We did not and will not name the company. That is our policy with all our clients. We’re entirely happy, however, for clients to tell people we have trained them, if they so wish. Your comment seems to imply that Mr Plunket might not be so happy. You may well be right. That is one of the problems with conflicts of interest.

Political parties seem to come into a different category. MPs are elected public servants and answerable to the public. It’s virtually impossible to keep the fact that one is training politicians secret. Our relationship with Helen Clark was public knowledge in no time at all. It’s also worth reminding you that the training we did with the Greens, who had just emerged from the Values Party, was 20 years ago. The current Green Party is an entirely different beast and we’re not training them.

Surely this revelation won’t help your client the next time they face Sean Plunkett? In an earlier post you announced the Greens were so broke in 1990 they wanted free training, and eventually paid through a barter deal. What’s your policy on client confidentiality?

I’m not familiar with Colin Espiner’s work. I write the occasional blog, but rarely read them. If he’s employed as an impartial interviewer by a broadcaster or publication, then the potential for conflict of interest and a perception of imbalance remain. I’m not sure we can take this much further. As someone who has been both political interviewer and commentator (though never at the same time) this is my firmly held view and has been for many years. I may be wrong, but that’s what I think. There may also be an exception to be made in the case of “political editors” like Guyon Espiner, for example. Espiner is employed by TVNZ in that role and the company clearly sees it as appropriate to use his expertise in both the commenting and interviewing roles. Plunket, on the other hand, is employed – as far as I know – solely as an interviewer. I’m not absolutely confident in the distinction, but it may have some force. In any event, I’d prefer to see Espiner (Guyon) just commentating and not interviewing as well. It’s from his interviews, incidentally, that the frequent accusations of bias arise, that he treats one group differently from another. That does tend to support my general view re perception.

The issue here is one of perception. Whether he writes approvingly or disapprovingly of a party’s or politician’s policies or performance, his own political independence as an interviewer will be challenged and compromised. … He would, in my view, be a liability to the company rather than an asset and unemployable in his current role.

Am interested … do you believe that Guyon Espiner has been compromised by his column in North & South? Is Colin Epsiner compromised by his blog? He has certainly ‘taken sides’ on occasion, but I suspect the Press thinks his blog’s a bonus, rather than a detriment.

No. You have to separate the management and the Board of RNZ from the producers and broadcasters. The people on Afternoons couldn’t be nicer. I’m on there this afternoon, by the way.

If he has, National doesn’t seem to know about it. He’s previously held portfolios in Customs, Housing, Tourism, ACC, Sport, Fitness and Leisure, and is currently Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sport and Recreation and the Rugby World Cup.