Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Former National Party leader Don Brash has welcomed a high-level review of the police investigation into how his private emails ended up in a book. …

Commissioner Broad said continued questioning of the police role could undermine public trust and confidence in the force.

He ordered a full review of the case, including the recent release of the highly edited file, to be conducted by Assistant Commissioner Steve Shortland of Auckland, with an independent adviser working alongside him. …

Dr Brash said he was happy with the steps being taken.

“I am very pleased at the police commissioner’s reaction,” he said.

“One of my major concerns was that the way the investigation was initially conducted suggested either incompetence or political bias and I think that’s dangerous for the police and not good for the country.”

Dr Brash said the senior appointment backed by the independent adviser to review the case went a “very long way towards satisfying my concerns”.

He was prepared to stop pressing for a commission – for now. He said the independent observer needed to be politically neutral and independent.

It will be interesting to see who is appointed.

iPredict has some new stocks – the main one being who will be the first Mayor of the new Auckland Super City. The current market prices are:

1. John Banks 73%
2. Paul Holmes 7%
3. Len Brown 7%
4. Mike Moore 5%
5. Bob Harvey 4%
6. Mike Lee 4%
7. Blair Strang 4%
8. Andrew Williams 2%

Yes Andrew Williams chances are rated as half of those of the guy who played Rangi on Shortland Street!

A reminder that Powershop has one more draw for $1,000 of free electricity, if you become a Powershop Pioneer by the 31st of May.

All you have to do is:

provide feedback on the service to improve it. Powershop want’s after meaningful feedback (good or bad) and values the opinion of users of New Zealand’s most innovative online communities.

When you become a Powershop Pioneer each Comment you make on the Scoop Powershop Pioneer’s blog will earn you an additional chance to win Free Powershop power for winter ($1000 credit to your Powershop account to buy Powershop electricity products).

I’m an online geek, but I just love being able to log in to my power account every week or so, check how much power I have left, and decide how much more to buy at what price.

And the absence of fixed line charges has seriously reduced my bill as I am a low poer user.

Last week Tim Groser gave a very good speech on trade to the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington DC. Worth reading the whole thing, but some extracts:

Clearly there has been erosion in the confidence of the American people in trade policy. It is more serious than it has been for some years but at base, it is not a new phenomenon. People tend to forget that the NAFTA squeezed through the US Congress by a narrow margin back in 1993.  President Clinton, during his first term, tried and failed to get what was then ‘Fast Track’ negotiating authority.

Let us see if we can agree on a more general point. Around the world, not just in Washington, trade is a hard sell politically. Like many trade negotiators I have been dodging protestors – frequently violent protestors – everywhere from New Delhi, Sao Paulo, Brussels, Geneva and let’s not forget the Battle in Seattle.

Unlike NZ, where there is a fairly strong pro-trade consensus, trade liberalisation is very unpopular in many places.

What is the problem here? Have we trade negotiators brought nothing but misery to the world? No, quite the contrary. There is overwhelming evidence that steady, incremental trade liberalisation, widening from its initial narrow focus on industrial tariffs, has underwritten a huge growth in trade, which has in turn been central to higher productivity, higher growth and the spread of technology to improve peoples’ lives.

Developing countries that have picked up on the message and developed strategies of export led growth have transformed their economies. We don’t need to imagine what Korea would be like today if South Korea had not embraced a market-led, export-led strategy. We don’t need to imagine it because we only need to look to their North to see it. I am sure you have all seen those satellite photos that, taken at night, show a dark patch on the Asian continent as the satellite moves across the DMZ from South to a North Korea, substantially without electricity, food or anything much of use to their people’s daily lives.

The same with West and East Germany.

Nor is this expansion of the trading system without highly favourable political and strategic consequences. This is far broader than merely commercial matters. There is an equation between open economic and open political markets. That is an equation that certain leaders in this great town – justifiably called the world’s capital – have always understood over the past 50 years. …

As the US works through the issues, I hope those responsible will not make light of this broader strategic point. That equation between open economic and open political markets has not gone away. If the trade issue is seen simply as some type of mercantilist score card, with pro-trade lobbies on one side and anti-trade lobbies on the other, you will not get the right result.

Free trade leads to freer countries. China still has a massively long way to go, but is far less repressive than decades ago.

Now I do not want to insult any merchants in the audience, but it is worth recalling that the intellectual father of the market economy famously said: “When two or more merchants are gathered in the same room, it is usually for the purpose of deceiving the public”.

The market economy must have appropriate regulatory frameworks around it to meet Adam Smith’s point and to be sustainable politically. The market economy has not failed by any rational historical measure – it has been an astonishing success compared with command or feudal economies. It has created vast wealth, a massive increase in life expectancy everywhere, mass literacy, a huge decline in hunger, malnutrition and disease, the spread of economic freedom and ultimately has underpinned the recent remorseless growth towards improved human rights and diverse forms of democratic government.

But completely unregulated capitalism does not make any sense, politically or economically. The problem with the current financial implosion is clearly that the regulatory frameworks had not kept up to the speed of financial innovation. In my view, it is not a failure of the market economy we are witnessing – it is a serious failure of the regulatory frameworks around the market economy.

What an excellent way to put it.

Robert Zoellick, now President of the World Bank and of course a former USTR of great distinction, pointed out recently that the World Bank has shown that 17 of the G20 countries that made a public promise to resist protectionism have implemented trade-restricting measures. Lowering the bar on legal protectionism is no small achievement.

Bastards.

I give you another example. Within the last few months New Zealand and Australia signed a deal with the ten countries of ASEAN whose quality likewise surprised onlookers. Again, within about a decade, we will have one large and fully integrated free trade zone involving the economies of Australia, NZ, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand and all the other countries of South East Asia. The rest of the world may be having a long reflective conversation with itself on trade, but the countries at the core of the Asia Pacific region are not. We are doing business.

And long may it continue.

NZ on Air have stated:

A report conducted by NZ On Air into funding of Asia Downunder has found that the agency was not misled, and that there is no evidence public funding was misused.

Not misled and no evidence of misuse.

NZ On Air is satisfied that Ms Lee did not have editorial control for Asia Downunder programmes dealing with political matters, and that the systems put in place were robust, managed well by TVNZ  and Ms Jean, and willingly complied with by Ms Lee.

NZ On Air was not misled at any stage about Ms Lee’s intentions to stand for Parliament.

NZ On Air is satisfied that public funds intended for production of Asia Downunder were not misused.

They have also published their full report into the allegations. In the report they note TV3 did not contact NZ on Air before broadcasting the allegations.

They also note there a specific reference to the candidacy in the 26 August funding application.

So who should be apologing to Melissa Lee for their smears against her? Let us start with Phil Goff and his press release:

Does Melissa Lee’s use of taxpayer money to make the National Party video, including payment for the cost of staff and equipment, constitute a misuse of public funds?

Now note Goff stated as a fact that Lee used taxpayer money to make the video. That was wrong and he should apologise.

But worse is what Trevor Mallard said in Parliament:

Hon Phil Goff: Has the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Broadcasting to examine whether there have been any conflicts of interest or misuse of NZ On Air money to produce party political advertisements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That would have been a matter for the previous Prime Minister to address, because the events being referred to, which were outside the House, occurred under the Labour Minister of Broadcasting.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: All around the House there will be order. A point of order is being taken.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I do take personal exception to that. If someone stole money on my watch—

Mallard is clearly implying that Lee stole money. He din’t quite state it explicitly but everyone knows what he meant.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I just want to make it clear that I regard as a personal reflection on me the suggestion that I should have stopped Melissa Lee using NZ On Air funding when she did not declare it.

NZ on Air have made it very clear her candidacy was declared and known.

and earlier:

Hon Trevor Mallard: As the former Minister of Broadcasting, I say that if that matter had been properly declared it would have been declared to me. Melissa Lee did not do so.

Yet NZ on Air say:

12. In late August 2008 NZ On Air received a funding application from AVL for production of the 2009 series in time for NZ On Air’s main ‘special interest’ funding round in October 2008. Funding applications for all special interest series planned for 2009 were required to be made to this round so NZ On Air could adequately assess competing proposals.

13. The application specifically stated that if Ms Lee entered Parliament she would stand down from producing the 2009 series if the funding application was successful, and that a permanent replacement producer for the show would be
appointed.

And:

AVL’s application for funding, received by NZ On Air on 26 August 2008, specifically stated that if Ms Lee entered Parliament she would stand down from producing the 2009 series, and that a permanent replacement producer for the show would be appointed.

If Goff and Mallard had just asked the Government if allegations were true, then that would be a different matter. But they both stated allegations as facts, and they got it wrong. Will either or both of them apologise?

Tags: Melissa Lee, NZ on Air, Phil Goff, Trevor Mallard

Just received this PR:

DON BRASH
Media Statement

Thursday 21 May 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BRASH REQUESTS COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO POLICE EMAIL INVESTIGATION

Former Opposition Leader and Reserve Bank Governor Don Brash has today written to Prime Minister John Key and Police Minister Judith Collins formally requesting a Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the New Zealand Police in relation to their investigation into the theft of his emails and other correspondence, and their subsequent behaviour.

Dr Brash has proposed to the Prime Minister and Minister that the Commission inquire into and report upon the integrity of the police investigation into the theft, and their behaviour since publicly announcing the investigation was closed; and satisfy itself that the police acted at all times professionally and without political bias or interference.  It could not and should not seek to reopen or reactivate the investigation into the theft itself as that could be seen to cut across the role of the police or the role of the courts in determining criminal or civil liability.

“This is not about Don Brash.  There are important issues relating to every New Zealander’s privacy and the integrity of our political system that deserve resolution,” Dr Brash said.

“Everybody has a right to expect their correspondence will not be illegally intercepted or read by people it is not intended for.  That includes private individuals but it also includes political parties, business groups, trade unions and NGOs, all of whom need a degree of privacy in planning and discussing their ideas and strategies.

“In a democracy, everyone therefore has an interest in being assured that the police take such issues seriously.”

Dr Brash said that appeared not to have been the case with his correspondence.

“The heavily-censored information that was released to me and some media last week has added significant weight to my concern, held since I was briefed by police in mid 2007, that the investigation into this matter lacked any sense of urgency or diligence.

“Senior journalists who have reviewed what information has been made available have gone further, with the political editor of state-broadcaster TVNZ reaching the conclusion that it is suggestive of a ‘whitewash’ and ‘cover-up’ and the political columnist at the New Zealand Herald describing it as ‘a farce’.

“Others have contrasted the lack of urgency and diligence in this case with the heavy-handed approach to, for example, the Campbell Live case, where police obtained a search warrant for TV3′s premises following a re-enactment of an interview with a medal thief by broadcaster John Campbell.

“A contrast has also been made with how the police and indeed the intelligence services would respond – and should respond – to a breach of security involving the correspondence of the Prime Minister and how they responded to a case involving the Leader of the Opposition.  That contrast is not healthy in a democracy.”

Dr Brash said the police’s conduct since closing the investigation – or declaring it ‘inactive’ – was also of concern.

“The police’s behaviour has been highly unusual.  For example, despite promises in April 2008 that I would shortly receive the final report on the investigation, which I was then told was in draft form, I have only now – a year later – received heavily-censored information that is entirely without substance and which is dated January 2008.  I have also been told by friends and media who have sought information on the inquiry that the police have behaved with an extraordinary determination to keep all details of the investigation out of the public domain.

“I do not know why the police have behaved this way but it raises unhelpful suspicions about incompetence, lack of professionalism, political bias or a combination of all three.”

Any suggestion of political bias had to be addressed seriously, Dr Brash said.

“When she took office, Police Minister Judith Collins told the New Zealand Herald that she wanted to ‘make sure that [politicisation of the police] is only a perception’ and that she wanted to ‘get rid of that perception … because it’s not good for the police or for the country’,” Dr Brash said.  “I agree with her, which is why I have suggested that the inquiry be required to satisfy itself that no such politicisation affected the handling of my case and the subsequent unusual behaviour.”

Dr Brash said he believed the inquiry should be led by someone with an impeccable reputation for political evenhandedness so that it would not, itself, be seen as a form of politicisation.

Commissions of Inquiry are relatively common in New Zealand and can be established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908.  That Act enables them to inquire into any matter of major public importance or concern to the government-of-the-day.  A Minister may propose an inquiry to Cabinet after consulting with the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General.  A Commission of Inquiry into police conduct was established in 2004 to carry out a full and independent investigation into the way in which New Zealand Police dealt with allegations of sexual assault by members of the police and associates of the police.  More recently, Police Minister Judith Collins considered launching an inquiry into allegations that police had been spying on peaceful protest groups.

END

By asking for the inquiry to be into how the Police conducted their inquiry, rather than into who stole the e-mails (which is a criminal matter), this allows it to be allowed within the guidelines in the Cabinet Manual.

I certainly hope the Government does agree to such a Commission of Inquiry. With a totally neutral and independent Commissioner (as Brash has said is needed), it will either expose problems within the NZ Police as to how they conducted this inquiry, or it will reassure the public that the Police did everything they could.

One part is worth repeating:

“Senior journalists who have reviewed what information has been made available have gone further, with the political editor of state-broadcaster TVNZ reaching the conclusion that it is suggestive of a ‘whitewash’ and ‘cover-up’ and the political columnist at the New Zealand Herald describing it as ‘a farce’.

And this is not the first time. The 2005 over-spending investigation (headed by the same officer) remains as an even worse investigation, where multiple errors of fact and law were committed – the worst being the failure to recognise the over spending was a strict liability offence – the law stated explicitly that over-spending must be prosecuted, even if unintentional (not that it was).

UPDATE:

Phil Goff has said John Key must take action:

Key must take action on Brash emails

Prime Minister John Key must put an end once and for all to years of speculation surrounding the source of the leaked Don Brash emails. …

“John Key opened the prospect of a Prime Ministerial investigation at this week’s post-Cabinet press conference. I ask him to make good on that,” Phil Goff said.

“There has been much rumour and innuendo, mostly from National Party sources, about who leaked the emails. John Key now has the opportunity to end this speculation.

“One of the quickest ways John Key can do this is to ask the police to release the unedited file of its investigation.

“Labour would welcome that. We have said from the outset that we had no knowledge of where the emails came from. We would like to know as much as anyone else who was responsible for the leaks. …

“Labour is calling for openness and transparency. John Key should ask the Police to release the information on this case in its entirety.”

I am not sure the exact action Goff is asking for can be done, and am not sure it would be adequate. I don’t think the PM can tell the Police how to intrepet the OIA.

But Goff has more generally said he supports some sort of inquiry. That means if National agrees to one, then presumably Labour won’t criticise its cost?

The UN has said it is deeply concerned over the introduction of tazers into New Zealand.

This almost certainly means it is a sensible thing to do.

Using the same logic I note that the New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists has criticised the Christine Rankin appointment. This almost certainly means it was in fact a good thing, if the psychotherapists are against it.

Going back to tasers, I wonder why the UN thinks it is better for Police to shoot criminals dead, rather than tazer them?

As treatment of animals is in the news.

The Herald reports:

Social service agencies can hardly believe their luck after a National Government yesterday gave them more money for the coming year than the former Labour Government had planned, despite intense pressure to cut spending in the recession.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said next week’s Budget would give them a $40 million increase, on top of a $3 million inflation adjustment – $20 million more than Labour had earmarked under its “Pathways to Partnership” programme.

She said the $20 million would be clawed back in 2011-12 to keep total five-year spending on the programme exactly the same as Labour had planned, just under $1.47 billion.

But this was far better than the agencies had expected at a time when other state spending is being cut and after Finance Minister Bill English refused to confirm Labour’s funding plan back in February.

“It’s more than we could have expected,” said Council of Social Services chief executive Ros Rice, who has been to four sector meetings with Ms Bennett in the past two months.

“It’s a fantastic package. When we were talking to her we were not talking about that level of funding.”

If you cut money from the bureaucracy, you then are able to spend more in other areas. Of course Labour has oppossed and complained about every saving made in the bureaucracy.

Over at the ffunnell site, you can ask questions about Telecom’s new XT Mobile Network. Just ask away, and you should get a response straight away.

ffunnell is something you may hear more of. It is the online media advertising network for some of the larger independent online publishers. They include:

• Scoop
• Geekzone
• Kiwiblog
• Public Address
• Throng
• Pundit
• Kimberley Crossman

There will be more details on this over time for interested advertisers. The network has an audience of 1.3 million unique browsers a month and 1 million page views a week.

If you are a wine fan, they Wine Searcher.

It is a specialist search engine, run by a Kiwi company, of 9,849 wine stores with over 3 million wines on offer.

I also use Black Market a lot for really good specials.

A photo from inside the new larger Blogmobile 2.0. It is almost ten metres long so I am looking forward to trying to parallel park it!

Less than a minute, and worth watching.

Meet Anthony Alfred Afu. His record:

1. at age 14, killed John Wahanui in 1994
2. assaulted a female in 2002
3. assaulted a female in 2006
4. knocked out two of his partner’s teeth and beat her 3-year-old son so badly he was hospitalised in Oct 2007
5. punched his five month pregnant partner in the stomach in Dec 2007. The baby was dead four days later

Two dead, and several women in hospital. He is eligible for parole in just four years.

1. Cactus Kate blogs on her pity for journalists and her dealings with Fairfax. She also has some insights into how women journalists are pushed into writing fluff rather than harder news and analysis
2. David Cohen quotes Popper to Jon Johansson re the Brash e-mails.
3. Steven Price blogs that John Campbell may be compelled to give evidence against his will.
4. Gordon Campbell writes on loan sharks and the Chauvel bill.
5. Paul Walker argues against eminent domain and points out private developers manage to negotiate land sucessfully without having coercive powers.
6. Dave at Big News quotes a radio report that Christine Rankin was not dancing with her future husband on election night, that in fact he was not there. Media have cited this as fact, so I hope someone has checked if it is true.
7. Guyon Espiner blogs five examples of National MPs not communicating with each other. His  blog should be read out at Caucus!
8. Client Heine blogs on how it has emerged that 13 year old Alfie in the Uk is not the father of the then 15 year old Chantelle’s baby – that in fact there are 11 potential fathers, one of whom has been confirmed as the father. I’m one of the least moralistic people around on sex, but really 11 different sexual partners by 15 is umm, well rather slappierish to put it mildly. And yes I would be equally appalled at a 15 year old boy who has had 11 sexual partners.

At the weekend I blogged agreement with Fran O’Sullivan that the Police inquiry into Don Brash’s stolen e-mails was a disgrace (and headed by the same officer who cleared Labour of ther $400,000 overspend in 2005 despite it being an offence of strict liability!).

However I disagreed with her that John Key and Judith Collins were somehow being unhelpful by not ordering an inquiry, pointing out the Police Act explicitly prevents the Minister of Police from giving directions over the investigation and prosecution of offences. You can be sure if that clause did not exist there would be new inquiries into Labour’s 2005 overspending!!

Whale Oil originally agreed with me, but now has done a backflip, saying that in a word first, he is wrong. He says:

In fact, Fran was right and I was wrong.

According to the Cabinet Manual and the Department of Internal Affairs’ very useful document “ Setting Up and Running Commissions of Inquiry“, any Minister, including the Police Minister, can set up a Commission of Inquiry. Commissions of Inquiry can inquire into any matter of major public importance or concern to the government of the day. Any Minister may propose an inquiry, but must consult the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General first, prior to submitting the proposal to Cabinet. Before giving its approval, Cabinet should seek advice form the relevant Minister’s office, the relevant department, DPMC and the Crown Law Office. …

PS. Over at Kiwiblog, Farrar made the same mistake. Will he admit he was wrong, and join WOBH’s call for an inquiry?

But I disagree with Whale. Neither the Police Minister nor the Prime Minister can set a Commission of Inquiry. The Cabinet as a while has to agree.  Fran said “It is within Key’s powers to direct an independent review of the police investigation” and it simply is not. The PM is not the Cabinet, and Cabinet have been known to over-turn PMs (except Muldoon). Lange for example often lost at Cabinet.

You can argue that Fran was right in saying [Police Minister Judith Collins] “has not asked for a review” but this implies her status as Police Minister allows her to do so. It does not. Sure she can ask the Cabinet for a commission of inquiry, but if you take it literally, and member of the public can ask for a review. The implication was that Collins had some special power to get a review. She does not.

Now people may say, why not a full Commission of Inquiry? Well 4.83 of the Cabinet Manual says:

While it is appropriate for inquiries to investigate instances of impropriety, they should not cut across the role of the police or the role of the courts in determining criminal or civil liability.

Now you could argue for a Ministerial inquiry – but they have no powers to compel witneses to tell the truth, so would be useless.

So I stand by my original post – neither Key nor Collins have the power to inquire into the Police investigation. I have little doubt both would love to know who stole the e-mails.

Nicky Hager has said that he got the information from six National party sources, all concerned about the party under Brash. I have always thought that beyond improbable. No one from National would choose to give e-mails to Hager, as oppossed to say the media. And while one can never rule out one disaffected staffer, the fantasy of six people all leaking to Hager is well a fantasy.

But here’s a challenge to Nicky. If he stands by his story, why doesn’t he agree to do a Deep Throat and pledge he will reveal how he got the e-mails in x years, or have the so called sources reveal it in their wills. Then one day the truth will be known.

Labour List MP Charles Chauvel has submitted to the ballot a private members bill – credit-reforms-responsible-lending-bill.

It does four things:

1. allow pawn brokers to charge administration fees, thereby removing any need for high interest rates
2. require lenders to seriously consider the actual means of a prospective borrower and their ability to service the debt
3. allow for the prescription of maximum annual percentage rates of interest payable in respect of consumer credit contracts
4. restrict the right for a creditor to recover from a debtor any amount beyond the value of the goods sold subject to a security agreement.

Taking each in turn

Pawn Broker Admin Fees

I’m not sure what the original rationale for pawn brokers not being able to charge an admin fee, but seems to me flexibility is a good thing.

Lenders to assess ability of borrowers to service debt

I should start off by saying that I am well aware there are many very scummy companies that exploit people with cashflow problems by taking advantage of their desperation to get them to agree to loans that with compounding interest are crippling.

But I am hesitant about putting the burden of assessment on the lender, rather than the person borrowing the money. The borrower does have some responsibility themselves to judge their own capacity to replay. And you could end up with a lot of uncertainity as to what steps lenders must take to assess repayment. I don’t see this as being practical or necessarily desirable – lenders do have an incentive already to check repayment ability – so they can get repaid.

Maximum rates of interest

The proposal is that the Reserve Bank Governor can set a maximum rate of interest for borrowing. This is well intentioned but may have unintentional side effects. Let’s say you can currently get unsecured borrowing from scummy lenders for between 35% and 75% interest. And let us say the Reserve Bank says that the maximum you can charge os 50%. Now yes that will stop money being lent at 75% interest, but may push the 35% rate up to 50%. A ceiling often becomes a target. And you may also get scummy lenderss claiming greater respectability as their interest rates are “approved by the Reserve Bank”.

Creditor Recovery

I’m not quite sure how this clause will work in practice, so will update when I have worked it out. As I understand itm, this is a more minor part of the law change.

I have doubts over the practicality and desirablity of parts of the bill, but neither do I think the current law is working particularly well – many families are getting exploited.

If the bill gets selected from the ballot, I think it should definitely be supported to select committee so they can consider the issues and proposed solutions. Any support beyond that would depend on what changes get made there.

Generally I support most private members bills going to at least select committee for hearings. My exceptions are those that are:

1. Obnoxious (EFA type laws) and so bad not possible to make into good law.
2. Directly contrary to the Government’s policy (designed just to score political points)

Tony Ryall announced yesterday $104 million over four years for additional maternity funding:

• Longer stays for new mothers in birthing facilities
• An optional meeting each trimester for at risk mothers, attended by the pregnant woman, their GP, and their lead maternity carer (usually a midwife)
• Obstetric training or refreshers for GPs wishing to return to maternity care
• Fully funding the Plunketline 24 hour telephone advice service

I think the second point may be the most important. The changes made in the late 1980s by then Health Minister Helen Clark have been a disaster for many parents. GPs have abandoned maternity services, and doctors and midwives have often been silos – not talking to each other.

And far far too many babies have died needlessly, because of a lack of competence amongst some (not all) midwives. A refusal to call in a specialist has proven fatal too often.

So the three monthly meetings between mother, GP and leader carer is a commendable initiative.

The Herald reports:

Next week’s Budget is one of the most important in over a quarter of a century, says Treasury Secretary John Whitehead.

Mr Whitehead, who has been directly or indirectly associated with Budgets stretching back to the last years of the Muldoon Administration, said next Thursday’s was the most critical since Labour’s Budget to confront the economic and currency crisis in 1984.

Now Whitehead is no ideological Rogernome. In fact Whitehead is a former Deputy Director of the Labour Research Unit (when Muldoon was PM), so I think the left should listen to him when he stresses how important the budget is.

During a round of meetings with business groups, banks and media in Auckland yesterday, Mr Whitehead emphasised the importance of the Budget’s role in retaining the country’s credit rating to keep Government and business borrowing costs down.

The Standard & Poor’s rating agency already has New Zealand on a negative outlook and has said the Budget will be critical in re-rating the country.

It is worth remembering how precarious our position is. Not only will a credit downgrade cost the Government $600 million a year, it will increase credit costs to every business.

And everytime you see Labour complaining that National is saving money through a more efficient public service, remember that without these savings the Government would be facing a permament structural deficit of $10 billion a year.

Have you heard a single proposal from Labour (or the Greens) on how to cut (annual) expenditure to stop the descent into permament deficit and debt?

The UK Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, has resigned over the MPs expenses scandal.

His resignation heads off an almost unprecedented motion of no confidence in him, that was attracting cross-party support.

Martin is also resigning as MP for Glasgow North East.

Some interim changes have been made to the MPs expenses scheme:

• MPs would no longer be allowed to claim for items such as furniture, household goods, cleaning and stamp duty on their second homes
• MPs selling property had to be “completely open” with the tax authorities in relation to capital gains tax
• mortgage interest claims would be capped at £1,250 per month
• any scheme to move from self-regulation to independent external regulation

The European elections look like they will be a massive protest vote against thre three main parties, with up to 60% of voters considering a vote for another party.

The Chief Electoral Office has announced 15 candidates are standing in the by-election. They are:

1. Jim Bagnall, Independent
2. Ari Baker, Independent
3. John Boscawen, ACT New Zealand
4. Ben Boyce, The Bill and Ben Party
5. Simonne Dyer, Kiwi Party
6. Malcolm France, People Before Profit
7. Dakta Green, Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
8. Rusty Kane, The Peoples Choice Party
9. Melissa Lee, National Party
10. Russel Norman, Green Party
11. Julian Pistorius, Libertarianz
12. David Shearer, Labour Party
13. Judy Turner, United Future
14. Anthony Joseph James Van Den Heuvel, Human Rights Party
15. Jackson James Wood, Independent

I have highlighted the candidates standing for parliamentary parties.

A spy reports:

MT ALBERT BI-ELECTION

MESSAGE TO OUR MEMBERSHIP

So can only bi-sexuals stand in a bi-election?

15 May 2009

Dear Members,

After careful consideration and consultation with many members, electorates and former MP’s including Winston Peters and Peter Brown, the Board has decided that it is not in the best interests of New Zealand First to stand a candidate in the Mt Albert by-election.

There are many reasons against standing and we can already see in the media build up to the event that there has been absolutely no discussion of policy. This by-election is basically a two –horse war and is simply not our fight.

Our main focus at this time is to rebuild our infrastructure and lines of communication so we are prepared for the next election.

We are currently working on establishing a new web-site with options for committees and members to log in and share information. Obviously some of our members are not computer literate; therefore we need Electorates to create telephone trees and news letters to reliably relay messages.

Now is the time for our Electorates to be pro-active in raising funds and broadening our membership.

Let’s keep our chins up and get pro-active. Our policies are working for New Zealand and this will become more obvious as time wears on.

Soon New Zealand will be calling for New Zealand First and Winston. When that time comes we must have our infrastructure in place so we are ready to answer that call.

Brendan Horan,
Media Liaison

Yes just like Christians believe Christ will return one day when called, so does the NZ First cult wait, ready for the call from the masses for the return of Winston?