All posts tagged Act Party

TV3, ACT, and make believe news

On the night of the ACT Party conference 3 News ran an item by Brook Sabin highlighting Rodney Hide talking about hate, the poor, Maori, and unions.

They think you must have horns, and hate the poor, and hate the Maori, and hate the unions – well, that’s true.

My initial reaction was surprise that Hide would say that, and the conference MC Jim Hopkins was obviously also surprised, as he asked Hide if he would revisit his comments.

3 News showed Hide saying “No!” and then cut. But that wasn’t the whole story.

There were subsequent blog discussions (I saw them at Kiwiblog and The Standard), some condemning Hide based on the 3 News item, some defending him.

Ex ACT MP David Garrett was a vigorous defender, he had attended the conference and witnessed all of Hide’s whole speech and the follow-up to Hopkins’ invitation to revisit. Garrett has since reiterated his opinion:

I knew – as did Hopkins – as soon as the quip didn’t go right that that is what would be the soundbite on the the News…as it was. Hopkins invited Rodney back to “have another go at it”..Rodney did so, in considerably more detail, about the media generated perceptions of ACT. None of that of course made the news.

This raised questions and I became further suspicious when I saw that no other

I have also talked in person to John Boscawen and others from ACT who attended the conference who were disappointed with the 3 News item.

I advised 3 News chief political reporter Patrick Gower of Garrett’s version and asked:

Is there any longer recorded versions of what Hide said (before and after what was shown) and after Hide’s “No” to Hopkins asking if he would revisit it?

Can you add anything to your side of the story?

I haven’t had a response yet.

I also asked Rodney Hide to explain what he meant and what actually happened. He has responded:

I spoke off-the-cuff and don’t have a verbatim memory of the context but I do of the controversial sentence because my friend Jim Hopkins who was MC drew my attention to how it could get misconstrued as “gold” by the news media.

The context was how ACT and ACT people get misrepresented in the media.  And I gave examples.

The specific sentence was how we are supposed to hate all these groups which I listed — poor people, maori, unions, I then paused for dramatic effect, and said something to the effect well it was true that we disliked unions and gave the example of the practices of the teacher unions.

I described in particular how teacher unions were holding back maori and poor people. Anyone familiar with my history and recent columns would know that has long been a theme of mine.

After my speech. Jim Hopkins said that the specific sentence could be misconstrued and would I clarify which I immediately did.

I took some time and care in doing so.

Either then — or in the speech — I also gave the specific example of some years back a drunken print journalist and subsequent TV3 political editor accosting me at a party as to why ACT hated Maori so much.

I was nonplussed.  I asked how they could ever think such a thing.  They said because ACT didn’t want Maori Doctors.  I said I wasn’t aware of anyone in ACT making such a statement. 

They then explained ACT is against a Maori quota for medical school.  I hadn’t realised until then that anyone could be so stupid — or indeed so racist — as to think that the only way Maori could succeed was through quotas and that the ACT party in calling for one law for all could be concluded by the news media as not wanting Maori doctors. 

I gave examples where that hadn’t been necessary and pointed out that Sir Peter Tapsell was an ACT supporter! 

I explained that ACT felt the problem was one of lifting educational attainment, rather than dropping the entry bar for ethnicity.  That was all back in about 1997 and was all to little effect.

I explained all that to the audience to give an indication for how tough it is For John Banks with the media in this country.

I didn’t want to be reported because I knew John Banks was to speak in the afternoon.  I prefer now to stay out of the media.   I clearly failed in that because my words could be used to make the exact opposite point to the one that I was making about ACT but precisely the point I was making about the news media.

This all directly contradicts the news item as shown on 3 News, which was also very negative about ACT’s chances of surviving – their online report is titled Act Party struggles to avoid political oblivion. It focussed on Hide’s comments (seemingly misleadingly edited) and made weird references to livestock and artworks.

Hide is no longer an active participant in ACT’s operation or it’s rebuildingt. Over halfway through the item John Banks was given some coverage, but it did not show ACT’s chief rebuilder John Boscawen at all.

Sabin closed the item with:

…today it was hard to tell what was real, and what was make believe.

That could describe Sabin’s news item.

I would be surprised (and very concerned) if this was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what Hide said.

My guess is that Sabin took his own meaning and built a story around it, something that is common in media coverage. In this case Sabin seems to have been totally wrong.

This  deserves an explanation from Sabin and/or 3 News, or at least an acknowledgment that in this item they got it totally wrong.

Otherwise it leaves me wondering what news we should believe.

by Pete George on March 10, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 10, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/10/tv3-and-make-believe-news/

Followup on Rodney Hide’s “hate” speech

A part of Rodeney Hide’s speech (which had hate references) at the recent ACT conference was prominently covered by 3 News – 3 News report and Video. This prompted strong criticism. This in turn received strong denials he had said anything wrong, and there was counter criticism that 3 News had deliberately edited to present an unfair impression.

Apart from blog comment I didn’t see any other media pick up on this story except for being included in a Bryce Edwards Politics Daily roundup (published online by NZ Herald and NBR) and on Edwards’ Liberation blog.

On Kiwiblog David Garrett strongly defended Hide and strongly criticised my coverage – see David Garrett’s version of Hide’s ‘hate’ remarks.

I asked Patrick Gower to comment but he didn’t reply.

The only response I have seen from the ACT party is a tweet response to me:

ACT Party ‏@actparty

@PeteDGeorge Those are not ACT’s views.

I’ve since talked about all this with several ACT party members who were at conference, including with party president John Boscawen so have a better idea of what happened and what was intended.

Hide’s contentious comment was:

They think you must have horns, and hate the poor, and hate the Maori, and hate the unions – well, that’s true.

It has been claimed by some that when you listen to pauses and speech emphasis Hide was only referring to hating the unions with his “well, that’s true”. Boscawen told me that if you heard the whole speech and if you know Hide and how he thinks then it was definitely just hating the unions, not Maori or the poor.

I won’t go in to whether it’s a good thing or not for ACT to be reinforcing perceptions that they hate unions.

Whatever Hide intended and whatever his fellow party members and supporters thought he meant, the way it sounded on 3 News I and others I know cringed at the remark, getting a different message of wider hate from it.

And the MC at the conference, Jim Hopkins, also picked it up as meaning wider hate:

There was a little moment there where you said “Everybody knows Act hates the poor, hates Maori, hates everybody, well it’s true.”

I just wonder whether you’d like to come back and revisit that.

So obviously it was easy to hear Hide’s statement this way. His response to that invitation to revisit and clarify was an emphatic “No!”

Some saw this as Hide agreeing with Hopkins’ interpretation and not needing further comment.

Some saw it as Hide seeing no reason to qualify his remark that he and ACT only hated the unions.

It has been conceded that if Hide had clarified what he had meant at that stage it would have probably been the end of it – if he only meant “hate the unions”.

Was Hide being deliberately ambiguous? Was he trying to appeal to an audience that would like the multiple hate targets, while giving him room to argue that was not really what he meant? Was he dog-whistling?

Was Hide being deliberately provocative, perhaps to attract media attention?

Someone who was at the conference wondered if Hide was being deliberately mischievous, knowing as soon as Hide said it that it was likely it could attract the media spotlight.  And they said that Hide would have been well aware of the risks and possible consequences of saying something like that.

Or was it careless use of language and sloppy or arrogant dismissal of an opportunity to clarify?

Only Hide can answer these questions.

Jim Hopkins interpreted wider hate in the comment, hating the poor and hating Maori. So did Patrick Gower. So did I when I watched it, as did others.

If left unaddressed this is fodder for political opponents – for some this merely reinforces what they think anyway, that ACT people hate the poor (yes, I hear that claim) and they hate Maori.

Damage to ACT has been done, but at least your true intent will be on record, this may limit future damage. If this is left as it is then there’s a good chance it will be brought up again to try and discredit ACT – for example it could be used to try and torpedo ACT in the next election campaign.

If an official version of intended meaning is also out there it will at least partly balance what has already been broadcast if anyone googles it, and it will make any future defence more credible as it has already been stated.

Rodney, I just wonder whether you’d like to come back and revisit this.

by Pete George on March 6, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 6, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/06/followup-on-rodney-hides-hate-speech/

David Garrett’s version of Hide’s ‘hate’ remarks

I’ve received quite a bit of criticism for posting how 3 News reported Rodney Hide’s ‘hate’ comments at the Act Party conference (see Rodney Hide’s ‘hate’ speech). It’s been a case of attacking the messenger. I offered to circulate the Act Party’s version but they have not yet provided a statement.

David Garrett disagreed with this on Kiwiblog, from here:

PG: You really must stop getting your information from the MSM… or dare I say it, being dishonest. I was AT the ACT conference…it is completely incorrect that Hide “refused to revisit…” the jest about the poor, Maori, and unions…IN FACT the MC, sensing that the fuckers would misuse what was clearly intended as a jest, invited Hide to come back and clarify, which he duly did, and very eloquently too…

His ” well, that’s true” was clearly intended to refer to our dislike of the unions, and not the poor and Maori…as the rest of that part of the speech made quite clear.

Here:

How many of you loftily opining on whether Hide was making a joke (I am the first to agree it didnt come out right) were actually THERE? Because if you weren’t, seeing the bit that ran – entirely predictably – on TVNZ last night will give you no clue to the context…which was created by several sentences which came before…(I am assuming what was on TV3 was the same, perhaps with a bit more breathless outrage….)

However…when Hide looked down the TV3 cameras and said “bastards!” THAT was “just joking, but not really” IMO…but then I know the man well, and share his view of the quality of the MSM, TV3 in particular….

Here:

What I would like to know Pete, is from where did you get the bit about Hide “refus[ing] to revisit that”? That statement is not a matter of opinion, or interpretation, it is 100% untrue…Jim Hopkins – himself a former journo, so knowing exactly that the pricks were going to do with that comment – asked Hide to stay, explained with as much levity as he could why the joke didnt come out right, and asked Hide if he would like to come and “do that bit again”…which Hide then immediately did…

How in the name of Lucia’s deity can you get: ” he refused to revisit that” from THAT sequence of events? Come on PG, I’d really like to know….you can’t have been there, or this comment would be unnecessary…

I responded:

DG – see this video from about 55s – Rodney says No to revisiting the “hate the poor, hate the Maori, hate the unions” from Hopkins and TV3 then cut and said “He refused and took direct aim at 3 News”.

Is that incorrect?

And Garrett confirmed he thought it was incorrect:

PG: Yes, that is totally incorrect…see my comment at 5.59….as anyone else who was there will confirm, THAT is what went down, not some cut and pasted version from some prick at TV3..

I’ll see if some prick at TV3 will respond to this.

And I suggest that if while in the glare of media “…Hide was making a joke (I am the first to agree it didnt come out right)” - wouldn’t it be wise to make every effort to put right the mistake?

by Pete George on February 24, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 24, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/24/david-garretts-version-of-hides-remarks/

Act president John Boscawen on ‘Maori’

Perhaps coincidental considering Rodney Hide’s “and hate the Maori” reference, John Boscawen has mention Maori and the Maori Party many  times in his conference speech.

From President’s Address – ACT 2013 Annual Conference:

And in particular I despair about the chronic levels of underachievement amongst some of our children – disproportionately, Maori and Pacific Islanders. I cringe when I see the desperate efforts of our opponents trying to misrepresent our position on partnership schools. If this is the calibre of the Teacher’s Union, no wonder we have a problem with some of our teachers.

If ACT is not back in 2014 in even bigger numbers, National will be dependent on either the Maori Party, New Zealand First or worse still, both of them!
The country would pay a very high price for this. In fact it’s already paid a high price over the last five years and that would only get substantially higher if the Maori Party held the balance of power.

To get just a glimpse of this cost, one only has to look at the Emissions Trading Scheme. ACT is a party of principle and when we weren’t prepared to burden the country with the excessive costs of the ETS, a position vindicated by National substantially amending the scheme in the most recent term, the National Party went out and bought Maori Party support.

Iwi were to retain the carbon credits which in 2010 were valued at over one billion dollars. The market has subsequently collapsed and so today its value is a tiny fraction of this, but it remains a fact that that was the price the Maori Party was able to extract to support a single piece of legislation.

I have a great deal of respect for Tariana Turia and her ability to extract benefits for her people. I think Maori electors generally fail to appreciate just how successful the Maori Party has been.

Since then, we’ve also had the Marine and Coastal Areas Act – our new seabed legislation and the government’s current Constitutional Review. One can only imagine the list of demands that will come from that should the Maori Party hold the balance of power in 2014.

Having ruled out Winston Peters as a possible coalition partner, National would have been left with only one alternative – The Maori Party. I believe had Epsom voters not elected John Banks, the Maori Party would have held the balance of power and would have been in a position to have decided who governed New Zealand. They would have extracted a huge price for their support!

I don’t know how many of those supporters actually voted for Paul Goldsmith personally with their electorate vote, but those that didn’t should be very thankful that the majority of Epsom voters did. Because if they hadn’t, Paul Goldsmith would have found himself either in opposition now or at best, part of a government dependent on the Maori Party for the passage of every single piece of legislation.

It seems that the Maori Party is a major point of focus for the Act Party.

by Pete George on February 24, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 24, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/24/act-president-john-boscawen-on-maori/

Hide’s “Right Not To Be Offended” column a coincidence?

Rodney Hide was (presumably) deliberately controversial and provocative in speeches at the Act Party conference, with his “and hate the poor, and hate the Maori, and hate the unions – well, that’s true” comment and calling TV3 bastards.

I wonder how coincidental his Sunday Herald column was:

Many now enjoy the Right Not To Be Offended. The right wasn’t granted by Parliament, but it’s nonetheless firmly embedded in our body politic.

There’s no taxpayer-funded commission to police the right. Instead, an army of self-appointed commissioners pore over public comment, eager to take offence on our behalf. Their only reward is the self-righteousness that follows from appearing socially aware and being a tender soul readily offended on behalf of others.

The self-appointed commissioners prove their sensitivity and caring by bellowing the “offensive” comments loudly and heaping abuse on the offenders.

I wonder if this was an excuse prepared in advance. But it’s unlikely to undo any damage caused to Act by his comments.

His ‘hate’ comments will be reported and commented on far more than his column.

And as demonstrated by ACT speaks its branes at The Standard Hide has reinforced widely held perceptions of Act.

@ActParty has said “Those are not ACT’s views.” But most will closely link Hide with the Act Party and will care little for official party denials.

Hide should know that people have a right to be offended if that’s how they feel, and they have a right not to vote for parties that offend them.

He should know that his comments could adveresly affect support for the Act Party and it could adversely affect the party’s survival at the next election.

Was it an act of hoping to pick up some “red neck” support and not caring about what the wider voting public thought?

I’ve seen suggestions that it was an act of revenge by Hide, hitting back at the party that dumped him as leader. I don’t but that – there must be a reasonable relationship between the party and Hide for him to be invited to speak at the conference.

The impression I got from the delivery and repeated looks to a particular part of the audience was that Hide spoke deliberately and in collusion with others.

It seems like a deliberate targeting, both of popular targets for the right and targeting a voting demographic.

Very risky, and it leaves Act with a perception of still being the domain of fringe nutters. I don’t know if there’s enough of them to vote them back into a creible Parliamentary presence.

 

by Pete George on February 24, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 24, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/24/hides-right-not-to-be-offended-column-a-coincidence/

Hide biting the hand that Act needs to feed it publicity

Rodney Hide attacked 3 News at the Act party conference, calling them bastards – see Rodney Hide’s ‘hate’ speech.

How smart is that?

ACT leaders in private fund probe

A judge will decide whether ACT leader John Banks and his predecessor Don Brash will face charges over allegations they misled investors in company prospectuses.

That prosecution is continuing through the courts.

This isn’t new news, it could be seen as timed payback. Fighting with media may get immediate attention but it’s not always the sort of attention that will help your party.

It’s biting the hand that Act needs to feed it publicity, and votes.

by Pete George on February 24, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 24, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/24/hide-biting-the-hand-that-act-needs-to-feed-it-publicity/

Rodney Hide’s ‘hate’ speech

Reporting from the Act conference 3 News showed part of Rodney Hide’s speech and a subsequent follow up.

They think you must have horns, and hate the poor, and hate the Maori, and hate the unions – well, that’s true.

Rodney Hide - horns

Much laughter followed that comment.

Later the MC Jim Hopkins sought to clarify or qualify or deal to the Hide statement.

There was a little moment there where you said “Everybody knows Act hates the poor, hates Maori, hates everybody, well it’s true.”

Even louder laughter.

I just wonder whether you’d like to come back and revisit that.

Hide:

No!

Rodney Hide No

Editing stopped immediately after that. 3 News then cut to Hide speaking at a different time:

Probably not here TV3 news because they’re on a tight budget.

Someone said “Yes they are”…

Ah, there they are.

Hopkins:

Give them a wave Rodney.

Hide appeared to know exactly where 3 News was, looking deliberately he waves.

Rodney Hide - waves

and then says:

Bastards!

Rodney Hide - bastards

It wasn’t just what Hide says that made me raise my eyebrows. It was also the way he said it – obviously playing to an audience. And some of the audience responded enthusiastically.

I don’t know what party officials and John Banks thought of Hide’s act but Hide would obviously have been aware he was playing to a much wider audience – voters.

And this was not a good look for a party fighting for it’s survival. To me it was disgusting.

UPDATE: the Act Party’s twitter account has commented on this:

ACT Party ‏@actparty

@PeteDGeorge Those are not ACT’s views.

 

by Pete George on February 24, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 24, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/24/rodney-hides-hate-speech/

John Banks: no to minimum alcohol price

John Banks is opposing Labour’s call for setting minimum prices for alcohol.

Minimum alcohol price penalises everyone

ACT Leader John Banks today urged Opposition Parties to dismiss Labour’s Alcohol Law Reform Bill SOP which would introduce a provision for a minimum price for alcohol.

“Labour’s SOP is far too broad. Rather than target those who drink excessively, it punishes the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who drink responsibly,” Mr Banks said.

“Under Labour’s policy, buying a relatively cheap bottle of wine to go with dinner would be a thing of the past.

“And because a minimum price is not a tax, all the additional revenue from a price increase will flow straight out of consumers’ pockets, into the hands of liquor companies and retailers.

“So who is this policy going to benefit? Not the Government, who would receive no additional revenue, not the majority of responsible New Zealanders who would have to fork out more for a drink and it is least likely to impact on problem drinkers, who are the least responsive to price increases. The main beneficiary of Labour’s policy will be the those in the alcohol industry.

“We do have an issue of problem drinking in New Zealand. But punishing everyone is not the way to go about solving it.

“A minimum price on alcohol will penalise responsible drinkers and is a policy that should be dismissed,” Mr Banks said.

by Pete George on July 4, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on July 4, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/07/04/john-banks-no-to-minimum-alcohol-price/

Roy Morgan poll good for Nats, Labour down

The latest Roy Morgan poll has some surprises and some results not so surprising.

National Party 49.5% (up 5.5%)
Labour 26.5% (down 4%)
Greens 12.5% (down 4.5%)
New Zealand First 6.5% (up 1.5%)
Maori Party 1.5% (unchanged)
Others 1.5% (up 1%)
Mana Party 1% (up 0.5%)
United Future 1% (up 0.5%)
ACT NZ 0% (down 0.5%)

I’m surprised National have bounced back that much. It may be a lucky spike going againbst a recent slightly downward trend.

Labour’s drop doesn’t surprise me, sustained negative politics and a non-prominent leader won’t be enthusing swing voters.

Greens drop back to earth is no surprise, the last poll spike seemed likely to be too much too quickly.

NZF seems to be still doing well with the “stuff it, there’s no one else worth voting for” vote.

I think TV3 have their next poll release tomorrow night, it will be interesting to see how that compares.

by Pete George on April 21, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 21, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/04/21/roy-morgan-poll-good-for-nats-labour-down/

Cannabis deserves a decent debate

Don Brash has raised the decriminalisation of cannabis as an election issue, but it’s far more complex, and more important, than to rush policy in the heat of a campaign. Various issues around cannabis use – social, legal and medical – deserve decent public exposure and debate.

It would be a mistake to simply decriminalise cannabis and hope that the change will make things better. If the inevitable problems turn out to be greater than any benefits of giving people more free choice on use of drugs it would be difficult to undo.

The Act Party is deeply divided over Brash’s thoughts. The Green Party gives low-key support to relaxing drug laws. The rest of parliament does not support decriminalisation of cannabis and has no plans to change the status quo. The best way to test if this is the best stance or not is to examine it with informed debate.

There’s much more to the cannabis issue than giving a few recreational users the legal right to smoke as they please.

Kate K, who has just published a book called “Matters To A Head: Cannabis, mental illness & recovery” suggests on Dim-Post that “the decriminalisation argument is far less important to NZ than the real issue of providing and resourcing appropriate treatment and services to those who become unstuck by the drug.”

Russell Brown agrees and asks “this is actually the debate we should be having: how do we prevent early use of cannabis?”

Young people are much more susceptible to the adverse effects of drug use – it is unlikely there would be widespread support for unlimited use of cannabis for all ages. We need a process were we can debate and decide as a society what we want, and put that to the politicians.

I’m going to initiate more debate on cannabis. There are too many distractions for the rest of the year, so I propose planning this for next March, once the University year has restarted. In the meantime I will find what organisations and interest groups want to contribute information and want to participate in debate.

I will promote this debate on two levels, online and based publicly in Dunedin:

  • publish an initial discussion document
  • public meeting involving any interested legal, medical and social inputs, and local and national politicians
  • debate in local media
  • a possible organised public debate
  • utilise online media extensively for discussion and debate – this can extend nationally
  • close the debate period with a public meeting
  • poll or referendum on what the people of Dunedin prefer to be done, if anything

Other regions would be welcome to link in with this process.

Politicians will be involved as much as possible with the results. Ultinmately any action will be up to parliament, but this will provide a good indication of public preferences.

This will be a good test for establishing better ongoing community involvement in the social/political process.

Notes:

I am the UnitedFuture candidate for Dunedin North. These plans for cannabis debate will proceed regardless of the outcome in the electorate or via the list.

Current UnitedFuture policy includes “Oppose the decriminalisation of cannabis for recreational use.”

UnitedFuture party leader Peter Dunne has “no problem at all” with this debate proposal – the party encourages debate on issues as is open to alternate opinions.

My personal position is to support the status quo unless good evidence and informed public opinion supports change. I have never smoked cannabis, but I have inhaled party bong pong.

I don’t have a strong stance either way, I’m interested in helping determine what people want and supporting the popular view.

If anyone wants to join the planning of this debate please contact me at petedgeorge@gmail.com

by Pete George on September 27, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Crime, Politics
Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 27, 2011

http://yournz.org/2011/09/27/cannabis-deserves-a-decent-debate/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 74 other followers