Kiwiblog

Whale Oil blogs:

The unthink­able has hap­pened, I have made a mis­take. Being a firm believer in own­ing your own shit I have apol­o­gised to Chris Carter and to his sis­ter. A short time after I sent my apol­ogy email (below) Chris rang me and we had a pleas­ant chat about the whole inci­dent. I thank Chris for tak­ing the time to ring me, he cer­tainly didn’t have to, the fact that he did and con­ducted him­self in such a polite man­ner shows the mea­sure of him.

And part of the e-mailed apology is:

Chris,

I would like to unre­servedly apol­o­gise to you for the last cou­ple of days. I was mis­led about the exact details of the sit­u­a­tion and have now clar­i­fied that the Mrs Carter in ques­tion is not in any­way related to you.

Fur­ther the whole issue was a hor­ri­ble mis­take from begin­ning to end start­ing with the Telco and the CEO of that telco con­cerned and end­ing with me. The phone issue is in fact legit­i­mate use of par­lia­men­tary resources.

Once again I sin­cerely apol­o­gise and will remove the posts about your­self and your sis­ter. I will also post this apol­ogy on my blog.

Please also pass on my sin­cere apolo­gies to your sister.

Sincere kudos to Chris, and his sister, for accepting the apology and in fact thanking Cameron for it – very classy. And also to Cam for such a unreserved apology.

I’m not a fan of posting details of Judges who issue suppression orders, as Cameron has threatened to do. Likewise I would not personally breach suppression orders as I am more an advocate of lobbying against stupid laws, rather than breaking them.

I do strongly support the Law Commission’s recommendation to make suppression orders much more difficult to achieve for those convicted of a crime.

But hell when I read about the recent case in Palmerston North, my blood boils and I am half tempted to join Whale in direct action. If you don’t know the case I am talking about, this is the Manawatu Standard on it:

If there were any lingering doubts that the guidelines for suppressing names in this country needed strengthening, the case detailed in today’s Manawatu Standard should shatter them.

The creeping secrecy pervading our justice system has long since passed what the public should accept as a reasonable restriction on their freedom of expression in order to safeguard the administration of justice.

The decision to suppress the name of a prominent Manawatu man convicted of downloading pornographic images of children is a salient example of how the principle of open justice has been reduced to little more than a passing mention before a judge abdicates his or her duty to ensure our public court system belongs to the people.

What if this man does not just download child pornography, but seeks to create some of his own? Parents are blocked from being able to protect their kids..

For Judge Fraser to say publication of the man’s identity was not required because none of the thousands of children pictured were New Zealanders is logically outrageous. Such an argument requires one to believe this man investigated the background of each of his young victims to determine they were not from this country. Does Judge Fraser believe that had the man known the children were New Zealanders he would have not downloaded the images?

An appalling lack of logic.

The Maori Party have attacked the decision:

Maori Party MPs have joined the chorus of condemnation at the permanent name suppression given to a prominent Manawatu man who downloaded more than 300,000 pornographic images, many of them picturing children.

“The decision to permanently suppress this man’s name is outrageous as is the decision to give him a few months home detention,” Maori Party justice spokeswoman Rahui Katene said.

“We urge the prosecution to appeal the sentence so this man can never ever again be allowed to continue his sick actions in a veil of secrecy.”

I hope it is appealed. But I also hope the Government puts a law change on the fast track.

The SST reports:

Controversial blogger Cameron Slater is again under police investigation, this time for identifying on his website a primary school teacher accused of sex crimes against children.

And Slater last night stepped up his name suppression campaign, telling the Sunday Star-Times he was set to post the names, phone numbers and addresses of judges who award name suppression without “good reason”.

Slater is already facing five charges of breaching name suppression orders, after he published on his website the names of several high-profile New Zealanders before the courts, but whose identities were suppressed.

Justice Minister Simon Power said Slater’s threats to expose the personal details of judges on his website were “probably not helpful”.

But Slater said our officers of the court were making “improper” decisions and he wanted to take a stand.

“These judges are the people perpetrating the expansion of the original suppression laws beyond what was envisaged by parliament,” Slater said. “They are trying to rewrite the law by judicial meddling.”

I’ve often joked with Whale that he will beat me in the ratings, even if he has to do it from D Block!

He seems to be well on the way to both aspects

In the Alexa ratings, Gotcha is ranked 124th most visited site by NZers. The previous weeks it was 118th and 112th. Kiwiblog is 122nd, and previously 121st and 117th, so in the weeks ending 17 January and 24 January, Gotcha was ahead of Kiwiblog in the Alexa rankings for New Zealanders.

As for making D Block, I’d say declaring war on Judges will help achieve that goal!

Not once, but twice, on Thursday I had people come up to thinking I was Whale Oil. One asked me how my father, John S, was going and the other congratulated me on my campaign against name suppression laws.

The only consolation is that Whale will probably be as upset that people confuse the two of us, as I am!

I have been thinking further on the name suppression issue.  I understand that the legislation applies automatic name suppression to alleged sexual offenders in cases where a minor is involved, or where the relationship with the accused means that the victim can be identified (or when you are really really famous).  Why?

Why does being the victim of a sexual attack mean that an individual shouldn’t be identified?  If the attack had been of a physical nature would name suppression be put in place?  And, just to exaggerate the point further, is the honour killing of rape victims by relatives in some countries (to cover up the attack and the way it tarnishes the family) just a more brutal version of a similar moral instrument in our society.

And, no, I’m not suggesting that we specifically name victims… just that using possible victim identification as the reason for perpetrator name suppression is… well… trite.

It seems that we as a society (and through our legislation) have applied a moral code.  We have decided that to be sexually abused or attacked means to be broken in a way that is unsuitable for others to have knowledge of.  As a society we have decided that people who are sexually abused might have their reputations besmirched by being a victim of such an attack.  Of course to move away from that would mean allowing victims (or an adult in their place) to have more say as to whether perpetrators (and potentially they as victims) are named.

Again, I ask you if it would be different if a well-known man had allegedly physically beaten his step-daughter?  Would he require the same sort of name suppression?

Name suppression (of the alleged or convicted perpetrator) has the possibility of actually putting sexual abuse victims in more of a box, to isolate them further and to effectively make it clear that we as a society don’t want to talk about that sort of thing.

I’m not saying there isn’t a place for name suppression… more challenging the reasons behind it being a necessary or automatic measure in some cases.

I’d also like to place some faith in the justice system so do think it is important that a person has the potential for a  level playing field before they go through trial to be found guilty or otherwise.

The Dom Post editorial today is on blogs and name suppression. Extracts:

As the internet has transformed the world, the blogosphere within has become pervasive. Anyone with a computer can either read the opinions of people who craft blogs – sometimes, merely illiterate streams of consciousness – or pen one themselves.

That some who cannot spell, let alone write, think that the world is gagging to know their business is as presumptuous as tweeters who think everyone is interested in their self-absorbed lives. Be that as it may.

Some blogs demand attention, in this country those by, for example, David Farrar, Russell Brown and Cameron Slater.

I’m not sure if that means we are excluded from the description of merely being illiterate streams of consciousness!

Attention Slater has now got.

Last month, police charged him with breaching name suppression orders when, on his WhaleOil blog, he posted pictorial clues identifying the accused in two high-profile sexual offence cases. This week, he revealed by way of binary code the identity of a former national figure accused of a sexual attack on a 13-year-old girl.

Nelson police, who laid the latest charges, call Slater’s actions irresponsible, because they fear they might lead to public identification of the victim, whom the suppression order was intended to protect.

Slater is on a mission. He has said, outside the courtroom, that he believes everyone should be equal before the law, that celebrities and the wealthy have their identities suppressed more often and more easily than do ordinary Kiwis, and that the law needs changing.

The Dominion Post agrees. But there are better ways to lobby for a more open court system than by putting at risk the future of a teenage girl.

I agree, but point out a newspaper had already effectively done the same thing.

At the same time, Slater has forced police, perhaps the solicitor-general, possibly Justice Minister Simon Power, Courts Minister Georgina te Heu Heu, and Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, and maybe, later, the judiciary, to confront the fact that the Criminal Justice Act, which gives judges the power to suppress certain information relating to cases before them, needs revision.

Which I believe is likely, on the basis of the Law Commission report and the comments at the time from Simon Power.

In the meantime, it is reassuring to see the Crown Law Office has decided that it can no longer apply the law relating to suppression unequally. At times of egregious breach, the solicitor-general has been keen to go after those in the mainstream media who have broken suppression orders or otherwise committed contempt of court.

For the most part, however, inhabitants of the blogosphere have been merely warned about their cavalier disregard of suppressed information or other transgressions, notably during Clayton Weatherston’s trial for murder.

Either everyone who breaches this law is prosecuted, or no-one is. And were the latter to become the reality, those sections of the Criminal Justice Act pertaining to suppression orders need to be repealed.

I find it quite funny that yesterday we had bloggers such as myself saying that the media are getting away with transgressions, while today the media are saying the bloggers are getting away!

An excellent summary of the whole issue has been done by Steven Price. I won’t do extracts because people should read the whole thing.

Law Professor Andrew Geddis has done a second post on the issue.

Also a number of posts from media lecturer Martin Hirst at Ethical Martini.

The Press reports:

A blogger faces fresh charges after he revealed the name of a national figure charged with indecently assaulting a 13-year-old girl.

Cameron Slater already faces charges over alleged breaches of name suppression, and he said yesterday that he had no doubt his latest effort would land him in more trouble.

Slater, who writes the WhaleOil blog, yesterday posted a blog entry that stated the name of a man charged with indecent assault. The name had to be deciphered by translating a code the blog was written in.

I think it was hexadecimal converted into binary. Now Cameron will find out in due course, whether or not that is seen to identify the ex-MP with name supression, but if they do prosecute the Whale, the question has to be asked whether newspapers should be charged also?

The man’s name was suppressed when he appeared in the Nelson District Court on Thursday.

A Sunday newspaper published details about the man, which Slater said had narrowed the field of possible accused to three.

He wanted to clarify who the accused was so the other two men were not unfairly accused.

Now I am not gunning for the Herald on Sunday. But I would say that far more people worked out from their story, who the accussed is, than the handful of people who were capable of working out the code Cameron had used, and reverse engineering it into hexadecimal and finally the  alphabet.

I am not saying that one justifies the other, or two wrongs make a right. I am saying that the Police should be very careful not to be selective. The Herald on Sunday article told us the following:

• An ex-MP in Nelson – narrows it down to around four people
• A “national figure” – probably eliminates around two of the four people as now very low profile
• He has a partner
• Has a firearms licence (implied)
• Implies the victim is the partner’s daughter
• Implies the ex-MP has been in more than one party by referring to the leader of “a” party he represented in Parliament

I would say that identifies the accused far more easily to many more people than the hexadecimal and binary code did.

You can argue that Whale’s post left no doubt, once you cracked his codes, while the newspaper story only allows you to make an intelligent guess. However the law in s139(2) says:

No person shall publish … the name of the person accused or convicted of the offence or any name or particulars likely to lead to the person’s identification.

Were the particulars in the newspaper story enough to be likely to lead to identification of the accused? They certainly were for me, and most political observers.

Now again, I am not advocating that the newspaper be charged. I would prefer no one be charged. But I would be interested in how one could conclude that the blog post is a breach, but the newspaper story is not.

Cactus Kate says far better than me, what my views are:

As I advise anyone who comes to Whaleoil’s attention, the best course of action is to be polite and either ignore what he has written or write to him in a manner which puts your side of the story and he will more often than not be reasonable enough to publish that. He has a short span of attention thanks to his depression and soon moves to a new target.

The worst course of action is to give Whaleoil opposition. He is mental. I mean this in a loving caring way to his friends, but to his foe he shows as much hatred as he does love for his friends. Whaleoil loves opposition, he loves conflict and more importantly will never back down.

Pinkos do not understand Whaleoil. They try to tar his friends with cries that we should control him and advise him not to do things. Well newsflash, we do and he doesn’t bloody listen. His actions are consistent with a mix of depression, medication and frontal lobe disfunction. There is no point in reasoning with him for after his depression and the medication he is on, there is limited reasoning. So what are we meant to do? Abandon him? That’s what a Pinko would do.

So we will all continue to support Whaleoil.

So say we all. Wonderfully said Cactus. From time to time I suggest alternate courses of action to the Whale. He always gives me a good hearing. Most of the time he ignores me, and very occasionally he agrees with me,. But mates don’t need to agree all the time, or even most of the time.

The Herald/NZPA reports:

An internet blogger says his arrest on charges of breaching court suppression orders has seen a huge increase on hits on his site.

Cameron Slater reappeared in Auckland District Court today facing five charges relating to allegations he published information which could lead to the identification of two people with name suppression.

They related to his posting of pictorial clues identifying the individuals in two sex offence cases. One involved an Olympic Games competitor and another a well-known entertainer.

Slater said he would defend the charges.

The public wanted an ending to most name suppressions, he said.

“I’d say about one per cent of cases deserve name suppression, and that’s those involving sex crimes against minors, so that the victims are not identified,” he said.

Slater said the charges had made his blog popular at a time when internet traffic normally slowed.

“Until police charged me my traffic would have been lower than a provincial newspaper on a Sunday,” he said outside court.

“But on Christmas Day, which is normally the quietest day of the year, I had about 20,000 hits, which was about five times the traffic of (fellow blogger) David Farrar.”

Slater said his legal team had about 16 potential defences to the charge.

He said one was potentially that his blog was hosted in the United States, not New Zealand.

In the past newspapers published overseas have been able to publish the names of people who had name suppression granted in New Zealand.

Slater will reappear in Auckland District Court in two weeks.

The actual hearing will be fascinating. I presume it is on 19 Jan?

Whale Oil has blogged the court summons he has received from the Police alleging breach of name suppression law.

He is due in court on the 5th of January. If he pleads not guilty, then it might be held over for hearing at a later date. He is seeking pro bono lawyers.

The Police have charged him over a post which they allege identifies the “musician” and for a post which they allege identifies the sportsman. In the latter case, they also allege his post identified the alleged victim.

The two charges of breaching a name suppression order are under s140(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.  The maximum fine is $1,000 per offence, but this can be for every day the breach continues (if proven).

The charge of identifying the alleged victim is under s139(1), but also has a maximum fine of $1,000.

So even if Whale is found guilty, it would just be a fine at this stage. If it later turned into an issue of contempt of court, then a jailed whale would be a possibility

Cactus blogs:

The political strategical stupidity in a coup is astounding in a party of 5 MP’s, 80% of whom are reliant for their place in Parliament solely on the electoral seat of the guy they plotted against as the party didn’t reach the 5% threshold. For that, the coup plotters deserve a slight fail. It would certainly have made a Constitutional sensation if there was a lost by-election and a Party was left with 4 MP’s having neither breached the 5% threshold or won an electorate seat. I can’t find out through internet resources as to what the outcome of that would actually be. A snap election with National polling on 60% the most likely outcome in hindsight.

For those who wonder, the ACT List MPs would remain in Parliament even if there was a by-election and ACT lost Epsom to National.

While Sir Roger is around he is a constant nuisance for anyone leading the Party. Heather Roy needed Sir Roger Douglas as co-leader or supporter as much as a hooker needs genital herpes to perform her job.

Heh Cactus has such a lovely turn of phrase.

All I have to say on the conclusion of the matter is that the coup plotters must now all fall on their swords, resign as MP’s and let the next candidates on the list: Hilary Calvert, Peter Tashkoff and John Ormond have a turn. I have no idea how any of those three would run as MP’s versus Boscawen, Douglas and Roy but anything must be better than a trio of turkeys who voted for an early Christmas. No idea what happened with David Garrett but one gives him the benefit of the doubt that he may very well have been at the pub at the time of the plotting.

Heh. I suspect Cactus is not the only ACT member upset with those Caucus members who thought a coup which would result in ACT ending up out of Parliament next election was a good idea.

Whale chips in:

Cactus is right when she says that the only thing worse than a leadership coup in a small party is a failed leadership coup. Especially so when you only need to get three out of five. …

Well traitors are traitors and there is only one solution. Death. I don’t mean physical death, I mean political death. The three of them are List MPs and the party could quite easily give them all the boot. …

I won’t repeat Whale’s suggested punishment for the person who leaked the putsch to the media!

Jonathan Marshall in the SST reports:

Revelations of after-dark communications with Key come as Wood releases on the internet the abusive rants Williams left on his answer phone in October.

Blogger Cameron Slater – who has feuded with Williams in the past – is from today hosting the recordings on behalf of Wood on his website whaleoil.co.nz.

Cameron has made a nice video including the phone recordings. They reveal a highly insecure Mayor who feels the need to leave abusive and threatening messages on the answerphone of his predecessor.

In investigating the messages to George Wood, the SST found even John Key receives the late night missives:

An exasperated John Key has confirmed that Williams, mayor of Auckland’s North Shore City, has on several occasions sent “aggressive” and “obnoxious” texts as late as 3.30am.

Williams has gained a reputation for firing off intemperate emails, text messages and voicemail to adversaries and colleagues until late into the evening.

In October, Williams emailed his mayoral predecessor George Wood at 11.34pm on a Saturday, describing Wood as a “buffoon” and a “disgruntled, failed has-been”. He also left abusive messages on Wood’s voicemail.

Key told the Sunday Star-Times that he had not replied to any of Williams’ messages. He said they had arrived at “anything up to half past three in the morning. It’s certainly nocturnal.

“I never reply to them , they’re never worthy of a reply. The messages were in an aggressive tone… I’m not going to respond to obnoxious messages at this time of the morning.”

Cameron has done well with this front page scoop for the Star-Times, with the recipients of the calls knowing where best to go to get them publicised. I expect he will end up becoming the most visited blog at some stage – even if he does it from D Block

The SST reports:

A CONTROVERSIAL blogger is struggling to convince his insurance company he is clinically depressed in order for the policy he depends on for his livelihood to be reinstated.

Cameron Slater, who writes a right-wing blog under the name Whale Oil, has received about $100,000 a year under an income protection insurance policy, due to depression he claims has left him unable to work since the collapse of a business five years ago.

Despite his condition, Slater has spent the last four years developing his blog, pouring his energies into the project fulltime. But two months ago his insurance company, Fidelity Life Assurance, cut off his benefits, saying their specialists had determined he was no longer unfit to work. …

His recent engagement covering the Tua-Cameron boxing bout on Twitter had left him shattered the next day.

“I can put on a good face but the next day I’m a wreck.” …

He said that for confirmation of his mental health status, his insurance company needed to only look as far as a Facebook group which had 82 members, including a number of MPs, called “People who think Cam Slater is nuts”.

“Even my enemies say so,” he said.

Maybe Fidelity could hire Cameron, if they don’t think he is nuts

Whale Oil blogs on all the electorate offices owned by a Labour Party company, and rented to MPs, with Parliamentary Service paying the rent, and has a number of good questions.

This is a situation worth exploring, but it is more complex that it may appear, and isn’t quite the same as the issue of Wellington accommodation.

An MPs Wellington accommodation expenses are paid for out of a general parliamentary fund. If they do not spend the maximum $24,000 then they can’t spent the underspend in other areas.

An out of parliament office is a charge against the “individual members’ support budget”. This is $64,260 for electorate MPs and $40,932 for list MPs. That budget also has to cover all the communication expenses for an MP with their electorate such as postage, newsletters, advertisements etc. So the more that is spent on rent, the less they have to spend on communicating with constituents. This does provide some incentive for the rent to be reasonable.

There are incidentally some issues with this arrangement, as the cost of renting an office is much much higher in central city seats, than suburban and provincial areas.  This can disadvantage certain urban MPs. But that is a debate for another day.

Now it is not just political parties than sometimes own the building rented to the MP. Sometimes the MP will own the building themselves. This can lead to an assumption that the MP has done so, as an income generating activity.

However there are other reasons an MP will want to own their electorate office. The main reason I know of, is that it means they have a permanent office – no worries about having to shift location every so often. Also it means they can make any changes to the building they want to make it functional, which can be difficult for buildings you do not own.

Now I am pretty sure that Parliamentary Service do require a market valuation for an electorate office, in approving any rent. And especially so if a party or MP has an interest in the office.

However this does still leave open the possibility of perception that it is an easy money making activity for an MP – buy a building and rent it to yourself. Maybe there is a return on capital greater than you would get by having it in a term deposit.

My solution would not be to ban ownership of electorate offices by MPs (I am not quite so sure about the party owning it) as ownership often allows an MP to provide a bigger and more effective office to service constituents than would otherwise be the case.

But what I would do is have a rule where any rental paid by The Parliamentary Service can only be say 75% of an independent market valuation. This would mean that the MP or party would not be perceived as making money on the property. Maybe even set it at 66% – basically i would aim for a lvel where any income would be slightly less than the return on capital you could get in a risk free investment (ie money in a bank). This would protect the MP from being seen to benefit from it, and in my experience the MPs who have purchased an electorate office have done so for practical, not commercial reasons – especially as any rent paid comes out of their budget.

Possibly this notion of setting the maximum rent at say 66% or 75% of the market rate, could also be applied to MPs Wellington accommodation. If your super fund owns your house, then you are not eligible for $24,000 a year but instead $16,000 or $18,000.

Fran O’Sullivan addressed several dozen people at breakfast this morning on the topic of the Accidental Empire of Political Blogging. Rural Women NZ hosted the breakfast.

Fran was mainly positive about the impact political blogging has had in NZ, saying the diversity is useful, as is the competition for the media to some degree.

She did have some criticisms, such as accuracy and fact checking, and most of all political bloggers who blog anonymously. Her big call was for more political bloggers to post under their names so there is some accountability for what they say – as journalists have.

She was full of praise for Red Alert and said it has obviously replaced The Standard as the most influential and useful blog on the left.

Whale Oil got a mention with praise for his willingness to savage members of his own party (she joked that his father must be glad he has a life membership that can’t be revoked) but said she thought the pre-election scuttlebutt on Damien O’Connor was a serious error of judgement.

Lots of questions and discussion ranging from has a blogger been sued yet, to press gallery membership. Fran nicely refers to the gallery as a cartel

Was a very good breakfast and even better drinks afterwards, finally escaping around 10.30 am!

Whale Oil has a useful new feature called Tenderwatch.

His latest find is one from SPARC asking people to tender to develop a report on the value of sport and recreation.

Whale believes that SPARC should be able to produce such a report themselves.

I wonder why we need such a report at all.

I mean we all know what it will say. That if people play more sport and exercise more, this will be good for the NZ economy due to spending on sporting events, reduced health costs etc etc.

Every sector in NZ commissions reports like that to “prove” how valuable they are.

Now I don’t mind private bodies commissioning such research. For example it is quite appropriate for the NZRFU to commission research on the economic value of hosting the Rugby World Cup, to persuade the Government to contribute towards it.

But SPARC is a government agency. It appears to be using taxpayer money to commission research to say the Government should give even more money to SPARC. We may be paying to lobby ourselves.

Heh. Upsetting either Whale Oil or Cactus Kate is an inadvisable thing. Upsetting them both together has consequences, as one can see at Gotcha with the registration of a new company called Keith Ng Ltd, registered in Belize.

If not sure what this is about, read this on Public Address and this from Cactus Kate.

Tracy Watkins blogs:

I like David and he’s definitely one of the sharper knives in the drawer around Wellington, but sadly he seems to have lost his mojo. Back when Labour was in power, he did a sterling job of running issues and was the outlet for the voice of opposition. But nowadays he seems to be floundering over his purpose. Cheerleading is okay but it’s not why people started reading Kiwiblog.

Funnily enough, just a couple of days ago, Audrey Young blogged:

Key’s nervousness is aided no doubt by continued critical commentary on the right including from David Farrar’s Kiwiblog most recently on the Boscawen bill

So one political editor says I’m cheerleading and another says my continued critical commentary is making the PM nervous

It should be no surprise to anyone that Kiwiblog is less “edgy” with National in Government. Of course I am going to be happier with more of what the Government does.

But I do reject the label of cheerleader. Hell, I ignore most of the announcements from Government as boring. And I thought I had been pretty vigorous in opposing the Government’s moves to ban handheld cellphone use in cars. I’ve said many times I don’t support at large Council seats for Auckland. I have called for the anti-smacking law to be changed numerous times. I’ve continued to advocate Nancy Wake getting honoured (despite the change of Government) and have also said several times that the immigration allegations around a National MP should have gone to an independent inquiry.

But I hold centre-right beliefs. I enjoy pointing out lunacy and hypocrisy from the left, and while they keep providing me material, I’ll enjoy keeping that up.

This probably appears somewhat defensive. I think Tracy is probably quite right that Kiwiblog is not the same as in the last years of Labour – I agree. But I don’t like or accept the term “cheer leader”. My purpose in blogging is much the same as when I started – to have my say on anything I am interested in.

Anyway back to Tracy:

Whale Oil: I’ll admit it… once I got over my squeamishness, I quite enjoyed his blog. Utterly nihilistic and entertaining

Nihilistic – that’s a good term for it!

The Standard: They have picked up where Kiwiblog left off and do a good job of running issues as the voice of opposition. It’s a Labour blog in the same way Kiwiblog is a National blog, I guess, so it makes sense that they would fit more comfortably within the blogosphere now Labour is in Opposition. But The Standard is not yet required reading in the same way that Kiwiblog was during Labour’s final few years in government.

I said both before and after the election that I thought The Standard would do better in Opposition, and I agree with Tracy that they are. They seemed to more an anti John Key blog, even when he was in Opposition, than anything else, so having Key as PM gives them much more material.

I’m old enough to have attended the last victory (won Government) conference for National. It was in 1991 and was also in Christchurch. Both saw a new Government nine months or so into office, and both coping with a nasty recession.

However in 1991, the conference was not just attended by the party faithful, but there were around 8,000 protesters, close to 1,000 Police (they cancelled leave for every police officer in the entire South Island), and bomb squad sniffer dogs. While the 2009 National Conference did not attract even a sole protester despite National now being in Government. I can’t ever recall a conference by National in Government that didn’t attract protests before.

And in spring of 1901, National was at 22% in the polls – 20% behind Labour. As we head into spring 2009, National is at 56% – 25% ahead of Labour. A remarkable contrast.

So the conference was obviously a buoyant one, with delegates and MPs in good heart. It was at the Christchurch Convention Centre, and here is the view from the Crowne Plaza next door.

The PM’s speech was of course the highlight, and it was very good planning he used it to announce a timely and major initiative. In Government, people like a speech of substance, not just bashing the other side. In fact John did not mention the Opposition once during his speech.

Bill English gave a very sober and insightful speech on the realities of the economy and the challenges ahead. And I thought Simon Power’s speech on all the justice initiatives was first class. Also was good to see the Young Nats President Alex Mitchell use his speech not just to fellate the party, as Young Nats sometimes do, but demand action on voluntary membership of student associations and warn against any moves to increase the alcohol purchase age from 18 to 20.

What didn’t work so well was the Ministerial forums. Maybe I’m just getting old and cynical, but hearing five minute brag sessions from Ministers about what they are doing turns me off. I’d rather have less Ministers with more time to talk policy in detail, than giving each Minister five minutes and time for only a couple of questions. I did enjoy joking that anyone who wanted to ask Paula Bennett a question should be obliged to first state their IRD number

Even more than that, what I personally would have preferred is a Ministerial Q&A session – say for 90 minutes. I know this was meant to be the victory conference, so maybe they may do it next year. But I think giving delegates the chance to ask questions of any and all Ministers is a good look, and gives delegates more of a chance for interaction.

Then we had the Board and Presidential elections. I’ve known the five people elected to the Board for pretty much a decade or more. They are all good people, who will do a diligent job on the Board. There are not any of them that I would not want on the Board as they bring a good mixture of skills, experience and geography.

But having said that, I am disappointed Wira Gardiner did not get on. As I had a role in the vote count, I thought it was inappropriate to “take sides” before the vote, but I do not share any of the reservations that Whale Oil had towards Wira. I’ve known Wira since his first wife was a candidate and he has been involved for at least two decades, including service as a Vice-President of the Party.

His record of achievement speaks for itself, in that he is now formally Sir Wira. Both Labour and National Governments have used him as a trouble shooter to sort out dysfunctional agencies. Someone with that governance experience would have been well placed to contribute to the Party’s Board. Plus there were also some obvious advantages in terms of relationships with the Maori Party – but that is a secondary consideration to me. Merit is what I value.

So why did Wira not get elected? Well there was a variety of reasons. Hekia, his wife, being an MP was one of them – but not really the major factor in my opinion. The main reason is that Wira was touted as a potential President, despite not being a current Board member. And it seemed there was a reasonable chance of Wira becoming President if he did get elected. By no means certain, but a reasonable chance.

What this meant, is those who did not want Wira to be President, followed Whale Oil’s advice and ranked him lowly to keep him off the Board. I have no doubt he would have been elected if he ruled out standing for President. Now I was not a delegate myself, so didn’t have to think about who I would leave off the Board if Wira got on. As I said, they are all good people – but there were only five vacancies.

Peter’s election as President was not a surprise. One press gallery journalist had quite a laugh on Sunday morning when they saw on my laptop I already had written a story announcing Peter’s election as President, and was just waiting for the official announcement to click the publish button.

I believe the number one objective for the President is to raise the money the party needs to function, and win elections. Peter’s business background should do him well in that regard and again respectivelly disagreeing with Whale, I expect Peter will remain President through until the 2011 election at least. Of course it will be up to delegates at the 2010 conference to make that decision on re-election to the Board.

Also have to mention the well deserved awarding of the Sir George Chapman trophy for service to the party went to our own blogging Homepaddock – Ele Ludemann. I won’t even mention how she was alseep in her room when they awarded her the prize

This is a hazy photo of the screen, but had to share this photo of Tauranga MP Simon Bridges forming part of the conference dinner entertainment, Simon took it all in good humour as the entertainers put him into a number of poses.

The conference saw Judy Kirk retire as President also after just under seven years in the job. This makes her the third equal longest serving President. Sir Alex McKenzie did 11 years, Sir George Chapman nine years and Sir Wilfred Sim and Ned Holt both also did seven years. I was counting votes during the farewell to Judy, but understand it was warmly given and received.

The number of people attending must be a record for a non election year. Around 700 people attended and there were 574 voting delegates. I saw many people there who hadn’t been to a conference for quite a few years.

It will be interesting to see what the mood is like in twelve months time at the 2010 conference.

I previously blogged on how North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams black-listed Whale Oil from bidding in a charity auction, removing his bids. This meant the auction went for $150 (and to the Mayor’s daughter) instead of the $1,000 or so Whale was willing to bid.

They obviously realised what a bad and indefensible look this was, so today the Herald reports:

Mr Williams said council members and staff had boosted the top bid by $1030 and three teenage cancer patients would accompany him today in the jet plane simulator.

The poor Councillors and staff – having to do a whip around to save face for the Mayor.

A more sensible approach would have been to raise the money beforehand, and simply outbid Whale Oil.

Mr Slater said he would pay the $1000, which included money sent in by readers of his blog, “in the spirit of the auction”.

Great for the charity.

I blogged on Monday about how Whale Oil was seeking donations so he could win a charity auction (for Westpac Rescue Helicopter) for the prize of 90 minutes in a flight simulator with North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams. Cameron is a relentless critic of Williams, for those who don’t know.

Now this was great for the charity. It pushes up the value of the auction. Cameron was willing to go up to US$1,000 or NZ$1,500 – all of which would go to charity. He said if he was outbid he would donate the money regardless which meant if someone outbid him, the Westpac Rescue Helicopter could end up with more than NZ$3,000.

But in a fit of cowardice, Andrew Williams conspired with Trade Me to disallow bids from Cameron (and it seems from several other bidders), and the auction closed for just $150.

I’m disgusted at Trade Me that they remove valid bids, just because Andrew Williams did not like the bidder. That undermines their integrity greatly. And they helped rip the charity off also.

Williams looks ridiculous also. If Slater had won, Williams could have turned it into great PR – look at what I’m prepared to do for charity. Or if he really could not face the possibility, he should have got somone to outbid Cameron.

Now as it happens the Mayor’s daughter won the auction it seems at $150. And this was after several bids for higher than that were removed. So it looks even worse that they appear to have fixed who would win.

Aaron Bhatnagar blogs:

Slater would be a legitimate bidder, though clearly not one Williams would have appreciated. However, it was for a charity, so there ought to have been an element of goodwill about this. It’s not at all uncommon charity auctions have elements of prank or comical outcomes, but because it’s for charity, you tend to take it all in good humour. After all, Rodney Hide allowed himself to get his head shaved by Williams for charity not long ago.

Which makes the actions hypocritical also.

UPDATE: A reader has commented that the person listing an auction can blacklist or remove bids themselves, without any input from Trade Me. If this is correct, then Trade Me are not to blame. The villain then is Worldflight who acted with Williams to lower the amount donated to charity. There goes the brand.

North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams is auctioning off spending an hour and a half with him in a flight simulator, to raise money for charity.

Naturally Whale Oil wants to win the auction, and he is fundraising to help him win. So any donations will both benefit the charity – Westpac Rescue Helicopter, and also means the Mayor and Whale get locked up together in a small enclosed cockpit. That has to be serious entertainment.

The bidding is currently at $200 and Whale has already raised $255 so his chances are looking good.

At the end of the month, National will elect a new President – indirectly. With Judy Kirk retiring this is the first vacancy under the new rules, where the members elect seven Directors to the National Board, and the Directors (including the Leader and a Caucus Rep) elect one of their own as President.

This has made predicting who will win much harder, as you have to get elected to the Board first, before you even get a chance to convince your peers to make you President. And to make it harder, many of the Board nominees are of sufficient calibre to be a viable President.

Two of the seven elected Directors are part way through their term, so are guaranteed to stay on the Board. They are Roger Bridge, the Canterbury-Westland Chair, and Peter Goodfellow from Auckland – a long time party activist. Both Bridge and Goodfellow are potential Presidents, regardless of formal declarations. They would serve if asked/elected.

Leader John Key and Chief Whip Nathan Guy also get a vote. Presuming they vote as a bloc, they will be influential. Key, Guy and whomever becomes President makes three votes out of nine. They only need two more.

Incumbent Director Scott Simpson is standing again. A former Auckland Regional Chairman, he is also a Presidental candidate. Fellow incumbent Grant McCallum from Northland is also standing again and as far as I know not seeking the Presidency.

According to Whale Oil (I have not had time to check directly with HQ), there are six other canddate for the Board. They are:

• Alastair Bell, current Northern Regional Chair
• Dennis Catchpole from the CNI Region
• Sir Harawira (Wira) Gardiner, former Maori Vice-President
• Kate Hazlett, Southern Region Chair from Southland
• Bruce Mills, Rangitikei Electorate Chair and long-time LNI Regional presence
• Pat Seymour, East Coast Electorate Chair for many years

Of the six non incumbents, only Wira Gardiner is also a Presidential candidate Alastair is a potential candidate also but I think isn’t seeking it at this stage.

Whale Oil makes his preferences quite clear, not being a Wira fan.

However Matthew Hooton in the NBR this morning wrote:

All candidates have been thoroughly vetted, with Mr Key’s preference said to be party stalwart Wira Gardiner. Mr Key judges, correctly, that Mr Gardiner – a businessman, former senior public servant, soldier and Mr Fixit for both National and Labour governments – has the administrative backbone to prepare National to take the fight to Labour. Moreover, Mr Key sees Mr Gardiner as important to securing a third term, given the Maori Party will hold the balance of power in 2014, if not 2011.

I’m not sure whether or not Matthew is correct as to John Key’s preference. I suspect John is keeping his opinion fairly tight as he has to work with whomever gets elected.

I know reasonably well all the Board candidates (except Dennis Catchpole) and have warm friendships with many of them. I think National is fortunate to have a good range of talent to choose from.

I won’t be blogging my preferences, as I’m not a voting delegate. But also because I designed the voting software they use to count the vote, so it is generally inadvisable for me to enter the fray in case anyone suspects I have a secret sub-routine in there that will favour my preferred canddiates

Whale Oil is in both the HoS and the SST. First the HoS is about the “feud” with Pearl Going:

A fixture of the social pages is at the centre of an alleged text and cyber bullying storm. Police are investigating claims from Auckland socialite Pearl Going that she has been subjected to death threats and abuse via text, Facebook and emails.

If there has been death threats, that is indeed a matter for the Police. However as far as I know, having nasty things said about you online is not a criminal issue – if it was I would be going to the Police every second day!

The 24-year-old, related to former All Black Sid Going, has also complained about a year of cyber-harassment involving two websites, neither of which she has anything to do with.

The saga revolves around a dispute over her reputation, qualifications and background, and has drawn in many members of Auckland’s social set.

This is what puzzles me somewhat about the HoS story. I have absolutely no first hand knowledge of Ms Going and the accuracy (or not) of the various claims about her qualifications and background etc. So why doesn’t the newspaper investigate and find out who is correct rather than just report there is a dispute?

Slater said he took exception to Going being included in a list of up-and-coming Auckland socialites published in the Herald on Sunday’s Spy pages because he challenged claims about her background.

Several members of the Auckland social set this week contacted the Herald on Sunday unprompted to raise similar concerns about the background claims.

Again, the obvious thing to do would be to investigate the claims, I would have thought.

And in the SST, they do a full profile of Whale Oil. Some extracts:

Slater’s profane, occasionally rabid, vociferously right-wing blog Whale Oil Beef Hooked (to be read with an Irish inflection) gets 5000-6000 page views a day, including many readers in the media and political establishment. In the past year, it has broken a number of stories that have been followed, often unattributed, by news outlets, notably Winston Peters’ lingering post-election grip on his ministerial vehicle.

Heading home from a weekly yum char lunch with a close group of fellow right-leaning, Seventh Day Adventist-affiliated mates, Slater takes a call about a proposed visit to Fiji, as a supportive guest of the regime, to interview Frank Bainimarama. The Commodore has not been granting interviews with the New Zealand press, but one of his deputies is a Whale Oil reader.

I’d like to go to Fiji also, but am worried I might get shot at the airport as I am more sceptical of the Commodore’s intentions or more importantly his actions.

The local blogosphere is loud and volatile, the new frontline of political debate. But even in this fierce arena, Slater is infamous for dragging the discourse to new lows, with vicious, juvenile, sometimes misogynistic attacks.

Like American gossip juggernaut Perez Hilton, Slater routinely uses Photoshop to vilify his targets: grafting Helen Clark’s head onto the body of a crotchless starlet, or riddling her with digital bulletholes. On seeing an article titled “The World’s Ugliest Dogs”, Slater “couldn’t resist” reposting the story, appended with pictures of female Labour MPs. He has published bizarre sexual allegations against a female Labour official and challenged strangers to fights, including the sons of Folole Muliaga.

“I got sick of the way the media created a frenzy around a fat woman who was sent home by the hospital to die,” he says. “F— them.”

No doubt a genuine Whale quote!

Some stuff on his private life;

Slater found his after the collapse of the security systems company, of which he owned 49%, in 2004 amid rancour with his business partner. The failure ruined Slater financially he had to sell his second home to pay the IRD socially, and eventually, psychologically. The depression he had battled for years became disabling.

As a result, he is unable to work. Because he had income protection insurance, he now receives 75% of his former salary.

“The first year was dark, very dark,” recalls Slater. “I’d stay inside all day, the curtains pulled, unable to make decisions. You open the freezer and try to decide what you’re going to cook for dinner, you can’t even do that, so you go back to bed.”

To get him out of the house, one of his mates insisted he come and work in his office, free of charge. As “an outlet, a place to let off steam”, he says blogging has helped him, as do his daily workouts.

But he still battles despair, takes medication, sees a psychologist each month. Undoubtedly, the desperation of his circumstances has shaped his blogging persona.

“When you’ve got nothing to lose, you’re dangerous.”

“I’ve got no money. I’ve got nothing. What’s anybody going to do, sue me? Fill your boots! You’ll waste 100 grand,” he says.

The best advice I give about Cameron (and he now gives the same advice) to people is to avoid wrestling with pigs in mud, because you’ll just get dirty and the pigs will enjoy it

Stuff tells how and why TVNZ is trying to supress it. Silly people.

They may have taken it off You Tube, but Whale has put it on another site.