Mr Brown please don't assume that I would do a "once more over the top boys" for that Grand old Tory lady that is the Herald or her editorial writers. She is like a slightly batty maiden aunt, mostly sensible but not always.

Armstrong is compulsory reading as is O'Sullivan. Ralston is amusing you're being far too tough. That broken down old Rad Rudman can occasionally amuse. And at least Orsman consistantly dislikes everyone. Roughan can on a rare occasion really shine but only rarely.

Shock. Horror.

Quality journalistic insight (via a roman sandal wearing lecturer’s stage 1 pols essay question)

A Newspaper has multiple positions on issues of public policy and political tactics.

Stone the crows.

Idiot Savant:

I don’t think you read you own comment. You concede my point: support for the Executive is determined by the Minister for Ministerial Services in the manner he or she deems fit. You say that if the Prime Minister/Minister for Ministerial Services changes those rules he will be held politically accountable for it. Of course. That is our system. But a change isn’t illegality.

What you suggest – that Ministerial Services Support can only be used on portfolio responsibilities is totally incorrect and isn’t a matter of legality (save fraud or some other dishonesty) The portfolio policy role is actually performed by the Department or Ministry. What you suggest is also contrary to what we understand as Cabinet government. While ACT might be outside Cabinet itself, its Ministers still function under a cabinet government system. Thus if they are consulted on a government proposal outside their portfolio responsibilities and an agreed position is arrived at, they are expected to support it within their own Party and in Parliament. By necessity this means having a public policy capacity outside the portfolio responsibilities.

You are welcome to write to the Auditor General and allege illegality. I look forward to reading both your letter and the Auditor General’s response on your blog.

Mr Brown:

You entitle your blog Hard News.

Yet you engage in what is really abuse and so humourlessly too. Asserting that ACT is the home of the odd and slightly damaged gets us no where. And as compared to whom…. Labour and National? And then we get the Monster Looney Party! And wait for it…… its what everyone is saying!

This isn’t news or even analysis or satire.

It’s just unseemly and intellectually lazy. Whilst I might disagree with you on this issue I don’t discount the possibility I might agree with you on another issue.

Whatever my previous multitudinous and mountainous errors and sins this doesn’t make true a claim by you that National offered ACT two Cabinet seats and ACT refused. You claim it was an ACT official who said this and then later when pressed claimed it’s your source.

I doubt you have any source close to the negotiations between National and ACT.

Given the way politicians covet Cabinet seats (like Gollum and the ring) your claim is unlikely to be true. But we could all be surprised by you substantiating your claim.

On the public policy issue regarding climate change I think we are getting nowhere.

I do want to point out how utterly delicious it is (like the sweetest fruit on the vine) that the left are arguing for market mechanisms and the creation of tradable property rights in carbon emissions. Whilst of course declaring the free market dead as a result of the global credit crisis.

Why Mr Brown I can see your methane powered Triumph Herald parked beside the Porsche Carrera of the wide boy 24yr old carbon trader. All the world is in order.

Here is the link to the congressional budget office document regarding the efficiency of carbon taxes verses cap and trade schemes.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8934/02-12-Carbon.pdf

1. Sleeping dogs

Well well, I guess one shouldn’t poke a sleeping dog lest it snap.

Look at the language

Act's cranky behaviour” “Mind you, given the nature of the party he could well have been barking mad” “insists on trotting out stuff he's read off the internet (see Hide's wacko speech, linked above) is not to be trusted

Such passion such angst cannot be explained away by a public policy debate over the catastrophe of time: climate change. No no it’s a deeper darker anger.

2. Pork or straw man.

I actually don’t view public policy advice as pork. That National has agreed to ensure ACT can get the advice it needs is a credit to both. This may well be a feature of future such confidence and supply agreements.

I have also looked at the Ministerial Services Rules that Idiot Savant links too. They don’t support his suggestion that the supply of public money by Ministerial Services to the Office of the Leader of ACT and Minister of Local Government etc under the direction of the Minister for Ministerial Services is outside the appropriation and therefore illegal. The Rules linked to can be amended by the Minister i.e. the Prime Minister. He determines the rules on how members of the Executive are specifically supported to perform their roles. This superficially seems to be common sense.

These confidence and supply agreements are an interesting evolving part of our constitutional arrangements.

2. Mr Brown claims “ACT official says ACT was offered two Cabinet Seats”

Stump up with the link. Whilst I have no first hand knowledge of the negotiations between National and ACT this claim does not seem to be very plausible on the face of it.

3. The science behind climate change

Mr Brown actually concedes my point. Given all the weakness of politicians and select committees, that is the system we have. Ultimately, the extent of any survey of the science and any expert evidence will be up to the Select Committee which will be proportionally representative of Parliament. They might conclude that whatever the technical debate about climate change, it’s prudent to do something.

4. Public policy movements in response to climate change
Again Mr Brown should calm himself. Labour here and policy changes abroad have probably moved NZ into “do something” mode. As I have intimated it may be better to be a slow adopter of a cap and trade system until these are fully functional in North America and Europe. In the meantime a carbon tax is more efficient and easier to implement. One major issue is whether it’s made revenue neutral. As UK Labour has demonstrated with long haul flights, taxing for governments is a relatively simple matter.

As to the immediate past history of this debate – get used to it – it’s a normal part of that inefficient and frustrating system call democracy.

Ah Mr Brown reminds me of one of those worn out greyhounds salivating like pavlov’s dog at the ACT rabbit. Of course the rise is far too passionate far too irrational to be merely about policy. Its personal.

It is deeply ironic that the commentariat left are winding themselves up in defence of Enron designed carbon trading. I can see the hills and vales of state housing tenants trooping into the polling booths to vote for that. In truth the Labour Opposition is likely to be more sensible than its boosters in blogland. I will return to the issue.

1. Where is the pork

No Right Turn has poor understanding of the confidence and supply agreement between National and ACT. First the flow of public funds is determined by negotiation between the PM (Minister of Ministerial Services) and the Leader of ACT either in bulk of on a per project basis. This gives ACT the capacity to analysis public policy issues and to respond quickly to requests for Parliamentary support for a proposed programme. Existing funding arrangements for Ministers outside cabinet wouldn’t necessarily provide this level of analysis. Likewise support through Parliamentary Services. It’s actually quite sensible given that it much process the entire Government’s policy not just their own portfolio responsibilities.

2. ACT offered two Cabinet seats according Mr Brown

I think this would come as a surprise to both National and ACT. Clearly Mr Brown knows something they don’t.

3. Assessing Climate Change Science is too hard for pols.

This is an argument from expertise. Of course the left don’t run it regarding health say because after all cradle to grave healthcare is so easy; politicians have all the information necessary about my health needs and yours and the human body to make rationing decisions. Fortunately science isn’t faith and politicians aren’t any smarter or more stupid than the rest of us. It’s the system we have.

I actually doubt that the select committee (which will be a proportional reflection of parliament itself) will spend too much time on this. Whatever the doubts about the science it might be prudent to introduce a scheme to send price signals to reduce carbon emissions.

4. Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade.

The upshot is that a tax might be more efficient until a deep liquid market emerges. Most economists (Jeffrey Sachs is one of the many) now agree that a carbon tax might be better first off which could later be converted to a trading scheme. Initially no property rights are created and thus no financial responsibility on the tax payer if carbon trading fails to take off. New Zealand could introduce the tax now which would reduce emissions and MIGHT be revenue neutral and await the global development of the market. Here is good paper on the policy issues from the Congressional Budget Office:

Ah Mr Brown reminds me of one of those worn out greyhounds salivating like pavlov’s dog at the ACT rabbit. Of course the rise is far too passionate far too irrational to be merely about policy. Its personal.

It is deeply ironic that the commentariat left are winding themselves up in defence of Enron designed carbon trading. I can see the hills and vales of state housing tenants trooping into the polling booths to vote for that. In truth the Labour Opposition is likely to be more sensible than its boosters in blogland. I will return to the issue.

1. Were is the pork

No Right Turn has poor understanding of the confidence and supply agreement between National and ACT. First the flow of public funds is determined by negotiation between the PM (Minister of Ministerial Services) and the Leader of ACT either in bulk of on a per project basis. This gives ACT the capacity to analysis public policy issues and to respond quickly to requests for Parliamentary support for a proposed programme. Existing funding arrangements for Ministers outside cabinet wouldn’t necessarily provide this level of analysis. Likewise support through Parliamentary Services. It’s actually quite sensible given that it much process the entire Government’s policy not just their own portfolio responsibilities.

2. ACT offered two Cabinet seats according Mr Brown

I think this would come as a surprise to both National and ACT. Clearly Mr Brown knows something they don’t.

3. Assessing Climate Change Science is too hard for pols.

This is an argument from expertise. Of course the left don’t run it regarding health say because after all cradle to grave healthcare is so easy; politicians have all the information necessary about my health needs and yours and the human body to make rationing decisions. Fortunately science isn’t faith and politicians aren’t any smarter or more stupid than the rest of us. It’s the system we have.

I actually doubt that the select committee (which will be a proportional reflection of parliament itself) will spend too much time on this. Whatever the doubts about the science it might be prudent to introduce a scheme to send price signals to reduce carbon emissions.

4. Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade.

The upshot is that a tax might be more efficient until a deep liquid market emerges. Most economists (Jeffrey Sachs is one of the many) now agree that a carbon tax might be better first off which could later be converted to a trading scheme. Initially no property rights are created and thus no financial responsibility on the tax payer if carbon trading fails to take off. New Zealand could introduce the tax now which would reduce emissions and MIGHT be revenue neutral and await the global development of the market. Here is good paper on the policy issues from the Congressional Budget Office:

Russell Brown:

“Oh, I'm rabid, me ...”

This too shall pass.

HenryB:

I never said it was exclusively a weakness of Labour boosters alone or indeed all Labour boosters. But it often emerges in relation to ACT. Of course ACT has both Labour Party and National Party ancestry. I think that some on the left would prefer it if ACT were an immaculate conception. Trying to frighten voters with the bogey man Roger Douglas is immature and actually didn’t work for Labour anyway. The low turn out suggests that some Labour voters were not that afraid of a change of Government and probably thought that their own Party in power was looking tired.

Kyle Matthews:

I stand by the statement ACT needs to know whether the 'Mello Yellow' is a party electoral advertisement and should be in their return.

Rich of Observationz:

Good starting point however you ruin your contribution with this prejudice:

“Or is the real agenda for ultra-wealthy people to be able to spend as much money as they like to try and get their preferred party elected?”

You mean like President-Elect Obama who raised half of his US$600 million spend by traditional means (bundlers and big donors).

The biggest single donation ever given in New Zealand by arguably our richest citizen was received by Labour.

Paul Litterick:

This stuff doesn't belong in the public discourse. But again it's not the exclusive domain of the political right.

Russell Brown:

“The Electoral Commission wrote to Mr Hide on Monday, saying that under the act the jacket might be an "election advertisement" and therefore required an authorising statement.”

Hadn’t see the story but it sort of says it all really.

Yes given Mr Hide’s strong attachment to and fondness of that jacket, it would have been wise for young Mr Moore to have advised Rodney Hide of the complaint prior to making it.

But the young are the young we must be generous with them – you should try it Mr Brown.

And much I am sure can be forgiven in the fresh flush of victory.

The serious point remains: the only way to get guidance from the Electoral Commission is via a formal compliant.

Given their decision, Mr Moore has perhaps unwittingly done the ACT Party a service.

He has certainly again demonstrated the point that Labour’s Law is an Ass.

Grassed Up:

You are “sort of” right. The Chief Returning Officer is issuing advice on electoral law matters without the need for a compliant. It’s an open issue about how persuasive this advice might be in any litigation. At any rate, the views of the Chief Returning Officer do not bind the Electoral Commission which is taking a more conservative approach in only considering and determining actual complaints lodged. In a nutshell, in any judicial review, the Courts are likely to defer to the Commission on findings of fact. Dean Knight has some good writing on the administrative law aspects of this here: www.laws179.co.nz

In the case of the jacket it’s the presence of the logo that might make it an electoral expense. The logo and slogan with no entreaty to vote for Mr Hide point to it being a party electoral advertisement rather than a candidate electoral advertisement. That’s why the first port-of-call is the Electoral Commission.

However, because of the poor quality of the law, ACT might be safest to apportion whatever value is arrived at for the jacket across both the Party and candidate returns.

Russell Brown:

“The Onehunga house story reminds me of the scorched earth Prebble's Act-olytes left in Auckland Central in 1992, after Prebble was defeated there It speaks of greed and poor character”

Again Mr Brown proves he knows little.

The major weakness of many in the New Zealand left is that they personalize their politics. It’s a fatal flaw that Clark for most part held in check much to her credit.

When she didn’t it just deepened Labour’s demise.

Mr Brown wants to speculate about my personal greediness and poor character as a contribution to considering what electoral law arrangements should replace the EFA and Labour’s desire to play a role (positive) in that. I understand he is passing through the grieving process which I guess includes a ‘foaming at the mouth’ stage.

On the substantive issue, it would be wise for the National led Government to seek as broader Parliamentary agreement about electoral law as is possible. That means substantial buy in from a Goff led Labour Party.

"...which, amusingly, only came before the Electoral Commission because it was reported by one of Rodney's own looser units, the excitable Andrew Moore"

Oh dear this proves Russell doesn't understand how this law operates.

The Electoral Commission does not provide hypothetical opinions on how it will interpret the law. They will however consider and determine a complaint. This provides guidance on how they interpret the law.

On Mr Hide's jacket (apart from making the law look ridiculous) ACT needs to know how the Electoral Commission will view it for the purposes of its electoral returns in Epsom and for the Party. The only way to get this is to make the issue 'live' before the Electoral Commission by way of a complaint.

With any new law that replaces the EFA complaints for the purposes of the clarifying the law will be even more common.

Regarding any role for the Law Commission on the repeal and replacement of the EFA, they declined to be involved with the EFB when asked by Labour and of course the notorious Val Sim is a Law Commissioner. Rules them out probably.