0 MegaMana steals more Green policy

Yesterday the clean rivers policy Laila Harre had written for the Greens became Internet Party policy. And today, Ms Harre is sounding like Gareth Hughes; the Herald reports:

The Internet Party wants a moratorium on what it calls "risky energy and mining industry practices" such as fracking, dumping of oil wastes and deep-sea and undersea extraction.
In its final environment policy released today the internet Party also sought to restore the "absolute right" of New Zealanders to protest at sea against deep-sea oil exploration.
"National has been pushing New Zealand towards a greater dependence on the extractive industries at a time when climate change and land and water protection demand the opposite," said internet Party leader Laila Harre.
"We will place moratoria on the hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells, and deep-sea drilling. The direct safety risks of these industries have not been adequately investigated or managed.
"Their impact on climate change would also have to be countered before any resumption of these activities would be considered. In the case of deep sea drilling we do not see any likelihood that benefits to New Zealand will be shown to outweigh the risks."

The cost of an accident to New Zealand's marine and coastal environment would be simply too high, she said.

We wonder if Ms Harre has ever discussed these policies with her paymaster, the Large German Gentleman. After all, all those computers that Herr Dotcom has must have consumed a good slice of mineral resources in their construction.

And just think of Dotcom's transport habits. He's definitely more fond of helicopters and Hummers than he is of hybrids, so how is mimicking Green Party policy on fracking, even if it was drafted by Laila Harre consistent with Dotcom's fossil fuel excesses?

Quite why MegaMana is targetting Green voters with its policies is anyone's bet. The Green vote is not a huge slice of the market, and two into one doesn't go, so someone is going to be disappointed.

It's little wonder that Danyl from the Dim-Post described Ms Harre's provocative actions as "Political biohazard watch". We don't think it's going to be long before Gareth Hughes is going to be calling for a moratorium on MegaMana!

0 Idiot/Savant on the presumption of innocence

Every now and again the planets align in such a way that we agree with something Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn has written.

Today is one of those days. Under the heading Time to defend the presumption of innocence Idiot/Savant blogs:

I accept that rape cases are difficult to prove. This change will make them remarkably easier. If Labour gets its way, there will be a lot more convictions for rape. And a lot more of them will be of innocent people. We presume innocence because we believe it is far better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be punished. Labour clearly does not believe that any more.

A party which does not believe in and will not defend the presumption of innocence does not deserve your vote. All they deserve is your contempt. If they retain this policy, you should not vote Labour.

In its haste to appeal to female voters, Labour has overreacted. The policy proposed by Andrew Little will create far more legal problems than it will solve, and it highly likely to result in innocent people being jailed. 

In the meantime, it will be interesting to hear what other parties, and especially the Green Party think of Andrew Little and Labour's proposal. There may yet be other parties to add to Idiot/Savant's "do not vote for" list.

0 Tweet of the Day - 23 June 2014

We spotted this yesterday on Twitter. It was taken in Auckland over the weekend, where the Green Party caucus held a pre-election session.

We guess that when you've had a long talk-fest, and you're hungry, and the whiff of Colonel Harland B Sanders's secret recipe of 11 herbs and spices is in the Auckland air, thoughts of obesity epidemics, sugar taxes and controls on fast food go out the window.

This is finger-lickin' good hippy-crisy!

0 What will the Greens oppose next?

We blogged yesterday about the Green Party having voted against the Vulnerable Children Bill. We do note however that not all Green MP's voted, and wonder if there was dissension in the ranks.

Parliament will go into urgency next week, and once again, the Greens will oppose a Government measure. Nick Smith explains the proposed legislation:

Government to allow recovery of West Coast windfall timber

Special legislation is to be passed by Parliament to enable the recovery of high value native timber blown over in Cyclone Ita on West Coast public conservation land, Dr Nick Smith announced today.
“We need to take a pragmatic approach and enable the timber to be recovered where it can be done so safely and with minimal environmental impact. This initiative will provide welcome jobs and economic opportunities for the West Coast at a difficult time, and will provide a financial return to DOC that can be reinvested in conservation work,” Dr Smith says.
Cyclone Ita hit the West Coast on 17 April this year and caused the worst windfall damage in generations, felling an estimated 20,000 hectares of forest and causing significant damage to a further 200,000 hectares.
The West Coast Windblown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill confines the recovery of useable wood to areas affected by Cyclone Ita and specifically excludes World Heritage Areas, national parks, ecological areas and the white heron sanctuary reserve at Whataroa. Authorisations are only to be issued where the Department’s Director-General is satisfied the proposed method of removing the timber is safe for workers and the public, and minimises environmental impacts. The recovery of timber is limited until 1 July 2019 when the Bill expires. All revenue from royalties will go to the Department of Conservation.
“A law change is needed because the current Conservation Act makes no provision for timber recovery in this sort of extreme event. The Bill will be introduced and passed by Parliament next week under urgency. This is necessary because the large volumes of beech timber will soon deteriorate with sap stain and borer. I am grateful for the common sense support from the United Future and Māori Parties that are enabling Parliament to quickly resolve this issue.
“It is estimated that several million cubic metres of beech, rimu, matai, totara and miro trees have been felled. Stumpage prices for rimu are $250 per cubic metre, and $60 per cubic metre for beech. It is not possible to estimate the volume and value of timber to be extracted because the safety and environmental constraints may require high cost options like the use of helicopters. This law change will enable the detailed work to be done by operators on recovery proposals so as to determine where recovery is viable and safe.
“It may be appropriate to consider a permanent change to the Conservation Act to enable windblown timber in these sorts of situations to be recovered in future, but I am reluctant to do so with urgent legislation of this sort. The Department of Conservation will be commissioning research on the effects on forest regrowth and ecology by comparing similar windblown areas where timber has and has not been recovered to help make a long-term policy decision on this issue.
“It is a tragedy that so much forest has been wrecked by Cyclone Ita but no good purpose is served by leaving it all to rot. The wood will displace some of the $65 million of tropical hardwoods we import each year and give New Zealanders access to our own beautiful native timbers,” Dr Smith concluded.

The TV footage we saw last night showed the level of the cyclone damage on the West Coast. We had no idea how widespread that damage was. Thousands of trees were felled by the storm, and are strewn across thousands of hectares of the West Coast.

Nick Smith already has the support of the Maori Party and United Future to pass this legislation, and we would expect Damien O'Connor to convince his fellow Labour MP's to support the law change. It will, after all, have direct benefits for the people of Mr O'Connor's constituency.

But the Greens have already indicated they will fight this tooth and nail. Eugenie Sage put out this presser yesterday:

A storm is no reason to change our conservation law

Friday, 20 June 2014, 3:04 pm
Press Release: Green Party


New Zealand’s wild conservation land should be protected from logging, the Green Party said today.
National has announced plans to allow logging of native forest on public land on the West Coast damaged in Cyclone Ita.
“It was illegal to log these forests, a storm is no reason to change the law,” Green Party conservation spokesperson Eugenie Sage said today.
“New Zealanders fought for years to end native logging and protect the West Coast’s forests. We shouldn’t turn back the clock.
“It’s a bad precedent to change the law on a case by case, storm by storm basis. The public are not even going to get a say, the law will be pushed through under urgency.
“This is more boom and bust short term thinking from this Government for the West Coast. This proposal isn’t going to create sustainable long term jobs.
“Weakening our conservation law sets a dangerous precedent.
“Nowhere is protected from this Government. National is happy to allow our rivers to be too polluted to swim in, let the Maui’s Dolphin go extinct, and wanted to open up our national parks for mining. We can’t let them weaken our conservation law.
“It doesn’t matter how careful you are. By removing these trees we are taking away precious nutrients that will feed the next forest giants.
“We don’t need to restart the battles of the 1990’s, National needs to leave our protected forests alone.
“National is on the wrong path with this proposal, New Zealanders love our native forests and National needs to leave them alone,” said Ms Sage.
“The Department of Conservation shouldn’t have to allow logging of our native forests to pay for pest control, National needs to fund DOC properly,” said Ms Sage.

We wonder what Green MP Kevin Hague makes of all this. He is West Coast-based, and will understand only too well the need for jobs and income for his fellow Coasters. Will he break ranks and vote in favour of legislation that will provide direct economic benefits to his own community? Would the Greens ever allow that to happen?

Once again though, the Greens are showing why they have never been part of a formal coalition government. Opposing everything a government does is easy; just ask Winston Peters who is the consummate opposition politician, but is a three-time failure in government.

Governing is all about compromise. By placing limits on the areas from which fallen trees can and cannot be extracted, Dr Smith has achieved a compromise between protecting a pristine and unique area of New Zealand, and making something good out of the damage wreaked by Cyclone Ita.

Clearly, the Greens would rather let the trees rot and become bug fodder than have anyone go in and extract high-value native timber which will be in high demand. As recently as March, the Greens were proposing to gift $1m to the first person to build a 10-story skyscraper from wood as they tried to out-bribe Labour for the affections of the forestry industry. We doubt today that the forestry industry will be wanting anything to do with the Greens.

It is telling when the ideological purity of the Greens prevents them from supporting legislation that will directly benefit one of New Zealand's poorer regions. After Jan Logie's comments about child poverty on Thursday, you'd think the Greens would be in favour of a law change that was going to provide jobs to West Coasters, put more money into the community, more food on tables and generally benefit the region. But no; they would clearly prefer that the bugs of the forest get a feed as valuable native trees rot away in the wilderness.

0 Why don't they mention the PPTA?

There seems to be a split in the ranks of teacher unions. The Herald reports on an apparent "epic fail" of Hekia Parata's Investing in Educational Success policy:

The Government's $359 million expert teachers policy has proved to be the latest in a series of "epic failures" in the education sector due to a lack of consultation with teachers and Labour will soon announce a better model it says.
The Government policy which would see "expert" and "lead" teachers identified and paid extra to act as role models across several schools was slammed by primary teachers union the NZEI and the NZ Principals Federation after they met to discuss it this week.
NZEI National President Judith Nowotarski said leaders from national and regional principal and teacher groups had sent a clear message that the policy, as it currently stood, was "unacceptable and unworkable" and "identified the lack of direct benefit for children in this policy".
School leaders were concerned the policy would remove highly rated teachers and principals from their schools for two days a week, which would impact on children's learning.

Labour's education spokesman Chris Hipkins said the fact that teachers and principals were willing to turn down pay rises of up to $40,000 a year "reflects how bad they believe this policy is".

And Green Party candidate, former teacher and NZEI delegate Dave Kennedy offers a similar narrative at his blog:

Classroom teachers, the New Zealand Educational Institute, the New Zealand Principal's Federation and education academics have all strongly rejected the Government's proposed $359 million Investment into Education Success (IES). All believe that this substantial amount of money will not produce the results that the Education Minister claims and would be better spent elsewhere.

Now the fact that NZEI, the Labour Party's Education spokesman and a Green Party candidate with strong NZEI links are singing from the same songbook is nothing new. But what is interesting is that none of them mention the secondary teachers' union, the PPTA.

We blogged last week about our surprise at the PPTA's willingness to throw off its tradition reluctance to deal with a National Party Education Minister. PPTA has engaged with Hekia Parata, and even though it is early days in what has already been a tense relationship, there are some very promising signs.

And the PPTA has published an interesting blog-post on its website that busts o few of the myths surrounding IES. We have left the link on Dave Kennedy's blog, given that he is always so keen to provide us with links to further our education on causes dear to his heart, if not to ours. The post is headed Six Impossible things being said about IES, and begins thus:

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said:
"one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
"When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." 
1. There has been no consultation.
This might be true if these changes had been legislated in place but that’s not what happened. The $359 million was an employer offer made to unions for them to bargain and amend with the aim of eventually putting it into their collective agreements.   If using the democratic structures of unions to make changes for teachers isn’t consultation what is?
2. The money could be better spent on…
It possibly could but it was approved via the Budget process to be spent on a specific educational initiative.  Budget spending decisions are a government prerogative.  Anyone waiting for the day when a democratically-elected government sets its budget priorities by national plebiscite will be waiting a long time.  If it is more important to spend money on addressing issues of poverty than teachers does that mean teachers will never seek another pay increase?
3. IES creates a layer of management…

We won't steal any more of the PPTA's thunder (but urge you to read the piece), and in fact can't quite believe that we are endorsing a union's point of view. But we reckon that the PPTA is on the right side of this argument, despite Dave Kennedy's rather patronising comment that "I also believe they do not understand the full ramifications.". With due respect to Dave, patronising a brethren union is not the way to win friends and influence voters!

It would seem that Chris Hipkins has simply rushed out a presser after reading the NZEI's diatribe about Mrs Parata and the IES policy. Perhaps he has former NZEI people advising him. In any event, the opposition of NZEI and the Principals Federation seems to be more about election-year ideology than advancing opportunities for their members.

Once again, we commend PPTA for putting aside past differences with Mrs Parata in an effort to improve the lot of principals and teachers, because that will ultimately improve outcomes for the children they teach. We'll leave the last word to the PPTA:

Listen carefully – that is the sound of professionals collaborating.  

0 Laila the waka-jumper

We came across this interesting gem hidden away on Stuff; check this out:

Laila Harre is on the spot changing trail
Meanwhile, Norman revealed that new Internet Party leader Laila Harre had wanted to be a Green Party MP before she quit her adviser role in December.
A spokesman confirmed s he was also on the campaign committee until a fortnight ago.
Kim Dotcom’s $3.25m donation to the Internet-Mana alliance was registered with the Electoral Commission at the weekend.
Harre will draw a $148,000 salary. Records show Colin Craig also injected another $55,000 into his Conservative Party.  

This is fascinating. Right up to two weeks ago, one week before she became the leader of the Internet Party, Laila Harre was actively working on the Greens' election campaign, albeit in a voluntary capacity.

What changed? How can someone go from actively campaigning for one party to being the leader of a completely different party in just seven days?

As we see it, there are two possible explanations, and neither of them is especially palatable. The first is that Laila Harre has sold the Green Party down the river by jumping (politically, of course) into bed with Dotcom, and taking his tainted money. Given that Laila Harre has previously been involved with Labour, New Labour, the Alliance and most recently the Greens, she has certainly been politically flexible!

But here's the other possible explanation. Is it possible that the Greens have been in cahoots all along, despite Russel Norman's statement earlier in the year that he was trying to talk Dotcom out of launching a party?

It makes sense. Both parties claim to appeal to younger, tech-savvy voters. The Greens certainly have a high digital/social media presence. Both parties are anti-GCSB/SIS/USA. Neither party thinks Kim Dotcom should be extradited to the USA, and both see him as more saint than sinner.

So has the Green Party actually done a dirty, back-room deal with Dotcom? It's time for an absolute denial that Laila Harre has not jumped into the German waka with the Greens' blessing, and a similarly categorical denial that no money has changed hands.

0 Congratulations Dave

The Green Party has announced its party list over the weekend. And a regular commenter here has an outside chance of making it into Parliament. Dave Kennedy, aka bsprout has been ranked at #19 on the list, up four places from his 2011 ranking.

Here's the top 20:

And in a story on the list, the Dom-Post's headline writer seems to have given Dave a bit of a nod:

On current polling, Dave won't make it into Parliament, but if Labour's vote collapses much further, he could stand a chance. Both TV channels are reporting polls tonight, and if the numbers we've heard being bandied around are true, things will be tense in Labour's War Room tomorrow.


Footnote: We've blogged before about Matthew Beveridge's Politics and Social Media blog. He's just posted a link to another name from further down the Greens' list, whose sole tweet has been in breach of the Green Party's stated values!

0 Do as we say...

Direct from the "You couldn't make this shit up" department, Andrea Vance reports via Stuff:

The Green Party is demanding transparency of political donations - but will hold a closed door auction to raise funds later this month.
Last month co-leader Russel Norman called for more details about National's Cabinet Clubs - where ministers mix with donors over lunch or breakfast. The money raised from ticket sales goes into National party coffers.
It sparked a ''cash for access'' row with Norman saying the Government has put democracy up for sale, and calling for a ministerial disclosure regime.
However, the Greens are coy about their own fundraising methods. An agenda for next weekend's annual day meeting shows the media are barred from a pre-lunch ''party fundraising session'' on the last day of the three-day conference.
A spokeswoman explained the half-hour meeting is an auction for party members. It was a ''fun'' session closed so guests could ''let their hair down.''
Co-leader Metiria Turei has crocheted a blanket which will be offered for sale.
''It's not $10,000 a pop,'' the spokeswoman said, referring to National's fundraising events. 

This is simply priceless stuff; the Greens slag National off about its Cabinet Club, then hold a private, invitation-only "party fundraising session". It's typical Green Party do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do hippy-crisy.

And how about instead of calling it a "party fundraising session" they call it a meeting of the Crochet Club; partly as a tribute to Metiria's blanket, but mainly because with antics like this, it will be a long time before the Greens get anywhere near Cabinet! 

0 A Green SMOG

We've blogged in the past about one of the Green Party's values which urges members to "Engage respectfully, without personal attacks". So we wonder what Green MP Jan Logie was thinking when she fired off this tweet from Parliament's Debating Chamber:

That's a definite SMOG from Ms Logie and the Greens who always pretend that they are above such puerile stuff.

0 "Technically legal" but "not right"

The Greens are upset that people are prepared to pay money to dine with the most popular Prime Minister in New Zealand's history. Whilst we all know that the Greens are pushing hard for taxpayer funding of political parties, the Green-eyed monster is also at work here; the Greens are openly jealous of John Key's popularity, and National's ability to fundraise.

Even Russel Norman concedes that fundraising dinners break no rules. He was quoted in the Dom-Post yesterday as saying they were "technically legal". Forget the word "technically" Dr Norman; dinners such as that run by Chris Parkin are 100% legal, and the money raised and donated to the party has been declared as required by law; end of story.

But Dr Norman himself doesn't have to look far for something that, whilst it may have been "technically legal" certainly stretched the bounds of right and wrong. Bear with us as we tell this little story.

It all began with the death of Green Party co-leader Rod Donald. We suspect that Mr Donald would have been horrified with what followed his passing.

In June 2006, the Greens elected Russel Norman as co-leader, by-passing Nandor Tanczos, the party's most senior male MP. 

Mr Tanczos was clearly disappointed by his rejection. At the beginning of election year 2008 rumours began to surface about the likelihood he would retire. His decision was confirmed in this presser on 17 January 2008. There was no mention of a successor.

And that's where the fun began; the "technically legal" but "not right" fun. It was assumed that Russel Norman would saunter into Parliament, but there was one slight problem; he was not the next MP on the Green Party list. Mike Ward and Catherine Delahunty had been ranked ahead of him in 2005.

Mike Ward, to his eternal credit, wasn't playing the game. So the Greens had to paper over the cracks that were appearing; check out this story from 3News in April 2008:

One of parliament's more colourful MPs is still refusing to say exactly when he will walk away from politics, despite a bill in his name gaining the traction it needs to become law.

Green MP Nandor Tanczos announced earlier this year that he's to quit politics, but wants to see his Waste Minimisation Bill passed first.

That is now likely to happen later this year after it came back from a select committee with the support of National and Labour.

His resignation would create an opening for the party's co-leader to enter parliament - but Mr Tanczos is not committing to a date.

With all respect to Mr Tanczos who we believe to be a principled man, despite a very different worldview to ours, we don't buy that excuse. The reason that his departure was delayed was the unholy bun-fight going on for his seat in the House; before it had even been vacated!

The the story changed again; check out this story from the Otago Daily Times of 22 May 2008:

Green MP Nandor Tanczos will stay in Parliament until the election after his attempts to let co-leader Russel Norman take his seat ran aground. Mr Tanczos is retiring from Parliament at the election and had hoped to go earlier.
He wanted Dr Norman to take his seat but for that to happen, the next two people on the party's list had to step aside to let Dr Norman through.
Candidate Catherine Delahunty was prepared to, but former Green MP Mike Ward was not.
A seat in Parliament would have helped lift Dr Norman's profile going into the election campaign and also given the party access to more resources in the lead-up to the election. 

We've highlighted that last sentence, because this is what this story is all about. Getting Dr Norman into Parliament BEFORE the House rose for the election would have allowed him to campaign for the Greens on the public dime, using his access to taxpayer-funded travel and accommodation. But Mike Ward stood in his way wanting to claim the seat in Parliament that was rightfully his according to the rules by which the Greens ranked their Party List. 

It was all too good to last. The Herald reported on 4 June 2008:

The Green Party member who refused to step aside so his party's co-leader could become an MP has backed down.
Russel Norman will now enter Parliament before the election after the surprise about-turn by party member Mike Ward, who had previously blocked Mr Norman's bid to replace Nandor Tanczos.
Mr Ward's change of mind comes after the party said Mr Tanczos would stay until the election because Mr Ward was refusing to cede his list ranking.
The party had planned that Mr Tanczos would quit Parliament and Mr Norman would take his place by leapfrogging Mr Ward on the party list.
"While there are plenty of people who support my stand, it seems to me if Nandor would rather not be there, then Russel would probably be better off in his place," Mr Ward said.
"I just decided that it was time to just move aside."

One can only wonder what pressure was brought on Mike Ward between 22 May and 4 June 2008 to make him change his mind. But one thing is clear; the Green Party's principles went out the window in the quest for power at all costs.

DPF called it as he saw it. In a post entitled The fix is in he blogged:

Mike Ward has succumbed to the pressure and has agreed to refuse his place in Parliament so Russel Norman can use taxpayer funded resources to campaign.
I blogged a couple of weeks ago that the Greens were trying to do two things – both of which work sit badly with me. The first is having MPs resign before for their term in Parliament is up, purely for tactical partisan reasons. You rejuvenate a party at elections, not between them.
The second is changing the order of the list post election. The Greens put a lot of stress on the fact their members rank the list, yet they have ignored the will of their members who ranked the 2005 party list – the only one which the public have had a chance to vote on with their party vote.
There is no way one can stop an MP resigning early, but one could have a simple law change to remove the ability for a list candidate to refuse to become an MP. They could still be elected and then resign, but that extra step might stop them from doing private deals to change the effective order of a list post-election.

DPF is absolutely right to call this a "fix". The Green Party rulebook, principles and statement of values went out the window for a chance to rort the taxpayer of a few more dollars to promote the party. Mike Ward became the sacrificial lamb.

You're not ever likely to see a complete rehash of this sad episode in the mainstream media. The irony is, of course, that it took us five minutes on Google to compile the links referred to above. We are by no means "decent journalists,trained and skilled"; we're just a keyboard warrior who is sick of Dr Norman's sanctimony when there is a very large skeleton in his own closet.

So next time you hear Dr Norman say that something is "technically legal" but that it is "not right", remind him via whatever medium you have access to that he himself is far from squeaky clean, and that his own entry to Parliament was essentially on the back of a rort. 

The Greens may claim to be the party of principle, but when there's a bag of Other People's Money to be grabbed, principles disappear very quickly, and the Greens are exposed as being as venal and unprincipled as any of the parties they criticise.

0 Are the Greens media now?

The Green Party seems to have abandoned being a political party now, and taken up journalism. Maybe it was the excitement on Twitter last night as Canon Media Awards were handed out, but that's the only explanation for this tweet from Russel Norman:

And right on cue, the Dom-Post has a story this morning with Dr Norman quoted prominently:

Some of Wellington's most recognisable names paid $3500 each to meet Prime Minister John Key at a National Party fundraising dinner also attended by his taxpayer-funded chief of staff, Wayne Eagleson.
As Opposition allegations continue to swirl around National's so-called "Cabinet clubs" for wealthy donors, it has emerged about 15 people, including former Wellington mayor Kerry Prendergast and Weta Digital co-founder Jamie Selkirk, attended the dinner at the Museum Hotel, which raised $45,000 for National.
The Cabinet club fundraising events, attended by leading National MPs, have been in the spotlight this week after the resignation of Maurice Williamson, who intervened with police on behalf of a wealthy National Party donor.
Justice Minister Judith Collins has also been under attack over her dinner with representatives of milk exporter Oravida - a company her husband governs, and which has also donated to National.
The fundraisers have been criticised for providing donors with access to ministers in return for cash. National has responded that Labour has done the same kind of fundraising.
The Museum Hotel event was held in 2011, and organised by hotel owner and National Party fundraiser Chris Parkin.
He said yesterday the event was nothing to do with the Cabinet clubs but was his way of helping to support National.
He joked that at least $2000 worth of each donation was for the food and wine. He did not believe anyone attending fundraising dinners expected to be able to "influence" the prime minister. "They are more there to ask questions."
Developer Richard Burrell, who was one of those present, said he was "chuffed" to attend after the asking price dropped from $5000 to $3500, and because Parkin always put on entertaining events that were good fun.
Key and Eagleson chatted to those attending, and it was "a good fun evening".
Payment for the event went to Parkin, he said. Official party donation records show Parkin correctly declared a $45,000 donation to National about two months later.
Prendergast said yesterday that she did not pay to attend, as she was there as a guest of Parkin. Selkirk did not want to comment.
Green Party leader Russel Norman said the fundraiser showed wealthy people could get access to the prime minister when poorer people could not.
Such fundraisers "may be technically legal, they're not right", he said. "If you have a lot of money, you can buy exclusive access to the prime minister." 

Dr Norman seems to miss a fundamental point here. Whilst he concedes that the dinner was "technically legal" he's actually wrong; the dinner was absolutely positively legal. It was promoted as a fundraiser for the party, and the donation from Chris Parkin was legally declared. 

But the point Norman misses is that people in New Zealand have a choice, and if they want to support the National Party (as many business people do, because National is far more business-friendly than the Greens, Labour or Mana) they have an absolute right to do that, provided it is done legally.

The Green Party's complaints here are petty, and motivated by a combination of the politics of envy, the fact that few people would shell out $3500 for dinner with Dr Norman or Ms Turei (or even David Cunliffe for that matter) but above all a desire to see taxpayer funding of political parties. If a Labour-Green government is ever elected, you can guarantee that will be on the agenda.

We suggest that the Greens stick to politics. It's not the job of political parties to boast about breaking stories, and in any event, 3News actually broke the story, although obviously they'd been fed plenty of inside information from the Green Party comms team. If the Greens want to break stories, let them give up the offices and support staff that you and we pay for, let them give up their MP salaries and taxpayer-funded travel, and let them join the Press Gallery and scratch out a living.

0 A Green disappointment

Parliament was deprived of a rare opportunity yesterday. The Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill passed through all its stages in Parliament by 107 votes to nil; almost unanimity. However the Green Party's 14 votes were recorded as abstentions.

The Greens have tried to rationalise their decision to abstain from making a decision because of their concern for creating a black market for synthetic cannabis. That, in our ever-humble opinion is an absolute cop-out. Kevin Hague suggested that the legislation should be evidence-based; where has he been for the last few months as the evidence of the harm that the new generation of "legal highs" has been doing has been there for all to see.

We elect a Parliament to lead us, not to opt out of decision-making as the Greens did yesterday. Even John Banks, the only MP to vote against "legal highs" last year because of his opposition to animal testing voted in favour of yesterday's legislation. Even Hone Harawira, who will daily see the harm that legal highs are doing in his electorate, voted with the Government.

If the Greens felt that strongly about the legislation that they could not support it, then they should have voted against it, and had their "no" vote recorded for time immemorial in Hansard. Instead they took the path of less resistance; neither for nor against, and not prepared to make a decision.

This is an issue we feel strongly about. The children of two friends are currently battling addiction to synthetic cannabis, and as well as the damage they drugs have done to the young people involved, the harm caused to the families has been profound. Previously well-behaved teenagers have turned into nightmares for their parents as they do whatever they can to get the coin for their next fix. We won't go into detail but some of the behaviour has even shocked senior police who have been involved.

Parliament could have been united in its desire to rid New Zealand of this insidious menace yesterday. Sadly, the Greens would not come to the party. Their decision to abstain yesterday was deeply disappointing.