0 Grant Robertson rejects "gotcha" politics

TVNZ's Breakfast programme had Grant Robertson and Judith Collins side by side this morning. Unsurprisingly, the main topic of conversation was David Cunliffe; here's the piece:

What interested us the most was Grant Robertson's reinvention as a stringent opponent of "gotcha" politics. It's great that he wants to spend the next three months talking about the things that matter to New Zealanders, like jobs, and the economy.

Unfortunately though, Mr Robertson has been so obsessed with getting Judith Collins' scalp since he first raised the Oravida issue in early March that he hasn't had a lot of time to talk about the things that matter to New Zealanders.

Mr Robertson has asked at least 13 primary questions of Judith Collins or the Prime Minister since he first raised the Oravida issue, plus a number of supplementaries to primary questions asked by other MP's, most notably David Cunliffe and Winston Peters. In addition, the "media centre" on Mr Robertson's page on the Labour Party website has multiple media releases put out by the MP or his media staffers.

Credit to Judith Collins though. She must have been heavily tempted to shred Grant Robertson after all the unpleasant things he has said about her and her husband in the last few months. But she sat serenely and full of grace, although the twinkle in her eye suggested that she may know more about the Donghua Liu donations to Labour than she was letting on; time will tell.

Perhaps Mr Robertson's latter-day conversion to having a strong dislike of "gotcha" politics has more to do with Labour currently being the "gottee" rather than the "gotter", if you'll pardon us inventing new words. Or perhaps it has something to do with the date. After all, after tomorrow, Labour can change its leader without having to ask the party and the trade unions, and this might just have been Grant Robertson trying to differentiate himself from David Cunliffe.

It will be interesting to see how long Grant Robertson's rejection of "gotcha" politics lasts.  

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 Quote of the Day - 15 May 2014

It's a rare day when we agree with Brian Edwards. But the good Dr Edwards has chucked his tuppence-worth into the mix with regard to Shane Taurima and TVNZ; check this out:

There was nothing terribly complex about Shane Taurima’s situation with regard to his job as Head of TVNZ’s  Maori and Pacifica Department once he had, albeit unsuccessfully,  sought the Labour Party nomination for the Rawhiti Ikaroa seat following the death of Parekura Horomia. Taurima had very publicly nailed his political colours to the mast. In doing so he had effectively disbarred himself from any further involvement in News or Current Affairs broadcasting with the state broadcaster. The potential conflict of interest could not have been more clear.
Television New Zealand apparently did not see it that way. Perhaps they thought that Taurima’s failure to actually win the nomination made all the difference. He had been a would-be Labour candidate, not an actual Labour candidate.  (And, as it turned out, would be again.) That rationalisation is so facile as to be laughable. Taurima was politically tainted. He should not have been re-employed in his previous role. But he was.
When he took things even further and  turned his TVNZ office into a Maori/Pacifica Labour Party branch, Taurima did his employer a favour.  Without actually hanging portraits of Savage, Fraser and Kirk on the walls, the conflict of interest in which he and others in his department now found themselves could not have been more patent. To his credit, Taurima had the grace and good sense to resign.   

Brian Edwards is quite right. Shane Taurima's conflict of interest was so blindingly obvious that it beggars belief that management did not notice it.

Whilst TVNZ is partly culpable, the blame however rests primarily with Taurima, who made his own position, and those of some of his staff untenable. 

There are just two unanswered questions. How much did the Labour Party know about Taurima's use of  TVNZ resources for Labour Party activities? Given that Tamaki Makaurau branch meetings were held on TVNZ premises, and that David Cunliffe himself attended a hui facilitated by Taurima for party members, we'd say that the Labour Party knew quite a lot.

Which leads to the second question; did no one in the Labour Party, from Moira Coatsworth and David Cunliffe down see a potential conflict of interest in Mr Taurima's activism?

The Labour Party is not blameless in this messy business either. But we reiterate; most of the blame falls on Shane Taurima's shoulders.

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 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!

0 Taurima misused TVNZ funds, but wasn't biased

Shane Taurima is claiming to have been vindicated by the TVNZ investigation into its Maori and Pacific Programmes department. But he seems not to have read the whole report; under the heading
No bias, but Shane Taurima did misuse funds, review finds One News reports:

An independent review has found the former General Manager of TVNZ's Maori and Pacific Programmes department did misuse company resources for political activities with the Labour Party.
But the panel cleared Shane Taurima of any political bias in his interviews and the editorial content he produced for TVNZ programmes.
Mr Taurima resigned from his position following revelations he had participated in a Labour Party strategy meeting and had attended a fundraising meeting at TVNZ which involved the company's staff and resources.
The review panel found Mr Taurima failed to adequately disclose extensive party political activity during his final year with the company, after his unsuccessful bid for Labour's Ikaroa-Rawhiti candidacy in May 2013.
TVNZ's Chief Executive, Kevin Kenrick, says he accepts the findings of the review into the political activities of Mr Taurima and three other members of his staff while working at TVNZ.

David Cunliffe is refusing to comment on the report, saying it is a matter for the Labour Party's council to consider. We find that fascinating, given Mr Cunliffe's recent demands for everyone except himself to be transparent, and given the outrage that a number of Labour MP's have expressed, most recently Clare Curran, over a National candidate's link to the tobacco industry.

We could be cynical, and suggest that given Mr Cunliffe's desire for the taxpayer to fund political parties, Mr Taurima already has the inside running with his attitude to his employer's resources. But we'll resist the temptation to wander too far down that path.

It will be interesting to see whether this will nobble Taurima's bid to become Labour's Tamaki Makarau candidate. Personally, we believe that Labour ought not have a bar of anyone who has been found to have misused his employer's resources for political activity. Labour always has the option of sneaking Taurima in by the side door, via the party list.  

Interesting times await. But Shane Taurima is wrong to claim to have been vindicated by this report.

0 What's the hold-up?

The Labour Party is still unable to select a candidate for the Tamaki Makarau seat; the Herald reports:

Labour is still facing delays in selecting its candidate in the key Tamaki Makaurau seat as a result of broadcaster and potential candidate Shane Taurima's TVNZ problems.
Party figures are now worried the delays will put Labour at a disadvantage given the Maori Party which holds the seat yesterday selected its candidate Rangi McLean to replace former Maori Affairs Minister and former Co-leader Pita Sharples.
Labour's contenders for the candidacy were to be announced late this afternoon after three delays as the party waits for a TVNZ report into the actions of Mr Taurima.
He resigned as TVNZ's head of Maori programming in February after emails leaked to 3 News showed he was still involved in party meetings despite assuring his bosses he had given up his political aspirations.
Mr Taurima has denied his affiliation impacted on his work or on the programmes he oversaw.

TVNZ was expected to release its report today but last night Shane Te Pou of the Tamaki Makaurau Labour Electorate Committee said he understood that was unlikely to happen.
Labour Party General Secretary Tim Barnet acknowledged a further delay in the release of the report and therefore in the announcement of nominations was a real possibility.

TVNZ has been investigating the behaviour of Mr Taurima and several other staff since mid-February. Candidate selection in Tamaki Makarau has already been delayed several times.

And it seems that some within Labour are not happy with the process being so drawn out in Taurima's favour; read on:

Mr Te Pou said it was "crazy" the process was taking so long and was dependent on what happened with one candidate.
"Nominations close tomorrow but we won't have a candidate til mid May or the end of May. We're not the incumbent party, we're challenging for the seat and we won't have a Shane Jones as the candidate and I think we've placed ourselves in an unnecessary tough position, I just don't understand it at all.
"We shouldn't have delayed things around a particular candidate we should have thought about the overall picture and that not having a candidate in mid May when we've got an election in September is not good."
Mr Te Pou believed the issue should have been addressed through discussions between Mr Taurima and party leadership who could have asked him "is there anything in that report that is likely to embarrass you or us?".
"That could have been addressed at a very high level and certain assurances made and the process could have continued we should have had our selection by now and that's a huge issue to confront."

So what's the hold-up? Has TVNZ made an interim finding that is being contested by one or more of those being inquired about?  Or has the inquiry been stonewalled by people not being prepared to provide explanations to those conducting the investigation? Whatever the reason, it seems inexplicable that what seemed to be a pretty straightforward inquiry has taken so long.

And given that this inquiry was largely about Taurima's leadership of Maori programming at TVNZ, and allowing his personal politics to interfere, wouldn't Labour be taking a huge risk if it handed him the Tamaki Makarau selection on a plate? Perhaps Mr Taurima's political ambitions need to be set aside for three years when he may be less tainted by the events that led to his resignation from TVNZ.