two short planks”.

Luckily for Labour, Phil Goff is showing his smarts. Goff has resisted the urge to criticise the Cabinet – knowing that doing so may just make him look churlish. He has said he’ll hold them to account, but will give them a fair go in the job.  I am starting to get quite positive about Labour under Goff’s leadership – the mea culpa over the EFA and now this.

Colin Espiner blogged:

John Key’s announced his new Cabinet lineup. It’s not a bad one, either. I think he’s picked through the talent available very well.

Colin also updates us:

On another matter, thanks to everyone who has posted suggestions on helping me eat my words. After much deliberation, I have settled on the suggestion provided by Lizbeth of making a “coalition smoothie” from my blog. I’ll be doing this on video in the press gallery kitchen on Tuesday lunchtime. We hope to have it posted on the Stuff website early afternoon.

Like John Key, I’m keen to try out my kitchen cabinet whiz.

I think Colin should invite the Maori Party MPs to witness it

On the Greens G-blog, Stevedore blogs:

And Key seems to be giving it his best shot. The arrangement he has put together seems to reflect what people voted for. The cabinet he has announced looks a lot more diverse, fresh and representative than it threatened to be a few months ago.  The whole thing looks stable and consultative.  Which is exactly what MMP should provide.

Tim Selwyn at Tumeke provides lots of provocative commentary.

Barnsley Bill invents a new term – a SDMILF. Oh dear. Paula may need to warn the Diplomatic Protection Squad!

John Armstrong writes this morning:

The message is loud and clear: to survive as a minister in John Key’s Cabinet, you’re going to have to perform.

That will make a nice change.

Key has taken a less sentimental approach to Cabinet construction than previous Prime Ministers, with somewhat more emphasis on talent and ability and slightly less stress on loyalty and length of service.

Indeed. Although some appointments could still be seen as sentimental – but overall many fresh new faces.

The Herald has a summary of business and industry reaction, and lobby groups here.

The Herald editorial calls the Ministry solid and safe:

The line-up looks to be a good mixture of fresh faces and experience. …

As Associate Minister of Maori Affairs, Georgina te Heuheu will have a seat at the Cabinet table while the minister, the Maori Party’s Pita Sharples, will not. They will have to be in tune. So will Paula Bennett and Tariana Turia, minister and associate minister respectively of social development and employment. Ms Bennett, who has known life on a benefit, is the most unexpected of Mr Key’s appointment and perhaps the most inspired.

The Dom Post editorial calls it the bold and the new.

John Key has shown wisdom beyond his political years by tempering boldness with caution in naming his new ministers, The Dominion Post writes.

In opting for the promise of a Steven Joyce over the experience of a John Carter, Mr Key is reflecting his own rise to the top after only six years in Parliament. Time served is not an indication of talent.

However, neither has he left out in the cold any of those who would have reasonably expected to make it. There would have been dangers in doing that. Mr Carter, along with Maurice Williamson and Richard Worth, his fellow ministers outside Cabinet, have all been given a clear signal that this is as good as it will get.

But they have not been humiliated. Left to languish on the back benches, they could have devoted their time to sowing discord and undermining the leader who failed to give them anything else to do.

Being a Minister outside Cabinet is still a hell of a lot better than not being a Minister at all.

Mr Key’s decisions in allocating ministerial positions underline that he is seeking to advance his agenda through consensus rather than by bulldozing it through. The naming of his ministers is a good start to his administration.

Yep.

The only quibble is that he convinced himself he was unable to trim his ministry from a bloated 28. Maintaining an executive of that size means that his plans to reduce the Wellington bureaucracy will be greeted with a measure of justified cynicism.

I also wanted it less than 28. But as one can see, there were enough upset MPs anyway. Technically his promise is to keep the Wellington bureaucracy from growing further, so keeping the Executive the same size is consistent.

Martin Kay in the Dom Post provides useful commentary on each Minister.

An odd report in the ODT, with Dene Mackenzie bizarrely labelling the Cabinet a move to the right. Dropping Lockwood Smith and Maurice Williamson from Cabinet is as far from a move to the right as you can get. Replacing Judith Collins with Paula Bennett is Welfare is not a move to the right. Giving Bill English infrastructure is not a move to the right.

So when Dene says:

His new Cabinet, which will be sworn in tomorrow, shows a bias to the Right despite moves during the election campaign to position National as a centrist party.

could someone ask him for an example?

The ODT editorial is better:

The immediate response is that Mr Key has continued in his briskly positive mode and got the balance about right.

Now comes the difficult part: moulding this executive into an effective and harmonious team able to put longstanding differences aside and address the many issues facing the country – not least the recession and the international financial crisis.

If anyone inspires confidence with his experience and economic competence it is Mr English, on whom much of the burden will fall.

Overall, very positive responses.

The Herald writes:

On October 13, an anonymous blogger posted to Labour Party-affiliated website The Standard. The blogger, calling himself Batman, is believed to be a senior official, most likely party president Mike Williams, although he has denied it was him.

Of course he has.

1. Did Helen not notice her party president – the Labour Party Campaign Chair and Manager, was out of the country trying to dig up dirt on John Key from 20 years ago?
2. Did no one notice he was absent from the daily campaign meetings he normally chairs?
3. Why were taxpayer funded members of Labour’s Parliamentary Research Unit also in Australia with Mike Williams trying to smear John Key?
4. Who paid for all their travel?
5. Does the head of the research unit still report unofficially to Heather Simpson?
6. Is the Batman who posted documents anonymously to Dominion Post reporters the same Batman who is an author on The Standard and posted on the H-Fee earlier this month?
7. Why did The Standard delete the previous post from Batman?
8. Does this not link The Standard to Mike Williams and the Labour Parliamentary Research Unit?
9. Is it not time that Labour fronted up and revealed how many of the 15 Standard authors are parliamentary and ministerial staffers?
10. Who from Labour told Winston about the smear so he could refer to it on Alt TV?
11. Doesn’t it undermine Helen’s claim she had nothing to do with it, when her parliamentary strategist Pete Hodgson is trying to beat it up?
12. Is Helen just pretending she knew nothing about the attempted smear, or has she lost control of her party, her party president and her own research unit?

Clinton Smith at The Standard responds to my post on the 11% increase in violent crime with what is really a nasty smearing post. I avoid responding to most of his stuff, as it reflects more on him than me. But as he basically calls me pro-rape, there is a limit. I’ll go through his post in turn:

David Farrar really is a disgusting person at times.

Yes how disgusting it is to point out violent crime increased 11% last year.

He writes that we shouldn’t look at overall crime rates (although he made a big fuss when the overall recorded crime rate went up because of changes in recording practice in 2006)

Smith is wrong. I have been making the point about violent crime, not overall crime rates, for years and years. To be precise:

1. 3 March 2008
2. 2 October 2007
3. 2 April 2007
4. 2 October 2006
5. 4 April 2006
6. 6 July 2004

Pretty much all of these said the same thing – the overall crime rate is not a very useful measure. I welcome people wanting to debate it is – but funnily enough few people ever engage that argument on the merits.

Instead we should just look at violent crime, after all “having 1,000 less [sic] cannabis crimes and 500 more rapes is a net decrease in crime, but would be a worrying trend”. He then goes on to act all shocked over the recorded violent crime stats. First, he’s trying to make you think there are more rapes

Yes that should be fewer. But I doubt anyone would read what I said as stating there were 500 more rapes. It was obviously an example given the round numbers used.

in fact, the number is down and he’s hardly one to fret about rape when he’s good mates with a pornographer).

Now I can not even describe how offensive Smith is with that statement. He basically says I don’t care about rape or rape victims. I can think of few things more defamatory let alone downright nasty to say about somebody. Next time Smith complains about the standards of a right wing blog, people should remember he considers accusing people of being unconcerned about rape as a legitimate tactic.

Smith deosn’t even try to debate the merits of violent crime stats vs total crime stats. He just decides to smear me. As I say that reflects far more on him than me.

Secondly, this professional statistician is deliberately trying to mislead you regarding the change in the crime stats. He knows that the explanation from the professionals is reporting of domestic crime is up but he hopes you don’t.

I am aware the Police provide excuses for why violent crime has gone up 11%, saying it is all due to increased reporting of domestic violence. However like all government agencies they of course try to put a favourable spin on the statistics. Does Clinton attack Dr Cullen when he disagrees with Treasury advice? More to the point when you look at specific categories such as:

• Homicides from 96 to 112 – 16.7% increase
• Wounding with Intent from 635 to 697 – 9.8% increase
• Injuring with Intent from 996 to 1,180 – 18.5% increase
• Assault with a weapon from 2,738 to 3,007 – 9.8% increase
• Assaults on Police from 367 to 439 – 19.6% increase

You realise the explanation is not that credible.

I submit that these groups of crimes are not ones that would be greatly affected by increased reporting of domestic violence. Wounding with intent is the most serious assault possible, short of attempted murder. Assaults with a weapon don’t tend to be the exclusive domain of domestic violence, let alone assaults on police. And homicides speak for themselves.

Crime is down because poverty and the conditions that breed crime have been reduced. At the same time, reporting of crimes is up. Thefts, car thefts, and burglaries (together, the largest group of crimes) have halved in the last ten years. Homicides are down.

1. 98/99 – 94
2. 99/00 – 104
3. 00/01 – 97
4. 01/02 – 112
5. 02/03 – 108
6. 03/04 – 100
7. 04/05 – 80
8. 05/06 – 105
9. 06/07 – 96
10. 07/08 – 112

That is the homicides for the last ten financial years. The latest year is the highest equal of the last ten. Note when I point out an error Clinton makes I don’t feel the need to call him disgusting and other names.

In fact, all classes of crime are down except two. Recorded violent crime is up because reporting is up. Recorded property damage offences have climbed in the last three years thanks to the moral panic over tagging. But those rises are attributed (not by me, by the Police) to higher reporting.

Recorded violent crime has increased almost 50% since 1999. Clinton attacks and smears anyone who points this out and dares to disagree with the assertion it is all because of increased reporting of domestioc violence.

Farrar needs to misrepresent the statistics to create the impression of a wave of crime where there is none. It’s all part of National’s ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign. It disrespects his readers and the victims of crime. Disgusting.

I regard a 11% increase in violent crime in just one year as very significant. The fact almost every category of violent crime has had a significant increase makes it highly unlikely it is just a matter of increased reporting of domestic violence. I think one can debate these issues without calling peoeel disgusting and suggesting they don’t care about rape. Sadly Smith is unable to do so, he is so caught up in his hate towards others.

But in the end, I think his posts reflect far worse on himself than his intended targets. It may appeal to the highly partisan, but it tends to be counter productive with most people.

The Standard speculates that David Garrett may be ACT’s mystery No 5 candidate. He is a barrister associated with the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

By coincidence Garrett had a column in the Herald on Wednesday on Labour’s sudden interest in banning gangs:

There is nothing particularly radical about Labour’s endorsement of a policy banning gangs – which begs the question why it has taken so long. …

Given Labour’s long opposition to such laws it is difficult not to be cynical about its timing now – eight weeks from an election.

Indeed. The chance of Labour actually passing a law to ban gangs is around equal to their chance of developing nuclear weapons.

The point is well made that banning gangs per se may not in fact be such a good idea – at least while the Mongrel Mob and Black Power strut around in their patches or “colours” they are easily identifiable.

True.

Criminal non-association laws would have the same effect without the disadvantages.

The police are aware who most gang members are and which of them have criminal records. If consorting with known criminals becomes an offence, groups of intimidating thugs on our streets would quickly become a thing of the past. Problematic laws banning gangs themselves would become unnecessary.

But how many criminals are needed for it to become consorting? Some would argue Cabinet would become illegal

Although it’s about 25 years too late, Labour’s belated realisation that gangs are just criminal organisations, and not some alternative to whanau, is a welcome development. Pity it comes so close to an election.

Just a coincidence I am sure.

Chris Trotter has criticised Matthew Hooton for his use of the term Clark/Peters Axis. Matthew explains why in a long post:

First, yes, I do believe that Winston Peters is an evil influence on New Zealand politics and the use of the phrase “axis” was entirely deliberate, chosen as being more appropriate than “allies” or even “bloc” for the regime he sustains.

Peters is a person who has attacked Asian immigrants for being too rich and Somalian refugees for being too poor, and, in both cases, has known that to do so is wrong, with his friend Sir Robert Jones saying that, in private, Peters believes none of it.

Like Matthew I think the only thing worse than a bigot, is someone who is not a bigot, but pretends to be just to get votes. I respect people from the left who genuinely disagree with my beliefs, and I respect “social conservatives” whose views differ from mine also. But I have little time for nationalists and populists who believe in nothing and will say anything to get elected.

Matthew goes on to criticise Trotter and many others on the left for their constant support of Peters. And then he states his opinion of Clark:

Clark has dictatorial tendencies. She has marched through the institutions. She has improperly brought the civil service under her control, including, most outrageously, the police. She has stolen taxpayers’ money for her election campaigns, deliberately broken our election spending limits, run filthy fear campaigns such as the letters to state housing tenants saying they would be evicted under a National Government, told lies about all this, and rammed through retrospective legislation to legalise her own staff’s and party’s crimes.

Constitutionally, she is far worse than Muldoon, who people like Chris would eagerly have called a fascist in the early 1980s.

The Clark/Peters Axis? You bet.

I’m not in the same space as Matthew here. Don’t get me wrong – I think Clark is shockingly unethical and I think someone from Labour should have gone to jail for the $800,000 overspending in the last campaign.

But I never find comparisons to Nazis, fascists, “evil regimes” or “eyes of a killer” particularly useful on the blogs.  On the billboards against the Electoral Finance Act, we did feature praise for the EFA from various dictators but that was purely in response to an Act which deserves to be vilified as it was designed to silence critics of the Government.

And as someone with Jewish relatives, I find comparisons to Nazis especially ranging from trite to offensive. I disagree with Matthew that Bolger was justified in comparing Peters attacks on Asian immigrants to Hitler’s attacks on Jews.

Matthew then talks about his role with Don Brash and the Orewa speech as The Standard wrongly claimed he was an architect of it. They could not have been more wrong.

Then I pushed Don to do his controversial press conference at the Tamaki Yacht Club a bit later, where we really put the knife into Bill, and then …. the rest is history.

(Unfortunately for me, Don was forced to do the Tamaki thing a week earlier than I had planned, and I had law exams, so I couldn’t go to Wellington for the vote, so Catherine Judd arranged for Byran Sinclair to do the media work instead, so I missed out on being part of all the drama …. )

I’m not sure I ever mentioned this to Matthew, but I was sort of responsible for Don having to bring his coup announcement forward a week. I was unofficially on the team trying to keep Bill in office and heard whisperings of what was coming and alerted the leadership to it and they forced the coup out into the open. So Matthew was working for Don and I was working to keep Don from winning – sort of ironic as I then ended up working for Don when he did win. In fact it said a lot about what a great guy Don is that he kept me on, despite me having featured on television the night he won plotting victory at the Backbencher with the English team.

And then it came to the fateful Orewa speech.

I was sent a draft for comment and I hated it. The truth is, I’m a “sickly white liberal”, as Peters would describe it. I got Diane to pay me to write an alternative that had the same policy ideas (because they had been agreed by caucus) but which wasn’t as nasty in tone.

When it was confirmed to me that Brash was going with the Keenan [version of the] speech I cancelled my table. Lockwood tells me there was a gap, which he – as local MP – was embarrassed about, but which I am quietly proud of.

The Standard obviously need to re-read the Hollow Men, as the book makes it pretty clear Matthew was an opponent of the Orewa speech.

People seemed to like the billboard I put up yesterday. Another reader has done a similiar one:

Very nice. Note that the graphic is an election ad if you use it anywhere but on a non-commercial blog!

There have also been some amusing parodies of the National billboards. The Standard has some:

I quite like the “Choose a righter future”.

08wire also has a few – some funny, some less so. My favourites:

Heh. I also like the changed tagline. Humour is much more effective when it is funny, and not nasty. Let the billboard wars continue!

Whale Oil also has some new billboards but site seems to be down at the moment. I’ll try grabbing them later.

Whale Oil has a scan of a letter to a newspaper from one of the Standard authors. It is a classic case of denying something one has not been accused of and refusing to comment on what actually was alleged. He says that The Standard is not funded or directed by the Labour Party. But that is not what I claimed a few weeks ago. What I claimed was that two of the bloggers there are Beehive staffers, a third is a Labour Party Head Office manager and one or two others are employees of Labour’s largest union affilitate.

What is interesting is that on five occasions the Prime Minister’s chief press secretary has been asked by media to deny that Beehive staff blog at The Standard, and on every occasion they have chosen not to comment rather than deny it. I guess there is a reason they passed up the opportunity to say “Farrar fucked up and has it all wrong, none of our staff are involved”.

Amusingly the letter to the editor claims The Standard is the most read political website in New Zealand. That is also as amusing as the claim that they ensure comments from readers are civil, as the author of the letter repeatedly makes references in the comments there to my weight and girth. And he is one of the moderators!!

I have no particular desire to get consumed in a flame war with The Standard. My issues are not with the authors (I have had perfectly civil conversations with Clinton, think “Eddie” is a lovely person and many of my friends who know “All your base” speak highly of him) but over the decision not to be transparent over the involvement of ministerial staff in the blog.

This will probably come off as patronising, but I offer it as sincere advice. Their biggest weakness at the moment is their shrillness, and aggressiveness. And this is often a function of mainly being anonymous. One of the good things about blogging under either your name, or with your associations known, is it moderates what you say. But each to their own – my unsolicited advice to them is probably as welcome as pork chops at a synagogue

Danyl (who is definitely on the left) at the Dim-Post did a scathing post on The Standard last week. I will resist quoting large segments of it here. Rather than flame him for his comments (and they were well very very robust), it might be worth considering what motivated him to make them, and the fact he is far from the only person on the left who thinks that way.

On a more positive note, I am enjoying the new gblog for Green Party members. Not that I agree with much said there, but I do think it is good value. Oh, and talking of the Greens, if you really want to be scared, read on Frog Blog about the first time Metira Turei had sex. I hope this won’t be a precedent for other MPs to detail their first time

Steve Pierson at The Standard blogs on the ads run by the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association against a proposed law which stops employers from operating a total remuneration package that includes the cost of KiwiSaver.

What’s more, this whole embarrassing exercise may be in breach of the Electoral Finance Act. I’ve just had a tip-off from a reader who has laid a complaint with the Electoral Commission this afternoon.

It turns out the EMA has failed to register as a third party, which means it has an election spending limit of $12,000. Today’s ad was a half page full colour in the Herald, putting it at around $15,000 according to a recent rate card and pushing the EMA well over their legal spending limit. The ad also entangles the New Zealand Herald, which is in breach for publishing it.

Now think about this. The Government is passing a law which wll affect every business in New Zealand. The Northern EMA represents thousands of those businesses.

The Electoral Finance Act means it may be unable to run even a couple of ads against this law change, without breaching the Electoral Finance Act or being forced to register as a third party.

The Electoral Finance Act is not just about elections. It is about silencing dissent in election year. If the Government announces law changes in election year, then people should be able to lobby and advertise against them. Why should the EMA Northern be reduced to spending less than $1 per business it represents?

It is debatable of course of the advertisements would be ruled election ads. But the EMA Northern is now running the risk of being prosecuted if they do turn out to be.

Steve Pierson at The Standard takes issue with the statements from the Property Investors’ Federation that it is better to rent than buy. He notes:

First, it’s comparing the average rent to the cost of buying a median house. Rental properties tend to be lower quality, cheaper – so are likely on average to be worth well below the national median. Comparing apples with apples would look at the rent on properties of the same value.

This is a fair point. However would be useful to have some data on the average GV of rental properties compared to properties for sale to see how significant this is.

Secondly and most importantly, if you’re buying the house at the end of 25 years, you own a house. If you rent, at the end of 25 years you have nothing. That’s a pretty serious difference. If you buy rather than rent you might pay some more (less than the difference in the graphic though) but you end up with an asset in the end.

Now this is absolutely key. It is why I purchased back in 2001 – even though mortgage payments were way more than my old rental payments.

However does this asset compensate for the extra costs? Let us look at the graphic referred to:

Now I have not got the time to calculate inflation and interest adjustments so am going to do a simple linear calculation.  Over 25 years you will pay a total of $396,500 if you rent and $968,500 if you buy. So that extra $572,050 you pay renting is well in excess of the $345,000 value of the house.

Now again interest, inflation and changing house values will affect this equation. But the point is that the gap between buying and renting is now large enough to make buying significantly less attractive.

I am so glad I purchased in 2001. If I had waited a few more years, I would really struggle with being able to afford to buy.

I wondered how The Standard would find a way to blame John Key for the Tony Veitch affair. I thought it wouldn’t be possible – but no even they found a way. This was too much for Maia.

Next we await how John Key was indirectly responsible for the death of the Police Officer at the weekend. And for the high inflation out tomorrow. And for the crap weather last week.

What I have found most amusing is that they are upset John Key hasn’t responded to their requests for an interview. This is like the Mongrel Mob complaining that the Police Commissioner won’t answer their questions!

Labour’s hypocrisy over transparency was reinforced this week with another anonymous attack site launched. It is a sad fact of life that the party which claims the Electoral Finance Act was needed to bring transparency to campaigning has a long history of establishing anonymous attack sites against its opponents.

First of all in the 2005 election there was the KeepLeftNZ site. This site launched attack after attack on Don Brash and other opponents of Labour. They kept their identities a closely guarded secret but after the election a member of the PM’s Office revealed at the NZUSA Christmas Party that the site was organized out of the PM’s Office.

Then in 2007 The Standard burst into life. They would have you believe it is a totally independent collection of activists who just happen to not like National. The reality is somewhat different.

It is understood that the Standard was conceived of by the PM’s Office, specifically by Rob Salmond, who was working there after the 2005 election. Salmond wrote a chapter “The Battle of the Blog” for the Victoria University publication on the 2005 election and is a long time Labour activist. He was known to work in the Beehive after the 2005 election, even though he did not appear on staff lists and he has confirmed he did work for the PM’s Office.

He is credited as having come up with the concept for The Standard, to counter centre right blogs. He also proposed the creation of a special role in the PMs Office for online communications – a role subsequently filled by Chris Elder. The source for this information is Elder himself who has told several people of Salmond’s role in setting up his job and creating or proposing The Standard. This does not mean the PM’s Office personally registered the site, but that it wasn’t just the idea of some independent activists.

The Standard says they are all independent bloggers. However the following e-mail has been forwarded onto me:

From: xxxxxxx xxxxxxx
Date: 11 June 2008 12:24:42 PM
To: labourmembersofparliament@parliament.govt.nz
Cc: pm@ministers.govt.nz, mike.williams@labour.org.nz
Subject: The Standard Blog

Dear all

I have a serious issue to raise with you all. It has come to my attention that two Ministerial staffers – Chris Elder and Andrew Kirton, both political employees – are blogging anonymously at the Labour-hosted, anti-John Key blog the Standard, www.thestandard.org.nz.

Given that a large number of these posts (most notably those by Chris Elder or all_your_base, a communications staffer on the ninth floor) occur during office hours, do you all believe it is appropriate that political employees are spending their time blogging anonymously? Is this approved behaviour?

Kind regards

xxxxxxx xxxxxx

After I was forwarded a copy of the e-mail by a parliamentary staffer, I asked the e-mailer the basis of the information, the e-mailer replied “A young Labour person I know who is also a blogger”

It has in fact long been speculated that Elder blogged as All-your-base as this was allegedly a favourite saying of his (referring to the tag line of a famous hacking group). He has denied being involved with The Standard, and it is of course impossible to prove or disprove without computer logs.

But it is likely that two of the bloggers are Beehive communications employees, and a third is the Labour Party Head Office Communications Manager. A fourth and maybe a fifth are employed by the EPMU – Labour’s largest affiliated union. This would be seen very differently by most members of the public than the official line of “a collective who saw a gap in the New Zealand political blogosphere and decided that we should have a go at filling it. We write here in our personal capacities and the opinions that are expressed on the blog are individual.”

If they were public over their identities, then people could judge for themselves how much of a personal capacity they are in.

The issue is not that they blog, but the total lack of transparency over what they do. The Green Party has some of its parliamentary employees (and MPs) blog at Frog Blog. But they are open about this, and accept responsibility for what they publish. The Greens deserve praise for their commitment to transparency, which is at total contrast to Labour.

It is certainly true that there are other bloggers at The Standard who do not work for Labour. But nevertheless how can one argue for transparency in campaigning yet argue that the PM can have a Communications Advisor blogging anonymously on a site proposed by her office as part of a communications strategy?

Some of the material on The Standard, such as a pdf document, reveals in its properties that it was created on a Ministerial Services computer. Other material links it to the EPMU.

The final link is the new No8wire website launched this week. The Standard reported this is the same team which did the KeepLeftNZ site in 2005 – in other words it is probably also run out of the PM’s Office. The site even makes it clear that the material appearing on the site is contributed by multiple persons – it is not an individual effort.

In an ultimate fit of hypocrisy they have registered the site in the .org top level domain as this allows anonymous domain name registrants. They also claim to be exempt from the Electoral Finance Act as it is hosted overseas and managed by a NZers who lives overseas.

Their lack of transparency clearly breaches the spirit of the Electoral Finance Act, and quite possibly also the statute itself. I will be lodging official complaints over the site and asking electoral authorities to fully investigate it.

As leftwing blogger Idiot/Savant notes at No Right Turn:

The problem is that both of the exemptions they cite look decidedly dodgy – it all looks a bit slick and well funded to be “non-commercial”, while their declaration that they are “ready to ensure the election of an LPG Government” blows their appeal to the media exemption out of the water. Many people, I think, will be concerned whether those videos are really being produced outside New Zealand – and National will no doubt seek to counter them by claiming they are really being hatched in the Beehive. By allowing that, they’re undermining their cause, and the credibility of fair controls to prevent the rich from buying elections.

Even having the official editor and hosting overseas may not put them beyond the reach of the law. If material for the site is produced by people in NZ, then they are arguably promoting election advertisements, and risk being in breach of the law.

The overseas NZer is widely believed to be the same Rob Salmond who set up The Standard, previously a staffer or contractor in the Beehive. A quick look at the site shows it to have professionally edited graphics and obviously considerable resource behind it. They have already ripped off an anti David Cameron video from 2006 and used it as an anti John Key video.

This is not a personal blog. It is beyond doubt supported by and resourced by the parliamentary Labour Party and/or their affiliated unions. The fact they have one anonymous ex staffer or contractor on the other side of the world uploading the material for them, doesn’t change that reality. It is a “hollow” attempt to avoid the most basic requirements of transparency, let alone their own Electoral Finance Act.

The Internet is a medium where people should be able to express their opinions, and have a whack at parties they don’t agree with. But political parties should stand behind their own work. Why doesn’t Labour do as the Greens do, and take responsibility for their work?

One suspects it is because they want to be able to attack their opponents without taking responsibility for such attacks. The exact thing they claim to be against.

These anonymous attacks are not an isolated incident, such as a parliamentary staffer submitting a one off idea to a blog. Labour’s entire involvement since 2005 has been lacking in the transparency they claim to champion. It is a hypocrisy that rankles with those who do stand behind their own names.

The purpose of this post is not to challenge the right of The Standard and/or 08wire to run material attacking John Key. I happen to think it is mostly counter-productive anyway as it is so lacking in subtlety. But the purpose is to ask for Labour to stop hiding behind anonymous proxies and to take responsibility for their own work.

Again, this is not an isolated incident. Their entire online history of the last three years has been to hide behind anonymous attack sites.They do it time and time again.

I know something about the challenges of online advocacy from Parliament. I was a parliamentary staffer for eight years. From 1996 to 2004 I posted tens of thousands of times to the Usenet Internet newsgroups on political issues. Every single time I did so under my own name. The first nine months of my blogging was as a parliamentary staffer, and again that was always under my own name. I have no issue with parliamentary staffers blogging – I welcome it – they can offer more to the debate than most people with their access to information. But they should be open about who they are.

As a final note, some will ask for the proof that Labour has been involved with these three sites. Well obviously direct proof is near impossible unless one does a Nicky Hager and gets hold of e-mails or has video recordings of people at work.

However the information about the identities of the people involved in these sites come from multiple people in multiple settings, collected over time. I have no reason to doubt its veracity. It would also be very simple for the facts to be established – for example Helen Clark could state in Parliament that no Ministerial staff members do blog or has blogged at The Standard and that no Beehive (or Labour Research Unit) staffer is producing material for 08wire or The Standard. Her word, if given in Parliament, would be accepted. Somehow I doubt she will.

UPDATE: Rob Salmond has posted a comment admitting he worked last year for the PMs Office and is behind 08wire and that he does not produce all the material himself but receives it from others. He of course refutes some of my assertions – specifically any involvement setting up The Standard, and I have responded to his comments. What is not denied is that material for all three anonymous sites is produced by parliamentary staffers.

Whale Oil also posts on the issue.

Poneke laments how Waterfront Watch’s campaign against the Wellington Hilton, has meant no waterfront development is likely for a decade. Instead we are left with those awful tin sheds.

Bruce Simpson at Aardvark covers the efforts of Associated Press to claim that even using their headlines is a breach of the US DMCA. This may be very significant if bloggers are not able to significantly quote articles in order to critique them.

Whale Oil detects more links between The Standard and Labour or more specifically labour.co.nz. The Standard responds. A great thread for those who get hot with talk of DNS and MX records

The Economist looks at the school system in Finland and Sweden.

And since I’m coming this far north, I want to take in Sweden too. That social-democratic paradise has carried out school reforms that make free-market ideologues the world over weak at the knees. In the 1990s it opened its state-education system to private competition, allowing new schools to receive the same amount for each pupil as the state would have spent on that child.

The Dim-Post has some solutions for the South Auckland crime wave:

• Limit numbers on all polytechnic courses teaching home invasion and armed robbery techniques.
• Increase existing levels of sedatives and oral contraceptives in Manukau water supply.
• Create an economic disincentive to homicide by amending the Emissions Trading Scheme to double carbon fees on vehicles used during a murder
• Introduce cultural sensitivity training to South Aucklands migrant communities teaching them to be more open and tolerant towards the kiwi tradition of random assault and pointless execution style killings.
• Point to multiple Asian murders as irrefutable statistical evidence for sending ‘em all back.

Also, finally not a blog but of interest to EFA watchers is this note of a meeting between Federated Farmers and the Electoral Commission over the EFA.

No Right Turn posted yesterday some links on the abortion law issue. He chided The Standard for (at the time) not having posted on the issue, and if he allowed comments I was going to suggest it was because they hadn’t found a way to blame John Key for it yet!

The Standard now do have a guest post by Julie Fairey with the title “If you’re against abortion, then kindly don’t have one”. Very true. If only they would apply the same logic to Easter trading – if you’re against it then kindly don’t shop on Good Friday!

A story in The Press yesterday demonstrated to me the gap between our laws, and our practice. To quote:

Christchurch GP Pippa MacKay, who performs abortions at Lyndhurst Hospital, said women needed access to safe abortions.

“For as long as people have been having sex, there have been abortions,” she said. “Unplanned pregnancies won’t go away because abortion is illegal. That would be putting women’s lives at risk.”

MacKay said she was disturbed by the implication that she and other doctors were not operating within the law. “As far as I’m concerned, I apply the law. If someone says to me they will suffer depression if they have a child, then I accept that.”

Now Dr MacKay has honestly explained how almost all doctors interpret the law. They ask the woman wehther having the pregnancy would cause them depression, the woman says “Oh yes it will” and the doctor says “Okay”.

Now it really is a farce. I mean it is hardly utilising 10+ years of medical training to just ask someone if hypothetically they would be depressed and use an affirmative response to judge them at “serious mental risk”. A receptionist could do the same, or even an online form.

I don’t mean this is any way as a criticism of Dr MacKay (who is a very respected practitioner) – it just shows how much of a gap there is between the law and how it is operated.

We have de facto abortion on demand in NZ, and have had so for some decades. The thought of forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy against her will is repugnant to me. So why continue with the charade of requiring two doctors to certify if someone “qualifies” for an abortion if we know all they do is ask “Would having an unwanted baby depress you”.

While an update of our abortion laws might be a painful experience to go through, I have little doubt the vast majority of NZers would support and vote for abortion to be safe and legal on demand. I would also hope one could look at how to reduce the level of abortions through education and counselling as there is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion.

In my experience with abortion debates, no-one who is pro-choice or pro-life is open to persuasion to change their views. WIth that in mind could I suggest that comments might more usefully be focused on the pros and cons of having a law change.

Radio NZ has a four minute item on Internet campaigning, You Tube etc. They talked to myself, “Steve Pierson” from The Standard (who used his real name for the interview which is commendable), Darren Hughes, and Jo de Joux. Won’t have any revelations for those already online but will have been interesting to the wider listeners I hope.

Last weeks Stats NZ released their latest monthly migration statistics, and the permanent and long-term departures for the last 12 months were up 11.9% from a year ago.

This issue is only getting bigger with the Fairfax page one stories on their poll results showing 10% of Kiwis are considering moving to Australia within the next 12 months.

The Standard is trying to do a King Canute and convince everyone there is not a problem, and you are all wrong. I think this is a classic example of why the Government has failed so badly in the last couple of years – it ignores the issues concerning average NZers and even worse lectures them on why they are wrong. Anyone who doesn’t live in a cocoon would know that the gap with Australia is a major concern, and that more and more families are getting divided up as people leave. Just talk to anyone not in politics as a day job, and they will bring it up as an issue.

But you do have to congratulate The Standard for the audacity of putting on the same graph axis the proportion of people staying and leaving, so they both look like flat lines.

They also keep pointing to net permanent and long-term migration, to claim there is no problem at all, but in doing so they confuse two semi-separate issues.

The level of inwards migration is effectively set by the Government. Yes there are factors such as NZers returning home (and that has also been dropping) but the Govt can and does adjust the requirements for migration with the points system, language requirements etc etc.

If the Govt wanted to, it could have 150,000 or even 200,000 migrants a year coming here. As a non third world country there is almost no limit to how many people would move here if they could.

So while the net migration figure is of some importance (if one does not have positive net migration then the population probably shrinks) the outwards migration figure is much more important.

As an example there is a big difference between say losing 40,000 people a year, and having 44,000 people migrate here and between losing say 200,000 people a year and having 204,000 people a year move here. There are also economic costs to losing people who have embedded in the local economy as opposed to having new workers from overseas. That is not an argument against immigration – I am a fan of it, but that simply replacing someone in NZ, with someone else is not the same as retaining them in the first place. A bit like an employer would rather keep staff longer than have say 30% staff turnover annually.

So while net PLT migration is a useful indicator for some things, it is one which can change dramatically by govt policy as there is near infinite demand from people to live here. And even if policy does not change, it is better to retain people than replace them.

So what has actually been happening with all the different stats. Let’s look at them one by one. First external migration:

Departures from NZ declined in the early 1990s and stayed fairly flat until 1995. From 1995 until 2001 there was a steady increase. September 11 reversed that trend as NZ looked so safe and secure, and for two years it dropped away. But from July 2003 it started increasing again and has just about reached an all time high for a 12 month period – the record is 79,328 in the 12 months to May 2001.

Now adjusting for population growth shows a slightly better picture, but the trend of the last few years is still marked.

Next let us look at PLT departures and arrivals for New Zealand citizens. As I mentioned above arrivials of non citizens is simply a function of how liberal or conservative your immigration policy is. But with NZ citizens it is appropriate to look at how many return home. So below are the numbers of NZ “nationals” who leave or arrive permanently or long-term.

The net PLT migration for NZ nationals has gone from 10,000 in 2003 to over 30,000 in recent months. As one can see the number of NZers leaving is increasing, while the number of NZers returning home has in fact been falling – has dropped 5,000 in the last few years. And considering the massive number of NZers now living overseas, you would expect the number returning to be growing.

Finally we look at migration with Australia, as that is where so much of the focus is. The level of people coming from Australia to NZ has dropped a bit since 2003, and increased from 1999 to 2003.

The big mover has been people going from NZ to Australia. It has almost doubled in the last four years, and net migration has more than tripled.

Now you can say, like Labour and allies do, is there a problem? Hey we are only losing 20 people per thousand residents per year? Well look at the implications over a generation of say 30 years. Over one generation 60% of the population will have left NZ. And it looks like only one in three nationals would return. Now that is a massive degree of economic and social dislocation.

Is it all the fault of the Government of the day? No, of course not. But should the Government be exhibiting a determined focus to implement policies that will lift NZ’s overall national income, that will make people want to stay or at least return to NZ? Hell, yes. And have the current Government’s policies been working? Hell, no.

For those who want to check the data. The population figures are from Stats NZ de facto population series until 1999 and estimated resident population from 1999 onwards. The migration figures are from Stats NZ also – series S2FEAUZ, S1GEAUZ, S2EETZ, S2EETA and S1EETA.

The Standard has done a post with a graph showing purported real average weekly earnings from 1990 to 2007.

In 1990 dollars it shows real average weekly earnings staying constant from 1990 to 1999, and then increasing from around $465 a week to $510 a week from 2000 to 2007. They conclude average weekly earnings under Labour increased at 30 times the rate of National.

But it is very very hard to verify the data for their graph. They do not state what the source of their data is. I’ve gone back to an old data series done by the Parliamentary Library (who are neutral) and verified it with the Stats NZ data in the quarterly employment survey.  It is very different to what The Standard claims. Now this maybe because they are using a different data series, but again with no reference I don’t know. I would welcome their clarification and posting of full data, as I have done.

Below I show the following data. The ordinary time average weekly earnings from the quarterly employment survey (series SBAZ9A), the CPI, the real average earnings and the real after tax average earnings. The Standard did not provide after tax figures, but I provide both before and after tax figures for people to do a full comparison.

Jun 90 – $502.95 av earnings, CPI 716, $502.95 real av earnings, $385.81 real av after tax earnings.

Jun 99 – $639.96 av earnings, CPI 832, $550.73 real av earnings, $436.78 real av after tax earnings.

Jun 07 – $846.19 av earnings, CPI 1020, $593.99 real av earnings, $459.32 real av after tax earnings.

Now one is over nine years, and one is over eight years.  If you divide the increase by the number of years you get the average annual increase in real ordinary time weekly earnings as $5.31 from 1990 to 1999, and $5.41 from 1999 to 2007.

And if you look at the average annual increase in real ordinary after tax earnings, then the increase is $5.66 from 1990 to 1999 and $2.82 from 1999 to 2007.

So on the Stats NZ figures, average real weekly ordinary time earnings increased by almost exactly the same annual amount from Jun 90 t0 Jun 99 and Jun 99 to Jun 07. And if you take into account tax, the increase was twice as high in the earlier time period.

Again, if The Standard can provide their full data and reference sources, I would be happy to try and work out why the data is so different.  I did look through many other data series in the QES to try and reverse engineer a series which fitted their data, but there didn’t seem an obvious one that fitted.

Steve Pierson at The Standard proposes that MPs salary increases be linked to the median wage:

Every year the Remuneration Board, an independent body, reviews the pay of MPs. Whatever pay increase it recommends is always approved by Parliament unanimously and without debate, to keep the process from being politicised. Every year, our ever mature media gleefully portrays this process as politicians giving themselves a huge pay rise.

What if, instead, MPs pay increases were automatic and the same amount as the median income increase? The pay and annual increase methodology would be contained in legislation, so would not require annual approval. Any suggestion of impropriety would be eliminated and our journalists could get on with investigating real stories.

First of all a couple of minor corrections. It is the Remuneration Authority, not Board, and more importantly they do not recommend pay increases – they set salaries.  Not only does Parliament not get to vote on them, they don’t even need an Order-in-Council.

I agree it would be good to avoid the annual outrage over MPs getting a payrise, which people think they have voted themselves.  But linking to the median wage would over time have MPs salaries drift below the level they should be to attract suitable professionals.  It would also provide an incentive for MPs to let inflation run rampant as wage increases of 15% and inflation of 15% hurts people on the median wage, but actually benefits people on higher incomes.

I do recall a Yes Prime Minister episode where Sir Humphrey gets a massive pay rise through Cabinet for the public service, by having MPs pay rises linked to public servants!

What I have long advocated is that MPs salaries and allowances should only be reviewed and set every three years, instead of annually. Inflation is low enough that this can be done.

What this would mean if no MP gets a pay increase during a term of Parliament. They keep the same salary for their term of office.  So in 2008 the RA would set MP salaries for 2009 – 2011. And in 2011 for 2012 – 2014. They would only take effect for the new Parliament.  So candidates can choose to stand knowing exactly what the salary will be, and voters will know the salary for the job they are electing people to.

Pablo, in the comments of The Standard, also endorses this and notes this is constitutional law in the US.

It would be a popular policy with the public, to have no pay increases for MPs during a parliamentary term, and it would save the MPs the annual bashing they get for something they don’t decide.

The Standard accuses the Herald of handing editorial control over to the Free Speech Coalition. If only they would – I’d love to be editor even just for a day.

KBB repeats the charge.  Their complaint is the story which includes:

Prime Minister Helen Clark says her criticisms of the New Zealand Herald bear no similarity to the ejection a newspaper publisher from Fiji by that country’s military regime.

What both blogs deliberately ignore – because they want to bring down the Herald – is that the story is not a NZ Herald story. It is an NZPA story. This is clearly indicated at the bottom of the page. The Herald running on their website an NZPA story is a daily event.
So really they are saying that NZPA has also joined the Vast Right WIng Conspiracy of 91 years of non charity to Labour.  And if I now have editorial control over NZPA, could someone start paying me.

Incidentally I did enjoy the comment made in this thread:

Meanwhile, overheard at a telephone exchange in downtown Suva!

“Hello, Commodore Frank Bainimarama speaking.”

“Hello, Helen Clark here.”

“Why Helen, This is an unexpected surprise, what can I do for you?”

“Just some advise please Frank, how DO you deport a newspaper editor?”

Heh.

The Standard, and some other left blogs, have been critical of Bunnings for only paying workers a starting rate of NZ$12/hr compared to NZ$19/hr in Australia. They talk about the Australian CEO’s salary but that is a red herring.  The questions I would ask is what is the EBITDA for the NZ and Australian operations, and also what are the gross revenue and staff numbers for each side of the Tasman.  And what is the cost of living in each country.
Without that info, I can’t really offer an informed view as to whether Bunnings pay rates are reasonable in NZ compared to Australia or not. Also of course one of the incentives for employers to pay staff more, is the fact they may lose their staff to other employers who need those skills.  In a low unemployment environment, this is a real issue.

Nevermind also blogged on this issue and e-mailed the NZ General Manager of Bunnings, who replied to him.  Well done to Nevermind for publishing the reply, which is:

Thank you for your correspondence, as I am sure you will appreciate there are two sides to every story.

We have been negotiating with the National Distribution Union since May 2007, during this time we have lifted the average wage for all team members by 6.4%.This includes wages for union members despite being unable to reach agreement with the NDU. In addition Bunnings has also provided additional benefits which the NDU chooses to ignore such as 6% contribution to Kiwisaver, an offer to all team members of $1000 worth of shares in the company at the cost of one dollar, bonuses for all team members measured against store targets, dividends on shareholdings, to name a few.(around 80% of Bunnings NZ workers are shareholders)

Although the NDU publicly includes all Bunnings workers by insinuation in its press releases and pamphlets in fact they represent a little over 300 of our 2400 team members of which less tan 200 have joined in the industrial action taken.

We have a strong commitment to employing great people who want to work for us because it is a great place to work and in the main we believe we are achieving that goal despite the activities of the NDU.

I realise it is your choice where you shop but appreciate the opportunity to put the other side of the issue to you.

Now again I still don’t have information on exactly what the NDU is asking for, and what Bunnings have offered, so I’m not going to declare one side good and one side bad. But I will say I absolutely love the idea of a company where 80% of the staff are shareholders and would love to see more companies do this.