Satire: Garrett to discuss identity theft with Israeli officials

Act MP David Garrett today confirmed he is to travel to Israel to meet with officials and security experts to discuss identity theft and passport fraud.

"Israel have many years of experience in forging passports from a wide range of countries. They represent international best practice."

"Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency has previously used identities of disabled people as part of security operations. I successfully obtained a false passport using the identity of a dead baby.
I look forward to learning from their experience" said Garrett.

Mr Garrett also noted that his Act party leader, Rodney Hide had taken a sympathetic attitude towards Israel after two Mossad agents were caught attempting to illegally obtain New Zealand passports in March 2004. After then Prime Minister Helen Clark criticised Israel for their actions, Hide said her anti-Israel sentiments were "an embarrassment". The Act party also defended the right of the deputy chief of staff of the Israeli army to visit New Zealand, after a stay was placed on all high level visits pending satisfactory resolution of the passport affair.

Mr Garrett also looks forward to discussing the Day of the Jackal with real intelligence operatives. "I want to know if more of the techniques from the book can be used for real."

"This is great stuff. Its just like the Boys Annual I read when I was 26."

The discussions with Israeli officials will be held alongside a tour of Israel by New Zealand MPs, led by the Speaker the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith

Garrett also hopes to discuss his trip with former Defence Science Agency chief Stephen Wilce, who has claimed to be a former MI5 and MI6 intelligence officer.

"Right thinking people can be rest assured they will not expect undue scrutiny when they lie and in Stephen's case, embellish their CV to impress the Defence Force and the Security Intelligence Service".

---
All quotes by David Garrett have been made up for the purposes of satire. He is scheduled to take part of a Speakers tour of Israel, however he is not meeting with Israeli officials to discuss passport fraud.

The attitude taken by the Act party in relation to the Israeli passport affair is based on true sources, including the quote from Hide.
---

Background
In 2004 two reported Mossad agents, Eli Cara, 50 and Uriel Kelman, 31, were caught and jailed for trying to illegally obtain New Zealand passports. In June 2005 Israel made a reluctant apology to the New Zealand Government where they promised that "Israel commits itself to taking steps to prevent a recurrence of similar incidents in future."

Yet in January 2010 a senior Hamas official was murdered in Dubai, and it emerged that the death squad used forged passports from countries such as Britain, Germany, Ireland and Australia to enter the United Arab Emirates. Many of the real 'owners' of these passports turned out to have visited Israel or were living there with dual citizenship. Thanks to the Israeli operation innocent civilians now found themselves on Interpol arrest warrants for murder and other serious charges. In response both Britain and Australia expelled Israeli diplomats.

Rodney Hide attempts to protect Telecom from democracy

This week Act leader Rodney Hide demonstrated how the Regulatory Responsibility Bill and any of its bastard offspring in terms of 'regulatory principles' are really about protecting big capital from democracy.

Hide rode to Telecom's defence, attacking the decision of Communications Minister Steven Joyce to fund the roll-out of high-speed broadband in rural areas by redirecting tens of millions of dollars Telecom received from its rivals under the Telecommunications Services Obligations*. Hide moaned this impaired Telecom's property rights. In order words regulation was going to cost them money.

"Mr Hide, who is also Regulatory Reform Minister, branded the plans a breach of National's own regulations policy and a "sad indictment" on the Government. He released a strongly-worded letter to Telecommunications Minister Steven Joyce that signals one of the biggest fallouts between ACT and National since the parties agreed to govern together."

"I'm very displeased and the reason I'm displeased is not only is it poor law-making, it also sends a signal to any investors into New Zealand that their investment isn't safe, and therefore it makes it tougher to get the sort of infrastructure and the sort of investment we need to grow the economy," he said.

Essentially Rodney is demanding that when government is considering legislation or regulation the squeals of needs of business and property holders should be treated as a special case. Bullshit. Large corporations are currently able to use the same mechanisms available to the rest of us to voice their concerns, such as writing to Ministers and making submissions to select committees. In fact there is already good evidence large business are already able to have a disproportionate voice through these channels, in particular in terms of access to Ministers.

An analyst at the multinational banker J P Morgan, Laurent Horrat went straight for the hyperbole when he declared that Telecom is becoming "a worst case scenario worldwide for the effect of government regulation on an incumbent telco". "I understand the policy objectives, but if you take the list of things Telecom is faced with, there aren't any incumbent telcos facing such an extensive list." Horrant also captured the pure sense of entitlement transnational corporates believe they deserve. "Typically in regulatory discussion between government and incumbent telcos there tends to be a give and take. I can see a lot of the take, I can't see a lot of the give here," said Horrut.

Horrut has a horribly short memory. Telecom has been on the take ever since it was privatised,

• running down the assets of the company to pay out high dividends to overseas shareholders
• paying its CEOs ridicious salaries for their efforts to avoid regulation.
• charging high prices for slow broadband well below international standards.
• fighting and suppressing competition whenever it had the chance to occur.
• worldwide there would not be many telco's who 'had it so good' for so long. If Telecom had been regulated earlier there would not be this impression of regulation happening all at once.
  

For years representatives of the 'markets', of which Horrut is only the modern equivalent, warned any attempt to regulate Telecom in favour of telecommunications users would crash the sharemarket given that Telecom was the largest listed company (it no longer is). This is oddly reminiscent of the claims the US banks were 'too big to fail' - well if that the case then this is an excellent argument for breaking such companies up and introducing regulations to ensure nothing gets 'too big to fail' in the first place. Its also a good argument for keeping key infrastructure in public ownership.

While Hide and his cohorts love to talk about the magic of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', in reality Smith would have been the first to demand that Telecom's monopolistic outrages be bought to an end, and thats if Smith even accepted Telecom's existence as a 'joint stock' company in the first place.

If superannuation and Kiwisaver funds of New Zealanders happen to hold significant Telecom shares this only means that financial advisors and superannuation trustees need to be held to account for making poor investment decisions. Funnily enough this is a poorly regulated area too. Its not as if they were not warned the Telecom dividend machine was likely to be switched off. In 2007 Christopher Niesche called on Telecom to stop being a company obsessed with holding back the tide of regulation at any cost and become a company seeking growth.

A key reason why a select committee recommended against the Regulatory Responsibility Bill was that it increased the litigation risks associated with adopted the principles of the LAC guidelines and the regulatory impact statement requirements into legislation. The threat of litigation from litigious corporations like Telecom and Infratil, who then might start demanding compensation for government actions in the public interest. One hopes this and Hide's clash with Joyce will demonstrate to National why they should kill the Hide/Douglas Bill when it comes back into the House. Hide admits he is yet to secure National party support for the bill.

Telecom have always attempted to blame the threat of regulation for everything. Is it a co-incidence that Telecom's market friends are screeching about regulation at the same time Telecom's XT network is also screeching to a halt? Are they attempting to create the impression the slump in the share price had nothing to do with Telecom's own incompetence at running a mobile network?

I say call their bluff. Given the extent of Telecom's pillage since privatisation, perhaps a just outcome would be leaving to go it into receivership so the core network could be bought back into public ownership for a song. Regulation of the industry could then happen without Telecom's meddling, and access to the network could be rented out to telecommunications providers on the terms set by the representatives of the people. Ok receivership is a pipe dream - but a fun one. I actually suspect Telecom are overstating the extent of their poverty in any case.

David Cunliffe as communications minister in the previous government did a great thing when he broke the cycle by ignoring Telecom's protests and unbundled the local loop. Cunliffe stood up to Telecom where his Labour predecessors in the portfolio appeared to cower at Telecom's feared wrath. Another part of breaking the cycle is to ignore the protests made on behalf of 'foreign investors' - these are exactly the kind of foreign investors which bled Telecom dry in the 1990s. Real investment is welcome, but rent seeking ideologically driven cowboys are not. One could also ask why Hide, as a government minister is effectively encouraging a capital strike of the speculators.

In the wake of the collapse of the finance institutions in the United States which started the Global Financial Crisis and the examples of multinational corporations in our own backyard attempting to bully governments at the expense of the people, it is time whether it is asked whether corporations really ought to have more influence on government than everyone else.

And to cap it all off this week the Government appointed former Telecom boss Rod Deane to undertake a review of defence spending. Was he Hide's pick, or a payoff for all those donations Deane gave the National party?

* Used to be called the Kiwishare

Silence from Labour on ministerial housing is a mistake

It is most unfortunate the Labour opposition have made the decision to join National's conspiracy of silence over the out-of-town housing allowances issue. Even if Labour had some dirty laundry themselves, it is more important to speak out and differentiate themselves clearly from National, who being in Government would normally take most of the rap.

Instead, Labour look like they are out of touch. When they have reluctantly commented on the issue they have appeared nervous and indecisive.

If Phil Goff was a better opposition leader he would have gained the initiative by immediately demanding an inquiry into the issue, freely admitting there may have been some Labour 'mistakes'. At the same time he could have barraged Key with suggestions on how to do things better. Good use of parliamentary questions and Trevor Mallard may have uncovered information that put ministers under more pressure.

Instead Goff let John Key gain some of the initiative with his soft as Teflon 'review'. Through their actions the right encourage cynicism toward politicians - it just so happens a electorate with less expectations of politicians usually suits their agenda. So in their silence, have Labour helped the right undermine faith in democracy?

Unfortunately, a 'plague on both your houses' has been a common theme this week - in more ways than one.

As for the Greens, IMHO they had nothing to worry about regarding the Green Futures Superannuation Scheme - the fact they have been more open about their arrangements for years should provide enough political cover.

There are reasonable and necessary expenses for being an out-of-Wellington MP. Its only the profit seeking rorts that need to stop.

I was working in Parliament in 2001 when National and Act's campaign against Hobbs and Bunkle was in full swing. It went far beyond just raising issues - it was the right of New Zealand politics at their most nasty, personal and vindictive. I remember thinking at the time there soon must come a point where the public would start feeling sorry for Hobbs and Bunkle - it really was that bad.

Richard Prebble was particularly obnoxious - it might be a small mercy, but the end of his second political career can be traced to his involvement in the Hobbs and Bunkle bashing. Speculation about his replacement as Act leader started soon after the 2002 election.

The memories of that National and Act campaign were a key motivation behind my posts this week.

Not that I am suggesting Labour and the Greens should now run a similar campaign - instead its more important to remind the public how nasty the Nats can be, as well as highlighting their obvious hypocrisy. How easy would it be right now to paint the Nats and Roger Douglas as greedy out of touch bullies? Unfortunately the opposition are failing to be an effective opposition right now.

Many of the National MPs who were frothing at the mouth in 2001 are now claiming, on questionable grounds, higher out-of-town allowances than Bunkle or Hobbs - it just beggars belief.

Phone Phoney's: The last desperate Act

Five minutes ago our phone rang.

I picked up the receiver

"Hello, this is Rodney Hide, we are going to win Epsom so please give your party vote to Act on Saturday..."

Arrrrghhhh!

And to make matters worse Rodney was not 'calling' at all, it was a recorded message - this is really disappointing - I got to shout at Rodney Hide and he wasn't even listening to me.

Well Act are not going to win Epsom - so Rodney's rudeness will only increase the so called 'wasted vote' for the right on Saturday. Or perhaps Rodney knows he is dog tucker, and the phone phoney's is Act's last desperate attempt to gain 5% by directly misleading voters.

It might be fun to look at the telecom website - perhaps Rodney is guilty of misuse of a telephone....:)

Act MP already looking for work after the election

With the Act party very likely to disapear from Parliament in next weeks election, it appears Act MP Stephen Franks is looking for alternative employment.

He has offered to take up the legal case of Madeleine Flannagan, a former Christian Heritage Party candidate who has alleged she was assualted by Cabinet Minister Pete Hodgson during Prime Minister Helen Clark's recent visit to Otago University. Mrs Flannagan says Hodgson grabbed her by the arm to stop her from holding a paper placard saying "Speed Kills" behind Ms Clark when she was being interviewed for TV.

"ACT New Zealand justice spokesman and former lawyer Stephen Franks said he would see the incident through to the end even if it was unresolved before next week's election."

Is Stephen Franks attempting to restart his legal career?

Blackball election meeting (West Coast Tasman)

On Thursday I spoke at my first candidate meeting. Best of all the meeting was at (Formerly) The Blackball Hilton on the West Coast, a proud historical home of the left. I drove over to Blackball for the meeting on Thursday, stayed at the Hilton overnight and had a good stroll around the town the next day.

Following a yummy dinner, kindly provided by Jane of the Hilton for the candidates, the debate got going just after 7.30pm. Each candidate got a 5 minute introduction followed by question time where each candidate got 1 minute to answer questions from the audience.

Apart from me, the line-up consisted of.

Richard Davies (Green): Bloody nice guy. Would pick him to be on the 'social justice' side of the Greens. Said he still had a lot of time for the Alliance and he admired our tax policy. He told me it was good to have someone to the left of him there as it made him look more moderate! (I took that in the kind way it was intended). I felt we were able to back each other up on a number of issues, often approaching the questions in different ways. If missed a point in an answer, or ran out of time I was often relieved to see Richard make up for it :)

Kevin Gill (Act): Despite only being 22 on the Act list Kevin has his own new looking Act bus with his name and photo all over it. In contrast, the Alliance candidate (me) arrived in a $750 car, borrowed from a mate. Kevin's initial 5 minute speech was a little unusual. Kind of reminiscent of your odd uncle telling jokes at a wedding. I thought got his points across better during question time. When I first arrived and introduced to the other candidates as the Alliance person, he made some quip about me only getting 1 minute to speak. I quickly quipped back that Kevin didn't need any dinner, as the 'market will provide!' :)

Damien O'Connor (Labour, sitting MP): An assured speaker, Damien delivered a very 'MP in Government' speech. Talked about what Labour had achieved with ERA and renationalising ACC, among other things. A local gave Damien a hard time about schools, as he felt Damien had done little to prevent the closure of many local schools (this was the big local issue).

Derek Blight (Christian Heritage): An interesting mix. I found Derek friendly and chatty and I was genuinely impressed with his enthusiasm for restorative justice and how it fitted into his work in Hokitika. I would normally associate CHP with the lock em up brigade, so meeting Derek was a welcome surprise. Of course he was a social conservative, stating CHP would repeal the Civil Unions Act and giving the obligatory 'abortion is murder' speech near the end.

Milton Osborne (United Future/ Outdoor) Seemed to be one of the Outdoor Recreation crew. Wanted to ban 1080 - prompting a question from the audience about what the UFO party would replace it with. Gave Peter's talk about UFO making MMP work and the need for one of the big parties to form a coalition with a smaller party. Don't remember him mentioning 'common sense' once!

Chris Auchinvole (National): At first sight Chris reminded me of English comic Harry Enfield and I had difficulty shaking off that image all night! His opening speech attempted to paint tax as the key issue in the election. A couple of people in the audience asked why rich people gained more from National's tax policy, gaining with those on the highest incomes getting $92 extra per week. Chris resisted from conceding this point, and argued that more people would gain tax relief under National than under Labour. I thought Chris would have done better to acknowledge rich people would gain more, as it was blindingly obvious, and this may have allowed him to make his point about 'more people gaining' in a more convincing way.

My opening was a bit of ramble following a few rough notes. I talked about despite the fact we were being told the economy was doing well, many people continued to miss out. Made a call for a minimum wage of $15, introduced our tax policy, and explained how 75% of people would pay less tax under the Alliance. Arriving with a large stack of Alliance tabloids, people seemed to enjoy my quip that the Alliance stood for free health, free education and a free newspaper! I also talked about what the Alliance had achieved in government, and made a strong call for public ownership and control of electricity, rail etc.

As I expected I was more comfortable at question time. Very happy to get a question on globalisation/free trade where I outlined the opposition of the Alliance to the current WTO/World Bank agenda as this has only led to the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer across the world. I think I surprised a few people by rattling off the most recent trade deficit figures, including the now massive $2 billion deficit with China, pointing out that despite the hype trade liberalisation was leading to an explosion of imports and this could have negative impacts on our economy.

My answer to the last question on school closures was very well received. I pointed out there was a bigger issue here, which went back to tomorrow schools which made administration of schools more businesslike, and that treasury was largely responsible for this agenda (hehe dig at treasury felt good). I said that some right wingers even celebrated the fact that businesses closed down when they talked about creative destruction. Labour were also making schools more businesslike by encouraging them to recruit foreign fee paying students, creating their own funding stream. I reminded people that every time they hear the words 'bulk funding', 'school choice' in this election, these were moves to make schools even more like businesses, and these policies would lead to more closures. I would have liked to flesh the argument a little more, but answers to questions were strictly limited one tiny minute.

Quite a few people told me I did well (including some of the other candidates).

Following the debate I got into some interesting discussions with a couple of people. A member of the Rail and Maritime Union questioned my contention that the Government should have bought back the entire railways instead of giving the operations to Toll until 2070. He actually confirmed my fear that track upgrades continue to be mostly of the band aid variety, like they have been for the past 15 years, instead of the major upgrades that are needed. I also talked with a woman about the management of schools and the possible implications of bulk funding. While I suspect we may have had different views, I felt we both appreciated each others strong interest in education issues. I suggested she check out the QPEC website.

Overall the debate was a lot of fun, made more enjoyable by the friendly nature of the other candidates and an audience dominated by lefties!

The Economic Tailban - a bunch of fundies

Span's latest takeoff of the ACT billboards is fantastic :)

ACT's dubious record on advocating violence

According to the Press ACT leader Rodney Hide's recent attack on Labour Cabinet minister David Benson-Pope, whom he accused of physical abuse of students as a teacher, has split the ACT party. This has led to speculation there is a leadership challenge underway, led by Ken Shirley.

It does not surprise me that the Benson-Pope issue has caused splits within the ACT party, as ACT have previously argued that violence against children is normal and we should only act in cases of 'brutality'. Its a very dubious record for a party supposedly defending the rights of students not to be physically assulted by a teacher. Why has no one questioned their credability before? Consider what Stephen Franks said in 2001.

Our schools and our teachers were more secure before we abolished corporal punishment in schools in 1990. Suspension figures were not kept prior to 1991. In that year there were 4,297 suspensions and 175 expulsions. In 2000 there were 22,029 suspensions and stand downs and 157 expulsions. Many of them were for violence or threats of violence to other students, and even teachers. That doesn't necessarily mean cause and effect but it should at least cause us to be hesitant before accepting the proposition that all violence towards children begets violence from children.
...
I know that good dedicated teachers are now driven from teaching by insolence, lack of respect for learning and the rights of others in class to learn, bullying and even physical fear in their classrooms. Possibly corporal punishment would have left with teachers a tool for controlling boys so that they had not sunk in performance and aspiration in relation to girls schools as they have.

Franks also suggested children's advocates should try to channel violence rather than abolish it. Does that mean Benson-Pope should have used a channel for his tennis balls? Stephen Franks gets worse.

"Violence is very, very normal. Sadly the boundary between brutality and violence ... blurs for some people. But we can't deal with a brutality problem by pretending all forms of aggression are violence." (NZ Herald, 28/6/02)

Forcing a (deflated) tennis ball into a student mouth is clearly unacceptable way for a teacher to treat a student. But given that ACT have attempted to make a crass distinction between 'brutality' and 'violence' their crediability on the issue ought to be questioned. Is ramming a tennis ball into a student's mouth mere 'aggression', 'brutality' or 'violence'?

This only demonstrates the value of discouraging all violence against children. A repeal of outdated provisions such as Section 59 of the Crimes Act would be a fine start. Under such a law change 'a light smack' would not lead to a prosecution, as children would be given the same protection as adults under the general law of assault. And not every 'technical' assault of an adult leads to a prosecution.

The curious rules of coups

There is a plot within the belegerled ACT party to replace leader Rodney Hide. Senior party members have asked former deputy leader Ken Shirley to challenge Hide for the leadership.

Public statements to the media in such situations that 'all is well' should be taken with a grain of salt, as just about every leadership challenge includes a denial of a leadership challenge, right before there is a leadership challenge. What is not being said is often a better guide to what is going on.

Shirley will only confirm he supported 'the ACT party leadership', but declined to clarify whether this meant he supported Hide.

Former vice-president of ACT Vince Ashworth also declined to say whether he was comfortable with Hide as leader, but added "I always believed that Ken (Shirley) would have been the better leader. I say that because of his experience, and he's a person I've always left I can trust."

So Ashworth thinks Rodney Hide is untrustworthy. Act MP Deborah Coddington declines to comment whether she supports Hide. Roger Douglas and Derek Quigley want no hear or Hide. ACT president Catherine Judd does not really want Hide either, as she supported Franks for the leadership.

Hide desperately attempts to blame the rumours on 'Helen Clark's cheap shots', while the Press confirms no Labour party sources were in any way involved in their reporting.

I would not be surprised at all if it turns out Shirley is the stooge candidate for the leadership, an MP on the way out who is being used to test support for a challenge. Shirley will take the rap for challenging the leader, allowing John Banks or Stephen Franks to mount a clean(er) challenge later.

This will lead to a glorious mess, and ACT will be tossed out of Parliament. Not even their cabal of wealthy backers, with their record dodgy donation deals will be able to save them.

Robson bites like a big fish

Perhaps in response to my posting on the 11th of November, where I questioned whether the Progressive Party's campaign for corporate tax cuts was being funded by corporates, it is possible this blog may have gained mention in Matt Robson's latest email newsletter. Of course, someone else may be asking the obvious questions too, as just like Robson's reaction, it does seem fishy.

"I'm happy to tell a snide ex-colleague that the billboard money isn't Parliamentary funding nor from corporates, but donations from Progressive members and supporters."

"Ok, Matt, but what about the three large newspaper ads in all the major papers? Those cost a lot more than a few billboards. Are you saying the Progressives got no corporate funding at all? Did any wealthy businessmen in favour of corporate tax cuts get out their personal cheque accounts to become 'Progressive party supporters'?

Might I suggest a way we can clear up this matter once and for all, that could even help the Progressive party promote its policies.

I note the Progressive party has a policy of 'full disclosure' of political donations over $250. This is a fine policy party hopped from the Alliance. Under current electoral law, parties only need to declare political donations over $10,000. This limit is clearly too high. One only needs to think of the dodgy trust scheme run by the ACT party in 1996 - this allowed ACT to receive huge donations split into anonymous $10,000 lots. For some strange reason, the rich funding the scheme did not want their name associated with the ACT party.

I call on the Progressive party to follow their own policy and make a full public declaration of all donations made to the party over $250 over the past year. It would be a principled way to promote their own policy, and it would put to rest any rumours of recent corporate cheques.

If they do so, and they are clear of corporate or corporate linked cash, I would consider a retraction and would celebrate it as a victory for parliamentary accountability. But I doubt they will, as the Progs have consistently shown they won't stand up for anything that will stand in the way of Jim's ministerial LTD.

I looked up 'snide' in the dictionary. Apparently it means 'derogatory or mocking in an indirect way'. Me? Taking the mocky out of the Progs? :)