Jared Savage reports:

A Herald investigation of property records for all 121 members of Parliament has discovered that six National MPs use their private superannuation schemes to own property that does not need to be disclosed – unlike assets held in trusts. This is because of an exception in the rules of the Register of Pecuniary Interests.

This is similiar to what the Greens did in 2009. However the Greens were actually double dipping by having two MPs both claim for the same property.

My long standing view is that for MPs (Ministers are separate – will come to that), they should not rent Wellington homes they themselves own (either directly or indirectly). While Parliamentary Service does get independent rental assessments for the homes, I think the best way to make sure there is a fair rental is a landlord who wants the rent to be as high as possible and a tenant who who wants it to be as low as possible. When the same person is effectively landlord and tenant, you don’t have that price tension.

I said in 2009:

It has all been within the rules, but as I have said many times before I think that there should be a transition to a system where no MP can be paid for renting as Wellington accommodation a house they own either directly or indirectly.

Back to this story:

As well as the six MPs with Wellington properties in Super funds, a further 26 MPs who get accommodation allowances also have properties in Wellington which are disclosed on the register. Nineteen are National MPs and four are from Labour. The others are the two Maori Party co-leaders and NZ First’s Denis O’Rourke.

So there are 32 MPs possibly in this situation. Note that with some of them, the property they own in Wellington may not be the one they live in. And they can of course own investment properties elsewhere.

Of the six with undisclosed properties held in their Super schemes, Mr Bridges, Mr Sabin and Mr Auchinvole all said they would have no problem with disclosing the properties, but had been advised by the Registrar for Pecuniary Interests not to do so.

Mr Bridges said the properties were in his Super fund because of genuine investment reasons, not to hide them away. He had listed both the Wellington and Parnell properties in his initial return, but was given clear advice to take them out.

So the issue is whether the rules should change.

Mr Sabin said he set his up because he did not have KiwiSaver, and a personal scheme gave him greater flexibility. He had bought an apartment rather than staying in hotels because he had to spend four nights a week in Wellington due to the travelling time from his Northland home.

He said the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests had instructed them not to disclose properties in Super schemes.

“I have no problem declaring it for what it is. I’m happy to comply with any determination of the authority, but they set the requirements, not I.”

I do sometimes wonder if it would be easier for the Parliamentary Service to buy a block of apartments such as Kelvin Chambers and just provide them to backbench MPs as accommodation.

Important to note that there is a difference between how accommodation is done for Ministers and MPs, Ministers get paid a flat allowance of $37,500 (or sometimes $30,000) a year to cover the costs of accommodation to them and their family in Wellington. That is an allowance, not an expense reimbursement. They get that no matter where they live or what their actual expenses are. They could live in a $800 a week rental or bunk down with a friend – the taxpayer pays them $37,500 regardless.

For non-Ministers, it is a reimbursement of actual expenses up to a maximum of (off memory) $460 a week. So it is with MPs, more than Ministers, that you get a conflict of interest if they own the property they are renting. Because as the owner they would like to get as much rental income as possible.

One could make the case that Ministers and MPs should operate under the same regime. Maybe just give them all a flat allowance for accomodation, and leave it to them where and how they want to live while in Wellington?

For this weeks Monday Motivator I decided to bring you a photograph which works on a couple of levels for me. In amongst our busy lives I love the absolute calm and simplicity of this image. A classic case of  where ‘less is more‘ – relying on the simple composition and strong colours to create something stirring.

I often find myself making multiple visits to locations before I ‘get the shot’ – and in this case I visited this location over a dozen times in the very early morning before finally getting what I was looking for. I had taken some very nice images on those earlier trips but for Rangitoto I wanted something special. It all came together beautifully on this particular morning when the harbour was still and I was treated to an absolutely stunning pre-dawn light show.

This photograph was captured with a six second exposure taken at f45 on Fuji Velvia 50 asa film.

Free Wallpaper – Desktop or iPad

I hope you enjoy – you can download this photograph as a free Desktop Wallpaper HERE and please share with your friends.

Cheers Richard [richardhume.com]

The Press editorial:

Friction between property developers and local body planners is to be expected.

Developers want to be able to get on with their separate projects, doing what they need with the minimum of bureaucratic oversight.

Planners are concerned not just with the outcome of any individual project but also with its impact on the bigger picture of what is going on in the city.

Planners also want to see that rules, which have been adopted through appropriate processes for good reasons, are properly applied.

The two groups’ aims are not necessarily in conflict – developers want to get stuff done, planners (ideally) want to let it be done (provided the rules are followed). 

The statement that planners want to let things be done is highly contestable!

After the debacle earlier this year of the Christchurch City Council building consents process, which led to the council losing its status as an accredited consenting authority, it is alarming to hear home builders complaining that red tape and “design palaver” in the council planning process are holding up the construction of apartments and units.

The council has rejected the complaints, saying any delays come from developers failing to come to grips with new, tougher design rules.

But when a developer of the prominence of Mike Greer – owner of the region’s biggest house building company and who presumably runs a sophisticated operation capable of understanding any regulatory requirements – says the council’s bureaucracy is making it nearly impossible to build affordable housing, the complaint must be taken seriously.

As Christchurch has a serious housing shortage, you would think they would be doing what they can to make it easy to build more housing.

I criticise the Police when they deserve it. For over a decade I’ve been critical of how they (don’t) prosecute electoral law offences and have called for that power to be removed from them. And the failure to promptly disclose that there had been complaints about the Roast Busters members previously was a massive fail for them.

However the details of this story in the Herald are grounds for praise, not criticism, of the Commissioner.

The Herald reports:

Police Commissioner Peter Marshall – whose department is under fire for its handling of the Roast Busters affair – today personally phoned a man who has been publicly criticising the police over the matter. …

Mr Marshall called the person because they had lodged a complaint via the police website on Thursday in relation to police behaviour at Police National Headquarters. The person had provided their full name, address and phone number, the spokeswoman said.

“The Police Commissioner and other executive members are provided with copies of relevant expressions of praise or complaints and the Commissioner often personally follows up the matters raised with individuals, if they have supplied their contact details”, the spokeswoman said.

I think there are three things worth praising here.

1. That feedback on the Police that people provide through the Police website actually goes to the Commissioner and Executive – not just to some PR flunky
2. That the Commissioner will actually respond personally to a serious complaint, rather than be an out of touch desk jockey
3. That the Commissioner was working on a Sunday

I wish more leaders would do that.

The man – who comments on Russell Brown’s Public Address blogsite under the username Kracklite – has over the last week criticised the police as an “organised pack” of misogynists with a “very sick culture” who had destroyed the public’s trust in them.

This afternoon, after criticising Mr Marshall’s performance when he was interviewed on television’s Q+A earlier today, he posted that Mr Marshall had just phoned him directly.

“I hung up immediately when he identified himself,” the man posted.

That’s rather rude. Maybe he got a bit paranoid and thought the call was in relation to his pseudo-anonymous comments on Public Address, rather than his filling in an official Police feedback complaint form – but if he hadn’t hung up immediately then he could have discovered that.

“Given the serious allegations in this particular complaint, the Commissioner phoned the individual, using the contact information they had supplied, in order to discuss the matter further. The Commissioner only got as far as identifying himself before the individual hung up, saying he did not want to speak to him further.”

Why fill in a complaint form making serious allegations, and providing your contact details, if you don’t want a response?

The Police have not handled the Roast Busters saga at all well. I certainly have several questions about why they didn’t take other action against the youths, short of prosecution. The IPCA report will be most interesting, and there are legitimate questions over the Police culture.

But I don’t believe in beating up on the Commissioner for being responsive to a complaint, as some were doing on Twitter yesterday. Marshall is known to be very popular with the rank and file Police because he isn’t cloistered at Police HQ, but actually gets out and about. His phone call is part of that style.

The Dom Post editorial:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has been crowing about the growing number of National MPs who have decided to stand down in 2014, likening it to rats deserting a sinking ship. Instead of seeking to make political capital out of his opponent’s obvious drive to bring in new talent at the next election, he would do better to follow suit and start sending the underperformers and time-servers in his own caucus the message that it is time to move on.

Almost a third of Labour’s caucus entered Parliament in the 1980s or 1990s.

Rejuvenation is critical to all political parties. It allows them to bring in new blood to remain fresh in the eyes of voters. However, all too often it is not the parties themselves that do the job, but the electorate, via crushing defeats which see large numbers of sitting MPs turfed out of Parliament.

That is what is so significant about the rejuvenation underway in National. So far, seven of its 59 MPs – nearly an eighth of its caucus – have indicated they will not seek re-election, and there was talk last week that up to six more are considering whether to stand again.

Rejuvenation is a sign of strength, not weakness.

I’ve blogged the latest 3 News Reid Research poll at Curiablog. Some insights I take from it:

• Projects a centre-right Government, despite fall for National who got just over 46%
• Labour up only 1% from July to 32% and July was in the middle of the man ban controversy for them
• Was taken the week of Labour’s national conference, which is normally a good poll boost for a party
• Cunliffe only at 11% Preferred PM, which is below what David Shearer was at in July
• Conservatives up to almost 3%

Dave Currie writes on Facebook:

The actions of the two hosts were absolutely toxic and the nation is reacting accordingly. What is troubling for me is that Tamihere is being openly referred to as a Labour Party member in mainstream press (1). I appreciate the statements made to Radio New Zealand (2), but at the moment they are only statements.

I also appreciate that disciplinary matters can be heard only by the NZ Council. To that end I hope the need for a special, urgent meeting of the NZ Council to hear this matter is realised prior to the December meeting, so that NZLP can be seen to be taking as swift action as is possible. We are already being left behind. If there’s anything more I need to do in order to make this complaint formal (I note Moira’s quote in the RNZ story says “if we receive a formal complaint” – this was two days after my first email) please let me know as soon as possible.

Today, new information has arisen that John Tamihere has personal links to one of the alleged offenders’ families (3). The claim that Tamihere didn’t know this link at the time of the interview rings very hollow, given the publicity around the boy’s identity in the news at the time the interview took place. This means the actions of Tamihere on that day may not have been simply borne of horrific ignorance as was the basis of my initial complaint – they may have come from a position of consciously wanting to deflect, silence and belittle the survivors of sexual abuse, to lessen the veracity of these allegations on people he is close to.

This new information triggers a limit within me, and my tolerance is exhausted. I will not be part of an organisation which includes this man. I hope to rejoin in the future when conditions permit, but for now I wish to cancel my victory for labour membership, member ID 1025512, and no further fees are to be deducted from my credit card. I’ve cc’d the office email address to this message – can this be actioned please? Sorry to cause you work. I’ll inform the secretaries of the bodies of which I am member and resign where I am chair or delegate.

This isn’t to protest NZLP’s actions in regards to my original request, although I do wish they were more expedient. Leaving the party is a personal choice I make with great sadness, but the moral criteria I base my involvement and association upon has been compromised by this man. My conscience leaves me no choice.

Mr Currie may not be the only one. John Tamihere is publicly identified as both a member and an aspiring candidate. Parties can be broad churches, but is Labour so broad that they include misguided apologists for rape?

Does David Cunliffe think John Tamihere is a suitable person to be a Labour Party member, let alone a candidate?

Doesn’t Labour have a Womens Vice President? Does she have views on Tamihere?

Rodney Hide writes in the HoS:

The party’s drive to get a precise balance of female and male MPs reinforces the view that Labour is more concerned with itself than with voters. That’s the last thing Cunliffe needs. He needs the party trumpeting what he’s doing for working people, not what the party is doing to itself. …

Labour’s gender balance rule is correctly seen as extreme tokenism.

Hide points out what the quota will mean:

 In 1999, Labour had 37 MPs. In 2002 it had 52. The number of MPs goes up and it goes down. The balance of list to electorate MPs swings even more wildly. In 2002, 45 MPs were electorate and only seven were list. Two elections later, Labour had only 21 electorate MPs but 22 list. More than half of its electorate seats had been lost and its number of list MPs had more than tripled. The party must now factor in every possible combination of outcome and then some to ensure every electoral contingency delivers first a 45/55 female/male split and then ever-after a 50/50 split. That’s not going to be easy. The headache is made all the bigger by 14 of Labour’s 22 electorate seats being held by men.

Achieving the correct male-female balance across all conceivable electoral outcomes means an effective man-ban in all new electorate selections.

If male candidates for Labour win seats, then it means male candidates must be dropped from the list effectively. The only way to stop that will be to stop selecting male candidates for winnable seats until 50% of electorates are male also.

Labour’s future is also for a less talented caucus. That’s because the gender balance rule constrains selection choices. Heck, in 1999, the rule would have cost David Cunliffe his selection.

The real pain may not occur in 2014 or even 2017. It will be when they are in Government and they have to tell male Cabinet Ministers they are being ranked behind some brand new female candidate in order to have perfect gender equality.

Judtith Collins writes in the HoS:

I’ve never been a big fan of short skirts. With our robust Kiwi figures, they’re best left to super models. So, I’ve been interested to hear a couple of middle-aged males commenting on what these fashion choices mean. What’s the scantily-dressed girl trying to say, they ask.

Well, for a start, John and Willie, they’re not dressing for you. They’re not even dressing for teen boys. Girls dress for other girls. They dress to fit in. They dress to be part of a group. They want to be respected and they want to be liked. They want to be beautiful. They dress to impress. They copy their celebrity idols.

I’m no expert on this, but I suspect Judith is dead right. You are dressing up to fit in with your peers.

These might well be fashion crimes, but short skirts and cleavage don’t signal a willingness to be victimised.

New Zealand is internationally rated as one of the best countries to be a woman. This year, we celebrated 120 years of women winning the right to vote.

With that goes the right to not be abused.

Hear, hear.

Jamie Whyte at the IEA writes:

• Politicians and lobbyists who promote new regulations and taxes typically claim to have science on their side. Scientific evidence shows that the actions they wish to discourage are harmful and that government intervention would reduce this harm. Yet much ‘evidence-based policy’ is grounded on poor scientific reasoning and even worse economics.
• Recent examples of flawed evidence-based policy include the proposal to introduce a minimum alcohol price, the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces, measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and attempts to increase gross national happiness.
• A frequent error is to ignore the costs resulting from the policy. For example, minimum alcohol price plans do
not consider the welfare losses associated with reduced consumption among recreational drinkers. The benefits of alcohol consumption, and hence the cost of reducing it, are simply ignored in the analysis.
• Evidence-based policy typically also fails to account for substitution effects, such as the way a minimum alcohol price would encourage consumers to purchase drinks in the shadow economy or adopt intoxicating alternatives to alcohol.
• High levels of scientific doubt are often concealed as a result of ‘noble-cause corruption’. Scientists may exaggerate levels of confidence in their findings if it promotes actions they happen to support. This problem is particularly acute in fields that have long been policy battlegrounds, such as climate, health and education. Many scientists entered such fields because they were already committed to a particular policy agenda.
• Paternalist policies promoted by experts and politicians show contempt for the actual preferences of the general public. People are forced to live according to values that they reject. For example, supporters of ‘happiness policy’ believe the state should coerce people to act against their preferences in ways that policymakers think will increase their wellbeing.

We see this all too often in NZ.

Michael Fox at Stuff reports:

United Future leader Peter Dunne has used his party conference to attack the “Green Taliban” and “crackpot Conservatives” and all but ruled out working with Labour next year.

He has also unveiled an increased focus on environmental issues upon which the party will stand in the next election and outlined his vision for increasing participation in local politics. …

Dunne told his enthusiastic audience that his party would present itself as a champion of the environment and outdoor recreation next year.

Part of the reason New Zealand’s environmental credentials had taken a hammering recently was because environmental policy had been “hijacked by the political left, and have accordingly succumbed to the notion that unless you are a Green, you cannot have any concern for our environment”.

“In an open society, there is a place for the Green Taliban, but it is at the fringes, and not centre stage.

”Mainstream New Zealanders did care about environmental issues and the mainstream giant is stirring from its slumbers.

“It is time for the rise of the purple-greens – the mainstream New Zealanders who care practically about the state of our environment and want to do more than just pontificate and wring their hands in despair.” …

National should forget the “untested crackpot conservatives” and the “serially unreliable” New Zealand First.

The dance of the minor parties is starting!

Jamie Mackay writes:

Stuff reports:

New Zealand-born television presenter and anti-bullying campaigner Charlotte Dawson has dropped her Australian management company after it said it was increasingly difficult to promote a client with a history of mental illness. …

In the full email, the company says: “The Chic team do feel that you are damaging your brand by many of the opinions you express and the intimate insights you give into your personal life, and we believe it is making it extremely difficult for Chic to generate business for you.

“Your brand is no longer seen as aspirational (because it’s too honest and at times confronting) … and you are not seen as stable (as you share your low points), which makes brand ambassador roles almost unfeasible.”

The email goes on to state that Dawson doesn’t fully appreciate or value the company’s opinion on what is in the best interests of her brand and her ability to earn a living from it.

“You are completely entitled to have your own opinion but perhaps it is time for you to consider looking for management that are more in step with your own philosophy and approach.”

John Kirwan’s honesty over his mental health has made him an incredibly strong and respected “brand”.

The email said Chic remained “open to working with us and changing the way you interact on social media … then we can all sit down and discuss next steps.

“We aren’t wanting to force you to change, you need to believe that we have your best interests at heart.”

However, Dawson subsequently announced on Twitter that her association with the company was over.

A good decision.

The Herald reports:

The Prime Minister won’t appear on Willie Jackson and John Tamihere’s radio show again this year as pressure mounts on their bosses to take action against them for their treatment of a young woman on air.

Labour leader David Cunliffe also confirmed he would decline an appearance if invited.

It caps off a mostly horror week for RadioLive parent company MediaWorks as several major advertisers withdrew from the station amid the furore, and the broadcaster lost some of its most popular US television shows. The furore shaded to a degree the work of TV3 in leading television coverage of the story.

John Key has appeared on the show on occasion but a spokeswoman said he would not do so again this year and no further appearances were scheduled.

Mr Key would continue with his regular interview slot on Marcus Lush’s breakfast programme.

Mr Cunliffe said he would not appear on the show “at the moment”, with some party members unhappy with Tamihere’s comments.

John Tamihere is a Labour Party member, former MP and Minister, and aspiring candidate. Cactus Kate points out in an open letter to Cunliffe the hypocrisy that she is deemed unsuitable for membership, yet Tamihere is. She writes:

I have never accepted there may be any defence or explanation to gang raping girls as young as 13 years old.  Girls that young cannot by law even give consent and Mr Tamihere as a lawyer should know that and he seems incapable of accepting this publicly without attempting to justify it or blaming the girls in some way.

Mr Tamihere is aiding discussion with his fan club of neanderthals, not of grown women but girls only young enough to be my niece and your daughter.  He entertained the thought they may be asking to be raped by a pack of sweaty, nose-ringed, want to be gangster ferals due to what they wear.  He invoked what  Miley Cyrus wears and commented on what is written on girls Facebook pages.  Every educated adult seems to understand apart from Tamihere and his radio partner that these girls have made allegations of intentional, violent and publicly humiliating pack rape which is an entirely different matter to mature adults having consensual group sex.

On the same show on Thursday Mr Tamihere suggested that a person challenging his views was imparting “middle class” values as if it explained away that girls from working class or poor backgrounds should just accept pack rape, underage sex and sexual assault from older boys and men as a normal activity in the suburbs he claims to be at the “coalface” and a Leader of.

I might have to wear the eventual rejection of my membership as a badge of some honour such is the reported rarity of the action.  In light of this however I expect some consistency and that you step in as a Leader before your more vocal and active female members demand it of you and remove Tamihere’s Labour membership completely before even entertaining he may stand for Labour in 2014.

Will anyone in Labour take action? Will Cunliffe?

Back to Radio Live, you now have a political talk show that no MP from National or Labour will go on. I expect no Green MP would either. So will any MP still go on the show with them? I can think of just one – Winston. Inquiring media should ask Winston what he thinks of what Willie and JT said, and whether he is still happy to go on their show.

The Herald reports:

What a difference a zone makes. In this case, try $500,000.

Experts say there has always been a difference in price for properties located within the double-grammar zone for Auckland Grammar and Epsom Girls Grammar, but the gap is widening as the city’s average house price continues to hit record highs each month.

One Mt Eden home just 750m outside of the area went for $516,000 less than a house just up the road, valued the same but situated 250m within the zone, which cuts off south of Balmoral Rd.

It is outrageous that school zoning means that poorer families can’t get to have a chance for their kids to attend Auckland Grammar.

I’d get rid of school zoning, and allow the popular schools to expand to whatever size they wish to be. They could do satellite campuses. You could have a reserve power for the Ministry to direct a school to take a student if they can’t get into any school say within 10 kms of where they live.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand children will wear cameras in a world-first study to monitor the daily advertising bombardment of junk food and other unhealthy products.

More than 200 schoolchildren will be equipped with tiny video cameras that they will carry for a year.

The study follows a pilot survey that revealed an assault of promotions on billboards, shelters, dairies and the back of buses.

Researchers hope the results will be used to help formulate health policy in a country where the obesity rate among children aged between 5 and 11 jumped from 8 to 11 per cent in just six years.

With 99.9% confidence I can predict the proposed policy will be to ban advertising of foods that our health overlords deem bad for us.

Part of a $5 million collaborative programme between Otago University and Victoria University researchers, the study will produce millions of images to be analysed using a computer algorithm.

$5 million to produce shock horror headlines that kids see 27,526 advertisements a year for food, and the inevitable conclusion than advertising of non-approved foods must be banned.

Tracy Watkins writes:

Nowhere else does the word rejuvenation strike such fear into the heart as in politics.

There is a “for whom the bells toll” quality to the word, which to politicians is synonymous with less-comforting terminology like purge, dead wood and old guard.

Rejuvenation of political parties rarely happens without a word in the ear, blood on the floor and a row of colleagues lined up behind your back ready to plunge the knife in.

The fact then that National has managed to retire seven of its MPs so far, with more rumoured to be on the way, and with not even a hint of a backbench revolt, is a truly remarkable feat.

It is – both for the party leadership, but also for the individual MPs who are quite selflessly putting party interests ahead of their own.

But of course the main value is internal – the injection of fresh blood is a breath of fresh air through a caucus, and encourages fresh talent to join up. It also ensures a Government does not become blind to its weaknesses.

David Cunliffe can only watch and weep.

His backing among the rank and file was as much grounded in a belief that he represented a new generation over Labour’s old guard, as it was in the direction he would take the party.

But the likes of Trevor Mallard and Phil Goff have planted their stake in the ground in Hutt South and Mt Roskill respectively.

Their determination to dig their heels in has very little to do with clinging on to the perks of office and everything to do with the fight for the control of Labour which continues to rumble on beneath the surface.

The lack of MPs rushing for the door is as good an indication as any that the hope of seeing off his leadership has not yet died among the caucus rump that bitterly opposed Cunliffe.

They’re going nowhere.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

John Key, 52, and wife Bronagh, have made a pact over what happens when that day comes. Theirs will be a life lived in the slow lane – or slower, at least.

Life after politics will probably involve some commercial work, a board chairmanship or two and even some “ex-prime ministerial things”, said Key.

But he won’t be doing a Helen Clark and chasing a top United Nations job. He has been living the dream for the past few decades – a high-powered investment banking career, then a “dream run” in politics – he has been prime minister for almost half the time he has been in Parliament. The sacrifices have all been Bronagh’s, he insists.

When it’s all over “she doesn’t want me taking a really high-powered, seven days a week job”.

But nor has Bronagh – who was in her 30s when he entered Parliament and celebrates her 50th birthday next week – ever put a time limit on this part of their lives, he said.

There’s a video interview at the link which is a good watch. It is obvious that John Key doesn’t measure his success or happiness based on how long he will be in power for.

David Kirk has written a superb tribute to Fats in the NZ Herald. Three extracts:

There’s Fats in the Ponsonby jersey he was so proud to wear, taking a pass from the halfback off a short lineout in a club match. Within three metres he is at full speed, bull neck tucked into his hunched shoulders, cannonball head forward, legs pumping. Fats on the charge was a fearsome sight. The various components of the running man – arms, legs, a head on top – morphed into a spinning ball of muscle. I, for one, was happy to defer to a larger type when it came to getting in the way. On this day on Eden Park, as University gave as good as it got in a top of the table battle, Mata’afa Keenan had no hesitation. In true Pacific Island style, he didn’t wait. He ran at Fats. Mass times velocity times two equals sickening smash. Both players bounced back and ended up splayed on the ground. Mata’afa was up and all good. Fats, too, was up quickly, but he put his hand on the shoulder he had led with and then he rolled his shoulder a couple of times. That was the only time I ever saw Fats register physical discomfort. Boy it felt good!

And:

One misty autumn day in Oxford in 1988 I got a call from Peter Fatialofa. Fats was the captain of the Samoan touring team in Britain. Samoa was playing a match in Cardiff that week and Fats wanted to know if I could come down to see the team and take a training session. I took the train down, arriving at about midday and we had the training session in the afternoon. I stayed in the evening for dinner with the team and by then it was too late to get a train back. The Samoan rugby union had no money to pay for an extra room, so Fats said I would stay in his room. I expected twin beds, but there was only one bed and it was a single. Fats gestured to the bed and said, “That’s yours”. He slept on the floor. No blankets, no pillow, no complaints. What did sleeping on the floor matter to him if he had prepared his team better for the match ahead?

And:

I can think of no greater compliment to give Peter – and I know he would see it that way – but to say that I wish I had had the opportunity to introduce my own children to him and for them to spend time in his company. To spend time with Peter Fatialofa was to be given a big dose of the best antidote to the tide of self-promotion and brittle celebrity worship that continues to rise like dry rot.

A sad loss.

Paula Bennett in the General Debate. Very good. A nice covering of how Labour is more and more saying different things to different people.

The Herald reports:

Vodafone, Telecom, Countdown and Briscoes have suspended all RadioLive advertising today while Mad Butcher ads have been pulled from Willie Jackson and John Tamihere’s show as the fallout from the Roast Busters scandal continues.

Four other advertisers pulled their campaigns from the station or show yesterday.

Mad Butcher chief executive Michael Morton confirmed he had instructed advertising be removed from the Willie and JT Show to elsewhere in the RadioLive schedule immediately. Mr Morton said he would review the matter with MediaWorks next week.

Telecom said in a statement that following the “offensive comments” made by the hosts, its media buying agency was taking action to remove all Telecom advertising from RadioLive.

It came a short time after Vodafone tweeted confirmation it had suspended all advertising with the station until further notice.

Briscoes posted on Facebook this morning that it had immediately pulled all advertising from the Willie & JT, and “this morning we have cancelled all our advertising with RadioLive until further notice,” the post said.

“We are not a company that wants to be in any way associated with the unacceptable actions of these presenters.”

The original comments by Willie and JT were pretty appalling, but survivable. But the nature of their so called apology made it worse, and then their dispute with Hoonon when they claimed his comment that 17 year old men should look after drunk 14 year old girls, not rape them, was him reflecting his middle class values was just over the top. Being anti-rape is not just a middle class value, and they time and time again have ended up appearing to be defending the young men involved.