So Who Won?

Judith Collins has settled her defamation suit against Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little.

Some are calling it a victory for Collins, others for Little and Mallard. Eddie and Anthony Robins at The Standard call it for the Labour MPs, while David Farrar calls it for Collins.

Who Is To Blame For The Collins Suit Farce?

The Timaru Herald doesn't approve of Trevor Mallard or Andrew Little making a game out of evading Judith Collins' document servers.

Parliamentary politics is often viewed as something of a circus, and if what goes on in Wellington doesn't quite qualify yet, should it sink to that level any time soon, there's a sideshow already running to help members of the House feel at home. 

The ongoing saga of ACC Minister Judith Collins and her attempts to sue Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little over comments she said defamed her, in relation to the recent ACC privacy breach, has become nothing short of farcical. To the point that one is forced to wonder what possible positive purpose it can now serve for either party. 

Not that the right of Ms Collins to take action in response to a perceived slight on her reputation should be questioned, but it must be proving an unwelcome distraction for her party, the needs of which surely outweigh her own. It's hardly been a smooth recent ride for National.

The editorial questions the wisdom of Collins' actions in suing Mallard and Little, but it also condemns the Labour pair.

Certainly Messrs Mallard and Little have contributed to the farcical nature of this process. Having undertaken to make life as difficult as possible for those charged with serving legal papers on them, they have helped to set off a game of cat and mouse that has reached ridiculous proportions.  

The latest episode came yesterday when Mr Mallard said he was served papers by an elderly woman, purportedly a victim of poor hospital treatment, on whose behalf an appointment had been arranged with him. 

"She pulled out the papers and told me I was served and I said `thank you very much' and took a photo of her," Mr Mallard said. He then posted the picture on his Twitter account, ensuring extensive media coverage.

There's a distinction to be drawn between what is legally permissible and what is politically wise. Collins may well be entitled to sue Mallard and Little for defamation, and one can only assume someone in her legal team thinks she has a winnable case. If this is not the case, and if her case is legally as doomed as it seems to this non-expert in defamation law, then Collins' only hope may be to pressure her opponents into settling with her before the matter goes to court. The statements made by Mallard and Little to date suggest there is no realistic prospect of a settlement any time soon.

Politically this seems like a high risk venture for Collins. If she loses her credibility will be shot, and her opponents will never stop gloating.

But what of Mallard and Little? Are they wrong to have evaded the document servers for so long? Certainly not legally: they were entitled to make Collins' people work hard to serve them.

Nor am I convinced that politically it is as bad a look as the Timaru Herald seems to indicate. If you're faced with a daft lawsuit that appears to be motivated by spite, why should you co-operate with the plaintiff at all? If the actions of Mallard and Little achieve anything, they are to highlight how ludicrous Collins' suit is.

The usual suspects on the right have pinned the blame on Mallard and Little, without questioning why Collins is engaging in this behaviour. Some of the commentary on sites like Kiwiblog about Mallard and Little make what the two Labour MPs said about Collins appear very tame indeed. Those who serially defame should probably not be so eager to see politicians sue over perceived reputational slights.

Collins Lawsuit: What On Earth Is She Thinking?

The decision by Judith Collins to sue Trevor Mallard, Andrew Little and Radio New Zealand for defamation must be leaving her National Party colleagues shaking their heads.

It is a highly risky move, because if Collins backs down or loses her case, it will potentially destroy her ministerial career.

The ACC scandal seems to be growing bigger and bigger. It's too early to say that the stink rising up from this mess will bring the government down, but it has the potential to do considerable harm to National.

It it also astounding that Collins would sue a media outlet over this matter. If she and her colleagues had any self-awareness, they would understand that since the "teapot tape" affair the media have turned against John Key's government. Regardless of Collins' real motives behind the lawsuit against Radio New Zealand, her actions are bound to be viewed as just another example of National trying to silence the media.

I'm not the defamation law guy (I'm sure Mr Price or Mr Edwards will be along soon), but it's not entirely clear to me that anything defamatory has been said by either Mallard or Little about Collins. On the other hand, given Collins' litigious frame of mind, I'm not inclined to repeat anything they said that could potentially be construed as defamatory.

Additionally, the defendants will have potential defences available to them. Moreover, Mallard and Little might use the absolute privilege afforded to legal proceedings as a means of throwing more muck at Collins.

And if Collins wins, what then? I'm not convinced she'll get an apology from Mallard or Little, and it's unclear whether she would get a substantial damages award over remarks that seem largely innocuous.

Even if Collins wins she may lose.

Let's Just Rewind

Sometimes I think politicians exist only to make me look bad.

On Saturday I wrote:

Another politician who has had a strong year is Andrew Little. The Labour president and EPMU head doesn't present as the stereotypical "angry unionist", but instead looks to be moderate and centrist. He's been in the news a lot, firstly with the Chris Carter debacle and then over Pike River, and hasn't put a foot wrong. He looks to be future PM material, and may be in the running to be Labour leader in 2011/2012 when (as I suspect) Phil Goff steps down.

Then the moderate and centrist Little decided to call a sitting Labour MP a "lightweight" and expressed pleasure that the MP was not running again. More the actions of an "angry unionist".

Look, this blog is my personal ego trip and I can't afford to look bad in it. Let's just pretend that what I actually said was this:

Another politician who has had a strong year (although he could still ruin things for himself, because the year isn't over) is Andrew Little. The Labour president and EPMU head doesn't present as the stereotypical "angry unionist" (except that he does sometimes), but instead looks to be moderate and centrist, apart from those times when he comes over as an angry unionist. He's been in the news a lot, firstly with the Chris Carter debacle and then over Pike River, and hasn't put a foot wrong, but probably will in the next 48 hours. I would have said that he looks to be future PM material, and may be in the running to be Labour leader in 2011/2012 when (as I suspect) Phil Goff steps down. Unfortunately, due to my Solomon-like wisdom, I predict he will make an absolute arse of himself within the next few days, which will raise serious questions about his abilities. And when that happens, remember where you heard it first.

 ******

Another Labour politician smelling of poo is Phil Goff. He's just been massacred in the latest TV3 poll.

Goff hasn't done anything wrong, but he is up against the Key phenomenon. John Key is so jovial and nice that anyone who goes against him just ends up looking like a meanie. If Goff had the stature of, say, an Ed Hillary or a Richie McCaw he might have a chance. Perhaps the only question remaining is whether they roll him before the election, or whether he goes in 2011 after Labour's likely defeat.