Kiwiblog

The IPCA report on the Urerewa Operation 8 can be found here. Key conclusions:

• The  Authority  has  found  that  Police  were  entitled,  on  the  information  they  had,  to  view   the  threat  posed  by  this  group  as  real  and  potentially  serious.    The  investigation  into  such   activities  by  Police  was  reasonable  and  necessary.  
• From  a  policing  perspective  the  termination  phase  of  Operation  Eight  was  concluded   safely.    No  shots  were  fired  by  Police  or  others,  despite  Police  locating  a  number  of   firearms  and  weapons.    All  target  individuals  were  located  without  incident  and  no   members  of  the  public  were  put  at  risk.  
• The  planning  and  preparation  for  the  execution  of  search  warrants  on  termination  of   Operation  Eight  was  largely  in  accordance  with  applicable  policy.    It  involved  huge   logistical  challenges  given  that  search  warrants  had  to  be  executed  simultaneously  across  the  country.    Those  individuals  who  were  considered  by  Police  to  pose  the  greatest  risk   were  quickly  and  safely  apprehended.      
• In  contrast,  the  planning  and  preparation  for  the  establishment  of  the  road  blocks  in   Ruatoki  and  Taneatua  was  deficient.    The  Authority  has  found  there  was  no  lawful  basis   for  those  road  blocks  being  established  or  maintained.  There  was  no  lawful  power  or   justification  for  Police  to  detain,  stop  and  search  the  vehicles,  take  details  from  or   photograph  the  drivers  or  passengers.      
• There  was  no  assessment  of  the  substantial  and  adverse  impact  of  such  road  blocks  on   the  local  community.    The  road  block  at  Ruatoki  was  intimidating  to  innocent  members  of   that  community,  particularly  in  view  of  the  use  of  armed  Police  officers  in  full  operational   uniform.      
• The  majority  of  complaints  received  by  the  Authority  in  relation  to  property  searches   were  not  from  target  individuals  but  rather  from  other  occupants  at  these  properties   complaining  about  the  way  they  were  treated  by  Police.  Some  felt  they  were  being   treated  as  suspects.    A  number  of  occupants  were  informed  by  Police  that  they  were   being  detained  while  a  search  of  the  property  occurred,  despite  there  being  no  lawful   basis  for  such  detention.  Police  had  no  legal  basis  for  conducting  personal  searches  of   these  occupants.  
• The  Authority  has  concluded  that  a  number  of  aspects  of  the  Police  termination  of   Operation  Eight  were  contrary  to  law  and  unreasonable.    In  a  complex  operation  of  the   type  that  was  undertaken  here,  there  are  always  a  number  of  important  lessons  to  be   learned  about  future  Police  policy  and  practices.    The  Police  internal  debrief  following  the   termination  of  Operation  Eight  has  already  identified  a  number  of  those  lessons  and   necessary  changes  to  Police  training,  policy  and  operational  instructions  have  been  made.     The  Authority  has  made  a  number  of  other  recommendations  in  light  of  its  own  findings.     This  includes  the  need  to  re-­‐engage,  and  build  bridges,  with  the  Ruatoki  community.  

This looks a sensible and well balanced report. In short the conclusions are:

1. The operation against those arrested was justified as they posed a real and serious threat
2. The actual arrest and treatment of those arrested was done properly and lawfully
3. The treatment of the wider community was over the top, insensitive and in some cases unlawful

The Ruatoki community do deserve an apology for their treatment by the Police. I think they have had one already, but will no doubt receive another. It is worth noting that of course we now have a different Police Commissioner and Minister of Police as from 2007.

But let’s not make martyrs out of those arrested. They were acting somewhere between very foolishly and with malignant intent, and the Police were right to bring their activities to an end. Their personal treatment was not generally criticized by the IPCA. They also bear some of the blame for provoking the Police action in Ruatoki. 17 firearms were found in three properties at Ruatoki, and 12 smashed Molotov cocktails at their training camp.

But as I have commented before, the Police response did seem over the top – and the IPCA has agreed. We expect better  from our Police than we do of Tame Iti and Valerie Morse. They have a job ahead rebuilding confidence with Ruatoki.

The Herald reports:

A dangerous high-security prisoner who killed a Corrections officer has been sentenced for assaulting two more but will spend no extra time in prison, a penalty the prison guards’ union calls disgraceful.

Latu Kepu was already serving a jail sentence for the manslaughter of prison guard Jason Palmer when he attacked two other guards in separate incidents last October.

Kepu was sentenced at the North Shore District Court yesterday after previously pleading guilty to two charges of assault.

Judge Philippa Sinclair sentenced him to seven months in prison, to be served concurrently. That means Kepu will not have time added on to his sentence and is still eligible for parole in 2015 on his manslaughter conviction.

Well that will teach him a lesson. Not a single extra day in prison for bashing two prison guards up.

It is disgraceful. This makes life even more dangerous for prison guards if prisoners see they can bash them up and not get any extra penalty.

UPDATE: The disgrace it seems is the Herald story, not the sentence. Whale Oil blogs an e-mail from the Ministry of Justice:

In fact, Latu Kepa was sentenced yesterday in the North Shore Court on a s9 Summary Offences Act assault and a s196 Crimes Act assault (both on prison guards) to 7 months imprisonment cumulatively on his present sentence of Manslaughter. I have checked the court file, the prison warrant and listened to the court recording at the relevant part and all of them refer to a cumulative sentence.

I’m sorry to say the Corrections Association also seems to have been misinformed : “At a minimum, the seven-month sentence should have been cumulative to the manslaughter sentence, Mr Hanlon said.”

Please let me know if you require any further assistance,

Warm regards,

Sonja.

Sonja de Friez.
Director of Community Engagement, District Courts.

That is a huge error by the Herald to get the main fact of the story wrong. My regrets that I assumed the story was correct in criticizing the sentence.

The Herald have removed their story from their website. I trust it will be replaced by an apology.

The Dom post editorial:

Labour MP Nanaia Mahuta has fired a broadside at Parliament’s rules after she found herself stuck in the debating chamber late at night with her 5-month-old baby.

She was aiming at the wrong target.

Instead of having Parliament’s standing orders in her sights, she should have trained them on her party colleagues.

Labour talks the talk on family-friendly workplaces, but it appears it is not so good at walking the walk when it comes to helping a breastfeeding colleague, even one as senior and respected as Ms Mahuta.

Exactly. They have 9 proxies they can use every day. They have only one MP with an infant. Plus as they are not in Government, they can even vote with reduced numbers without consequence.

If Ms Mahuta felt she should be among those whose presence was not required, then the correct place for her to have directed her complaint was chief whip Chris Hipkins, who organises the roster and should have been alert to the high likelihood of Parliament going into urgency after Thursday’s Budget, and her Labour colleagues.

All it would have taken for her to have the night off would have been for Mr Hipkins to give her priority or for just one of those Labour MPs who was excused to have offered to step in and take her place. Surely, Ms Mahuta would have returned the favour when her circumstances allowed?

To be fair to Hipkins, it has been reported she originally had leave for Friday, but asked to swap it. I’m not sure all the blame is with the Whips. To some degree what we are seeing is a continuation of Labour’s internal warring – it is no coincidence that Mahuta is part of the marginalised Cunliffe faction and she has no love for the party leadership and whips after her demotion.

After Ms Mahuta’s complaint, Speaker David Carter is examining whether even more can be done. In the meantime, Labour, the champion of family-friendly workplaces, can help Ms Mahuta no end by practising what it preaches.

A fair point.

The Press reports:

A Christchurch city councillor says the city could offload non-core assets, including its own offices, to help pay its share of big-ticket rebuild projects.

Cr Tim Carter said last night that less important assets were expendable if it helped ease the council’s debt burden in funding anchor projects such as the new convention centre and roofed sports stadium.

“We should question whether we should be owning half of the civic office building and the Henderson properties.

“The Henderson properties … add nothing to ratepayers. The council had no plan for how we were going to develop them when the council decided to purchase, and we still have no plan.”

The council’s projected debt from earthquake recovery of $2.1 billion was not sustainable, he said.

“The council’s finances are in a very precarious position and we should consider our options rather than passing on higher rates,” Carter said.

He was against selling strategic, money-earning assets such as Christchurch International Airport, Lyttelton Port, Orion, and Enable, which is installing ultra-fast broadband in Christchurch.

The Council has adopted an absolutist position in which it will not sell any assets, no matter what. It’s a recipe for debt and massive rate hikes. Many commercial businesses sell some assets in order to purchase or build other more valuable ones. Decisions should be on a case by case basis.

The headline in Stuff was:

Stockholm rioting continues after shooting

Sweden is not normally a country you associate with rioting. When I saw the headline, I thought that it was almost inevitable that the rioting would be by immigrants. I felt a bit guilty over jumping to such a conclusion but the story starts:

Some 200 youths hurled rocks at police and set cars ablaze in a largely immigrant suburb of Stockholm today, the second day of rioting triggered by the fatal police shooting of a man wielding a knife.

Dozens of windows were smashed, 10 cars and several containers were set on fire, and seven police officers were injured. Cars and containers were also set ablaze in another of the Swedish capital’s suburbs, Fittja, although police said it was not clear whether the two events were linked.

The unrest began Sunday night in response to the May 13 shooting, in which police killed a 69-year-old man who had locked himself in an apartment in Husby, west of Stockholm. Police refused to give the nationality of the victim.

It sounds like France.

I am an absolute fan of immigration, but it has to be done in a way where new citizens integrate into their new country, not form enclaves. Few countries in Europe have managed this. I’m pleased to say that New Zealand largely does.

Reinfeldt added that Husby – where around 80 percent of the roughly 11,000 residents are first- or second-generation immigrants – has been going in the right direction during his seven-year tenure, with employment increasing and crime falling.

An 80% concentration of immigrants is not healthy in my opinion. As I said above, integration (which is different to assimilation) is the key.

Danyl at Dim-Post looks at the share price of Fletchers over the last month after Nick Smith 10 days ago announced an inquiry into the cost of building materials. As the price has dropped Danyl says:

According to the Steven Joyce/Fran O’Sullivan theory of political sharemarket vandalism, Nick Smith has ‘destroyed’ about $260 million dollars worth of wealth in the last ten days. I look forward to their columns/press releases warning of capital flight, skies raining blood etc.

This is one of Danyl’s more silly comparisons. In his world I guess there are no shades of grey. An inquiry into high prices is the same as a unilateral announcement with no consultation that the Government is going to dismantle the competitive market and set prices.

Let’s look at what Nick Smith actually said:

Housing Minister, Nick Smith, speaking on “The Nation” said there was significant concern that items “the likes Batts, likes of Gib and concrete” were more expensive than what they were in Australia.

Batts and Gib are Fletcher’s brands and the company is a major concrete supplier.

But Mr Smith denied the Government was singling Fletcher’s out.

“We need in a very thorough way not on the basis of rumour or speculation, on the basis of really good analysis and information, to have a hard look at how the building materials’ market is working and to ensure that there are the competitive pressures that are there,” 

“In terms of tariffs and those things, you know New Zealand has a pretty liberal regime for bringing products in, but are there other barriers? 

For instance, we have a Body Standards New Zealand that sets the standard, and sometimes I’m concerned that the industry groups have too much influence over those standards, that are then effectively adopted by councils and do not allow product from overseas to be able to give Kiwis real choice about those products.”

Mr Smith said his inquiry was going to look what regulatory tools that the government had at its fingertips, that could try and get building materials costs more reasonable for the industry. 

So no mention or even hint of price controls. In fact the announcement seems focused on increasing competition in the market, and reducing regulatory costs. And also note that these products are just a few of many produced by Fletchers.

This is hardly in the same universe as what Greens and Labour did with Contact Energy and the 13 other generators. They have been attacking Contact for a couple of years, claiming (falsely) their prices are higher than the SOEs. Contact has only one product – electricity, and their announcement was that if elected they will unilaterallly determine the price Contact can sell electricity at in the future. This is the Government deciding the price for the sole product Contact produces. It is not about increasing competition, but removing it all together. It is in fact a de facto nationalisation as if the Government gets to set the price you charge for your sole product, they effectively own your company.

So as I say, the comparison is beyond silly.

Stuff reports:

A list of organisations that have expressed interest in running charter schools has been outed, revealing a high proportion of religious groups, including a Manawatu church arguing it has the right to teach creationism using taxpayer money because state schools teach evolution.

The Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) has defended its decision to print the list in this month’s edition of its members’ magazine, which names 21 organisations that registered interest – almost half of them religious groups – with president Angela Roberts arguing that the process had been shrouded in secrecy.

The secrecy is probably to prevent nonsense stories like this one.

That school referred to – has not even applied.

However, the PPTA yesterday named organisations including The Sabbath Rest Adventist Church. The church had been interested in the options presented by partnership schools but had decided not to make an application this year while charter schools legislation remained before Parliament, trustee Jill Friar said.

So this shock horror example is of a church that has decided NOT to apply. Of course many readers won’t get that far.

Asked if she thought taxpayer money should be allocated to schools teaching creationism, Mrs Friar responded it was tantamount to funding secular schools to teach evolution.

“Look at the state school system – they teach evolution as if it’s a fact and it’s not a fact. Even scientists say it’s a theory, so what’s the difference at the end of the day? Why should we teach evolution as if it were a fact when there is a theory that is an alternative?” Mrs Friar said.

“It’s education and caring for children that is important – to me that’s what the argument should be all about.”

PPTA president Angela Roberts said taxpayer cash should not go to schools teaching creationism.

I agree that no charter school should get funding if they wish to teach creationism. But again this church has not even applied to be a charter school, and I’m 99% confident that they would never get approved if they do wish to teach creationism as science.

Labour education spokesman Chris Hipkins said it was an example of why critics feared the charter school model.

“Those are their beliefs – but the state should not be paying for it. Those parents and kids can choose to believe and to receive a religious education. But not to the exclusion of other sciences, and I think in this case that is really inappropriate,” Mr Hipkins said.

It’s an example of nothing. Their big worry is that all the applicants will be so good, they won’t be able to demonise them.

The Makahika Outdoor Pursuits Centre (MOPC) in Levin, which offers alternative education for young male offenders, also registered interest. The organisation’s work is currently sub-contracted by the Ministry of Justice. Co-director Sally Duxfield said she and her husband paid up to $60,000 a year out of their own pockets to finance the programme.

MOPC was considering becoming a charter school because the funding style could allow them to extend to a full-year residential programme, Mrs Duxfield said.

The centre would use the New Zealand curriculum and employ registered teachers.

“The mainstream system doesn’t work for these boys. Some of these boys haven’t sat at a school desk since they were 10 or 12 because they’ve beaten people or stabbed people . . . they come here because they are unable to be educated safely [elsewhere].”

Wow, how awful if they applied, Some of the most at risk youth might get a better education. What terrible stuff.

A reader e-mails:

Just read your blog on housing affordability. Good stuff.  The other point that is worth making is that the left go on about average housing prices and how they are out of reach of 1st Home Buyers. It is such a chardonnay socialist concept. For gods sake – who as a first home buyer buys an average priced property? Only a few well heeled young professionals. Most, nearly all, first homebuyers buy at the bottom end of the market (including myself). It’s called doing the hard yards by starting at the bottom of the property ladder.  And to get on the ladder they may have to buy in suburbs which are not their first preference.

While that may come as a shock to some, just check out the numerous options on www.realestate.co.nz of properties under $400k in Auckland. On the first page alone I saw a 2 bedroom flat in One Tree Hill (nice suburb) for $338k. A $20k contribution to a couple from Kiwisaver ($10k of their own savings) would get them into this pretty easily depending on their combined incomes.  Nice starter with the opportunity to add some value. Have a look at the options on the various real estate web sites.

Sure – not ideal for a large family but people should be aiming to get into the property market before they endow themselves with multiple kids, get themselves established and then have children. Even with this flat you could have your first child before moving up to a bigger home, but by that time you might have been in the property market for 4 to 5 years (2 to 3 as young couple and another two with a baby) and have built some tidy capital.

It is a good point that we should not overly focus on the average price. For first time buyers the level of say the 25th percentile is probably a more useful figure.

I’ve only owned two apartments. The first one cost me around a third of the second one, as I worked my way up the property chain. I would never ever have been able to consider going straight into what I own today.

Midnight in Moscow, at Circa, is a lively story of love, loyalty and politics. It is set in the NZ Embassy in the USSR in 1947. At times it is a bit like a murder mystery, but instead of working out who was the killer, it is more who was the spy?

You also get intrigued by whether that gay man and the young girls’ blossoming friendship may in fact be something for her aunt to worry about. Will the wife find out her husband’s affair with the mistress of Boris Pasternak?

There is of course a political theme to the play, as expected from playwright Dean Parker. Young Madeleine (played by Chelsea Bognuda) have a naive appreciation of the wonders of the worker’s paradise. Her aunt, and head of mission, June (Carmel McGlone) lays out the reality of what the Soviet Union was really about – political prisoners and repression.

Other embassy staff have some surprising views, which reveal themselves during the play.

The star of the show for me was Gavin Rutherford as the witty, urban, flamboyant and promiscuous Kit. His character provides many of the laughs. he provides the signature quote from E M Forster “If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country”. Stephan Papps also excels as Boris Pasternak.

Jon Pheloung and Jessica Robinson play husband and wife Hugh and Sophie. Hugh is helping the famous Boris Pasternak  translate Doctor Zhivago into English, and also having an affair with Boris’ mistress Olga (Miranda Manasiadis). Hugh’s character is based on NZ diplomat Patrick Costello, who was suspected of being a Soviet spy. The debate continues today as to whether he was. For my 2c I think he was.

There is a chilling moment when Pasternak gets a phone call from Moscow, and it turns outs to be Stalin himself. This is of course based on real life, and I’d encourage people to read the awful treatment of Pasternak and other authors under the USSR.

Photo by Stephen A’Court

Parker has crafted a very clever play that shows how awful the USSR was (and certainly was not an apologist for it as a Herald review suggested). There were also some lovely moments such as when the three female staff rehearsed for their role in The Mikado, bing out on by the British Council.

I enjoyed the play, but I did have a couple of criticisms.

The set was very well done, but I found the suits worn by the men (especially Kit) did not look anything like the 1940s. They looked like very modern suits. Maybe I’ve been spoilt by how well shows like Mad Men get the look and feel of an older era so well, but the suits did jar with me, as not fitting into the era.

Another minor point was the idea that a woman would be head of delegation in 1947. I know of course that a play is fiction, but again it made it harder to get into the play. The best plays are where you forget it is a play, and you are one the edge of your seat wondering how it will all end.

I also like a play that grabs your attention at the beginning, and found the opening monologue didn’t quite do that. Also the poetry scene with Hugh and Pasternak went on a bit too long for my simple tastes. The play lasted two hours 15 minutes (plus a 15 minute interval). I thought the first half dragged on a bit and could have been shorter or brisker. The second half though was much more enjoyable, and overall was a very good production.

John Smythe at Theatreview has also reviewed the play. It runs at Circa One until Saturday 8 June.

UPDATE: I am informed that in fact the head of delegation in 1947 was indeed a woman, so wasn’t NZ progressive!

Treasury has just released a mound of documents on Solid Energy. There’s over 100 documents so I’m not going to try and read them all.

I am looking at some around the proposed Natural Resources Ltd. if any readers are bored, feel free to read a few docs, and comment below any interesting aspects of them.

Beau Murrah blogs:

Callum Fredric has received a substantial payout, apparently near a years wages, from OUSA in agreement to avoid a legal battle. However, Callum will not be returning as editor of Critic.  Apparently OUSA decided on the economic rationale that even if they won a legal dispute it would be about as expensive.

I’d say they didn’t have a leg to stand on. Their actions looked to be a massively over the top reaction to a couple of minor issues.

OUSA is now funded by the University of Otago. What a pity Otago students are the ones who have to fund the employment mishaps of OUSA.

Salient has more info:

Under the terms of the agreement the sum of the settlement is confidential, and when spoken to by Salient, Fredric refused to confirm any figures. However, sources close to the organisation have said that the settlement was around $35,000, which is slightly less than a year’s salary for the Critic Editor.

That is a huge payout, which shows how legally flawed OUSA’s actions were. I understand their legal fees would be in the arena of $15,000 so that is $50,000 they’ve wasted.

Will students hold the executive accountable for such a waste of money? If OUSA had to actually earn its own money, instead of having the university gift it to them, then I’m sure they’d be fare more careful around how they treat their staff.

The GCSB has said:

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has completed an inquiry into potential breaches of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act (2003).

The GCSB Director, Ian Fletcher says, “The Inspector-General formed a view that there have been no breaches, although the law is unclear and the Inspector-General recommends amending it.”

The Inspector-General is Paul Neazor. He is a former New Zealand Solicitor-General and former Hgigh Court Judge who was appointed Inspector-General by Helen Clark.

The Kitteridge report never concluded the GCSB had broken the law. It reported that they may have broken the law, because the law is unclear. Crown Law had said they were uncertain whether the section on not intercepting communications of NZers over-rode the section on assisting other agencies when they had legal interception warrants.

The Inspector-General has said that basically on balance of probabilities he does not believe their actions have been  outside the law – but again, that it is not absolutely clear.

A recent review of compliance at the GCSB by Rebecca Kitteridge found difficulties of interpretation in the GCSB Act. Following the Prime Minister receiving that report, cases involving 88 New Zealanders were referred to the Inspector-General. All were cases where the GCSB had been asked to help another agency.

Mr Fletcher says the Inspector-General found that all of the cases were based on serious issues including potential weapons of mass destruction development, people smuggling, foreign espionage in New Zealand and drug smuggling.

Nothing to worry about then!

• 15 cases involving 22 individuals did not have any information intercepted by GCSB. 
• another four cases involving five individuals were the subjects of a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service warrant and the GCSB assisted in the execution of the warrants. The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear.
• the Bureau only provided technical assistance which did not involve interception of communications, involving three of the individuals, so no breach occurred.
• the remaining cases involved the collection of metadata, and the Inspector-General formed the view that there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear.

It is worth noting that this is over around a 10 – 12 year period, so we are not talking a huge amount of activity.

Mr Fletcher says the Inspector-General is of the view that the interpretation of “communication of a person” is one of the issues where there are uncertainties in the interpretation of the GCSB Act, when it comes to metadata.

An example of metadata is the information on a telephone bill such as the time and duration of a phone call, but not the content of the conversation or identification of the people using the phone.

Now it is not good enough that interceptions happened when there was uncertainty over the law. The operations of the spy agencies must be beyond doubt legally. Hence the major changes being made to GCSB to ensure no repeat. But it is worth putting this into context, especially compared to the current scandals in the US with Associated Press and Fox news journalists having their communications intercepted to try and find out their sources on security issues.

As previously stated, Police have conducted a thorough check of all their systems. Police advise that no arrest, prosecution or any other legal processes have occurred as a result of the information supplied to NZSIS by the GCSB.

Which means no appeal against a conviction.

Stuff reports:

Poor participation in food programmes at low-decile schools is an issue that needs sorting before the Government launches Food in Schools, says Prime Minister John Key.

The programme, which was left out of last week’s Budget, would serve breakfast and lunch to needy children.

It was expected to involve extensive partnership with companies and community groups already involved in providing food to hungry students.

But the Government was still working through some issues with current free-food schemes, Key told TVNZ’s Breakfast show this morning.

“For the lowest decile schools in the country, Fonterra and Sanitarium currently run a programme – they offer it to every school that wants it – 566 take it,” he said.

“Only 15 per cent of the children who actually go to those schools, even though all of them are offered it, actually take it. So that gives you a sense of the scale of the issue.”

So there is already a programme offering food to every low decile school in NZ. And 15% of pupils at those schools take it up.

So what is the point of a law requiring the Govt to fund a programme at every school in NZ?

Labour leader David Shearer said providing breakfast to children was ultimately a parent’s responsibility and any programme must be targeted.

I agree with David Shearer. I presume this means Labour will vote against Hone Harawira’s bill.

A guest post by David Garrett:

Still plenty of crime about

This weeks HoS featured a  story on falling crime. The gist of it was that crime was at its lowest since 1982;  we are all victims of manufactured anxiety about crime , and in fact we have never had it so good. The story featured a neat little graph which showed that  “recorded offences” were about the same – actually a little lower – than  they were in 1982. Sadly neither the story nor the graph tells the whole story.

For example, if the graph covered the period back to 1972, it would show a dramatic explosion in crime between then and 1982, when the reassuring line on the graph in the story  begins. If the graph went still further back, it would show violent crime – including  homicide – pretty much as a flat line from the beginning of last century until about 1972, when violent crime began to grow exponentially.

The story uses the “crimes per 10,000 of population” measure, which allows us to compare New York with New Plymouth – the rates are comparable and meaningful   whatever the populations compared. For most of the 20^th century, our homicide rate was about 0.5 per 100,000 per year. It is now about three times that – substantially less than 20 years ago it is true, but still three times higher than it was fifty or sixty years ago.

The graph in Sunday’s story  showed total offences, and does indeed show an encouraging fall since 2010 – but more about that in a moment. If the graph had shown violent  crimes only, the picture would not have been anything like as rosy; violent crime has declined much less since its peak in the early 90’s than “recorded crime” generally,  a notoriously unreliable stat, since to be “recorded”, someone has to bother reporting it.

The most interesting thing about the story for me was the sharp drop in crime since 2009 – about the time the National led government moved, albeit rather timidly, away from the “criminals are victims too” policies we had been following for the past 40 years or more. 2009-10 saw  small changes in bail laws, more recalls for breaches of parole, and of course “three strikes”, the effects of which are only now really beginning to be felt.

The liberal academics – something of a tautology since with very few exceptions we have no other kind – will of course ascribe the sharp drop in crime from 2009 to something other  than the factors I have cited. Anything will do for them, so long as it’s not  more punative measures. The current theory is  that removing lead in petrol twenty years ago has caused crime to drop now.

To those who say that to aim for the kind of safe society we once had is a reactionary pipedream, I say this: read up on the precipitate drop in crime in New York since a much more dramatic policy change  in the early 90’s than we have seen began. Back then, there were about 4000 homicides in New York City every year, and the city was widely regarded as “ungovernable”.

Mayor Guiliani refused to accept that, and the New York Police Department were directed to “take back the city”, block by block.  Now, homicides in NYC number in the hundreds annually – about the same level as in the 1960’s – rather than the thousands.  The population hasn’t changed.

We can do the same. Smarter and more comprehensive policing – “broken windows” New Zealand style if you like – has caused crime to plummet in South Auckland,  long our most crime ridden district. I look forward to the day when some fresh faced reporter can show a graph extending back to 1972, or even 1952, and say we now have the same rate of violent crime as we did then. It can be done. We just need the will to continue down the path we tentatively embarked on three years ago.

The point David makes about violent crime being a better indicator than overall crime is one I have often made also.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

Labour MP Nanaia Mahuta wants better provisions for breastfeeding mothers after she was forced to stay in Parliament with her young daughter until midnight on Friday.

The Business Committee, which oversees the running of Parliament, is set to consider the situation at its next meeting.

Parliament sat under urgency until midnight Friday and late on Saturday as the Government rushed through a raft of Budget-related legislation.

Mahuta was given leave on Thursday night and most of the day on Friday, but she was required to be in Parliament from 9pm until midnight on Friday.

Labour whip Chris Hipkins said Mahuta didn’t have to be in the debating chamber, just the parliamentary buildings.

That is a key revelation. Mahuta could have remained in her office with her baby. There was no requirement at all for her to be in the chamber. So the question has to be asked, did she go down in the chamber with her baby just as a publicity stunt to protest having to be in Parliament at all at that time?

I’m all for MPs being able to take babies into the House, but it is important to note that MPs are not required to be in the House for votes. They merely have to be in the parliamentary precinct.

But Mahuta said it was “silly” she had to take her five-month-old daughter Niua-Cybele to work that late just to make up numbers.

She had raised the matter with Speaker David Carter and Hipkins and expected something to be done.

“I was concerned that provisions weren’t made for nursing mums during urgency in terms of leave numbers … no child should be in the workplace from nine till midnight,” she said.

I understand (my source may be wrong) that Mahuta in fact offered to do the Friday shift. That she was originally rostered on for Thursday, and wanted to swap. So again I am not sure that Mahuta was forced to be there on Friday night.

Now don’t get me wrong. being a working mum is damn hard, and a working MP mum harder than most. I would expect that party whips would do everything possible to give one of their 25% proxies to an MP who is caring for an infant for late night sessions. But we do not know the full details of why Mahuta was rostered on for Friday night. As I said, I understand she was originally rostered on for Thursday, and did a swap.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key does not believe Parliament’s hours should be reduced to make it more “family friendly”, saying having children while in Parliament was “challenging but do-able” and it was up to each party to ensure nursing mothers had the support and time out needed.

Unless there was a huge explosion in the number of MPs with infants, the 25% proxy allocation to each party should be more than adequate to allow parents with infants to have flexibility with their hours.

Speaker David Carter is considering introducing special leave provisions for nursing mothers after Labour MP Nanaia Mahuta was in Parliament with her baby until midnight on Friday because of urgency. She told the Speaker it was unfair to expect nursing mothers to be in Parliament late into the night.

Mr Key said it was up to the Speaker to decide on any new rules, but it was possible for parties to arrange leave to give priority to those who most needed it, such as nursing mothers. Parties can have one quarter of their MPs away at any time without losing votes in Parliament.

He said it was up to the Speaker to decide whether to formally allow women to take babies into the House.

It isn’t just up to the Speaker. He can not unilaterally change standing orders. The standing orders committee would need to recommend a change to standing orders to change the proxy rules, and the House would need to agree to it – probably by way of a sessional order.

In terms of whether infants are allowed in the House, the rules seem unclear. I can’t find a Speaker’s Ruling on this issue. The preferred approach would be to amend standing orders to make it clear this is allowed, but in the absence of an explicit change I think the Speaker can show some common sense discretion. However let’s be very clear – ultimately the rules of Parliament are not decided by the Speaker, but by the House. He is the House’s servant, not its master.

Labour whip Chris Hipkins said Ms Mahuta had been given significant amounts of leave but there was extra pressure on leave during urgency. Ms Mahuta had agreed to work on Friday night after she was given leave for Thursday.

Oh I should have read this article first. This backs up the point I was making above. Mahuta chose to work Friday night instead of Thursday.

He had taken her off the speaking roster after she told him she had to bring the baby to Parliament.

So again, her decision to go down to the House with her baby was a voluntary one – presumably to gain publicity.

The Herald reports:

TVNZ’s Shane Taurima has confirmed he will seek Labour’s selection for the Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election, saying the late Parekura Horomia had approached him about standing in the past and he was now ready to “return home.”

Mr Taurima, who is the head of Maori and Pacific Programming at TVNZ, will go up against at least two others to contest the seat for Labour including district councillor Henare O’Keefe and Ngati Kahungunu chief executive Meka Whaitiri. It is expected to select the candidate this weekend.

At this rate, TVNZ will run out of staff as they all migrate to the Labour Party!

The Dom Post reports:

The Beehive may soon be producing honey – if a plan for more urban honey production goes ahead.

Andrew Robinson, managing director of Love Honey, is gaining support for a plan to put functioning beehives on top of the Beehive.

“We came up with a great idea to have parliamentary honey because beehives on the Beehive sounds really good.” …

The project has received the support of the Green Party and Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown.

Green Party MP Steffan Browning is confident the project will take off because people recognised the importance of bees in our environment.

“They’re charismatic creatures and people identify with them. Clearly no-one likes to be stung but we all do love … seeing them on our flowers, on our flowering plants.

Nice to see the Green MPs and our Green Mayor focusing on the big issues.

Never heard of bees described as charismatic before.

But rather than place some beehives above the Cabinet Office, why not place them in the Greens offices in Bowen House, if they identify so strongly with these charismatic creatures?

HUHA have announced:

We would love it if those of you who are able could join us and stand up for the animals as the “Leave Animals out of Legal High Testing” Petition is handed over at parliament. HUHA supporters will be congregating at the war memorial on the corner of Bowen and Lambton Quay from 12.30 today Tues 21st May, then proceeding up to Parliament for the handover of the petition at 1pm (We will have HUHA tee’s to buy of to borrow available). If you are in the Auckland region please join our wonderful HUHA supporters and some of the rescued VARC Beagles at 12.30pm at Pohutukawa Drive, Cornwall Park, Auckland. Please bring your family, friends, colleagues and if you are able your dogs……lets show parliament we must not just be heard, but listened too!!!

I don’t have a problem with using animals for medical research, but that is rather different to using them to test the safety recreational drugs.

The Government’s review of the Teacher’s Council has released a draft proposal which represents radical change for the much criticised Council. The Council was found to be not be effective in its current structure and operations. Some key aspects:

• Current membership is four appointed by Minister, two by unions, one by NZ School Trustees and four elected by teachers.
• Proposal that Minister appoint all members, based on open nomination process – as with the Medical Council
• Separate out registration of teachers with a more regular practising certificate (again like Doctors)
• Allow the Council to authorise people who are not teachers to have “Authority to Educate” if they have proven expertise or disposition deemed important for student learning

This debate is tomorrow (Tuesday) night.

James Sleep from the Campaign for a Living Wage (and the SWFU) is the guest speaker for the affirmative and Luke Malpass from the NZ Initiative is the guest speaker on the negative. Members of the debating society will also be speaking.

NBR reports:

Telecom’s IT services unit, Gen-i has sold Davanti Consulting in a management buyout.

The deal involves 80 staff. Telecom won’t reveal the price but a spokeswoman told NBR Onliine it is “not material.”

Telecom has signed a conditional agreement to transfer ownership of Davanti Consulting’s New Zealand operations to Davanti principal consultants Justin Hamilton, Matt Farrar and Robert Carter.

The transaction is expected to settle on 31 May.

After the deal closes, Gen-i and Davanti will continue to partner, with Davanti staff working from Gen-i’s premises in Auckland and Wellington.

Davanti was founded in 2007 as a division of Gen-i. It works with organisations across private and public sectors, providing strategic advice, business transformation, industry knowledge, and the design and delivery of cloud-based applications. Its website lists the Ministry of Justice, TVNZ, Fulton Hogan and ACC among its clients.

Matt and his partners set Davanti up six years ago within Gen-i. They’ve grown it from what was just the four of them, to an 80 person trans-Tasman business. And now they get to own it also.  There’s an incredible feeling (and responsibility) of owning your own business. Welcome to the club brother

Most of the time, most polls accurately predict elections outcomes within the margin of error. The polls of polls predicted all 50 states in the recent US presidential election.

But sometimes you get an election result which was contrary to not just some or even most of the polls – but all of them.

These are always fascinating to pollsters, as they provide great learning experiences. Some of the more well known poll disasters was not picking the defeat of Jeff Kennett in Victoria and one of the Obama v Clinton primary battles.

We can now add to that the recent British Columbia elections. Huff Post reports:

It was a historic, completely unexpected comeback.

After trailing in the polls for more than a year, often with a deficit of more than 15 points, the B.C. Liberals under Christy Clark managed to win re-election last night. And they did so easily, with 44.4 per cent of the vote against 39.5 per cent for the NDP (a wider margin than the one that elected Gordon Campbell in 2009) and 50 seats, more than the 45 seats her party occupied when the legislature was dissolved and the campaign got under way.

Put simply, the polls got it spectacularly wrong.

How wrong? Another story states:

A May 10 Angus Reid poll showed that 45 per cent of 803 voters surveyed intended to support the NDP, while 36 per cent said they would vote for the Liberals. That was a nine-point overall lead over the Liberals. An earlier Ipsos Reid poll, which surveyed 800 adult British Columbians, found that 43 per cent of surveyed voters were supporting the NDP.

An Ekos poll, with robocall technology, on Monday gave the NDP 40.5 per cent of voter support. …

But almost two hours after polls have closed, the Liberals have 44.7 per cent of the vote, the NDP with 39.1 per cent and the Liberals leading or elected in 52 ridings, with 43 needed for a majority.

19 polls in April and May showed the NDP ahead and the most recent gave them a 9% lead. They lost by 5%. What went wrong? Was it that most of them were online polls?

A further story:

That every polling firm in the field, using a mix of methodologies, was unable to get a good result (and they mostly showed consistency even at the regional levels) suggests that something systemically wrong was taking place in their sampling methods. Are pollsters not building a sample that is reflective of the broader population anymore? Are they not polling those who actually vote? Are people no longer responding to polls truthfully? Do the now ubiquitous online panels and automated telephone polls have intrinsic limitations that can be amplified under certain circumstances (both have had success, and failure, in the past)?

These questions will need to be answered. An almost literal last-minute swing in voting intentions worth about 13 points does not seem to be plausible. The effect of low turnout, and the inherent discrepancies it can cause in polling, may be a place to start.

So why were the polls all wrong? It seems it was turnout? The Globe and Mail report:

Polls gave the NDP a two-to-one lead over the Liberals among voters 18 to 34 years of age, Mr. Canseco said.

“If that young vote decides not to show up, you’re kissing goodbye to a third of your base, and that’s exactly what happened,” he said, noting that the overall turnout was “abysmal” (52 per cent). “When you have a party at 45 per cent, and they end up with 39, that means there was a difficulty getting their voters out.”

Polls are based on stated preferences of the general population, not those who actually show up to vote, Mr. Canseco said. “The electorate did not resemble the electorate we were polling.”

I don’t know the methodology of the Canadian pollsters but one should always try to determine how likely a respondent is to actually vote, and eliminate those unlikely to vote.

Ipsos Canada comments:

In British Columbia, we interviewed 1,400 voters on Election Day and, as you’ll see, the numbers virtually matched the real outcome in terms of voter preference.

So the exit poll was accurate.

But it also tells a story as to why this happened right down to the last minute. The reality is that one in 10 (11%) BC voters decided in the voting booth on election day to mark their ballot for their candidate—and with one of the lowest turnouts in provincial voting ever (52%) it was motivated voters, Liberals, who bested the NDP in the voting booth.

The long and the short of it was that NDP voters did not get out and fulfill their promise to vote for the party of their choice – they stayed home while Liberal voters showed up. As such, a small number of voters were able to influence the greater outcome.

The Greens have this issue also in NZ. Their voters tend to be younger and tend not to turnout, hence why their results tend to be below their poll ratings.

In fact, nearly one-quarter (23%) of voters said they decided who they were going to vote for in the last week of the campaign. So the trend had continued from the week previously and these late deciders chose to vote BC Liberal by a 7 point margin over the NDP (41% BC Lib vs. 34% NDP).

Possibly the late deciders were fearful of change.

It’s clear that the negative-advertising campaign of the Liberals waged against the NDP had a slaughtering effect. If ever there was a case to behold that negative advertising campaigns work, it is here where the Liberals were able to take the NDP lead at the outset of the campaign of 20+ points in some of the polls and put it in the hole. The following show the changes in what happened in the final days of the campaign:

The NDP are quite like the Greens (hard left). Imagine what a good election campaign can do with the thought of a Green/Labour Government!

The Dom Post editorial:

There is a good argument for getting tougher with those living overseas who won’t repay their loans. Too many have decided to ignore their obligations.

Now the Government will require them not only to repay more quickly, but it also warns that persistent defaulters may be arrested at the airport.

This is punitive, unpleasant, and likely to be unpopular in a democracy that prefers the carrot to the stick. But nobody can complain.

The Government, after all, has taken a gradual approach. It offered amnesties and a chance to come to an arrangement with the IRD. It has also made it technically easier and cheaper to transfer the money home.

Many have responded reasonably: $64 million in outstanding loans has been repaid. However, some have ignored the offer and refused to repay. That can’t continue.

After all, if the people concerned had a low income and found it genuinely hard to repay, they were free to argue the point and try to make a deal with the tax-gatherer. Others could easily repay their loans but simply ignored the Government’s inquiries.

Those who have refused to do anything now face the threat of the bailiffs and, if they persist, of arrest. It’s hard to know what else the Government could do. Those who refuse to respond are breaking the social contract.

The social contract has responsibilities on both sides.

Students, after all, do not pay the full cost of their tertiary education. Even with the loans, they are being subsidised by the taxpayer. In return for that aid, however, they must make a contribution themselves.

This does not threaten the hallowed institution of OE, as Labour claims, or make it less likely that our high-fliers will return to the nest. Those who do their OE can’t just leave their fiscal obligations behind them. And highly -skilled people who stand to earn big salaries during their lifetimes can expect no sympathy if they default on their loans.

Repaying a loan should not be seen as optional.

The editorial however criticizes students aged over 40 having to get loans, instead of allowances.