Kiwiblog

Throng blog:

Ok, so I’m not 100% sure on the math here (need to check up the tax rules) but both bulletins can’t be right here in their calculations.  Using IRD’s website, currently for a minimum wage earner, they pay $2.27 in total for their tax and ACC levies.  I’m trying to double check these figures quoted, but I think 3 News is wrong – it can’t be right thatminimum wage earners are taxed 40%!

ONE News: $10 – $2.10 in tax – $0.20 in ACC levies = $7.70 in the hand
3 News: $10 – $3.00 New ACC levies in April – $1.00 PAYE tax = $6.00 in the hand

Note: Trevor Mallard also said about $6 in his 3 News interview.

Trevor Mallard is of course wrong, and if TV3 relied on him, shame on them.

One News had is absolutely correct. The marginal tax rate for a FT worker on the minimum wage is 21% and the ACC levy for next year will be 2%, so a $10 gross increase will be a $7.70 net increase.

Fun summer reading can be decisions of the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Some recent decisions:

1. They reject four complaints against TV3 for Ali Ikram’s satirical piece of Maori TV getting the Rugby World Cup rights. It wasn’t that funny a piece of satire, but no way should it be illegal!
2. They also turn down two complaints against TVNZ and Paul Henry over his comments re the Maori flag.
3. ACT member Peter Taskhoff is sucessful against TVNZ for a story at an arms show than unfairly portrayed him in a negative light.
4. Kerry Bolton wins against Radio NZ for Chris Laidlaw’s programme which made holocaust denying accusations against him withotu verifying them.
5. Henk van Helmond loses against TV3 for door stopping him at is home in relation to threats about Sue Bradford.
6. A complaint against TV3 for coverage of the Boobs on Bikes parade was not upheld.
7. A complaint fron a Patty Towl against Solid Gold FM for the joke that Ellen DeGeneres is the second most powerful lesbian on the planet, and Chris Carter being the first – was not upheld.

My God, the Rugby World Cup free to air rights issue is a mess, to put it kindly. A fiasco maybe.

I’m someone who actually is supportive of the ambition of Maori TV to be the free to air broadcaster. But the sticking point is the only 90% coverage. Having 10% of New Zealanders not able to get free to air coverage of the Rugby World Cup we are hosting was never going to be acceptable.

If Pita Sharples had talked to other Ministers on the (laudable) ambition for Maori TV, they may have been able to actually help with the bid, by asking the right questions. Instead, we now have two different parties in Government appearing to back competing bids by taxpayer funded stations.

So what do the media say. The Herald reports:

Maori TV chief executive Jim Mather says the channel will continue to fight the Government for the rights to screen the Rugby World Cup, and will use money from wealthy iwi and corporate groups to outbid it.

Well that I approve of!

IRB spokesman Ross Young said the board would be open to increased bids.

I bet they are. They must be laughing all the way to the bank.

The Herald understands the Government’s concern about Maori TV’s coverage relates to fears about small crowds at the tournament, already expected to make a $40 million loss.

The Government and Rugby Union can make money only from ticket sales, and are worried about how these would be affected without the hype TVNZ can generate.

Well then TVNZ should have put in a bigger bid initially – possibly with support from the Rugby Union.

But Mr Mather said this was “throwing Maori TV the crumbs” and there was little chance of it being involved. The value to Maori TV was in having the exclusive rights, requiring viewers to switch over, rather than staying behind the major networks.

And this is the big pay off for Maori TV. It can take years for people to get used to checking a channel out. A month of people swapping to Maori TV for the RWC would probably leave them with a lot more viewers after the cup.

So what is the so called Govt plan:

- TVNZ leads bid to show the 16 most important games live and free-to-air, backed by Government money.

- TVNZ will show six games – two of the All Blacks’ pool games, the semi-finals, final, and third/fourth play-off.

- TV3, which has put up some of its own money, will show six games – the two other All Blacks pool games, the semi-finals, final and third/fourth play-off.

If it wants, Maori TV can put up money and simulcast the games TVNZ and TV3 are showing. It can also show the balance of the 16 games that the networks do not want.

The challenge for Maori TV is how they can do a bid that covers more than 90% of NZ.

Patrick Gower writes:

Remember the utter shambles as the All Blacks bombed out of the last Rugby World Cup because they could not organise a simple drop-goal in Cardiff?

If the failure to do the strikingly obvious that day left you horrified, then best to cover your eyes before watching the Government’s bungling of the free-to-air television rights for the next Rugby World Cup. …

TVNZ’s involvement is necessary because it has the reach and numbers to hype up the tournament over the next two years and get people through the gates, with ticketing the only way the Government and Rugby Union can make money and stem losses.

Maori TV can offer unique cultural and language elements as well as the flexibility of scheduling to be able to show wall-to-wall coverage without having to break for regular programming like the nightly news.

Surely getting the two together as co-broadcasters months ago and bargaining with the IRB was the obvious solution?

That would have been nice.

Audrey Young chips in:

The political debacle over the Maori Television Service bid for Rugby World Cup coverage rights has soured relations between National and the Maori Party more than anything else in their one-year partnership.

Yep, and it was al avoidable if Ministers talked to each other earlier on.

The Herald editorial proclaims:

The saga of Maori Television’s bid for the Rugby World Cup’s free-to-air broadcasts has taken a bizarre turn with the Government’s decision to fund a higher bid by TVNZ. The International Rugby Board, seller of the broadcasting rights, must be wide-eyed in wonder and glee that it stands to gain from a contest between two bids financed by New Zealand taxpayers. …

But it has taken a quite disturbing degree of fright at the prospect of Maori Television winning the free-to-air rights. Certainly, the Government had a right to be aggrieved that its coalition partner, Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples, did not consult National ministers before approving $3 million from his department, Te Puni Kokiri, to finance the bid.

The general rule of thumb is you should consult your colleagues on anything you would expect to be consulted over.

But if the taxpayer must contribute, why not through Maori Television? It is building a strong presence as a public channel for ceremonial events such as Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. Its coverage of the funeral for Sir Howard Morrison was deeply admired by all who caught it. TVNZ seems no longer interested in this sort of occasion either.

Maori Television was offering World Cup commentaries in English and Maori, from familiar faces and new. It aimed to popularise some Maori phrases through the English telecast, meeting its state-funded mission. On recent evidence it would do a conscientious and fine job. Surely a free-to-air partnership can be forged that would meet all concerns and save the taxpayer this ridiculous double bid.

I agree.

And Tracy Watkins:

In effect, we’ve got government ministers bidding against each other – and ratcheting up the cost for taxpayers as a consequence – to suit their own political purposes.

On the one side is Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples who gave Maori TV the green light for a $3 million-plus bid in a nod to his Maori constituency.

On the other are senior ministers Bill English, Jonathan Coleman and Murray McCully, who’ve given TVNZ and TV3 a nod and a wink that the Government will step in with whatever it takes to win the bid over Maori TV – presumably after concluding that their own constituency won’t take kindly to having to tune into Maori TV to watch world cup games.

I don’t think that is the issue. If done in the right way, I think one could have got the Government quite supportive of the bid. The bigger issue is achieving greater than 90% coverage, and also using TV to boost ticket sales.

The script writers for Yes Minister couldn’t have come up with a more absurd plot.

It would be a great script!

Brian Edwards blogs on the F word, and how often it is used on TV now. I’m not that interested in that (I hardly even realise when the word is said), but on his quoting rules from various radio and TV networks.

Radio New Zealand’s programme rules state: ‘In general, senior managers will never approve the word “motherfucker”, and the word “fuck” will only be approved in rare circumstances where context justifies its use.’

But what if one is talking about a Tasmanian?

The Radio Network has an even stricter policy.  ’Fuck’ may not be used by its programme hosts or talk-back callers. Like all talk-back stations, the ZB network operates a 7-second delay, allowing hosts to delete unacceptable material before it is broadcast.

So Radio NZ is slightly more liberal. I’m on the Panel this afternoon so maybe I’ll see if I can slip it in – just kidding Noelle

TV3 will allow limited use of obscene language after 8pm but takes a much more relaxed approach after 9.30. (Outrageous Fortune and Seven Days are both TV3 programmes broadcast after 9.30.)

Wasn’t the Ralston Group on after 9.30?

TVNZ takes a similar position. Though it will on occasion broadcast the f-word after 8.30pm, it prefers to restrict its use of the word until after 9.30. If the word is used more than twice, the programme will be preceded by a viewer warning.

I love how they have a quota. More than two fucks and you get a warning!

Most New Zealand newspapers will not print the word ‘fuck’ in full, preferring to use asterisks as in ‘f**k’. This always struck me as rather silly, since there are very few New Zealanders who would not be able to fill in the missing letters.

It is silly, but I sometimes do it myself. It is a way of conveying what was said, without perhaps repeating any offence.

I was interviewed for TV3 News on Saturday about what Bradford’s departure may mean politically, along with Andrew Little, Chris Trotter and Matt McCarten.

I took the view that it was potentially beneficial to the Greens as replacing Bradford with Clendon strengthens their environmental brand and if they are smart they could get as much as 10% of the vote if they position themselves as “greening” the Government no matter if it is National or Labour.

I stressed that the Greens will always support a Labour-led Government over a National-Led Government if one is possible. But if only National can form a Government, the Greens might be able to go beyond their current co-operation agreement to an abstain on supply and confidence agreement.

I understand Matt McCarten saw the move as potentially beneficial to the Greens also, and their ability to work on both sides of the aisle so to speak.

Andrew Little saw it as good for Labour, as Labour could pick up social justice voters from the Greens. I responded that this doesn’t actually help Labour win office, just as National picking up ACT voters doesn’t. And it can actually backfire if the Greens drop below 5% (as they have done in last night’s TVNZ poll). Also I have some doubts that Goff-led Labour will be more convincing to social justice voters than the Greens.

The real benefit to Labour would be if the Greens pick up some centrist voters who were previously put off by Bradford. For that will grow the left’s vote.

Chris Trotter sees the departure of Bradford as being the death of the left as the Greens go middle class.

He’s done a follow-up post today, which has some interesting observations:

The dangers inherent in the Greens’ educative model are demonstrated in their policy on the Treaty of Waitangi. Though the signing of the Treaty, like all historical events, is the subject of multiple, and often sharply contradictory, interpretations, the Greens have adopted an unequivocal and quite inflexible interpretation of the Treaty’s meaning. So much so that when some of their own members, unconvinced by the official party line, openly questioned it’s accuracy, they were deemed ineligible to stand as Green candidates by the Party leadership.

That the dissidents’ views on the Treaty of Waitangi were actually more in tune with those of the majority of Pakeha New Zealanders was an “inconvenient truth” to be overcome by – yes, you guessed it – a taxpayer-funded traveling road-show which would take the “true” meaning of the Treaty directly to the ignorant Pakeha masses and educate them into full conformity with the Greens’ historical interpretation.

This authoritarian aspect of the Greens’ political style is nowhere more apparent than in their so-called “consensus-based decision-making” constitution. Described as a means of “seeking positions that the maximum number of people can support, rather than a simple majority”, what these rules actually make possible is the ability of a tiny minority to over-rule and/or subvert the will of the majority.

In practical terms, it allows the leadership of the party, either directly or through their surrogates, to prevent the membership from directly challenging the Green Party caucus’s political strategy and tactics. Rather than promoting the open contest of conflicting political options, it fosters the cobbling together of compromises. Also, by imposing enormous emotional pressure on dissenters, it drives opposition below the surface of party affairs – a situation which, once again, privileges those in senior positions, and makes rank-and-file challenges to official party policy extremely difficult.

That is an interesting analysis of how the much vaunted consensus system actually can favour the hierarchy.

The Herald reports:

TVNZ was the big winner at the annual ceremony held in Auckland on Saturday night, winning 11 categories to TV3’s one.

The two broadcasters take turns filming and screening the awards ceremony.

This year, it was TVNZ’s turn, but the state broadcaster pulled out, so TV3 stepped in.

However, it did not screen the whole show, instead showing a shortened “highlights” version on Sunday night with many of its rival’s winners edited out.

That prompted the state broadcaster to ask for a copy of the unscreened coverage.

But TV3 has rejected the request, saying the film is its to keep.

Someone at TV3 should reconsider. This just makes them look defensive and petty.

As first reported on the blogs, it looks like TV3’s access to Clayton Weatherston in prison was not kosher. The Herald reports:

The Corrections Department will lay a formal complaint with TV3 after a journalist infiltrated a prison to speak to convicted murderer Clayton Weatherston. …

During the story, Ms Horwood spoke of visiting Weatherston in prison. The breach of security has broken strict Corrections Department rules, said Mike Martelli, general manager of the office of chief executive Barry Matthews.

He said all media interviews with prisoners require the approval of Mr Matthews. “No approval was given for a journalist from TV3’s 60 Minutes to interview prisoner Clayton Weatherston, nor was any approach made to the department requesting an interview.

And TV3 would surely know these rules.

TV3 last night reported:

Last December Neelam Choudary’s husband, Kumar Choudary, was convicted for his role in an immigration scam.

Today one of his victims told 3 News most of his dealings were in fact with Neelam and that the Choudarys have ruined his life.

Siddesh Sajjan says the Choudarys are dangerous people and he is concerned for his safety.

That is why he does not want to be identified.

They named him, but did not show his face.

He also says his dealings with the Choudarys left him in the darkest place of his life.

“I was very upset and I was in such terrible pain,” says immigration scam victim Siddesh Sajjan.

Sajjan first met with Neelam Choudary in 2002 when she had advertised herself as a recruitment agent and immigration specialist.

“She’s the one who started it,” says Sajjan. “Then later on she tried to skip out of it and she involved her husband into this matter.”

One year on the Choudarys charged Sajjan $15,000 in fees with the promise of an offer of employment and help with immigration.

None of the promises came through.

“She will do anything for money, for fame,” says Sajjan.

Mrs Choudary was not charged, but her husband has been convicted for the fraud. His sentence is at this stage, unknown.

People representing the Choudarys contacted Sajjan this morning.

“They said that if I stop talking about her, they wanted to pay my money back,” says Sajjan.

This is the most disturbing part. He got offered $15,000 to shut up. Who made the offer and what are their links?

However, Sajjan says this is no longer about money. Right now the Labour supporter wants to talk to Phil Goff about the character of Neelam Choudary.

Over at NBR I conclude my column on the Choudary allegations with the question about whether Phil Goff will meet or refuse to meet this Labour Party voter who is a victim of crime?

Somehow I have ended up on the press release list for TVNZ News. But you see some interesting stuff, including their boast sheet of the ratings for their news shows vs TV3. This is for all viewers 5+.

The percentages are my calculation, being TVNZ’s share of the viewers watching the two channels. 50% means equal numbers watching TVNZ and TV3 News.

On a percentage basis TVNZ does best with the Breakfast slot, gaining four times as many viewers as TV3’s Sunrise.

The main news bulletin is more competitive with only a 2:1 advantage. However at 7 pm it gets more pronounced with Close Up having a larger gap over Campbell Live.

The slot where TV3 gets closest, interestingly, is the late news slot. Is this a Nightline legacy from the days of Belinda Todd?

TV3 just did a shock expose story on something that has been in the public domain since November 2008. Just because they didn’t do research doesn’t excuse them saying:

Had this not been leaked, it raises the question of whether National would have ever told anyone.

The issue is the agreement to fund an extra staff member in Out of Parliament offices of MPs whose electorate is larger than 20,000 sq km or is a Maori seat. I’ll come back to the merits of the policy later. But first the total beatup that this was some sort of secret only revealed by leaked documents. Have a look at the actual supply and confidence agreement signed by National and the Maori Party on the 16th of November 2008. It says:

The challenges of servicing the disproportionately large size of the Maori electorates will be addressed through immediate implementation of the recommendation from the March 2007 report of the Committee of the Third Triennial Review (Goulter report).

There is inequity in respect of the support that Parliament provides the very large electorates compared to the very small ones. One comparison is between Te Tai Tonga (147,000 sq km) and Epsom (22 sq km).

So this was as public as you can get. The supply and confidence agreement was massively reported on at the time. TV3 has stuffed up big time by painting this as some sort of hidden initiative.

The other aspect totally lacking in the TV3 story was what this decision was based on. As the supply and confidence agreement states, it was recommended by a neutral independent reviewer (John Goulter) in March 2007. And what did the Goulter review say. On page 92:

“That all Maori constituent Members of Parliament and each constituency Member of Parliament with an electorate in excess of 20,000 sq km in area be entitled to the services of an extra staff member to equate to three full-time equivalent out of Parliament support staff members”

So this was a open and public decision to implement the recommendation of a neutral expert reviewer. That does not mean it was a good decision (in fact I disagree with aspects of it), but TV3 were dishonest with their portrayal of it as National MPs voting them and their allies more money in secret. They even listed the MPs names with dollar signs next to them as if they were personally getting the money. In fact they are merely getting permission to hire a third staff member.

Now as it happens this issue has been reported on before – by myself and Home Paddock. Despite both being Nats we have been critical of the actual policy because of an inequality. The smallest Maori seat, as Home Paddock pointed out on 16 November is Tamaki Makaurau being only 730 sq kms in size. So why include that in extra resources?

I’d personally blogged twice on this issue previously. I actually commented when the agreement was announced:

I would rather decisions like this are made through the Parliamentary Service Commission. But this was recommended by the Goulter review, and two offices are not enough for some of those large electorates.

I didn’t like the idea of funding arrangements being decided bilaterally, but noted the fact it had been recommended mitigated that.

Then I linked to Home Paddock’s post and commented on 18 November 2008:

It is hard to justify a third staffer for Tamaki Makauru, when it is so much smaller than the other Maori seats.

I went on to propose the policy should be based on size only, so should be:

To be fair to all large seats, the agreement should be modified to be either:

1. Only three of the Maori seats and four general seats over 20,000 sq km
2. Five Maori seats, and four general seats over 15,000 sq km
3. Six Maori seats and six general seats over 12,500 sq km
4. All seven Maori seats and 27 general seats over 730 sq km

So you actually had a couple of Nats four months ago criticising the policy, before the media had even run a single story on it.

Really TV3 actually stuffed in every regard. The story they should have run is on the inequality of including Tamaki Makaurau when it is not a large seat. That is the legitimate issue you can criticise the decision over. I’d like to ask John Goulter (who made the recommendation) why he included them.

But instead of doing analysis they tried to portray this as some sort of secret hidden decision that only came to light due to a leak. They either did not know or decided not to mention that it had been announced four months ago. And they also neglected to mention it was implementing the decision of a neutral independent reviewer. A highly relevant fact.

UPDATE: looking more closely at the TV3 story, it looks like the Government decided not to fund Tamaki Makaurau for a third staff member (they only list the other six Maori seats), despite the recommendation and agreement it be all Maori seats. If correct, that is a good thing. It also means the story is then even more of a beat up.

As I blogged earlier, Whale Oil broke the story of the DIA misleading journalists in relation to inquiries over Winston’s ministerial car.

TV3 covered the story tonight, which was great. But it is regrettable they didn’t credit Whale Oil with the story. As far as I know, no-one else had the documents he obtained. Maybe they sourced it independently, but I know the blog post in question had been seen by them.

TV3 got Dom Post Deputy Editor on camera saying it was a cover up. Godo on them for not mincing words. I do wonder why the Dom Post did not publish at their time, their belief DIA misled them, let alone ask for documents under the OIA?

I enjoyed Phil Goff criticising DIA for the cover up. Who would have ever though a story started by Whale Oil would end up having Phil Goff agreeing with it

UPDATE: A TV3 staffer has confirmed with me that they did receive the DIA documents independently, and were not reliant on the blog story. Hence the issue of credit does not apply. Appreciate the update from them.

TV3 poll just out:

• National 60%
• Labour 27%
• Greens 7%

TV3 have never ever had a party so high before – it is unprecedented in recent decades. And remember this is the poll Labour claims is the most accurate. Now of course there is a honeymoon period, but this is like having a honeymoon with Angelia Jolie instead of Rosie O’Donnell.

A Parliament on this poll would have the Government with 80 seats and the Opposition with just 43.

Phil Goff refused to be interviewed for TV3 about the poll – something no other leader has done in the past decade. But here’s why – Preferred PM:

• John Key 52%
• Helen Clark 14%
• Phil Goff 4%

Key is obviously having a honeymoon also, but it is a stronger honeymoon than any other Prime Minister has ever had. 64% rate his performance as strong and only 4% as weak! Considering the deep economic crisis we are in, that is astonishing.

His personal attributes have also shot up – 85% now rate Key as a capable leader.

Now a week is a long time in politics, and the next election is 33 months away. Goff is under no threat for now. But if he doesn’t make some traction towards the end of the year, he may find the summer of 2010 is BBQ at Dave’s place

There’s been quite a bit of media interest lately about the Australian Government’s daft idea to force Australian ISPs to install compulsory filters that will ban sites the Government deems undesirable.

Radio NZ did a piece this morning:

The Australian government plans to force Australian ISPs to filter out more than a thousand websites with content including child pornography, excessive violence, crime and drug information as well as promoting terrorism.

The policy, dubbed the ‘Great Aussie Firewall’, has been met with a storm of criticism across the Tasman.

Internet New Zealand board member David Farrar says much of the banned content is traded over peer-to-peer networks which won’t be caught by filters.

He says the filters will also cause a sharp fall in download speeds for Australian users.

Internet Service Providers Association of New Zealand president Jamie Baddeley said the policy is insane and unworkable.

But he says it is symptomatic of pressure coming on ISPs to do more to police the internet.

One can also listen to the full item, at the bottom of the linked page. Jordan Cater is also interviewed.

I’ve also just been interview by TV3 for their 6 pm news tonight on the same issue.

I commented that luckily in NZ we have far smarter MPs, and I doubt more than a handful here would back some sort of compulsory government filter.

Also put in a plug for Netsafe, who provide really great resources for those worried about Internet safety.

It’s bad enough we have a stupid law that bans adverts on television on Sunday mornings. God knows why.

But even worse, the taxpayer through the Ministry of CUlture and Heritage paid a private investigator to watch the quarters, semis and final of the Rugby World Cup, so they could prosecute TV3 for showing advertisements.

TV3’s defence is they were also broadcasting to an overseas audience, which is an exemption.

But why on Earth did the taxpayer need to fund a private detective to watch and record a TV show? Was this beyond the dozens of staff at MCH? Does MCH not have any video recorders? Do none of the staff have any video recorders?

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

Mediawatch on Sunday did a spell talking about blogs and included a chat with me, and an extract from the Two Helens ad Whale Oil and I did.

Last week I did an extended interview for around 10 minutes with Eric Young on Sky News. Was lots of fun. The dog toys even made an appearance. Also I discovered that Eric wears jeans with his suit and hides it from the camera

And Ali Ikram had some fun on Sunrise last week with our the two Helens ad.

I’m also on One’s Breakfast around 8.20 tomorrow discussing the campaign and the election.

From the Press:

Labour leader Helen Clark believes she had her opponent, John Key, “rattled” during last night’s TV3 leaders’ debate.

I am always amused when Helen Clark political commentator judges how well Prime Minister Helen Clark has done. Are the two Clarks related?

After a scrappy but ultimately even contest between the two leaders, a defiant Clark told reporters she had got her points across well, rejecting suggestions she had been more defensive than Key, who appeared relaxed throughout the hour-long show.

He was more relaxed but less so than the previous TV debate I thought.

“I don’t think I was the one who came across as defensive,” Clark said afterwards.

Is that the PM defensively saying she was not defensive?

Key refused to declare a victor, saying he thought the debate had been scrappy at times, but that both sides had a fair hearing.

“In the end, I thought John Campbell did a good job.”

He did, but I think he asked too many process questions instead of policy questions.

He revealed that Clark had complained at one point during a commercial break that she had not had enough air time a point she disputed after the show.

Clark complained last debate also and it turned out she had more airtime.

Key struck back over a discussion on the nanny state, telling Clark her Government was “storming through your front door” with new regulations on lightbulbs and shower heads, prompting Clark to utter her least believable line of the night: “I’m a free spirit”.

Exactly.

Overall, Key appeared more relaxed than Clark, but both were on top of their game and able to foot it with each other and with Campbell’s attempts to catch them out, and the debate appeared to be an honorable draw.

I agree.

Clark got in a final parting shot at TV3’s downbeat post-match panel, saying “I thought the panel needed Prozac, but perhaps it’s too late at night for them”.

I thought Jenny McManus was great!

Well I would be surprised if anyone made their mind up watching that debate.

My biggest gripe is far far too much time was spent on process issues such as trust, coalitions, longevity, experience and almost no time on policy. I wanted a debate contrasting policy positions.

NZPA have said:

CLARK AND KEY COME OUT EVEN IN SECOND LEADERS DEBATE

Helen Clark and John Key argued over economic policy and asked voters to believe they were good leaders during tough times when they went head to head tonight in the second election campaign leaders debate.

TV3’s John Campbell held them on a tighter rein than Mark Sainsbury did during the first debate and tried to trip them up himself with questions about flip-flops, trust and manifesto promises.

It didn’t work because they were both quick on their feet and the best value came from some sharp exchanges over who had the most promising plans for the future.

But if viewers expected something new they didn’t get it.

The Winston billboard is on TV3 tonight and if you want a laugh, you can see me looking terrified in a cherry picker as I actually got to do some of the stapling. I couldn’t resist giving Winston an eyebrow piercing while up there

Half the time I was smiling at the thought of Winston driving past this. Half the time I was not enjoing strong gusts of winds and looking semi-petrified. Me and heights don’t go well together.

There were lots and lots of waves and toots of support as it was going up.

The Herald backs Clark and Key in agreeing to debates between the two of them only:

They need make no apology for that. Theirs are the only parties capable of forming a government. Far from undermining MMP, their joint decision is perfectly in line with the way MMP has developed in this country. After 12 years, the voting system has not produced a three- or four-party contest as it did in Germany, the only close model.

There, the two smaller parties each attract around 10 per cent of the vote and can claim significant places on the stage at each election. The most successful of our smaller parties have half that support and it becomes harder to argue that they should be included in televised debates while others should not. …

National and Labour have a legitimate shared interest in minimising third-party influence. They are under no obligation to let minnows enjoy their limelight. They obviously see their prospects best served by a simple two-sided debate. The rest will no doubt get a separate televised forum for their contest.

And there is a debate on TV One on 27 October between the six minor parliamentary parties.

Meanwhile Pundit has a copy of the letter sent to Clark and Key from TVNZ and TV3 jointly:

A joint letter from news chiefs at TV3 and TVNZ last Monday pleaded with both Helen Clark and John Key not to turn their backs on multi-party debates, insisting they were of “fundamental importance in an MMP environment”.

I have said I think there should be one debate with all eight leaders. I would have four debates – two head to heads, one with all eight and one with only the minors.

But I do think people over-state MMP as the reason for including the minors. Social Credit has twice as many MPs as Jim Anderton, yet Bruce Beetham never got invited to the debates.

But talking of debates, the Alliance is complaining the CTU has refused to allow them to attend a Meet the Parties meeting in Christchurch:

Alliance Party Canterbury Convenor Quentin Findlay says the the local Council of Trade Unions leadership has locked the Alliance out of the debate.

He says Alliance members would be picketing the venue and would accept a last minute invitation to speak.

“All we are asking is for a chance to speak. No special treatment, we just to want to talk to the workers.”

Mr Findlay says the Alliance is a strongly pro-worker party that strongly supports the Union movement, and had not taken the decision to go public lightly.

Last week I set up an online survey for MPs, asking them to rate various media organisations and senior gallery journalists on a scale of 0 to 10. Just under one quarter of MPs responded, and the results are shown below.

As the media often rate how well MPs are doing, I thought it appropriate to reverse this and ask the questions in reverse. The media are a hugely powerful filter, and it is appropriate (in my opinion) to have some focus on how well they are perceived to be performing.

The questions were:

1. For each media organisation please give them a rating from 0 to 10 for how well you think they do in their parliamentary reporting. This should take account of all relevant factors – accuracy, fairness, thoroughness, relevance, substance etc.
2. Now for some individual senior members of the press gallery, please rate from 0 to 10 how well you think they perform at proving fair, accurate, unbiased and informative reporting on Parliament. You can skip any that you do not feel able to rate.
3. Finally can you indicate your party grouping as National, Labour or Other. Your individual identity is not sought by us, and we have no way or interest in identifying individual respondents. However we would like to summarise results for all MPs and by the three groupings to see if they vary by party grouping.

It is important that these be read in context, so make the following points:

1. This is the opinion of MPs only. It does not set out to be an objective rating, and should not be seen as such.
2. MPs get reported on by the gallery. While this makes them the group of NZers potentially best able to have an informed opinion on the media (which is why I surveyed them), it also gives them a conflict of interest. MPs may score journalists lowly due to personal run ins with them, or the fact they are too good at their job! This should be borne in mind.
3. I only e-mailed the survey to the 121 MPs, but it is possible that one or more responses was filled in by a staff member who has access to the MPs mailbox. I think this is unlikely, as most staff are very professional. However MPs were not required to prove their identity to vote, as confidentiality of individual responses was important. You need to know the Survey URL to be able to vote.
4. National MPs made up 43% of responses, slightly above their numbers in Parliament. Minor Party MPs were also slightly over-represented, Labour MPs under-represented and some MPs did not give a party identification.

NZ Press Association tops the rankings with a mean or average 6.1 rating – and received no very low ratings from anyone. The two Internet agencies were in the top five, indicating MPs like the fact their releases are carried in full. Trans-Tasman also does well.

Television generally gets ranked lowly with all four stations in the bottom half. Sky News actually ranks highest.

Radio is middle of the field with NewstalkZB being the highest ranked radio broadcaster.

The newspapers range the spectrum. The NZ Herald is up at 5.3, Press at 4.2 and Dom Post at 4.1. I would have them all higher, but this is a survey of MPs, not of my views.

Now the sample sizes are of course very small (but of a limited population) but let us look at how National MPs ranked media compared to all the other MPs:

National MPs ranked the four TV channels much higher than other MPs did. Maybe this is minor parties upset that they do not get on TV much?

Despite the generally accepted lean to the left of Radio NZ, National MPs ranked Radio NZ higher than other MPs did. And while some on the left attack the NZ Herald at favouring National, National MPs actually ranked them lower than other MPs did. The Listener and NBR also get accused of leaning right, but again get ranked lower by National MPs.

The Nat MPs also rated the online media very lowly.

Now the journalists. I decided not to list all members of the press gallery, but only those who are relatively senior, and are more likely to have a reasonable number of MPs have formed opinions about them. Looking back I could have included more.

If any journalist is unhappy about being missed out, happy to include you next year. Now again it is worth remembering these are only the opinions of those MPs who responded to my survey – it is not an objective rating.

John Armstrong tops the ratings, followed by the NZPA Political Editor Peter Wilson. Generally MPs ranked journalists slightly higher than media organisations. As can be seen by the minimum ratings showing, some MPs were very harsh handing out zeroes. Did WInston multiple vote? (Note I have no idea if Winston did vote)

And once again we compare responses between National MPs and other MPs.

Again very interesting. The SST is generally seen as hostile to National, but Ruth Laugeson is ranked much higher by National MPs, than by other MPs. Likewise the Gordon Campbell and Brent Edwards (both left leaning) are ranked higher by National MPs than other MPs.

Also for some reasons National MPs ranked Ian Templeton very lowly. Maybe they don’t like his weekly chats with Clark and Key, ignoring the lesser MPs?

Dear TV3,

Scott Campbell on Three News tonight in reporting on the PM’s reaction to the possible free trade agreement with the US, said she was  “quite literally blown her away”.

Do I need to point out how silly this statement is.

Unless of course there has been a cyclone you forgot to report on.

It is hard to know who did well at the Qantas Awards as each broadcaster focuses on the awards they won. So as a guide, here are the awards for each channel.

News and Current Affairs

TV1

1. Qantas Best News – One News
2. Best News or Current Affairs Presenter – Mark Sainsbury (Close Up)
3. TV Journalist of the Year – Mike Valintine and Hunter Wells (Sunday)
4. Best News Reporting – Lisa Owen (One News)
5. Best Current Affairs Reporting for a daily programme  – Robyn Janes and Steve Hopkins (Close Up)
6. Best Current Affairs Series  – Sunday
7. Best News Camera – Jared Mason (One News and Close Up)
8. Investigation of the Year – Mike Valintine and Hunter Wells (Sunday)

TV3

1. Best Current Affairs Reporting for a weekly programme or one off current affairs special – Sarah Hall, Paula Penfold, George Murahidy and Catherine Hallinan (60 Minutes)
2. Best Current Affairs Camera – George Murahidy (60 Minutes)
3. Best News and Current Affairs Editing – Paul Enticott (60 Minutes)

So a pretty compelling victory for TV1 over TV3. Now for General TV:

1. TV1 – 7 awards
2. TV2 – 4 awards
3. TV3 – 12 awards
4. C4 – 2 awards
5. Maori TV – 1 award
6. TVNZ6 – 1 award

TV3 takes aways the honours here – winning more than TV1 and TV2 combined.

Yay, TV3 is bring back the Telethon. Those who did not live in the Telethon era can’t imagine how big these were – almost all of NZ got involved. I suspect today they will not be so big, as we are all busier, but good on TV3 for giving up 22 hours of broadcast time to help KidsCan.

TV3 has got rather excited that John Key recently met with Michael, Lord Ashcroft (best known for $200,000 reward for the return fo the VCs). Lord Ashcroft is a Deputy Chairman of the UK Conservative Party and Treasurer of the International Democratic Union.

Now I hope there is nothing wrong with meeting Lord Ashcroft, as I’ve done so a dozen times. He’s a very funny, very smart guy.

TV3 are trying to link the meeting into being like Winston getting donations from Owen Glenn. However the law is very clear – Lord Ashcroft can not donate more than $1,000 to a NZ political party directly or indirectly. Incidentally Owen Glenn can still donate as much as he wants, because Labour specifically changed the Electoral Finance Bill to allow foreign expats such as Glenn to still give donations even though they have not lived her for 40 years.

On one point TV3 have a fair point. Key was evasive when asked if Ashcroft has met with anyone from National, saying “Yes, I think they have”. He did give a more helpful direct answer to the question whether he had personally met Ashcroft, replying “Yes I have. I met him at my home”. By not giving the direct answer to the initial question, John makes it look like there is something to hide, even though there isn’t.

For those who are really really bored on a Friday, the full 20 minute interview with the Veronicas is at TV3.