I am beginning to think John Key’s attempt to turn statements that involve him into ‘personal attacks’ might be catching on. Check out this story, on the TVNZ website, but sourced to Newstalk ZB, that accuses Trevor Mallard of ‘lashing out’ at Cameron Bagrie over his loose with the truth report on public services. Now Trevor can be prone to be a bit of hyperbole from time to time, but since when did pointing out factual weaknesses in a report amount to ‘lashing out’?
Author Archive for Ralph Malcolm
That is the reported view of the secretary of the Sikh Council of New Zealand in response to some attention grabbing behaviour from National Manakau East candidate in the wake of the tragic shooting of Natjev Singh. Specifically the article says:
Mr Verpal Singh said they were “utterly disappointed at a singular lack of understanding and compassion shown by those associated with the main opposition party, especially Mr Kanwaljit Bakshi…
“Right from the first day when they seemed more interested in having their views aired by the media rather than in consoling the grieving family to yesterday’s meeting, they have come across as completely bereft of compassion.”
Not a good look for the Nats.
As Paul Henry continues his party political broadcasts for the National Party on Breakfast TV, a curious coincidence of timing occured on Sunday. John Key devoted part of his speech to a National regional conference to the Nats plans on how to deal with “P”. The rest of the speech was pretty much a repeat of the one he had given the day before at another regional conference. Why the change? Could it be that the Nats had somehow become aware of TVNZ’s “sting” story on dairies selling P products and thought they better rush out their so-called policy to maximise coverage? How would they become aware of something like that?
This morning’s performace on breakfast TV by Paul Henry was a disgrace. His complete lack of objectivity on the rail and ferry buy-back was even more biased and partisan than we have come to expect from him. Despite Guyon Espiner’s best efforts to provide some objective analysis of the government’s decision, Henry simply shouted about the government being idiots who can’t be trusted, and then proceeded to turn the show into the shambles it so often becomes.
This is election year, and there are obligations on all media to provide balanced coverage of issues. Henry is quite simply not capable of this. It is interesting to note that the biography of Henry on the TVNZ website neglects to mention his failed run as the National Party candidate in Wairarapa in 1999.
He is obviously entitled to his opinion, but he has a number of options for exercising that. He could have another go at running for the Nats, or he could be a political commentator ( al la Hooton, Trotter et al), but what he can not continue to be is any kind of objective journalist or presenter.
Hidden away today at the bottom of the Herald’s story on further data from the latest DigiPoll is the news that only 3.8% of those surveyed rate the Electoral Finance Act as a vote influencing issue.
You can just about feel the Herald’s despair that despite an unprecedented, wholly unbalanced and misleading campaign against the EFA they have not managed to manufacture outrage and concern beyond the well-heeled National and ACT supporters who tottered along Queen St last year.
This election will be fought on issues, real issues, like health, education, environment, security, and yes taxation. And it is a good thing that issues will drive the campaign.
Interesting also to see Family First’s full page ad in weekend papers on the referendum to re-establish the defence of reasonable force for those who beat their children. Emotive twaddle no doubt, but fully acceptable within the scope of the Electoral Finance Act. (though possibly in trouble in terms of the 1993 Act that covers referendums- that would be an Act passed by National….)
Free speech lives, but don’t tell that to the coalition.
The Hysteria- with a capital H- over at Kiwiblog around the Electoral Finance Bill has been mystifying for many of us in blogland. Sure David Farrar is a key National Party figure, and is no doubt worried that the Bill will mean his party will no longer be able to buy elections, or more rightly use others to buy elections. But is that the real story, is it enough to explain the OUTRAGE?
Perhaps this blast from the past might help explain the situation. David Farrar was Mark Blumsky’s campaign manager in 2005, and lo and behold who was the biggest recipient of an anonymous donation in that election, why Mr Blumsky himself of course.
The Wellington Central National Party Campaign benefited to the tune of $38,500 from a wealthy, but obviously very shy, benefactor. Now in itself this is interesting given what a strong advocate of transperancy we know David to be. However even more interesting is the curious comment from Mark Blumsky in the Scoop article above.
When contacted by A Week of It Mr Blumsky seemed certain his donations had gone through a trust and seemed surprised they had been included on the return as anonymous.
Murky indeed. Was it anonymous or was it through a trust? If it was through a trust, who is really behind it all?
David Farrar has been a vocal, some might say shrill, advocate for transparency in the electoral finance process in recent times. It seems this is a very recent conversion. To this writer he looks like he is sitting in a mighty fragile glass house.
Last night’s debate on the Youth Minimum Wage Bill was (as noted earlier) a triumph for progressive politics and for young people. It was not such a triumph for David Bennett, who apparently is National’s MP for Hamilton East. His speech (mp3 - 2MB) during the debate takes incoherence to hitherto unknown heights. Most of the highlights are in the first couple of minutes so take a listen. To summarise:
- The bill is the work of communist dinosaurs (Tyrannosaurus Marx?)
- We live in a hierarchical society and this needs to be protected.
- There is a difference between people who ’sit at the front and the back’ (Rosa Parks, anyone?)
- We have the highest rates of youth unemployment and Maori unemployment (since when? both are significantly lower than under National in the 90s)
- National is not proposing a maximum wage bill (phew, I say)
- Young people do not want to be paid well
In Mr Bennett’s delirious defence of hierarchy he notes that there is hierachy in Parliament and this is a good thing. Presumably then he will be comfortable with getting less money than Lockwood Smith. I mean it’s only fair, Lockwood has been there since 1987.
David also rants that there is hierarchy in who gets to ask questions in Parliament. Am I sensing some frustration here? Judging by this contribution Mr Bennett will be “sitting at the back” for a long time to come.
powered by ODEO
