"Corruption": Brash and National's cred hits rock bottom

Ever since Don Brash lied about knowing of the involvement of the Exclusive Brethren in National's campaign in 2005, I have had no regard for the man's honesty or integrity. Dr Brash has a growing penchant for cheap stunts in his ever-more-forlorn attempts to paint himself as a relevant political figure.

The plank-walking photo-op recently was a good example.

Now we have the bizarre stuff going on with Brash's accusations of the Labour-led government being THE most corrupt in New Zealand history.

Coming from this man it's remarkable. The Labour Party used leaders office funds to pay for a policy announcement, through a pledge card, as it did in 2002 and 1999. Parliamentary Service signs off such spending; approval is routinely sought before things are published, otherwise PS might not pay the bill.

Now the AG is trying to come up with the idea that this case, in 2005, may have been against the rules. If that is the case, then the AG's fight is going to be with the agency that approved the pledge card... you guessed it, Parliamentary Service.

Every single party has used the funds for the same purpose. ACT's yellow bus (the only policy was a slogan, from memory). Green Party newsletters. NZ First advertising. United Future advertising. National Party billboards in 2002. In other words, we are talking about a common practice. Each party does it because each party has believed it to be inside the rules, and Parliamentary Service again and again has said that that was the case.

To turn that into an accusation of corruption, and then to go up into the hyperbole to say that it implies that the government is the most corrupt in New Zealand history, is simply breath-taking.

It makes Brash look stupid. It's like saying that because Brash talked to the Brethren, he actually wanted to turn New Zealand into a theocracy with the EB as the Supreme Overlords of the Nation.

That sounds stupid, doesn't it? Yes, it does. As stupid as using the term 'corruption' for something every party, including his own, has done, does now, and will do in the future.

In any case, if Brash wants to talk about corruption, we could ask about the over-spend on advertising made through a GST "error".

We could ask why National (Brash himself), which liaised closely with the Exclusive Brethren in their campaign to support National's election prospects, denied doing so.

We could ask why National "forgot" to attribute the Brethren spending, when Labour did include the unions' campaigns in its attributable total (thus hitting the limit, when the pledge card was forced to be included).

We could ask why National hides its major sources of funding (apart from the Exclusive Brethren, that is) behind blind trusts.

The odd thing of course is that those aren't corruption. Nobody in their right mind would think that they were. Just like Labour's pledge card isn't corruption. Nobody in their right mind could possibly think that it was. In all cases the rules were being followed - arguable in the case of not attributing the Brethren spend, but let's go with that for now.

As I've said a couple of times what the massive confusion here - not least in Don Brash's mind - proves beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the law around party campaigning and public funding needs to be reformed. If there is confusion about what PS is allowed to fund (and there is, from all parties, based on what is floating around) then it should be made clear.

I would like to see a package that lead to:

• Clear rules about any PS funding (e.g. no spending after Writ Day - thanks Graeme E for this useful date).
• Public funding of parties for campaigns, so that democracy is based on a fair and even fight, not on whose supporters have the biggest pocket.
• Clear rules on disclosure for non-party campaigners in the run-up to an election (no more Multi-Million dollar campaigns like the Exclusive Brethren's one for National in 2005).
• Clear limits on donations to political parties, so they cannot be anonymous, cannot be hidden behind trusts etc, and cannot be enormous.

If the National Party is serious, it will stop calling following the rules "corruption" and it will back a plan like this. Until it does, it is simply proving every second of every day that it is simply interested in political gain, not in dealing with the issues to hand.

Oh, and a final note - if you ever needed evidence that Brash is stuffed, you've got it. He has posted on Kiwiblog to say that the current govt is "the most corrupt in 100 years." Any party leader who has time to go trawling around the blogs is, frankly, impossible to take seriously. Even Bill English doing that boxing match is more credible than this...

Comments

[Billy]

Jordan, in the immortal words of the Sex Pistols, ever feel like you've been swindled? Did you notice that "Helen Clark" has also posted in DPF's website. PS, my name's not really Billy.

[Russell Brown]

"We could ask why National "forgot" to attribute the Brethren spending, when Labour did include the unions' campaigns in its attributable total (thus hitting the limit, when the pledge card was forced to be included)."

I didn't realise that. How much did the union campaigns amount to in the Labour declaration? And was that only a part of the whole union spend, or the total of it?

Cheers,
RB

[tim barclay]

Helping yourself to $400,000 of tax payers' money not only in breach of an appropriation but also driving and coach and six through election spending rules is pretty corrupt to me. The tolerance of Philip Field is pretty corrupt to me. The most corrupt on 100 years I am not so sure. Muldoon gets my vote for the corrupt abuse of power especially in the immediate 1994 post election period when he should have devalued. But Moore- Clark- Caygill were pretty bad over the sneaky way the handled the BNZ crisis in 1990, that was deceit pure and simple.

[Aaron Bhatnagar]

Spare us your handwringing and angst Jordan. Had Helen Clark communicated on someone elses blog, I'm sure you would be fulsomely praising her accessibility to the public and her high standards of accountability, her hip and trendy acknowledgement that blogs were viable communications tools for politicians and whatever else you felt was necessary to stay in her good books.

[Billy]

Are we going to simply ignore Taito Philip Field, or is that not corruption, an "isolated" incident of corruption or...what?

[Cardinal Walsingham]

Jordan, hate to break this to you, but there's no way that was the real Don Brash on DPF's blog.

As for the corruption charge, it's a little more wide-ranging than JUST the funding issue (which you're curiously defensive about). There's also the steady trail of assorted prima facie cases, the disgraceful TPF affair (which not even you could bring yourself to defend), DBP...the list isn't a short one.

[neil morrison]

"It's like saying that because Brash talked to the Brethren, he actually wanted to turn New Zealand into a theocracy with the EB as the Supreme Overlords of the Nation.

"That sounds stupid, doesn't it? Yes, it does."

Yes indeed it does, so why did you spend so much time making this implication?

If you want theh rhetoric to be toned down, and I agree that Brash has been OTT, then it works both ways.

[Craig Ranapia]

OK, Jordan. It's really becoming a wee bit desperate seeing how how "confused" everyone else is - the Auditor-General, the former Solicitor-General who was appointed a Judge of the High Court and Court of Appeals less than three months ago, the head of the Electoral Commission, the Chief Electoral Officer. Either we have some very senior civil servants who are grossly imconpetent and should be put out on 'gardening leave' immediately, or someone is spinning far too hard.

By the way, if Labour is 'serious' about campaign finance reform I look forward to a bill being rushed to the top of the order paper at least as quickly as the bill that retrospectively rewrote the Electoral Act to save Harry Duynhoeven's arse. That one was drafted in a week, and passed in three days under extreme urgency.

[GeniusNZ]

Jordan,
1) your defence sounds a bit desperate better to just keep your head down
2) everyone else did it is not a defence particulatly when you are by far the worst offender
3) someone else is bad is also not a defence (the bretheren comment)
4) Any politician who doesn't occasionally read blogs is at risk of being out of touch. Commenting on them on the other hand might be unwise - best to filter all comments via the appropriate spin doctor so the public never hears what you really think.

[sagenz]

819 words posted on corruption and the word Field is not found. stop spinning and get real. Dr Brash did not level the corruption charge over the spending alone. It was levelled over clarks corrupt use of public office to avoid repayment of public funds and corrupt use of public office to avoid investigation of a corrupt MP. That is the issue. Look to No Right Turn & Span for some integrity on this issue and have a look at your own values. Do you really want to support a party that behaves in such a manner.

[Jim D]

Just admit it Jordan - this Labour/NZ First government is corrupt.

[David Farrar]

Jordan overlooks that Labour were warned by the CEO that their pledge card was clearly election advertising, and ignored that advice. And got it before the election.

He also overlooks that the closer to an election the more likely it is such material will be seen as election advertising. Pledge cards three weeks before an election were obviously election advertising and every electoral and legal authority to date has found them so.

Jordan also ignores the Field issue, probably because I suspect it is indefensible. We can all imagine the howls of outrage from Labour if a National MP had done the same.

Spending the money on the pledge card is not corruption. Refusing to pay it back when ordered to do so is!

Russell - Jordan is only telling some of the truth with union expenditure. The unions actively worked with Labour on their material, and had it approved by Labour. Hence Mike Smith included *some* of their expenses in his return. He didn't include all of them and the Electoral Office referred several of the ones not included to the Police.

[Graeme Edgeler]

I think it needs to be remembered that this is not the first time that that Auditor-General has complained about (mis)use of this Parliamentary appropriation.

Now, as I understand it, the appropriation is voted to The Parliamentary Service, and may not be used for:

"Producing or distributing promotional or electioneering material by mail or other means of communication for the purpose of supporting the election of any person or the casting of a party vote for any political party."
[source NZHerald]

Are you seriously suggesting that no MP in the past or present thinks that this would other preclude spending on things like the pledge card?

Now, I understand that Parliamentary Services had approved various of these expenses (like the pledge card), but even if that is the case I cannot believe that those responsible for things like the pledge card thought that the clear words of rules allowed it. The Solicitor-General, and the Auditor-General do not seem to have had that great a difficulty in determining that things like the pledge card were not allowed. That Parliamentary Services had suggested it was okay is largely irrelevant when Labour, National, and everyone else KNEW/KNOW that this Parliamentary Appropriation cannot be used for electioneering.

[tomS]

There is a bright side to all this. With Taito and election spending to get all lathered up about, the "I want to believe" brigade from the right is no spending their every moment discussing the conspiracy that is Doonegate.

[tim barclay]

Doongate gave Clark enormous leverage over the Police when she sacked a Police Commissioner. She was then free to run a dodgy Government as has done so. Has there ever been a Government that has had so many brushes with the criminal law but got let off time and time again so lightly. Now that is corrupt.

[peter mck]

i do not think it is unreasonable tosay that corruption has become a legacy of this labour government. Instances of corruption started as soon as Clark came into Government and has continued right up until today.

the first was the Doongate affair - and there has been a regular stream of inappropriate actions (ie corruption by a different name) from Labour and their MPs ever since.

Like the spinning top, Labour is losing its momentum and is very wobbly, but definitely falling over and in its death throws.

like fish and chips, salt and pepper, the words "corruption and labour" just seem to go together so well.

[Michael]

I'm against public funding of political parties and caps on donations - if you can't get financial support for your policies then you have no real support. (One thing that makes people really think about what they believe is making them something tangible to support it.) It's a limit on my freedom to support (and not to support) what I believe in.

And Anonymous donations should still be allowed - the less politicians know about where their donations are coming from the better.

[Tony Milne]

David (and Russell) - All union spend that encouraged a vote for Labour was included in Labour's election spend. But not all union spend, because some unions spent money encouraging support for a particular policy rather than supporting a party or parties. Like the Sensible Sentencing Trust's spending money advertising a series of right-wing policies, but not encouraging a vote for a particular party (unlike the Brethren spending).

Of course Jordan's suggestion "Clear rules on disclosure for non-party campaigners in the run-up to an election (no more Multi-Million dollar campaigns like the Exclusive Brethren's one for National in 2005)" will clear this issue up once and for all, but will your Party support it David? How many of Jordan's 4 points would your party support in the interest of electoral transparency and fairness?

[Mark]

So Jordon

When is Helen going to sue Don for what he said.

I would of thought there was no truth to what he said the lawyers would be already called in.

[Russell Brown]

I don't approve at all of what Labour did. It seems clear enough that the party got a warning and did it anyway. But I don't think the other side's moral high ground is all that convincing either. The Brethren campaign was a campaign for National (indeed, that's how it was initially proposed) in all but name.

Maxim's deliberately misleading don't-vote-for-small parties MMP "education" campaign was also in effect (and, I am quite sure, intent) a vote-National campaign. The EB leaflets even looked like National's branding, and church resources went into their distribution and the simultaneous distribution of National's own material and erection of National billboards - it was all the same campaign. And it was a campaign whose promoters repeatedly lied about it.

Is Labour more guilty? I think so. Is National lillywhite? Hardly.

Cheers,
RB

[Peter Cresswell]

As Bernard Darnton says, the money appropriated for the Prime Minster's Office is for the running of the office, not to run for that office.

And that's exactly what the Electoral Commisssion told Mike Williams before the election, so the Labour Party could be in no doubt before the election how the Pledge Card spending would be viewed: they'd already been told.

Their chosen way out? To lie.

Jordan's chosen way out? To spin.

To then be lectured on honesty by Labour's Jordan surely exceeds anybody's irony quota for one day.

In any case, the fact that no party is lilywhite -- no parliamentary party that is -- is not an excuse, it's an indictment of all of them.

I look forward to seeing Helen Clark meeting Bernard Darnton in court in an action that does send a message to all of them that misappropriating public money is not only not on, it's illegal.

Perhaps you could tell us, Jordan, when you would expect Helen's lawyers to file their defence in that action, if indeed they have one?

[David Farrar]

Tony - sadly National don't yet allow me to announce policy on their behalf, but for my personal view on the 4 proposals:

* Clear rules about any PS funding (e.g. no spending after Writ Day - thanks Graeme E for this useful date).

I support a clear ban on basically any taxpayer funded publications from around 90 days out. But this has to be done by ensuring all people when 90 days out is so the PM does not have a huge tactical advantage. So I'd want a 60 or 90 day notice period of an election date.

* Public funding of parties for campaigns, so that democracy is based on a fair and even fight, not on whose supporters have the biggest pocket.

Nonsense. Theft spun as fairness. Public funding protects the incumbent parties and devalues membership of them. Jordan thinks it is about whose supporters are richest (Owen Glenn surely is) but it is more about who has more supporters. You should get rewarded for having more supporters.

* Clear rules on disclosure for non-party campaigners in the run-up to an election (no more Multi-Million dollar campaigns like the Exclusive Brethren's one for National in 2005).

Again this is spin. Be specific. I am personally happy to have a cap on third party campaigns but I note Labour only want this because for the rist time more third party campaigns have been against them than for them. But this is a very hard area to legislate without restricting free speech. If you set a $100,000 limit, then the CTU could get around that by having each member union spend $90,000 and the total spend is say $600,000 or so. A law full of loopholes may be worse than no law.

* Clear limits on donations to political parties, so they cannot be anonymous, cannot be hidden behind trusts etc, and cannot be enormous.

Ha this is hilarious. Labour got the biggest donation of all - $500,000 from a foreign billionairre and Jordan calls for a size limit on donations. Better check that one with Mike Williams. As for getting rid of anonymous donations, well Labour could have amended the law to do that anytime in the last six years. They have chosen not to do so.

[Jim D]

"Oh, and a final note - if you ever needed evidence that Brash is stuffed, you've got it. He has posted on Kiwiblog to say that the current govt is "the most corrupt in 100 years." Any party leader who has time to go trawling around the blogs is, frankly, impossible to take seriously. Even Bill English doing that boxing match is more credible than this..."

Isn't that terrible Jordon! Obviously he isn't fit to be Prime Minister! What if he started chatting to kids on the internet? http://www.headsup.co.nz/chat/chat_list.php

"live chat with Helen Clark

6:30pm, 6 December 04
Get your questions answered by the Prime Minister, live and online"

[Jordan]

Ever so predictable.

In terms of the spending, nothing wrong was done. I will never accept that promoting policy by using funds appropriated for that purpose and approved by the relevant agency could be anything other than legitimate.

As for the rest, the usual dross runs riot, I see. Carry on whining about it, folks - the public are rather bored.

[Peter Cresswell]

"I will never accept that promoting policy by using funds appropriated for that purpose and approved by the relevant agency could be anything other than legitimate."

They were not "appropriated for that purpose", Jordan. That's a lie. They were apropriated to RUN the PM's office, not to run FOR that office.

The Electoral COmmission confirmed to Mike Williams that the the Pledge Card was being used to run for office -- and that is NOT what the money was appropriated for.

This isn't a debate point. That's how things happened. You might consider misappropriation of taxpayers' money "dross" and "boring," but that only helps to further prove the point being made about how power corrupts, wouldn't you say? You're clearly not immune yourself.

[tim barclay]

Taking taxpayers money and spending it illegally is no small matter Jordan. But your attitude is an indication of what the Labour Party thinks of tax payers money. You think it belongs to the Labour Party

[Chris]

"Ever so predictable."

What, you mean arguments that tear you apart to which you have no answer? Yeah, seems like a normal day's work at JustLeft....

"As for the rest, the usual dross runs riot, I see. Carry on whining about it, folks - the public are rather bored."

Yep, we're all idiots really aren't we. Scum. Dross. We can't see the magnificence of Clark and her comrades....

Pathetic.

[sagenz]

your normal glib apologist on the on the left does not seem to think nothing is wrong Jordan. RB - "Is Labour more guilty? I think so. Is National lillywhite? Hardly." Everybody except you and the labour caucus think something is wrong. even Tony Milne has stuck to irrelevant semantics. apparently union support for labour policies is not election spending but eb money attacking green policy is. Go figure.

Chris is right though. the usual dross you spin is running riot. Think about integrity and what it means on your flight.

[Russell Brown]

They were not "appropriated for that purpose", Jordan. That's a lie. They were apropriated to RUN the PM's office, not to run FOR that office.

And also to promote policy, which is what every party does with it. And sometimes the policy promotion looks a lot like electioneering. Which is why I find the idea that campaigning less than 90 days out *is* electioneering, and anything before that magically isn't, a little bit ropey. I'd be happy with stricter regulation on the use of the money at any time.

Cheers,
RB

[Russell Brown]

Goddamn. I keep forgetting the no-HTML thing here. Just to be clear, the first par in the post above is q quote frpm PC, not me.

Cheers.
RB

[Ross Browne]

Jordon perhaps you could explain why Labour thinks that Joel George's opinion (non-accountant, non-lawyer) is authoritative, but the opinion of the Electoral Commission, including two judges, and the Office of the Auditor General isn't authoritative?

[sagenz]

It was funny for a minute though Russell. My jaw dropped when I read you calling Jordan a liar :)

[Robert Atack]

LETTER TO RT HON DAVID PARKER
by Dr John K Monro, 12 July 2006

Rt Hon David Parker,
Minister of Energy,
Parliament Buildings,
Wellington.

Dear Mr Parker,

I have communicated with you in the past on energy matters, and what I consider are the manifold and continued policy failures of your government in regard to energy issues, including global warming and oil depletion.

I have remained entirely unconvinced in the last few years by protestations from Pete Hodgson in reply to my criticisms about your department’s predictions in regard to oil price, and his claim that the likely peaking of oil would not be until 2030 or later. I found it highly amusing for instance that Pete Hodgson was telling me two years ago that oil would be priced about $20 per barrel until 2030, when we, and presumably he, were already pumping petrol into our cars with oil at $45 per barrel. Later he had the grace to admit that oil prices would indeed increase, to $35 per barrel, when the price was over $60!! The absurdity of this unreality in regard to your department’s oil price predictions still has to percolate through your collective consciousness.

I am reminded of this background to my concerns when I read a copy of your letter to Peter Lloyd of the 14th June, as later published in the oilcrash internet site [see David Parker - no different than the other Ministers of Energy]. It is obvious from your reply that you and your department are still basing your energy policies on our unrestricted access to oil to 2030, or even later according the USGS. Even Saudi Arabian oil ministers state the USGS estimates are “dangerously optimistic”. The USGS statistical method of oil production predictions has been thoroughly debunked by Colin Campbell. It is no wonder in this case that your energy policies are so bereft of vision, for instance that your government thinks that vast new spending on roads is going to solve our transport issues.

What I cannot understand is, knowing how completely and utterly wrong your department’s prognostications in regard to oil pricing has been over the last few years, that this hasn’t at least caused some pause for reflection as to why this might be. As I write this, oil is now $73 a barrel, and every time I have written over the last few years, the price has been substantially higher than it was the previous time I wrote. Is there absolutely no-one in your department who might harbour the slightest doubt about the prognostications of “peak oil” after 2030? How can you even begin to suggest that a product that was selling for about $10 per barrel just five years ago, now costing nearly $75, is the result of “fluctuations in price”? Some fluctuation, some price. Of course there are “fluctuations”, no-one who is concerned about our proximity to peak oil is suggesting there won’t be fluctuations, in fact wild swings of prices are precisely what Colin Campbell expects at the time approaching peak oil, but the simple fact is that the steady and relentless increase in oil prices continues, and this is the basic and underlying problem, not the fluctuations, which are short lived and unimportant. It seems that your department has yet to recognise this. I find this fact truly alarming.

Mr Parker, have you actually taken some time out to examine the question of “peak oil” and oil depletion yourself? Check out Colin Campbell’s site . Colin Campbell has been a whistle-blower to the oil industry and has been warning about the peaking of oil for many years, long before I took an interest in it. Just like I judge the value of a patient’s treatment by its proven efficacy, I judge Colin Campbell’s predictions by their accuracy — and they have been accurate. Surely, Mr Parker, if he’d been out in his predictions by the thirty or so years that you and your department suggest, how could this be? The proof of Colin Campbell’s “predictions” is that many of them are now history and have been found to be true. Another well known expert opinion has been Matt Simmons, investment banker and energy analyst, who wrote the important book “Twilight in the Desert”, and who is especially critical of oil figures supplied by Saudi Arabia. These just don’t add up, according to Mr. Simmons. And who should we trust, an oil analyst of vast experience, who has made his millions out of the industry, or some Saudi Arabian prince, one of the 15,000 princes all dependent on the mirage of Saudi Arabia’s inexhaustible reserves, and who face revolution if the truth really came out? Kenneth Deffeyes, oil geologist and professor at Princeton University, has suggested we may already have passed peak oil production.

Just today, former National Iranian Oil Company executive, Dr Ali akhtari, has been reported as saying that the limit of global production has been reached. And, as he astutely points out, the economics of oil do not follow classical price vs. demand scenarios, the price of oil in the last four years has tripled, yet demand continues to increase, which in turn means that our future access to oil will be based on availability, not demand or price, in other words, rationing. There literally won’t be enough oil for everyone and, in the context of New Zealand, a pimple on the arse of the world, we might well be last in line.

You seem to be very keen to put your trust in the “experts” from the USGS and the IEA. But I am not so sure. For instance, you would think that at least a large oil company would be able to assess, very accurately, its own oil reserves, but you will know that just two years ago that Shell had to admit that it had overestimated its total reserves by 22%. BP’s reserves are hardly any more trustworthy, including as they do presently unextractable oil sands and shales. In regard to the IEA, in whom you place so much trust, you will know for instance that in late 2003 they were forecasting oil demand for 2004 at 79.6 million barrels per day, with a price of $24.25 p.b., the actual figures were 82.45 million barrels at an average price of $43.48. Additionally by the IEA’s own recent admission, they have now put forward a possible peak of production at 2013, fully twenty or more years ahead of figures that they were so resolutely defending just last year — the outstanding significance of this volte face seems to have escaped you. I put my trust in my own examination of the issue, not in your figures, or your department’s figures, or some oil prince, or some foreign politician with his oily hands in the till. The figures are, for the most part, eminently accessible. Why should I trust the USGS or IEA when, by your own admission, they use data only accessible to these agencies. Don’t you think for something so important, that these agencies should be able to share their calculations with the rest of us, and especially people like you, responsible for the energy policies that will affect four million citizens? I think that you should do the same exercise; quite simply, your advisors are wrong, very wrong, have been proven to be wrong in regard to oil prices for several successive years, and that within a very short space of time they will be proven to be wrong about “peak oil”. Don’t expect that to save your neck as energy minister when the brown sticky stuff, and I don’t mean oil, hits the fan.

Do you truly believe that a near seven-fold increase in oil prices over the last few years is due to “limits in refining capacity and geopolitical issues”? Think about it, is it even remotely likely that if the oil companies actually considered that we could increase oil production capacity to the 120 million barrels per day that we are projected to need by 2020 that they would not be investing in new refinery capacity to accommodate this? The reason they are not is that they know that such projections are meaningless, and that to be building new refineries would be an exercise in futility. There is no sense in any claim that lack of refinery capacity is causing the oil price to increase, in fact, if this were true, the oil price would fall as all exporting nations could not find markets for their oil, oil tankers would be piling up in ports, pipelines would be being taken out of service. In fact none of these things are happening, oil is being pumped out of the ground as fast as it can be, everywhere, and being refined. The most cursory consideration of this fact would make this lie of the “lack of refining capacity” obvious. And as for “geopolitical issues”, it absurd, quite absurd, to state this as a cause of increasing oil prices. They are a cause of some fluctuations of prices, yes, but that’s all. How can it be “geopolitical issues”? In what way, shape or form are they any different from all the other “geopolitical issues” that the world has always had?

The last part of your letter concerns the things that your government intends doing over the next few years. All worthy, all needed. But, may I point out that I have heard about all these plans, almost ad nauseam, over the last few years, from your energy minister predecessors. Your government has been in office for nearly seven years, and these policies, that should have been implemented years ago, including by the previous National administration, have yet to see full light of day or practical application. It is long past time that you should be trying to assuage our urgent concerns by appeals to your “strategies”, when are we going to see your actions? It is all too little, too late. In regard to oil depletion, as in global warming, your policies have been entirely inadequate — the recent budget gives the lie to your professed concerns, with its lack of investment in public transport as compared with the huge amount of money going on roads, the very antithesis of what is urgently required. It should now be patently obvious to anyone with a real understanding for what is happening in the world, and possessing a real vision for this country’s future for the next fifty to one hundred years, that your government’s response to “peak oil” and the related issue of global warming — tinkering around with the “business as usual” model, including the continued economic imperative of “growth at any cost”, high immigration and intensive energy usage — is now utterly useless as model for future progress. It will lead us down an energy and economic cul-de-sac from which, the further we progress down it, the harder it will be for us to reverse out of.

As James Howard Kunstler has said, what is particularly disappointing about our modern age, facing the problems we do — oil depletion, global warming, overpopulation, ecological damage — is the lack of quality of thinking in our leadership, business and the media, the very people who’s role it should be in society to provide that thinking.

The other day I was enjoying a glass of Montana wine, and I got to do some thinking myself (one’s thinking often does improve over a glass of New Zealand wine). In the last 20 or more years, the New Zealand wine industry has grown, from practically nothing, to a valuable trade for this country, providing some of the world’s best wines to the world’s most discriminating customers. Our wine exports of almost $500 million per year represents the collective endeavours and investments of thousands of individuals, working long hours, in all weathers, rising at the crack of dawn, and working to the last glimmer of day. Years of trial and error, failures and successes, hard work and painfully gained knowledge, are the underlying foundation and building blocks of this industry, in which this country rightly takes so much pride.

In the year to May 2006 our annual oil import bill rose $1.2 billion. In just five months we have blown every dollar that this country has earned from its wine exports, all that labour — every pruned vine, every picked grape, every corked bottle — gone to meet our reckless, incontinent and profligate use of oil. If I were a wine grower, thinking about this would want to make me spit the pips.

There is an urgency about oil depletion that is overwhelming, and your letter to Peter Lloyd makes it abundantly clear, that you, your energy advisors and the government, have yet to understand this. James Kunstler is right, you are not thinking. You are all guilty of a collective and willful naïvety of unprecedented proportions.

Yours sincerely,

Dr John K Monro

[peter mck]

Jordan - sometimes your obsessive hate for Dr Brash is quite laughable. I had to smirk at how pathetic you continued attacks on anything done and said by Brash is automatic scorn. Here on this post you note that Dr Brash should not have the time to go trawling thru blogs - but on the Stuff website this morning we read "A spokeswoman for Prime Minister Helen Clark – who has weekly slots on radio and TV – said she had also contributed to Internet discussion sites in the past, but not recently."

so can i take it from you applying the same level of consistency that Helen Klark is also stuffed as a leader.

or is this yet another example of different rules for labour and National. Pathetic.

[Chris]

Jordan, given this comment in the Dom Post this morning: "A spokeswoman for Prime Minister Helen Clark – who has weekly slots on radio and TV – said she had also contributed to Internet discussion sites in the past, but not recently." see: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3760764a6160,00.html

Will you revise your opinion that "Any party leader who has time to go trawling around the blogs is, frankly, impossible to take seriously."

If not, why not?

[Chris]

I really must read the last comment posted before writing mine...

But good work peter Mck!

[Tony Milne]

Russell Brown is the only one that has made the right point. Leaders office money can be used to promote policy.

Eg. In 2002 National ran a billboard campaign close to the election on a particular 'policy' but was more about promoting Bill English.

Labour did what it and every other party has always done. The Parliamentary Service guidlines, and why the pledge card was approved (as well as the Act, Green, NZ First, United Future and other advertising in the weeks before the election) was becuase the advertising/leaflets etc were not directly asking for money, votes or memberships. They were promoting a range of polices. Of course, everything a party produces is Electioneering *everything*, including National's tax payer funded website/s - like their 'Waste Watch' website (note the irony!).

If you are to take it to its logical conclusion, all leaders office funding should be paid pack. That is rediculous and why every party in Parliament is saying, hang on a minutes, these are not what we understood the rules to be. Including Rodney Hyde - who has pointed out to Natoinal that they might want to take a wider view about what the finding means.

What is needed are clear rules and guidlines. Electoral reform, and democracy funding. As an example, Jordan suggested from Writ day a freeze on Parliamentary funding altogether (apart from basic MP office running, usual flights etc).

[Spam]

Why all the fuss? Nothing that some more retrospective legislation can't fix.

[Peter Cresswell]

Tony Milne said: "...the pledge card was approved..."

- It was approved by Helen Clark.
- It was approved by Helen Simpson.
- It was approved by Mike Williams.

But here's who DID NOT approve that spending:

- Chief Electoral Officer
- Electoral Commission
- Secretary of Justice
- Auditor-General
- Solicitor-General

Tony says, "...these are not what we understood the rules to be..."

Nonsense. The Labour Party was told before the election by the Chief Electoral Officer that the spending would be included in their election spending. There was no confusion then, there is only lies and spin now.

[haha]

Russel says "Is Labour more guilty? I think so. Is National lillywhite? Hardly."

Well, pox on all of them really. Determinig guilt depends what you are judging, I suppose. I note is that the money spent be Labour on the election is clearly traceable, that is why we are even able to have this debate. It would not be if they were "corrupt".

Don Brash went an awful long way to hide the Ex B. contributions to his campaign, lying to the public and even his own deputies, and those hidden trusts are another example of subterfuge. He very nearly destroyed his and his party's credibility as a result.

I would rather be able to see sources of funds and make my own judgement on whether they should have been spent and what influence they may be buying. Brash and National are very keen to keep that information away from us.

[libertyscott]

What so much of this proves is how utterly filthy political partisans get when in power or close to it - they are evasive of the facts when if the shoe was on the other foot (National in power and the PM's office did the same thing), there is little doubt all of the Labour sycophants would be outraged about it - and rightfully so!

Had the pledge card come out 12 months before the (not yet announced) election, the stance Labour is taking may have some credibility - but to do it before the election, and to say "We are going to do this" is only not electioneering if you don't have an election.

This is for those who are independent to decide. Fundamentally I object to my taxes paying for parties to campaign for election - I'll fund who I want, and if the Labour Party can't persuade enough people to fund it (ha!) then tough.

[dave]

One day Jordan, I may come to read your blog - as I used to - because of the insights you have, not to have a laugh at the the bullshit abd spin you write.

I dont see that happening any day yet.

[Sam Vilain]

> * Public funding of parties for campaigns, so that democracy is based on a fair and even fight, not on whose supporters have the biggest pocket.
> Nonsense. Theft spun as fairness. Public funding protects the incumbent parties and devalues membership of them. Jordan thinks it is about whose supporters are richest (Owen Glenn surely is) but it is more about who has more supporters. You should get rewarded for having more supporters.

Especially rich supporters with deep pockets, right David?

[phillipjohn]

seriously, I don't know why the unions give Labour any money at all. Unio density has remains at the record low levels of the Nattional's Employment Contracts Act era. This conclusively debunks the idea that labour is a party in the pocket of unions. National on the other hand is clearly being played by the cadre of puppetmasters at the Business Round Table. Just look at some of these massive and mysterious trust fund donations. National recived 2 times the level of donations that labour did.

Donations recieved by National in 2005

The New Zealand National Party Russell McVeagh Trust Account P O Box 8, Auckland $50,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Sky City Management Ltd P O Box 6443, Wellesley, Auckland $60,000.00
The New Zealand National Party The Ruahine Trust P O Box 2244, Auckland $249,948.00
The New Zealand National Party The Waitemata Trust P O Box 2244, Auckland $1,254,845.00

Total: $1,881,793.00

[Troy]

Why don't you just pay the money back - just pay it back.

I've voted Labour in the past but you guys are starting to look more than a little sleazy.

$400k to protect your brand isn't that much. Okay you might get away and keep winning without paying it but you are going to be tarnished.

Labour knows what the right thing to do is - just pay it back.

[Aj]

The public in general care less than a toss about the pledge card issue.

What they care about is that Labour put out a pledge card and with honesty and integrity have followed those pledges. The contrast is with the corrupt and dishonest National governments of the 90's.

[Jordan]

Why on *earth* would Labour pay back money that was rightfully spent? The idea is so stupid it doesn't bear thinking about.

The frantic spin from the right seems to indicate that they've got no issues of substance to talk about. Any criminal justice policy on the way guys? How about economics? Hmmm?

[Jordan]

I didn't read this whole thread properly. Ross Browne specifically - on the simple basis that parties have ticked off PS spending with PS, not the AG or SG. So if they say the rules mean something other than what the Parliamentary Service thought they did, then Parliamentary Service must have been at fault, and Parliament has a choice about what to do. It could retroactively legitimise the spending based on what PS said was OK; it could fine all the parties all the PS money ever spent on promoting policy (which is what the funds are *for*; and I am sure there are many other options.

In terms of online engagement, I've seen Helen do chat things on a Labour Party website, but not wade into the blogosphere. Given how toxic this place is I can hardly blame her.

In terms of Don Brash - he's very credible on some issues and seems to be a perfectly personable guy, but he represents my enemy. He is fair game. I'm not Don Brash Fan Club territory and I will always be willing to attack him. If he makes a good point that I think is worth commenting on it, I'll do so. Frankly Peter you are guilty of the same thing. Never seen you with a kind word to say about any of our lot.

[sagenz]

Jordan you conveniently ignore 2 facts. The Chief Electoral Officer told Labour that the spending was electioneering and this was accepted by the Party Secretary. quoting PC
But here's who DID NOT approve that spending:

- Chief Electoral Officer
- Electoral Commission
- Secretary of Justice
- Auditor-General
- Solicitor-General

Parliamentary Services shares the blame. No question of that. They helped give inaccurate advice. The question that arises from that is who made the decision and how closely tied to Labour was that person. It is like arguing that Margaret Wilson is not biased because she is not the speaker. Laughable.

You should read Darnton v Clark. You guys are in trouble. I now understand why Labour are prepared to endure the ridicule that retrospective legislation would entail. You have no other choice. This is going to get a whole lot worse despite your spin

[rightkiwi]

"Parliamentary Service signs off such spending; approval is routinely sought before things are published, otherwise PS might not pay the bill." It seems that the spending was not signed off in advance by PS, who did not want to pay the bill till bullied by Heather Simpson (see Herald today). Do you want to retract this post now and admit that the "PS approved it" is BS?