Kiwiblog

The Herald reports that (Sir) Wira Gardiner will stand for election to the National Party Board at the party’s annual conference, and Wira is not ruling out he may stand for the presidency.

The article also confirms the candidacy of current Director Peter Goodfellow, and the likely interest of Director Scott Simpson. All three are very good people, and the choice should be a positive one – not a major battle between competing ideologies or factions.

The presidency is no longer decided by the party’s annual conference but by the board of directors itself. The nine Directors select one of their own to be President. Since this change in 2003, there has been no vacancy with incumbent Judy Kirk re-elected without dissent. 2009 will be the first time there is competition for the role. However as there are only nine votes in play, it is quite possible that people will be able to work out who has the numbers in advance of the actual vote.

1. Denis Welch thinks the next Labour Prime Minister is not yet in Parliament, and that based on the Q&A interview it will be Andrew Little
2. Fairfacts Media is now on his own blog.
3. Adam Smith looks at the $70 million planned revamp for the National Library and whether it is well directed.
4. Rob Hosking covers issues over ACC.
5. The Dim-Post covers John Key’s plans to privatise Treasury so advice is contestable and that Sensing Murder psychics have expressed interest in doing the budget forecasting services
6. Bernard Hickey disagrees with Westpac that house prices now represent fair value and that they need to drop 30% from their November 2007 peak
7. Whale Oil is scared of a teeny weeny spider in his home.
8. David Cohen looks at the claim that the death of newspapers is due to managerial incompetence.

Stuff reports:

The Maori Affairs minister has pledged support for a North Taranaki hapu as it continues to occupy land and hold up an oil company’s drilling project.

Last night about 25 members of the Otaraua hapu prepared for their second night blocking access to a site being used by Greymouth Petroleum for a new pipeline to Te Kowhai gasfield off Ngatimaru Rd at Tikorangi.

The hapu took over on Sunday after claims work would desecrate Tikorangi Pa, a waahi tapu (sacred) site, which is not protected by the district plan.

So why is it not protected:

New Plymouth District Council consents manager Ralph Broad said the site was not protected under the district plan because it had been left off a list of waahi tapu sites provided by local iwi and hapu.

So why is the company at fault? Why is no one asking questions of why the hapu did not include it on the list?

Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples said he was “deeply disappointed” by the situation and said Maori interests needed to be taken more seriously.

He said the company should have consulted with the hapu despite not legally being required to do so.

“It shows ignorance by the companies that they can go ahead without thinking. I would expect to see consultation with iwi,” he said.

With all due respect I disagree with Dr Sharples. It is primarily the role of the Council to consult with iwi and hapu (which they did) and mark on the distract plans areas of special significance. Only if a resource consent relates to one of those areas would you expect consultation. I don’t agree that each and every resource consent should require consultation – this is the whole purpose of the District Plan.

Hapu plans to take the issues to the environment court and seek an interim enforcement order to halt works that had been put off until today.

And that is the appropriate thing to do – more productive than protesting outside against a company that has obeyed the law.

Stuff has a Sydney Morning Herald story:

A man so muddled by years of marijuana dependency believed he was married to his former flatmate for nearly a decade – a mistake that threatened to derail his wedding to a new partner.

This reminds me of my Otago University days. Otago had a chapter of NORML – the National Organisation to Reform Marijuana Laws. And every few months the branch chair would get up at SRCs and move a motion that OUSA pledge support to legalise cannabis or some such.

The NORML chair would normall start his speech by saying something alone the lines of “I’ve been smoking cannabis for years and years and it has never done me any harm”.

Unfortunately for him, his speaking pace was at around one third the normal pace, so would be more like “I’ve ….. been smoking …… cannabis …. for years …. and years …. and …. it has …… never …… done me ……. any harm”.

Many of us would be in fits of laughter at this and I suggested the anti-cannabis groups should send him on a speaking tour of secondary schools. He would scare more kids off cannabis than any amount of medical literature.

The sad thing is that he never had any perception of how cannabis use had dulled his brain over the years. His dimmed state just became the reality.

The Dom Post reports:

Former National Party leader Don Brash has hit out at police stonewalling over the release of files surrounding one of the great political whodunits.

The mystery has only deepened as police stymie all attempts to disclose the file into the publication of Dr Brash’s private emails.

In the latest letter rejecting a request to release the file under the Official Information Act, police have cited the need to protect confidential informants. They have also insisted that the investigation remain open, despite a statement a year ago by outgoing police inspector Harry Quinn that the investigation was closed.

If the file is closed, it should be released. Simple.

The Dominion Post asked for a copy of the police file a year ago. Police sought several extensions of the deadline and then said the request had been lost.

Hmmn. That makes me very curious.

I almost choked as I read in the Dom Post:

Labour leader Phil Goff said the moves were “a witch-hunt” against board members simply because they were not National Party supporters.

“National is determined to go back to the old days when you needed to be a card-carrying National member to get appointed.”

There is standard hypocrisy and then there is this. Did Phil Goff remember voting to appoint Mike Williams to six different boards? Did Phil Goff remember appointing Di Yates to three or four boards as the “price” for getting her to leave Parliament?

And we won’t even talk about the the fact that the reason Wellington got called Helengrad is that because anyone who dared to disagree with Labour was put on a blacklist. Not only would they not get board appointments – their firms would be ineligible for any government contracts. This was all common knowledge. Dozens of business leaders said they would never publicly criticise the Labour Government as they would be shut out.

And what is Goff complaining about anyway:

A spokesman confirmed yesterday that State-Owned Enterprises Minister Simon Power had written to “a number” of directors telling them that when their terms ended on April 30 they would not be reappointed.

Oh my God. How dare National not reappoint directors that Phil Goff and Helen Clark personally chose. This is not a “sacking” as with the ACC Chair. This is just a normal expiry of term. Of course that doesn’t prevent the hsyterical claim:

National has launched its night of the long knives on state boards, with a range of mostly Labour-leaning directors being told they no longer have a job.

Now most readers are educated people and know what the night of the long knives was, but for those who do not it is when Hitler had his political opponents (in his own party mainly) killed. Personally I think a reference to Nazi executions is somewhat over the top, Vernon. Again these are not sackings – just terms expiring. And who is not being reappointed:

It is understood the casualties include Meridian Energy director Polly Schaverien and former Labour staffer Tony Timms from the board of Quotable Value.

Tony Timms is the former Labour Party General Secretary and senior staffer in Helen Clark’s office. Polly Schaverien has been a staffer both in the Labour Party Research Unit and in Trevor Mallard’s office.This does not automatically disqualify them of course, but you know the outrage from Goff is just so hypocritical.

What is amazing is the sense of entitlement that Goff exhibits. How dare National not reappoint people he and Helen Clark selected.

One saw in Canada the same culture of entitlement in the Canadian Liberal Party after they were in power for many years. They had such a sense of entitlement that they handed out government advertising contracts to their mates, who agreed in turn to donate a portion back to the Liberal Party.

Incidentially NZ Labour once considered doing something similiar. Their general secretary in the late 80s floated the idea of having the Government give some contracts to Labour’s advertising agency, as Labour owed them lots of money and was having trouble paying. Luckily the idea was never taken forward but it shows the danger of having that sense or culture of entitlement.

Phil Kitchin has done another fine investigation – this time into MaritimeNZ. The quick summary is the CEO instructed investigators for a boating fatality to only investigate the crash and sinking, and not the response by rescue organisations – as one of them was managed by MaritimeNZ.

One investigator rightfully said that the response is critical as that is the difference between someone just having a bath and drowning at sea.

The Dom Post editorial says:

The emails obtained by The Dominion Post show that when controversy about the rescue emerged, Maritime NZ director Catherine Taylor and senior manager Peter Williams decided the search and rescue operation would not form part of the investigation. In one email, investigator Captain Ian Webb was instructed to confine his inquiries “to the sinking”.

Maritime NZ sources have told The Dominion Post that Mr Webb, who was sacked before his report was completed, successfully challenged that instruction. In a reply, also obtained by The Dominion Post, he said he was aware of the “political sensitivities” of the case, but was conscious of what could occur when the integrity of an investigation was made subordinate to other concerns.

“It is not reasonable to confine this or any investigation to the point at which the vessel foundered,” he said. “It is the conditions and events following the sinking which decide whether the boat’s occupants merely suffer from an unscheduled bath or die.”

Absolutely.

According to Ms Taylor, it is “standard practice” for Maritime NZ not to investigate any other parts of its organisation so there can be no allegations of a conflict of interest.

However, it is Maritime NZ’s failure to investigate itself that raises questions of a conflict of interest in this case. What is the point of an investigation that ignores salient information?

Mr Hampton’s parents are seeking an inquiry into the way Maritime NZ investigated their son’s death. Their request should be granted, but the inquiry should be widened to address other issues raised by the case.

I think and hope the Government will do an inquiry into this. Public organisations need public confidence.

The Dom Post reports:

Two people with drug convictions who sat on a jury in a High Court drug trial tried to skewer the case, speaking of police as “pigs” and claiming the evidence was made up, another juror says.

The Wellington woman who sat on the jury with them is adamant jury vetting should be allowed. It took other jurors hours to bring them around.

The woman said she despaired at the justice system after the experience. She welcomed a Supreme Court decision issued yesterday that defended the practice of “jury vetting” the practice of police revealing potential jurors’ criminal convictions to lawyers and said that in her opinion the practice was absolutely crucial.

I would go beyond vetting. I can’t work out why you would possibly have convicted criminals sit on juries.  At the moment the prohibition is only:

Anyone sentenced to a prison term of more than three years, or to more than three months in the past five years, is prohibited from sitting on a jury.

How about anyone who has ever been sentenced to a prison term is prohibited and anyone who has been convicted of any offence within the past five years is also prohibited?

I know dozens of people who have attended a Liberty & Society conference and all bar one of them have raved about it. The sole dissenter was Cactus Kate who complained that the hosts (CIS) are too left wing

If you are a undergraduate, postgraduate or recent graduate, and broadly identify as classical liberal then consider applying. It is a great experience.

Jim Anderton is quoted as saying:

Progressive leader Jim Anderton said calling the plan a “buy-back” did not change the fact that it cut the minimum holiday entitlement. Thousands of workers paid just over the minimum wage would be presented with employment contracts that say they request cash instead of annual leave.

Anderton is either showing his ignorance or deliberately fear mongering. Let there be no doubt – such an employment contract would be illegal and unenforceable.

To quote Kate Wilkinson:

“It has been reported the Government intends on letting employers offer their staff a cash payment to replace their fourth week of annual leave, but in reality they will not be allowed to make such an offer.

“Our policy clearly gives employees the choice – only they can approach their boss and ask to make the trade.

Of course as usual the left are against choice. They create a bogeyman of the so called evil employer who will break the law, as a reason to not give the other 99% of the population a choice.

If I was to use Anderton’s logic, there should be no minimum wage because some employers might propose an employment contract that pays less than the minimum wage.

From the 1st of April, any voluntary repayments over $500 towards your student loan, will get you an additional 10% knocked off the balance.

And as the Herald reports, this will apply to everyone with balances – not just those still in NZ.

The interest free students loans policy is fundamentally flawed. It provides an incentive for students to borrow more than they need, and to pay it back as slowly as possible.

The voluntary repayment discount is a good way to counter one of those problems, as it will now give an incentive for early repayments.

Labour’s Mangere MP Su’a William Sio is showing some good leadership reports the Herald:

Open discussions about sex should be encouraged to prevent young women from getting rid of their newborns, an MP said.

Last Thursday a Samoan woman gave birth during a flight from Apia to Auckland and dumped the child in a rubbish bin. The woman was later found inside Auckland International Airport looking pale and bloodstained and was taken to hospital – with the child, who was found alive.

Mangere MP Su’a William Sio said it was not the first time a Samoan woman had tried to get rid of her newborn.

Cultural stigma and the shame of having a child while unmarried were some of the key issues surrounding why young women – both in Samoa and New Zealand – dumped their children, Mr Sio said.

“This is mostly derived firstly by fear – fear that they’ve done something wrong and fear of shame of the [unmarried] mother bringing to the family.” …

Mr Sio acknowledged that because many Pacific parents tended to shy away from talking about sex with their children, it was difficult for young unmarried women who found themselves pregnant.

I think Sio is right that the solution is changing the culture to one where young Samoan women especially don’t feel they can’t tell anyone they are pregnant.

A few years back at one workplace, one of the staff was a Samoan woman – probably aged around 25. One day she didn’t turn up to work. This was unusual as she was the most reliable staffer you could imagine. We were all worried something had happened, and then a bit before midday her boyfriend phoned to say she had given birth that mornng, so will be off work for a couple of days.

Everyone was pretty staggered. Partly because she didn’t look pregnant (and she was not large), but also because we could not work out why she wouldn’t have at least told her boss and arranged maternity leave, let alone give the office daily updates on her pregnancy like most pregnant women do

But of course that is where cultures can have such differences. It was a good lesson about not assuming everyone reacts the same way. It was somewhat sad though that what can be such a joyful period for many women, was seen as a period of shame or embarrassment.

I like the headline on NewstalkZB – Government dumps stupid law.

NZPA reports:

“Section 92a is not going to come into force as originally written. We have now asked the minister of commerce to start work on a replacement section,” Mr Key said.

“There is a need for legislation in this area, some progress was made between copyright holders and the ISPs but not enough to agree a code of conduct.

“In our view there are a number of issues that made it difficult to complete that code of conduct without fixing the fundamental flaws in section 92a.”

Mr Key said there needed to be unanimous support amongst ISPs and Commerce Minister Simon Power would be engaging with some experts in the area to go back to the basics.

Mr Key has said previously both sides of the debate had a point.

The Government would not allow the internet to be the “wild west” where any copyright holders did not have entitlement to compensation or recognition of their work.

However, its interactive nature led to different issues from the traditional media, Mr Key said.

I’m delighted that the Government has reached the almost inevitable conclusion that the law was so flawed it was unworkable.

May it stay buried with the career of its author.

There is a challenge ahead to see what sort of law (if any) can be framed to help reduce copyright infringement. It is worth remembering that s92A does not affect that it is illegal to infringe a rights holder’s copyright and that they can go to court to get compensation.

Personally I would be open to seeing if there is a way ISPs can work with rights holders to (for example) issue education notices to alleged infringers. But rather than do it by legislation, maybe by voluntary agreement with reimbursement for costs. Overseas experience has shown mere receipt of an notice will discourage the recipient from further infringing in around 70% to 80% of cases.

1. Paul Walker looks at whether the Commerce Commission is needed or not.
2. Whale Oil covers the story of “Canadian journalist Beverly Giesbrecht, who converted to Islam following 9/11 and launched the website Jihad Unspun seven years ago, faces beheading after being kidnapped by jihadists in Pakistan”. Maybe this will make people realise the nature of the extremists.
3. Blaise Drinkwater quotes Antonin Scalia on the US Bill of Rights: “The rights were selected not because of their importance—some of them are very important, some aren’t—, but they were selected on the basis of, “what rights would a tyrant want to move against?”
4. Andrew Bolt covers the retraction and apology over the fake photos of her that News Corp papers published. As a co-publisher I apologise also (but doubt I am on the radar) but note that of course I was stupidly assuming the Sunday Telegraph had actually verified the photos.
5. The BayBuzz interviews Rodney Hide.
6. UK Labour are introducing a hike in the top tax rate to 45%. The Conservatives are not committed to repealing it, and Iain Dale comes out backing Boris Johnson who has called for it to go.

Just an update to my post of 9 March where I said I thought Annette King would contest the Wellington mayoralty and Andrew Little would possibly enter Parliament in 2010 through a Rongotai by-election.

I had a very enjoyable chat with Annette today and she said that she had not had any discussions with anyone about standing and is very happy as the MP for Rongotai, and that the Wellington Mayoralty is not on her radar screen at all.

It wasn’t quite a Shermanesque statement, but very few politicians will do that. I told Annette that I was happy to inform people of her current intentions being firmly focused on Parliament.

Karl du Fresne blogs a recent column:

At one point Mr Carr, a former deputy governor of the Reserve Bank and chief executive of Jade Corporation, emphatically agreed with something Ms Harre had said. Then Ms Harre agreed with something Mr Barnett, the CEO of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, had said. She even expressed some sympathy for the predicament of business. …

It reinforced my sense that there has been a sudden and profound change in the national mood. This can be partly attributed to the urgent need to deal with a sharply contracting economy, but there is more to it than that.

I think it has a lot to do with John Key. In saying this, I’m back-pedalling somewhat because until relatively recently, I was deeply sceptical about Mr Key. I complained to anyone who was prepared to listen that no one knew quite what he stood for. It seemed to me dangerous to elect a prime minister who appeared to have no fixed ideological reference points.

I wouldn’t quite describe John that way. John has centre right beliefs but also a strong pragmatic streak where he focuses on whether he thinks something will work rather than fitting solutions within an overall consistent ideological framework.

Personally I prefer a greater degree of consistency. There is always a degree of pragmatism with any Government, but (for example) I really don’t like the precedent of instructing the Super Fund Guardians to invest 40% in NZ.

I have now come around to the view that the apparent absence of any non-negotiable positions on Mr Key’s part – the very deficiency that I complained about – may make him the ideal leader for our time.

I referred in a previous column to his relentlessly upbeat disposition. That in itself, I believe, has done a lot to change the mood of a country that previously experienced nine years of essentially downbeat leadership from Helen Clark.

Leadership does count. In businesess the quality of the leadership is a crucial factor. It is less vital in a country – but still of not inconsiderable importance.

The other marked difference between New Zealand under Key and New Zealand under Clark is that the old ideological battle lines have suddenly been erased. The new prime minister is happy to engage with anyone and doesn’t rule out any policy if he senses it might work. There are no ideological no-go zones.

I think is getting closer to the real Key. He does have centre-right beliefs but he is not going to rule out ideas if they are not centre-right. And he shys away from a divide and conquer strategy or winner take all mentality we have seen previously.

Recently we have observed Mr Key’s open-minded approach in the way his government supported Miss Clark’s bid for a top job in the United Nations. I think it’s fair to assume this was done not with a cynical motive – in other words, to get her out of the way – but because Mr Key genuinely believed she had the skills for the post and the appointment would bring credit on New Zealand.

Since then it’s been announced that the National government has appointed former Labour Cabinet Minister Paul Swain as its lead negotiator in talks with the Ngati Porou iwi over Treaty of Waitangi claims.

So far I think as many Labour people have had appointments as National!

This is the antithesis of the rampant cronyism pursued by Labour, under which party loyalists such as former party president Mike Williams and ex-CTU head Ross Wilson were appointed to powerful public positions for which they were not necessarily well-qualified, and in which they could be relied on to carry out the government’s wishes.

Williams does have a business background and would have been arguably suitable on a board or maybe two. But they got greedy and went overboard by appointing him to six, so he could be a state funded Party President.

Wilson to be fair does have a strong ACC background. The most discredited appointment has to be Di Yates to a trans-tasman food authority and they included in her thin credentials for the job that she came from the Waikato where a lot of food is produced!

On that criteria, I should be made Ambassador to Sweden because I live on a road with half a dozen embassies close by.

If any country can pull together to avert the sort of economic catastrophe now engulfing the US and Britain, it should be New Zealand. We are a small, intimate country; everyone knows everyone else and we all speak a common language. Ultimately, the values and concerns that unite us are far greater than those that divide us.

One of the interesting features of Parliament is that, away from the public battleground of the debating chamber, where politicians are inevitably tempted to grandstand, MPs build warm and positive relationships that often cross party lines. You see this when they socialise together.

That sort of rapport could be invaluable right now, when the country urgently needs a sense of common purpose. With his ability to take much of the heat out of politics, Mr Key may be the man to make it happen.

Leadership can help and make a contribution. NZ does remain in a more positive mood than other countries. But sadly I don’t think it will be enough when the US and European economies really crash.

The Herald has an interesting Q&A with Tim Groser on climate change. Some extracts:

With the Kyoto Protocol due to expire in 2012, what are the biggest obstacles to developing a new treaty?

The number one issue is participation. Countries that have obligations under Kyoto account for less than 30 per cent of global emissions and that number is falling. It does not include developing countries or the United States.

It seems likely the United States will join the next agreement when negotiations begin in Copenhagen in December. Does that leave developing countries as the biggest challenge?

I don’t think you can separate the issue of the United States joining from developing countries joining. Everyone expects developing countries will do less than developed countries, but they must do something or we are wasting our time.

Kyoto is very flawed. By 2050 it would reduce average global temperatures by only 0.07 of one degree. The sucessor must include all major emitters.

Couldn’t other countries argue it is just as difficult for them to reduce emissions as it is for us to cut agriculture emissions, for example countries that rely on electricity from coal?

Agriculture is in a special category. There are solutions to the generation of electricity from coal but there are no ways to reduce enteric methane. There are a series of interesting ideas in a lab, but nothing that is commercially available.

Which is why we should be careful not to start taxing farmers for the emissions, when there is little they can do about them except shoot every tenth cow.

Should agriculture emissions be completely exempt?

No. New Zealanders want to do their fair share. We argue that all countries must look at what practical potential they have to reduce greenhouse gases.

Any other big issues for New Zealand?

Forestry. The rules negotiated at Kyoto assume all carbon from trees is released as soon as you cut the trees down and that is not necessarily true. Kyoto also penalises people who want to cut down forests and plant them in a different place.

New Zealand wants to transfer more of its forestry to marginal hill country and under the current rules that will cost a lot of money.

Yes the rules should allow you to offset forests without penalty. This allows land to be used for the purpose it is most fit for.

We are still awaiting the results of the inquiry into why Shane Jones gave out NZ citizenship to an alleged criminal from China. And now the Herald reports another strange decision from Jones:

Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman is seeking advice from officials after it was revealed that an immigrant jailed for killing his daughter had been given a work permit rather than a deportation order.

Garth Duwayne Abbott was found guilty of the manslaughter of his 9-year-old daughter, Britney, in 2007.

The girl died after Abbott drove his four-wheel-drive off a 150m slope at Mt Wellington in August 2005. His other daughter, Shirvaun, 4, was injured but survived. He was sentenced to four and a half years in prison. …

An Immigration NZ spokeswoman confirmed Abbott was granted a work permit by former associate Immigration Minister Shane Jones.

Dr Coleman said it was fair to ask why Abbott had been granted a work permit, when normal practice dictated an immigrant released from jail would be deported.

He killed his daughter, and we gave him a work permit?

Also note that because Labour changed the law in the early 2000s he served only 19 months of a 54 month sentence – just one third.

NZPA reports:

Aoraki Polytechnic, Eastern Institute of Technology, Otago Polytechnic, the Open Polytechnic and Wellington Institute of Technology also announced yesterday they would offer free or low-cost training to those affected.

It will not be compulsory to take up training. …

He [John Key] welcomed the polytechs’ offer of free or cheap training, saying making it compulsory would have been too difficult, but he encouraged employees to lift their skills.

Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (ITPs) New Zealand executive director Dave Guerin said the institutions were happy to be able to sweeten the deal for employers and employees considering the nine-day fortnight.

Mr Guerin asked ITP NZ members for proposals on March 12 and had five responses within 24 hours. More ITPs were expected to join in.

“ITPs will offer courses within existing funding, using programmes that have already been developed and approved,” he said.

I agree that making it compulory would have been a bureaucratic nightmare. Instead we have the polytechnics making it easy. A good initiative.

This is a graph of net permanent and long term migration of NZ citizens on a 12 month rolling average.

It’s probably all a coincidence, but did something happen in November 2008?

Good to see John Key confirm that National will implement their election policy of allowing workers and employers to decide to cash in the 4th week of annual leave, if they both agree.

What this means is the default is 4 weeks leaves. So you may be on $50,000 and have four weeks leave. You could ask your employer to pay you an extra 2% or $1,000 and drop down to three weeks leave.

Many people will want to keep a fourth week of leave (and will) but equally many would like the option of earning some extra money. This is why choice is a good thing.

And please don’t even try pushing the “Some employers will pressure employees and the poor employees will have no choice” line. Apart from the unlikely motivation of an employer wanting to increase its costs by 2%, you can argue against all and any choice on the grounds that someone may possibly try to pressure someone illegally. Using that logic the state should set all pay rates, as some employers may pressure employees to take a pay cut.

I am not sure that ratepayers in North Shore will be happy that Mayor Andrew Williams spent $1,343 of ratepayer money on 72 bottles of a “Stop Banks” wine label. That is an expensive joke.

It is also highly inappropriate for the ratepayers of North Shore to be funding what is basically a political campaign by Williams against Banks. Kudos to Whale Oil who broke this story. Whale has filed further OIA requests which may prove interesting. The Council said it would cost $480 to respond to his OIAs, but readers have already donated that amount. The power of the masses.