Politics

What a wonderful bizarre world we live in!
Published on Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

There are occasions when you can only but shake your head in disbelief at the antics played out in our media.

Take for example the reaction by the majority of the media to the suggestion by ACT MP David Garrett that there might be some value in considering paying ‘bad parents’ $5000 if they agreed to be sterilised.

The media went berserk, making it the leading news item of the day. Politicians and every sort of self appointed social or liberal commentator climbed into the debate. Someone even managed to manufacture a link with Hitler.

You could be forgiven for believing that the suggestion was on the verge of becoming law rather than the musings on a blog by a MP who was unknown to the majority of us.

The most poignant comment that I saw was that from the Herald’s Fran O’Sullivan, who quietly pointed out that many middle class parents pay for their own sterilisation once they have completed their families.

Shame on you Fran for effectively killing off the debate when your colleagues were just getting started! And shame on the middle class for following the teachings of Hitler!

Having recovered our breath we then moved on to the Destiny Church’s ‘cash cult’ expose. Not to worry that we have heard it all before, including stories about the extravagant living style of its leader Bishop Tamaki.

It all started because part of the Brisbane congregation did what every right minded person would do if they disagreed with the ‘cult’s’ requirements around tithing and gifting – they walked out.

The only nugget I gathered from the coverage was that TV3’s John Campbell has now adopted the practice of gate crashing other presenter’s interviews (Willie Jackson’s) to get a story if anyone dares to decline his demand that they appear on his show.

Can we now look forward to the day when Willie gate crashes John’s programme?

To mimic the words taken to the world by the late Paul Fuemana, ‘how bizarre, how bizarre’.
Government showing deft communication touch
Published on Friday, February 12th, 2010

The Government’s handling of the tax changes to be announced in the May budget show a masterly understanding of managing long term communications.

Delegate the task of putting forward ideas to a third party (a commission) and then immediately reject the most controversial (phew, it’s not going to be as bad as it could be!); talk up some of the remaining unpalatable ideas, and then in the first formal statement of the year reject them too (saved again!).

Now we have a pretty clear understanding of what will be in the budget some three months in advance, even if we don’t have the detail. By the time the announcements are made in May all the best emotional and rational condemnations from opponents will be out in the public domain, and Government can fine tune its final decisions to ease back on those that will upset us most.

By the time the changes are finally introduced in October (10 months from raising the issue to their implementation) we will have mentally adjusted, and rather than outrage we will take them in our stride.

It is good strategy, and the Government’s media managers are demonstrating a deft implementation touch.

Cast your mind over some of the other contentious issues – mining in conservation reserves; fundamental economic reform to ‘catch up with Australia’ and even the national standards for primary schools have been on the agenda for months.

When the going started to get tough over national standards, Key & Co showed their ability to up the game aggressively with a ministerial realignment, Key personally entering the confrontation, and outspoken challenges to the teacher’s union and boards of trustees.

Labour will undoubtedly have the skills to win a few skirmishes as we move into the year, but they are going to need to be at the top of their game to outmanoeuvre National.
Annual Conferences, key communication events or commercial craftiness?
Published on Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

Annual industry conferences are key communications events for most sectors. The opportunity to hear directly from people who have particular insight or influence in your sector is a particular draw-card for delegates and sector commentators alike. With this in mind, a small story in The Press last Friday bears some reflection.

Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee elected not to be the keynote speaker at the Power & Electricity World summit, an annual industry conference, albeit organised by a commercial conference operator.

Brownlee said that with major reforms going through the select committee process, he did not want to be forming any positions. While there may be a sinter of truth in the Minister’s explanation, the parliamentary process hasn’t stopped the minister boxing Meridian’s ears several times over its comments on the proposed reform, including in his op-ed piece in yesterday’s edition of the Otago Daily Times.

As if to bolster his reasons for not speaking at the conference, the Minister also complained of the registration cost and commercial nature of the conference to which he was invited, as well as claiming he was being used to promote it, as “part of their product”.

Mixed messages, indeed, from our Minister of Energy. A reluctance to engage in debate while the reforms are before the select committee is not unreasonable. But why then take to Meridian via the media on the same reforms? Ministers will often specify entirely valid no-go areas when speaking at events, but it does not preclude an appearance.

While the Minister may now be reticent about involvement in “commercial” conferences, what was his disposition when National was seeking to extricate itself from the Opposition benches? As I recall, any forum was a good one for National MPs, commercially-based or otherwise.

The realities are: Ministers are expected to deliver speeches almost anytime-anywhere, and although we may bridle against them, commercial conference arrangements are a reality for most industry sectors, largely due to the organisational and associated costs such as venues, catering and speakers’ travel.

Politicians use these forums when it suits them, and it is a bit rich to be railing against such conferences once comfortably seated in a ministerial chair.
Fair Play or Out Of Bounds
Published on Thursday, January 28th, 2010

The ability of the media to ‘spark’ a controversy, and that of social media to ‘fuel it’ has rarely been better illustrated than the histrionics raging in Australian over the comments made by the new Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, when asked the question: what advice would you give your daughters about sex before marriage.

The question was posed by The Australian Women’s Weekly when doing a personality piece on Abbott. His response [not to give away their virginity lightly] is, I would have thought on face value, acceptable enough fatherly wisdom.

However, when you are a politician, nothing is taken on face value.

As would be anticipated, the reaction to his comments has been as diverse as ‘a brilliant answer’ to ‘yet another self-acknowledged one-time drug-taking, Vatican roulette-playing, shagabout, white, middle-aged male telling young women not to do what he did when he was their age’ (an Australian comedian).

Now Abbott is an experienced politician, and his media minders are hardly likely to be lightweights, so it’s not unreasonable to assume he knew what sort of reaction he was likely to generate. The decision to answer the question the way he did had to be deliberate, and was designed to achieve a specific result.

Post coverage analysis will tell him whether he obtained what he set out to achieve.

By and large, New Zealand politicians have steadfastly refused to allow or inject their families into media coverage to raise their profile. In Australia, some at least are obviously not so reticent.

I think the Kiwi approach is the wiser.

What is of real interest to those of us who work in the media world is the power social media has to take the initial story, and fragment it into stories about politics, parenting, morality, religion, feminism, manipulation (of the media), hypocrisy and personal choice, to name a few.

For those who have doubts about the power of social media, have a read.

One only hopes that the media does not seek to prolong the controversy by asking Mrs Abbott and her three daughters as to their views on Mr Abbott’s musing. Enough is enough!
Is Rodney Hide the consummate PR man or just someone looking for attention?
Published on Monday, November 2nd, 2009

When a child does something they know is a bit naughty and are likely to get found out, we call this attention seeking behaviour. So could it be that the Hon Rodney Hide was seeking more than a suntan when he took his partner on the now contentious trip overseas?

Was the ministerial trip yet another clever PR strategy to remain in the public eye, or perhaps Rodney Hide was boldly stating that he does whatever he wants and the consequences be damned? Apparently he has been forewarned of the potential public scrutiny now also being suffered by his partner and family.

Whatever the motivation this time, Mr Hide does do headline-catching with aplomb; I mean who could forget the yellow jacket he sported continually during the election period? The man was a walking rosette for the Act Party and prior to this I would’ve been hard pressed to name their party colour, but now it is burnished in my mind – permanently!

His stint on Dancing with the Stars was impressive and revealing in more ways than one. Rodney is not averse to getting some of his kit off. That said, the pre-transformation body of Mr Hide made the front page when his attempt at the Auckland Harbour crossing came unstuck a few years ago.

So perhaps one can appreciate his motivation for wanting to show the world his physical improvements. The Act website shows a lovely picture of Mr Hide at the opening of the Diocesan School for Girls Aquatic Centre in March this year. It offers the perfect combination of children, community spirit in his electorate and an opportunity to see the real man.

So I do take my hat off to Mr Hide for his efforts in keeping his name in the media, but as the equally press-friendly populist Winston Peters learnt at his peril, not all media coverage is good coverage.
Knowing the price of everything and value of nothing
Published on Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

The Greens fess up to “making a mistake” in the way they used the accommodation subsidy for the benefit of their communal super fund; and Labour colleagues again rush to the defense of fellow MP Chris Carter over the largesse of his and his partner’s travel costs.

Meanwhile Finance Minister Bill English remains battered, bruised and potentially out of pocket over his Ministerial housing accommodation; and PM John Key travels business class to New York with his wife and children in “coach” on the same flight at their own expense.

The Hon Dr Michael Cullen spat the label of “rich pricks” at National in the early days of the Clark Government. Although on retirement he tried to expunge this jibe, it seems to have found deep roots in the political psyche.

Not only does National not harangue the abuses of others, but by its actions, it is beginning to affirm its wealth.

Apparently it is excusable for the sanctimonious Green’s to rort the system, and a Labour MP to travel on the most tenuous of causes, but the current Government feels it must account to different standard. Hence English foregoes legitimate expenses to keep his family together in Wellington, and the Prime Minister’s wife travels coach to the USA on “government business.”

There is a double standard, and it is that we are in an age when our politicians know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Just how can Phil Goff win the hearts and minds of Labour voters?
Published on Thursday, September 17th, 2009

Phil Goff has surely got the worst job in New Zealand politics right now? Taking over the leadership of a party that was soundly trumped in an election is bad enough. But inheriting this role from St Helen, whose new position in the UN only serves to entrench her legacy as PM, makes his situation even more difficult.

The magnanimous way he was appointed as leader makes it even harder to use a new broom, and clean house. This was evident in his somewhat half-hearted speech during the party conference when he apologised for his then-government appearing to be distracted by small matters such as light-bulbs, smacking and Electoral Finance Acts.

The position he finds himself in now is potentially tainting how he goes about developing his own brand as leader of the opposition, and I am wondering if it is part of the reason for his somewhat lack lustre performance in media interviews.

It looks to me like he is saying what he thinks people want to hear and how they want to hear it. The result is a Mr Goff who looks more like a friendly and polite church vicar than a political party leader.

Unfortunately in politics today, the brand of the leader reflects on the popularity of the party, and for Mr Goff that brand is yet to be revealed. Or is what we are seeing now all we are going to get?

Where is the man who was Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade? In this role he was one of the most interviewed politicians of his day, and I was always impressed with those media performances where he came across as passionate and committed. He was forceful and dynamic in his responses, and you really did feel he was representing our interests on the world stage.

Mr Goff now needs to set about showing that same passion and commitment in his new role and demonstrate that he is the real deal. It remains to be seen if he will prove the neigh sayers wrong, and establish his own legacy as leader of the opposition. Or will he simply be the temporary custodian that many say he is?
Absolutely Terminally Wellington
Published on Monday, September 7th, 2009

I have a blended family, a blended cat family. For a whole raft of legacy reasons I’ve ended up playing den-mother to four cats, which is odd really because I’m not that much of a fan.

Lovely ‘Larry’ the strident striped Bengal, ‘Golly’ the black as soot moggy, ‘Pepper’ our outdoor cat and ‘Wellington’, a scrawny chocolate Burmese, call my house home.

By their very nature cats are hierarchical, territorial and not team players. Trying to wrestle some kind of order with these four has been no mean feat, but we’ve brokered an uneasy truce through staggered feeding times and strategic division of affection, so currently all is peaceful on the cat front.

Well it was until Saturday when Wellington, after a long battle with diabetes, went and died. Since then all hell has broken loose. As nature abhors a vacuum, the change in cat dynamic has resulted in fur flying and all out war, as the remaining three jostle for position in the new cat order.

This was an unexpected response after the loss of a beloved pet, and one that has left the humans in my house sleepless in the din. But change it appears, even the most subtle, can have unforeseen consequences.

The weekend not only saw the demise of our cat, but the long awaited reveal of the blueprint for the supercity. There were no surprises, the new mayor of Auckland will get wide ranging powers and have a dedicated budget to lead the new council which will have 20 to 30 boards under it, with control of funding for community initiatives and local decision making powers.

But big question is; how much fur will fly before Auckland gets its new top-cat?
Media training lessons from another country
Published on Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

A propensity to blame others and our environment while avoiding personal responsibility has become a national trait. It now appears however, that we do not have this on our own…

We are all familiar with the allegations of corruptions and the dalliances of the 72-year-old Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, and his apparent shameless predilection for what Italian call “veline”. This is a term that has come to mean young girls with no talent (but other endowments) except for appearing on television.

Well in his hour of need, the philandering PM has adopted a media strategy that takes some beating. Firstly, he uses his lawyer as his third-party advocate (this man is also a parliamentarian); who, secondly, explains that all the allegations are flawed because they are against him – and that’s just anti-Berlusconi-ism!

We know this because there is this fascinating article about Berlusconi’s scandals in the September issue of Vanity Fair entitled, “All Broads Lead to Rome”.

Let’s look at some of the key messages in response to Vanity Fair’s questions.

His separation from his wife? Response: He still loves his wife. Perhaps if he was able to involve his wife more in his life. But this is not so easy, because he is a very busy man, and also a man with a strong character.

His relationship with 18-year-old (barely) Noemi? Response: He has a long relationship with her family. It is common for people to remember things differently.

The allegation that a British lawyer took bribes from Berlusconi, in exchange for giving false testimony in an investigation into Berlusconi corruption. Response: But you see he was the main witness, so that must be proof that he was not given money.

If only dealing with our media was that simple.
Does a rugby final justify silence in the face of bad behaviour
Published on Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

Given the public discussion around the Kelston Boys vs. Auckland Grammar rugby game brawl it has been interesting to see the marked difference between how the two schools have reacted through their communication with their pupils and the wider public.

I was initially disappointed to hear the principals of both schools, in the first interviews I heard on Monday morning, defend their school and blame the other for inciting the incident. Neither one made the obvious point that no matter what the provocation, such violence is not acceptable.

However Kelston Boys Principal, Steve Watt is to be congratulated because he did just that later on that Monday. What’s more, he took action against his own boys before they had even faced the Rugby Judiciary. Their website shares their statement to the judiciary and the school and firmly puts the blame on all involved. Although they do hold to the view that Grammar incited the incident.

Compare this to Auckland Grammar who has, to my knowledge, so far made no public statement and taken no action against the boys who were involved in the fight – whether they started it or not. Surely the same situation applies and retaliation was not acceptable. Even more for their team, who as the clear winners on the day could have been a little more magnanimous?

One wonders if Grammar’s upcoming final, and the need to ensure they have a full team available, might have influenced their response. Grammar prides itself on its rugby heritage and is known for being the secondary school responsible for producing the most All Blacks. Is this a lesson we want to set for future All Blacks? And what message does it send to the pupils of the entire school.

Furthermore, what has been done about claims that the Grammar Old Boys contributed to the heat of the situation?

When we are constantly hearing about bad boy sports stars misdemeanours in the media, the chance to teach these emerging sports stars about the real consequences of actions has it seems been lost. We have surely shown them that it is about winning the game at any cost.