Tags:
General Debate
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, May 13th, 2009 at 8:53 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Has anyone seen copies online or floating around of the Auckland Bill – to be passed under urgency today?
May 13th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Does Shell think petrol isn’t profitable any more or what??
May 13th, 2009 at 9:18 am
stephen, whats your point? I no understand.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Is that a reference to subatomic physics or to Hawkwind?
May 13th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Oh, it’s Hawkwind.
Gareth, it’s way cooler to make subtle references to obscure shit and NOT tell everyone you’ve done it. MAKE SEXY TIME.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:23 am
shit wrong link!!
How bout that: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/2405932/Shells-sell-up-all-or-nothing
Ryan: that guy goes over my head a lot.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Oh, I assumed you were the author, tricking everyone into reading your critique of Wishart by putting a fake link into a post about something else.
Gosh, I’m cynical.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Has anyone read Brian Rudman’s column in today’s Herald – it’s a feckin’ shocker!
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/05/rudmans-folly.html
May 13th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Geez-louise Ryan! I think a much better line in that case would’ve been ‘Roger Douglas-led military coup successful’.
I must find a better way of creating links than just replacing old ones from my inbox with a copy-paste.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Brian Rudman in his column this morning once again demonstrates why the left should be consigned to the back benches for a long time.With an overall majority of NZ’s supporting the three strikes law and the banning of gang patches,he argues against,using the same tired left wing rhetoric(its unenforcable,its against human rights etc)while offering no real solutions but that of essentially maintaining the status quo.I would like to remind Brian that most of the unlicensed firearms are in the hands of the criminal fraternity and any crackdown is unlikely to remove these weapons.But then i should no better, the left is more concerned with the rights of the perpetrator than that of the victim.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Hmmm
I saw this on tv3′s website.
“Melissa Lee is both a National Party list MP and the National Party’s candidate in the upcoming Mt Albert by-election.
She also owns the television production company that makes Asia Downunder for TVNZ. Asia Downunder is funded by New Zealand On Air – taxpayer money. A Campbell Live investigation has discovered some of that money was spent on an election special prominently featuring fellow National Party MP Pansy Wong. Asia Downunder staff told Campbell Live that even after Ms Lee began campaigning for Parliament, she took inappropriate editorial control of programme content despite staff protests. There is also evidence that Ms Lee’s publicly-funded company produced a National Party campaign ad.
Ms Lee used to present and produce Asia Downunder, and still is a majority shareholder.”
There is a stench of a government only 6 months old that is already on its knees.
[DPF: Yes big scandal that the Labour Government funded Melissa Lee's company - as they have done for the last nine years. And how dare a show called Asia down under feature shock horror an Asian MP]
May 13th, 2009 at 9:49 am
heh nothing like the owner of a company taking “inappropriate editorial control”
ya crack me up micky “There is a stench of a government only 6 months old that is already on its knees.” thats some funny shit.
i would love to see what you would come up with if this govt acted like the last one. would be funny as shit.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Good comment sbk – I took issue with Rudman’s “guns kill people” line of thinking. Guns may be the tool by which Jhia Te Tua and Len Snee died, but they are not the reason.
But Rudman’s leftist bias was there for all to see today with this gem:
“This patch-snatching legislation is one of those symbolic nonsenses that the punitive Right so love.”
May 13th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Dime – are you saying that because Labour did things like this then it is ok for National? And that since it is a member of the blue team, rather than the red then you will laugh it away.
If one of your reasons for disliking Labour so much is because of the way they acted over the last 9 years, then how can you condone this type of thing by Lee?
May 13th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Today is funeral of Len Snee.
Once the grieving is over, it will be time to figure out why these policemen were raiding this house in the absence of the owner – with only a few cannabis plants to show for their troubles.
I feel for the police that were exposed in this way.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Haha. No, it’s… Anti-Christian leftists propose unborn babies be fed to gay beneficiaries to offset climate change.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:07 am
NOt1tocommentoften – nah it was just the line that i quoted that made me laugh.
i say investigate it and if she did something wrong, sack her.
after hearing her on the radio last week, im really not a fan at all. came across arrogant. something i usually associate with Labour.
id love to see NZ on Air wiped out. the whole organisation is dodgy. (my buddy couldnt get money for a music video as his band was seen as “uncommerical”. the video they produced was shown on tv every week for 6 months and the album went gold. obviously he wasnt a rapper from south auckland)
May 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am
The Auckland Bills are now around but won’t be tabled until urgency taken.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:01 am
TM:
Thanks. A pity – particularly as my view is that – based on their description so far – the one to be passed under urgency is probably unnecessary.
Any preliminary transitional work and constaints on present council decision-making could be achieved without legislation – particularly legislation which makes the new council a fait accompli!
The transitional body could be set up under prerogative powers under the Letters Patent, with the product of their work being adopted and ratified by one or other of the Bills going to Select Committee.
There’s no need to legislate other councils to constrain major decision-making that might affect the new council: you just tell them not to. If they move to do so anyway: (a) any move will take time as it will be significant and on notice to the community; (b) there will be time to respond, either informally or by legisation.
[DPF: You think setting up the body by letters patent is preferable to legislation??? I never knew you were a fan of monarchist powers
]
May 13th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Nice bullet to the foot mickey.
Hey hows that laundering tax payers money through the unions working out for you?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:09 am
I should add, the Royal Commission was equivocal about whether some preliminary legislation of this type was needed or not.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:16 am
God Save the Queen Dave.
And thumbs up to Sir Colin too.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:26 am
DPF:
Monarchist powers? Powers of that state, of the govt, that are by convention exercised on advice by the Mins. That’s how we create depts, commissions, and the like…
The main point is though, Preliminary work can be done by the transitional body, without legislation. That work would then receive it’s endorsement, or not, by a Bill that is subject to public consultation.
It’s like getting work done by a dept, in anticipation of a Bill. Utterly orthodox.
But putting up a Bill to “create”, under urgency, a new entity – when the details of that entity is entirely at large is not. It give the irresistable impression that the consultation that will follow will be perfunctory…
May 13th, 2009 at 11:29 am
“The transitional body could be set up under prerogative powers under the Letters Patent”
This is surely a joke Dean. While Legislating under urgency might rankle with law Professors it is at least legislation, Parliament expresses its view.
“There’s no need to legislate other councils to constrain major decision-making that might affect the new council”
This is also very funny. $100k already in Waitakere City to “inform Waitakere citizens about the changes” I can see helpful little public information campaigns breaking out all over the Auckland Region, none of which are significant under the LGA.
Already some the LTCCP’s contain unaffordable projects – the temptation is to contract on the way out the door.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Melissa Lee is fine if she declared her candidacy before NZ on Air granted the $1.2 million, wasn’t involved in any of the producing or editing of the election special, and there was full reporting under the EFA of the investment her company made in the video to attract Asian voters to National both as a donation and a national party expense. I’ve made a slightly more extensive comment on Red Alert. http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/05/13/what-did-melissa-tell-john-key/
But isn’t the important issue the fact that John Key approved of what she did.
[DPF: The funder is NZ on Air. The onus is on them to make sure any conflicts are managed once Melissa was a known candidate. And Trevor if you read the EFA you would know a programme selected by a broadcaster is automatically exempt from the EFA. If you are saying NZ on Air did not do its job and make sure that any programme they were funding was non conflicted, then I would have questions for the then Minister]
May 13th, 2009 at 11:37 am
CD:
Um, er, it’s a timing issue. Setting up the body today sets it in stone, *before* the public has it’s say. Allowing preliminary transitional work does not. It allows the thing to move on, but recognises that ultimately the (new) proposal in the round need to be subject to consulation…
Maybe – but the Royal Commission concern was solely things like the divestement of major assets and other major commitments on the eve of abolition. Important to address this, but legislation isn’t needed.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Timing yes. But the principle decision regarding a unitary authority for Auckland will be tested in Parliament over the next couple of days. Obviously in the highly unlikely event that the AGTA Bill does not pass this hurdle – it would be unwise for the Government to proceed further.
The staff of Auckland local government also need some certainity and will need leadership so they can contribute to what needs to be done for the new body. That work needs to literally start now.
I would hve thought that the need for leglisation to commence the transition was obvious. It also reduced litigation risks – the urge to reach for lawyers at ratepayer expense is not unknown in local government.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
You expect politicians to READ bills now David???? Good lord whatever next, accountability?
May 13th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
My question is whether the legislation setting up the transition body gives them sufficient powers to deal with all the things we might want of a transition body. In particular, much has been made of the ability of Aucklanders to decide for themselves whether they want, for example, council seats reserved for those on the Māori electoral roll, or an STV local electoral system.
There are processes in the local electoral act which allow people (5% of those eligible to vote at the previous local election) to petition their council to require it to hold a referendum on the issue, and it has been argued that the government doesn’t have to take steps on these issues because they are within the power of Aucklanders to decide for themselves already.
Unfortunately there isn’t a current mechanism for people to do this at present – 5% of Auckland City residents could start a petition to the Auckland City Council, or Manukau residents could start a petition to the Manukau City Council (etc.) to require them to hold a referendum, but this would be pointless, as these bodies won’t exist.
If it is considered that the processes of calling for a referendum that are in current local government legislation are sufficient to meet any public desire for such changes to the electoral arrangements, then there is no reason that Aucklanders should be unable to pursue them in the interim. The current laws won’t allow this (who counts as 5% of those eleigible to vote in the last super-city election?) and the interim legislation should allow it. Will it?
p.s. this, Dean, is one reason to do this by legislation…
[DPF: I would hope that one of the non-urgent pieces of legislation will allow for a referendum on Maori seats to be held at the same time as the Council elections]
May 13th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
[DPF: The funder is NZ on Air. The onus is on them to make sure any conflicts are managed once Melissa was a known candidate. And Trevor if you read the EFA you would know a programme selected by a broadcaster is automatically exempt from the EFA. If you are saying NZ on Air did not do its job and make sure that any programme they were funding was non conflicted, then I would have questions for the then Minister]
No David the obligation is on the applicant for funding to notify a change in circumstances and becoming a political party candidate is certainly a change in circumstances. Matter of both contract and ethics.
The video was not made for broadcast by Asia Downunder or TVNZ it was an advertisement made for the national party circulated by dvd and youtube. It is certainly caught by both the donation and election expense sides of the EFA.
[DPF: So the video is a red herring to the NZ on Air issue. It was produced by her private company and funded by her. Nothing to do with NZ on Air or TVNZ. Whether or not it is an election ad depends on its content - certainly if it advocates a vote for National, then the party's financial agent should have authorised it and incuded it if aware of it. But if it does not advocate voting for National and is less than $12K then it is a third party ad.
I suspect NZ on Air were very aware of her change of circumstances unless they only employ blind deaf mutes. TVNZ certainly were and instituted changes it seems.
I'm still not sure what Melissa has done wrong, as oppossed to others. Are you saying she should have sent an e-mail to NZ on Air saying "By the way in case you did not notice the numerous TV stories and newspaper reports, I am now a political candidate?"]
May 13th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Mr Mallard, Melissa Lee has said that she was asked by TVNZ to stand down from her role as presenter and producer when she announced she was a candidate. It would be a simple enough thing to check. Instead of making allegations, have you asked the Minister or filed an OIA request to see if this happened?
Then you can’t have it both ways Mr Mallard. If the video was made by Melissa Lee’s private company, and it was not for TVNZ, then it was not funded by NZ On Air or the taxpayer.
If Melissa Lee made the film using her private company resources, then it is only captured by the EFA if it exceeds the $10,000 threshhold.
Since you seem to be really on to this, will you be championing the disclosure of funding, resourcing, and expensing of all political videos made for youtube? As I recall, there were a lot of pro-Labour youtube advertisements being made around the election. Were they all appropriately expensed? Is there any chance that some of the people who made those videos in their free time might have been also employed by Labour?
May 13th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Does anyone have a massive aftertase of irony that a labour party mp is arguing that advertising HAS been caught by the EFA?
May 13th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Sorry Tim there are a number of separate issues. One the funding by NZ on Air of a company owned by a candidate and whether she declared to the board that she was a candidate. Two the involvement of Ms Lee in the production of an election special. Three the donation of her company resources to the making of a video and whether that was properly declared. And four whether the expense in the ad was properly declared by the national party and/or Pansy Wong. Actually all pretty simple factual issues and easily cleared up if she did no wrong and fronted. The fact that she ran away from an interview yesterday certainly left a terrible impression of a candidate with something to hide.
May 13th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Those are relevant issues, Mr Mallard, but they’re not major ones.
1. On the first issue I don’t think it’s significant whether she declared it to NZ On Air. It might be an issue in the beltway, to use a phrase of your former leader, but the real issue of conflict of interest is whether she declared it to TVNZ, which she did, which then required her to hire an independent producer, which she did.
2. Again, an interesting point, but the only evidence you have is a former disgruntled employee who says she felt uncomfortable that Lee was in the room. There is no evidence that she was involved in the election special and not even the disgruntled employee was prepared to make that allegation. Nice try beating it up, though.
3 and 4: I don’t know how much it costs to make a youtube video. I suppose the answer is “not a lot”, because so many are made all the time. Youtube seems to be full of people making videos with pretty good equipment on their own time. I doubt many of them cost more than $10,000. Again, nice try.
I don’t know why Lee didn’t front up on Campbell Live. Maybe because she didn’t want to dignify a story beaten up by the Labour Party in which Campbell Live had ambushed her. I seem to remember John Campbell doing the same with Helen Clark a few years ago. Helen Clark responded by calling John Campbell “a creep” and then refused to deal with him for some time. Lee, to her credit, hasn’t been quite so ungracious.
While we’re on the subject of leaving terrible impressions, it does seem to me all this effort you’re putting into beating up a non-story, Mr Mallard, shows that you are leaving the terrible impression that Labour is very, very scared of the inroads that Lee is making into winning Mount Albert.
May 13th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
TE
Using the states’ resources supplied for a non political purpose to make films to be used for campaigning for one political party is a non story?
WTF?
May 13th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Mickysavage, they’re not the state’s resources. They are resources owned by Lee’s private company. Lee owns the company and takes the risk of producing programmes. She either makes a profit or a loss by running that company. That structure removes the risk associated with making the programme from the broadcaster.
I don’t know what kind of work you do micky, but let’s say a cleaner is contracted to your company to clean your offices, using his own vacuum cleaner. You then see him cleaning an office building next door, using the same vacuum cleaner. Do you think he’s using your vacuum cleaner, or his?
May 13th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Trevor, Maori TV and Te Karere has been very sympathetic to the Maori Party over the past few years. They have received a lot more taxpayer funding than what Melissa Lee’s company has ever received from the taxpayer.
May 13th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
WHOOP WHOOP PC viloation pull up! pull up!
May 13th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Allow? Or require? It’s been argued that the petition process is enough … if so, then give people the time to actually get the 100,000 or so signatures.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
The biggest joke of the day is the bully going on about ethics.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Let’s be honest. The ideal way to have manage the transition is to have a straw proposal, where all these things have been subject to public comment and participation. The concept has been deliberated on, the details of the powers have been addressed, the likely wards etc. Then that proposal goes forward for legislative approval. But we’re doing this ar*e-about-face because of some pressing need to get it done and dusted by October 2010 (why exactly, when we can maintain momentum but still give ourselves more time, delaying the election if necessary). Daft, if you ask me. The fragmentation of the legislative process suggests it’s a done deal – there will be no *real* debate in Parliament to approval the whole package.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
What maintaining momentum by delaying local Government elections in Auckland. Heavens what a mess that would be.
To be honest I cannot see what the procedural beef actually is.
All the advice is that to achieve the change by October 2010, things have to be done quick smart. The Royal Commission suggested a four year transition totally too long. Imagine the fun and games at the TLA’s with that.
The high level concept and the AGTA go through under urgency to start the transition underway. The Parliamentary support for the concept is going to be tested.
The Government has responded to the concern about electoral arrangements by sending these to a special purpose select committee to report back by Sept. Again this gives the local Government commission time to do the boundaries etc following passage of the legislation. Note that the element of the electoral arrangements that is causing most concern are the at large elections – recommended by the Royal Commission and strongly supported by Departmental advice. Aucklanders will get a direct say on this.
The final Bill that will recquire some significant drafting, deals with the nitty gritty stuff. It can also be used to round up outstanding legal issues as some will certainly crop up as the process is moving along.
While Dean might think this is novel – it makes sense and is preferable to using the letters patent and delaying elections. What a mess – and what direction for the poor staff who have got to get on to make all of this work in Auckland.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Have MAF run out of money?
I just downloaded a tender document for a MAF Policy project on Green House Gas Emissions. At the end of the document was the message:
“NOTE: Respondents are required to submit ONE ORIGINAL and ONE ELECTRONIC COPY ON DISC or USB DRIVE of the completed Request for Proposal Form to MAF by the due date, no email submissions will be accepted.”
Does this mean that
a. – MAFs consultant doesn’t have email
b. – MAF have run out of money and can’t buy their own USB drives
c. – somebody is reading MAF’s email
I also find it ironic that a proposal on Greenhouse Gas Emissions can not be submitted by the lowest emitting option but has to have some trees cut down!
May 13th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Haha that is pretty ironic. Could be that some submissions are very large, could include all sorts of graphs and junk which after a few thousand or so would quickly clutter up their inbox/not make it there at all..?
May 13th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
CD:
Nah – I just think the Auckland community ought to be able to consider and have input on the major constitutional change which is happening in their neighbourbood. They haven’t. The thoroughly researched and deliberated on proposal from teh RC was rejected. And we don’t yet know what the straw proposal to replace it is – the devil, with these things, is in the details. The allocation of power between uber-Council and community boards is fundamental, yet won’t be known until next year. I’m all for pushing ahead, but it seems daft to committ to something when the heart of it is unknown. The RC was open to pushing ahead, but, then, that was on the basis of the implementation of a known and justified proposal.
d
May 13th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
“The thoroughly researched and deliberated on proposal from teh RC was rejected”
That’s just pure political spin Dean.
The key recommendation of a unitary authority the govt has adopted.
Sure not all of the ideas of the RC have been carried forward for some on say the social policy board were frankly nutty despite what some of those who supplied commissioned research might say.
They were after all a recommendatory body only.
Interestingly, the research the RC got on community boards recommended enhanced boards.
Their analysis on boards and the Local Elections Act 2001 was utterly woeful.
I appeared as the secretary of a local government party, they never once asked about the functioning of the LEA – nor can I find much evidence on this from submissions.
When asked about the cost of running in at large elections they responded that they hadn’t thought about it.
Interestingly, Labour has rejected the electoral recommendation of the RC for At large members. So its clear that Parliament was always going to pick and choose from the recommendations.
Key details regarding electoral arrangements, powers of local boards and numbers of boards are open for submission Aucklanders can have a direct say.
Thankfully we have the opportunity to have a direct say on the elements of the reform that frankly the RC got wrong.
Whatever issues one might have with some of the minor details of the RC findings, their major finding (a unitary authority) is going to happen. For that alone all Aucklanders are greatly in their debt.
May 13th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Hey,
Did anybody see Lisa Cropp’s hop on charged as per the Waikato Times yesterday?