Kiwiblog

Congratulations to top UK blogger Iain Dale, will be “tying the knot” with his partner John Simmons next month. I just hope they are not away of their honey moon when I am visiting in late June!

Iain’s blog is an invaluable source of information on UK politics, and a lot of fun.

He has some good quotes on tax and spending today from a Labour MP.  Yes a UK Labour MP:

My friends on the Left will insist that the correct Labour response is to raise taxes and break away from what they call neo-liberal economic policies. But when the state Hoovers up nearly two thirds of a trillion pounds from national income, describing such economics as neo-liberal is to mock language.

I love it how people use that term as some sort of nasty insult they almost spit out. You neo-liberal you.

When trade unions and the Fabians invented what became the 20th-century Labour Party, no working man or woman paid any tax. It was easy to call for higher taxes because only the Tory-voting bourgeoisie paid them. Now working people are faced with massive deductions from their pay. There is some compensation for those on low incomes with young children, but a third of the voters in the London mayoral elections were single or childless people. The tired references to “hard-working families” upset all the voters who live by themselves, do not have children at home and are denied tax credits.

A massive amount of tax is paid by people and churned back to them, and this is very wasteful – it is money just flushed down the drain due to the cost of that churn.

And as in NZ, the Government there seems to regard tax credits as the same thing as tax cuts. There is a big difference between what is effectively a welfare payment and letting people keep more of their own money.

I do not know of a single minister who privately does not despair at the waste of money on pointless projects, publications, or legions of press officers that add no value. The taxpayer has given more than £1 billion of aid to India, even though that great country has more billionaires and millionaires than Britain and runs its own well-financed development aid programme.

I wonder how much we give to India?

The notion that cost-cutting is something the Right does is nonsense. The great firms of Britain, such as Marks and Spencer, BP, Corus and BA, have had their fortunes turned round by ruthless pruning of costs, thus forcing managers to think differently as they are told to cut budgets if they want to save their jobs. And in doing so they not only keep their jobs but find the companies they run are walking tall again.

I don’t think Labour has ever met a cost it didn’t increase! Cost cutting is not something nasty or slash and burn. It is what one should be doing every year. The problem is when someone else is funding those costs, your incentive to keep them low is minimal.

Both the NZMA and the NZMSA are applauding the concept of giving debt relief to medical graduates in return for them working in rural areas.

New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA) chairman Dr Peter Foley said he supported the idea, adding that debt relief for graduates would be a powerful tool for retaining a junior doctor workforce being tempted by pay conditions in Australia.

The New Zealand Medical Students Association (NZMSA) also applauded Key’s bid to address the loss of young New Zealand doctors overseas.

I’m glad the policy seems to be using the carrot of debt relief rather than some sort of stick which would try and stop doctors from leaving against their will.

The challenge will be how fast to write off any debt. Do it too fast and then you may just delay the departure. Do it too slow and you mat not have enough of an incentive.

It is worth remembering that writing off $10,000 debt is equal to giving someone $16,400 before tax due to the high 39% marginal tax rate on income for doctors.

Fran O’Sullivan points out that the value of the Government’s stake in Air NZ is now only $912 million – less than the $1.034 billion the Government paid for its 76% stake, including a later rights issue.

The share price is now only $1.14 and was $3.12 a year ago. A sensible shareholder would have looked to sell down some of its stake to realise a profit on the purchase. But hey when you get to spend other people’s money you don’t worry about that so much.

Does anyone want to argue that 76% is the right stake for the Crown to own, instead of say 51%?

If we had sold 25% at the peak, then the $840 received would have almost covered cost of the remaining 51%.

So the 76% stake is now $1.6 billion less than a year ago. And add on the $1.5 billion going on Dr Cullen’s trains and you see where all the money is going.

Simon Lyall, a NZ Wikipedia user, is working with others to improve NZ related articles.

One of their problems is they have very few photos of MPs, former and current. They don’t even have photos of John Key, Peter Dunne and Rodney Hide.

You see they need photos where the copyright holder will release them to Wikipedia under a license that can be used by Wikipedia and other projects. This includes permission for republication, distribution, derivative works and commercial use.

If any parliamentary people have photos they can release, can they contact Simon at simon at darkmere.gen.nz.

But the photos don’t have to be from the MPs themselves. Anyone who has taken a photo of an MP, owns the copyright and can licence it to Wikipedia.

For that matter, maybe a community minded newspaper could help out. The major dailies (or NZPA) must have stock photos they have taken of most MPs. Now sure media make money from licensing photos, but no one is ever going to want to pay for a head and shoulders photo of an MP, so why not help Wikipedia out (because I bet you all use it often) and see if you have photos they can use. Maybe not even current MPs, but ones of former MPs are also sought.

The forced release of substance of National’s KiwiSaver policy is a mess. It comes at a time when Labour have got some momentum from the budget, and National needs to be error free.

I said a few weeks ago that I no longer think Labour can win the election, but that National can still lose it. That still holds true in my opinion. Now this episode by itself is not an election loser, but timing is everything in politics. If the TV stations are polling this week (and they probably are based on their normal cycles) then it may not National back a wee bit, and then you get stories about how the race is back on, and that continues to give Labour the momentum they badly need.

One can only feel some sympathy for Kate Wilkinson, even if tempered with some annoyance. Some MPs are known to be prone to speaking before thinking, but Kate isn’t one of them. It was an uncharacteristic mistake, but it really shows the importance of being very very guarded with speculation on policy – especially when Trevor Mallard is in the room! Trevor hasn’t looked this happy since he biffed Tau

The somewhat ironic thing is that it is a no brainer that eventually National would announce it would keep compulsory employer contributions to KiwiSaver. regardless of whether one approves of the policy, you can’t change it once 600,000 people have made investment decisions based on it. If you were going to not keep the contributions, you would have to have said so almost immediately so that people signing up would be aware that a change in Government would lead to no compulsory employer contribution.

National could have come out and said this at an earlier stage. But it presumably is looking at having some minor differences, and wanted to release a full policy on a timetable of its making. There are in fact two related but different issues with regards to the employer contribution. The first is whether it will be compulsory, and at what rate. The second is what subsidy the Government will pay employers as partial compensation.

John Armstrong makes a fair point:

The more obvious it appears that National is heading into Government and the longer it holds out on clarifying its stance on major policy matters, the more not-so-experienced MPs like Wilkinson are going to come under pressure at such meetings to spell out what the party would do differently.

Vernon Small also makes a similiar point:

But in “clarifying” her blunder National has announced what amounted to a $2 billion spending commitment over four years to a policy which is proving very popular – with 600,000 already signed up – and rather than doing it at a time of their choosing they have been forced to scramble out an announcement as a political save.

I guess that’s what happens in a policy vacuum;  there are just too many things you can’t say and too many things you might say.

To be fair, the budget was only a couple of working days ago, and there is a lot of work to be done on having a balanced alternative budget. So I suspect we will see a focus on policies with relatively minor costs (policy rather than spending) in the immediate future, and then some more of the bigger costing items once the sums are done.

The Dominion Post is not impressed with that the Race Relations Commissioner is launching a a review into the research done by Massey academic Greg Clydesdale into Pacific Island immigration.

Interviewed this week, Mr de Bres seemed as irritated by the fact that the research was done at all and that a media outlet had the temerity to report it as with any “issues” that the study might have raised. The commissioner seems unhappy that the paper gained access to Dr Clydesdale’s research and to believe – erroneously – that those who disagreed with it had no chance to comment.

He needs to reread the article. Pacific Island Affairs Minister Winnie Laban was quoted as seriously rejecting Dr Clydesdale’s findings, which may well be flawed. So was Samoan Advisory Council spokesman Tino Pereira.

Mr de Bres seems in danger of forgetting this is a democracy, in which academics have the freedom their institutions allow them to comment and critique society and newspapers have the right not only to report such comment and criticism but also to decide what prominence to give what is, by any definition, news. …

Mr de Bres is entitled to his review. But if it does not find that it is totally legitimate for an academic to research immigration policy and for the media to report it, then the review will be flawed. Society is benefited in no way by political correctness taken to extremes.

It does all seem an extreme reaction to one academic study. The more worrying reaction is the reported comments by Labour Minister Shane Jones who allegedly said on Newstalk ZB that he had called Steve Maharey about the author.

The Association of University Staff should be very concerned about this, if correct. To have a Cabinet Minister contact the Vice-Chancellor (and a former colleague) because he disagrees with the research of an academic is obviously inappropriate and intimidating. Let alone boasting about it on radio and suggesting the academic should be teaching primary school children only.

So maybe the AUS could take a break from complaining about Massey students winning beauty contests and say something about Massey academics having academic freedom.

This is not to suggest that academic freedom means you can not criticise academics. Far from it. But to personally contact the Vice-Chancellor and advocate he should not be teaching at a tertiary level is very different from merely criticising.

Perhaps Mr Maharey (who seems to think being Vice-Chancellor is a part time job as he is still an MP) could reveal what he said back to Mr Jones.

An interesting story in the NZ Herald, that even the Electoral Commission can’t decide whether or not a party logo is an election advertisement, with a split between the four Commissioners.

This is likely to have an impact on issues such as whether pens and balloons with logos and website addresses on them are election advertisements.

Another victory for the law of common sense.

The Dominion Post and NZPA have confirmed that the reasons for a dozen Labour Party websites being taken down is that they may have been in breach of the Electoral Finance Act.

Labour really are having such problems with Annette King’s law of common sense.

I do hope Labour have been keeping track of the costs of all those websites since 1 January, as it would be very risky not to include them as election expenses.

The next big issue is the Beehive website. I think it is indisputably an illegal election advertisement. Look at some of these statements on there clearly designed to persuade people to vote for or against a party:

“John Key cannot be trusted to protect KiwiSaver for New Zealand workers and he has shown he is not serious about addressing New Zealand’s long-term savings challenge.”

“Now that National’s grounds for opposing New Zealand Fast Forward have been exposed as fraudulent, National should own up to its error of judgement and reverse its promise to scrap the Fund,” Jim Anderton said.

“It’s a pathetic stance that shows once again National cares only about costly point scoring and cannot take difficult decisions.

Beneficiaries better off under Labour

So the Department of Internal Affairs had better start to get worried. A website is explictly included as a method of publishing an election advertisement:

Another sign of third termitis. Most will recall the fuss over a WINZ conference in 1999 which cost $235,000.

Phil Heatley revealed yesterday that Hosuing NZ has spent $65,000 on a conference for 94 managers at the luxury Tongariro Lodge.

The third termitis is the staunch defence of it by Minister Maryan Street, instead of realising the political impact of holding a conference in a luxury resort.

There are two issues when it comes to public service conferences – cost and location.

In terms of cost, the conference cost around $700 a person. It isn’t an outrageous amount, but neither is it as cheap as if you held the conference in Auckland or Wellington where most of the staff are.

The bigger issue is location. A luxury lodge location is a bad look for a taxpayer funded agency. Doesn’t matter if you get a discount. And if you are WINZ or Housing NZ – an agency tasked with helping low income families especially, it is even more inappropriate.

Street should have acknowledged this, rather than defended the decision.

If you hold the conference at the Rotorua Novotel or the Dunedin Holiday Inn, no one will criticise you for it.

The Dom Post reports on how NZ First MP Ron Mark helped save a man’s life after his motorcycle was hit by a trailer in the Terrace tunnel.

Ron hasn’t said anything about it, but the crash victim wrote to the PM and others informing them of what Ron, and his partner, did.

Ron is my favourite NZ First MP. And no that is not like being my favourite form of cancer – I have always had a lot of respect and regard for Ron, despite my well documented views on his leader.

Poor Labour is having a hard time with the precious Electoral Finance Act.

First of all they had to delete any mentions of “Labour” from the budget press releases in case that got the Treasury Secretary prosecuted.

Bill English has just pointed out that by that reasoning the Dept of Internal Affairs is breaking the law, with the Beehive website. The site is scattered with statements statements designed to encourage people to vote Labour.

But it goes beyond that. Whale Oil has heard that Labour Head Office has ordered over a dozen Labour Party websites to be taken down as they are breaking the law. And sure enough the following websites have been taken down:

1. Young Labour
2. Rainbow Labour
3. Pete Hodgson
4. Russell Fairbrother
5. Martin Gallagher
6. Winnie Laban
7. Brendon Burns
8. David Cunliffe
9. Labour North Auckland
10. Steve Chadwick
11. Mahara Okeroa
12. Tim Barnett

Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for all these websites being down. But some of them are on different servers at different providers, so it is not just a technical issue.

Don’t you love it when parties do get their just desserts?

Tony Milne links to a CNN piece of possible Vice-Presidential candidates.

On the Republican side I think Minnesota Governor Tim Rawlenty would be a good pick. He is a popular Republican Governor in a Democrat leaning state. The convention is in Minnesota

Not PC has a very comprehensive round-up of the work done by Trevor Loudon on Barack Obama. He describes Obama as “Keith Locke with charisma”

Bernard Hickey has graphs of petrol pump prices, and how much goes to the producers, the local oil companies and the Government. The local company margin is currently close to 20c – a three year low.

Phil U at Whoar finds Jeremy Clarkson’s best and worst cars.

The worst is the Tata Nano and the best is the Nissan GT-R.

Bernard Hickey blogs on looming power cuts:

Transpower Chief Executive Patrick Strange said in announcing the launch of a new website to inform the public on lake levels and power usage that compulsory power cuts were possible within three weeks if there was no significant rainfall or a large power station went off line.

The sad thing with this, is it is all preventable. The RMA slows down massively the construction of new renewable energy plants. That is why 75% to 90% of new capacity has been thermal.

This is why a ban on new thermal is very risky. Look absolutely we should be heading towards renewables, but until we have a consenting process that allows renewable power plants to be agreed to in less than half a decade, then it may be a choice between widespread power cuts over some years or another thermal power station.

So my challenge to the Greens is to support RMA changes that will stop NIMBY types massively slowing down or killing off renewable power projects.

I have a real concern about the growing authoritarianism of this Government in regards to law and order. Now don’t get me wrong – I am hard line on catching and punishing criminals – I think parole and bail laws should be much tighter, and support trialling a “broken windows” approach such as Christchurch is doing. But taking away more and more rights in the name of “law and order” is something the Government (and not just the Government but they are the ones in Government) is doing.

Let us look at the recent issues:

1. A Labour MP proposes taking away the right to silence.
2. The Government is considering legislating to force telcos to intercept and store *all* text messages in case they need them at some stage for law enforcement purposes
3. The PM is directly discussing operational issues with the Police Commissioner.
4. No Right Turn covers the Government’s latest proposals to give Police the power to make people remove clothing or leave a public area, which he describes as allowing the Police to make the law up as they go.
5. The PM is advocating to allow people to be re-tried for the same crime, after being found not guilty, if new evidence is manufactured discovered.

Now we do have a law and order problem in NZ. We have made it easier for repeat offenders to get bail. Parole has been a right not a privilege. Probation is almost a sick joke. Gangs run their operations out of prisons etc.

But rather than target the core problems of bail, parole, probation and Corrections, we are seeing moves towards what I call authoritarianism.

Yes we would have less crime if the Police can access every text message and e-mail any citizen has ever sent. Yes we would have more convictions if the Police can keep retrying you until they get a guilty verdict. Yes we would have less crime if the Police are given the authority to ban people from public places on whim. But you know, that isn’t the NZ I want to live in.

The Dominion Post has a story on whether or not Scott Dixon’s win in the famous Indy 500 counts as one of the top ever sporting feats.

I’m with Keith Quinn in saying it does. Yes he is supported by a team, but the skills and endurance needed to win are immense, and the Indy 500 is such an iconic event that it has to rate up there.

Interesting to note that NSW school students next year will be able to take a course in studying Wikipedia.

Despite all its flaws, Wikipedia continues to go from strength to strength. It has a massively high Google page rank, is one of the most visited sites in the world, and blogs almost universally link to it when talking about a particular issue or topic which people may want more information on.

An interesting article about whether certain graduates should be bonded as a condition of the public investment into their degrees.

John Key is quoted as saying while the average medical graduate has a student loan of $90,000 – the taxpayer has put in a further $270,000 towards their degree.

Key said that an average medical graduate with a student debt of $90,000 had received taxpayer investment of $270,000.

He said taxpayers accepted responsibility for funding medical students’ studies because the nation needed smart, capable people to keep it healthy and safe.

“At the moment you educate a doctor who says `Thanks very much, I’m off to Sydney’, and never comes back. What a waste of $300,000 and someone who is very talented. Bonding them makes a lot of sense,” he said.

The problem is the practicality of bonding. If a graduate leaves to go overseas and does not return, there is no real mechanism to recover the investment, even if they have signed a contract.

But the status quo of huge taxpayer investment into supplying Australia with doctors isn’t particularly satisfactory, so good to see some thought going into possible solutions.

In somewhat jest yesterday I referred to Stephen Frank’s as being a communist in his youth, in relation to a post on Barack Obama’s youth.

Stephen posts on his blog that a gentle correction I don’t have it right. He did travel to Mao’s China to see what life was like on a commune, but never was “duped” by communism. Indeed first hand experience would be enough for anyone sensible to see how flawed the ideology was.

I recommend people read the whole post – it is very interesting.

There have been many articles on what Phil Goff was up to with his comments on Alt TV, and there appears to be an merging consensus (which I stated was my opinion early on) that his comments were not directed at Helen, but at other post-election contenders for the leadership – especially David Cunliffe.

Now a Goff vs Cunliffe contest for the leadership could be fascinating. Neither man is universally popular with his peers, but both are respected for the jobs they have done in their portfolios. Whether there would be a third contender remains to be seen.

So what was said over the weekend. First the Dom Post editorial on Saturday:

Announcing the beginning of the Siege of Helengrad on a television channel that believes it needs to titivate the news to attract viewers is a strange move for would-be Labour leader Phil Goff, The Dominion Post writes.

It’s almost as strange as his admission in the same venue that “sure, we might lose the election”.

Traditionally, politicians wait till the votes are counted before conceding even the possibility of defeat, but Mr Goff has not got time to muck about with the niceties if he wants to be Labour’s next leader.

That’s why it’s doubtful either statement was a Goff goof.

There have been claims that it’s all down to media mischief-making, but they are about as credible as the claims of those who say they watch Alt TV’s naked news to keep abreast of current affairs.

It was not a gaffe. Goff has spent ten years saying he has no ambitions to be leader, and when you change the tune to be no ambition until after the election it means something.

Mr Goff is a man of long experience and it is foolish to believe he unintentionally flashed his intentions.

He is used to the convoluted logic and necessary evasions of politics, and well versed in their practice. After all, he is the man who, as trade minister, has to convince his foreign counterparts that even though New Zealand’s foreign minister fulminates against free trade agreements, the Government that Winston Peters represents overseas is actually very keen on them. …

Instead, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Mr Goff has taken a leaf out of Lewis’ book.

He has decided to begin his own leadership fan dance, revealing enough of a glimpse of his ambition to take over from Helen Clark to indicate his interest and titillate his supporters. …

Or, as Lewis would undoubtedly observe, it’s all about Flirty Phil Goff from Mt Roskill deciding he needs to be out there swinging his tassels before Delicious David Cunliffe from New Lynn has even tied on the G-string.

Goff seems to have detected a 9th floor led campaign for DC to be her natural successor. He is of course not happy having been so quiet and loyal for the last 12 years, and having seen off Maharey and Mallard.

Fran O’Sullivan also writes on the issue:

Goff knows that Clark does not want him to inherit her mantle as Labour leader. The Prime Minister has been less than discreet in signalling her preference for a generational switch to take place after her 15-year reign as Labour’s leader ends. Those who have been treated to her gossipy confidences believe she favours Cabinet rising star David Cunliffe to take over from her in a carefully stage-managed post-election transition of power.

That sounds like some well placed sources.

Goff would have heard the gossip. He would also have felt rather miffed that his loyalty to Clark – which has not been in question since he and Cullen led a deputation asking her to stand down as Labour’s leader in 1996 – has not being openly returned.

Goff-watchers believe he lacks the bottle to openly challenge Clark, even after an election defeat.

This is Goff’s problem. If Labour loses (and it may not of course) and Clakr steps down immediately then Goff has to be the favourite. But what if Clark stays on as Opposition Leader for a year, and then stands down. By then Cunliffe (or others) may have gained enough support to beat Goff in a ballot.

It occurs to me that if it is Goff vs Cunliffe for the leadership, then the winner would be sensible to make the other their Finance Spokesperson. The two of them together would actually be a pretty strong team, and would give Labour a decent shot in 2011 (especially with Cullen’s poison pill budget).

A particularly demented individual (a supporter of the accused who thinks Elliottt “deserved it”) has been trying to post details of the murder of Sophie Elliott to my blog for some months, which means sadly I was not at all surprised by the revelations in court that the poor girl was stabbed 216 times.

In fact the details are even worse than revealed in court, but thanks to the comments being caught in moderation no-one else has had to see them. They were enough to physically induce nausea in me and are the most unpleasant material ever posted here. They were all given over to the Police along with the IP details leading to a Dunedin location.

“He talked about Sophie calling him a retard. He got very distressed by it in part because he took it as an insult to his intelligence.”

Good God I called Miss Ten a retard or similar in front of two dozen staff yesterday. I hope she doesn’t kill me for it.

It distresses me to see people make excuses for what can only be described an evil sociopathic act. Yeah I know the trial is yet to happen, but the facts do not appear to be in dispute – the only issue will be if Clayton Weatherston claims insanity or provocation.  Is Weatherston bad or mad or both?

When confronted with such vile crimes, it is tempting to always try and conclude that the offender is mad, as in only a mad person could so such a thing. It is worth remembering though that legally the question isn’t whether someone is a sociopath, but whether they are capable of knowing right from wrong.

I feel very sorry for the Elliott family having to go through both the depositions and then inevitably a trial.
Stephen Franks blogs on how the court process is failing:

Four court attendances already when there is absolutely no doubt about the circumstances of her murder, yet the process had not even reached depositions. As a lawyer and a former law-maker I think they expected me to come up with some sophistry to justify what was happening to them.

I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that when the facts are not in dispute, just the state of mind of the killer, that one could have an expedited process.

Please, if you comment, be careful. Despite the fact I have talked specifically about the case, be cautious in doing so. I will delete any comments which seek to blame the victim.

Obama has picked up some more super delegates and looks to have 1,970 delegates – just 56 short of the 2,026 needed.

86 delegates are still to go, so if he gets half that is just 13 short. It really should finally end on the 3rd of June (4th in NZ).

In Montana a poll out last week has Obama ahead by 17% so he should pick up over half the 16 delegates – maybe 10 to 6.

South Dakota had a early April poll with Obama ahead by 12%. Delegate split of their 15 may be 8 to 7 in his favour.

In Puerto Rico, Clinton led by 13% in the last poll (5 April) and should win that one. Delegates may split 30 to 25 for her (55 in total).

Helen has a cunning pension plan for her old age. Her massive parliamentary pension isn’t enough – so what will she be relying on? Your children!

I am a very firm advocate of means testing the NZ Superannuation. I think it is silly multi-millionaires get paid a welfare benefit.

Hati Tip: Whale Oil

The HeraldNet reports from the US on allegations against Obama, including from NZer Trevor Loudon who specialises in links to communism:

Here are some things we can look forward to learning about Barack Obama:

That he was mentored in high school by a member of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party.

That he launched his Illinois state Senate campaign in the home of a terrorist and a killer.

That while serving as a state senator, he was a member of a socialist front group.

That his affiliations are so dodgy that he would have trouble getting a government security clearance.

The newspaper is sceptical, saying:

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy took a blow with Hillary Clinton’s exit. But it is regrouping, and finding plenty of sinister things to say about Obama — even if he didn’t trade cattle futures.

Hillary invented the term VRWC to describe her foes. If the VRWC is now targeting Obama, Hillary is probably funding them

“He’s a member of an organization (that is) openly a front for two socialist groups,” reported another participant, Trevor Loudon.

“Obama was raised and educated in a very Marxist-rich environment, which often would limit his worldview,” reported a third, Max Friedman.

In college, Obama “admits selecting Marxist professors among his friends and attending socialist conferences,” Kincaid went on. In Chicago, he said, “Obama launched his political career back in 1995 at the home of communist-terrorist Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn,” the two Weather Underground figures who have already made a cameo in the campaign. Kincaid then made the unilateral decision to accuse Dohrn of the 1970 killing of a policeman, a charge no prosecutor has made.

Personally I’m not too worried about communist influences when people were young. Hell Stephen Franks was a communist as a student and he has turned out fine

But I do hope the election in the US will focus on the policies, not just the rhetoric, of the two candidates. For example John McCain is staunchly in favour of genuine free trade agreements with as many countries as possible. Obama is not only against further FTAs but wants to renege renegotiate on the ones already signed such as NAFTA.

Was somewhat sad to see $47 million being spent on renovating Government House. Not the renovation per se, but the fact it means the Governor-General is going to be a squatter in Vogel House in Lower Hutt.

The Dom Post states that this means Jim Anderton is having to leave it. Well on current polls he was going to be leaving anyway – so the real loser is a National frontbencher who misses out on what is the ultimate state house – much much nicer than Premier House in my opinion.

The Dom Post gets it a bit wrong saying the Deputy PM traditionally lives there. Muldoon lived there as PM. I don’t think Sir Geoffrey ever lived there, and certainly in the 1990s it was Doug Graham, not Don McKinnon who lived there.

The House itself is lovely, with a dining table which seats 20 – designed for Cabinet Dinners. It is surrounded by a huge lawn which is ideal for croquet and even some golf practice.

Saturday’s Press editorial was on the Electoral Finance Act:

The mire that is the Electoral Finance Act grows deeper by the week. It is now more than four months since the controversial legislation came into effect and the last possible date for the general election is less than half a year away, writes The Press in an editorial.

This is the time when political parties and lobby groups should be finalising their campaign strategies, with the confidence that iron-clad election laws provide. But as this week’s High Court case involving the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union has demonstrated, the new regime of the controversial act remains murky.

More than murky. What is and is not an election advertisement is still a matter of conjecture.

This case was about whether the union could register with the Electoral Commission as a third party, or lobby group, under the act, which would entitle it to spend up to $120,000 on election advertising. Unregistered groups or individuals have a far smaller $12,000 spending cap.

This was challenged on the grounds that a “person” involved in the administration of a political party was not eligible to be registered as a third party. Last month the commission, after taking Crown Law Office advice, decided that the EPMU was not a natural person and therefore decided to register the union.

There is a story to be told about Crown Law and its advice, such as the growing number of Departments who are no longer using Crown Law for legal advice. It has become all too political.

But the High Court in Wellington took the opposite position on this issue. It did not rule on whether the EPMU’s close links with Labour would make it ineligible to be a third party, leaving this question to be resolved by the commission. …

A big test of the legislation’s treatment of third parties could come if the EPMU is refused registration by the commission. The union is adamant that if this occurs it will still mount a campaign based around workers’ rights and wages.

They will need to be very very careful. If parties have policies on workers’ rights and wages, then a campaign on those issues could well be seen to be an election advertisement. And the fact that the EPMU is on the record as saying their aim is to influence the election outcome with their campaign means that a Judge could find a breach of the Act was deliberate and a corrupt practice.

Issues-based campaigning by non-registered lobby groups is permitted under the act, and there is no spending limit, providing advertising does not encourage people to vote, or not vote, for a political party or even a type of party. But it would be a neat and delicate trick to run a publicity campaign based around workers’ rights and which cost more than $12,000 without breaching this particular provision, given the politically charged nature of employment relations in New Zealand history.

Indeed.

The commission, which plays a major role in implementing the electoral finance regime, deserves some sympathy. It has been forced to make decisions on a case-by-case basis over issues where the meaning of the act is unclear, as shown by the differing legal opinions over the EPMU bid for third-party status.

Oh the Commission has a damn awful job thanks to this stupid law. Having said that, when they see crappy legal advice from Crown Law (and their affidavit shows they had some issues with it) they could choose to seek alternative advice.

The commission has drawn some unwarranted criticism for its decisions, but the real fault lies with the Government and those support parties which demanded this legislation. Most New Zealanders would believe there is a place for third-party election advertising, because this allows non-politicians to participate in the democratic process. Most people, after the Exclusive Brethren campaign last election, would also argue that there must be financial limits on third parties to prevent moneyed interests buying an election. The act is an attempt to reconcile these goals.

And if the Government has not drawn up the law in secret, but embarked on a public consultation exercise prior to introducing a law change, a much more workable regime could have been developed. But they tried to “screw the scrum” with a partisan incompetent law – and in the process shattering the constitutional conventions around the Electoral Act.

But, even leaving aside longstanding accusations that the legislation screws the scrum in favour of the Government, it is also failing in a practical sense, and one key reason for this is that it took effect on January 1.

A more sensible course would have been to have delayed its introduction, at least for this year’s election. This would have provided a breathing space during which the ambiguities in the act could have been calmly resolved, not allowed to become political points-scoring issues in their own right.

Or to have kept the regulated period at 90 days, so one would have had January to July to clarify the law in respect the regulated period activities.