Deborah Coddington

High price to pay for hug

Mike Hosking joins the ruck

Just for the record so we can save ourselves the letters of complaint and the misconstrued outrage driven by those not hearing exactly what I am saying, I don?t for one moment condone any sort of weird, odd, unacceptable, strange, old world, dumb, inappropriate behaviour towards women in the workplace. Further, I don?t know the ins and outs of what Roger Sutton did or didn?t do at the CERA offices.

What I can say with some confidence is whatever it was, it appeared at the less serious end of the spectrum. What I know for a fact is it wasn?t serious enough to warrant a sacking. He seems to have admitted using words like honey and sweetie, which strike me as old world and tragic kind of terms in the modern workplace.

But if that?s it, can we make the argument that whoever the complainant or complainants are they have caused a great deal of harm over what I strongly suspect for many would be dismissed as misguided behaviour if not the silly musings, meanderings or mistakes of a bloke who in reality meant no real harm.

The whole problem with this debate is that we have become so sensitive to such matters, anyone second guesses themselves if not third guesses themselves before saying anything at all. Read more »

Good points from Deborah Coddington

Deborah Coddington and I don’t often see eye to eye, but today we can agree.

She writes on Facebook:

Interesting how differently the media treat women MPs – from any party.

Remember when PM Helen Clark got grumpy with John Campbell and called him a little creep, journalists had apoplexy. Clark couldn’t have a bad hair day without reporters jumping down her throat.

Now?Judith Collins?is receiving the same treatment for, as the Herald calls it “lashing out” at Katie Bradford.

However, Winston’s trademark is bagging the media and they lap it up.

And Bob Jones punched a journalist when he was an aspiring politician and journalists are always sucking up to him. Nothing changes.

There is not a thing that you can criticise Coddington for with that statement. It is a truism.? Read more »

Former colleagues on Brash: NZ dodged a bullet

Deborah Coddington attempts to destroy what is left of the political zombie corpse that is Don Brash

New Zealand dodged a bullet in terms of its prime minister when National lost the election under Don Brash.

When Kim Hill interviewed him last Saturday about his self-published autobiography, Luck, he said that in 1840 Maori were “a stone-age people” and “all cultures are not of equal value”.

But he frequently disdains tangata whenua culture as “animism”.

Now I’ve formed the opinion, from his statements and writings, that behind that mask of politeness which prompted one reviewer to call him a “likeable duffer”, he’s also supremely chauvinistic. Brash’s dismissal of women is breathtakingly arrogant.

I don’t just refer to his philandering ? many people have affairs but grown-ups take responsibility. Brash blames his infidelity on “the male biological urge”. Not his fault then.

There’s also a certain decorum one should adopt when it comes to former lovers: Don’t talk about it in public. In short, shut up. Brash didn’t have to publish what he calls “the salacious bits”.

That he did is appalling bad manners, and I suspect he enjoys a kind of “Aren’t I naughty?” frisson from telling us about his sex life. Little wonder, as he himself says, he has few friends.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Brash is somewhere along the autism spectrum. ?His talents with numbers are undeniable. ?The destruction of people he has left in his wake on the other hand is an?omnishambles. ? Read more »

Food Police Seek Golden Trough

Deborah Coddington has slammed academic activists who are?running amok in the media telling us what to eat.

Troughers are all the same. Doesn?t matter if they?re anti-tobacco, anti-booze or the trendy new anti-bigfood. All are desperate to stay in the golden taxpayer funded trough.

While?Super Trougher Boyd Swinburn?is well out in front in the troughing stakes, many academic troughers are keen to follow his lead. One example is Otago Uni?s Gabrielle Jenkin who bangs on about Big Food being the new Big Tobacco.

Gabrielle Jenkin, Wellington health specialist, says Big Food is “more powerful” and will be “more aggressive than Big Tobacco” when cornered. Politicians are “cowed by Big Food” and New Zealand is “appalling, we’re sniffing KFC wherever we go”.

The more media they get, the more funding they seek. Whether it?s from the Lottery Grants Board or undisclosed funding from the University of Otago?s Activist?s Research Grant, rest ashore Gabrielle Jenkin is deep in the trough.

With a PHD thesis called ?Individuals, the environment or inequalities? Industry and public health framing of obesity and its presence in New Zealand government policy on food nutrition? and current projects looking at internet junk food marketing, her utterances are all going to be predictably anti industry.? Read more »

Coddington on the sexism in the Brown affair

It is no secret that Deborah Coddington hates my guts…she called ma a c**t on Twitter last night. However she has a good piece in the Herald On Sunday about the aphrodisiac of power.

When Henry Kissinger said power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, I doubt he was referring to women politicians.

I’ve had to go back to Catherine the Great to find a woman at the top prepared to risk losing all for the dubious thrill of a roll in the hay.

Len Brown’s no stud muffin and young, sexy Bevan Chuang admitted she only got loved up for two years because he’s Auckland’s boss.

There must have been pulling power swirling around Parliament when I was there, judging by the number of male MPs who had to resign because they’ve been caught – not quite in flagrante delicto but before media could make it messy for their parties. But I never noticed this intoxicating aura which turns boring men into lotharios just because they’ve garnered more votes than their rivals.

Here’s the mystery. Why men? Why don’t elected women leaders risk all for a quick naughty?? Read more »

So, how’d John Campbell do tonight?

Not so well according to my good friend Brian Edwards…who knows a thing or two about interviewing people:

Oh dear..how embarrassing.

John Key smashed John Campbell…124 submissions on GCSB bill and 30,000 submission on Snapper.

Kerre McIvor wasn’t impressed either:

Constituional review could subvert democracy

Not only is David Round concerned but so too is?Dr Elizabeth Rata who is an associate professor in the Education Faculty at Auckland University and a member of the Independent Constitution Review Panel. She writes:

Biculturalists have morphed from the inclusive biculturalism of the early 1980s with its idealistic commitment to difference in unity to a separatist iwi politics. The first stage of iwi politics began in the late 1980s with the reinterpretation of the Treaty as a so-called “partnership”.

This saw the insertion of partnership principles into almost all New Zealand legislation. We are currently in the second stage – one that is hotting up with proposals before the Hauraki Gulf Forum for “co-governance” of the Gulf. This will cement in the so-called Treaty partnership and justify a place for the Treaty within a New Zealand Constitution.

Those who object to this, and I am one of these, do so for two strong reasons. Co-governance establishes a political system where the power and authority of one party, iwi, is unchallengeable.? Read more »

Coddington on Bain

Deborah Coddington has managed to blag a column from HoS for the summer, and she has a ripper yesterday talking about David Bain.

In 1995, David Bain was convicted of killing all five members of his family and jailed for 13 years.

There were several appeals before success at the Privy Council, a retrial and acquittal. Former All Black Joe Karam, loudly assisted by Sir Robert Jones in hisHerald?column, still campaigns for taxpayer compensation.

No former prisoner could ask for better publicity than Bain enjoys, who now says but for the inconvenience of his family being wiped out, he could have been a renowned opera singer.

You can hear the sarcasm dripping from those comments. She also give the fat German tourist a serve:

It’s much easier taking up cudgels on behalf of the convicted – or even someone alleged to have committed a crime. For example Kim Dotcom, convicted of computer fraud, embezzlement and insider trading in Germany, is now fighting extradition to the US to avoid criminal charges of copyright infringement. But here, media treat him like a rock star.

Coddington on Pullar Scandal

? Herald on Sunday

Deborah Coddington surmises that Michelle Boag was trying to set up Judith Collins. She picked the wrong target for her standover tactics.

Finally someone (Coddington) says it how it is, Bronwyn Pullar is not a whistle blower.

Another puzzle: Boag has stated that Collins told her if she (Boag) wrote to her, she would have to pass the communication directly on to ACC.

Boag is a very smart operator and I just can’t understand her charging ahead and sending such a self-incriminating email to Collins if she knew it was going to be sent on to the chairman, and the chief executive, of ACC. Unless Collins was being set up.

But there were brain fades all around in this sorry saga.

Pullar certainly wasn’t thinking straight. She’s not a whistleblower, as some insist on calling her. A whistleblower would not have held on to other people’s private information from August to December, then allegedly threatened ACC senior managers with it.

A whistleblower would have gone straight to the Privacy Commissioner.

But this is all about Pullar. When her name became public and her “friend” Smith had to resign, instead of shutting up and going to ground, she kept on digging, blathering away in public. She couldn’t even apologise to Smith in private, but hogged the spotlight, then bagged ACC again.

Coddington on Pullar and Boag

Herald on Sunday

Deborah Coddington lets fly about Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag:

The legs-eleven story this week has been ACC’s carelessness in emailing 6752 clients’ private details to National Party stalwart (some might say nightmare) Bronwyn Pullar. More than 200 of these cases are what is known as sensitive claims, meaning they concern people who have been sexually abused.

Pullar had a history with ACC. Things had reached a point, apparently, where she needed a meeting with senior managers, so former National Party president and friend Michelle Boag sat in as Pullar’s “support person”. We still don’t know for sure who said what to whom, but apparently at that meeting ACC was told about this security breach, alleged threats were made of making that breach public, the words “going forward” were mentioned, and a two-year benefit was discussed.

Now the matter is in the hands of the police, and Privacy Commissioner Marie Schroff has launched an inquiry into the leak.

Furthermore, two dyed-in-the-wool National Party women, not the Opposition, have forced Nick Smith to resign from Cabinet.

With friends like Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag few people actually need enemies.

But back up the truck. What business was it of Pullar’s when she first received files which didn’t concern her? She obviously read them, because we were told she recognised a few of the sexual abuse victims as well-known New Zealanders.

At worst, this is a sorry saga of people who have possibly crossed the line of the law, or the principles of the Privacy Act, because they couldn’t mind their own business. Why didn’t Pullar just give the files back to ACC?

And if, as Boag now claims, the meeting was to assist ACC with security problems, why not go to the Privacy Commissioner, who is empowered to do just that, without taking action against ACC, without going public, without upsetting 6752 ACC clients? Somehow, this excuse from the PR maven doesn’t wash.

Exactly what I have been saying. Michelle Boag didn’t attend that meeting with Bronwyn Pullar as a support person…if she truly wanted a support person why not her?fianc??and now husband…no…instead she took Michelle Boag, to put the?frighteners?on ACC, just like they did to Pullar’s insurance company.

Mary Wilson on Checkpoint interviewed an ACC specialist claimant barrister, unsurprised by the leak, who said he’s been receiving wrong files “regularly” for six years, and immediately sends them back.

The Privacy Act was put in place for good reason – to protect us from Big Brother sharing information. To make ACC claims, under the Privacy Act clients almost have to sign their lives away, allowing the agency to collect personal information from their family doctor and other sources. So this careless leak was a massive breach of trust by ACC.

But in my opinion, Pullar and, by association, Michelle Boag, have compounded that breach by their actions.

Precisely. Coddington has nailed it. Reasonable people hand back information.?Unreasonable?people keep it for whatever purpose suits their nefarious purposes.

×