Kiwiblog

Enjoy it!

The maiden speeches of the new Green MPs are here.

Mojo Mathers:

I joined the Green Party and stood as a candidate for the first time in the 2005 general election. When I first stood I had no concept of what huge challenges lay ahead of me as a deaf candidate and activist. I just wanted to speak out in defence of our water and our environment and be heard. But I learnt the hard way that passion and knowledge were not enough. I had to find different ways of doing politics, ways of getting around the barriers posed by being deaf, ways that allowed me to participate and engage effectively. I started learning New Zealand Sign Language and using sign language interpreters when I spoke to submissions to the local city and regional councils. I am absolutely thrilled that there are New Zealand Sign Language interpreters in the gallery today, and I note that it is the first time in New Zealand that a maiden speech is being covered this way. I hope that this will be the start of greater recognition by Parliament of the status of New Zealand Sign as our third official language.

And Denise Roche:

 I set out on a journey that began as a union organiser, initially with the Theatrical Workers Union, hitching rides on trains in the guards’ van with my dad’s union mates and fighting for the rights of cinema workers around the northern part of our country. I have protested and picketed with the best. I can attest that love and politics can mix: my first date with my life partner, John, was at a union picket at the Devonport Docks.

Romance at union pickets. Not likely to happen at Ports of Auckland as the union blokes have managed to keep all but two women away from working there.

I can assure the House that even though I am the Greens’ gambling spokesperson, I am not an anti-gambling zealot, and I will prove that to you by selling you a raffle ticket during the dinner break. I am, however, deeply concerned with the harm caused by commercialised gambling, and especially by the blight on our communities caused by pokie machines. Kiwis know that these machines reap their profits from problem gambling. Kiwis know that they can harm whole communities, which is why whenever they have been asked if they want more pokies, people say no. The former Manukau City Council received over 6,000 submissions asking it to restrict pokies. Active, engaged citizens are saying no to pokies, and will be dismayed by the banana republic, back-room deal being done by the Government, where our laws are for sale, and where the Auckland casino, a monopoly provider, is to be expanded in return for a convention centre—or was that 30 pieces of silver. Commercial gambling is deeply regressive, and cynically exploitative. It is a transfer of wealth from the brown to the white, from the women to the men, and from the poor to the rich. Casinos are an engine of crime and inequality.

If that is NOT being an anti-gaming zealot, I’d hate to see what an actual anti-gaming zealot looks like!

Julie-Anne Genter:

I studied philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, to try to uncover the rational underpinnings of my political and ethical convictions. In my final year I took up French, in part due to a love of Voltaire and his pragmatic approach to humanism. Ten years ago I left the United States. I initially went to France to gain fluency in the language, but I stayed because I could not bear to return to a country engaged in the futile and destructive wars championed by George W Bush. After some time working and travelling in Europe I was fortunate enough to receive a scholarship to undertake postgraduate study at Sciences Po in Paris, where I was able to study economics and political theory. My questions about the places we live and the nature of our economy were slowly informed by my experiences, as well as by my studies. I eagerly delved deeper into new approaches to urban planning, transport, and resource management at the University of Auckland, and in my subsequent work as a transport consultant. Everyone one of us travels, most every day, and every one of us consumes goods that have been transported from further and further away. We are all very personally familiar with the annoyances and the injustices that inevitably occur when we are running late and need to get somewhere, but there is a much bigger picture. The places we live are fundamentally shaped by the transport system and policies put in place by the Government. In turn, this affects the money and time we must spend travelling, the quality of our air and water, the fact that nearly 40 percent of our energy use is for transport. We increasingly see that it affects our health, the value of our land, the cost of development, the affordability of housing—it even affects the amount of interaction we have with our neighbours. 

Jan Logie:

We are all beneficiaries and should be proud to be so. I am the beneficiary of years of support from family, friends, the State, not to mention the beneficiary of colonisation and at times the unemployment benefit. There should not be a stigma in accepting help when you need it. And there is benefit in sharing and helping others when they need it. Individualism locks in inequality and depression, and as a result we all lose out.

This qualifies for statements ever made I most disagree with.

There is a huge difference between individualism and being selfish. Often those who stick up for individualism are amongst the most generous helpers and supporters of others – when their help and support is given voluntarily.

Steffan Browning:

Forestry—foreign companies such as Tiong own or control the vast majority of logs or timber products going offshore, yet this Government seems hell bent on making it easier for them. One is letting them keep gassing our communities and the ozone layer with spent neurotoxic and carcinogenic, ozone-depleting methyl bromide from the log fumigations. Labour and National have both dodged forcing recapture of the invisible, odourless gas that cannot be tracked with confidence. Giving the industry 10 years latitude, while we increase our exports and fumigations, people are getting sick and dying—dying for whom? 

Eugenie Sage:

When I first walked on to Parliament’s grounds as a member of this House last November, I heard a tui, practising its scales below the Beehive. The tui’s chorus is sweeter than anything I might say in this Chamber, so I took its song as auspicious—a sign that if tui have come to Parliament, their oral petitions would encourage this House to give more serious attention to our wild landscapes and our indigenous plants and animals whose ancestry and tenure in those islands is so much longer than our own. Aotearoa’s 70 million years of geographic isolation from other parts of Gondwana produced some of the world’s oldest and most unusual life forms: trees such as the kahikatea, fruit basket of the forest, and animals such as the tuatara, the wētā, and the carnivorous land snails, Powelliphanta. We can and must invest more in safeguarding the first inhabitants of Aotearoa and the places where they live. We have no treaty with them, but they define who we are. They are what makes New Zealand so distinctive in the eyes of the world. 

Holly Walker:

Because I never met Rod I never got to tell him that he was partly responsible for the formation of my political consciousness. It was 1997 and I was sitting in a sweltering upstairs classroom at Hutt Valley High School watching a video in fourth form social studies about the 1981 Springbok Tour . Suddenly, there was young Rod, resplendent in his flouro vest and orange bike helmet—clashing spectacularly with his shaggy red hair and beard. He spoke earnestly into the camera about why he was putting his safety on the line to march in the front lines of the increasingly terrifying anti-apartheid protests. I was moved, fascinated, and, strangely, jealous. I went home and told my mum that I wished we had issues like that to protest about these days. She laughed and told me there were plenty. I started paying attention and realised she was right. So I have Rod to thank, in part, for setting me on the path to politics

I suspect Rod would find this the highest compliment.

With the fantastic education I received at public schools in the Hutt Valley, I grew up to win a Rhodes Scholarship and get elected to Parliament, aged 29. But, in the words of Russel Norman in his maiden statement to this House, these stories do not mean that a State house kid, or a public school kid, or a DPB mum can do anything. They mean that the State’s commitment of resources towards housing, education, and income support really does make a difference.

A fair point.

ACT announce the new Leader of ACT at 12.30. Will supply name when known, but my expectation is it will be John Banks as he is their sole MP. The fact Catherine Isaacs has taken up a role on the charter schools taskforce suggests she won’t be taking up a leadership role.

UPDATE: And as predicted the “new” Leader is John Banks.

Heh, NZ Herald reporter Claire Trevett tweeted the following:

Banks fends off rest of caucus to win coveted and hotly contested job of Act’s leader.

Superb.

Heh, someone has set up an auction of Trevor Mallard’s credibility. The proceeds will go to Christchurch Earthquake recovery.

The Q+A, as always, is amusing:

Q: Is there any actual evidence you can provide to show that this item has ever existed

Q; Doesn’t Trademe rules state that the item must be in your possession? I don’t think anyone anywhere has Trevor Mallard’s credibility in their possession. In fact, research is ongoing to find proof it ever existed, as far as I am informed.

Q: While at face value this looks like a bargain, do you have any way of verifying that the product actually exists? I am somewhat dubious, as I have not seen any recent evidence of the existence of “Trevor Mallard’s credibility.”

Q: How damaged is this item? Will there be a refund available if it doesn’t pass muster?

Q: Is there a buy now? or will you let the auction take it’s course?

Heh, now that last one is very funny.

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Has he had time to read and digest the judgement of Justice Miller regarding the Crafar farm deal; if so, does he stand by his comments made in the House yesterday?
2. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Land Information: Does he believe he and the Government have conducted themselves competently and appropriately in relation to the decision to approve the purchase of the Crafar farms by a foreign buyer; if not, what did they do wrong?
3. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Finance: What reports has the Government issued on the economy?
4. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have confidence that Work and Income meets their own “case management approach” expectations?
5. JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have concerns that changes to the eligibility for the Training Incentive Allowance are causing single parent beneficiaries to consider working in the sex industry?
6. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Health: What improvements have there been to services for patients as a result of greater collaboration between District Health Boards?
7. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he still intend to sell 49 per cent of the four State-owned energy companies?
8. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Local Government: What analysis has he received on rate increases across New Zealand’s 78 councils following the enactment of new local government legislation since 2002?
9. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by the part of his statement of 27 January, announcing the extension of the red zone offer to retirement villages, that letters of offer would be sent to each resident and CERA would work with village owners as quickly as possible to ensure the residents are assisted; if not, why not?
10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for Land Information: Did Overseas Investment Office officials meet with Chinese political consul Cheng Lei late last year; if so, did they discuss Shanghai Pengxin’s bid for the Crafar farms?
11. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: What is the name of the documentary which was withheld in the papers released publicly by NZ On Air titled “Records of decisions made at working group meeting”?
12. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress has he made declaring the Volvo Ocean Race Stopover a major event under the Major Events Management Act 2007?

Today there are four questions from National, five questions from Labour, two from the Greens, and one from NZ First.

No prize for patsy of the day, as for once National is using one of their questions to have a go at Labour, specifically the scalping activities of Trevor Mallard. Q12 will be fun.

The Crafar farm court ruling is the main issue, with Labour and NZ First asking questions on it. The decision is a godsend for them.

Welfare is likely to be another big issue with Labour and Greens looking to ask questions about the woman who says she considered prostitution to pay for her childcare.

Address in Reply Debate 3 pm – 6 pm 

Maiden speeches for new National MPs are from 4.30 pm to 6 pm, being North Shore MP Maggie Barry, Rangitikei MP Ian McKelvie, Rodney MP Mark Mitchell, Tamaki MP Simon O’Connor, Coromandel MP Scott Simpson, and List MP Dr Jian Yang.

Around 4.5 hours remaining of the debate.

Government Bills 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm (and Friday 9 am  1 pm)

1. Ngai Tāmanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill – first reading
2. Ngati Makino Claims Settlement Bill - first reading
3. Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill - second reading
4. Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill - second reading
5. Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill - second reading
6. Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill - second reading
7. Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) – second reading and all remaining stages
8. Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) - first reading

Nothing terribly controversial here. However some of the speeches on the treaty settlement bills can be very interesting, as you learn a lot of NZ history on some of them.

Adam Bennett in the NZ Herald reports:

The Office of the Ombudsman is in “crisis”, says the Chief Ombudsman. …

Appearing before Parliament’s government administration committee, Ms Wakem said the office, which investigates complaints from the public stemming from their dealings with central and local government, was under “considerable pressure” in terms of staffing and funding and had been for the past three years.

She said the office’s baseline funding had been established on the basis it would be actively working on 800 to 1000 cases at any one time.

At present it was dealing with about double that. The office had about 300 cases it was unable to work on because of a lack of available investigators.

Its workload had also been boosted by about 270 complaints stemming from quake victims’ dealings with the Earthquake Commission and Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.

Ms Wakem said she had asked for about $1 million to be added to the office’s baseline budget of $8.6 million, so it could meet its operating costs and employ two more investigators.

The Office of the Ombudsman has a critical role in our Government. If the workload has increased as described, then there should be extra funding for the office.

There was a $550,000 boost in 2010 to their funding, so there has been some additional funding, but hopefully more will be provided in the 2012 budget.

The Dom Post reports:

Labour MP Trevor Mallard says he didn’t know how to set a “buy now” option on Trade Me – despite being a member since 2005 and on-selling tickets to Homegrown and the Wellington Sevens in the past.

Under fire for ticket scalping after selling four tickets to the sold-out Homegrown festival at a $276 profit, Mr Mallard told Radio Live this morning that he hadn’t been aware he could put a “buy now” price on the auction.

However, his TradeMe account shows he has been a member of the online auction site since 2005, and has sold plenty of tickets in the past.

Did not know how to set a buy now option? Really? Well in case Trevor needs a hand in future, I’m happy to assist.

If you are selling tickets to a concert on Trade Me, this is the screen you will see.

As is obvious, setting a buy now price is incredibly simple. You just enter the price you want in.

Stuff reports:

Ms Ngatai was evicted from the Charles Cr house, where she lived with her partner and eight children, on January 26, following a tenancy tribunal hearing which found she had not paid rent in over a month.

Property manager Flo Drabble, who inspected the house after the eviction, said it was so filthy that she vomited while trying to clean it.

“In all honesty it was the worst condition property I have ever been in.”

The walls and floors were apparently filthy, it reeked of urine, windows were smashed, animal faeces were scattered inside and it was riddled with insects.

Miss Drabble said the house will need to be fumigated and the carpet needed replacing.

Ms Ngatai, along with her partner and children, aged three to 15, are now living in a tent in the backyard of her cousin’s home in Putaruru.

It sounds like the tents may be more hygienic.

On February 11, 2009, Ms Ngatai and her partner, who are both beneficiaries, entered into a rent-to-buy agreement, at $336 per week, with Auckland-based property investor Mike Hyams.

The house was in the process of being renovated throughout, but Ms Ngatai needed a place to live and thought owning a home would be a good investment for the future.

She said it had no hot water or electricity, leaking pipes, no kitchen, faulty wiring and rubbish littered everywhere.

She claims to have invested thousands of dollars of her own money into maintenance of the property.

“The conditions were, [Mr Hyams] was supposed to do the house up and he didn’t. We were stuck for three years fixing up electricals and plumbing.”

Mr Hyams said he wiped off more than $6000 of money owed based on these allegations.

In November 2009, Ms Ngatai could no longer afford to purchase the property and it was agreed she could remain as a tenant at a weekly rental of $165. The Times was shown a tenancy agreement signed by both parties on November 6, 2009.

So the evil landlord was charging them just $165 a week.

As of May 12, 2011, Ms Ngatai owed $4300 in arrears, which is recorded in a tenancy tribunal application by Mr Hyams.

So around 25 weeks of arrears.

Incidentally I’ve done a quick estimate of how much money the family should have been getting in benefits and it is $980 (after tax).

But I guess some will still say that the problem is that benefits are not high enough.

Cactus Kate has an exclusive sampling of the hacked e-mails to and from Murray McCully.

Jody O’Callaghan writes at Stuff:

Labour MP Trevor Mallard has been accused of scalping tickets to a Wellington music festival.

The tickets to Saturday’s sold-out Homegrown festival have a face value of $95 each.

Whitireia music student Laura Signal, 19, and her three friends were desperate to attend so they bid for four tickets on Trade Me, paying a final price of $656.

Miss Signal was surprised when the trader turned out to be the Hutt South MP, who used his parliamentary email address for the auction.

You wonder how Trevor finds the time to be an MP in-between cycling and scalping.

The students said they asked Mr Mallard about a “buy now” price during the auction, but he replied that he would let the auction run.

Some may condemn Trevor forcing poor struggling students to pay more, so that he makes a profit on top of his $170,000 or so parliamentary remuneration, but I think it is great to see a Labour MP show his commitment to free markets and  profits.

In November 2006, Mr Mallard initiated legislation – now the Major Events Management Act 2007 – to protect event sponsors from people making money out of major events with which they had no formal association.

He said at the time: “When there is bulk-buying of tickets to such events simply for the purpose of profiteering, scalping is a ripoff that could deny many people the opportunity to see an event.”

No, no, no. Scalping is not a rip off. What is wrong with a 60% return on capital?

Mr Mallard told The Dominion Post yesterday that the sale was neither scalping nor dodgy. He bought the tickets last year but now had another engagement.

“I’m slightly surprised if promoters with whom I spend several hundred dollars a year on tickets complain when I sell some I can’t use to someone who wants them using a Kiwi-based online auction.”

He listed the tickets at face value, but let the auction run above $500 because he “knew that they were worth more”.

I purchased ten tickets for the Sevens this year. Two people in our group pulled out a few days beforehand. I sold the tickets at face value via Facebook as I didn’t want to make money out of them – just get reimbursed for the cost.

He believed the students had breached his privacy by revealing him as the ticket trader.

Hmmn, threatening the students. Perhaps Trevor could specify what part of the Privacy Act he alleges they have breached?

The Herald story on the same issue finds Trevor also scalped tickets in 2009 and 2010 for the same event.

UPDATE: A thought has occurred to me. It is curious that for three of the last four years Trevor has been auctioning tickets for Homegrown on Trade Me. It is possible he does not in fact buy the tickets, but they are complementary tickets given to local MPs? Can any other local MPs clarify whether they get complementary tickets?

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Television New Zealand has dumped the Labour leader’s weekly appearance on its Breakfast show, telling David Shearer it’s not about him “as a person”.

Prime Minister John Key has a Monday morning slot on the show and last year former Labour leader Phil Goff regularly appeared on Tuesday mornings. …

It is understood Labour put its case to TVNZ, saying its leader needed to have the right of reply when Key attacked the Opposition.

In a letter back to Labour, TVNZ said the Prime Minister was a newsmaker in his own right and the state broadcaster was merely doing what it always had.

The leader of the Opposition had only featured weekly during election years.

“This is not an issue about the person, merely a decision about the position, and we have been consistent with that through Labour and National administrations.

“The Breakfast team has already shown its willingness to invite Mr Shearer on to the programme when he is a legitimate newsmaker and is setting the agenda on a story.”

Off memory, TVNZ is absolutely correct. I recall when National was in Opposition, the Opposition Leader never got a regular spot until election year.

One of the more significant changes to Standing Orders was the ability for the House to sit with extended sitting hours, hence reducing the frequency a Government may have to resort to urgency.

The Government can extend the hours by passage of a motion which will see Parliament sit from 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday or Thursday morning.

If the Government wishes to extend hours beyond this, it needs to get approval from the Business Committee. The Business Committee consists of:

• The Speaker (Chair)
• The Leader and Deputy Leader of the House
• The ACT Leader, United Future, NZ First and Mana Leaders
• A Green Co-leader
• The Labour and National Senior Whips
• The Maori Party, Green and NZ First Whips
• The Shadow Leader of the House

The Business Committee can only decide something if there is unanimity or near-unanimity which means agreement has been given on behalf of the overwhelming majority of members of Parliament.

The Speaker decides that exact threshold. I would suggest that it requires more than National and Labour agreeing but doesn’t give every small party a veto.

Now the good thing is that the new standing orders are working as intended, and the Business Committee is taking a constructive approach to extending hours when there is a need. They have agreed to extend the House hours this week so the the partiHouse meets Thursday evening and Friday morning until 1 pm. The reason is to progress six Treaty settlement bills through their first and second readings and a couple of omnibus bills.

Each settlement demands legislation, the total number of settlements that Parliament will need to legislate in the coming years is around 60 to settle historical claims (assuming National reach its target of settling claims by 2014). This would represent a large proportion of House time so it makes sense to deal with them in extra hours. This removes the need for urgency, and doesn’t cut into the rest of the House’s programme.

So good to see the parties working together to avoid urgency, but allow the Government to progress its legislative agenda.

The draft transcripts of the four Labour maiden speeches is here. I used to e-mail MPs asking for a copy of their maiden speeches but now the draft transcripts are out in 150 minutes, I just wait for them.

First some extracts from Dunedin North MP David Clark:

Politicians do not exist to rubber-stamp what the electorate has already decided, but to articulate and share a vision of a better society. I will describe the better society to which I aspire. It has similarities with what founding members of the Labour Party described as an “applied Christianity”. It is a society where accident of birth does not dictate one’s station and prospects. It is a society where every citizen can get ahead by dint of hard work that builds on their natural endowment. It is one where all have free and equal access to high-quality education, a society where all have the ability to develop their talents sufficiently to ensure fulfilling and enriching lives. It is one in which choices are not driven by fear, but are afforded by opportunity, in which everyone has access to legal representation, regardless of their means. 

I agree with those sentiments, even though I suspect we disagree on how to achieve them.

I would describe how we might consider financial transactions taxes, gift and estate duties, and a capital gains tax in order to broaden our tax base.

Broadening the tax base is good, if it leads to lower rates. Not good if it leads to the state growing in size and crushing the private sector.

And I don’t support taxing people for dying, or gift duty which cost three times more to administer than revenue it took in.

A third reason that greater equality makes pragmatic sense relates to public investment. Infrastructure is an example—witness growth in China’s high-speed rail network. It is 12 times bigger than it was in 2008, four times larger than in any other country, and still growing at an astonishing rate. It is hard to imagine this happening in the USA today. Where a critical mass of the truly wealthy exert undue influence on the political process, investment in infrastructure, education, research, healthcare, and other matters related to the common good dwindles …

Oh nonsense. China is growing its rail network because it has 10% economic growth and the cost of labour is so low. To suggest that the USA is not growing its rail network at the same pace because of the wealthy is batty.

Andrew Little:

This year marks the centenary of one of the most bitter and violent industrial disputes in New Zealand’s history: the Waihī miners strike. It is an important part of the Labour story. A young Scottish union organiser was witness to that dispute and saw how workers who wanted nothing more than decent pay and a fair go were intimidated, divided, and—after a striking miner was beaten to death by those opposed to the strike—run out of town. Those dark events led to that organiser and many others realising that justice would be achieved only when working people reached beyond the workplace for influence and had a direct say on the laws and policies they were subject to. The union organiser was Peter Fraser, who later became a Labour Prime Minister.

I found the Waihi link to Peter Fraser quite interesting. Fraser is my favourite Labour PM.

New Plymouth is a great city with, I might add, a great mayor and I enjoyed campaigning there last year, although I remain intrigued by a question I was asked at one of the first meetings I held: what my position was on the merger of Air New Zealand and NAC. I said that Labour was taking a “wait-and-see” approach.

Heh.

Megan Woods:

In my previous role at Plant and Food Research, I observed firsthand the real difference science and innovation can make. We need more businesses to access and utilise the exceptional knowledge that is being created in our Crown research institutes and universities. And we need a proper commitment to the fundamental research that underpins this. To improve this we must commit to adequately fund science and innovation to create jobs and lift wages. …

 I am a New Zealand historian by training who has worked in science and innovation. I am a former community board member who believes in the power of communities and the grassroots. I am a Christchurch native who grew up in the ravages of a user-pays world, who, despite being glued to the royal wedding in 1981 believes in the desirability and inevitability of our country becoming a republic in my lifetime, who celebrates the diversity of modern New Zealand. I am here because I have a strong belief in social justice. I am here because I believe that there are always real alternatives in working to ensure that hope, opportunity, and being all you can be, is not an accident of birth for the privileged few but the birthright of all New Zealanders.

And finally Rino Tirikatene:

Eighty years ago, in this room, maybe even in this chair, my grandfather Sir Eruera Tirikātene stood before this House as the member of Parliament for Southern Maori. Forty-five years ago, in this room, maybe even in this chair, my aunt Whetū Tirikātene-Sullivan stood before this House as the member of Parliament for Southern Maori. Today, I stand before the House as the member of Parliament for Te Tai Tonga. At the time my grandfather rose to address the House for the first time, the Māori population numbered a mere 82,000. We were at that time a rural people, still recovering from the ravages of land sales and the scourge of introduced diseases. We existed at the very margin of the country’s economy. What income we were able to earn as unskilled labourers in the agriculture and forestry industries was supplemented by gardening and foraging. The land development assistance programme introduced by Sir Apirana Ngāta in the 1920s, which eventually gave rise to the Māori incorporations and trusts of today, was in its infancy and poverty was all pervasive, especially among those communities that had been left landless by confiscation and land sales. Statutory recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi, the claims of Ngāi Tahu, Waikato, and Taranaki, and poverty were my grandfather’s main concerns.

We have made some progress since then.

[Today] more than 1 in every 2 Māori was living in a household with a combined income of more than $50,000, and well over 1 in every 3 in a household with a total income of $70,000 or more. What we are witnessing is the steady growth of a Māori middle class. On the collective front, we are witnessing the rise of the Māori economic authorities, Māori land trusts and incorporations, and iwi authorities.

And:

Life and prospects for Māori are so much better than they were 80 years ago, but Māori know better than anyone that much remains to be done. We are still overrepresented at the bottom of the wealth pyramid. We will, on average, die sooner than our Pākehā mates. We will, more so than our Pacific cousins, end up in prison, and, unlike any other group in Aotearoa – New Zealand, we now receive more in transfer payments than we pay in tax. Too many of use remain locked into a cycle of dependency and poverty.

I am glad he mentioned dependency as well as poverty. The two are linked.

Stuff reports:

The High Court has ordered Government ministers who agreed to a Chinese company buying the Crafar farms to reconsider the application.

The judgement of Justice Miller follows a successful application by a group of New Zealand farmers and iwi, led by Sir Michael Fay, to block the sale of the 16 in-receivership farms.

The group had sought a judicial review of the Overseas Investment recommendation for approval for the $210 million purchase by Shanghai Pengxin and the Government’s support for that recommendation.

Justice Miller said the application for review was granted and the decision by Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson and Associate Finance Minister Jonathan Coleman was set aside.

The judge directed that the ministers reconsider the application by Shanghai Pengxin subsidiary Milk New Zealand.

It will be interesting to see the full decision, but it suggests that the OIO and Ministers did not consider one or more of the criteria properly. This will not be helpful for the Government as it keeps the issue alive longer, and suggests that there may have been grounds to turn the application down. It doesn’t mean that there were grounds – just that there might have been,

I will be surprised if Sir Michael and associates ends up with the farms at the end of this, but it is possible if a different decision is arrived at.

The Herald has the judgement here. I found this part interesting:

CFIPG (Fay etc) came late to the sale process and has still to commit itself to a formal offer … it has nominated a price, albeit one that the receivers  claim to find unworthy of acknowledgement.

So Fay has yet to even make a formal offer. If he can knock Pengxin out, then he can lower his bid even further, so his gain may be greater than even the $40m between the so called bids.

In terms of the judgement, the claim that Pengxin were not experienced enough was not upheld. Where the court has ruled that the OIO and Ministers erred was in assessing benefits vs a counter-factual.

The OIO used a counter-factual of the status quo (farms run down), and the argument was that the counter-factual should be a NZ company buying the farms and also investing in them.

The OIO argued against this on the grounds that this would require a hugely complex analysis of not just every application, but to model what a rival bidder may do. However they lost the argument.

My 2c is that it would be better for an analysis to be against a counter-factual which is based on a rival bidder – but that this may well be hugely impractical in many cases.

Greg Ansley at NZ Herald reports:

Gillard has always maintained that she decided to contest the leadership only on the day she confronted Rudd with her demand for a ballot, and her repeated protestations to ABC’s Four Corners programme on Monday night – and to reporters since – have not been convincing. …

Gillard, both on Four Corners and to reporters since, has denied any preparation for a coup. But she has sidestepped detailed replies, pleaded memory lapses and has looked consistently uncomfortable.

It is best to be upfront about coup planning. No one believes it was a spur of the moment decision. I recall the Shipley coup against Bolger – they actually had a committee with a cover name (Te Puke bypass) which met for some months, and were upfront about this after the coup.

The decision boomeranged disastrously. Gillard was faced with allegations that, despite repeated statements to the contrary, she and senior staff had prepared for a leadership challenge weeks before the event.

Four Corners said this had been supported by internal party polling indicating Gillard was more popular than Rudd, and that her senior staff had begun writing the first speech she delivered as Prime Minister at least two weeks before Rudd’s ousting.

Former senator and Labor powerbroker Graham Richardson told the programme he knew a week in advance that a challenge was to be mounted.

Four Corners also said United States Embassy cables released by WikiLeaks showed the US State Department knew, even before some Labor MPs, of a challenge.

When the state department knows, everyone knows.

Gillard described suggestions that she had been driven by polling as “wholly untrue”, but admitted she might have known a speech was being written. “This was a tense few days for me and the Government, so I can’t specifically say to you when I came to know about the speech,” she told ABC radio yesterday.

But she said she did not commission the speech.

Ministerial staff are often pro-active, but I don’t think this extends to writing a speech for your boss in case they become Prime Minister.

I think it is unlikely Gillard will survive to fight the next election. More difficult to pick is who will replace her.

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
2. TODD McCLAY to the Minister for Economic Development:What evidence has he seen of businesses having the confidence to invest in large capital projects in New Zealand?
3. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the answers he gave to Oral Question No 6 yesterday?
4. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister for Social Development:E pēhea te Minita e mōhio ai kei te piki te ora o ngā tamariki i roto i ngā ringaringa o Child, Youth and Family?
   • Translation: How will she ensure that children are not made more vulnerable than when they went into the care of Child, Youth and Family?
5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: What is Treasury’s projection for New Zealand’s current account balance for the next four years?
6. NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received about early childhood education enrolments in 2011?
7. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will he give an assurance that New Zealand’s armed forces will not be used in any possible military intervention in Syria in violation of the United Nations Charter?
8. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Local Government: What reports, if any, has he received on labour costs in the local government sector as compared to central government and the private sector?
9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Corrections: Does she have confidence in her Chief Executive and his staff?
10. Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Minister for Courts: What initiatives are underway to assist court staff to improve the collection of outstanding fines?
11. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: What advice and reports, if any, has he received about the Rt Hon John Key’s electorate chair Stephen McElrea’s potential conflict of interest in his role as a board member of New Zealand On Air?
12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What announcements has she made regarding the igovt scheme, and making it easier for people to verify their identities to government agencies?

Today there are five patsies from National, four questions from Labour, one from the Greens, one from the Maori Party and one from NZ First. The  prize for most grovelling patsy question of the day goes  to Q11 - What announcements has she made regarding the igovt scheme, and making it easier for people to verify their identities to government agencies?

Labour are trying on a generic Does PM have confidence in all Ministers question which could mean a scandal unearthed, or well anything. Robertson continues on the Radio Live issue, Parker focuses on the current account deficit and Curran continues at NZ on Air.

The Greens are asking their sole question on Syria. Sigh.

The Maori Party are asking about CYF and Winston has left Whanau Ora and is askign about Corrections.

Maiden speeches for new Green MPs are from 4.15 pm to 6 pm, being List MPs Mojo Mathers, Denise Roche, Julie Anne Genter, Jan Logie, Ste an Browning, Eugenie Sage and Holly Walker.

7.5 hours remaining of the debate.

Government Bills 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill - third reading
2. Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill – committee stage
3. Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill – committee stage
4. Medicines Amendment Bill – first reading
5. Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill – committee stage

The National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill was introduced in December 2010 and seeks to to establish a National Animal Identification and Tracing system in New Zealand. It was passed by a voice vote on first reading, and on second reading was supported by all parties except ACT.

The Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill was introduced in October 2010 and seeks to to reform the tax treatment of gains of New Zealand residents from income interests in overseas entities and gains of foreign residents from interests in New Zealand companies. It passed its first and second readings on a voice vote.

The Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill was introduced in September 2010 and seeks to enable border agencies to share information, change the thresholds and processes for administrative and petty offence provisions of the Customs and Excise Act. It passed its first and second reading on voice votes.

The Medicines Amendment Bill was introduced in October 2011 and aims to modernise Medicines Act 1981.

The Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill was introduced in October 2010 and seeks to ensure that an offence  committed against a Police officer or prison officer acting in the course of his or her duty is taken into account as an aggravating factor at sentencing. It was supported by all parties bar the Maori Party at first reading, and passed second reading on a voice vote. The Government has indicated they will support a Labour amendment to include other emergency service operators in the bill.

Deidre Mussen at The Press reports:

Pike River’s mine manager job-hunted in the minutes after its fatal November 2010 explosion despite knowing power and communications had been lost, the inquiry into the deaths of 29 men has heard.

His revelation prompted one of the dead men’s mothers to call out: “This is while my boy was dying, Jesus Christ,” before she fled in tears from the royal commission into the tragedy.

Former general manager Doug White began giving evidence in Greymouth District Court yesterday, his second time in the inquiry’s witness stand.

Commission lawyer Simon Mount said White emailed two people at 4.02pm and 4.03pm on November 19, 2010, less than 15 minutes after being told communication and power had been lost to the underground West Coast mine. It exploded at 3.45pm that day.

He was the mine general manager and he had been told the mine had lost power and communications, and he carried on with his e-mail!

I would have thought the general manager would immediately drop everything else, and personally co-ordinate the efforts to establish what has happened in the mine. A loss of power and communications is no minor incident.

Stuff reports:

A Christchurch pair who described themselves as “friends with benefits” were forced to describe their sex lives in court over charges they falsely claimed $173,000 in welfare payments.

A jury found the pair not guilty of all charges after treatment from Housing New Zealand (HNZ) that a welfare advocate described as “cavalier and cruel”.

Margaret Campbell and Bill Seconi, who were evicted from their homes, said the charges and trial caused “unbearable stress” and were “demeaning”.

The pair lived near each other in HNZ homes from about 2003 to late 2009.

They described their relationship as a friendship with occasional sex.

“We were friends with benefits,” Campbell said.

But the Ministry of Social Development and HNZ claimed the pair were concealing a “marriage-type relationship” and falsely claiming benefits. The pair were then evicted from their HNZ homes and had to defend the charges in court.

Things are more complicated than they used to be. It is relevant to welfare entitlements whether or not someone is married or has a partner who supports them.

Once upon a time a sexual relationship would be pretty conclusive proof of a “marriage-type” relationship, but today it may just be friends with benefits. Trying to define when FBs becomes a relationship can be difficult.

Stuff reports:

Parliamentary Service was working hard to provide technology and he had asked officials to explore voice recognition software. “That technology is something we are working on right now. That doesn’t have to wait for a Parliamentary Service Commission,” he said.

Smith also accused Mathers and Green party whip Gareth Hughes of politicising the matter and making public the details of a private meeting.

So it is not a dispute over technology to help her do her job, as it appeared yesterday. That is being provided. It is a dispute over hours.

Each MP gets funding to cover 80 hours of staff time, or two full-time equivalent workers, a week.

Mojo Mathers estimates she needs 1000 hours a year for electronic note-taking required for her to participate in Parliament through a laptop on her debating chamber desk.

The Speaker has suggested the other 13 Green MPs pool their support budgets to give some of their unused support hours to Mathers.

Now I do support Mathers being given extra hours, but this can’t be done at the whim of the Speaker. All Electorate MPs gets 120 hours a week and all List MPs 80 hours a week. To give Mathers extra hours you need to set up a third category of MP, and publish a formal determination specifying the criteria to qualify, and what the extra support hours or funding will be.

It is worth noting that the Green caucus as a whole gets 56,000 hours of support staff a year, plus $1.88 million of funding. The 1,000 hours is less than 2% of their overall hours and a party that consists entirely of List MPs rarely uses all its allocated hours up.

Again, I support a change to the funding rules to cater for a situation like Mathers. But the Greens could have chosen to work with the Speaker to establish a time-table for changing the determinations, rather than do a hatchet job on him.

In the Stuff report on the Urewera trial:

Christopher Stevenson, for Signer, said his client was out of New Zealand during about a third of the time that the training camps were allegedly held.

He asked if they were really a cohesive group and were they really ”training camps”, or were they wanangas, devoted to teaching and learning?

Oh yes, it was a wananga. Hell, I’m surprised they didn’t get TEC funding.

Danyl at Dim-Post blogs:

Last time I looked, smart-phone penetration in New Zealand was around about the 5% mark. But I guess Key’s kids and all his staffers have them, so that’s everyone in the world of the Sun King.

This was in response to this comment from the PM:

“It really doesn’t matter if there is a street frontage there … We are living in an age where kids have iPads and smartphones. That’s the modern generation … and they actually don’t want to walk in, for the most part, and be in a very long queue and be waiting for a long time.”

So is Danyl right that only 5% of Kiwis have a smart phone, basically John Key’s kids and staffers?

The World Internet Project New Zealand disagrees, and hey as they actually surveyed 1,255 random New Zealanders, I tend to go with their numbers, being:

Usage of smartphones and other handheld wireless devices has grown apace, from 7% of Internet users in the 2007 sample, to 18% in 2009 and 27% in 2011. This is clearly a strong trend that will continue into the future.

So not really 5% and just some staffers and kids then, and hasn’t been for the last five years. Note that WIPNZ found 86% of NZers aged 12 or older are Internet users, so the smart phone penetration rate for all over 12s would be 23%. Also note the survey was six months ago.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Speaker Lockwood Smith has told deaf MP Mojo Mathers she must pay for the $30,000 technology to speak in Parliament out of her own budget.

Green MP Mathers made history when she became New Zealand’s first profoundly deaf MP in November.

She will give her maiden speech in the House tomorrow, which will be translated by sign-language interpreters.

But Smith has told the Green Party that Parliamentary Services will not pay for the electronic note-taking equipment which Mathers needs to take part in debates.

This has already caused outrage on Twitter. My stance is that I think Parliamentary Service should fund the note-taking equipment if it is essential to allow Mathers to participate in the House.

However I note that so far only one side of the issue has been reported. We do not know what the reasoning is behind this decision – just what the Greens have said is the reason. It would be helpful for the Parliamentary Service to explain the decision.

Finally i would also point out that there is no question of Mathers personally paying for the note-taking equipment. In fact the taxpayers, through Parliamentary Service, will be paying either way. The Greens receive a total of $5.64m funding over this parliamentary term to support their MPs, so this represents around 0.5% of their funding over the next three years.

However if the equipment is funded from the Greens allocation, then they can’t spend that money on other things such as staff, research, advertising. And they have a quite legitimate view that having an MP with a disability shouldn’t cost them a portion of their budget.

UPDATE: The Herald reports further info:

However, the Speaker’s office said Dr Smith and Parliamentary Services did not have the authority to approve the extra funding.

“He would have to go to the Parliamentary Service Commission, he’d have to go to the Government and ask for additional funding to do what she wants because its not part of the appropriation,” a spokeswoman said.

Dr Smith would raise the issue at next month’s Parliamentary Service Commission meeting.

The Speaker is holding a press conference at 3.30 pm also on this issue.

Parliament has announced:

• A draft version of speeches made by members of Parliament, called the Draft Transcript, is now published to the Parliament website within 2½ hours of members’ speeches being delivered in the House.
• The final version (subject to minor correction), called the Daily Debates, is now published to the Parliament website debate by debate—you no longer have to wait for the whole of the day’s proceedings to be ready for publishing. When the Daily Debate is published, the Draft Transcript is removed.

This is a great step forward. To be able to see a transcript of speeches within 150 minutes will be very helpful for scrutinizing what MPs say. Combined with the In The House service which gets videos onto You Tube within an hour or so, and we have excellent transparency.

The next step is select committees – eventually I’d like them to be reported to the same detail as the House is. But a first step would be to broadcast the public sessions of select committees and make them available by webcast and on digital TV.