This agreement, under which the Greens and ministers will work together in several policy areas, clearly owes a great deal to the all-embracing approach of the Prime Minister, as well as to a new pragmatism in the Greens…The Greens went into the last election saying they could not support a National government, and watched John Key’s Administration quickly cancel several of their pet policies under Labour.

It is correct to say the Greens wouldn’t support a National government and the Memorandum of Understanding signed last week does not change this.  But the “pragmatism” is not new, it was signalled at the Greens AGM last year and mentioned often by the Co-Leaders during the election campaign.  The Herald speculates further:

The agreement may also owe something to the imminent retirement of the Greens’ co-leader, Jeanette Fitzsimons. Her unwillingness to compromise lent a certain purity to the party but also denied it a place among the decision-makers. Russel Norman, her fellow co-leader, was unconvincing when he sought to play down the major shift in the Green’s approach.

Except that Jeanette has been as vocal as anyone on how the Greens might work with National.  Not just before, but also after the election she often spoke publically of meeting with John Key to explore the options.  Key is also on record saying the same thing.

And Russel un-convincing?  I supposed that’s not surprising given he couldn’t effectively downplay a major shift when there was no major shift to downplay.  Where has the Editor of the Herald been for the last year?

But the piece ends on this positive note:

The party could even begin to appeal to a broader section of the electorate. The partnership may just provide the impetus to make the Greens a greater force.

The Greens have changed not a bit, but I’ll just say Amen to that.

The Government has axed two investigations aimed at improving the pay of women as it tries to save money by controlling public sector salaries.

State Services Minister Tony Ryall said the investigations would “generate an additional form of remuneration pressure that is unaffordable in the current economic and fiscal environment”.

It’s the now familiar Nat buzz-line, blaming the economic environment, but I suspect that there may be a more sinister reason at work here. It may be that the Nats simply don’t care about women. The Greens have a well developed policy on women’s affairs and pay equity issues, so I thought that before I started forming the conclusion that the nats simply don’t care, I had better check out what the official National party policy is on Women’s Affairs. What I found was probably the National Party’s most coherent and well articulated policy:

I think a blank white page with a picture of a bloke says all that needs to be said!

I hopped over to the Hand Mirror, expecting that I would get the usual coherent feminist perspective to counter balance my decidedly male perspective, but clearly they have been left almost speechless by this arrogant stupidity. However, Catherine Delahunty found her voice and let rip here.

It is clear that a crusty old boys network is firmly in charge of the Beehive once again. But I have to ask. Can they afford to alienate over half of their potential voters like this? Apparently, they think that kiwi women will forget all about this come 2011.

What scientists haven’t figured out is why it is suddenly chewing through our Northland kauri. Even the first identified karui infection from 1972, on Great Barrier Island, has suddenly exploded into life. Scientists don’t know for sure but they are questioning if climate change is altering the conditions for this deadly fungus.

Biosecurity NZ has finally stepped up, having originally declined because the disease is not new. Whatever the cause, another kiwi icon is under threat and it will cost dearly to try and put it right. I dread the thought of another round of aerial spraying over Auckland, after the dreadful effects of the apple-moth campaign.

First it has Bill English demonstrating for logic students, with this statement, the exact opposite of a tautology:

“The worst of it is that is has had a freezing effect on the expression of political opinion in election year.”

It then has a short list of 12 electoral finance act issues that the police, courts or Electoral Commission have had to consider so far, seven of which are currently unresolved or decision pending.  So it’s hard to read much into that one way or the other except that people taking their time thinking about things.

Then John Armstrong highlights the many ways Labour has tangled itself upon its own law before making the astute point that:

Other more personally relevant issues – fuel prices and murders – are crowding out the act and stopping it getting the attention it was accorded last year. The debate is increasingly restricted to the Wellington “beltway”.

Well the Wellington beltway, on the whole, are also bored with the issue, by comparison with the Herald headline writers, but fair point.

The Herald editorial closes its pompous case by declaring against the evidence of widespread political hubbub in the public that the act is ‘silencing independent voices’:

Political participation should never have been restricted in this way. After six ludicrous months it is possible to look forward in reasonable confidence, whoever forms the government, that this discredited act will not stain our liberties forever.

The Herald continues to confuse restrictions on the right to make large financial contributions to a political parties or their campaigns, with the right to campaign on an issue, which has not been affected in any way.

The loss of political consensus around how to campaign has determinedly been blown out of the water not just by the Electoral Finance Act, but also the behaviour of parties during the 2005 campaign.  Rebuilding that consensus is certainly taking time.  The best way to do that is through a non-partisan forum like a citizens’ assembly.

A Labour Party that was saved from oblivion because by Greens and the Maori Party would need to be very different in nature to the current Dunne and Peters supported Labour government that seems to have lost its health so badly in the last few years. Likewise National, which obviously wants to govern desperately, would be kicking itself after the election if it fell just short because failed to do enough to court this potential Maori-Green bloc of seats. It too would need to be very different from its very recent Hollow Men, iwi-kiwi, climate change denying past.

The paragraph that the Herald deleted from the article without consent or consultation was:

“Help! Herald editorial misleading about Electoral Finance Bill (EFB). Won’t print Green articles. Only have 200 words here, excuse grammer. See www.greens.org.nz.�

The Herald then added its own commentary at the end of the article:

“Dr. Norman says the 200-word restriction limited the style of his contribution.�

Here’s the article (which was submitted within the 200 word limit):

We need campaign finance reform

Dr. Russel Norman, Green Co-leader

Help! Herald editorial misleading about Electoral Finance Bill (EFB). Won’t print Green articles. Only have 200 words here, excuse grammer. See www.greens.org.nz.

EFB does not stop anyone saying anything anytime. EFB places no restrictions on press. EFB places no restrictions on paid issue advertising.

EFB only caps advertising spending if trying to persuade people to vote for or against a party – cap at $120,000. Repeat, EFB only caps electioneering spending. EFB caps party advertising spending at $2.4m.

National responsible for EFB. National evaded party spending cap by using Exclusive Brethren for parallel ‘vote National’ anti-Green campaign. Showed loophole in existing law.

If don’t close loophole, parallel groups can spend unlimited millions in ‘party vote’ campaigning.

Result – politicians owned by those who funded their campaign, not by voters. That’s why need cap on election spending by parties and other groups. See USA for evidence – best elections money can buy.

Human Rights Commission agreed with Greens’ changes to protect freedom of speech.

Rallies against EFB organised by Business Roundtable member. BRT members made secret donations to National via secret trusts. See ‘Hollow Men’ by Nicky Hager.

National opposed Green idea of citizens’ assembly to decide campaign finance rules.

Don’t be duped.