Kiwiblog

On Friday I toured around various parts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This the famous Plymouth Rock, which Pilgrims landed on in 1620.

A replica of the Mayflower, called the Mayflower II. The Mayflower is the ship the pilgrims fleeing religious persecution in England came over on.

These are the tombs of 2nd President John Adams and his beloved wife Abigail at the Church of the Presidents in Quincy. The church is so named, as the only church with two US Presidents buried there. Unlikely to occur again, unless George HW and George W Bush are buried together - but we probably won’t know that for 40 years or so.

The US flag has 15 stars and 15 stripes reflecting the number of states of the union when Adams was President.

John Quincy Adams was the 6th President and is next to his parents. His US flag has 24 stars reflecting the new size of the union. The number of stripes was back to the original 13 by then, as they realised too many stripes was not going to work.

This is the house John Quincy Adams was born in.

And next door to it, is the house his father John Adams was born in.

This house is known as Peacefield, also known as Old Home, and was the main home of the Adams Family. It was built in 1731.

And I also popped into Salem, home of the witch trials. In total 19 people were executed for witchcraft - 14 women and five men. In addition one man was crushed to death by heavy stones, but this was as part of his interrogation!

Sarah Palin’s announcement she will resign as Governor of Alask in a few weeks has caught almost everyone from surprise.

There are many possible reasons for this, but I think we can rule out a girlfriend in Argentina!

The indications I picked up in DC last week is she is seriously aiming for 2012, and hence my guess is she has resigned to free her up for national campaigning.

The Dom Post reports:

Federation president Ernie Buutveld warned league tables would create a “blame and shame” culture, which could lead to schools being shunned and children feeling inadequate.

Principals wanted the performance data exempt from the OIA. The issue was a bottom line, he said. “This can only impact negatively on our children.”

A bottom line. That’s fighting talk.

The more the education unions demand that school assessment data be made more secret than SIS data, the more I want to see that data.

It is very sad that this is now the unions’ top priority in education - hiding assessment data from parents. I think it explains a lot of the problem we have in the education sector.

Trans-Tasman had a very witty peice on this on Thursday also:

Education Minister Anne Tolley has an intriguing battle on her hands – one which is going to make or break her as Minister, and possibly make or break the Govt. The battle over centralised reporting of school results, and the scare campaign over “league tables” has probably only just begun. The Principals Association, the Post Primary Teachers Association and the primary schools union, the NZEI, all came out bitterly against the proposals, as did the provisional wing of the teacher unions, the Labour Party.

The provisional wing of the teacher unions - that is so damn apt.

The Government should stay absolutely firm on this. Certainly I hope the teacher unions see sense, but if they don’t - then Labour and the teacher unions have just handed National a battleground issue which will be hugely popular. Those on the side of suppressing school information will be amazed at how out of step they are with most New Zealanders on this issue.

What is most disturbing is the profound contempt it shows for parents and the public. Yes a league table can be a dodgy statistic. But hello there are many dodgy statistics out there. The job of Government is not to suppress information because it thinks people are too stupid to understand its limitations. You explain it. You put it into context. You provide further information.

John Key is a nice man, who would rather everyone compromise and stay happy. He doesn’t go picking fights to make himself look good.

In a way, it is a pity. Labour and the teacher unions seem to be auditioning for the role of Mrs Thatcher’s National Union of Mineworkers with their threats of refusing to report information, and that suppression of assessment information is a bottom line.

If I was a political Machiavelli I could think of nothing better than a year long stand-off against the teacher unions, and making the next election a referendum on whether or not teacher unions or the democratically elected Government gets to run the school system.

It is an issue on which you are guaranteed the support of every media outlet in New Zealand - except the education reporter for Radio New Zealand. This suppression of assessment data is primarily aimed at stopping the media accessing it.

John Roughan joins Chris Trotter (and most of the media) in blaming the foreshore & seabed legislation on Don Brash. He writes:

A backlash encouraged by Don Brash revived the National Party and unhinged Helen Clark’s government. Labour’s legislative cancellation of the court decision alienated one of its most loyal constituencies, giving birth to an independent Maori Party that bids to be a permanent force in our future.

The Court of Appeal decision was on the 19th of June 2003. Helen Clark said that she would legislate on the 20th of June - the next day as it was an issue for Government, not for Judges.

Don Brash was not Leader of the National Party until November 2003 - five months later.

So to write that a backlash encouraged by Don Brash unhinged Helen Clark’s Government in relation to the seabed and foreshore is simply false. Clark made the decision months before Brash was leader.

The Weekend Herald has a lengthy profile of Pita Sharples. It is an interesting and complimentary read.

The Herald reports:

Police have charged a multi-millionaire businessman, who was granted New Zealand citizenship in controversial circumstances, with making false declarations on immigration papers and using fake identities to obtain a passport.

Yong Ming Yan - also known as Bill Liu, Yang Liu and William Yan - was supported in his citizenship bid last year by Labour MPs Dover Samuels and Chris Carter, and National MP Pansy Wong.

To be fair to Chris Carter and Pansy, they had no idea he was dodgy. Dover did know of the allegations but chose not to believe them. But most of all Shane Jones had all the details from his departments about Liu, including a very firm recommendation that he not be given citizenship. In fact even then they were talking about prosecuting him.

He appeared in Manukau District Court, and is facing 12 charges in relation to false declarations on his immigration papers, having false passports and using deception to gain citizenship.

Yan entered no plea to eight charges under the Crimes Act, two under the Passport Act and one under each under the Immigration Act and Citizenship Act.

And authorities have obviously decided there are sufficient ground to prosecute.

He was granted citizenship in a VIP ceremony in Wellington last year after lobbying from former Labour MP Dover Samuels, who regards him as a close friend.

Rick Barker, the then Internal Affairs Minister charged with approving citizenship applications, was also on the list of politicians who knew Yan. Because of this, he passed the file to another minister, Shane Jones.

Mr Jones overruled Internal Affairs advice that Liu - now Yan - did not meet character requirements and granted him citizenship.

Mr Jones, now the Opposition spokesman for economic development and the environment, last night declined to comment.

Sooner or later Jones need to explain why he over-rode the advice from officials. Citizenship is not a right for people not born here, and those who get it should be of sound character. DIA did not think he was. Was Jones influenced by Liu’s donations to political parties and candidates? Was he convinced by his mate’s lobbying? Whatever it was, we need to know. If Liu is convicted, there should be a formal external inquiry into why he was granted citizenship.

Lyndon at Scoop has done an excellent guide to help you vote in the referendum. Enjoy it.

On Wednesday I took the train up to Boston, grabbed a rental car to Woods Hole, and then took the ferry over to Martha’s Vineyard.

The Vineyard is 230 square kilometres - you can drive around it in around 90 minutes. Jaws was filmed here in 1974. In 1977 the island tried to secede from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts after they lost their seat in the State House. They talked of becoming the 51st state (which was highly unlikely) but what was hilarious is that other states tried to woo them - Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine all said they would welcome the Vineyard as part of the state - and one state even offered them two seats in their State House!

A typical road on the island. Pretty much every road is surrounded by bush and is lovely to drive along.

This is the street I am staying on, in Oak Bluffs. It’s a gorgeous little town - one main road of shops, and around 1,500 houses.

This photo is taken in Edgartown and in the distance is Chappaquiddick Island. Chappaquiddick is of course most well known as the place where Senator Edward Kennedy drove off a bridge, resulting in the drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy did not report the crash and the car and her body were found the next morning.

And this is where I spent most of the day. It is around a one minute walk from where I am staying. I can see why it is such a popular place with so many prominent Americans.

NZPA report:

The Treasury has apologised for an error that embarrassed the Government and led Labour leader Phil Goff to accuse it of hypocrisy.

Ministerial travel costs released last week showed that in the first three months of this year National ministers spent $739,000, more than double the $336,000 Labour ministers spent in the same period in 2008.

That wasn’t only wrong, it actually reversed the true situation.

The Treasury had been right with the $739,000 figure for National ministers, but it said today Labour ministers spent $783,000.

So in fact less money was spent on travel in the first three months of a new Government than in the same period in the last year of the former Government.

Treasury’s deputy secretary for the state sector performance group, Peter Mersi, said he deeply regretted the error and apologised for it.

“Treasury strives to produce accurate and timely information,” he said.

“We didn’t meet our own high standards this time and I’m looking into how that happened, to ensure that such errors are unlikely to happen again.”

Treasury’s explanation of how the error occurred was: “The table also included a `total’ line which has been removed. The line was incorrect as the columns in this table cannot be accurately added because this would double count certain expenses. Because of the way these funds are appropriated, approximately 85 percent to 90 percent of VIP transport is funded from ministers’ internal and external travel which is included as a separate line. Therefore adding these figures would result in double counting.”

What I’m confused about is why Treasury is even involved in answering the question. The costs of travel are covered by Ministerial Services so I would have thought DIA would be the authoritative source of costs for Ministerial overseas travel?

Photo is from the Dim-Post who took it from Runners World.

You have to say that Governor Palin looks very good for a mother of five. Attractiveness is a factor in politics - Obama’s good looks certainly assisted him, and Palin’s assist her.

There was a study in Germany a while back about attractiveness being a significant factor in electability. Can’t find it now, but this study in Finland found:

Evaluations of beauty explain success in real elections better than evaluations of competence, intelligence, likability, or trustworthiness. The beauty premium is larger for female candidates, in contrast to findings in previous labor-market studies.

They also found that men tend to vote for male and female candidates equally, but women tend to favour female candidates over male candidates. In other words being a woman was an electoral advantage.

1. Grant Robertson blogs on how he voted on two private members bills that were conscience issues, and why. It would be great if more MPs did this.
2. Andrew Geddis at Pundit looks at the winners and losers in the Foreshore & Seabed Act review.
3. Julie at the Hand Mirror has a really well written and sensible blog post on what she will say to her (currently one and a half year old) baby when they are old enough to have “the talk” on sex. Note that this is to her child, and if you disagree with her intended advice, then go off and have your own children and tell them something different - don’t tell Julie how you think she should raise her child. Personally I think it is very good, pragmatic advice.
4. No Right Turn highlights that consultation on the new Fijian constitution will not even start until 2012, and wonders what the hell will they be doing for the next three years? I will be amazed if the Commodore really does hold elections in 2014 - or if he does they will be Iranian style and he he will retain supreme power in the background. A pro-coup blog provides some detail of what will happen before 2012. Personally I don’t see why constitutional drafting and consultation has to wait for some tourism projects to be finished!
5. Not PC has the list of who voted for and against the medical marijuana bill. While the bill was meant to be terribly drafted by Metiria Turei, personally I would have voted for the bill as it is the sort of issue that would be in the public interest to have select committee hearings on. It was voted down 34-84. The voting for each party was National 0-58, Labour 21 - 19 (King in favour, Goff against), Greens and ACT all in favour, United and Progressive against and Maori Party 1-4 (Harawira in favour)
6. Pablo at Kiwipolitico looks at the Honduras Coup and if a coup is ever justified. A very good analysis.
7. No Right Turn blogs on how the Foreshore & Seabed issue is about property rights, not the Treaty of Waitangi.

My weekly Dispatch from St Johnnysburg is online at NBR. It is on the Foreshore & Seabed Act review, and some of the history of it.

I had previously mentioned that Helen Clark announced just four days after the Court of Appeal decision she would legislate. It turned out I was wrong. A search of the NZPA database, when researching my column, found Helen said this the day after the decision:

Helen Clark says decisions on such things are the preserve of Government policy and not the courts. …

Miss Clark says the Government will legislate if necessary to preserve the status quo.

So Helen in fact decided to legislate within 24 hours of the decision. She chose not to appeal it to the Privy Council as it was a matter for “Government policy” and not the courts.

I also detail some of my involvement in National’s Beaches for All campaign:

This placed National in a bind. What do we do? The decision was made that if Labour were promising to legislate, then National’s job was to hold them to account for that promise, and make sure they do. Then was born the “Beaches For All” campaign. I think I was the one who actually came up with the slogan. I recall a debate with an MP that technically the ruling did not apply to beaches, but just the foreshore below high water mark. My response was that at low tide, that is a beach – just a damp one …

I mentioned my involvement in the Beaches For All campaign a couple of months ago to a 2005 MP who is now a Cabinet Minister. He quipped “So you were one of the guilty ones”. I admitted guilt and said that I was of course just doing my job. His response (with a smile) was “Oh, yes just like Nuremberg”.

Feedback and comments, as usual, can be made at NBR.

NZPA report:

The Korean businesswoman who laid a complaint against former MP and government minister Richard Worth has dropped the matter and the police have decided not to take a case against him, it was reported tonight.

As widely predicted. Richard and his family will be very relieved. Losing your job is nothing compared to the possiility of losing your liberty.

TV3 News reported tonight it had been informed by a source close to the Korean woman that she had dropped her complaint.

“She feels the political fallout around Richard Worth has been sufficient and going through the courts would have been an additional ordeal that would have gained little,” TV3 said.

It also reported police had told the woman there was not enough evidence to take a case against Dr Worth, and that was another reason why she was dropping her complaint.

The Police saying there is no evidence, is a good reason to drop the complaint.

TV3 reported the woman sent an email to Prime Minister John Key giving her account of what happened at the hotel.

“It talks about how they were drinking wine, she was tired and went to bed, and was woken by a naked Richard Worth,” TV3 said.

“It goes on to detail what happened after that.”

Not a good look, regardless of legality.

I had the drive from hell yesterday from Boston to Cape Cod.

Normally I love driving, and can’t get enough of it, but my God this was challenging stuff for a number of reasons:

1. My first time driving on the right hand side for around four years
2. A (large) new rental car never driven before, and it takes a while to get used to a new car
3. A route I had never driven before, with only GPS to guide me
4. A shitload of traffic weaving in and out
5. But most of all torrential rain and thunderstorm like you won’t believe

At times visibility was barely a couple of dozen metres as the rain was so thick. And the four lane I-395 got flooded in parts. Sudden aquaplaning is not enjoyable.

I had a ferry booking also to make. Now I was not going to put making the ferry above driving safely, but it did mean a level of stress, in that if you were delayed for too long, then there would be considerable consequences and hassle.

Eventually made it - 90 miles in two and a half hours which is around twice as long as it would normally take, but really I don’t think I have ever had such bad conditions - the only thing missing was hail.

The Employment Relations Authority reports that it has been approached by Truth, Fairfax, NZ Herald, Sunday News, Sunday Star-Times and TV3 about reporting on the Stephen Cooks vs Herald on Sunday employment case.

The Authority has ruled media may attend and take notes, but no live recording of the hearing. Photos and film can be shot before the hearing starts (10 am Friday now).

Had another day yesterday around New York. The sixth Harry Potter film commences on the 15th of July and there are giant billboards around everywhere promoting it.

I definitely recommend the subway as the best way to get around. It isn’t as user friendly as the Tube in London, but it is pretty easy to pick up. A lot larger – close to 400 stations. You can get an all day pass for $8 which is worth it as each individual trip is $2.

A lot of people don’t realise the Statue of Liberty has its own island – Liberty Island of course. You see it as you get closer to it. There is only one ferry service out to it – from NY and NJ.

And a close up on land of the most famous statue in the world.

I also went to the “top of the Rock”, the Rock being the Rockefeller Centre. This is a huge complex. If you have to choose between this and the Empire State Building I would go for this one – the queues are way way shorter, and the view even better in my opinion.

This shot shows the Empire State Building and Downtown behind it.

This is the great shot from the Top of the Rock. Central Park and Uptown. Only from up here do you get some idea of how absolutely huge Central Park is. - close to 850 acres.

Thank God they put the land aside for the park – would hate to live here without it.One report estimates the value of the land, if developed as US$528 billion!

And this is a view of the Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Reservoir in Central Park. It holds over one billion gallons of water.

I’ve been sent a copy of a superb 85 page submission on the Government’s Electoral Finance Reform process.

It’s been authored by four young lawyers and law students and the quality of their research and arguments is first class – they have 157 citations in the submission and make a strong argument for a lightly regulated system. I don’t agree with them, of course, on every point but I admire the scores of hours of work that must have gone in to produce such an excellent submission.

They make a strong case for anonymous political speech, citing important political works published under a pseudonym such as the famous Federalist papers published by Publius. Actual authors turned out to be 4th President James Madison, 1st Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and 1st Chief Justice John Jay.

On spending limits, they make the point that Obama outspent McCain by $397 million but there are no indications that US citizens think this made Obama’s election unfair.

I won’t do the paper justice by trying to summarise it, but I would recommend those with an interest in this issue read it. You won’t agree with all of their positions, but I hope like me you’ll regard it as a wonderfully well researched and argued submission.

What a tedious waste of time the Weatherston trial is. When I first heard he was pleading not guilty I thought the reason was he wanted to try and blacken Sophie’s reputation, as his final obsessive act against her.

We see this in the Herald’s report:

An ex-girlfriend of Clayton Robert Weatherston received a letter from him after Sophie Elliott’s death saying, “I am sorry that such a horrible person has been glorified in the media. That is our society”.

What a horrible little fucker he is. Not an inch of remorse for what he did. He is upset that people think it is awful he slaughtered her. And he then blames society.

His little little plan to blacken her name seems to be a dismal flop. We’ve just had days and days of testimony from his friends about how he used to rant against her. The worst we have heard is she slammed his door once damaging it, and he was obsessed that she might discuss his performance with others. Shit - all women do that. Us men just pretend they don’t.

Also somewhat disturbing in the trial is:

The woman said she wrote to him in prison saying he was the best boyfriend she had ever had. She said she was proud to be his girlfriend.

In court today, she said she wrote that because she thought he was innocent.

Good God. Did she think Sophie stabbed herself 200 times?

As I said, it is all so tedious. Their relationship sounds like thousands of other relationships - ups and downs,, fights and arguments. The big difference is not everyone is a sociopath who slaughters their ex-girlfriend as revenge for slights, imagined or real.

John Armstrong writes:

It is still early days and things could yet unravel over the detail.

But if politics is the art of the possible, then Finlayson’s and Sharples’ independent panel’s revisiting of the vexed question of ownership of the foreshore and seabed lays the foundations for achieving the seemingly impossible - an enduring cure for a longstanding political headache.

The panel’s review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act - required under National’s confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party - has set solid benchmarks within which the two parties can negotiate the provisions of legislation to replace the law.

Good faith negotiations is preferable to unilateral retrospective legislation.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Six years does not seem a long time in the sweep of history yet it is time enough for a change in the political climate. The recommendation the Government received yesterday to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act seems unlikely to arouse the heat and fear that greeted the Court of Appeal’s 2003 ruling on Maori customary claims. Public opinion is probably no less committed now than it was then to the principle that public access to coastal attractions must not be compromised. But the constant assurances of claimants that access is not at risk appear to have become generally accepted.

And it is helpful the panel has stressed that at length.

Vernon Small writes in the Dom Post:

Politically, the report is a triumph for Tariana Turia and the Maori Party, and the involvement of National in any deal should help limit any Pakeha backlash.

(It is often easier for a party to make radical changes outside its traditional ideological envelope. Labour was able to go much further with privatisation and free-market reforms in the 1980s, before the public rebelled, than National ever could. National was able to get the Treaty settlement process steaming ahead under Sir Douglas Graham in a way that might have raised suspicion if Labour had been in the driving seat.)

Time - and other more pressing issues, such as the economic crisis - have helped put the debate into context.

It is just such a shame for us as a nation that a court ruling which found that, in some rare cases, iwi and hapu could have a set of residual customary rights amounting to freehold title could ever have been allowed to generate so much angst - and racial and political heat - as this one did. The two basic principles - that legal rights should not be unfairly seized and that access to the beaches and freedom of navigation would remain a general right - should have been indisputable.

Colin Espiner blogs:

I’ve just had a very quick read through the Ministerial Review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which has been released under embargo until 3pm.

It’s three volumes long and runs to hundreds of pages, but in a nutshell what is says is this: the Foreshore and Seabed Act is discriminatory to Maori and should be repealed.

Hardly a surprise, given the panel was hand-picked to provide just such a judgment by the Maori Party - indeed, Pita Sharples threatened to sack it if it didn’t come back with such a finding.

The panel is savage about the Foreshore and Seabed Act, calling it “simply wrong in principle and approach”, discriminatory, and indeed so unfair to Maori that it considers that a Crown apology is necessary.

I have a smile on my face as I think of the look on all the Labour MPs faces as John Key gets up and apologises on behalf of the Crown to Maori - not for something done 150 years ago, but for the actions of Helen Clark’s Government earlier this decade.

The panel recommends a national settlement that gives Maori customary title to the foreshore and seabed, alongside specific usage and access rights to local iwi depending on their claim. It says some form of public right to access and navigation also needs to be written in.

It says that in the meantime, an interim act of Parliament should be passed repealing the legislation, setting up the process for the new system, recognising both Maori title and public access issues, and allowing the Crown to hold legal title until the whole thing is settled.

It’s not a bad compromise, I have to say, and I’m actually pleasantly surprised. I’ve said before that a return to court could be a nightmare for all sides, and the whole thing would drag on for years.

The Government’s response in August will be interesting. Also interesting will be Labour’s response. Phil Goff has, to his credit, been supportive. However I hear one of his senior colleagues has been around the gallery trying to whip up reaction against the report. I wonder if Goff knows of this?

The Herald reports:

Telecom is to offer an uncapped broadband internet deal but customers will have to trade off connection speed.

From next week a new $60 a month “all you can eat” plan will be offered with the compromise that downloads may be slower at peak times. …

Brayham said during peak hours - generally 3pm to 10pm - internet traffic “shaping” would target files consuming large amounts of bandwidth, which could include some music, movie and software downloads.

I think this is a great move. NZ is the only OECD country with no non data capped plans - finally we have one.

I have no problem with data capped customers getting priority speeds during peak times. File sharers often download overnight and are generally more worried about the data cap, not the speed - so long as it is reasonable.

Of course we have to see exactly how fast things go during both off peak and peak times, but if the service holds up Telecom could do well with this offering.

I wanted an apology from the French Rugby Union (who took part in the cover up) but never thought the Bastareaud affair would become an issue for the French Government.

So one can only praise French PM Francois Fillon for an unexpected apology. Fillon is a huge rugby fan and this may have motivated him to intervene.

I hope he tears the French Rugby Union a new orifice, and that they do not just discipline Bastareaud but all those involved in covering up the false allegation.

The foreshore and seabed review panel has reported back. The report is 163 pages.

I blogged in March that I thought the appointment of the panel would lead to a recommendation the law be toasted, and I was right.

They make the point that the Government should have appealed the case to the Privy Council - something I have always said. Clark and Wilson ruled that out and decided to legislate (after just four days!) because they didn’t like the politics of appealing to a court they had said they would abolish.

They recommend the Act be repealed, and offer four options for consideration:

1. Do nothing further - leave the Court of Appeal decision intact and allow claims to be made to the Maori Land Court.  This option is not favoured.
2. Have a staged settlement with negotiations between Hapu/Iwi and the Crown - basically add this to the historic grievances to be settled. They say if this happens, there needs to be provision for public input to safeguard rights of access etc.
3. A national settlement along the lines of the fisheries and aquaculture settlements.
4. A mixed model that combines a number of discrete components: a national settlement, allocation of rights and interests, local co-management, and an ability to gain more specific access and use rights. This is preferred.

I’ve only skimmed the report but they seem to have gone to great lengths to stress that any settlement must guarantee access for all.

There are probably some considerable fish-hooks ahead, but at first glance the panel looks to have come up with a workable way forward. Legislating to remove property rights should be a last resort, not a first resort - as it was for Labour.