0 We can't help but wonder...

It's been an interesting week in left-wing politics. The Internet and Mana Parties have merged to become MegaMana. Laila Harra, former Labour Party member, New Labour and Alliance MP, Green Party staffer and trade unionist has been appointed leader of the Internet Party, and will be at #3 on the MegaMana list.

Take a look at MegaMana's Top Four; Hone Harawira, Laila Harre, Annette Sykes and John Minto; they're all not just from the political Left, but the extreme Left. Quite how they fit alongside their moneybags "founder" and "visionary" and his four million bucks (more on that later in the day) is anyone's guess. It would seen that even hard-core left wingers have their price, and Dotcom is paying it.

And then we hear that Willie Jackson has categorically ruled out standing for Labour in Tamaki Makaurau, but has NOT ruled out standing in the same electorate for MegaMana. It's a veritable Alliance Party reunion!

So we can't help but wonder; who's next? Is the door of the political crypt about to be rolled open, and Jim Anderton dusted off and wheeled out? Alamein Kopu is no longer with us, but there are still the likes of Frank Grover, Pam Corkery, Sandra Lee and Phillida Bunkle (to name but four) who could be recruited to fatten the ranks. After all, Dotcom has promised to pay their salaries, and the Left loves Other People's Money!

The Internet Party is supposed to be forward-looking and visionary, but Laila Harre's speech yesterday took us back to the past. If that's where MegaMana wants to mire itself, then dredging up recycled politicians from a generation ago is the perfect starting point.

0 Labour's Tamaki Makaurau farce continues

Labour's Tamaki Makaurau nomination farce gets even more farcical. TVNZ's Te Karere reporter Iraena Smith reports (read the bottom tweet first):

If this isn't a clear signal from the Labour Party's council that Shane Taurima is no longer persona non grata, we don't know what is. That is reinforced by these tweet from Katie Bradford:

In bending over backwards to apologise to Mr Taurima, Labour is effectively saying that him breaching an undertaking to his TVNZ managers not to get involved politically after his failed Ikaroa-Rawhiti bid is all ka pai. 

Labour also seems to have forgiven, on behalf of TVNZ and the taxpayer, Taurima's unlawful use of TVNZ resources and facilities for Labour Party purposes. That is outrageous.

With Julian Wilcox having ruled out a bid for the nomination, and with the way seemingly clear for Taurima to be put forward, it would seem that Labour's Tamaki Makaurau candidate selection is a fait accompli, and a third former TVNZ staffer will stand at the General Election. We reckon that is deeply flawed.

Will Flavell through his hat in the ring for the nomination some time ago. We've lost count of the number of times nominations have closed and then been reopened, but Mr Flavell ought already have been confirmed as Labour's candidate. Dark forces however (where have we heard that phrase this week?) seem to be conspiring against Mr Flavell, and there is now a real issue of fairness and due process if he decided to challenge the nomination process.

Here's our advice to the Labour Party, for what it's worth. As Will Flavell was the only nominee at the time nominations most recently closed, give him the Tamaki Makaurau candidacy. Then let Shane Taurima take his chances on the Party List.

That won't happen, of course. In its indecent haste to rehabilitate Shane Taurima and restore his reputation, the Labour Party seems to have forgotten about the reputational damage it is inflicting on itself with this stitch-up.


UPDATE: The hashtag on Newstalk ZB political reporter Laura McQuillan's uppermost tweet also gives an insight into what's going on in Tamaki Makaurau. But if Shane Taurima doesn't sue the Labour Party, Will Flavell should!

 

0 What's going on in Tamaki Makaurau?

Labour's troubled Tamaki Makaurau candidate selection took another turn yesterday. Maori broadcaster Julian Wilcox confirmed that he is no longer interested in trying out for the Labour nomination; Stuff reports:

Maori TV's Julian Wilcox has quashed speculation he will stand for Labour in the coming general election.
Wilcox has long been rumoured to be a potential candidate in Tamaki Makaurau, with speculation strengthening after the Labour Party council refused a waiver to allow ex-TVNZ presenter Shane Taurima to stand.
Maori Television issued a statement today saying Wilcox, the station's general manager for news and current affairs, would not be standing for Labour.
"To clarify his position Julian Wilcox has made an unequivocal statement to Maori Television that he is not seeking political office for any political party in the forthcoming elections and remains committed to his job as GM of news and current affairs at Maori Television," the statement said.
Chief executive Paora Maxwell said the company accepted Wilcox's written statement "and we will continue to value our editorial independence in providing impartial and independent news coverage of significant regional and national stories from a Maori perspective". 

We don't blame Mr Wilcox for putting his career ahead of his political aspirations for now. He is a very good and influential Maori broadcaster. He has nothing to gain from getting involved in Labour's Tamaki Makaurau train-wreck, or with the Labour Party.

When Pita Sharples announced his intention to retire from politics at the election, Labour aggressively targeted Tamaki Makaurau. Initially, it was thought that Shane Jones would stand. When Jones opted out, Shane Taurima was touted, then the stink at TVNZ blew up. Julian Wilcox considered standing, but only if Shane Taurima was excluded; Wilcox was not prepared to stand against his broadcasting colleague.

Of course, nominations for the Tamaki Makaurau candidate selection have already closed. Educator Will Flavell's nomination has been accepted, and that should be all she wrote. But David Cunliffe indicated on Breakfast this morning that it is likely that Labour's council will reopen nominations, and that there will be "significant interest" in the nomination. If that's the case, where was the "significant interest" all the other times that nominations have opened, closed then opened again?

Will Flavell should be given the opportunity be Labour's candidate for Tamaki Makaurau. He has played by the rules, and there seems to be no legitimate reason why he should not be confirmed as the Labour Party candidate. To once again reopen nominations, and to have someone else given the nod would be contrary to the principles of fairness and natural justice.

Then again, this is the Labour Party we're talking about, so the principles of fairness and natural justice probably do not apply. The Tamaki Makaurau candidate selection is a complete and utter dog's breakfast which does Labour, the Tamaki Makaurau LEC and the TVNZ branch of Tamaki Makaurau Labour no credit whatsoever.

0 Trouble at t'mill in Tamaki Makaurau

As if the Labour Party didn't already have enough internal problems, there's a massive shit-fight brewing in Tamaki Makaurau. Radio New Zealand reports:

A former Labour MP for Tamaki Makaurau has accused the Labour Party president of abusing her power over the Shane Taurima case. It follows a request from the Tamaki Makaurau electorate committee for a review of the Labour national council decision not to let Mr Taurima stand.
John Tamihere told Morning Report that independent sources have confirmed party president Moira Coatsworth met with another broadcaster, Julian Wilcox.
"It's OK for a president to shoulder tap a high profile candidate or nominee like a Wilcox, but where it goes a bit awry is when you use your authority and power to then skew the scrum completely by taking out a major adversary on the pretext of an error of judgement in his employment" he said.
Mr Tamihere went on to say he believed Mr Taurima had good grounds for a judicial review of the Labour Council decision.

We can just imagine how that's going to go down; a Labour Party electorate committee dragging the party and its president to court just months before the General Election. That's really going to reinforce the notion that Labour is ready to govern; not! The party is at war with itself at the moment.

The RNZ story continues, outlining some pretty deep discontent within the Tamaki Makaurau LEC:

In a statement, the electorate committee said it was disappointed with the decision, and wanted Labour's council to review it. It said it continued to support Mr Taurima as a candidate and would be seeking further advice.
The decision was made after Mr Taurima was found to have used Television New Zealand resources for Labour Party campaigning.
A senior member on the electorate committee Shane Te Pou said there was a lot of hurt stemming from the decision to veto Mr Taurima's candidacy.
He told Morning Report there there was lot of ill feeling on the electorate committee and a lot of patch-up work needed to be done. Mr Te Pou said it was time to move on and it was highly likely nominations for the seat would reopen.

We don't know whether Shane Taurima would have a case for judicial review, given the decision of the Labour Party council. We do know however that Will Flavell, the only nomination to date will have every reason to feel hard done by if nominations are reopened again, and he faces competition for the role of Labour's Tamaki Makaurau candidate.

The Labour Party is a far from happy place at the moment, and this morning's Fairfax-Ipsos poll will have done nothing to lift spirits. There's all sorts of trouble at t'mill.

0 The Herald on Taurima

The Herald devotes its editorial to the Shane Taurima/TVNZ/Labour Party affair. And it doesn't make good reading for any of those named in the preceding sentence. Under the headline Credibility before politics for journalists the Herald opines:

Shane Taurima thought he could keep his affiliation to a political party entirely separate from his journalism, and to a degree he was successful. The Prime Minister, for one, felt fairly treated by him in television interviews despite Taurima's affiliation to the Labour Party. It is not hard to put personal views aside in the interests of objective journalism even when a subject is political. But the independent report into political bias at Television New Zealand was right to find him at fault. Partisan politics and mass media journalism do not mix.
The report found Taurima not only had a clear conflict of interest, but had used TVNZ facilities for Labour Party activities. These included a $343 credit card bill for an air fare and the use of TVNZ's offices and email for Labour Party planning and campaigning. Clearly the problem is not confined to the former head of its Maori and Pacific programming unit. Three of his staff also participated in the party activity.

But if these misuses of company property had not occurred, Taurima's position would still have been untenable. He not only joined the Labour Party while working in news and current affairs, he made an unsuccessful bid to be Labour's candidate in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti byelection last year. Strangely, after missing the selection, he was able to return to his position at TVNZ. There, his continuing Labour activities reached a level that, the report says, "would plainly be deeply embarrassing to TVNZ if it came to light".
He must have known that would be so. It is elementary to journalists that joining a political party is not an option unless they plan to make their career in the party's publications. Those who want to be credible reporters of news and politics for a mass audience cannot belong to a party. If they did, they would have to declare their affiliation, and their audience would rightly question the reliability of everything they reported.

The Herald's leader writer makes a very valid point here. Most senior journalists profess to be political agnostics, and we would be surprised if many are members of political parties. Shane Taurima would appear to be the exception to that rule, along with Julian Wilcox at Maori Television, who must either be a member of the Labour Party or an intending member if he has even a passing intention of contesting the Tamaki Makaurau nomination. Common sense would suggest that he is already a Labour Party member given the party's requirement of one year's membership before being nominated as a candidate for election.

The editorial then addresses the Public Service Association's rather quaint, Utopian view of these matters:

The Public Service Association seems not to understand this. It thinks a recommendation to ban reporters, content producers and editors from political activity is a draconian and unnecessary breach of their rights as citizens. It believes the State Services Commission guidelines for public servants are sufficient for the state broadcaster and that TVNZ will set "a dangerous precedent for other public servants".
Public servants serve the Government of the day. They can belong to a political party and take part in its activities after hours because the primary audience for their professional work is ministers and other politicians understand their code. State-owned media such as TVNZ and Maori Television are different. Their primary audience must know their reporters, producers and editors are not a member of any party in their spare time.

The leader writer makes a very good point here. TVNZ, Radio New Zealand and Maori Television are different from other media outlets because they are ultimately owned by the state. Their staff, including journalists, are essentially public servants, and the public service is, in an ideal world, politically neutral. It seems rather strange that the PSA, the union representing public servants, does not understand the concept of the public service not only trying to be neutral, but being seen to be neutral.

The editorial closes with an insight into how the Herald manages these issues:

None of this is to suggest that journalists should be devoid of political views and judgment. They would be less than citizens without them. Their views and judgment will be apparent to the audience and acceptable so long as there can be confidence they come from an interested, well-informed, even concerned person who has no conflict of interest.
The Herald does not allow its editorial staff to participate in community or political activities that could compromise their work. This means not only membership of political parties but taking part in public campaigns that they could have to cover. Preserving this distance from politics is not an onerous restriction for those whose credibility is paramount. They have the privilege of observing, reporting and commenting on public affairs. Once they cross the line to partisan participation, there is no coming back.

Shane Taurima had a clear conflict of interest when he returned to TVNZ after his failed tilt at the Ikaroa-Rawhiti nomination. There is evidence that he was less than honest with his employer about his future political intentions, although TVNZ concedes that its own management of the conflict was not ideal. But there was no justification whatsoever for Taurima doing Labour Party work on the taxpayer dime, via TVNZ.

That Shane Taurima seems to believe that the TVNZ inquiry report vindicated him is telling. Perhaps he needs to undergo some more training in the principle of public service neutrality before embarking on another journalistic career in the state sector, or a lesson in managing conflicts of interest before furthering his political aspirations. In both areas, he has been found wanting.

0 Hold the phone!

Hold the phone! TVNZ's 7am Breakfast news bulletin casts a different light. The Labour Party has not excluded Shane Taurima for selection in Tamaki Makaurau because he was found to have misused TVNZ resources in his activism for the Labour Party.

No Dear Readers; the reason that Mr Taurima has not been granted a waiver to throw his hat into the ring for selection in Tamaki Makaurau is because he hasn't been a member of the party for the required year!

This is a bit like Taito Phillip Field revisited. Helen Clark and her MP's defended Mr Field to the hilt whilst the allegations which later saw him jailed swirled around him. She convened a sham report, with a predetermined finding, then declared that the only thing Mr Field was guilty of was "trying to be helpful". A High Court jury disagreed. But Field was only suspended from the Labour caucus when plans emerged that he was involved in the formation of a new political party; that was the unforgivable sin.

Now we are certainly not suggesting that Mr Taurima was in any way like the corrupt Phillip Field. The Labour Party however seems to have wimped out regarding Mr Taurima, only excluding him from selection in Tamaki Makaurau on a technicality rather than on the findings of the TVNZ report. 

So it begs the question; how long has Julian Wilcox been a member of the Labour Party, and if the answer if "less than a year", will he be granted a waiver when Shane Taurima was not?

0 Labour says "no" to Taurima

Shane Taurima may claim to have been vindicated by TVNZ's inquiry into his behaviour. But the New Zealand Labour Party does not agree with him. Peter Williams has just this moment announced on Breakfast that Taurima's nomination for Tamaki Makaurau for this year's election will not be be accepted by the Labour Party.

But there may yet be a broadcaster stand for Labour in the Tamaki Makaurau seat. Maori Television's head of news Julian Wilcox has expressed an interest in being nominated if Mr Taurima's nomination did not proceed. That creates an interesting scenario.

TVNZ announced yesterday that it had instituted policy changes in the wake of the report; the Herald reports:

TVNZ chief executive Kevin Kenrick said in a statement that their activities were "completely unacceptable".
"It's an absolute necessity for our News and Current Affairs service to operate free from political influence.
"We already have a number of checks and balances in place to protect the integrity of news coverage and the review panel has identified additional steps we should take to further strengthen our management of political conflicts of interest.
"We won't be asking our staff to tell us who they vote for. But we think it's reasonable to ask anyone who reports, edits or produces political content to be upfront with us if they're a member of a political party.
"Anyone who creates news content for TVNZ should disclose any political activity beyond passive party membership.

Will Maori Television do likewise? We have nothing whatsoever against Julian Wilcox, but it seems incongruous that he would only be a "passive" Labour Party member if he is even considering seeking a nomination to stand for Labour in a seat that Labour has a good chance of winning. That is way more than "passive party membership".

Questions need to be asked of Maori Television CEO Paora Maxwell with regard to his Labour Party affiliations. Given that the Labour Party has signalled that it will target the Maori seats strongly this year, is it appropriate for Julian Wilcox to remain as head of news at Maori Television?

The ripples from the Taurima affair are spreading wider still. We will however look closely at Labour's list when it is announced to see whether the pond has gone still again, and Shane Taurima is considered to have been rehabilitated; oh, the joys of MMP!