Metcalph's Blog

Reflections on Helen Clark

2008-11-09T13:03:00.003+13:00

I hadn't said anything about the 2008 electoral campaign because I regarded the result as a foregone conclusion and couldn't wait for it to be over. Labour had contracted a terminal case of Howard's disease (i.e. it had run dry of ideas) and the numerous sagas since then (the Owen Glenn affair, the secret taping of the Nats, Mike Williams desperate dash to Oz to find dirt on John Key etc.) only reinforced my conviction that this was a government in need of humane slaughter. The election was always going to be the end of an era and I think Helen Clark had foreseen this given her decision to step down as Party Leader during her concession speech. Her announcement was dramatic but really unsurprising. There's no way after nine years in power that she could seriously expected the public to reconsider re-electing her in the future.

While Clark has been a very capable prime minister (in terms of effectiveness, she's well ahead of Jim Bolger and leaves David Lange on the starting line), I didn't like many of her policies and I never liked her style. Her problems with the truth (e.g. leaking false information in the Peter Doone affair, signing paintings she hadn't painted and then passing them off as hers, claiming she hadn't noticed how fast she was going in the speeding convoy) were bad enough but coupled with repellant rhetoric (describing Don Brash as "cancerous", saying that Fiji would become a "leper" and most recently claiming that John Key was on the verge of crying during the first leader's debate) she needlessly created division during her administration.

Clark was noted for keeping a large number of useless ministers on in cabinet well after most managers would have cut them loose. However her one error, I believe, in the recent parliamentary term was her inability to deal with Michael Cullen, a titan in her cabinet who was content to consider that being in a minority of one about his policies was "a comfortable working majority" (originally applied by Gerald Hensley to Robert Muldoon). His attitude towards tax cuts had almost cost Labour the 2005 election and she would have well-advised to kick him upstairs during the last term. But for some reason, she didn't remove Cullen from the financial portfolio whereas Jim Bolger could remove Ruth Richardson after the 1993 election. By the time Cullen was made to offer something substantial this year, the phone was off the hook and Clark's tumble from power was inevitable.

The US Elections: the Polls

2008-11-03T21:08:00.002+13:00

In recent weeks virtually every single poll has put Barack Obama in the lead (there was a poll that said otherwise but that turned out to be Zogby playing with ~~himself~~ the numbers). Yet somehow I can't help feeling that there's something seriously wrong about the opinion poll results. I'm not doing this out of a deluded hope that John McCain will win the election - to prepare myself for his loss I've engaged in certain exercises (fetal crouches and thumb suckings).

The source of my discontent is that in 1992, Bill Clinton rode as high as a 20% poll lead over the Elder Bush before falling back to a respectable 6%. He did this by running on a platform of "It's the economy, stupid" in a recession. Barack Obama has been the beneficiary of a meltdown on Wall Street. Things are so bad that if a lynch mob were given the choice between Barack and a Wall Street Banker, they would hang the Banker without hesitation. Yet Barack has never gotten anything like Clinton's lead in the opinion polls. Coupled with other factoids such as the Vice-Presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden pulled 75 million viewers whereas Barack Obama could only pull a third of that for his informercial and my feeling is that the pollsters are getting a distorted impression of the mood due to the recent Wall Street calamity.

I'm not going to engage in an detailed analysis of the polls as it will quickly degenerate into something less informative than a gaggle of Haruspices arguing about the state of a liver. Nor can I plausibly argue that all the polling companies are shilling for Barack because even the Republican polls is saying pretty much the same thing.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the polling is capturing Barack's support accurately but underreporting McCain's support in the countryside. This is because polling companies in order to cut costs produce a representative sample by conducting polls in the easy-to-reach big cities and adjust the results using the smaller sample of the harder-to-reach areas such as the countryside to arrive at a reasonable approximation of the sampling population as a whole. This corner cutting is legitimate and it works and the polling companies would go out of business if they didn't.

However this corner cutting can produce misleading results from time to time. For example Tom Bradley failed to become Governor of California not because moderate democrats were lying to the pollsters about their willingness to vote for a black but because there was an anti-gun proposition on the ballot. The NRA sounded the duelling banjos to defeat it and the unanticipated extra voters voted against Bradley for good measure because he had supported the proposition.

Does this effect significantly distort the poll results? I don't know. If it did, will it be large enough for McCain to win the election? I really don't know. All I can do is wait...

The US Elections: Barack Obama

2008-10-27T16:08:00.003+13:00

Firstly let's get the good points out of the way. Barack Obama is one of the more likeable presidential candidates I've seen. He's miles ahead of Kerry and he lacks Clinton's odour of corruption. In addition I quite like the idea of a Hussein running America. But there are a number of issues about him that I find troublesome.

Experience and ability When he initially declared his candidacy, I didn't think he had a chance as he hadn't even completed a term in Senate. But in winning the Democratic nomination against overwhelming odds (ie running against the presumptive nominee), he's shown he has the ability. Thus he will be capable of getting things done but his lack of experience means that he will likely make more than a few mistakes along the way.

Pallin' around with Ayers, Rezko and Wright: I am not concerned that Barack had associated with an unrepentant (albeit incompetent) terrorist, a corrupt bagman and a hellfire preacher. What does concern me is that he has been unable to provide a convincing narrative to create distance between himself and the unattractive aspects of the unholy trio. Simply saying about Ayers something like "We all regarded him as a nut for what he did and avoided speaking to him about it for fear of receiving yet another lengthy tedious monologue but when it came to education he had some very good ideas" would have done much to quell any concerns. Likewise Rezko could be explained away with "You needed to know such people in order to get anything done in Chicago, sad but true" and Wright with "I generally tuned out during his sermons". The fact that he has not yet done so makes me wonder whether he is psychologically able to do so.

Joe the Plumber: What strikes me most about the Joe the Plumber incident is how unnecessary it was. Joe simply asked about how Obama's tax plans would affect his intentions of owning a small company. It wasn't as if he was indicating a desire to become the chairman of a large multinational. All Barack had to do to say that his tax plans wouldn't be affecting small businesses amongst other political fluff and nobody would have been any wiser. But in giving the answer that he did, Barack needlessly created a potential opening which still rumbles on.

Joe the Gasbag: In my opinion the worst decision that Barack has made was the choice of his vice-president. I believe his decision not to choose Hillary Clinton was the right one as after bungling the healthcare reform and the 2008 democratic primary, no sane person could dispassionately want her in a position of power and responsibility. Yet choosing Joe Biden was an uninspired choice that it seemed to show a lack of imagination (and made the choice of Sarah Palin even more dramatic). If he had chosen somebody with a slightest bit of colour, like say Governor Bill Richardson (executive experience, hispanic, former ambassador to the UN) I would feel a lot more comfortable.

The lack of a killer instinct: Sometimes in politics, you have to be unpleasant to people. John McCain had this beaten into him by North Vietnamese Torturers. Hillary Clinton has learned this the hard way through her marriage. But with Barack, I don't see anything in his political career or personal history that indicates that he can do this or even knows this. He singularly failed to put Hillary out of contention for the Democratic Primary for example.

So if he does become president, I fear that we are going to see a fair amount of missteps during his term.

Politics in New Zealand...

2008-02-06T10:56:00.000+13:00

At Waitangi yesterday:

"I was rather touched that your guys thought I would be the next Prime Minister..."

Old Bastard finally knocks off

2008-01-11T14:39:00.000+13:00

R.I.P.

Making sense of the Terrorism Suppression Act

2007-11-08T21:22:00.000+13:00

I haven't blogged at all about the recent Te Qaeda fuss because as soon as I heard Tame Iti was involved, I figured the people involved were clowns who ought to be beaten with cluebats rather than anything serious. The defendants still face charges under the Arms Act, which specifies sentences of up to five years. What's more interesting to me is that the Solicitor-General has decided that there won't be prosecutions under the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002 (ordinarily this would be the Attorney-General's decision but since Michael Cullen is not a lawyer ~~or a wise minister of finance for that matter~~, he has delegated the decision to the Solicitor-General) because the act is "extremely complex, very, very tortuous in the way in which it is put together and almost impossible to apply in a coherent manner". Strong words. But for people familiar with the legal thinking of the then Minister of Justice when the legislation was drafted, one Margaret Wilson, they should not be surprising ones.

So this led me to think what exactly did the Solicitor-General have problems with? The act is here. To give a flavour of what must have caused the Solicitor-General to start beating himself senseless against a brick wall, Terrorism Acts are defined in s5(1) as:

1) An act is a terrorist act for the purposes of this Act if—

(a) the act falls within subsection (2); or

Subsection 2) states that the act is terrorism if it is intended to cause certain outcomes that are listed in subsection 3) and that these acts are carried out with a purpose and also with certain intentions. So in order to assess whether my plans to blow up the Beehive (for the sake of an example I assure you) is terrorism, the police must not only ascertain the likely outcome but also my intentions as well as my purpose. Why my intentions and purposes should be considered separately, I have no idea. Moving on:

(b)the act is an act against a specified terrorism convention (as defined in section 4(1)); or

The specified terrorism conventions are defined in section 4(1) as being specific treaties listed in Schedule 2. So why did the act not say instead "as listed in Schedule 3"? Looking at the next subsection:

(c)the act is a terrorist act in armed conflict (as defined in section 4(1)).

The definition in s4(1) for some reason fails to describe what an armed conflict is or what the acceptable means of armed conflict is. Have a look at s13:

(1)A person commits an offence who participates in a group or organisation for the purpose stated in subsection (2), knowing that the group or organisation is—

(a) an entity that is for the time being designated under this Act as a terrorist entity; or

(b) an entity that carries out, or participates in the carrying out of, 1 or more terrorist acts.

(2)The purpose referred to in subsection (1) is to enhance the ability of any entity (being an entity of the kind referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b)) to carry out, or to participate in the carrying out of, 1 or more terrorist acts.

Two subsections both of which refer to each other. It would have been much simpler to define "terrorist group" in s4 so that s13 can be rewritten as:

A person commits an offence by knowingly participating in a terrorist group to either enhance its capability to carry out terrorist acts or to carry out one or more terrorist acts or both.

See the difference? Why couldn't Margaret Wilson?

Royal Blackmail

2007-10-31T22:59:00.000+13:00

I really don't see what the fuss is about. After all, he wasn't dropping his h's on tape.

I, for one, ...

2007-10-07T14:35:00.000+13:00

...welcome our new French Overlords.

Marcel Marceau has died.

2007-09-23T21:53:00.000+12:00

What I want to know is: did he mime his last words?

Zaoui case concluded

2007-09-13T19:46:00.000+12:00

The long running Ahmed Zaoui saga has finally finished with the SIS withdrawing their security risk certificate against him. Since he already has refugee status courtesy of the RSAA, he remains in the country. The resulting cheering from is his supporters is unsurprising. I have been scathing here and in other forums about the RSAA's decision but believed Zaoui to be little more than a trusting soul of Damien O'Connor proportions who was used by others for their own malign purposes.

What is surprising is the information in the unclassified report by the SIS (judging from the URL, the link looks likely to change). Zaoui's interactions with the GIA are a lot stronger that his supporters had hitherto claimed. For example, he met with the (local?) GIA treasurer in Belgium regularly and when he was arrested at the Swiss Border, he was in the same car as the (local?) GIA armourer. Other links with people of nefarious intent are also described therein.

So Ahmed Zaoui remains here. I still firmly believe that the RSAA should not have given him refugee status, a decision that I consider validated by the unclassified SIS report. I am less concerned about his continued stay on the grounds that while he was an idiot for trusting the people that he did, that doesn't automatically make him a terrorist. One theme in the SIS report did interest me though - repeated mention is made of his increased candour with the SIS. I daresay had he had that attitude over a decade ago, he would still be a lawful refugee in Belgium.

Observations on Benson-Pope's resignation

2007-07-27T22:23:00.000+12:00

So David Benson-Pope has resigned after misleading the public and (more importantly) Helen Clark about his involvement in the dismissal of a public servant. His behaviour isn't all that surprising to anybody who has followed politics, what's startling is he did the same things that had got him into trouble previously.

1) Rather than own up to unsavory conduct, he makes false denials. Previously he had denied allegations of student abuse and complaints about his teaching conduct. Now he has denied ever influencing the CEO of the Environment Ministry.

2) He hides behind somebody who worked for him. Previously with his knowledge, his press secretary leaked a misleading version of a police report with the comment that it exonerated him. Now his senior adviser makes five phone calls again with his knowledge to the Environment Ministry CEO.

3) He does not co-operate with his cabinet colleagues. Previously his media strategy for defending himself was handled by his own office acting on his directions. Only when this effort had degenerated into a shambles did the Prime Ministers office intervene and force him to adopt a more effective media strategy. Now he simply fails to inform Helen Clark about what he has said or done at the very moment when full disclosure might have saved him.

It's almost as if there were some baleful influence on his life, an evil influence that compels him do bad things that he knows are wrong. Like a dominatrix or something...

Will he ever return to cabinet? There is the example of Lianne Dalziel who leaked documents and then lied about it. However Lianne only lied publicly once and not to Helen Clark. David on the other hand has a history. Given that one of the denials was made in the house, a resignation as MP looks possible. He could argue his way out of his predicament but he's by himself now and he simply isn't very good at spinning.

That said, some statements in the papers caught my attention. In the Press this morning:

Clark warned on Monday that she was unhappy with Benson-Pope's handling of the issue and was watching his words closely.

How many times did he twitch?

An earlier version of this story had the following comment:

It is understood both Miss Clark and Mr Benson-Pope spent the morning consulting with caucus colleagues, finding the most painless exit route.

Would that be because he would have enjoyed more painful routes of exit?

Live-blogging reading the last Harry Potter

2007-07-21T11:46:00.000+12:00

Page 1: Harry's Alive!

Page 2: He's still alive!

Page 3: Phew! He looked a goner there but Harry's still alive!

[developing]

A lovely day in June

2007-06-01T12:22:00.000+12:00

Words that I hitherto thought were impossible down here. June in Christchurch is traditionally cold and either wet or frosty. Currently it is a pleasant 16 degrees and the weather has been so for the past few weeks. If this be due to Climate Change, then stuff the lot of you - I'm increasing my carbon footprint forthwith.

2021 announces Christchurch Mayoralty Candidate

2007-04-16T11:35:00.000+12:00

Ever since Tim Barnett has decided not to puruse the Mayoralty, 2021 have finally named Dr Megan Woods as their candidate for the Christchurch Mayoralty next year. The general reaction is likely to be "Who?".

Megan Woods stood for the Progressives for Christchurch Central in 2005 and is a sitting member of the Spreydon Heathcote Community Board. She was fourth on the Progressive Party list which I said was due to a poverty of talent.

I'm just simply gobsmacked that 2021 couldn't find a heavyweight to contest the mayoralty. Ever since Vicki Buck's election in 1989, Labour through its affiliates have always held the mayoralty but now there's nobody else?

As things stand, Bob Parker will simply be a shoo-in to win. I would normally endorse him but his sole local body experience to date has been the complete and utter destruction of the Banks Peninsula District Council, which makes me pause...

The decline of literacy in the UK

2007-04-05T10:22:00.000+12:00

The thing that worries me about stories such as this or this is that nobody makes the obvious crack about Telescreens. I suppose in the future, they'll broadcast images of Tony Blair so that people will be happy that that it's not quite what Eric Blair had in mind.

Summary of Complaints

2007-04-03T17:11:00.000+12:00

For those of you unwilling to wade through the Bazely report, I present a shortened summary of the complaints that the anonymous submitters made to the commission. Louise Nichols' complaint has been dealt with an acquittal and I am unaware of any resolution in the case of Judith Garrett. I have given aspects of the complaints ratings out of 5 (with 5 being high).

Complainant A: made two rape complaints against an officer in 1982. At the same time, the officers partner alleged that he was sexually abusing their stepdaughters. Neither complaint was investigated at the time. It wasn't until 1994-95 that both complaints were re investigated and the result was that the officer was convicted for offences against his stepdaughters but acquitted of rape against complainant A because the medical records had been lost.

Likelihood of original offending: 4
Impact of alleged offending: 5
Original police handling: 1
Followup police handling: 4

Complainant B: had been fostered into the care of a police officer before 1985. He had sexual relations with her which eventually resulted in a child. The police originally tried to resolve the matter through an admission of paternity. When that failed, they investigated the matter criminally but not enough evidence was available to sustain a conviction then. No disciplinary charges were considered (although he was facing other disciplinary proceedings). In 1996, the matter was re-examined but the police failed to consider a charge of indecent assault.

Likelihood of original offending: 5
Impact of alleged offending: 3
Original police handling: 3
Followup police handling: 3

Complainant C: was allegedly raped by a police officer in 1989. Supposedly she complained then but neither C or the Police have any knowledge of the matter. In 1991, the Police heard rumours about C's attack. They began a full investigation and contacted her. C denied the attack then for fear of being done in for cannabis she had during the attack in 1989. A second police officer actively concealed information. In 2004, the Police re-investigated again which "came out of the blue" for C. Apparently she had not been told that a formal investigation had been launched into her complaint. The re-investigation lead to the discovery that information had been concealed and disciplinary charges followed against the second police officer but the original offender had died in the meantime.

Likelihood of original offending: 4
Impact of alleged offending: 5
Original police handling: 3
Followup police handling: 4
Comment: I get the impression that the officer was blackmailing C for sex over cannabis possession. If C had known that she wouldn't be prosecuted for having dope then a conviction might have been obtained.

Complainant D: was allegedly raped by a police officer who was her partner at the time in 1996. She complained almost immediately and a full investigation ensued. The officer did try to influence the investigating officer but was unsuccessful. D was upset because she was confronted with inconsistencies in her statement and the fact that some personal items of hers were taken away for forensic analysis and never returned. There is a short mention that D had an undiagnosed medical condition which may have caused her unhappiness. No prosecution was made due to lack of evidence and when disciplinary proceedings over the original relationship were laid against the officer, he quit the force.

Likelihood of original offending: 3
Impact of alleged offending: 5
Original police handling: 4
Comment: The mention of the undiagnosed medical condition implies that D's evidence was unreliable.

Complainant E: claimed to have an consensual affair with her husband's diversion officer. When an internal enquiry was launched, the officer quit the force.

Likelihood of original offending: 5
Impact of alleged offending: 1
Original police handling: 4
Comment: A police officer had an affair! Stop the presses!!

Complainant F: was allegedly raped in 1997 by three police officers (one recently retired). A detective, hearing rumours of the attack, contacted her soon afterwards but was told that only an indecency was involved. F didn't report the rape until 1998 at which time forensic evidence was lost. F remains unhappy about the police treatment of her but the police maintain it was professional.

Likelihood of original offending: 4
Impact of alleged offending: 5
Original police handling: 4
Comment: No outcome is mentioned of the case which implies lack of evidence. The fact that a detective actively investigated the case indicates that the "culture of silence" that Louise complained of didn't extend to serious offences.

Complainant G: claimed to have been searched very intimately while in police custody in 1997. The search should not have happened and the senior sergeant who had ordered the search was subsequently counselled after an investigation.

Likelihood of original offending: 5
Impact of alleged offending: 3
Original police handling: 4
Comment: I would have ranked the impact a 2. But then I realized that G was still upset about the incident to complain ten years later. Which makes it a 3.

Complainant H: alleged that in 2001 her partner, a police officer, had indecently assaulted a child. The police disregarded the practice (despite recorded submissions) of bringing in an investigator from outside the district on the grounds that alleged offender was involved in community policing and hence only nominally associated with the station. Although with hindsight, the police accept this decision did not look good. No prosecution was brought due to lack of evidence.

Likelihood of original offending: 3
Impact of alleged offending: 4
Original police handling: 4

Complainant I: was originally investigated for being beaten up by Police Officers in 1986. In 2003, he claimed that he had been sexually assaulted during the same attack. A thorough investigation was carried out which lead to a no prosecution. I was however unhappy about a misunderstanding during the course of the interview,

Likelihood of original offending: 0
Impact of alleged offending: 4
Original police handling: 4
Comment: I can understand police beating up somebody and then lying about it. But male rape? I suspect I to be related to Louise Nicholas.

Complainant J: was a police officer who complained of sexual harassment in 1994. The police followed a draft procedure. Although the sergeant concerned denied the activities, he was transferred elsewhere within the station. J remained unsatisfied with the resolution of the event.

Likelihood of original offending: 3
Impact of alleged offending: 2
Original police handling: 3
Comment: Nothing dramatic here. The police followed a sexual harassment case and screwed up somewhat.

So of the ten cases, there is only one (that of complainant A) where the police buried the file. There is misconduct in the investigation phase of complainant C but that is a single officer withholding information. In the cases of B, D, E, G, H, I and J, the cases were investigated promptly as soon as a complaint was made. In the cases of C and F, the impetus for the investigation came from the police rather than the complainant.

So while there has been police misconduct, people seem to have forgotten that the original allegations and reason for the enquiry were that the police were refusing to investigate the criminals in their own ranks. That some of the cases are disgraceful doesn't even begin to warrant the flagellation that the police have been forced to indulge in on Helen's wishes.

Police Complaints report out

2007-04-03T16:42:00.000+12:00

The long awaited report into Police (mis)conduct is finally out. It's a dull read with much discussion on procedural deficiencies and the much promised horror stories aren't all that earth-shattering. But that hasn't stopped Helen Clark from crowing.

The Prime Minister claims a police culture of "looking after their own" was the only reason Clint Rickards rose to be Auckland's top cop.

The Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct released today identifies a culture of police turning a blind eye to misdemeanours involving officers.

Helen Clark says that is why Clint Rickards had a steady rise through the police until he put his name forward to be a Deputy Commissioner.

"He then ran into the obstacle of me and the Minister of Police, who on becoming aware of the nature of the allegations (against Mr Rickards) and the fact that they were still circulating, declined to consider forwarding his name to the Governor General for a warrant."

There are several things wrong with her version of events.

1. The blind eye towards misdemeanours that the Commission identified involved conduct more serious than group sex sessions that Clint Rickards participated in or even BDSM sessions that a cabinet colleague of hers reportedly enjoys.

2. Rickards was a protege of Rob Robinson, whom Helen endorsed as Commissioner of Police after the resignation of Peter Doone. Is she admitting now admitting that she made a flawed choice?

3. The most serious flaw in her version of events is that Rickards' appointment was thwarted by herself "and the Minister of Police". While Helen has the nous to know when a candidate's skeletons will be damaging in the future, the same cannot be said of the Minister of Police at the time, one George Hawkins! An example of his incompetence will suffice - as Minister of Internal Affairs, he received warnings of an impending crisis involving leaky buildings. He however chose to do nothing on the grounds that he hadn't been formally advised! How Helen seriously expects us to believe Hawkins is a crafty political operator is beyond me.

Welcome to Bizarro World

2007-03-28T10:56:00.000+12:00

SFO strikes out again

2007-03-02T15:57:00.000+13:00

The Serious Fraud Office haven't been having a good run in the courts lately with a string of acquittals or dropped cases. Today, they've just had another one. A jury only takes three hours to decide whether fourteen fraud and forgery charges are credible? Someone at the Serious Fraud Office needs a good kick up the backside real soon now. The fact that the prosecution is against a former Immigration Minister suggests to me that the dysfunctional Department of Immigration was the cause of the complaint.

The trials of Rickards et al...

2007-03-02T11:15:00.000+13:00

The recent acquittal of Shipton, Schollum and Rickards brings an end to a long-running triad of cases that were caused by the accusations of Louise Nichols against Rickards. Only the conviction of Shipton and Schollum (as well as two others) of a rape at Mount Manganui has prevented the proceedings from being a complete and utter shambles.

I had pretty much known at the time of the Louise Nichols case that Shipton and Schollum had already been convicted. Yet despite this I didn't think there would be a conviction. Why? Because Louise Nichols had already made prior rape allegations against other police officers and against a "pack of maoris". She retracted the allegation against a "pack of maoris" saying she didn't know why she had made it while the allegation against other police officers went to trial several years back and resulted in not guilty verdicts. So while she gave the impression of one speaking truth, it was far less certain that what she believed had happened had actually happened. Combined with the statement of the flatmate, a guilty verdict from the jurors would have been grounds for sending them to a mental hospital.

While Louise's prior history had been widely described in the papers before the trial, the complainant at the recent trial was largely shrouded behind name suppression. It was only during the course of the trial that I realized that something incredible had happened - the police had managed to find a complainant even less credible than Louise Nichols. Why?

For starters, she initially stated that she claimed to have been in a relationship with Clint Rickards for about six months. Now she says she only saw him on the night of the attack. At the trial, she blamed the discrepancies on police misunderstandings.

Then there was revelation that she didn't come forward on her own but had been found by the police while they were investigating the Louise Nichols allegations. They had seized Shipton's notes, found her details therein (she had been in a relationship with him) and contacted her. It just so happens that she was having personal problems at the time ("including looking after her four children and dealing with the break-up of a relationship"). That's a strong incentive for many people to start fabricating evidence to gain needed sympathy and while truthful allegations can result

But for me the tipping point was when the complainant declared under cross-examination: "I know poor Louise Nicholas lost her case and I am trying damn hard to make sure these guys are done." From this point on, the case was dead in the water.

The prosecution certainly knew that the case was hopeless. The prosecutor covered himself with infamy when he had to accuse (video-link I'm afraid) Clint Rickards of being a practiced liar because he had been, wait for it, an undercover cop! Now when he deals with crimes involving the testimony of undercover police officers, all the defence attorney has to say is "as my distinguished colleague has said at Clint Rickard's last trial, undercover cops are practised liars" to get an acquittal.

The exposure of Shipton's wife as a probable liar certainly looked dramatic but for me, it only confirmed the essential weakness of the case. It's pretty much a truism that alibis offered by the relatives of the defendant are often unreliable and a jury can be made aware of this by a few questions under cross-examination. Hence for the prosecution to fly a witness in from Perth and then to recall Shipton's wife to the stand to get her to collapse is evidence that the prosecution was clutching at straws. Even if she did lie, it only proves that she was stupid, not that her husband and others were guilty of rape.

So with the trials concluded (there is another to come relating to the original investigation but that involves perverting the course of justice), I can safely say that neither of the cases involving Louise Nichols and the recent complainant should have been brought. The accusers were simply unreliable for any reasonable jury to convict. Clint Rickards faults the police for the investigation but I daresay they were leaving no stone unturned. What should have happened is that the Crown Prosecution Service should have resisted the political pressure and decided against bringing the case to trial. For them not to have done so was in my opinion a dereliction of their duty. Prosecuting the Mount Manganui case was the right decision in that a conviction has been obtained and three rapists are behind bars. But the prosecution of the other two cases only leaves the nasty impression that people were abusing the courts to drag Clint Rickards down through his association with Shipton and Schollum and that the introduction of politically motivated prosecutions into our legal system is a dangerous beginning...

UPDATE: Link added (referring to the claim the woman had known Rickards before the attack).

Haiku on the Auckland Earthquake

2007-02-22T11:55:00.000+13:00

Last night I heard

faint sounds that turned out to be

little girls screaming

A new order for our times?

2007-01-15T15:39:00.000+13:00

So apparently there's some momentum for an EU-style bloc for the Pacific. But the real question is what do we call it? The suggestions of Pacific Union or the East Asian Union have a critical flaw in that the names are far too bland - like the African Union, they reek of being a pallid imitation of the European Union. I therefore make the modest proposal that the name of the proposed union aim for something grander. Something like:

The Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere!

It has potential, no?

Another one bites the dust...hah!

2006-12-30T23:00:00.000+13:00

S A D D A M

Personally I would have liked to have seen him convicted for Halabja, the war against Iran and the invasion of Kuwait etc before being hanged. But given the ineptitude of the Hague in convicting Slobodan Miloservic, I understand the Iraqi wish to hang him as soon as possible.

Merry Christmas

2006-12-24T19:18:00.000+13:00

Pinochet dies: a nation mourns

2006-12-11T18:56:00.000+13:00

Christ College's high fees finally worth it!

2006-12-11T18:48:00.000+13:00

A female teacher at a prestigious Canterbury school has left under a cloud after declaring an "inappropriate relationship" with a student.

Christ's College principal Simon Leese yesterday confirmed the teacher had resigned after disclosing her relationship with an 18-year-old student.

[...]

Places at the private secondary school are sought after, with fees of more than $12,000 a year.

www.stuff.co.nz

And I thought New Zealand was rugby-mad...

2006-12-01T21:57:00.000+13:00

The Fijian Army is delaying their semi-coup (Which would make it Coup 3.5 so to speak) in order to play a game of rugby against the Police. To extend Marx's series, the first time* is tragedy, the second time is farce and the third time surrealism.

*If you are wondering about the discrepancy in the numbering, Rabuka lauched two coups during the "first time".

US election results

2006-11-08T20:39:00.000+13:00

Weren't the Diebold machines meant to have stolen the election for the Republicans?

Nuclear numbercrunching

2006-10-10T00:20:00.000+13:00

Yield of each nuclear power's first test (source).

Test (nation)	Yield
Gerboise Bleue (France)	60 kilotonnes
Hurricane (UK)	25 kilotonnes
596 (PRC)	22 kilotonnes
Joe 1 (USSR)	22 kilotonnes
Trinity (USA)	19 kilotonnes
Smiling Buddha (India)	12 kilotonnes
Chagai-I (Pakistan)	9 kilotonnes
(North Korea)	<1 kilotonne

My conclusion?

Be vewy vewy afwaid

Seriously? Blue Gerbil?!? Smiling Buddha?!?

Questions to ponder...

2006-09-29T19:15:00.000+12:00

1. If the Exclusive Brethren are trying to overthrow the Labour Government, are the Open Brethren trying to support it?

2. Now that Waterboarding has been made safe, legal and rare, when is Jack Bauer going to start using it?

Evil Popish Plot revealed!

2006-09-18T22:08:00.000+12:00

Remember the Good Old Days when the Papal utterances were reduced to soundbites that easily could be dismissed with a "whatever" if you didn't agree with them? Y'know those lengthy condemnations of contraception, homosexuality, masonry and so forth? Now by seeming to slight Islam, Pope Benedict has forced otherwise reasonable people to pour over his speech and ponder upon what it means for society whether God is Logos or absolutely Transcendant.

Now all the Pope has to do is to lace all his speeches with spicy medieval slurs against Islam (of which there is an inexhaustible supply in the Vatican secret archives*) and people will be reading them intensely until Doomsday.

*What's the point of having Secret Archives if you have a official website for them? Doesn't that defeat its purpose somewhat? The next thing that'll happen is that the Exclusive Brethren, for whom using the internet is wicked sin, have their own website...

Al Qaeda threatens France

2006-09-15T18:53:00.000+12:00

This is absolutely terrible news. All Al Qaeda has to do is to bombard the Elysee Palace with news of Panzers at Sedan and the French will surrender.

The King of Tonga is dead

2006-09-11T22:19:00.000+12:00

King Tupo IV of Tonga has died. What are the things we can say about him?

He was more democratic than King Fahd of Saudi Arabia,

His family life was mild compared to King Birenda of Nepal,

He was kinder to critics of his rule than King Hassan of Morocco, and

He met with fewer crooks than Prince Rainier of Monaco.

Two most predictable things said today

2006-09-04T23:02:00.000+12:00

Peter Jackson to remake Dambusters: "What are you going to call the dog?"

Steve Irwin killed by Sting-ray: Crikey!

The Ramsey Case

2006-08-29T20:38:00.000+12:00

So Karr's not guilty of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

Hell of a way to get a free ride from Thailand to the States then.

Pluto demoted?

2006-08-26T15:37:00.000+12:00

The IAU's recent expulsion of Pluto from the Planets rests on some highly dubious reasoning: Pluto is no longer a planet because it can't keep its orbit clean. Even leaving aside the considerable fudging to exclude the rubbish at the Trojan Points for example, the criterion is biased in favour of planets with smaller orbits.

Take, for example, Mercury. Mercury has an orbital period of 88 days as opposed to Pluto's 248 years. In the time it takes for Pluto to orbit the sun once, Mercury has zipped around the sun over a thousand times. Guess which orbit is more likely to be cleaned up, all other things being equal? It gets worse. Mercury lives in a nice tidy orbital zone while Pluto lives in the Kuiper Belt that is so rough that even a gas giant would be hard-pressed to clear it up.

Hence in my opinion, Pluto remains a planet no matter what four hundred odd astronomers on a drinking binge in Prague think.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

2006-07-16T15:10:00.000+12:00

The question of "who watches the watchers?" has been open for many centuries. Now, if the following report about the De Menezes shooting is true:

No police officer will be tried over the Stockwell shooting, but Scotland Yard is expected to face charges under health and safety laws.

The definitive answer is "Occupational Safety and Health".

The trouble with patsy questions...

2006-06-20T21:48:00.000+12:00

...is that sometimes the opposition can provide a good answer. As happened in the House today (Question 6 about Civil Defense):

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House what he is doing in order to help prepare New Zealanders to get through a disaster?

Hon Members: Resign!

Wailing about Whaling

2006-06-19T22:25:00.000+12:00

So Japan has finally managed to pull off a pro-whaling vote at the IWC. What I find most tiresome is the allegations being thrown about bad-faith tactics by the Japanese. Here's why. The Herald has a list of countries that voted:

For: Antigua & Barbuda, Benin, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Denmark, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Kiribati, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nauru, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Russian Federation, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Togo, and Tuvalu.

Against: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Chile, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Panama, Portugal, San Marino, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and the USA.

Last time I looked, Austria, Switzerland, Cesko, Hungary, Luxembourg, San Marino, Slovakia and Switzerland were all land-locked countries. On the pro-whaling side, there's only two land-locked nations - Mongolia and Mali.

As for enticing new members, by my reckoning there have been eighteen new pro-whaling nations that have joined up over the past decade (this includes Guatamala which didn't vote and excludes Iceland because they rejoined shortly after quitting in a fit of pique) as opposed to only ten pro-whale nations. Seeing that the list of pro-whaling nations includes countries such as China and Korea, both of whom don't like the Japanese, it seems to me that whaling has a lot more support than just Japanese lucre and the old whaling nations (Denmark, Norway and Iceland).

Despite the doom and gloom, Japan's got a long way to go before it can get a resumption of commercial whaling. The BBC carries an interesting report that new members of the EU have had "a word in their ear" that it would be "a good idea" to join the IWC. The main avenue left for Japan that I can see is to point out to the uncommitted Arab countries that Israel now supports the whales.

A National Security Question

2006-06-11T22:31:00.000+12:00

If our immigration service could not detect this man, a suspected accomplice to the 9/11 hijackers:

Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali
a.k.a. Raed Mohammed Adbullah Ali
from entering the country on the grounds that his passport spelt "Rayed" without the "y", then how confident are you that they will be able to prevent this man from doing the same?

Qadaffi
a.k.a. Gadafi, Gadafy, Gaddafi, Gadaffi, Ghadaffy, Gadhafi, Ghaddafi, Ghaddafy, Gheddafi, Kadafi, Kaddafi, Kazzafi, Khaddafi, Khaddaffy, Qadafi, Qaddafi, Qadhdhafi, Qadhdhaafiy, Qathafi, Q'udafi and Qudhafi!

In Memoriam

2006-06-09T23:01:00.000+12:00

So with this trusted escort we moved on
along the boiling crimson river's bank,
where piercing shrieks rose from the boiling souls.

There I saw people sunken to their eyelids,
and the huge centaur explained, "These are the tyrants
who dealt in bloodshed and plundered wealth.

Their tears are paying for their heartless crimes."

Inferno, Canto XII

Sedition conviction

2006-06-09T13:54:00.000+12:00

A Jury has convicted Tim Selwyn of sedition. The conviction related to a pamphlet that Tim left at the scene of an axe attack on Helen Clark's electoral office. Tim was also accused of seditious conspiracy by emailing Black Power members seeking help in his campaign. His refusal to answer questions there may have hardened the Jury's hearts against him. The full text of the seditious pamphlet can be found here (he was convicted for the Ponsonby Road Pamphlet but acquitted of the Pamphlet left outside the electorate office because there he called for acts of civil disobediance) but the offending text is:

By attacking the electorate office [...] we signal that a threshold has been crossed.

[...]

We call upon all like-minded New Zealanders to take similar action of their own to send a clear message that such a gross, blatantly racist injustice to the Maori people will never be accepted.

By calling upon people to commit crimes similar to the axe attack on the electorate office windows, Tim was found guilty under s81(1c) of the Crimes Act 1961 which stipulates:

(1)A seditious intention is an intention—

[...]

(c)To incite, procure, or encourage violence, lawlessness, or disorder; [...]

People have been calling it an assault on free speech using archaic laws that, if enforced strictly, would criminalize blogs critical of the government and public protest. These views are nonsense. s81(2) of the Crimes Act states explicitly that a seditious intention does not exist if, among other things, the person is pointing out an error in government policy or the administration of justice and seeks their remedy by lawful means. Tim, by encouraging others to take similar action to the crime which he has committed, has crossed that line and his actions have become unlawful. Our Bill of Rights offers him no defense for s5 states:

Subject to section 4 of this Bill of Rights, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

For a concise statement of demonstrable justifications might exist, one can do no worse than turn to the European Convention on Human Rights, which after stipulating the Right to Free Speech then states(emphasis mine):

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 10(2), European Convention of Human Rights

Other reactions against Tim's conviction include:

Media commentator and Timothy Selwyn supporter Bomber Bradbury says the verdicts signal a sad day for freedom of speech in New Zealand.

He says Tim Selwyn's actions were a protest and there was no intent to overthrow the Government or burn down Parliament.

It is not necessary to seek the government's overthrow in order to be guilty of sedition. What the act criminalizes and what Tim was found guilty of was the inciting, procuring or encouraging "violence, lawlessness, or disorder". A more sober argument against Selwyn's conviction can be found here:

Criminal law expert Scott Optican says he has never heard of a prosecution for a seditious pamphlet being brought.

He believes it is free speech to call for lawless action and only becomes sedition when that call is for immediate action and is capable of producing results.

Scott's belief is wrong as the words "procure, or encourage" do not require an immediate response to be effective.

New Green Co-Leader

2006-06-03T17:14:00.000+12:00

Russell Norman has been chosen as the new co-leader of the Greens. He is competent (having been their campaign manager) but has two weaknesses - the first being that he's not in Parliament and the second being his hard left background. He can surmount them but he'll need plenty of luck. In my opinion, the Green Party had better candidates within their own caucus but they weren't eligible. Why? Because the Green Party has this stupid rule that the two co-leaders must be male and female. Since Jeanette Fitzsimmons wasn't stepping down and the male Green MPs were all dorks, the Green Party was absolutely shafted when it came to picking Rod Donald's replacement.

Hurricanes: Wimpier than the ...?

2006-05-29T13:39:00.000+12:00

In the Press today:

Masoe then turned and allegedly punched [the victim] in the jaw.

"He just hit me in the side of the jaw. I was real shocked. I thought `what the hell'. It just came out of nowhere," the man said.

"...Then Umaga hit him a couple of times with the handbag as if to say `you idiot'. Masoe started crying. It was crazy."

I've been googling for incidents where Margaret Thatcher laid waste with a handbag. Not once can I find anything like the recipient bursting into tears as a result.

Dog bites man...

2006-05-27T22:18:00.000+12:00

...and the Crusaders win the Super-12 again.

Purgewatch: Sunday Star Times goes stirring

2006-05-21T11:37:00.000+12:00

The Sunday Star Times had a front page article about Helen Clark wanting to purge the ranks of old labour for fresh blood. The only named source in the article is one Mark Blackham, who once worked in the Prime Minister's staff but now works in some consultancy. I get the impression this was the result of a liquid lunch in which he agreed to have his speculations printed for the record rather than being an authorized tip from the ninth floor.

Let's see to what he says:

Mark Blackham [...] said he understood MPs Russell Fairbrother, Dianne Yates and Jim Sutton would be gone by the end of the year.

and:

He picked Jill Pettis and Ann Hartley as further candidates for the chop.

Gee whiz. These names were widely bandied about in the Herald, the Press and even this blog. If this was truly a tip from Helen Clark, one would have supposed that instead of dropping hints, she start wielding the hatchet. Jim Sutton, for example, was supposed to have resigned his Cabinet posting at the end of last year and he is still there.

What's interesting in this article are the denials. Dover Samuels:

Associate Maori Affairs Minister Dover Samuels is widely believed to be in firing line, but he denied it, saying: "It's the first time I've heard of that... I'm here till 2008."

If it's the first time Dover's heard of that, what did he think was going on when Helen offered to make him the new High Commissioner to Niue? Or for Russell Fairbrother:

But Fairbrother [...] said [he] had no intention of resigning and had not been asked to do so.

[...]

Fairbrother accepted people might point the finger because "I'm 61 and I lost Napier".

Not to mention being passed over for a cabinet posting in favour of somebody who was later found to have dubious business ethics. But this supposes that Helen Clark would ask people outright for their resignations when she actually hasn't the authority to do so. What really would have been interesting if he had had discussions with Helen about the possibility of taking up some appointment elsewhere.

The Budget

2006-05-18T23:25:00.000+12:00

Upon hearing the details of the budget, I think it's fair to say that the Labour Government has "reached a turning point and failed to turn". The scope is there for ample tax cuts (not as large as National was offering but ample nevertheless) but because Micheal Cullen refuses to consider the possibility, his colleagues are forced to follow. The announcement of the unbundling of the local loop would have hid its deficiencies well but thanks to Michael Ryan, this budget has no camoflage.

Helen Clark is well aware of the need for a change of direction in the Finance Portfolio. But since it took her six years to get rid of an incompetent George Hawkins, she lacks the ability to remove a minister that was once a pillar of her administration but now stuck in a rut.

More Telecom news

2006-05-17T19:29:00.000+12:00

David Cunliffe, the Minister of Communications, probably wishes that he had kept his mouth shut after he stated that Telecom should be prepared to reduce its dividends in order to increase its investment. For starters, the Share Market was listening and Telecom lost a further 3% of its value. Now the Securities Commission is looking at his comments and he had to endure a grilling in the House.

Michael Ryan, the Leaker, has finally been sacked. He originally offered his resignation but that was refused as a sacking was felt a more appropriate ending. The police are now investigating and hopefully they will turn up something far more believable than the somewhat unconvincing explanation offered to the State Services Commission.

Leaker identified

2006-05-16T17:14:00.000+12:00

The State Services Commission has announced that Leaker that gave classified budget documents is one Mark Ryan, a messenger at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Lest this be interpreted as evidence that Helen Clark authorised the leak, I should point out that this department is separate from the Prime Minister's Office and is a parallel agency to the State Services Commission and the Treasury. More soon once the report is digested.

UPDATE: I just find myself puzzled at what supposed to have happened. Michael Ryan is supposed to have worked for the government for many years. Furthermore in a previous government job, he had been "privy to Cabinet papers" which he never "took advantage of" [both quotes come from paragraph 39]. These points, among others, had persuaded his employers that he was the best person for the position [paragraph 40].

Yet somehow with this trustworthy background, he decides out of the blue to mention the unbundling decision to a long time friend who had worked at Telecom and later decides to show him a copy of the briefing paper? Not only that, he allows the friend to keep the paper for a while on the condition that the paper not be copied? And during this background of friendship, he had never ever given Cabinet papers of any sort to his friend? I find the suggestion that he was naive or acted in a moment of foolishness to be almost unbelievable. Even the stupidest criminals aren't much dumber than this and that takes some doing.

One suggestion of what might have happened is contained in the report:

During the course of the recruitment process it was noted that Mr Ryan had close associations with senior government officials and representatives, and this was seen at the time as providing some additional comfort in relation to his appreciation of the importance of confidentiality.

Paragraph 40

These relationships would have arisen in the course of his previous position where he had access to Cabinet papers. I'm not so much interested in the identities of the senior government officials but rather the "representatives" by which the report writer might possibly have meant "members of parliament". Which representatives did he have close associations with?

MORE: In an attempt to find further associates of Mike Ryan, I found these two pages which list the participants in the Lake Taupo cycle challenge (the SSC report states in Paragraph 23.2 that the two shared a common interest in cycling), among them Mike Ryan and Peter Garty. However none of the other names ring a bell. They also have an interest in rugby but that search was less fruitful.

Telecom Leaker to keep job?

2006-05-14T19:27:00.000+12:00

There's speculation tonight that the naming of the person that leaked the budget papers to Telecom could keep his job as being named would be punishment enough. The source for the speculation is one Andrew Scott-Howman, an employment lawyer. It's unclear from the report whether he thinks the argument has merit or whether it's really a feeble argument that a desperate lawyer is bound to put forward when there's nothing else to say. My guess is the latter for if his suggestion ever had serious merit, I daresay certain events would have turned out somewhat differently:

Mark Felt has today been identified as "Deep Throat", the mysterious source that leaked to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein secret information about the Watergate Investigations. President Nixon said that Mark would keep his job as Deputy Director of the F.B.I. as publication of his name was punishment enough.

Kim Philby has been identified as the KGB mole that tipped off his fellow traitors about their impending arrest. The Home Office has decided to take no further action, not even to dismiss him from the S.I.S., as they consider public mention of his name to be punishment enough.

Or even:

Judas Iscariot has been identified as the disciple that turned his master in to the authorities for thirty pieces of silver. The remaining disciples declared that Judas was still a disciple and would not be sent to Hell for publication of his name was punishment enough.

Telecom Leak update

2006-05-14T13:41:00.000+12:00

Given that it was recently announced that the report on the Telecom leak will be released next week, one might have expected the clues about the suspect to appear in the Sunday papers. However the offerings are scant. There's only an article in the Sunday Star Times about how the leaker, now the subject of "employment action" (apparently the latest euphemism for disciplinary proceedings), will be getting a chance to review the report before it is released. The article is padded with speculation that the leak came from either the Treasury or the Ministry of Economic Development and conjectures that it is more likely to have come from the Treasury. If the report did come from a Ministry official acting on his own then it would be embarassing for the responsible ministers, Micheal Cullen (Treasury) or Trevor Mallard (Economic Development), but not to the extent that their resignation would be required.

Investigations

2006-05-09T17:19:00.000+12:00

The draft of the Taito Field inquiry has been completed and is being sent to Taito Field MP for comment. This action indicates that some adverse findings have been made against him and the investigating QC, following the practice of "natural justice", is offering him the chance to respond. When will Taito respond and the report be released? Good question. There is no set time limit to respond so it could be another nine months before the QC decides that that Taito is not interested in responding and realses the report.

Judging from the careful responses to Question #3 in the House today, Helen Clark has not seen the draft but she has had a meeting with Taito about the report after he received it. However she's aware of the possibility that Taito is stupid enough to mislead her over the draft's content (a.k.a. doing a Benson-Pope) and so the situation is still uncontained.

Also in the House today (Question #1):

Dr Don Brash: If, as has been reported, Telecom has already provided the State Services Commissioner with information that includes the name of the leaker, why has that person not been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation, given that he or she is a significant security risk in the lead-up to the Budget?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am absolutely confident that if the State Services Commissioner had information that would identify someone who was indeed a risk to the security of the Government, he would inform people very quickly. But he has informed me that right now he has nothing relevant to report to me.

Confusing. How to reconcile it with Telecom's statement that the State Services Commission's investigation should be "swift"? I can only think of the following possibilities, none of them all that persuasive:

a) The SSC knows through Telecom where the report came from but not the identity of the person who leaked it.

b) The SSC knows who leaked the document but does not consider him or her to be a risk to the security of the government.

c) Helen already knows the identity of the leaker before the SSC reported to her so that her statement that he had nothing relevant to report is literally true.

In a press conference, Helen has said that she is taking a "hands-off" approach towards the investigation, which is a radical change from her documented practice during the Doone inquiry. Lastly contrary to earlier statements, it's now not clear that the document actually came from a minister's office. Helen understands that that particular document "went beyond minister's offices", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Leak Inquiry Length

2006-05-08T20:41:00.000+12:00

Confusing signals have been emitted about how long the Leak Inquiry will take to investigate the recent budget leak. Telecom has completed its investigation and handed over its results to the State Services Commission on Friday, two days after the leak. It expects the SSC investigation to be "quite swift" as a result. Mark Prebble, on the other hand, expects that the SSC investigation will be completed "within a month".

Even if parallels to the Taito Field inquiry (projected time: nine days, actual time: nine months and counting) are discounted, this is an extraordinary long time to conduct an inquiry given that Telecom has confessed. Even evaluating the report and questioning the possible suspects named or implied by Telecom should take no more than a week. Secondly given that the report is to be handed to the Prime Minister and the Minister of State Services, Annette King, it'll probably be another year or two before the report is released to the public.

More on the Leak

2006-05-05T10:00:00.000+12:00

Telecom has now destroyed the leaked paper on legal advice. I would have thought that sending it back to the Prime Minister's and Cabinet Department would have been the wiser thing to do but it seems they could no longer have the reasonable belief that it would have been secure there.

More information has emerged about the content of the paper. It was leaked the day before before the Cabinet Policy Committee met and contained a letter from David Cunliffe to Helen Clark. That means it was one of the papers sent out to all Ministers on the weekend for discussion in Monday's cabinet meeting. Telecom got the paper on Tuesday night and tried to find out whether it was true while the Committee meeting didn't take place until Wednesday.

The list of suspects is now somewhat larger. Most of the previously excluded ministers can still be eliminated but a new suspect appears. Clayton Cosgrove has ties with TelstraClear as he had once worked with Clear as their Public Affairs Manager. Ordinarily this would preclude him from being the source of the leak but the longer time frame makes me pause. What if there were two leaks? One from the Cabinet to TelstraClear and a second from a Telecom mole within TelstraClear to Telecom? Food for thought.

UPDATE: Telecom has clarified its earlier comments about destroying the document by saying that it has destroyed copies of the document but that "one document" has been retained.

Who leaked?

2006-05-04T20:37:00.000+12:00

The spectacular bungling of the announcement unbundling of the local loop has been a big blow to the solidarity of Clark's cabinet. Originally intended to be announced in the budget, the policy was leaked to Telecom within a few hours of it being signed off by the Cabinet Policy Committee. Telecom then informed the government who had to make an impromptu announcement. Because of this, Telecom lost about 10% of its value (or a billion dollars) on the sharemarket today. Some blow to Telecom's value was inevitable but coming in the way that it did only worsened the impact.

So who leaked the documents to Telecom? TVNZ reported tonight that the source of the leak was the office of a Cabinet Minister. There is always the possibility that a staffer cocked up but the sheer magnitude of the leak suggests deliberation with the Minister's deniable acquiescence. The short period of time that it took between the making of the decision and the leaking, the leak can probably be narrowed down to the office of one of the Ministers at the meeting. From the website of the Cabinet Office website, the members of the Policy Committee are:

Helen Clark
Michael Cullen
Jim Anderton
Steve Maharey
Phil Goff
Annette King
Trevor Mallard
Pete Hodgson
Parekura Horomia
Mark Burton
Jim Sutton

However David Cunliffe would probably attended as the meeting concerned his portfolio while Trevor Mallard was India and Jim Sutton was visiting Korea and China.

I'm inclined to rule out Clark, Cullen and Cunliffe - the first two because any leaks would make their government look bad while the last would be have to be daft to screw up his own portfolio for politics. Parekura Horomia simply hasn't got the nous while Annette King was being mentioned as leading the witchhunt which might mean that Clark knows it wasn't her. I would be surprised if it was Jim Anderton as his conduct as a cabinet minister has been spotless (as opposed, say, to his autocratic conduct as Party Leader). So that leaves Steve Maharey, Phil Goff, Pete Hodgson and possibly Mark Burton on the short list of suspects.

Keith Richards falls from a tree

2006-04-30T13:44:00.000+12:00

I'm stunned by this news. I was expecting at his age that the news would have been "Keith Richards falls from his Zimmer Frame".

David Parker exonerated?!?

2006-04-26T22:34:00.000+12:00

The Companies Office have decided not to charge David Parker on breaches of the Companies Act for filing a false declaration. Their reasons for doing so was that under case law, the shares held by Russell Hyslop which were invested in the Official Assignee when Hyslop was made bankrupt, the shares did not revert back to him when he was discharged from his bankrupcy but continue to remain assigned to the Assignee. The Assignee had intended to give the shares to Parker and his father but never got around to it.

As was already known, the Official Assignee made a waiver for the audit requirement in 1997. However the Official Assignee had written (and which Parker apparently forgot about) that he was waiving the requirement to continue to seek the confirmation on a yearly basis. Such a indefinite waiver is legally dubious and the legal opinion goes out of its way to describe the waiver as "purported" and "a little inapt". The grey area is that Parker had the duty to take the resolution every year but there is no requirement that the shareholder's waiver be actively given every year. Even if the Official Assignee's waiver was legally invalid, Parker's declarations were neither false nor misleading.

So when Parker thought that he was breaking the law (for which he resigned his cabinet portfolios), he really wasn't because the declarations that he thought were false or misleading when he signed them were actually true but legally defective. I can only hope that when and if Parker is restored to his portfolios that he learn from this by a) amending both the Companies and Insolvency Acts with a view to cleaning it up and b) keeping better records.

Clive Hulme: War Criminal?

2006-04-11T09:51:00.000+12:00

The Sunday Star-Times recently had an article about Sergeant Hulme, a VC recipient, was a war criminal because he wore enemy uniform while participating in attacks. The law is less clear cut than they think as it pertains to Sergeant Hulme's activities. What I found curious when looking at the article was that Hulme was described as wearing a german paratrooper's smock or blouse. So what did this article of clothing look like? A simple google turned up a website with the picture on the left. Do you see any insignia on that smock? No?? Then it doesn't fall under the definition of a uniform.

Methinks the authors Harper and Richardson owe an apology. Peter Wills who had described the actions as "unsanctioned murder" is excused because as the deputy director for Peace Studies, no reasonable-minded person could have taken his words seriously.

Purgewatch: Michael Cullen

2006-04-03T21:31:00.000+12:00

Helen Clark has created a stir by talking about how long Michael Cullen will stay on as Finance Minister. It's not so much as what she's saying but that she's even discussing the possibility at all. Cullen wouldn't discuss the matter and was said by TVNZ to be "annoyed".

Although Cullen's retirement has been mooted before, I'm bemused at why Clark is going after Cullen and not the unnamed minister whom she had "expected" will retire this year. After all, Jim Sutton is in no hurry to retire his position as Minister of Trade Negotiations despite Helen's statement that he will retire by Christmas.

Parker's downfall

2006-03-22T19:39:00.000+12:00

David Parker has resigned all cabinet posts and is now a backbench MP. This stage was unexpected as his original resignation as Attorney-General. Although some commentators are suggesting he will rise again after a suitable period of penance (a la Lianne Dalziel), I don't see it happening myself. The Companies Office is going to have to prosecute a plain breach of the companies act in order to deter others from ~~being so stupid~~ committing similar breaches in the future. If that happens and a conviction results (a discharge without conviction is highly unlikely considering the repeated nature of the offence), Parker will be out of Parliament. The last person to earn cabinet rank after being forced out in disgrace was Colin Moyle some twenty odd years ago and he only made it as Minister of Agriculture.

Some of Parker's caucus colleagues are angry considering they defended David Benson-Pope for so long whereas they could have cut him loose and saved Parker's skin instead (the depth of their anger is made apparent by Marian Hobbs making a bizarre Nazi innuendo). While Parker was is a more worthy person to try to save than Benson-Pope, I strongly doubt that Labour could have held off his resignation even for a week. There was clear and documented evidence of wrong-doing that couldn't by fudged even by Steve Maharey.

One thing I don't get is that if the company was worthless as many have indicated, why did David Parker keep it running for so long? Why not simply wind the whole thing up and avoid having to deal with Russell Hyslop? The only thing that springs to my mind is that the Parkers may have wanted the company's debt to be treated as a tax loss to lighten their tax burdens elsewhere. If so, then Parker's reluctance to have anything to do with Hyslop becomes more understandable as he may not have wanted Hyslop to recieve audited information about his tax affairs.

Thoughts on Parker's resignation

2006-03-20T23:31:00.000+12:00

David Parker's explanation of his actions was that in the first year (1997), he got the signature of the Official Assignee (because Russell Hyslop was bankrupt) and simply didn't bother in the subsequent years. In July 2000, Russell Hyslop was discharged from his bankruptcy (according to the Insolvency and Trustee Service database) and the control over his shares in Queens Park Mews Limited reverted back to him from the Official Assignee. So when Investigate magazine alleged "between five and nine false statements were filed", it seems they were aware of the possibility that the Official Assignee might have signed the audit waiver for the years 1997-1999 but could not find out whether he had.

However if Parker signed the declarations in the October of each year, then that makes a total of eight declarations for the years 1999-2005 of which he admits seven were signed falsely. So what was the ninth allegedly false document?

I'm increasingly skeptical that Parker can avoid being convicted and ousted from Parliament (as is the case for any conviction that has a maximum sentence of at least two years). According to him, the cost of the audit was $500 so he has evaded $3500 in compliance costs. By way of example, a theft of this magnitude is punishable by up to seven years under the Crimes Act whereas if the sum taken was less than $1000, the maximum penalty is only a year and if less than $500, the penalty only three months maximum.

So Parker may have had a chance of avoiding conviction if he only did it once or twice but for seven years, I very much doubt it. Also worth noting is that when the Hyslop's bankruptcy ended, Parker would have been informed by the Official Assignee that Hyslop was regaining control over his shares. Yet he still continued as before even knowing that Hyslop was unlikely to agree if asked?

David Parker's resignation

2006-03-20T19:15:00.000+12:00

When I first read about Investigate's allegations about David Parker, my reaction was that they had documented some wrong-doing but I had no idea whether this was a serious breach or a mere technicality. Thus I expected to see four months of governmental denial that an offense had taken place followed by a declaration that there was a prima facie case to answer but no prosecution.

My initial reaction seemed confirmed by Helen Clark's denial that there was a need for investigation on the grounds that the accusation came from Investigate magazine. So I am shocked to hear that Parker has admitted error and resigned as Attorney-General. After brazening out David Benson-Pope even after he lied to Parliament and his colleagues, I was expecting the government to put up a tougher fight like have Steve Maharey insist that because Russell Hislop wasn't present at the shareholder meetings, there was no animosity and so the shareholders' decision was unanimous.

Both Parker and Clark are portraying this as an error that harmed nobody. Ordinarily I would accept their assertions pending the delayed audit of the company but past experience with this government (namely David Benson-Pope) leaves me with the gut feeling that there is something bigger. If there is, Parker can forget about escaping with a discharge without conviction (which seems to be his reason for staying on) and be expelled from Parliament.

The Attorney-General portfolio has reverted to an overworked Michael Cullen but he now has an additional burden. When he was last Attorney-General he had Russell Fairbrother as PPS to assist him for Cullen has no legal qualifications. But Fairbrother was sent back to the backbenches after the last election for losing the seat of Napier and there are hardly any other lawyers on the government benches, with the exception of Winston Peters and Margaret Wilson.

Judith Tizard's excuse

2006-03-15T18:44:00.000+13:00

In a news item about a bill to cut back the number of legislators to 100, TVNZ decided to ask some "hardworking" (their words) MPs what they thought about the bill. One of the people they chose (out of malice, I suppose) was Judith Tizard who is many things but not hardworking. She seemed rather flustered and evaded the issue by saying that she was late for a select committee.

Curious at the possibility that Judith actually does something a select committee would be interested in, I decided to look up which select committees were actually sitting today. According to the Clerk's Website for select committees (click meetings schedule for the PDF but it will change next week), only one committee was actually sitting today - the Regulations Review Committee hearing complaints about the Animal Welfare (Layer Hens) Code of Welfare 2005 and the Student Allowance Amendment Regulations 2002. Neither of which Judith Tizard, Minister for Archives, Auckland Issues, Consumer Affairs and the National Library as well as Associate Minister for Arts, Culture, Heritage, Commerce and Transport, has any responsibility for.

So it seems Judith was lying to the media. Normally that would be a sacking offense (cf Lianne Dalziel) but the recent relaxation of standards (cf David Benson-Pope) means that Judith has nothing to fear. Hence I can only suggest that she work harder in constructing plausible lies to avoid answering difficult questions.

UPDATE: Judith Tizard's office has responded in the comments that she was attending the Education and Science Select Committee and subbing for Dr Ashraf Choudhary. So the key piece of information that I relied upon was either outdated or in error and hence I retract the imputation that Judith lied to the media.

Bayfield High Abuser treated with kid gloves?

2006-03-05T11:17:00.000+13:00

The Sunday-Star Times has an article about Bayfield High School, which only tangentially concerns David Benson-Pope. There was a teacher there who had been convicted for sexually abusing students at Bayfield High but Bruce Leadbetter, the principal at the time, took no action in deregistration for up to two years which gives some indication of the seriousness with which complaints against teachers there were handled. The interesting thing is this:

[The abuser's] name was suppressed to protect his brother, who held a high profile position connected with children.

I'm appalled. Merely because his brother is famous is no reason to give him name suppression. For example the brother of David Carter MP was convicted of receiving objectionable material but he didn't have his name suppressed. As a result, I am seriously getting the impression of favourable treatment.

Fortunately the NZ register of Cancelled Teachers is on-line (click the cancelled teachers button). Since Cullen's letter confirming the deregistration was dated 1990, the suspects name will have his registration number and not a zero number. There's about ten pages of names there but there are no Popes, no Cullens, no Hodgsons or Leadbetters (or even Lockes for that matter). There are a couple of Clarks but since Helen never taught children, it's unlikely to be them.

More Benson-Pope

2006-03-03T10:48:00.000+13:00

The Government has mounted a major attempt to save David Benson-Pope. First according to a Press article by Colin Espiner that isn't on-line:

The change of heart followed Benson-Pope's press secretary Peter Coleman taking leave after he was disciplined for leaking selective parts of a police report on Benson-Pope to a newspaper and then denying it.

Prime Minister Helen Clark's chief press secretary, David Lewis, yesterday assumed Coleman's responsibilities, cancelled Benson-Pope's afternoon appointments and co-ordinated interviews with the media.

The real question is why this wasn't done months ago when the tennis ball allegations came out. Michael Cullen was even dropping heavy hints about how Benson-Pope "has a story to tell" but from his office, there was only silence. The only bit in the excerpt that I find questionable is about Peter Coleman taking leave. He was disciplined a month ago so it seems to me that the excuse for his garden leave is Ninth Floor spin to indicate that he's leaving in disgrace. Which is a bit harsh considering that he was only doing what Benson-Pope wanted him to do.

Alas fronting up to the media hasn't helped Benson-Pope as much as it would have had he done it earlier. His credibility has been holed beneath the water line and no matter how hard the governmental bilge pumps are working, the sharks are still circling. It has gotten to the stage where Bill English said in the house yesterday that Benson-Pope had lied but he was not called upon to withdraw his statement.

And the hits keep coming. The NZ Herald reported this morning that a teacher whom Benson-Pope had mentioned in his defence against a slapping allegation is saying that she was not in a position to see what happened. In other words, the only person that is willing to testify that Benson-Pope did not slap Geana Earl is Benson-Pope himself. I daresay a Jury would regard the allegation as proven.

An Error of Judgement

2006-03-01T17:31:00.000+13:00

Helen Clark finally delivered up this assessment of David Benson-Pope's actions in the house today (Question #2):

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I accept that to most people, including to me, a letter from a parent raising such issues would be seen as a complaint. It is clear that because the issues raised did not breach school policy, and were not dealt with as a disciplinary issue, Mr Benson-Pope did not see that as a complaint when he made his statement to the House on 12 May. In my view, that was an error of judgment, but I do not consider it sufficient reason to dismiss a Minister. That is my judgment.

I disagree as to whether the error of judgment is sufficient to require Benson-Pope's ouster. By my reckoning, he has now made three serious errors of judgment throughout this affair - the first was to deny that the tennis ball incident occured, the second was to stupidly leak the selective excerpts from the police report to the media then deny that he had done so and now he's been caught out in yet another deception. How can anybody have any confidence that he will exhibit sound judgment while performing his ministerial duties?

An interesting sidelight in this issue is apparent lack of co-ordination between Benson-Pope's office and the Ninth Floor. Benson-Pope's intended personal statement which he composed either on monday night or tuesday morning is replete with hair-splitting evasions and does not even begin to address why his original statement to Parliament was false. Furthermore the NZ Herald failed to get a copy of the statement from Benson-Pope's office and ended up obtaining it from the Prime Minister's Office instead. If Benson-Pope was working closely with Clark on the issue, then I would have expected to see some admission of error in the statement. Since there is none, it seems to me that he had been keeping Clark and her office in the dark. Why she didn't use this as an excuse to haul him off to the guillotine is an interesting question.

On a trivial note, Winston Peters needs to do some historical reading. During Question 4, he asked (emphasis mine):

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister who, in her experience or opinion, would be the more qualified to determine whether an action warranted dismissal: the headmaster who dealt with the matter at the time, or someone who wants a Titus Oates Star Chamber procedure to be the way we do justice in this country?

Star Chmaber was abolished in 1641. The Popish Plot controversy of Titus Oates occured in 1678-9 and was (mis)handled through the regular justice system.

Benson-Pope's defence

2006-02-28T17:17:00.000+13:00

Although David Benson-Pope was refused permission to make a personal statement to the House about the existence of the complaint, elements of his defence can be seen in today's ministerial answers. For example, during question 3:

Dr Don Brash: Is the Prime Minister calling the former principal of Bayfield High School a liar—for what other reason could there be for the differences between his account and that of the Hon David Benson-Pope?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, because the former principal has not said he ever showed the Minister a letter of complaint. Had National members been prepared to hear the personal explanation, they could have had more issues made plain.

This, by the standards of Clark's excuses to date, is remarkably weak. Benson-Pope's original statement was that there had never been a complaint against him. Now Clark is suggesting that because Benson-Pope was not shown the letter of complaint, his statement remains true. Firstly Clark is blurring the distinction between a formal complaint and a complaint of any sort. The existence of the letter of complaint is evidence that a complaint was made against Benson-Pope. The next element of defence is awareness - because Benson-Pope supposedly had not seen the letter of complaint, he was not aware that there had been a formal complaint. But his original statement was a denial that any sort of complaint existed. So when Benson-Pope was being questioned about his conduct on the school camp, are we seriously meant to believe that he didn't realize at the time that somebody had made a complaint?

Benson-Pope was told of complaint

2006-02-28T08:50:00.000+13:00

Things have gotten very bleak for David Benson-Pope. The Principal of his school in 1997 has confirmed that he discussed a complaint about Benson-Pope's conduct with him at the time. This contradicts Benson-Pope's statement that he had never been the subject of any complaint.

Benson-Pope's response?

Late last night Mr Benson-Pope said through a spokesman: "That doesn't accord with information we have received from the school."

Why couldn't he use his own memory? And if he can't remember important things like that then he shouldn't be handling ministerial portfolios.

New allegations against Benson-Pope

2006-02-27T18:36:00.000+13:00

Over the weekend, fresh allegations were made by the Herald on Sunday and Investigate Magazine about David Benson-Pope, namely that he burst into the showers where female students were changing. These were not uncovered in the police enquiry because the allegations are said to have taken place in 1997 whereas the police only interviewed his students in 1982.

What makes these charges serious is that three of complainants have come forward to be named while the school confirmed today that a formal complaint was made about Benson-Pope's conduct back in 1997. The seriousness of Benson-Pope's predicament can be seen by the fact that he's gone to ground and the Prime Minister is busy providing spin on his behalf.

The big problem for Benson-Pope is that he had denied in Parliament that any complaints had been made against him about his teaching conduct. Since that is now known to be false and intentionally making false statements is grounds for resignation, his ~~excuse~~ explanation is that he was aware of the complaint. I find this difficult to credit even without considering what happened to his previous denials. The result of the complaint was that Benson-Pope was found to have acted in accordance with school policy (which probably means there was nothing explicitly prohibiting his conduct) and so the school policy was changed. So Benson-Pope expects us to believe that a complaint was laid, an investigation carried out into his conduct and the policy changed but nobody had bothered to inform him about the existence of the complaint? When he was asked for his side of the story or when he was told of the change in school policy (he was teaching at the school for a further two years), it didn't occur to him that somebody might have made a complaint?

The David Benson-Pope affair comes in from the Cold

2006-02-20T11:17:00.000+13:00

David Benson-Pope is in the news again about allegations that he made students stand out in the cold on school camps. To be fair, these are hardly allegations because David unrepentently admitted them in a police interview. I even noted it at the time. The reason why it wasn't a big issue then was that Benson-Pope was already in deep trouble for selectively leaking portions of the report favourable to him and then denying that he had actually done so.

It's bit late to be raising the issue now in my opinion but one could use the issue to explore our government's attitude to a certain CIA interrogation method:

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

If that's too cruel for Al Qa'eda then surely it's too barbarous to be used against schoolkids?

A blast from the past

2006-02-20T10:55:00.000+13:00

The Press has a front page article about a major security breach on its computer. The interesting thing for me is the identity of the student that found it, one Kyle Millar.

For those of you that have never attended Canterbury University, Kyle Millar has been around for a while. His involvement in student politics at the expense of his studies was so notorious that CANTA once wondered whether if he had passed all of the papers that he failed, he would have obtained a degree. That was over a decade ago. Since then he had been banned from Canterbury for two years in 2001 for putting up unauthorized election posters and for "reckless behaviour culminating in an incident with a truck carrying several thousand dollars' worth of glass". And now he's back again. And attending summer school. Sad.

New Green Co-Leader Candidate

2006-02-20T10:47:00.000+13:00

A former MP has announced his candidacy for the position of Co-Leader for the Greens that was left vacant after Rod Donald's sudden death. The candidate is none other than Mike Ward:

So much for appealing to a younger generation.

GSCB speaks out

2006-01-31T10:52:00.000+13:00

The Director-General of the GSCB has spoken out against several allegations made during a spate of media attention about his organization. He gives a general overview of GSCB and rejects the allegation that GSCB operates primarily for the UKUSA partnership. In particular he disputes David Lange's allegation that he was kept in the dark by saying:

Any suggestion that Lange was unaware of what the GCSB was doing while he was Prime Minister, or that the GCSB somehow ceded its proper and sovereign control over its Waihopai satellite station, is simply wrong.

Guess that makes Lange a Liar then. Quelle suprise!. But why did this statement take so long to come out? I suspect the answer lies in one particular allegation that we spied on UN security council members (probably only Chile) to see which way they might intend to vote about a second resolution for war in Iraq). So what did he say:

To avoid any lingering doubt, let me confirm publicly that the GCSB's actions in regard to Iraq have at all times been very carefully calibrated to ensure that they were fully consistent with our Government's stated and public foreign policy. It has not been a case of the New Zealand Government saying one thing publicly and the GCSB doing another privately.

Carefully ~~calibrated~~ chosen words that seem reasonable enough until one asks what was the government's position on Iraq? And there lies the problem. The government's public position was to abdicate all sense of judgement and leave it for the UN Security Council to decide (Helen Clark's unwise statements did not occur until after the war started). But such a position does not preclude that GCSB from actually doing what has been alleged. That's not to say that they actually did so - GCSB might have been spying on the Iraqi embassy in Australia in order to obtain information about Iraq's compliance or lack thereof of various UN security council resolutions. Since our government's position was that Iraq should comply with those resolutions, the GCSB's actions would not have contradicted government policy. All we can say however is that the GCSB did something concerning to Iraq. What that was we don't know and the allegation of spying on UNSCR members has not been denied unlike the other allegations. I daresay that whatever the GCSB did with respect to Iraq, they did so after consultation with the government.

Big Brother is an MI5 Operation!!

2006-01-24T23:06:00.000+13:00

I HAVE PROOF!!!

Tennis Ball aftershock

2006-01-22T16:20:00.000+13:00

In the Sunday Star-Times was the following note:

Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope's press secretary, Pete Coleman, has been disciplined for leaking information to the media. Coleman who was referred to Ministerial Services late last year after he leaked parts of a police report into claims Benson-Pope assaulted former student. Coleman then denied having been the source of the leak. Coleman declined to comment but the Sunday Star-Times understands he had been told he could publicly take the blame for the incident and keep his job, and that his job would be at risk if he did not do so

If the understanding is true, then a couple of more details can be added. Ministerial Services is not in the habit of telling people to accept responsibility or risk losing their job. The only person capable of making such a threat would be the Minister, David Benson-Pope, and all he has to do is tell Ministerial Services that he's lost confidence in his press secretary. A similar tactic was used by a green-eyed Clayton Cosgrove to get Parliamentary Services to dismiss his secretary after she started going out with a NZ First MP.

GSCB dripfeed cancelled

2006-01-22T10:40:00.000+13:00

Archives NZ has rescinded permission for the Sunday Star-Times to quote anything further about the Lange Papers. Despite Archives NZ's attempt being described as a try in the first paragraph, the SST has wimped out and not published anything. It's not clear why they chose to do so, as s61 of the Public Records Act 2005 only covers the damage or destruction of the documents while s62 of the same act provides for a fine of up to $10,000. The answer probably lies in the regulations for the archives which don't seem to be up at the legislation website.

What we do get are two columns by Nicky Hager and Terence O'Brien. For all Nicky's alleged knowledge on the topic, he persists in making stuff up far beyond what the evidence says. Firstly he creates a strawman that people claim the Americans "severed intelligence ties" in 1985 when what the Americans actually did and said so at the time was that military ties were severed. Which is only the set-up to this:

The summaries withheld were those prepared by US military forces - which is not surprising since the US military, and especially US Navy, were most annoyed by the nuclear policy and did cut some military ties.

Gee. There isn't a chance that the actual announced policy of severance of military ties might have had something to do with this? And then there's this:

Why, then, did news go around the world of intelligence access being - in the words of defence chief Ewan Jamieson - "terminated"?

I daresay that if we were to go back to the original quote, we would find that Ewan was talking about matters for which he was responsible - namely military matters and not intelligence matters.

Later on, Nicky begings to show signs of desperation in analysing the report:

Most of the Tangimoana radio eavesdropping station's work was monitoring Soviet vessels in the Pacific for the Americans. The station also monitored Argentinian Navy and Egyptian diplomatic communications for Britain.

Most of the work was against Soviet shipping? Then how did we get the Japanese diplomatic traffic which was the most frequently reported target in the GSCB annual report? How does he know that spying on Egyptian diplomatic traffic was done for the British? Who were we spying on the South Africans and the Laotians for then? He continues to plumb new depths in illogic:

The head office intelligence analysts specialised in translating French government communications intercepted by the British and translating Japanese diplomatic cables and communications from friendly South Pacific nations intercepted by the US. A quarter of the radio eavesdropping staff were based at "JTUM" in Melbourne, helping a British/Australian operation against China.

The British have been right next to France for at least a thousand years. Despite this, they outsource their French intelligence work to us? I don't think so. And if a quarter of our staff were based at Melbourne spying on the Chinese then why isn't China mentioned anywhere in the report?

The other column by Terence O'Brien is not on line. He starts of by saying that it raises questions "about the nature of, and the reasons for spying by governments". But it seems not to have occured to him to draw upon his experience as a former NZ diplomat to answer the more interesting question of why we were likely to be spying on some of the targets on the list. Because he does not even begin to do that, his column merely full of words and punctuation, signifying nothing.

Paul Buchanan analyses the GSCB report

2006-01-21T13:36:00.000+13:00

In this week's listener, Paul Buchanan has a (not online) one page analysis of what the GCSB report reveals. However a promising byline "reveals more secrets than first realized" turns out to be a false advertising as the bulk of the article is bereft of insight. For example, he writes:

[T]hat 20 years ago [...] New Zealand had the ability to selectively designate eavesdropping from very remote targets - witness Egypt being one of New Zealand's spying targets

He fails to realize that we were monitoring Egyptian diplomatic traffic meaning that transmissions from an Egyptian Embassy are most likely being described. And where is the nearest Egyptian Embassy? Remote Canberra. I was more impressed that we could monitor South African military communications. He then states:

The entities targeted by New Zealand mentioned in the Lange papers - Japan, France, the Phillipines, Pacific Island States, Vietnam, the UN, the USSR, South Africa, Laos and Argentine Naval Intelligence - reflect US and UK strategic concerns in 1986 rather than those of the Lange government

What was the strategic concern that required us to spy on Laos? Why the US and UK so concerned about Vietnam but not Cambodia? If we could spy on Japan then why not China? It's clear that he doens't have a good idea of what might have been going on in 1986 to make reasonable guesses as to why were we spying on some of the odder targets. And lastly, he writes:

"But it's noteworthy that the larger intelligence patrons had New Zealand monitoring [...] French electronic transmissions, presumably because they did not want to risk the diplomatic fallout of direct spying on supposed allies or friends."

If he had actually read the Sunday Star Times report then he would have found out that we relied "heavily on [British] GCHQ acquisition and forwarding of French Pacific Satellite Intercepts". Now if the GCHQ are giving us French transmissions then it follows that they are not at all concerned that about being caught spying on them!

Keith Locke speaks without removing feet

2006-01-16T22:37:00.000+13:00

Keith Locke weighs in on the GCSB file (Thanks Chefen) and manages to out-do John Minto.

“Surely spying on Europe and Japan is not in the interests of the Clark Government’s foreign policy,” Mr Locke says.

Only two european countries were spied upon - France and East Germany. There were legitimate reasons for us to be interested in what the French were saying: Nuclear Bomb Testing in the Pacific, the Rainbow Warrior Affair and unrest in New Caledonia. If Keith does not believe it was in our interests to spy on the French in 1986 then he should tell his fellow Greens. As for spying on East Germany, seeing that Keith only saw good tidings in the fall of Afghanistan to the Soviet Union and the fall of Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge, we shouldn't be so surprised that he reflexively considers the Regime that gave us the Berlin Wall to have been a Good Thing. As for Japan, he eleborates:

"Is New Zealand intercepting Japanese communications with their whaling fleet?"

And this would be wrong because? Or doesn't Keith consider the preservation of innocent Minke whales to be a cause worth spying for? Or perhaps he considers the Minke to have the same scant value as human lives under regimes that he once shared an ideological bent with? In any case, the intercepted communications were diplomatic which precludes whaling fleets.

To put the issue in another way; in 1999, we were monitoring the communications of the Indonesian Military to find out what they were planning to do with East Timor after the referendum. This was crucial for our troops that were planning to deploy there and even more crucial for the people of East Timor because if we didn't know what General Wiranto & Co. planned to do then there was a good chance that we might have stayed away and left East Timor under Indonesian rule. If Keith does not believe that this was a good reason for spying then he should let his sister know.

And lastly:

"We don't believe it to be in New Zealand's national interest to be part of US operations to spy on countries like France and Japan. It undermines the generally friendly relations we have with them."

So the French were being friendly when they tested nuclear weapons in the Pacific? Were they being friendly when they sank the Rainbow Warrior in our harbour? If that was "generally friendly relations" then I hate to see Keith Locke's idea of low-level hostilities.

Clue-free Minto

2006-01-16T11:08:00.000+13:00

John Minto devotes his column to the recent spy-file by recalling a foreword that David Lange wrote for Nicky Hager's Book:

It includes the bald statement, "It was not until I read this book that I had any idea that we had been committed to an international integrated electronic network."

This is an outrageous situation. Aside from his prime ministerial role he was also the minister responsible for security and intelligence and chairman of Parliament's security and intelligence committee, and yet he was given no idea as to the real purpose of the secret base he authorised.

It is clear that he was deliberately misled by the bureaucrats who run the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), which is responsible for managing the Waihopai base.

Does Minto seriously expects us to believe that Lange, have had read this report, did not draw the obvious conclusion that we were part of such a network? Or did the possibility that Lange was not adverse to telling lies never occur to him?

A further look at the spy files.

2006-01-15T20:13:00.000+13:00

Looking at the spy files. The Sunday Star Time's list is:

French South Pacific: civil, naval and military;
French Antarctic Civil;
Vietnamese Diplomatic;
North Korean Diplomatic;
Soviet merchant and scientific research shipping;
Soviet Antarctic Civil. Soviet Fisheries;
Argentine naval;
Non-Soviet Antarctic civil;
East German diplomatic;
Japanese diplomatic;
Philippine diplomatic;
South Africa Armed Forces;
Laotian Diplomatic [and] UN diplomatic;

TVNZ's summary of the list is:

The report says New Zealand eavesdropped on communications from Argentina, the United Nations, the Soviet Union, East Germany, France, Egypt, Japan, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, the Philippines, Fiji, Tonga, the Solomon Islands and South Africa.

I'm pleased that somebody in TVNZ knows about Laos even if the NZ Herald doesn't ("Laotia" appears in the second last paragraph). So onto the analysis:

French South Pacific: civil, naval and military; The report states that we relied "heavily on [British] GCHQ acquisition and forwarding of French Pacific Satellite Intercepts" but some messages we seem to have intercepted ourselves. Our primary interest would have been the French Nuclear Testing, the Rainbow Warrior bombers and the troubles in New Caledonia. The Sunday Star Times article mentions us asking NSA and GCHQ to monitor certain Parisian telephone addresses as well as coverage of the yacht Ouvea.

French Antarctic civil; Unless the French were actually doing something nasty, I have a strong feeling their communications were monitored out of sheer ill-will towards the french.

Vietnamese Diplomatic; What is being monitored here is probably Embassy radio communications. The question is whether it was the local embassy (if it existed at the time) being monitored or the Vietnamese Embassy in Canberra? I suspect the latter as there is less diplomatic embarassment ~~if we get caught~~ when we just got caught. Now here's where things get interesting. The Chinese aren't mentioned on the list! Now the Vietnamese were leaning Soviet at the time while Chinese communications would have been intercepted by the Brits at Hong Kong (and the article states we got their government intercepts from GCHQ/NSA).

North Korean Diplomatic; This is where things get odd. Neither we or Australia have a North Korean Embassy (the Ozzies had one for about two years in the 70s) while the nearest thing that the North Koreans have in the States is the UN Mission. I can only surmise that we were listening in on North Korean communications with their mission while it would have been unlawful for the Americans to do so. This may also account for some or all of the Vietnamese traffic that we were listening to.

Soviet merchant and scientific research shipping; Soviet Antarctic Civil. Soviet Fisheries; No real mystery here as to why we were listening to their communications here.

Argentine naval Undoubtedly an aftereffect of the Falklands War. When though the Junta had been out of power for some years, the military was still suspect. Two things strike me as curious: one, the British had a perfectly place for listening at the Falklands Islands. Secondly, why weren't we listening in on Chile's communications? Pinochet was still in power and would be for another two years.

Non-Soviet Antarctic civil; This is probably a reference to the Indians and the Polish antarctic missions that we were described as spying upon in the SST article.

East German diplomatic; We were probably listening into the East German Embassy in Canberra.

Japanese diplomatic; This is a bit of a surprise chiefly because I didn't think we would have had the capability to do so. According to the SST article, we were getting raw transcripts from GCHQ/NSA sources and deciphering them. Unfortunately our capability to do so took a hit because a new cypher system was introduced. Our reason for doing so? Primarily their whalers.

Philippine diplomatic; While things were unsettled during the last year of Marcos's reign, I'm surprised that we were listening to them considering that the Americans had two military bases in the country. My tentative guess is that we were intercepting traffic to their UN mission.

South Africa Armed Forces; Obviously a cause for concern with Apartheid still in place there. I'm just curious as to why we were doing it when the Australians are in a slightly better position to do so while the British had far closer military bases.

Laotian diplomaticMy best guess is the interception of traffic to their UN mission.

Egypt Another curious entry on the list. If we were listening to Egypt's diplomatic traffic, why weren't we listening to Iran or Iraq (Iran had an embassy here while Iraq had an embassy in Australia)? The UN mission hypothesis doesn't work due to the geography and I can't think of any reason why we would have a compelling reason to listen in on their traffic.

Fiji, Tonga, the Solomon Islands The Fijian coups didn't take place until the year after this report while the Solomons were far quieter than New Caledonia then. I can't think of any reason to be listening into Tonga's communications and not Western Samoa or the Cook Islands. The choice of targets is hence a mystery to me unless the issue was Japanese wads of cash for votes in an upcoming IWC conference.

Where is Laotia?

2006-01-15T10:58:00.000+13:00

The Sunday Star-Times has a front page report about the countries that we spied on through GCSB back in 1986. It's no surprise to find that Nicky Hager is involved but for all his experience on intelligence matters (which inexplicably falied to alert him that an earlier story was bogus), one big howler slips through:

The report lists the countries and agencies on which New Zealand was spying. They include targets that have never been officially acknowledged, including UN diplomatic communications, Argentine naval intelligence, Egypt, Japan, the Philippines, Pacific Island nations, France, Vietnam, the Soviets, North Korea, East Germany, Laotia [My emphasis - PHM] and South Africa.

There is no country called Laotia. There is a country called Laos (between Vietnam, Thailand, Burma, China and Cambodia) and I'm surprised that it had diplomatic traffic worth intercepting. However I'm less surprised however at the revealed limitations of the SST's geographical knowledge.

Clark for UN Secretary-General?

2006-01-07T18:38:00.000+13:00

Once I had stopped laughing at the characterization of Helen Clark's chances of being the next UN Secretary-general as "serious", I looked into the matter some more. As it turns out, Helen Clark is only one of eighteen women proposed by Equality Now. Upon perusing the list of names, it's apparent to me that the people who drew up the list simply don't have a clue.

The primary function of the UN Secretary General is chief administrative officer for the UN and this role is far larger than the bully pulpit to the world that Equality Now perceives it as. Given that the UN is in dire need of reform, to appoint someone without any administrative experience whatsoever will probably kill the UN off.

So looking at the list, what do I find? Four of the nominees (including our Silvia Cartwright) are Judges. A fifth has no administrative experience whatsover and, even worse, her political acumen is so poor that for over ten years she has failed to cut a deal with the junta in order to take power as Prime Minister. Another nine are UN honchos of some sort or another with very little to commend them.

So compared to the majority of the list, Clark does have administrative experience. But, in my opinion, she does not have the right kind of experience. The UN is in major need of reform to such an extent that amputation may be required. Clark's style of adminstration, on the other hand, has been to maintain a united front among her executive by avoiding conflict and keeping no-brainers such as George Hawkins or Mita Ririnui in ministerial portfolios. The UN needs Clark's style of adminstration like an alcoholic needs a drink.

Ariel: an observation on his profiles

2006-01-05T18:38:00.000+13:00

Just watched the television news about Ariel Sharon. What I found interesting in the retrospective of his career was that not once was anything bad said about him (e.g. Shatila, Jenin, the Wall, ~~the massacre of Innocents~~ etc), a stark contrast from what was said about him when he became Prime Minister of Israel.

The NZ Herald, whose foreign news section is coloured by articles from Independent (due to having the same owner), simply runs an a biography that is sourced to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Even their quick facts about him merely states that he incurred "Arab enmity" for the invasion of Lebanon and a "crushing response" to the second Intifada. Looking overseas, the BBC profile mentions his indirect responsibility for the Shatila and Sabra massacres halfway down the page where the unpalatable facts usually get mentioned.

Clearly the withdrawal from Gaza has demolished the depiction of Sharon as the war-criminal supreme in a way that was unthinkable not so long ago.

"US secret surveillance up sharply since Sept 11"

2005-12-28T21:23:00.000+13:00

According to a Reuter's report carried by the NZ Herald. Other amazing bits of information that will now be newsworthy are:

Police investigative work up sharply since Murder

Sunlight levels up sharply since Dawn

Alcohol intake up sharply since Christmas

Pain feelings up sharply since Stubbed Toe

It's only the fourth day of Christmas and already one can see the desperation of the news editors in searching for something to report in a traditionally slow news month in a slow news country.

What a difference the full report makes...

2005-12-07T12:29:00.000+13:00

Now that the full police report of the David Benson-Pope invesitagation has been released, significant developments have taken place:

1. Benson-Pope has changed his position on whether the tennis-ball incident took place. He now claims that he is one of the nineteen that does not recall the incident or believe that it happened.

2. He has apologized to the Dunedin Police for his ridicule of them for using "bozo-ish" language when they said there was a prima facie case to answer.

3. He is in trouble with his colleagues. Helen Clark has said in the house that the matter "could have been handled better" and that "advice will be forthcoming" about his misleading leaking of the report to the Herald on Sunday.

4. A scapegoat has been selected. Helen Clark has referred Pete Coleman, Benson-Pope's press secretary, to Ministerial Services for leaking selected parts of the police file and obscuring the involvement of Benson-Pope and his office in doing so. News reports suggest that he could face the sack.

With the Speaker having already rejected two complaints about a breach of privilege for misleading the House and is likely to reject the third, does this mean that the matter is over? The only problem is that there is the distinct possibility that Coleman did what Benson-Pope asked him to do. And if that is found to be the case, then Benson-Pope will have done what Lianne Dalziel got fired for - lied to the media.

Benson Pope report

2005-12-05T21:39:00.000+13:00

The David Benson-Pope report is up at Scoop. An early tidbit from the interview that David had with the police:

INGLIS: [I]t has come up other discipline on school camps are being made to stand outside in your night attire and bare feet in the cold for a length of time in the cold, is the only other thing that came up um in relation to not going to sleep at the camp.

BENSON-POPE: It's the best way I know of encouraging people to go to sleep.

p2 Transcript of Video Interview of David Benson-Pope.

Benson-Pope confirms the existence of the "bonket" tennis ball at the end of an arrow but says the most he ever used it for was to "gently touch people on the head with it" (interview transcript p16). I suspect it's one of those irregular expressions, namely

I gently touch people with it
You give people a tap with it
He whacks people over the head with it

Certainly at least some of the students describe the use of the bonker as "banging".

Supplementary Question of the Day

2005-11-23T17:40:00.000+13:00

Asked in the House during Question 8 (about Avian Flu):

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as a Minister outside Cabinet, fail to qualify for the special reserve of the antiviral drug Tamiflu because, by the Ministry of Health’s criteria, he would be regarded as neither a key decision maker nor an essential service?

Unfortunately the Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson, did his best to avoid giving a candid answer.

At least he's out of Cabinet

2005-11-23T17:10:00.000+13:00

George Hawkins has hit the news again with a private members bill to criminalize street prostitution on the streets of ~~South Auckland~~ Manukau City. What really amazes me is that despite having being a Mayor for nine years is that he does not realize that the ~~South Auckland~~. Manukau City Council has the authority to control street prostitution through the by-laws. If George has shown himself to be so pig-ignorant about the powers of local government despite his lengthy experience in local government, what other obvious things didn't he know when he was in Cabinet?

Benson-Pope won't be prosecuted.

2005-11-23T16:54:00.000+13:00

The Police will not be prosecuting David Benson-Pope won't be prosecuted for the allegations of mistreating students on the grounds that a prosecution is not in the Public Interest. As far as I can parse their reasoning, their argument seems to be that the assualt is not serious enough to warrant prosecution.

However David is yet not out of trouble. The Police have stated that there is a prima facie case that the tennis ball incident occurred as well as another assault on the student. Given that David has "refuted" those charges in Parliament, he remains vulnerable to a breach of privilege charge.

That didn't take long...

2005-11-21T13:38:00.000+13:00

After the traumatic APEC conference, WInston has taken to lashing out. Has he attacked any of his governmental partners, namely Phil Goff, for leaking the information that the Australians asked for an explanation about his ministerial status? No. Instead he has attacked the NZ Herald as "treasonous newspaper" for criticizing his performance.

This is ~~so funny~~ quite sad. With just over a month in the job, WInston has already gone back to his dark ways and plumbed a new low in baseless accusations. To make things more interesting, according to the NZ Herald:

Prime Minister Helen Clark, also interviewed this morning on National Radio, said she was not going to get involved in a row between the Herald and Mr Peters.

So what is Helen going to say at Question Time tomorrow about the allegations of Treason?

Australian confusion about Winston

2005-11-16T14:38:00.000+13:00

Apparently the Australian Government is having problems understanding Winston Peter's role in the government

The Australian Government has asked for an explanation of Foreign Minister Winston Peters' role in government.

His predecessor Phil Goff, as the new Trade Minister, met with Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer at the Apec meeting in Pusan, South Korea.

Today Mr Goff said: "Alexander Downer was very keen to now what the new government arrangement meant."

When the Australian government does find out, could they put what they've learned on a website to inform the rest of us?

Winston at APEC

2005-11-14T21:29:00.000+13:00

Winston is at APEC for his first assignment as the Opposition Minister of Foreign Affairs. The related video on the TVNZ page has interviews with both Phil Goff and Jim Sutton saying they have confidence in Winston Peters (although Jim actually resorted to team solidarity rather than explicitly express confidence in Winston). Somehow the reporter forgot to ask the followup questions, "If you have confidence in Winston, why are you in Korea to look after him?" and "Why is Winston not giving any interviews, but you are?"

And on a related note:

However he has not yet managed to secure a meeting with United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

He's slipping. I remember when he was pretending that he had a one-on-one meeting with Ronald Reagan. Now he's setting his sights lower and even worse, he's let it be known publicly that he wants a meeting without having secured the meeting.

Filling Rod's boots.

2005-11-07T15:19:00.000+13:00

The NZ Herald has an article in which the Greens say they want Nandor Tanczos back in. It's likely but not absolutely certain that Nandor will want to get back in but this scotches earlier stories that the Greens were wanting Catherine Delahunty or Russell Norman.

The real problem for the Greens is the last paragraph:

Under the Greens co-leadership rules on gender equality, Mr Donald has to be replaced by a male, with Keith Locke the only qualifier in Parliament.

What genius thought up that rule?

Greens lose their number 2.

2005-11-06T15:06:00.000+13:00

Rod Donald has died of a heart attack. As well as being a huge shock for all (especially his family), his death will be devastating for the Greens because he had the rare combination of being respected outside the party for his affability and sensiblity.

His parliamentary vacancy will be filled by Nandor Tanczos, if he wants it and if not then Mike Ward. The real question is who will fill his position as Number 2? Sue Bradford seems the obvious choice and has some reputation in the House as being reasonable. However she does have a well-known history as being an agitator (She resigned from New Labour because she stood up for the Trotskyite Permanent Revolution Group when Jim Anderton was trying to oust them) in which she would have to work hard to overcome if the Greens are to appeal electorally. The next two choices are Sue Kedgley and Keith Locke, neither of whom inspire much confidence (Sue K. is a Ditz and Keith is a Loon).

Connell Crashes and Burns

2005-11-03T23:09:00.000+13:00

That didn't take long. Before Parliament even had a chance to meet after the election, Brian Connell has been demoted for repeatedly criticizing Don Brash. Apparently the buffoon was annoyed at being ranked last of the second-term National MPs as first termers are generally unranked. He hasn't ruled out leaving the Nats which probably indicates that he fancies himself as another Winston Peters. If anything, he's more like Gilbert Myles.

Deal over the Speakers?

2005-11-02T17:13:00.000+13:00

It's been reported by NewstalkZB, TVNZ and RadioNZ today that Labour will support Clem Simich, National MP for Tamaki, as Deputy Speaker. But the situation is slightly funny. Michael Cullen is making a public announcement with no corresponding announcement from National. Furthermore when he says that:

He hopes National will in turn support Ms Wilson and that the elections for the two top positions will be uncontested.

The suspicion arises that no deal has been made and that Michael is trying to get a positive response from National to avoid humiliation.

Of the minor parties, the Greens are in favour while Peter Dunne might also be (which is inferred from Cullen's statement that there's support among the minor parties for his move). So what do Winston Peters and the Maori Party think? They could unite with National and ACT to depose Margaret Wilson. Winston Peters will probably so inclined but I'm less certain about the Maori Party.

Purgewatch: Ominous signs for the Speaker

2005-10-23T18:30:00.000+13:00

In a Sunday Star-Times article featuring a climbdown from Winston Peters about the right of his party to sit in opposition, I found the following paragraph interesting:

The Leader of the House, Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen, said if the matter was not resolved before parliament sits next month, the new Speaker would decide where MPs sat.

New Speaker? In 2002, there wasn't any doubt after the election that Jonathon Hunt would return as Speaker while in 1993, Peter Tapsell had publicly accepted the job as Speaker before he was voted in. Lastly there is the example of Kerry Burke who in 1984 declared his interest to be Speaker to avoid a loss of face for being fired from Cabinet. Given these examples, I can't see any reason for Michael Cullen to be so coy. I conclude that Helen is on the lookout for a new Speaker that would be acceptable to Winston Peters if she hasn't found one already. If true, that would be a humiliating demotion for Margaret Wilson who was dismissed from Cabinet in the guise of being made speaker earlier this year.

Purgewatch: Georgina speaks out

2005-10-21T10:39:00.000+13:00

Georgine Beyer has been complaining to the Herald about the pressures used to make her jump before the next election:

Transsexual list MP Georgina Beyer confirmed yesterday that she had been told by Prime Minister Helen Clark the party would not stand in her way if she found "new opportunities" during the present term.

She also admitted to being a little hurt by it.

She is 47 and has been an MP for only two terms, as MP for Wairarapa.

Considering that she's announced her intention to leave Parliament twice before makes her remarks rather strange. Was she hurt because she went to Helen Clark with the usual refrain with the expectation of being talked out of it only to find that Helen now agreed with her?

The article also mentions Russell Fairbrother and Dianne Yates as potential purgees and speaks of the disappointment of Tim Barnett and Steve Chadwick. I suspect Tim was passed over for a ministerial portfolio because of a veto by either United Future or NZ First due to his work on Prostitution Reform.

Which one of these is not like the others?

2005-10-20T12:56:00.000+13:00

More on Winston's sadpacking here in the NZ Herald.

The upcoming purge

2005-10-20T12:01:00.000+13:00

The NZ Herald, the Press and the Dominion Post are running articles on the upcoming house-cleaning that I blogged about here and here.

The Herald notes that Jim Sutton had turned down proposals and suggestions of being posted to Canada, Canberra or Washington. Likewise Dover Samuels has turned down a posting to Niue. For retiring MPs, they do mention Russell Fairbrother, Dianne Yates and possibly Ann Hartley on the account of their age. I was skeptical about Russell going but that was before I learned that he had been passed over for a Ministerial portfolio in favour of David Parker.

Lastly the Herald states in the final paragraph:

Dr Cullen is expected to stand down later in the term and Mr Mallard, another Associate Finance Minister, is considered his heir apparent in Finance.

Which is pretty much what I was thinking. However that it comes so late in the article makes me feel that the Herald reporter doesn't know for certain.

The Press states:

[Helen Clark] said she had an "expectation" of one Cabinet minister retiring next year and she expected others to follow suit. "So we are looking at exits with dignity for long-serving people".

Which indicates that we are looking at a resignation in addition to Dover (who isn't in Cabinet) and Jim (who's leaving this year).

Dover seems to be holding out against the unsubtle hints with the NZPA reporting that he's not seeking re-election in the next term. That's probably too late for Helen's liking and so he probably have more unsubtle hints dangled in front of him.

The Dominion Post article is less informative with the statement that a minister will go next year "appears" to have been directed at Dover. The reporter "appears" not to have noticed that Dover isn't in Cabinet and that Helen could have cut him loose as she has done with Taito Philip Field.

Speaking of which, the Press also reports:

Former minister of state Taito Phillip Field has also effectively been sacked from his position outside the Cabinet over allegations he used his ministerial post to obtain favours and profit on a house sale.

Those claims are still being investigated by an Auckland QC, but Clark said it was too late for Field whatever the inquiry's outcome.

"I've advised him that the train is moving by," she said. "We will see what happens at the end of the inquiry, but this is the complete ministerial list for the foreseeable future."

Given that there are at least two or three openings being created in the foreseeable future (Dover, Jim and another Cabinet Minister), Taito would have to be exceptionally dim not to have noticed the snub.