Page One Post

Check out how many of the "twenty greatest living New Zealanders" are Labour politicians. When you include the additional appointments, there are three Labour MPs, a Labour politician and even an Australian Labour MP balanced by just one National MP out of a total of 23.

What on earth Jonathon Hunt has achieved to qualify as a great New Zealand is well beyond me.

1 April marks the start of increased Working for Families to middle and high-income families - not really the original goal of Michael Joseph Savage.

Lockwood Smith highlighted in the House today the extremely high marginal tax rates that people face trying to move off welfare, something not helped by the weekend's roll out.

National's tax cuts would have delievered more benefit almost across the board. Sure it would have cost more, but let's remember whose money it really is.

Defenders of WFF fairly point out National is complaining of high marginal tax rates at the same time as how far it the scheme extends into upper-middle class families. Additionally, National is argueing middle class families shouldn't receive welfare but instead more generous tax cuts. National has to argue the difference between state assistance and keeping more of what you earn.

The Electoral Commission adamantly deny there were flaws in their enrolment systems, but anybody remember the dog with an easy vote card?

In the first three pages on this morning's Dom Post, Helen Clark is quoted in five stories ranging from the deported Sri Lankan girl to microchips in dogs.

So TVNZ felt compelled to trump TV3 by paying for Harmeet Sooden's family to fly to the Middle East plus expenses in the hope of securing rights to an exclusive interview with the Canadian terrorist sympathiser. But even more curious than our state broadcaster engaging in chequebook journalism is the facilitating role played by MFAT!

Having ridiculed Don Brash for even suggesting there could be a recession back in January, Michael Cullen is now trying to talk the possibility down following the announcement of -0.1% GDP growth for the December quarter.

Brash in January:
"If business confidence stays around current levels - and this Government is doing nothing that might help avoid that - we are almost certainly headed for a recession. And unlike the brief recession of 1998, there won't be an Asian crisis or two successive years of drought to blame for it."

Cullen in February:
"To talk, as some have, of falling into recession is both naive and a little dangerous. It is naive because it betrays an ignorance of economic history; and it is dangerous because if we are not careful we may talk ourselves into a recession that we don't need to have."

Cullen on March 16:
"The first couple of months of the year have seen some rather loose talk about recession, and I am very grateful to the growing number of business people and economists who are joining me in pouring cold water on this... The truth is we don't have a recession..."

Stats NZ on March 24:
"Economic activity decreased 0.1 percent in the December 2005 quarter, following an increase of 0.1 percent in the September 2005 quarter."

Cullen on March 28:
Dr Cullen does not expect a recession, with positive growth projected for the march quarter - but if there was to be one it would be about as short and small as a recession could possibly be, he said yesterday. - Dom Post page A3

This Dom Post story about Georgina te Heuheu's comment on TVNZ spending taxpayer's money on "cheque journalism" to the tune of $30,000 for the story of freed hostage Harmeet Sooden runs under the headline "Sooden attack by Nats" - an interesting spin on events you'd have to admit even for them.

Although, maybe the Nats should go after Sooden given how ungrateful and uncooperative the freed Christian peacemakers have been? If other hostages die because of their actions, they will have more than God to answer to.

Update: Now it appears National Radio has ditched its political segement with Mathew Hooton and Peter Harris on Nine-to-Noon. So how many right-wing commentators are on state-funded radio now? None.

The government's poll ratings have remained unchanged in the March Colmar Brunton survey despite weeks of bad headlines.

National: 45% (steady)
Labour: 42% (steady)
Greans: 7% (up 1)
Maori: 3% (steady)
NZ First: 2% (steady)

Even for speaker Margaret Wilson, yesterday's ruling that Dover Samuels could avoid questioning because his comments about cabinet colleague Chris Carter to the Independent were in a non-ministerial capacity was a bit strange.

Pete Hodgson returned to his angry best yesterday when shown-up by new backbencher Jonathan Coleman. Does he ever smile?

David Farrar highlights the divisions appearing in Labour's caucus.

It seems I am not the only one disturbed with the lessons to be learned by the differing treatment of the two Davids.

Helen Clark's once legendry judgement seems to have deserted her. The strange claim by Clark yesterday following the second part of David Parker's two-part resignation that she would have asked for his resignation from all portfolios had he not offered it, is incompatible with her earlier comments to media that she supported him continuing in his ministerial role even though he had stood down as Attorney General.

Today's NZ Herald editorial notes Parker was a causality of Clark spending all her political capital on David Benson-Pope:

Through most of her premiership Helen Clark has been too ready to cast ministers to the wolves, often before any offence was established. She was beginning to display more strength, perhaps unwisely, in her refusal to sack David Benson-Pope over a misleading statement to Parliament. Mr Parker appears to have paid the price for the pressure she has felt from the Benson-Pope business and the prima facie case of election mis-spending, which the police have decided not to prosecute.

A sentiment echoed by NZ Herald columnist John Armstrong:

No-one is going to admit it, but Mr Parker is also the fall guy for Mr Benson-Pope's mistakes and Labour's blushes over election spending.

But the editorial goes further, stating that Clark made the wrong decision in both cases:

The Prime Minister has made the the wrong decision in both the Benson-Pope and Parker decisions. One minister deserved to go, the other did not. Mr Parker's resignation as Attorney-General was the suitable and sufficient penalty for his misdemeanour. As a young and "exceptionally able" person, the Government could not afford to lose him.

Parker trying to spin resignation by claiming threshold for behaviour now so high, no-one will want to become an MP. Bollocks.

More thoughts and links from David Farrar.

Gateway Pundit on the continuing misunderestimation of events in Iraq.

I wonder what lesson Labour ministers will learn from the contrasting treatment of David Benson-Pope and David Parker. If you lie, get caught and keep on lying you will survive; but tell the truth and give ground, and you will be hung out. Actually, it could be as simple as it's okay to lie to Parliament, but lying to the Companies Office is a resignation offence.

David Parker's resignation highlights the lack of talent available to replace him in cabinet. My pick is for Harry Duynhoven to replace him. Although overlooked on many previous occasions, he is the only one that will not force a reshuffle of portfolios. Parker's offending may result in a conviction forcing him from his list seat, would be replaced by Charles Chauvel.

Helen Clark trying to claim there is a "smear" campaign against her ministers. No, it is holding the government to her 1999 promise to "restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process".

The NZ Herald has a "growing list" of ministers who have resigned, stood down or been sacked.

Interestingly only Lianne Dalziel has been caught red-handed by events directly relating to her ministerial portfolio, others caught out in their portfolio - David Benson-Pope lying to Parliament and Taito Philip Field undertaking immigration favours - have been protected by Helen Clark.

Parker appears to have taken the fall for his "mistake" of "ticking the wrong box" on his company returns because the real story of how he screwed over one his clients in a business deal would be far more damaging.

Update 11am: Parker has now resigned all his portfolios. Why the 18 hour delay? Why did Clark not insist on this yesterday?

John Armstrong in the NZ Herald today writes:

It is understandable she has not sacked him completely. He is one of Labour's brightest stars. Neither does she want to bring his political career to an abrupt halt.

She obviously feels that would be unfair and inconsistent given the leniency shown to Mr Benson-Pope.

Yet, keeping Mr Parker after retaining Mr Benson-Pope risks exponentially increasing the political cost incurred by Labour.

Recognising the dilemma, she yesterday sought to paint Mr Parker as an honourable person who had made a mistake. She then attacked Investigate magazine and Rodney Hide as if Mr Parker's predicament was somehow all their fault. She then dropped another hint that Labour might retaliate in kind to what were "smear" campaigns against its ministers.

If any event were to trigger Labour to follow through on its repeated threats to release dirt, surely it would be the resignation of another minister - especially when Rodney Hide is involved. But nothing has happened and the only conclusion can be that Labour is bluffing.

David Parker has resigned as Attorney General after an Investigate Magazine article showed he had filled false annual returns with the Companies Office. Question is why hasn't he resigned from his other portfolios?

Big come down for the minister favoured by Clark who awarded him a bagful of high profile portfolios in only his second term.

Another scalp for Investigate who snared John Tamihere and should have had David Benson-Pope with their last issue.

Parker seems to have paid price for Labour's recent scandles, namely Benson-Pope and the pledge card, they couldn't afford another one.

Incredibly Labour has once again escaped prosecution despite the police finding a prima facie case to answer regarding their $446,000 pledge cards.

The police say there was no evidence to pursue the election over-spending further yet also claimed the pledge card did not carry authorisation, something only required of election spending. Go figure.

Update 20/3: Opposition leader Don Brash held a press conference today where he spelt out the questions the media should be asking Helen Clark. The subtle hints about police bias where perhaps a step too far but it is hard to draw any conclusion other than Labour is 'very lucky' when it comes to prosecutions. Will be interesting to see who the next police commissioner is.

Cullen knows a thing or two about political timing. Just as the Benson-Pope furore is dieing down, Parliament is in a week of recess, and Collins admits she went a bit too far with her "pervert" accusation; Cullen loudly threatens to unleash a dirt-file on National front-benchers if the attacks on Benson-Pope continue. As National turns its attention to ministers over-ruling the courts, it suddenly appears as if it has something to hide.

Yesterday was a member's day, not usually a source of news unless a conscinous bill is before the House. But last night the government lost two votes, on Wayne Mapp's Employment Relations Amendment Bill (63-58) and Barbara Stewart's Electoral Amendment Bill (61-60).

This demostrates that the Labour government cannot take passage of legislation for granted. Whilst this will rarely be a problem, it shows that if National is lucky enough to have key bills drawn from the ballot, Labour will have real headaches. It is now up to National to build and maintain their relationships with all minor parties (well except Jim).

This may seem an odd way to start the blog, writing about an ill-conceived bill pandering to an ill-informed public, but here goes.

I am a firm believer that political power resides in a country's citizens. I dislike those (and there are many) in the political elite who believe they know best. However, Barbara Stewart's bill to reduce the number of MPs from 120 to 100 would be a dis-service to Parliament and ultimately New Zealand despite the overwhelming majority who voted for the 1999 referendum.

I had to laugh this morning hearing Stewart tell Morning Report her bill would increase the productivity of Parliament - I cannot remember a single thing she had done since becoming an MP. But that does not prove that we have too many MPs, it proves that people should be more disconcerning when voting. It takes a lot of MPs to run cabinet, serve on select committees, crutinise bills, and manage a constituency. Ultimately, Parliament is a house of representatives, and 120 MPs bring a more diverse range of skills and opinions to the work outlined above.

An noted by Just Left there is a certain irony to an MP basically calling for her own ousting. Also, David Farrar has pointed to the mathematical impracticality of this bill.

However, the bill passed its first reading 61-60 last night allowing those with a grudge to vent at the select committee. This might actually be quite therapeutic, allowing the bill to die quietly and postpone the arguments for a further seven years.

Page One Post is a blog dedicated to following New Zealand politics and analysing events as they happen. It is designed primarily for my enjoyment so will not cover every issue that arrises nor be updated as religiously as uber-blogs like David Farrar's. It will hopefully provide a view one step back on important trends from a centre-right perspective.