Andrew Little

We will all know when Labour are serious about winning back power. They will show they have a moral compass. At the moment they are oscillating from one disaster to the next.

Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little have shown contempt for the law, their peers and their opponents by acting like school boys over being served papers. David Shearer should have told them to arrange to receive the papers and either go to court or apologise, as by avoiding being served they give the impression they think they are above the law.

Shearer himself has had an absolute shocker on the Shane Jones Bill Lui scandal. Whatever this blokes name really is he should never have been given citizenship and should never have had a function in the Labour caucus room celebrating getting his citizenship. A moral leader would have asked Jones to leave parliament.

The problem for Labour is while they have ethical and moral issues surrounding them they cannot put pressure on National over their ethics violations. An opposition is supposed to be very moral, and Labour are not.

Adam Bennett from the NZ Herald has tweeted that Andrew Little has been served:

“There aren’t fries with that, but you’ve been served” – A process server’s wee joke when he caught up with Andrew Little this evening.

— Adam Bennett (@AdDeville) May 21, 2012

John Key was right, he could run but he couldn’t hide.

Now all Andrew Little has to do is present the video like he promised….oh and I want to know if the process server was wearing a leather jacket.

ᔥ Southland Times

The Southland Times Editorial is scathing of Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little, describing them as not-so-artful dodgers int he headline:

Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little would have us see their machinations to avoid being served court papers as indicative of their sheer scorn for the allegation that they defamed ACC Minister Judith Collins.

But they’re being unwise.

Whatever the merits of the case itself, legal process itself does require respect. And it’s not getting it from this pair.

On top of which, they don’t necessarily emerge as being on the high ground, at all.

Whatever their rhetoric, and it has been loudly and jovially dismissive, the methodology of dodging legal papers requires actions that are liable to look like skulking and hiding.

It’s hardly a good look for men proclaiming they have nothing to fear.

More a striking contrast to the “bring it on” stance more commonly taken in such circumstances. It certainly set up Prime Minister John Key to deliver (and probably enjoy) the quote that they could run, but they couldn’t hide.

This weekend is the National Party CNI Regional Conference in Taupo. In terms of numbers CNI is 100% blue, with no red seats in the region. Other numbers worth bearing in mind are the outstanding electoral success of three members of the 2008 intake.

Jonathan Young increased his majority in New Plymouth, giving Andrew Little’s hopes of becoming Labour leader a big dent. Provincial MPs often get overlooked, but the word from New Plymouth is Jonathan is a bloody good campaigner and a well liked and well respected local MP.

In Taupo Louise Upston increased her majority from 6445 to a whopping 14115, cementing her reputation as a vote winner, and turning a formerly red seat blue.

Over in Rotorua Todd McClay was one of only three National MPs competing against a Labour List MP to increase his majority, with Tim McIndoe in Hamilton West doing slightly better than Todd in increasing his majority against a Labour List MP. Unlike Boris, Bluey had the huge good fortune of benefiting from the Moroney Effect.

So with no electorates in play the questions for the CNI delegates are more about how members get their voice heard in the party hierarchy. Are there enough remits and is the policy process working well enough that a good party member can have their ideas adopted as government policy? What plans do the party have to get more people between 30-40 involved, not just as members but actually contributing to the party? Should party members directly elect the president to get them more involved in the party rather than having the board appoint the president?

And finally, in what should not be seen as a slight on my long time friend in caucus, Scott Simpson, what is the party doing to ensure that good local people with good local connections win selection in seats in the CNI.

Since Andrew Little is dead keen on embarrassment perhaps he would like to answer some questions about his time as the boss at the EPMU. The matter of properly filing accounts is simple, rather like making yourself available for process servers.

The Owl writes:

The Owl has been asking that the audited 2006 Annual Accounts to be filed as only excel spreadsheets are filed.

The reason for the on-going request is because there is a variation that in my opinion does not make sense.

The filed 2006 excel spreadsheets shows a $1.28M loss and an equity position of $18.045M.

The filed 2007 audited accounts filed shows a comparative 2006 position (9 months) of $2.2M loss and an equity position of $10.338M.

The Owl’s observation:

What is the correct loss for 2006 $1.28M or $2.2M Loss? (that is an approximate $1M variation).

Filing the audited 2006 accounts may resolve this issue.

NOTE: All information is taken from the public domain and draws no other conclusions than showing why filing audited accounts are important.

ᔥ Legal Beagle

The erudute Graeme Edgeler points out that Mallard and Little can be served while at parliament….it just requires the Speaker’s permission. Considering that Trevor Mallard has been a constant prat in parliament with silly points of order and his own poor behaviour I suggest that Speaker Smith may actually give permission.

But I am more interested in the claim than MPs cannot be served legal process in Parliament.

Mostly, because it simply isn’t true. There is a limitation, but it’s not nearly as extensive as Andrew Little appears to believe. Standing Order 407 lists as example of a contempt of Parliament:

(c) serving legal process or causing legal process to be served within the parliamentary precincts, without the authority of the House or the Speaker, on any day on which the House sits or a committee meets:

The House is currently in recess. And even when the House is sitting, or a committee is meeting, the Speaker can still give permission for service to be effected (he might, for example, allow it on a day when no committee that member is on is sitting, or on Tuesday morning before the House sits, and during which time select committee’s rarely meet).

ᔥ NZ Herald

Andrew Little is hell bent on being a world class cock. I think he will find that Judith Collins process server will be a nice lawyer in a suit and tie not some imagined thug akin to a union boss. A John Key said yesterday, you can run but you can’t hide:

Labour MP Andrew Little says he intends making Judith Collins’ defamation action against him as difficult as possible and will film any attempt to serve him with court papers and post the video online to embarrass the Justice Minister.

Ms Collins this week initiated defamation proceedings in the High Court at Auckland against Mr Little and his colleague Trevor Mallard.

Ms Collins has said she is protecting her reputation after the pair claimed she had a hand in leaking a sensitive email from former National Party President Michelle Boag to the media. Mr Little and Mr Mallard have refused requests from Ms Collins’ lawyers to co-operate with their attempts to serve them with court papers.

Mr Little said Ms Collins would have to hire process servers to track him down outside Parliament grounds and issue him with the papers.

“They tend to be leather jacket-wearing thuggish guys, which is fair enough because they have a tough job to do.

“It won’t be a good look.”

If they caught up with him, he planned to film them and post the video online. “I’m going to make it as public as I can … people should be able to see the lengths to which this minister is prepared to go in what is a political exercise.

“I have absolutely no respect for the litigation, the process or the person behind it so I’m going to do what I can to make it as difficult as possible for her and anyone else involved in it.”

Leather jacket-wearing thuggish guys? Yep sounds like a union boss on the picket line to me.

ᔥ Stuff.co.nz

Andrew Little is exceedingly dim. Considering that he is a lawyer you would think when faced with litigation you would STFU. That is a lawyers usual advice.

Instead the legal genius that is Andrew Little decides what he will do when faced with defamation action is to throw even more defamatory allegations around.

”She’ll have all the things she has done in her political career that are contradictory to her claim that she is above and beyond reproach.”

Little said people had come forward to him unsolicited about her conduct as a lawyer in Auckland.

”Whether that sort of stuff gets put into a defamation court case, who knows, but she won’t want to go to trial and be under the spotlight.

ᔥ NZ Herald

Judith Collins has done what she promised and filed her defamation suit in the High Court. Trevor Mallard is going to play hide and seek as he tries to avoid being served.

Justice Minister Judith Collins has initiated High Court defamation action against Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little but the two Labour MPs remain defiant, saying the case is unlikely to make it into the courthouse.

Ms Collins in March said she would sue the two MPs and Radio New Zealand for comments they made during an interview on the state broadcaster which linked her to the leak of a sensitive email to her from former National Party president Michelle Boag.

The High Court at Auckland yesterday confirmed proceedings against Mr Mallard and Mr Little had been filed on behalf of Ms Collins. However in a further sign Ms Collins has decided against suing Radio NZ, the broadcaster was not named in the papers.

Mr Mallard late yesterday confirmed he’d received a letter from Ms Collins’ lawyers Morrison Kent informing him proceedings had been filed and asking him to co-operate in allowing papers to be served on him.

“I see no reason to co-operate in what is clearly a vexatious action.”

He did not believe a full court hearing on the matter would eventuate.

He must be planning on settling then if it isn;t going to court…that is if he has the stones to allow himself to be served.

ᔥ Sydney Morning Herald

When I run training sessions for candidates about social media I tell them to avoid it all. Mainly because your audience is only two types of people. Committed supporters and sycophants or people like me waiting to smash you up for stupidity.

Fortunately for me not many politicians heed my advice and so I get to smash them up endlessly, like Andrew Little or Trevor Mallard.

The second worst thing any politician can do is decid to sue someone for what they said in social media.

A Liberal Party candidate in Tasmania has threatened to contact the employers of Facebook users who “liked” a satirical article posted about him online.

Andrew Nikolic, the Liberal candidate for Bass, has since reneged on the threats after initially denying to Fairfax Media that he had even made them.

The New Examiner is an online satirical blog operating on Facebook and Twitter.

The story, posted by the New Examiner on Thursday afternoon, creates a satirical scenario in which Mr Nikolic is caught out claiming to have been “heroically killed in action during services in Afghanistan”. It then goes on to state that he claims to have suffered “a slow, painful death by torture at the hands of Tamil militants in 2002″.

Mr Nikolic informed the New Examiner last week that if the offending article was not taken down he would write to the employers of all the individuals who had “liked” the story.

“I hope the employers and influencers of your satirical group will be amused by the formal letters of complaint I will now send them on this issue,” wrote Mr Nikolic in a Facebook comment that has since been deleted.

The New Examiner refused to back down and retract the article.

“Threatening to contact employers is simply confirmation that Nikolic’s first response to pressure is to go on the attack, rather than consider the political implications of his actions,” the editor-in-chief, known only under the pseudonym Martin Gaylord, told Fairfax Media.

Mr Nikolic also named and shamed Facebook users who had reposted the article, in a message on his own Facebook page, which was later deleted.

“He doesn’t appear to understand that individuals [who] use social media do so for a variety of reasons, but certainly not to [expose] themselves to vindictive behaviour of this nature,” the editor-in-chief said.