Goff and Key talked to Family First – but didn’t say much

I attended a forum by the Family First lobby in Auckland yesterday, predominately to hear how John Key and Phil Goff would respond to questions from Family First’s Bob McCoskrie.

I came away wondering why their answers were so non-committal given that both leaders’ offices were sent a full list of questions beforehand, of which I have a copy. So rather than getting sprung, they had plenty of time to prepare answers to uncomfortable questions on the usual Family First topics; same sex adoption, euthanasia, child prostitution and parental notification for teen abortions. As both got the same questions they could have even shared notes.

Both were asked about marriage and family. Key said that marriage was a partnership between two people, and commitment was the key to a successful marriage.

Goff also said it was between two people- with legal safeguards built into that.

When pressed about the gender of these “two people”, Key was asked whether he’d vote for a gay marriage bill.

“That’s something I’d have to think through,” he said.

Pretty non-committal, really.

Goff’s response to a similar question on #Goffchat on Twitter wasn’t much better. ”Labour supported civil unions, when National opposed them. Not intending to make further changes”.
So that’s an “I don’t want to tell you”, from Key, and an “I don’t want to progress this”, from Goff.

Key was then as asked whether he thought the safest place for a child to be was in a marriage relationship. His one word answer: “Yes”. Goff said the gender of parents was irrelevant to good parenting. He said that a stable supportive and healthy environment ( to bring up kids) was his bottom line.

“It’s not the gender of parents, but the ability for parents to provide a stable loving environment – what would be different about parenting if it was biological?”

So that’s a “yes” from Key, and a “not necessarily” from Goff.

When asked if life starts at conception or later on, Goff said, “ 12 weeks, 20 weeks, who is to say?

Key said, “Well, you certainly hope it is before the first Plunket visit” - another throw-away line. He wasn’t asked when he thought the first Plunket visit should be, but instead he was asked whether parents should be notified should their teen be considering an abortion.

“In my view for the most part yes, unless there is a very very good reason, I think parents should be told”.

Goff said while it was desirable for counsellors to encourage a girl to talk to her parents, “would a girl confide in a counsellor if she thought that the counsellor would go directly to her parents – my guess is that she wouldn’t”.

So that’s an “I don’t know and don’t particularly care” from both Goff and Key on when life starts. It’s a "no" from Goff on parental notification - and a "sort of yes" from Key.

They were also asked whether they believed in God and faith. Instead, both gave answers on what they didn’t believe in.

Key on God: “I wouldn’t describe myself as atheistic or agnostic, I live my life by Christian principles, I live my life to help others. I can’t tell you what happens the moment you die”.

But he then said “I do think you have a spirit that moves to the next…..” but he then stopped abruptly, perhaps realising he had just said he didn’t know what happened in the afterlife, which in a way makes him a bit agnostic.

That response was similar to what he said in 2007, that is he said what he doesn’t believe, rather than what he does. He said then “I’m not deeply religious, and I don’t believe in life after death.” He said his stock answer in 2006,also.

Goff’s response was similar: “I`m not an atheist. I don’t believe in the afterlife. I`m a person of faith – born and bred a Roman Catholic, and my life has been shaped by the Christian values I was brought up with.”

Later, Key also said he ”might support” laws on same sex adoption, and told conference delegates that the government may adopt National MP Sam Lotu-Ii’ga’s
Moneylenders (Licensing and Regulation) Bill [PDF] to address loan sharking.

Among the final comments from both:

Goff: “It’s too easy to be a plastic politician”.

Key, on personal attacks in the House: “Frankly, I think Pete Hodgson is a loser”.

So the two leaders did their best to say… well not much, hoping that they`ll get some votes out of it.

Instead both got standing ovations.

More about → Goff and Key talked to Family First – but didn’t say much

Goff is Labour’s leader, and he should lead

My last post touched on Labour leader Phil Goff’s leadership, and, unlike many others, called for Goff to lead, not to be replaced by someone who doesn’t want the job – i.e. everyone else in Labour’s caucus.

As leader of the Opposition, Goff is supposed to lead a party that is intent on providing an alternative government so that when there is an election the people can decide that this alternative bunch is worth a crack at government again.

Just as the focus on the Darren Hughes affair shifted to Goff’s leadership, so the discussion is now shifting to the effectiveness of the party he is supposed to be leading. And much of this discussion is generated by Labour activists who can only be described as really pissed off. One activist asks “any suggestions on who to vote for in the upcoming election?”, implying a party other than Labour. The rest are asking for a leader other than Goff. They won't get that before the election.

Goff is now the leader, and he should lead. If Goff won’t lead - and he won’t be challenged - Labour deserve to go down the gurgler at the next election, in part because they didn’t have the balls to roll Goff earlier in the electoral cycle. I thought he should have been rolled way back in 2009 and called it.

Goff actually said the Hughes affair is bound to be bad for the party and then today said it has strengthened his leadership. Well, if it has strengthened his leadership, it needs to be a lot stronger, so, under Goff’s reasoning, let’s have another sex scandal.

The Darren Hughes debacle has actually strengthened Goff’s hold on the leadership, as the desire for anyone else to be leader has greatly diminished . Consequently, that’s bound to be bad for the party - because Goff is still leader of a caucus whose members are, in the main, talented bobble heads ( at least in front of the cameras), none of whom want to lead, including some who'd rather not be led by Goff.

Labour needs to get back to being an opposition, to hold the government to account and to provide an alternative to National. Otherwise disaffected Labour activists may end up voting Green.

More about →

What a shambles

Just wondering, can we have a Labour leader now? Forget David Cunliffe. Grant Robertson, although a fairly recent arrival in Parliament, would do a better job (and so what if he is gay) – but he doesn’t want the job. No one wants it. Phil Goff has it and he should get on and do it, because the party deserves it and needs it.

Phil Goff’s handling of the Darren Hughes allegations was terrible. If he is inept at this, how is he going to be able to run a country?

Goff has refused to return calls from party president Andrew Little on the Hughes allegations. He has refused to truthfully reveal how long he had known about the Hughes allegations. We now know he knew a day 0r two after the complaint was made to the police , i.e within a few days of the alleged incident. He has refused to accept the resignation of Darren Hughes,(twice), only to accept it, under pressure, days after the news broke. You’d at least think that he’d talk to his president to manage how this news was to be broken, or before accepting a resignation of a top MP before a police investigation is completed.

But he did neither. The immediate appointment of Goff’s old school mate David Shearer to Hughes’ education portfolio hasn’t pleased everyone. Nobody in Labour wants Judith Tizard to replace Hughes on the list, although Goff has asked Tizard whether she will take up the vacant list spot.

But Goff hasn’t spoken to Little about that, either. Goff doesn’t want Tizard to take up the list place, but feels he has to give her first dibs, and told reporters she should be the next MP. Meanwhile LIttle was telling journalists that Louisa Wall - who is several list places lower than Tizard - should be the next MP. One political journalist asked me, “Do they even talk?”.

Tizard said she`ll let Goff know in about a week whether she wants to be an MP again and get $162,020 for a few month’s work - perhaps she`ll talk to the New York branch of the party first. National MP’s, however, would love to see Tizard back.

Goff is a hopeless leader because he doesn’t generate hope, and he doesn’t have the support of his caucus. Labour MPs, rather than following him, are merely falling in behind him, unsure whether to backstab him, because no one wants to lead the Labour Party in its current state until they feel it is necessary to do so. Goff is no pied piper. There’s no way Labour can effectively run the country under Goff, when it can’t even be an effective opposition or explain its own policies.

Take employment for example. Labour’s employment strategy is that it is telling people that it has a plan for jobs, and that National doesn't. That’s it. No mention at all as to what that plan actually is.

We deserve better than that. If we don't have an effective opposition, who is going to provide checks on democracy - the fourth estate?

More about →

Another speech from Goff

Phil Goff delivered another speech today. You can read it here. It is about the forgotten middle income New Zealand families, those who work hard but still feel they are going backwards.

Labour wants to tell the country it can assist them better than National can. Phil Goff knows what it takes to turn the current situation around. It wants to grow the economy, provide jobs and keep living standards down. Yep, that`ll do the trick.

How will Labour do this – well, Goff doesn't know.

Labour will increase our stake in our own financial future, assist us to protect our asset base, and welcome foreign investment. Marvellous. But HOW?

By expanding innovation (which is what Labour tried to do when in Government) and implement a “skills strategy”. Goff says Labour won’t be using power company dividends as a surrogate for taxation ( like it did when in Government).

I really wonder why Goff bothers delivering speeches. The first half of the speech is a moan about our current situation and the second half is a dream about how to resurrect the nanny state, instead of the economy. He may as well have repeated his last big speech.

If Goff can’t do better than this, Labour needs to be led by someone who can, or hire people to write speeches that actually resonate. If there’s nobody else, why should Labour win the next election?

National would never have written a speech like this in opposition for John Key to deliver.

More about →

Labour Party conference: Goff has a game plan – but won’t tell us what it is

Occasionally, on Big News we like to praise both Labour, and National. Both parties have done great things in previous years –and both parties have done terrible things.

Phil Goff wants to do great things. But he needs to tell us how he wants to go about it. In his speech at the Labour Party conference, he did the former, but not the latter. He said

John Key has no game plan for our cities and our farms so that we can compete and win in the global economy.

I do.

In business, game plans are only effective if the CEO is a leader. If Goff wants the country to believe him, he is going to have to lead, and state what that game plan is, otherwise voters will conclude that he does not have a game plan – but a dream.

National won’t bring unemployment down. But Labour did.

I’d like to know how Labour is going to bring unemployment down to record lows, without pushing the sickness benefit up to record highs.

We will work with people who keep ownership and jobs onshore in New Zealand rather than exporting jobs overseas.

I’d like to know how Labour will work with people before they export jobs overseas, not just those who want to keep jobs onshore.

Labour is fighting to put government back on the side of hardworking New Zealanders, so that we don’t have two New Zealands any more.

How?

We must be the party of "We can do this."

How about being the party of 'We will do this'?

Or don’t you know how, just yet?

More about →

Jones wants Māori Party gone: Māori Labour voters want Goff gone

Nearly half Māori voters who vote Labour do not believe Goff is the man to be leading the Labour Party. Just over a third (36%) say he is and just under a half (49%) say he isn't. However, of Labour voters not on the Māori roll the vote was pretty much 50/50 thanks to the expected overhangs..

It’s a pity the pollsters didn’t ask who is the person that should lead the Labour Party. The answer would have been interesting, given that Shane Jones, who wants to get rid of the Māori Party, is the least preferred PM after Key, Goff, Sharples, Turia and Harawira - and even Helen Clark and Winston Peters who aren't even in Parliament.

In fact Māori electorate voters would rather have Harawira as PM than Goff - but they’d also rather have Goff than Jones. Perhaps some Labour Maori voters would rather have Harawira as leader of the Labour Party.

Yep, Jones is at the bottom of the preferred PM pile, and is the only Labour MP in the list other than Goff. The poll of 1001, constituted 68% on the Māori roll and 32% from the General roll - and of those on the General roll, 51% would vote Labour. About a third of those on the Māori roll would vote Labour,despite a proportion of them preferring someone other than Goff as leader.

Why would Māori vote for a party if they want that party to have a change of leadership, and don’t believe that the leader is providing good leadership on Māori issues? Perhaps because a vote for the Maori Party is perceived to be wasted due to an expected overhang.

Phil Goff has said that he will work with a party “if we think that is in the interests of the country”. Personally, I don’t believe Labour considers the Māori Party is in the best interest of the country, purely because it is more friendly with National. That’s an incorrect position to take, because imagine the mess the country would be in if National was in full coalition with ACT, with Roger Douglas as a cabinet minister, and the Maori Party arguing with Labour from the sidelines?

More about →

Goff appears happy with electoral suicide

Well, Goff got his bounce in the polls he was looking for when he did his Nationhood speech. The problem though, is he doesn't know if it was because of the Nationhood speech or because of a National dip consequent to passing the the ETS, and announcements on ACC.

Labour is still only on 30.8% with Goff on 8% as preferred Prime Minister. Goff appears happy, even though the shift is within the margin of error.

I’m finally getting the chance to get around, to talk to more New Zealanders, to meet more New Zealanders, and speak out on their behalf

I wonder how many of these people are Maori. If Goff wants another rise in the polls - but at the expense of Maori, it won't do him any good, as he won't be able to form a government if he is going to alienate the Maori Party. It's not just time to go back to the drawing board for Labour - its time to get a new drawing board and another person to hold the pencil. Only then will Labour have a substantive rise in the polls when the Nats dont make mistakes.

More about →

Goff’s Nationhood speech

Rather than do an immediate post on Goff’s Nationhood speech, I thought I’d wait rather than attack Goff for a racist speech that Shane Jones vetted before delivery.

What Goff appeared to want to do is open up a split within the Māori Party at the same time as divide a wedge between the Māori Party and National. He wanted to play the race card, but in a non-racist way. His speech was not racist like Brash’s 2004 Nationhood speech, but Goff pulls on the same strings, articulating a latent belief that Māori were getting special treatment at the expense of other New Zealanders.

Goff may be correct in calling the emissions trading scheme a “shabby “political deal, (twice), but it is a bit rich saying that it will harm New Zealanders for generations to come when he has said that Labour will repeal the ETS when in power, thus minimising that harm.

Goff attacked John Keys leadership, saying it would lead to a country with "one New Zealander turned against another, Maori against Pakeha". Yet Labour has led the way on this. In addition, it has now withdrawn an offer to create enduring consensus over the Foreshore and Seabed legislation.

Perhaps Goff wants to see the Māori Party destroyed - hence the hope of engineering that destruction - as he sees it as the only way Labour can form a government in 2011. Like Helen Clark before him, he could well be willing to reopen wounds in race relations to gain power, and use the race card to expose any rifts between National the Māori Party as they appear, in the hope that NZ First will come back in 2011. And that is a real pity.

Sure, the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process should not be used as a basis for privileged treatment of certain iwi, thus causing disagreement among Māori - but Goff’s speech was not exactly about kotahitanga either. His unsubstantiated implication was that Key’s lack of criticism of Harawira’s mofo comments was because he wanted to get this “shabby political deal” enacted.

Goff’s comments that the Foreshore and Seabed legislation that deprived Māori to go to court was ‘working well’ is contrary to Labour’s submission to the Foreshore and Seabed Ministerial review. It’s a U-turn in Labour policy. Warning that repeal would make ‘wounds fester’ was a politically irresponsible statement to make, given that it was Labour who did the wounding that initiated the formation of the Māori Party.

Labour still sees the Māori Party as the last cab off the rank. Now that the party is bleeding supporters who are looking for another cab; will they go to a party that is happy to exercise wedge politics to open up a boiling pot in race relations, ask questions and demand change in Māori Party leadership, or be politically apathetic.

Goff, in trying to articulate concerns about emerging problems seems unable to offer practical solutions to problems in race relations and unfair treatment.

But that’s what is needed now. Extending a narrative to touch a nerve for short –term exposure is not going to do much. Labour needs a new leader - and quickly.

More about →

"Politics is a marathon, we're at the start of the race": Phil Goff

Phil Goff really is not helping Labour at all. Labour is running a marathon and Labour is at the start of the race according to Phil Goff. National is also in the race, but at least it has got off the starting blocks. Isn't it about time Labour at least shows it wants people to know it too is at least out of the the starting blocks.

Goff was responding to the 3 News polls. Labour is at 29.2%. National is at 58.1% . More people favour Helen Clark to be Prime Minister than Phil Goff.

Meanwhile the wheels on the bus go round and round.

All day long.

More about →

Goffs gaffe

Yesterday I covered the story of Bruce Burgess and how he has threee properties, no job and was turned away from WINZ because his wife earned $21k. I broke the news yesterday that Burgess is entitled to some benefit from WINZ - and not just temporary access.

It could well be that Labour - who leaked the story - knew all along that Burgess was entitled to WINZ support. Perhaps that is why yesterday's media release said:

It appears his wife’s income, under $30,000, disqualifies the couple from any temporary access to the unemployment benefit.

Even if the Burgess' income was $28k they would not have been entitled to an abated benefit, Thats why they used the $30k figure and the word " appears" in the media release - to decieve, when the real reported figure was $21k.

What dorks Phil Goff and his staff are. What's the point of having researchers and media people, Phil Goff, when you make Gaffes like this?

More about →

Why does Phil Goff ask such dumb questions?

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister answer in the House yesterday that a person who has been made redundant and who has a spouse earning $26,000 a year is eligible for financial support for job search or retraining when he or she is not?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is correct.

More about →

Phil Goff's idiotic idea

Phil Goff wants the dole paid to people made redundant due to the recession even if their partners are working. He wants partners income to be disregarded in means testing.

To pay the full unemployment benefit to partnered redundant workers, the whole benefit system would need to be revamped as when an unemployed person with a non-earning partner gets the benefit, half the benefit is paid to the partner, and half to the unemployed person.

Here's what could happen within the current system: A person is made redundant. She earned $35,000 a year - about $670 a week - and does not live with her partner, who has the four children and earns $80,000. Both have separate bank accounts. Instead of getting the dole as at present, the couple move in together. Both get the dole, as the benefit payment is split between partners and into each bank account, and the newly unemployed woman no longer has to pay child support. Good idea, they think. As she is unemployed, Working for Families payments are paid through WINZ. If WINZ do not note the partner's income - because that will abate the benefit instead of waiving it - WINZ would also pay Working for Families payments - as she now has the kids - and the accommodation supplement to pay for the high mortgage.

They'd get about $500.00 extra each week. On top of that, if the unemployed person's bank balance went below a certain threshold, she could get food grants and advances to pay power bills as WINZ disregard the income of her partner.

A nice little earner to ride over the recession. And no childcare to pay too as the unemployed man can look after the kids while his wife works and collects the benefit.

But there's a downside to this arrangement. Guess what it is.

More about →

Did Goff lie or was he deceitful?

Last week I wrote a post detailing a conversation a talkback caller had with Phil Goff on Radio Live last week in which he denied all knowledge of wannabe Labour MP Neelam Choudary's immigation scam, for which her husband was subsequently convicted. You can listen to the interview here or over here. The following is the transcript:

Caller: Look Phil, the NZ Herald reports that, um, Labour Party member and, and, your friend Neelam Choudhary contacted you prior to her first meeting with Dr Richard Worth…
Goff: That’s correct.
Caller: ...at Sylvia Park on the 26th of November of last year. You advised her to take someone along to that meeting, she did so and took her husband along who sat out in the carpark, while she had the meeting. Why did you gave her this advice? Did you know that her husband was facing serious immigration scam charges in the court and in fact he was convicted the next week…
Goff The answer to that is no I didn’t know at that point that that was the case, why did I give her that advice, because, if, ah , you know, I suppose, uh, along with most other New Zealanders, ah, if the minister wants to have a private meeting and is offering a job to someone that he knows is in the oppositions camp, ah, I though, ah , fairly early on that there might be an ulterior motive, didn’t have any evidence for that, but I suggested that – actually I would have suggested that she took someone else into the meeting with her unfortunately she didn’t do that, ah, I think it was for her own protection that I made that recommendation

We have about as much evidence as the deleted texts that Worth offered Choudary two jobs.Although Choudary said that Worth offered her a job at the cafe meeting, Goff said he offered advice as Worth was to offer her a job. But how did Goff know that, given the offer had not been made? Did he know he was going to offer her two jobs, as Choudary has claimed?[ Incidentally how well does he know Richard Worth's "korean friend"]

Surely Goff knew of Choudary's husband's immigration case. He certainly knew 12 days after the Worth meeting when he read this in the paper. And on 5 June - when most National insiders knew the nameless immigrant was Choudary - Goff he said he had kept in contact with the woman and her husband last year - when the texts started happening.

Five days later Goff said that he had met Choudary's husband just once, implying the one contact.That was the day this blog was one of two that outed the identity of Choudhary, and Goff may have know that she'd be on the TV news that evening.

The weird thing about this whole saga is that Neelam Choudhary claimed that Richard Worth offered her jobs that she didn't take up, while the following week her husband was convicted for sending out letters offering jobs that didn't exist. But it was also Neelam Choudary that reportedly received money for the scam. I wondered why she was always dressed so nicely.

But it wasn't until 6 May months after Goff was aware of the texts - that he phoned John Key and told him he "had a problem, a woman had come with a complaint that she had been offered particular positions under the portfolio of Dr Worth... that the offer of those positions was as the basis to developing a sexual relationship".

Like, five months later he's just been told a Minister has been texting a woman "dozens and dozens" of times to develop a sexual relationship and it's such a problem he has to suddenly ring the PM at 9:30pm and tell him right away, purely because the poor Indian migrant had only been in New Zealand long enough to get approval of her application to be a member of the Labour Party.

More about →

Did Phil Goff lie on Radio Live today?

I was telephoned today by a person who chatted on talkback with Phil Goff today. Goff said on talkback this afternoon that back in November he did not know Neelam Choudary's husband was facing fraud charges for an immigration scam. He did not know about the scam. After Richard Worth texted Choudary on November 26, Goff advised her that it would be prudent to take support person to her meeting with Richard Worth at Sylvia Park Cafe.When asked why on air, Goff refused to provide a clear answer.

Perhaps, as this person told me, it may well have been because there were legal ramifications to the discussion if it was related to Choudary's husband's court case the following week.

If that was the discussion Goff had with Choudary and/or he was aware of the court case, Goff obviously knew of the charges. But Goff said today he did not know of the charges at that time. Yet he would surely have known Choudary was candidate for Botany prior to the election. Other Labour people appeared to know of the charges, as a well-connected and key Labour Party member writing for the Standard says:

I suspect the husband’s conviction was a reason she wasn’t chosen for Botany, a seat Labour would never win anyway....of course the local Labour party would have known that this woman’s husband was [facing fraud charges] when they chose the candidate.

So why did Goff claim today that he didn't?

If Goff did know about the scam or was told by Choudary prior to the November meeting, and the talkback discussion today is how it was relayed to me, there is only one conclusion: Goff is lying.

Given that Worth had only been appointed a minister the week prior to the November 26, he would hardly be in the position to appoint advisors - and then offer people board positions over the telephone.

It's time Goff came clean about his naive and strikingly attractive "migrant to this country" and declare what he knows because he has all the markings of a pimp.

update: Listen to the audio of the interview

More about →

Neelam Choudary: Goff admits that Worth didn't mention see through clothing

Phil Goff is looking more and more like an idiot by the hour now we see his attempts to get political gain have backfired.

Goff claimed that Richard Worth sent text messages to Neelam Choudary regarding a transparent garment.

These texts were several invitations to go swimming, late-night texts to go out to dinner, an invitation to go on holiday in India with Dr Worth, and to wear see-through clothing.

Now Goff says Worth actually used the term ‘zardosi’. The statement tabled in Parliament that Goff relied on and no doubt approved was actually written by a Labour staff member, who listened to Mrs Choudary by phone and did not even take the statement down word for word. The statement never mentioned that Goff knew about the initial cafe meeting between Choudary and Worth, or even that it took place. It didn't mention any late nigh dinner invites nor invites to go on holiday in India. In fact she was in India for a period of time she was texted.

The statement was tabled in Parliament more than a month after John Key was informed by Goff about the texts. In other words Goff did have a bit of time to get it right.

The statement did mention a transparent garment. But no texts or phone calls were made regarding a transparent garment - the word zardosi was used. Goff has interpreted zardosi to mean a transparent garment because it sounds salacious. Zardosi is not very transparent, actually. Zar means 'gold' and dosi means 'embroidery. Garments are made of such material and are often used in bollywood films, of which Worth is a fan of. Zardosi is in fact defined as:

an intricate hand embroidery using gold, silver or multi-colored wire on a variety of fabrics. Traditional garment from India.

No wonder Goff didn't want to get that particular text out in a hurry. Did Goff ask Choudary if it was deleted? Also did Goff ask Choudary to take down her Facebook page. Here's the cache of that page. If you want to read more on this drama I'm not stopping you.

More about →