Change to Overseas Investment Act 2005
By Order in Council today the government has amended Regulation 28 of the Overseas Investment Act 2005 by adding the following:
“(h) whether the overseas investment will, or is likely to, assist New Zealand to maintain New Zealand control of strategically important infrastructure on sensitive land.”
The above is the Order In Council that went through last night.
What is "strategically important infrastructure"?
What is "sensitive land""?
What does "assist New Zealand to maintain New Zealand control" mean?
We were expecting the above questions to be asked by every major New Zealand company and all business groups this morning. But we can spot only one press release. On the political side Bill English has issued a sensible statement criticising the move and as expected the NZ First and Green positions are supportive.
There is, however, quite a bit from the media with considerable international interest eg Bloomberg; Channel News Asia; International Herald Tribune.
Locally we have some good comment from the media - Bernard Hickey asks "why change the rules now?"and Nevil Gibson talks about decisions being taken more by political whim than business considerations.
Mar 4, 2008
Goff Shows Leadership Skills
Good on you Phil Goff. The Greens needed to be taken on over their ridiculous attack on the China FTA. We repeat Phil Goff's attack on the Greens in full:
Comments by Greens co-leader Russel Norman that: “Parliament has no say over this (China Trade) agreement”, is absolutely incorrect, says Trade Minister Phil Goff.
“The China trade agreement cannot come into effect without parliamentary scrutiny and support. Dr Norman should acquaint himself better with New Zealand’s parliamentary system,” Mr Goff said.
“The full agreement and a National Impact Analysis will be tabled in Parliament at the time the Agreement is signed, and will be posted on the Web.
“This process will allow parliamentary and public scrutiny of the agreement, with the Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence Committee likely to call for public submissions on it.
“Legislation then has to be introduced for the agreement to be given effect in domestic law, and must be passed by Parliament for that to happen.
“It is likely that this legislation will receive overwhelming support in the House, though of course this remains to be tested.
“Over the last three years, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also consulted closely with New Zealand stakeholders at each stage, as the agreement has been negotiated,” Mr Goff said.
“While I cannot comment on the detail of the agreement while it is still going through final technical discussions and has yet to be submitted to Cabinet for final approval, I can say that the sort of suggestions made by Dr Norman are nonsense.
“Free movement of Labour, for example, has never been considered by anyone as part of the negotiation. To even make that suggestion is absurd.
“The Greens appear to have already made up their minds to oppose a trade agreement with China, New Zealand’s third largest trading partner and fastest growing export market.
“However, it would be more sensible for them to first examine what the agreement actually involved, which all parties in parliament will soon have the opportunity to do,” Mr Goff said.
Comments by Greens co-leader Russel Norman that: “Parliament has no say over this (China Trade) agreement”, is absolutely incorrect, says Trade Minister Phil Goff.
“The China trade agreement cannot come into effect without parliamentary scrutiny and support. Dr Norman should acquaint himself better with New Zealand’s parliamentary system,” Mr Goff said.
“The full agreement and a National Impact Analysis will be tabled in Parliament at the time the Agreement is signed, and will be posted on the Web.
“This process will allow parliamentary and public scrutiny of the agreement, with the Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence Committee likely to call for public submissions on it.
“Legislation then has to be introduced for the agreement to be given effect in domestic law, and must be passed by Parliament for that to happen.
“It is likely that this legislation will receive overwhelming support in the House, though of course this remains to be tested.
“Over the last three years, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also consulted closely with New Zealand stakeholders at each stage, as the agreement has been negotiated,” Mr Goff said.
“While I cannot comment on the detail of the agreement while it is still going through final technical discussions and has yet to be submitted to Cabinet for final approval, I can say that the sort of suggestions made by Dr Norman are nonsense.
“Free movement of Labour, for example, has never been considered by anyone as part of the negotiation. To even make that suggestion is absurd.
“The Greens appear to have already made up their minds to oppose a trade agreement with China, New Zealand’s third largest trading partner and fastest growing export market.
“However, it would be more sensible for them to first examine what the agreement actually involved, which all parties in parliament will soon have the opportunity to do,” Mr Goff said.
Are Winston's Supporters Revolting?
No Minister is speculating about the security of Winston's leadership of NZ First. Wonderful as the prospect of a coup within that party is, we can't see it happening this side of the election. Everyone involved in that party knows that Winston just cares about Winston and that he will do what is best for Winston Peters as opposed to the party, but the fact is that without Winston, they have zero chance of getting back into Parliament. We understand that most members of the party in Parliament are spending their days studying the situations vacant sections of the newspaper and being super friendly to National Party MPs they run into in the corridor. They all hope that they will be looked after with CCMAU directorships post election. It is all quite sad really.
So in summary, the mood in the party is one of intense gloom. They realise Winston is a problem, but for the moment, he is a problem they have to have.
So in summary, the mood in the party is one of intense gloom. They realise Winston is a problem, but for the moment, he is a problem they have to have.
Greenpeace Savages Government Emissions Trading Scheme
Greenpeace yesterday released a study it commissioned on the Government's emissions trading scheme
the current proposal for the structure of the ETS will deliver no significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, will act as an impediment to the rapid implementation of less carbon intensive production technologies in the manufacturing industry and will do nothing to slow the destruction of forests to make way for increasingly greenhouse gas intensive forms of dairy farming.
The organisation has joined the long list of groups who have opposed the Government's proposed scheme. There were several damning comments on Morning Report this morning.
In the Dominion Post today Greenpeace are quoted as describing the Government policy as "fatally flawed" and is critical of the timeframe that the Government has set for the bill to be passed.
Greenpeace is represented on the Government's Climate Change Leadership Forum which makes this public criticism more significant.
the current proposal for the structure of the ETS will deliver no significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, will act as an impediment to the rapid implementation of less carbon intensive production technologies in the manufacturing industry and will do nothing to slow the destruction of forests to make way for increasingly greenhouse gas intensive forms of dairy farming.
The organisation has joined the long list of groups who have opposed the Government's proposed scheme. There were several damning comments on Morning Report this morning.
In the Dominion Post today Greenpeace are quoted as describing the Government policy as "fatally flawed" and is critical of the timeframe that the Government has set for the bill to be passed.
Greenpeace is represented on the Government's Climate Change Leadership Forum which makes this public criticism more significant.
Herald On Coalition Preferences
The NZ Herald editorial today analyses the coalition preferences of minor parties folowing the most recent Herald DigiPoll result.
This year the monthly Herald-DigiPoll surveys have begun asking each party's supporters for their most preferred coalition. The results are interesting.
New Zealand First's voters, for instance, would prefer National over Labour by 90.9 per cent to 9.1 per cent. All voters for United Future would prefer the party to back National. Yet NZ First and United Future have kept Labour in power this term.
Voters for the Maori Party have registered the greatest change. In January, none of them wanted the party to help National form a government; last month 42.9 per cent of them would prefer that it did so. The shift may owe much to leader John Key's embrace of Maori activists at Waitangi.
Those wonderful political brains in the media who constantly tell us that National has no coalition options post election might like to read this.
This year the monthly Herald-DigiPoll surveys have begun asking each party's supporters for their most preferred coalition. The results are interesting.
New Zealand First's voters, for instance, would prefer National over Labour by 90.9 per cent to 9.1 per cent. All voters for United Future would prefer the party to back National. Yet NZ First and United Future have kept Labour in power this term.
Voters for the Maori Party have registered the greatest change. In January, none of them wanted the party to help National form a government; last month 42.9 per cent of them would prefer that it did so. The shift may owe much to leader John Key's embrace of Maori activists at Waitangi.
Those wonderful political brains in the media who constantly tell us that National has no coalition options post election might like to read this.
Sharples Confirming Maori Preference For National
In today's NZ Herald John Armstrong analyses Pita Sharples slip of the tongue yesterday on the implications of the Marae DigiPoll.
The Marae poll certainly backs up Sharples' assertion it is becoming easier for the Maori Party to justify supporting the formation of a National-led Government, especially if that backing is confined to abstaining on confidence motions in exchange for policy "wins".
The Marae poll certainly backs up Sharples' assertion it is becoming easier for the Maori Party to justify supporting the formation of a National-led Government, especially if that backing is confined to abstaining on confidence motions in exchange for policy "wins".
Fran O'Sullivan Too Modest
Under a headline "Cullen's Shock Move Hinders Airport Bid" Fran O'Sullivan reports in today's NZ Herald on yesterday's changes to New Zealand's overseas investment regime. The article describes the Government's actions as "unexpected" - but were they? Fran's column in the Herald on Sunday in fact suggested that the Government was planning to move to stop the Auckland Airport bid. Maybe the shock and surprise is over the breadth of the new policy (you can probably kiss goodbye to any big PPP infrastructure projects while this regulation is in place - an Auckland motorway link to the airport travelling under the PM's electorate would seem to be "strategically important infrastructure on sensitive land.")
We will explore the implications of the desperate act by Government later on today.
We will explore the implications of the desperate act by Government later on today.
Mar 3, 2008
Another Bad Poll for Labour And Clark
TV3 has a another poll out tonight. National 51% Labour 36% Green 7% NZ First 3%. Clark trails Key 35% to 28% as preferred PM.
A pity that Colin Espiner didn't have this result at hand before he wrote his blog today.
Rather than speculating guys and gals why not do some work and poll Labour MPs on what they are thinking and planning. Colin Espiner might think that a change of leader is the worst thing Labour could do (who cares what Colin Espiner actually thinks???). What matters is what Michael Cullen and Phil Goff think, and whether their caucus colleagues are prepared to support a coup. They are all in Wellington tomorrow, in Parliament, so a poll shouldn't be too much work.
A pity that Colin Espiner didn't have this result at hand before he wrote his blog today.
Rather than speculating guys and gals why not do some work and poll Labour MPs on what they are thinking and planning. Colin Espiner might think that a change of leader is the worst thing Labour could do (who cares what Colin Espiner actually thinks???). What matters is what Michael Cullen and Phil Goff think, and whether their caucus colleagues are prepared to support a coup. They are all in Wellington tomorrow, in Parliament, so a poll shouldn't be too much work.
Glenn's Grand Plans
We have read with interest the grand plans Owen Glenn had for the relationship with Monaco - trade promotion function in the Monaco Yacht Club, rugby, netball and beach volleyball. And the implication is what? Now that the Honorary Consulship isn't going to happen these events aren't going to happen?
This just typifies the way that Owen Glenn works. Everything has a price. You do what he wants and he is generous in return. Sorry, this just makes us more suspicious about what went on in the meetings Glenn has had with Party Presidents and Party Leaders.
It also makes us wonder at Glenn's motivation in wanting to become an Honorary Consul. What exactly do these people do? What will he get out of the job?
There are good and bad Honorary Consuls, some do a lot for New Zealand, others not much.
The roles of a Consul are set out in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963. Artilce 5 sets out Consular functions. New Zealand Honorary Consuls tend to be restricted in their functions to those lists in Article 5 (a)-(e) with the exception of (d) - New Zealand Honorary Consuls do not issue visas, passports etc. Essentially Honorary Consuls are appointed not to arrange beach volley ball events, but to help out with distressed New Zealanders, provide a bit of info on New Zealand to those who might enquire, to arrange itineraries for visiting New Zealand diplomatic staff, to be available to give a heads up to the responsible NZ mission on what is going on in the territory of the Honorary Consul - should anything interesting actually happen there, and to generally fly the flag on behalf of New Zealand. There is of course, nothing stopping an Honorary Consul arranging a rugby game or other sporting event. The very fine New Zealand Honorary Consul in Boston has a famous game every year followed by a New Zealand style meal at his house.
Unfortunately there is not much in it for the Honorary Consuls. Chapter III of the Convention sets out the rules that apply. There are in reality few privileges and immunities. Consular premises are protected and exempt from taxation - that move prove helpful to someone like Owen. Also potentially helpful would be the inviolability of consular archives and documents. They are exempt from residence permits, which again might prove useful to Owen. Goods required to run an office, flags, furniture, stationary etc is exempt taxation. They are literally allowed to fly the flag .
Are these baubles enough to tempt Owen? Probably not enough in themselves (unless he was facing some steep office tax bills or having difficulty getting a residence permit). No, he probably wanted the title because it would make him feel more important - like for many New Zealanders going out to buy a Pajero, or for the lucky few a Porche, it would be another PED. He would get invited to cocktail parties at the Yacht Club, from which he was previously being excluded, and he might even get an invite to the Palace from time to time. The title might help him break into Monaco's social elite.
Graham Greene wrote a novel entitled The Honorary Consul. We seem to recall it being made into a movie - sometime in the 1980s. It wasn't set in the Monaco, of course, just a small town in northern Argentina, but there was something about Cactus Kate's profile of friend Owen on Saturday 16 February that brought back memory of this novel's subject.....
One more question for the media to follow up on - would Monaco want Glenn appointed to this job? Would they regard him as suitable?
This just typifies the way that Owen Glenn works. Everything has a price. You do what he wants and he is generous in return. Sorry, this just makes us more suspicious about what went on in the meetings Glenn has had with Party Presidents and Party Leaders.
It also makes us wonder at Glenn's motivation in wanting to become an Honorary Consul. What exactly do these people do? What will he get out of the job?
There are good and bad Honorary Consuls, some do a lot for New Zealand, others not much.
The roles of a Consul are set out in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963. Artilce 5 sets out Consular functions. New Zealand Honorary Consuls tend to be restricted in their functions to those lists in Article 5 (a)-(e) with the exception of (d) - New Zealand Honorary Consuls do not issue visas, passports etc. Essentially Honorary Consuls are appointed not to arrange beach volley ball events, but to help out with distressed New Zealanders, provide a bit of info on New Zealand to those who might enquire, to arrange itineraries for visiting New Zealand diplomatic staff, to be available to give a heads up to the responsible NZ mission on what is going on in the territory of the Honorary Consul - should anything interesting actually happen there, and to generally fly the flag on behalf of New Zealand. There is of course, nothing stopping an Honorary Consul arranging a rugby game or other sporting event. The very fine New Zealand Honorary Consul in Boston has a famous game every year followed by a New Zealand style meal at his house.
Unfortunately there is not much in it for the Honorary Consuls. Chapter III of the Convention sets out the rules that apply. There are in reality few privileges and immunities. Consular premises are protected and exempt from taxation - that move prove helpful to someone like Owen. Also potentially helpful would be the inviolability of consular archives and documents. They are exempt from residence permits, which again might prove useful to Owen. Goods required to run an office, flags, furniture, stationary etc is exempt taxation. They are literally allowed to fly the flag .
Are these baubles enough to tempt Owen? Probably not enough in themselves (unless he was facing some steep office tax bills or having difficulty getting a residence permit). No, he probably wanted the title because it would make him feel more important - like for many New Zealanders going out to buy a Pajero, or for the lucky few a Porche, it would be another PED. He would get invited to cocktail parties at the Yacht Club, from which he was previously being excluded, and he might even get an invite to the Palace from time to time. The title might help him break into Monaco's social elite.
Graham Greene wrote a novel entitled The Honorary Consul. We seem to recall it being made into a movie - sometime in the 1980s. It wasn't set in the Monaco, of course, just a small town in northern Argentina, but there was something about Cactus Kate's profile of friend Owen on Saturday 16 February that brought back memory of this novel's subject.....
One more question for the media to follow up on - would Monaco want Glenn appointed to this job? Would they regard him as suitable?
Greens Call For More Information On China FTA
Another Government support party is causing troubles. The Government seems to have lost Maori, United and NZ First on climate change and now the Greens are getting edgy on the China FTA.
Note the continuing Green Party hostility towards our most sucessful goods export industry
What is in the treaty about access for dairy, and hence what will be the impact of the agreement on our rivers and lakes, which are already under enormous pressure from dairy conversions?
Note the continuing Green Party hostility towards our most sucessful goods export industry
What is in the treaty about access for dairy, and hence what will be the impact of the agreement on our rivers and lakes, which are already under enormous pressure from dairy conversions?
What The Poll Results Mean For Electorate Seats
David Farrar has today posted an analysis which identifies that an anti-Labour swing could make quite a few seats vulnerable to challenge aside from the three Maori electorates Farrar suggests that the following are the most vulnerable on the basis of the last Colmar Brunton poll (National 48% Labour 36%) :
Auckland Central (Tizard) by 160 votes
Hamilton West (Gallagher) by 3,501 votes
New Plymouth (Duynhoven) by 1 (yes 1) vote
Otaki (Hughes) by 5,155 votes
Palmerston North by 506 votes
Rotorua (Chadwick) by 4,558 votes
Taupo (Burton) by 5,700 votes
West Coast-Tasman (O’Connor) by 3,274 votes
Using the previous Colmar Brunton Poll (National 55% Labour 32%) he adds more seats to the list:
Hutt South (Mallard)
Mana (Laban)
Maungakiekie
Port Hills (Dyson)
Waimakariri (Cosgrove)
This is all very interesting, but as Farrar notes, it is most unlikely that a uniform swing of this nature will take place. Moreover, the analysis also doesn't pay enough regard to the personalities involved. Consgrove and Laban are seen as doing a good job by many in their electorates. This will help. Mallard, O'Conner, Burton and Tizard have less positive ratings from the average constituents.
Those seats with out incumbent MPs will be very interesting to watch. Not on Farrar's list is Wellington Central. National did not have a strong candidate last time around, so Labour did better than it should have. This time around we have an impressive Labour candidate in Grant Robertson. We still don't know the National candidate - Stephen Franks or Paul Quinn seem the most likely names. Both are likely to impact more positively than Blumsky.
How Annette King is tainted by the growing Hawkes Bay DHB scandal is also going to be interesting to watch. Likewise, with both The Hive and Sunday Star Times speculating that King is seat warming for Andrew Little, how will this impact on the electorate vote? National is putting up Chris Finlayson - the strongest National Party candidate in this seat for many years.
Auckland Central (Tizard) by 160 votes
Hamilton West (Gallagher) by 3,501 votes
New Plymouth (Duynhoven) by 1 (yes 1) vote
Otaki (Hughes) by 5,155 votes
Palmerston North by 506 votes
Rotorua (Chadwick) by 4,558 votes
Taupo (Burton) by 5,700 votes
West Coast-Tasman (O’Connor) by 3,274 votes
Using the previous Colmar Brunton Poll (National 55% Labour 32%) he adds more seats to the list:
Hutt South (Mallard)
Mana (Laban)
Maungakiekie
Port Hills (Dyson)
Waimakariri (Cosgrove)
This is all very interesting, but as Farrar notes, it is most unlikely that a uniform swing of this nature will take place. Moreover, the analysis also doesn't pay enough regard to the personalities involved. Consgrove and Laban are seen as doing a good job by many in their electorates. This will help. Mallard, O'Conner, Burton and Tizard have less positive ratings from the average constituents.
Those seats with out incumbent MPs will be very interesting to watch. Not on Farrar's list is Wellington Central. National did not have a strong candidate last time around, so Labour did better than it should have. This time around we have an impressive Labour candidate in Grant Robertson. We still don't know the National candidate - Stephen Franks or Paul Quinn seem the most likely names. Both are likely to impact more positively than Blumsky.
How Annette King is tainted by the growing Hawkes Bay DHB scandal is also going to be interesting to watch. Likewise, with both The Hive and Sunday Star Times speculating that King is seat warming for Andrew Little, how will this impact on the electorate vote? National is putting up Chris Finlayson - the strongest National Party candidate in this seat for many years.
Young Analyses The Poll Results
Audrey Young looks at the Herald DigiPoll results in more detail. It is interesting that Auckland and the rest of the country seem reasonably in step except for supporting the Greens (the Greens seems less popular in Auckland). We look forward to seeing what has happened to Labour support in Hawkes Bay in due course.
Herald Editorial Looks At The First Real Victim Of The EFA - EPMU
The NZ Herald has some delight in saying:
There is delicious irony in the fact that one of the first victims of the Electoral Finance Act is a labour union. The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union has been muzzled for two months while the Electoral Commission considers an objection to the union's application for a right to advertise its views in election year.
David Farrar gets several mentions.
There is delicious irony in the fact that one of the first victims of the Electoral Finance Act is a labour union. The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union has been muzzled for two months while the Electoral Commission considers an objection to the union's application for a right to advertise its views in election year.
David Farrar gets several mentions.
Big Leads For National And Key In Herald Poll
National has opened up an 18 point lead over Labour in the latest Herald DigiPoll. National has 54.5% support compared to Labour's 36.5%. Both NZ First and the Greens are below the 5% threshold. NZ First is down to 2.1%.
Key has moved ahead of Clark in the preferred PM stakes.
This finding is also very significant:
Maori Party supporters are not overwhelmingly disposed to a Labour deal - 57.1 per cent of Maori Party supporters would favour a deal with Labour, but 42.9 per cent would favour a deal with National.
Key has moved ahead of Clark in the preferred PM stakes.
This finding is also very significant:
Maori Party supporters are not overwhelmingly disposed to a Labour deal - 57.1 per cent of Maori Party supporters would favour a deal with Labour, but 42.9 per cent would favour a deal with National.
Mar 2, 2008
Maori Desert Labour
The latest Marae Digipoll suggests that the Maori Party will win all seven Maori seats. It also suggests that the Maori Party will get more party votes than Labour from Maori. One News had a pretty superficial analysis tonight, suggesting that the Maori Party would most probably support Labour because Maori voters had stronger support for Helen Clark and Labour than John Key and National. If that is so why did the PM suggest that a vote for Maori was a vote for National?
WTO: Storm Clouds Gathering?
Yesterday we had WTO agriculture supremo Crawford Falconer telling us that the agriculture component of the Doha Development Agenda is not moving quickly enough. Today we have WTO Director-General Lamy saying that a deal is still doable, but he doesn't want to call Ministers together just yet. Remember the post Davos plan was to have Ministers meeting again around Easter.
Chris Trotter At It Again
Sorry no link yet, but in the SST Christ Trotter suggests a change of captain for Labour before a crash. There is nothing wrong with the plane in Trotter's view. "The members of Labour's caucus need to summon up the courage to address the problems in the cockpit."
Along Came A Spider and Sat Down Beside Her....
Blogging anonymously in the Koru Lounge is a slightly risky business. Having just finished the first four posts this morning while waiting for the flight back to Wellington, including one post about Winston, guess who came and sat within 2 meters of Queen Bee? Winston himself!! This caused a hasty closure of the laptop as Winston had nodded and seemed intent on having a chat.
Fortunately salvation was at hand. Winston spotted the reasonably ample and rather amply exposed cleavage of Melodie Robinson sitting not too far away. Much smiling and staring from Winston in the lovely Mel's direction allowed Queen Bee to power down and exit stage left.
Thanks Mel
Is The Government About To Stop The Auckland Airport Deal?
Fran O'Sullivan investigates in today's Herald on Sunday.
And It Just Got Worse For Cunliffe and King
Bill Ralston has the bit between the teeth in today's Herald on Sunday
Labour has the same capacity for razor-toothed rabid attack as a cornered rodent, especially when its own young are threatened. Never has this been more clearly seen than in Health Minister David Cunliffe's utu exacted on the Hawke's Bay District Health Board.
Let me explain this appalling scandal in words even Tony Ryall should be able to understand.
A wee while back, Annette King was Minister of Health. Her husband, Ray Lind, was the chief operating officer of the Hawke's Bay District Health Board.
Against the wishes of many on the health board, King appoints Peter Hausmann to the board. Hausmann runs a company called Healthcare New Zealand and many on the board fretted that he, as a supplier to health boards, would have a conflict of interest as a board member. King appointed him anyway.
In a very short time, the chairman of the board discovered Hausmann was involved in email discussions over a tender for a multi-million-dollar contract from the board he was a member of.
A woman whistleblower in the board's administration brings this to the chairman's attention.
She alleges Annette King's husband, Ray Lind, as a senior manager put pressure on her because she blew the whistle. She ends up being restructured out of her job and an employment dispute ensues.
Meanwhile, Ray Lind quits and goes to work for Hausmann.
Flak flies, King is reshuffled out of the portfolio, her successor dithers about sorting out the rolling brawl between the board and its managers over various contracts being awarded, and the people of Hawke's Bay respond by backing the chairman and his board supporters by resoundingly re-electing them.
An inquiry into the murky goings on at the DHB rumbles away while there is yet another cabinet reshuffle and two-gun David Cunliffe takes over the job and refuses to confirm the chairman in his job.
Then, just 72 days after the re-elected board takes office, Cunliffe sacks them. He says the organisation is "dysfunctional" and it has a "rapidly deteriorating" financial situation. Actually, it's only $7.7 million in the red, within its target range of coming out plus or minus 1 per cent of its revenue. David Cunliffe might not have noticed, but there is not a DHB in the country that hasn't had financial problems and the Hawke's Bay board's problem is minor.
He ends with
If National can't drive the dagger of this debacle into the Government's heart, it doesn't deserve to win the next election.
Labour has the same capacity for razor-toothed rabid attack as a cornered rodent, especially when its own young are threatened. Never has this been more clearly seen than in Health Minister David Cunliffe's utu exacted on the Hawke's Bay District Health Board.
Let me explain this appalling scandal in words even Tony Ryall should be able to understand.
A wee while back, Annette King was Minister of Health. Her husband, Ray Lind, was the chief operating officer of the Hawke's Bay District Health Board.
Against the wishes of many on the health board, King appoints Peter Hausmann to the board. Hausmann runs a company called Healthcare New Zealand and many on the board fretted that he, as a supplier to health boards, would have a conflict of interest as a board member. King appointed him anyway.
In a very short time, the chairman of the board discovered Hausmann was involved in email discussions over a tender for a multi-million-dollar contract from the board he was a member of.
A woman whistleblower in the board's administration brings this to the chairman's attention.
She alleges Annette King's husband, Ray Lind, as a senior manager put pressure on her because she blew the whistle. She ends up being restructured out of her job and an employment dispute ensues.
Meanwhile, Ray Lind quits and goes to work for Hausmann.
Flak flies, King is reshuffled out of the portfolio, her successor dithers about sorting out the rolling brawl between the board and its managers over various contracts being awarded, and the people of Hawke's Bay respond by backing the chairman and his board supporters by resoundingly re-electing them.
An inquiry into the murky goings on at the DHB rumbles away while there is yet another cabinet reshuffle and two-gun David Cunliffe takes over the job and refuses to confirm the chairman in his job.
Then, just 72 days after the re-elected board takes office, Cunliffe sacks them. He says the organisation is "dysfunctional" and it has a "rapidly deteriorating" financial situation. Actually, it's only $7.7 million in the red, within its target range of coming out plus or minus 1 per cent of its revenue. David Cunliffe might not have noticed, but there is not a DHB in the country that hasn't had financial problems and the Hawke's Bay board's problem is minor.
He ends with
If National can't drive the dagger of this debacle into the Government's heart, it doesn't deserve to win the next election.
And It Is Bad For Winston
Also from the Herald on Sunday editorial
A sure sign that a politician is losing the plot is when he or she starts blaming the media for a slump in the polls. Winston Peters' default position throughout his political life has been that the media prevents the truth about his political genius from reaching the eyes and ears of the nation. But when the political polls have turned against him, he has never blamed the messenger. Rather he has smiled inscrutably and - thus far at least - delivered the numbers that count, at the ballot box.
It remains to be seen whether New Zealand First, currently polling well below the five-per-cent threshold, will be rescued by its leader's recapture of Tauranga
A sure sign that a politician is losing the plot is when he or she starts blaming the media for a slump in the polls. Winston Peters' default position throughout his political life has been that the media prevents the truth about his political genius from reaching the eyes and ears of the nation. But when the political polls have turned against him, he has never blamed the messenger. Rather he has smiled inscrutably and - thus far at least - delivered the numbers that count, at the ballot box.
It remains to be seen whether New Zealand First, currently polling well below the five-per-cent threshold, will be rescued by its leader's recapture of Tauranga
Another Bad Morning For Labour - In Auckland Anyway
The Herald on Sunday editorial suggests that Labour is looking tired and facing electoral oblivion
it is tempting to wonder whether Prime Minister Helen Clark, sensing approaching electoral oblivion, is engaging in the time-honoured political strategy of getting her retaliation in first.
Facing opinion polls that put Labour as much as 20 points behind National - which could, on the numbers, easily govern alone - Clark launched an extraordinary attack on the New Zealand Herald, accusing it of being "a Tory paper" that had "shown no charity to Labour in the party's 91 years of existence". She singled out for special mention the newspaper's long-serving cartoonist Minhinnick for "flaying" Labour Governments.
The plain fact is that Labour, limbering up for an election at which it seems certain to take a hammering, is looking tired. Steve Maharey has gone, Michael Cullen - who has attracted the nickname Michael Sullen in some quarters - has lost the sparkle in his eye and, apparently, the fire in his belly as well.
Meanwhile Clark, who has never seemed at ease with middle New Zealand, looks more remote and aloof by the month. She has not been helped by the uncharacteristic behaviour of her famously retiring husband, Professor Peter Davis, who, not for the first time, penned a letter to the paper.
it is tempting to wonder whether Prime Minister Helen Clark, sensing approaching electoral oblivion, is engaging in the time-honoured political strategy of getting her retaliation in first.
Facing opinion polls that put Labour as much as 20 points behind National - which could, on the numbers, easily govern alone - Clark launched an extraordinary attack on the New Zealand Herald, accusing it of being "a Tory paper" that had "shown no charity to Labour in the party's 91 years of existence". She singled out for special mention the newspaper's long-serving cartoonist Minhinnick for "flaying" Labour Governments.
The plain fact is that Labour, limbering up for an election at which it seems certain to take a hammering, is looking tired. Steve Maharey has gone, Michael Cullen - who has attracted the nickname Michael Sullen in some quarters - has lost the sparkle in his eye and, apparently, the fire in his belly as well.
Meanwhile Clark, who has never seemed at ease with middle New Zealand, looks more remote and aloof by the month. She has not been helped by the uncharacteristic behaviour of her famously retiring husband, Professor Peter Davis, who, not for the first time, penned a letter to the paper.
Mar 1, 2008
Our Weekly Metrics
NZ Political Blog Rank #22 (unchanged)
Alexa 3-Month Average Ranking 671, 632 (last week 671,632)
Alexa NZ Ranking 757 (1,121)
Technorati Rank 170,597 (194,358)
Technorati Authorities 46 (41)
Unique visits 3,356 (2,763)
Page views 5,673 (4,679)
Thank you for reading The Hive.
Alexa 3-Month Average Ranking 671, 632 (last week 671,632)
Alexa NZ Ranking 757 (1,121)
Technorati Rank 170,597 (194,358)
Technorati Authorities 46 (41)
Unique visits 3,356 (2,763)
Page views 5,673 (4,679)
Thank you for reading The Hive.
Time For New Thinking On Taiwan
Given that the weather has packed in Queen Bee has spent the afternoon reading an excellent new publication out on US-Taiwan Relations. It is by Dan Blumenthal and Randy Schriver. We don't know Blumenthal (his most recent job in Government was advising Rumsfeld on China/Taiwan issues), but we do know Schriver. We saw him most recently when he was in new Zealand in September. He was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs from 2003-2005. He now works at Armitage International with Richard Armitage. Armitage is backing and advising McCain is being talked about as a possible Secretary of State in the McCain Presidency. We would expect that Schriver would be in an even more senior job in either State or Defense under McCain. So, in other words, he is a reasonably heavy hitter.
Blumenthal and Schriver have written A Twenty-First-Century Agenda for the U.S.-Taiwan Partnership . In this report the authors go back to basics and, putting the cross-strait dynamic to one side, look at Taiwan's importance to the US and the the world. The trouble, say the authors, is that Taiwan has for too long been seen through the prism of a wider China policy and in zero sum terms. One could say the same about New Zealand. While recognising Taiwan's economic importance, most policy makers here would be happiest if somehow an accommodation could be found that would see Taiwan remain an important market, but which would see Taiwan somehow re-integrate politically with China.
There are some in the US who would see eye to eye with New Zealand foreign policy formulators. They will therefore not like this comment from the authors
As this dynamic has unfolded, relations between
Washington and Taipei have soured. Washington has
not found the proper balance among trying to pursue
common interests with Beijing, secure Taiwan’s freedom
and international profile, and pursue bilateral
interests with Taiwan. Beijing has successfully pressured
Washington to further its agenda of squeezing
the island. Taipei has responded by increasing its
emphasis on its sovereignty.
Allowing this dynamic to continue is inimical to
U.S. interests. A broken dialogue increases the likelihood
that what is now a dangerous situation will
develop into an even more dangerous crisis.
How is this inimical to US interests?
If Taiwan is successfully coerced by the PRC into
a settlement, against the wishes of Taiwan’s 23 million
people, Washington would not only lose a valuable
international partner, but its interests and
regional position would also suffer a severe blow.
Regional allies would question the credibility of
America’s political commitments, as would other
young democracies around the world. America’s
favorable position in Asia is sustained by its alliances
and partnerships, and it needs their assistance to
keep the region peaceful, prosperous, and free.
A coerced settlement against the wishes of the Taiwanese
may carry even greater strategic significance
over the long term. Chinese control of Taiwan (and,
presumably, the Taiwan Strait) could effectively deny
the United States and its allies access to critical sea
lanes during conflict. Mainland control of Taiwan
would also significantly extend the reach of the People’s
Liberation Army (PLA) in the Asia-Pacific region.
Why is Taiwan important in its own right?
Taiwan’s valuable role in the international community
remains hidden to most casual observers.
Many think of Taiwan as a small place with a limited
impact on our interests. But with a population of
23 million (larger than treaty ally Australia), a GDP
ranking twenty-first in the world (well ahead of
Asian economic powerhouses such as Hong Kong
and Singapore), and geography that positions it
along major commercial routes (the Port of Kaohsiung
handles more containers per year than any single
port in Japan or South Korea), Taiwan is, by most
objective standards, a major player.
So what is the way forward?
America should reinvigorate a
positive bilateral agenda with Taiwan, capitalizing
on Taiwan’s many strengths to expand its participation
in the regional and international arenas. The
United States can help Taiwan reorient its foreign
policy to accentuate its role as a peaceful, vibrant
member of the international community. This
approach would stabilize the Taiwan Strait and help
secure American interests in a prosperous, stable,
and free Asia—all within the existing U.S. cross-
Strait policy framework.
An ROC with a larger international role contributing
to global economic prosperity, political freedom,
a clean environment, international security, and
public health will advance the interests of Taiwan,
the United States, and the international community.
At the same time, actively working to increase Taiwan’s
international presence may help address the
substantive concerns shared by many in Taiwan who
feel that formal de jure independence is the only path
to entry into international forums. While Taiwan’s
future political status is the purview of the citizens of
Taiwan, Washington has an interest in seeing that the
manner in which those questions are addressed is
peaceful, eliciting an interest in Beijing in becoming
more creative and flexible.
Blumenthal and Schriver have written A Twenty-First-Century Agenda for the U.S.-Taiwan Partnership . In this report the authors go back to basics and, putting the cross-strait dynamic to one side, look at Taiwan's importance to the US and the the world. The trouble, say the authors, is that Taiwan has for too long been seen through the prism of a wider China policy and in zero sum terms. One could say the same about New Zealand. While recognising Taiwan's economic importance, most policy makers here would be happiest if somehow an accommodation could be found that would see Taiwan remain an important market, but which would see Taiwan somehow re-integrate politically with China.
There are some in the US who would see eye to eye with New Zealand foreign policy formulators. They will therefore not like this comment from the authors
As this dynamic has unfolded, relations between
Washington and Taipei have soured. Washington has
not found the proper balance among trying to pursue
common interests with Beijing, secure Taiwan’s freedom
and international profile, and pursue bilateral
interests with Taiwan. Beijing has successfully pressured
Washington to further its agenda of squeezing
the island. Taipei has responded by increasing its
emphasis on its sovereignty.
Allowing this dynamic to continue is inimical to
U.S. interests. A broken dialogue increases the likelihood
that what is now a dangerous situation will
develop into an even more dangerous crisis.
How is this inimical to US interests?
If Taiwan is successfully coerced by the PRC into
a settlement, against the wishes of Taiwan’s 23 million
people, Washington would not only lose a valuable
international partner, but its interests and
regional position would also suffer a severe blow.
Regional allies would question the credibility of
America’s political commitments, as would other
young democracies around the world. America’s
favorable position in Asia is sustained by its alliances
and partnerships, and it needs their assistance to
keep the region peaceful, prosperous, and free.
A coerced settlement against the wishes of the Taiwanese
may carry even greater strategic significance
over the long term. Chinese control of Taiwan (and,
presumably, the Taiwan Strait) could effectively deny
the United States and its allies access to critical sea
lanes during conflict. Mainland control of Taiwan
would also significantly extend the reach of the People’s
Liberation Army (PLA) in the Asia-Pacific region.
Why is Taiwan important in its own right?
Taiwan’s valuable role in the international community
remains hidden to most casual observers.
Many think of Taiwan as a small place with a limited
impact on our interests. But with a population of
23 million (larger than treaty ally Australia), a GDP
ranking twenty-first in the world (well ahead of
Asian economic powerhouses such as Hong Kong
and Singapore), and geography that positions it
along major commercial routes (the Port of Kaohsiung
handles more containers per year than any single
port in Japan or South Korea), Taiwan is, by most
objective standards, a major player.
So what is the way forward?
America should reinvigorate a
positive bilateral agenda with Taiwan, capitalizing
on Taiwan’s many strengths to expand its participation
in the regional and international arenas. The
United States can help Taiwan reorient its foreign
policy to accentuate its role as a peaceful, vibrant
member of the international community. This
approach would stabilize the Taiwan Strait and help
secure American interests in a prosperous, stable,
and free Asia—all within the existing U.S. cross-
Strait policy framework.
An ROC with a larger international role contributing
to global economic prosperity, political freedom,
a clean environment, international security, and
public health will advance the interests of Taiwan,
the United States, and the international community.
At the same time, actively working to increase Taiwan’s
international presence may help address the
substantive concerns shared by many in Taiwan who
feel that formal de jure independence is the only path
to entry into international forums. While Taiwan’s
future political status is the purview of the citizens of
Taiwan, Washington has an interest in seeing that the
manner in which those questions are addressed is
peaceful, eliciting an interest in Beijing in becoming
more creative and flexible.
What exactly will this mean? The authors set out a policy agenda for both Taiwan and the US sides to follow. We steal this summary from the Taipei Times:
The authors call on the US to relax the restrictions on high-level bilateral visits and communications in the political and military spheres and allow both countries' presidents to speak directly to each other.
Other recommendations include a free trade agreement between the two, more US arms sales to Taiwan focusing on better homeland defense cooperation, anti-submarine warfare, air and missile defense and disaster and humanitarian aid coordination.
The report urges Taiwan to boost defense spending, implement economic reforms including the opening of investment opportunities for Chinese and other foreign firms, promote Taiwanese industries' technological and market advances in international economic relationships, export its democratic model to the rest of the world and use its public health expertise more effectively on the global scene.
They also call for more US arms sales to Taiwan and greater interoperability between the US and Taiwanese militaries to help combat a Chinese military action against Taiwan.
Citing the US refusal to sell advanced F-16 fighters to Taiwan, the report says: "Washington has thus become culpable in an eroding military balance across the Strait, sacrificing long-term interests to short-term emotion."
The areas of this report that will probably be most relevant to New Zealand are the comments on APEC, on China's attempts to exclude Taiwan from FTA activity in the region
Most importantly, the host of proposed regional
economic agreements that has emerged in recent
years threatens Taiwan’s continued economic health.
China’s activism in working to establish free trade
agreements (FTAs) with a number of members of the
Association of South East Asian Nations deliberately
excludes Taiwan from a potential new regional supply
chain. The PRC is also attempting to downgrade
the importance of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC), the one Asia-Pacific institution of which
Taiwan is a part (and another potentially useful platform
for a regional FTA).
And the focus on a larger role for Taiwan's soft diplomacy - including development assistance.
Maybe Peter Dunne could start pressuring for some new thinking on Taiwan here (once the China FTA is signed).
WTO Agriculture Talks Moving Too Slowly
So says Chair of the WTO Agriculture negotiations, New Zealand's own Crawford Falconer. Unless the pace picks up it looks as though there will be no point calling Ministers together in March/April as was suggested after the Trade Minister's gathering in Davos (New Zealand Trade Minister Goff did not attend).
Heads of Mission Abroad And A Political Public Service
Kiwiblog and the editorial in the Dominion Post today like what Whale Oil did a week or so ago in trying to auction off the Honorary Consulship in Monaco on Trademe. Poneke takes a more serious look at the Cook Islands and the exposure of yet another Winston Peters untruth - about the Cook Islands Maori proficiency of new High Commissioner Brian Donnelly.
Together these articles highlight the most politicised area of a far too politicised public service and SOE system.
Also relevant this week has been National's call for involvement in the selection of the next SSC boss.
Lets comment on these issues in turn starting with the SSC Commissioner.
This position is going to be key to re-establishing a non-political public service. It is essential that whoever is appointed to replace Prebble has the confidence of Labour, National and the general public. If Labour can't bring itself to consult, then an interim appointment should be made. Either someone in an acting capacity, or else someone on a short term contract.
The SSC job is not the only position where it is essential that the appointee has the confidence of the major parties and the public. Heads of Mission abroad fall into that category in our view. These people are the face of New Zealand. It is essential that we have the best people possible in these position. We don't think the current system delivers this, and we don't think that the ways in which these people are appointed are much better than that suggested by Whale Oil, Kiwiblog or the DomPost. You either have the MFAT CEO deciding, sometimes in consultation with his Senior Management Group, and sometimes the PM of Foreign Minister decide to put their own person in the job. Donnelly is the most recent example.
The Whale Oil concept is not really that new. Essentially it is the system that operates in the US. Rich people get rewarded for big donations to the winning Presidential candidate. We don't really want that here do we?
Likewise do we really want the choice of Heads of Mission to be left in the hands of the CEO of one institution? Are the best people always working in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? And indeed are we confident that the best qualified people in that Ministry the people who are getting Head of Mission jobs?
We favour a new system. Start by identifying all possible talent, including, but not exclusive to MFAT. The end result would be a wide pool of possibilities similar to that available to CCMAU. A short list is put together, candidates interviewed, then a recommendation put to the Foreign Minister (or Trade Minister for posts like Brussels and Geneva). That Minister would then get agreement from the Opposition. And after a name is selected, the candidate would need to be confirmed by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in Parliament. In a process open to the public and media, the candidate would have to demonstrate that they are well qualified for the job.
This system would be more cumbersome than our current system, but if we want to restore faith in some key institutions, such as overseas heads of mission, it is the way to go. It is also in keeping with the bi-partisan approach favoured by both labour and national when it comes to foreign and trade policy. The China free trade agreement is only possible because National is being responsible and is prepared to support a policy that would otherwise possibly be voted down, as Green and NZ First appear opposed (United also might be tempted to say no). WTO policy and policy towards the US seem areas of absolute symmetry between Labour and National.
Now we don't expect immediate change to our preferred system, but why not start simple. HOM jobs are going to be coming up soon in Beijing in Geneva. Why doesn't Goff consult Groser on who gets the job in Geneva? Likewise why doesn't Peters consult McCully on Beijing? And why not arrange for these appointees to appear before the select committee? Is this too much to ask?
Together these articles highlight the most politicised area of a far too politicised public service and SOE system.
Also relevant this week has been National's call for involvement in the selection of the next SSC boss.
Lets comment on these issues in turn starting with the SSC Commissioner.
This position is going to be key to re-establishing a non-political public service. It is essential that whoever is appointed to replace Prebble has the confidence of Labour, National and the general public. If Labour can't bring itself to consult, then an interim appointment should be made. Either someone in an acting capacity, or else someone on a short term contract.
The SSC job is not the only position where it is essential that the appointee has the confidence of the major parties and the public. Heads of Mission abroad fall into that category in our view. These people are the face of New Zealand. It is essential that we have the best people possible in these position. We don't think the current system delivers this, and we don't think that the ways in which these people are appointed are much better than that suggested by Whale Oil, Kiwiblog or the DomPost. You either have the MFAT CEO deciding, sometimes in consultation with his Senior Management Group, and sometimes the PM of Foreign Minister decide to put their own person in the job. Donnelly is the most recent example.
The Whale Oil concept is not really that new. Essentially it is the system that operates in the US. Rich people get rewarded for big donations to the winning Presidential candidate. We don't really want that here do we?
Likewise do we really want the choice of Heads of Mission to be left in the hands of the CEO of one institution? Are the best people always working in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? And indeed are we confident that the best qualified people in that Ministry the people who are getting Head of Mission jobs?
We favour a new system. Start by identifying all possible talent, including, but not exclusive to MFAT. The end result would be a wide pool of possibilities similar to that available to CCMAU. A short list is put together, candidates interviewed, then a recommendation put to the Foreign Minister (or Trade Minister for posts like Brussels and Geneva). That Minister would then get agreement from the Opposition. And after a name is selected, the candidate would need to be confirmed by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in Parliament. In a process open to the public and media, the candidate would have to demonstrate that they are well qualified for the job.
This system would be more cumbersome than our current system, but if we want to restore faith in some key institutions, such as overseas heads of mission, it is the way to go. It is also in keeping with the bi-partisan approach favoured by both labour and national when it comes to foreign and trade policy. The China free trade agreement is only possible because National is being responsible and is prepared to support a policy that would otherwise possibly be voted down, as Green and NZ First appear opposed (United also might be tempted to say no). WTO policy and policy towards the US seem areas of absolute symmetry between Labour and National.
Now we don't expect immediate change to our preferred system, but why not start simple. HOM jobs are going to be coming up soon in Beijing in Geneva. Why doesn't Goff consult Groser on who gets the job in Geneva? Likewise why doesn't Peters consult McCully on Beijing? And why not arrange for these appointees to appear before the select committee? Is this too much to ask?
Cullen
There is another excellent Fran O'Sullivan piece in today's NZ Herald. She has good advice for John Key on brain mouth coordination (a problem which we agree with. The Hive to Key - slow down. Imagine that you are talking to an audience of Americans or English as a second languagers. You are sometimes a bit hard to understand, and by slowing down you will have time to catch yourself if the wrong word begins to slip out).
But what is really interesting is her thesis that Key's greatest ally is Helen Clark (great line Fran!!). It is the Prime Minister's successive political misjudgments which have cost Clark her position as New Zealand's "most preferred prime minister" and sent Labour's own ratings into a death spiral.
Interestingly given our own analysis in recent days Fran points the finger of blame at Mike Williams and Heather Simpson also.
It was Clark's inner circle, particularly her chief of staff Heather Simpson, who combined with the party central to plunder some $800,000 of taxpayers' funds to help Labour win in 2005. Labour was ultimately forced to pay the funds back after a damning auditor-general's report. The party has been on the back foot ever since.
But Clark didn't learn. Her kitchen cabinet then put up the hapless former minister Mark Burton to introduce the obnoxious Electoral Finance Act which the Herald rightly labels "an assault on democracy". It was another politically inept step which will continue to dog Labour right through this election year.
Last week's surreal run of events illustrated just how far she has become detached from the bedrock common sense which characterised her earlier years as prime minister.
Given the above is a leadership change really unthinkable?
It has become a truism in the Wellington beltway that Labour will never roll the woman who has successfully won them three elections. But the Cabinet Ministers who were ruthlessly dispatched by Clark for minor misdeeds and the backbenchers who face the prospect of losing their jobs following an election defeat will make their own calculations.
She then reminds us about the role Cullen played in 1996
In 1996, Michael Cullen - now deputy to Clark - led a deputation asking her to stand down to ensure an orderly leadership transition. Clark refused and went on to triumph in 1999. But that was then and this is now. If Clark's miscalculations continue the odds that she will face a second deputation will increase.
She then looks at Cullen as the potential replacement - instead of Goff
But if Cullen, with his superior management skills, took on a caretaker role the electoral focus would sharpen.
He is the politician Clark sends in to handle the tough jobs when inferior ministers fail. He has defused the foreshore and seabed issue and is now backstopping David Parker whose pig-headedness on climate change issues is paving the way for a major dust-up with New Zealand business.
Importantly, Cullen has Key's measure. This was evident in Parliament where Key sat like a stunned mullet when Cullen took him to task over a newspaper report that quoted the National leader saying "we would love to see wages drop" during a conversation he held in Northland about the gaping wage differences between New Zealand and Australia.
The Hive's view is that Labour will show much more effective political management under a Cullen leadership than a Clark leadership. And while Key is showing the signs of being able to out campaign Clark, we can't say the same about Cullen. Indeed, we suspect that there are many in National who would lose sleep over a successful Cullen leadership bid. We don't think that a Cullen led Labour Party will allow Labour to pull back all their losses but they could get close enough to form a coalition. And in this context we note the far superior relations that Cullen has built up with iwi to those of the Prime Minister. These could just be enough to swing the Maori Party back in Labour's direction.
Watch this space.
But what is really interesting is her thesis that Key's greatest ally is Helen Clark (great line Fran!!). It is the Prime Minister's successive political misjudgments which have cost Clark her position as New Zealand's "most preferred prime minister" and sent Labour's own ratings into a death spiral.
Interestingly given our own analysis in recent days Fran points the finger of blame at Mike Williams and Heather Simpson also.
It was Clark's inner circle, particularly her chief of staff Heather Simpson, who combined with the party central to plunder some $800,000 of taxpayers' funds to help Labour win in 2005. Labour was ultimately forced to pay the funds back after a damning auditor-general's report. The party has been on the back foot ever since.
But Clark didn't learn. Her kitchen cabinet then put up the hapless former minister Mark Burton to introduce the obnoxious Electoral Finance Act which the Herald rightly labels "an assault on democracy". It was another politically inept step which will continue to dog Labour right through this election year.
Last week's surreal run of events illustrated just how far she has become detached from the bedrock common sense which characterised her earlier years as prime minister.
Given the above is a leadership change really unthinkable?
It has become a truism in the Wellington beltway that Labour will never roll the woman who has successfully won them three elections. But the Cabinet Ministers who were ruthlessly dispatched by Clark for minor misdeeds and the backbenchers who face the prospect of losing their jobs following an election defeat will make their own calculations.
She then reminds us about the role Cullen played in 1996
In 1996, Michael Cullen - now deputy to Clark - led a deputation asking her to stand down to ensure an orderly leadership transition. Clark refused and went on to triumph in 1999. But that was then and this is now. If Clark's miscalculations continue the odds that she will face a second deputation will increase.
She then looks at Cullen as the potential replacement - instead of Goff
But if Cullen, with his superior management skills, took on a caretaker role the electoral focus would sharpen.
He is the politician Clark sends in to handle the tough jobs when inferior ministers fail. He has defused the foreshore and seabed issue and is now backstopping David Parker whose pig-headedness on climate change issues is paving the way for a major dust-up with New Zealand business.
Importantly, Cullen has Key's measure. This was evident in Parliament where Key sat like a stunned mullet when Cullen took him to task over a newspaper report that quoted the National leader saying "we would love to see wages drop" during a conversation he held in Northland about the gaping wage differences between New Zealand and Australia.
The Hive's view is that Labour will show much more effective political management under a Cullen leadership than a Clark leadership. And while Key is showing the signs of being able to out campaign Clark, we can't say the same about Cullen. Indeed, we suspect that there are many in National who would lose sleep over a successful Cullen leadership bid. We don't think that a Cullen led Labour Party will allow Labour to pull back all their losses but they could get close enough to form a coalition. And in this context we note the far superior relations that Cullen has built up with iwi to those of the Prime Minister. These could just be enough to swing the Maori Party back in Labour's direction.
Watch this space.
Goff
Audrey Young has a look at the Labour Leadership in today's NZ Herald. According to her analysis there seems little doubt that Goff's the man for next time around (the only competition identified is King - who Young says would put love before the top job). The article is perhaps most interesting because of what is says about the next generation of Labour leaders.
AND THE NEXT GENERATION...
SHANE JONES The perfect candidate on paper, expert in Maoritanga and Harvard-educated, but the first-termer is not experienced enough and not steeped in party culture.
DAVID CUNLIFFE Has won over the public for his strong leadership in health but has still not won over his caucus, who have as little regard for him as they do for his ego. Could be deputy material.
CLAYTON COSGROVE The Mike Moore acolyte has won respect from the Left of the party for his ability to put differences aside - but not that much respect.
DARREN HUGHES Clever, witty and able but needs another six years under his belt to shake off the kid-brother image and show his serious side.
MARYAN STREET A classic modern Labour MP - policy-driven feminist with a strong human rights bent - not as scary as she sounds. Could be an a contender for deputy to Goff.
DAVID PARKER Bright, methodical, a details man but has too much of an academic approach to the job.
ANDREW LITTLE Ruled himself out of Parliament next term but could do a Bob Hawke after 2011 if other leadership combinations have failed.
For the record Little has not ruled himself out of Parliament next term. He just isn't going to stand in 2008. If you are including Darren Hughes, you should at the very least be including Grant Roberston - as good a track record outside Parliament as Cunliffe, stronger political credentials, and much better liked by colleagues.
AND THE NEXT GENERATION...
SHANE JONES The perfect candidate on paper, expert in Maoritanga and Harvard-educated, but the first-termer is not experienced enough and not steeped in party culture.
DAVID CUNLIFFE Has won over the public for his strong leadership in health but has still not won over his caucus, who have as little regard for him as they do for his ego. Could be deputy material.
CLAYTON COSGROVE The Mike Moore acolyte has won respect from the Left of the party for his ability to put differences aside - but not that much respect.
DARREN HUGHES Clever, witty and able but needs another six years under his belt to shake off the kid-brother image and show his serious side.
MARYAN STREET A classic modern Labour MP - policy-driven feminist with a strong human rights bent - not as scary as she sounds. Could be an a contender for deputy to Goff.
DAVID PARKER Bright, methodical, a details man but has too much of an academic approach to the job.
ANDREW LITTLE Ruled himself out of Parliament next term but could do a Bob Hawke after 2011 if other leadership combinations have failed.
For the record Little has not ruled himself out of Parliament next term. He just isn't going to stand in 2008. If you are including Darren Hughes, you should at the very least be including Grant Roberston - as good a track record outside Parliament as Cunliffe, stronger political credentials, and much better liked by colleagues.
Cunliffe
David Cunliffe is the focus of much attention in today's larger papers - two political opinions and at least one editorial are devoted to his actions.
The Herald's John Armstrong is reasonably sympathetic. He sees Cunliffe as emerging - if everything goes right - as a Labour Finance Minister and Deputy Leader of the future (Deputy to Goff - two straight pakeha men from Auckland leading the modern Labour Party???). The risk is that he might have caused rural New Zealand to vote against Labour in their Party vote.
The Herald Editorial is less sympathetic "it is the sound of a minister too self-important for our confidence."
We can't find a link to Colin Espiner's interview with Cunliffe in the Dominion Post. He sees this as being about Cunliffe's leadership ambitions. "Its early days, but perhaps Phil Goff isn't the only one in the Labour caucus with leadership ambitions."
The Herald's John Armstrong is reasonably sympathetic. He sees Cunliffe as emerging - if everything goes right - as a Labour Finance Minister and Deputy Leader of the future (Deputy to Goff - two straight pakeha men from Auckland leading the modern Labour Party???). The risk is that he might have caused rural New Zealand to vote against Labour in their Party vote.
The Herald Editorial is less sympathetic "it is the sound of a minister too self-important for our confidence."
We can't find a link to Colin Espiner's interview with Cunliffe in the Dominion Post. He sees this as being about Cunliffe's leadership ambitions. "Its early days, but perhaps Phil Goff isn't the only one in the Labour caucus with leadership ambitions."
Fran Takes Winston On
In today's NZ Herald Fran O'Sullivan looks at a number of the comments made by NZ First leader Winston Peters since his return to the country. She finds three areas - the Honorary Consulship, staying within the electoral laws, and accepting donations from big business where Winston may not have been exactly upfront with the NZ public.
It is great to see the media taking up Winston's challenge.
It is great to see the media taking up Winston's challenge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)