Kiwiblog

The Dom Post approves:

The appointment of New Zealand’s top postman John Allen as its top diplomat is an inspired move by State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie.

It signals that this Government wants to place greater emphasis on the trade side of the Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry operations.

Prime Minister John Key knows that growth is the only way for New Zealand to succeed once the worldwide slump is behind us.

As tens of thousands of NZ jobs are lost, we are reminded how important economic growth is.

Mr Allen’s imminent shift from the state-owned enterprise NZ Post to head MFAT has some parallels with the National Party’s own election of John Key as its leader in late 2006. Neither man is encumbered by the ancient baggage borne by those around them, allowing each to take a fresh look at the challenges they face and at the solutions that might be offered.

In Mr Allen, according to one insider, the SSC has found a unique individual for a unique position, a man who instinctively understands that trade policy succeeds only when it and a country’s political leadership are aligned.

Foreign affairs in this country has mostly been the preserve of diplomats and cast-out politicians. The ministry has never been led by a businessman, or anyone who has not earned his spurs by patiently crafting elegant papers on arcane aspects of foreign policy, or poring over the entrails of who might succeed the Dear Leader in Pyongyang.

A bit harsh!

He has, instead, been a successful commercial operator, who straddles easily the white line between the public service and private sector sides of his SOEs operations, and is not without international experience.

He co-chairs the Australian New Zealand Leadership Forum and is accustomed to dealing with ministers, which will make accompanying the prime minister and foreign affairs minister on forays abroad easier. …

But his is a bold appointment, and his success or otherwise will reflect on Mr Rennie, Mr Key and ministers Murray McCully and Tim Groser, as well as on himself.

Reaction at MFAT is somewhat mixed I hear. Many of the younger staffers are really excited about a new broom, and see lots of exciting opportunities. A few of the more senior staff are nervous about the appointment, but not hostile.

A reader sends this in:

Firstly though, I’d just like to point out the MASSIVE difference between dry sow stalls and farrowing crates.

The latter are used for only a 5-6 week period, generally a few days before giving birth, and around a month afterward. As you will read below, the primary purpose for these is to protect piglets prior to weaning. You can’t imagine the horror of finding a sow who has rolled on, and killed all of her newborns. These are incredibly large and heavy pigs, and quite honestly will squash anything smaller than a 10 week old pig like a pancake. I know because I’ve had to clean it up. Typically a sow will have around 1.5 pregnancies in a year, so on average will have around 9 weeks in a farrowing crate. It isn’t ideal, but better than the alternative.

Dry sow stalls are a totally different kettle of fish. These all sows are kept in all the time (hence the term, dry) I’ll take the opportunity now to tell you that neither of our farms have them – one is free range, the other is more intensive but contains a large, well ventilated dry sow shed, with plenty of straw and plenty of room. If you want to see an example, try googling “ecoshelter”. I won’t defend dry sow stalls, as it is difficult to do so. I don’t support their use. There are other options, even on a relatively intensive farming operation. However, the Pork Board are right to say you cannot just ban overnight. What you need is a period of phasing them out – ten years perhaps. That may seem like a long time, but the costs are incredibly high.

My main concern about groups like SAFE etc, is that they are unable to differentiate between farrowing crates, and dry sow stalls. I hope I have managed to explain the difference to you above (and below).

The other thing I would note is the TVNZ piece. Two points about Mike King’s “disgust”. Firstly – yes the pigs were screaming. Why? It was the middle of the night or early morning. The pigs had been left alone and were suddenly woken by human activity. What does this usually mean for them? Quite simply – feeding time. Free range pigs have EXACTLY the same reaction. If King and his companions ahd fed the pigs the screaming would have stopped. Guarantee it. Secondly – the chewing of bars and frothing of the mouth? Again, it is completely standard across all pigs. They chew things. Free range pigs it’ll be tree branches etc, for pigs in stalls or crates it’ll be bars. And yes, they froth. Christ, you should see them when they mate!

I find the last paragraph very interesting.

On a related note this video is referred to in this story at news.com.au about the cull of pigs in Egypt in response to swine flu.  I warn you the video is highly sickening and not for the faint hearted.

I did a post around 9 pm last night on Jim Anderton and his ipredict price. Somohow WordPress has deleted the post. Does anyone have a copy in their RSS feed or cache that they can send me so I don’t have to retype it all in?

Before I get into the pros and cons, I first want to highlight this exchange from the Herald:

Agriculture Minister David Carter had earlier asked animal rights campaigners to give up the name and location of the farm shown on TVNZ’s Sunday programme.

The images showed pigs frothing at the mouth and unable to move inside their cages and aired on TVNZ’s Sunday programme.

Mr Carter said the farm would be inspected by authorities.

“The television images were disturbing. It is essential we find out if this intensive pig farming operation is in breach of the Animal Welfare Act,” Mr Carter said in a statement released this morning.

However, SAFE campaigner Hans Kriek said he would not be disclosing the information immediately.

When asked by nzherald.co.nz if that was due to publicity, Mr Kriek said yes.

“I’m not going to give you all the details of our strategy, which is a very sound one,” Mr Kriek said.

So after the documentary screened, the Minister immediately said he would investigate and wanted to send inspectors in to check if the pigs pictured were being treated in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act.

However SAFE refused to disclose the location of the farm. Yes SAFE, which claims to care for animals, refused to allow animal inspectors to find out where the farm is. And why? Because doing so would not fit in with their public relations strategy!

So SAFE puts PR ahead of animal welfare. Worth remembering.

On the issue of sow stalls, I don’t yet know enough. One expert last night said that if you don’t have them, it can be worse as the pigs fight and sometimes kill each other.

I don’t buy pork or bacon myself, but the sensible thing for those who don’t like sow crates is to buy free-range pork only.

After decades of fighting, it appears the Sri Lankan Government has finally defeated the Tamil Tigers. The top rebel leaders have been killed and for the first time in 25 years, the entire country is under Government control. The North used to be almost a shadow state with its own tax system etc.

There are calls for the Government to be investigated for war crimes as part of their victory. But the mass celebrations that have broken out in Sri Lanka indicate the Government’s hard line has paid off.

1. Aaron Bhatnagar lashes Bob Harvey for his demented idea to transfer all the assets of Waitakere City from public control into a private trust.
2. Ian Wishart asks why an alleged affair of a mere Families Commissioner is deemed highly newsworthy, yet alleged involvement in b&d schoolboy fantasies by the then Minister of Education was deemed not relevant. My position is that neither are relevant to the jobs, but the media has been highly inconsistent.
3. Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn also says Rankin’s private life is not relevant – that Commissioners are not “moral exemplars” but “advocates for the interests of families generally”
4. Blair Mulholland is now the father of twin daughters. Congratulations and good luck!

Thanks goodness for common sense. The Government has declined to extend security screening to small regional flights (personally I think they a nonsense on all but international flights) and instead will focus on improving flight deck security.

Extending screening would have cost $160 million over ten years, and that is before even looking at costs to passengers in delays.

Talking of Government announcements – I have heard a whisper that the Government will shortly announce its support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – this will be a major win for the Maori Party, as Labour refused to support it.

On Friday the Greens launched their so called Green New Deal, with a price tag of $3.3 billion over three years. It has five main elements:

1. Energy efficiency measures such as home insulations, school upgrades etc costing $300 million.
2. $1 billion to be shifted from roads to public transport (so not count as new spending)
3. $600 million on protecting waterways
4. $2 billion constructing 6,000 new state houses
5. $440 million on community economic development

Most countries have had a fiscal stimulus to take the edges off the recession. NZIER calculated that the NZ fiscal stimulus to date will save around 10,000 jobs. They also point out that the increased debt lowers household incomes down the track.

The Greens estimate their package would create 18,000 FTE jobs directly and andother 25,000 indirectly.

I’ll analyse parts of it shortly, but have to say for now that it at least passes the initial test that they are proposing generally one off projects, rather than initiatives that would permamently increase Government spending at a time we can’t afford it. They are the sort of projects that can be considered as part of a fiscal stimulus.

The energy efficiency measures tend to be the most sensible, as they actually can pay for themselves over time by lowering energy costs.

The suggestion that $1 billion be taken from motorways and put into public transport is simply not going to happen. The Greens always try and portray it as a choice between roads or public transport. It is not. We need both. There is not a country in the developed world that has just stopped building new roads.

The plan to protect rural waterways from pollution has more appeal to me – there are tourism reasons you may want to do this.

$2 billion for new state houses is not a good priority. The current housing stock is run down and the Govt under Labour became a slum landlord. The Govt’s priority is to improve the current stock before looking to expand it – that is sensible.

So anyway have to give the Greens kudos for actually putting up costed serious proposals, even if I do not like many of them. I much prefer them doing this than working on further things to ban!

Political watchers around the world have been following the saga of the UK parliamentary expenses scandals. UK Labour has dropped to 22% in the latest poll, as the Telegraph reveals claims for mortgages that were paid off, moat cleaning and the like.

Most of these excesses are not possible in NZ, as MPs don’t get to claim accommodation expenses except rent and interest on mortgages. But even then, we have not been lily white.

Now many readers will remember the scams by Labour’s Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle from the Alliance who were claiming such expenses, despite both being Wellington based MP with homes in Wellington. Bunkle did it by claiming her primary residence was a bach just north of the Wellington boundary, and Hobbs claimed her primary residence was in Christchurch, despite having stood for Wellington Central. This made the scam legal – but not ethical.

The point of such expense regimes, is that an MP is not left worse off for just doing their job. If an Auckland MP has to spend three nights a week in Wellington, then of course they should not pay personally for it. But the idea is not that an MP who normally lives in Wellington, can make some extra money.

But the Bunkle/Hobbs method is not the only way, an MP can benefit from the expenses claims.In the light of the UK revelations, I thought it would be useful to highlight other ways an MP can benefit.

Look at section 3.30(1)(b) of the expense directions and it states an MP can be reimbursed for actual and reasonable accommodation expenses in Wellington, if they live outside the Wellington commuting area for.

(i) accommodation owned by that member; or
(ii) accommodation rented by that member on a continuous basis for use in lieu of overnight accommodation; or
(iii) accommodation in commercial premises; or
(iv) other private accommodation.

Let us look at each of these in turn, and who benefits from what:

(iii) accommodation in commercial premises

This is where the MP stays in a Wellington hotel, as many do. They can claim up to $160 a night, up to a maximum of $24,000 a year. That means a maximum of 150 nights a year can be claimed – an average of three nights a week.

In this case the MP gains no benefit. It is nice and simple. Not that popular with some MPs though as it means they have to book in everytime, and have no permanent base where they can leave clothes etc.

(iii) other private accommodation

This is where the MP stays in a private residence not owned by them – probably owned by a friend. They can claim up to $50 a night, up to a maximum of $24,000 a year.

In this case the MP gains no benefit, but the home owner can benefit, and they may be related to the MP. Having said that I am not sure if any MP uses this option.

(i) accommodation owned by that member

This is a potential problem area, but note section 3.30(2) avoids most of the UK problems:

No principal component of any mortgage payment or any capital improvement to premises may be claimed under this clause.

So an MP can only claim the interest on their property. The maximum is again $24,000 a year, so if interest is at say 8%, then the maximum will be claimed if the principal is $300,000 or more.

This option does provide some potential benefits to the MP.

MPs can maximise benefits from this situation, so that the taxpayer pays the maximum$24,000. Let us say the MP buys two $500,000 houses with $600,000 of equity and $400,000 from the bank. House A is in Wellington and House B in the electorate.

Normally you may have House A and House B both with $300,000 of equity and $200,000 of mortgage. However at 8% interest it means the MP can only claim $16,000 from the taxpayer for House A. So the smart MP arranges their finances so that House A is $200,000 equity and $300,000 mortgage and House B is $400,000 equity and $100,000 mortgage.  This means they get an extra $8,000 a year from the taxpayer.

Now to be fair to said MPs, there is an opportunity cost of them living at their own place – it means they are not renting it out to someone else. They may be able to rent it out for $24,000 a year – or even more, if they did not use it at their second home.

But nevertheless they do have an incentive to keep the mortgage high on their Wellington home, so they get paid the maximum $24,000. One could arrange it so one is getting $24,000 a year on a $350,000 apartment. Not many landlords would be able to rent out a $350,000 apartment for $460 a week, so the MP does make a significant profit, plus they have a guaranteed tenant – themselves.

So a question to be pondered, is should an MP not be eligible to claim their interest payments as an accommodation expense? Otherwise you have an incentive for them to keep the interest payments high to maximise the expense they can claim.

Maybe a journalist could ask how many MPs are living in a place they own in Wellington, and what proportion of them are claiming the maximum $24,000 in interest payments? The Parliamentary Service won’t release individual details, but they might release summary information.

But for the really smart MP, there is an even better way to maximise your profits from the taxpayer. You see eventually the house you own will have the principal repaid, meaning the interest you can claim falls to under $24,000 a year. How do you ensure you keep it at $24,000 a year?

(ii) accommodation rented by that member on a continuous basis for use in lieu of overnight accommodation

This is where the MP either rents an apartment outright for their exclusive use, or is a flatmate in an apartment. The maximum you can claim is $24,000 a year, which is $460 a week. Many MPs do this, as it gives them a permanent base where they can leave clothes, have some food stocked up etc. The owner of the property benefits as they get a tenant, who generally will not cause any problems in terms of non payment, damage etc – and they will often be a guaranteed tenant for three years. MPs don’t tend to change apartments in Wellington a lot, as it is mainly just a place to sleep three nights a week.

On the face of it, the MP doesn’t benefit from such an arrangement – the landlord does. But what if the MP is effectively a landlord? How – you set up your own personalised superannuation scheme, and get your super scheme to buy the apartment, and rent it to you for the maximum $24,000 a year.

This way you can get $24,000 a year from the taxpayer, even long after the mortgage has been paid off. Now some will say, but if the MP was not renting it to themselves, they could rent it to someone else. Yes – but see above about the massive benefits of renting to an MP – guaranteed income with no breaks for three years. No having to pay a property manager to manage the property etc.

Now the Parliamentary Service will tell you that when an MP rents their own house through their Super Fund, they get an independent market valuation. This is true, but valuations are not a precise science. That would stop an absolute hovel being rented out for $460 a week, but really you know the difference between a $400 and $450 a week apartment is very subjective. And MPs will buy apartments that they know they can get the maximum allowance for.

No matter how much one tries to mitigate, there is a fundamental conflict in my opinion between the MP effectively owning the property through their Super Scheme, and being the tenant with the taxpayer paying the tenancy.

It is all within the rules, but so were most of the rorts in the UK. As David Cameron said, the issue is not the rules, but whether the behaviour is ethical and correct. And most of all, it is about whether the rules should allow an MP to maximise profit from their Wellington accommodation.

The Greens have been doing this for years, and they claimed a while back:

This is also what we are trying to do in the Green Futures Superannuation Fund, set up in 1997 by the Green MPs to invest our own savings. We started by investing in housing for MPs to live in that was close to Parliament so we can all walk to work.

Now this is just nonsense. They did not set up the super scheme to so they could live close to Parliament. There are hundreds of houses and apartments available for lease near Parliament. They set up the scheme so they could maximise the income from the taxpayer for renting the property to themselves. They almost admit this later:

With the security of the property market as a base we have now also invested in NZ’s only locally owned and made wind generation company … All very small stuff, as befits the amount we have to invest, but it has still outperformed larger funds over the last year.

Or maybe it outperformed the larger funds because it had a guaranteed taxpayer funded tenant – themselves.

How much can an MP benefit from the Super Scheme owning the rental property rort? Well here’s a typical example. Take this apartment in Thorndon which has rent set for $460 a week. Its GV is $340,000.

Now an MP’s salary is $131,000 a year. They get a super scheme subsidy of 2.5:1 up to a maximum 20%. This means they put in 8% and the subsidy is 20%, so 28% of $131,000 is paid into their super scheme every year – that is $36,680.

Now let us say the MP (through the super scheme) borrows the entire $340,000 to buy the property (we’ll ignore deposits for now and assume they have property elsewhere to guarantee this mortgage).The MP gets a 5.99% mortgage from Kiwibank. This means the interest in year one is $340,000 x 5.99% = $20,366. However their Super Fund puts in $36,680 plus the taxpayer again puts in $24,000 through the $460 a week rent. That means the interest of $20,366 is matched three times over with the $60,680 of repayments.

If you repeat this each year, then within seven years that MP’s Super Fund owns that $340,000 property outright (plus any increase in valuation).

This is not a new development. The Greens have been doing this since at least 2001. So do many other MPs. I’ll be honest – if I was an MP I would probably do exactly the same – why wouldn’t you?

It is all within the rules, but it is a loophole. If you own the property yourself, you can claim interest only. If you own it through a corporate shell such as your Super Fund, then you can get the taxpayer to pay rent on your behalf to yourself.

So the question we should be asking, in the wake of the UK experience, is should the rules be changed? Should we ban MPs from claiming accommodation expenses for properties they own (directly or indirectly), or have a beneficial interest in?

If an MP wants to have their Super Fund invest in property, then they still can. But they, like any other landlord, should have to go out and find tenants for it who are willing to pay the market price. For example let the “Green Futures Superannuation Fund” find its own tenants, rather than the guaranteed income of the Parliamentary Service!

While I have used the Greens Fund as an example, this is because it is in the public domain. This is not a criticism of the Greens only. I am sure MPs from all parties take advantage of the current rules, and this should not be surprising. Again the issue for me, is whether the rules should be changed to prevent MPs claiming accommodation expenses for any property they own – either directly or through a Super Fund. At the end of the day you should not be both landlord and tenant, when the taxpayer pays the bill.

1. Conservative Home blogs a UK poll that has Labour at 20%, and even lower at 17% for European elections – equal to the UK Independence Party.
2. Lew blogs at Kiwi Politico that he left should stop treating the Maori Party as their enemy.
3. Aaron Bhatnagar blogs that the $20,000 limit for contracts that can be signed without approval from the Transition Authority is a bit low. I agree $100,000 or so would be more sensible.
4. Adam Smith has discovered the Obameter – tracking Obama’s campaign promises. To date of the 500 promises 29 have been implemented, seven compromised, six broken, seven stalled, 63 underway and 404 yet to start. We should have such a tool here.
5. Eric Crampton is impressed that Wolfram Alpha knows the answer to “What is the meaning of life” is 42. I’m not surprised – after all geeks programmed it!
6. No Right Turn supports a bill drafted by Charles Chauvel, in Lianne Dalziel’s name, that will end provocation as a defence. After the McNee case, I also support it ending.
7. Farmgirl responds to the Mike King piece on sow crating, and says pig farmers don’t like doing it, but it is the only way to compete with overseas farmers who do.
8. Iain Dale blogs a sign seen in a window in a Notting hill store – “No more than one Member of Parliament in this shop at any given time. — The Management.” – Heh I love it.

Blaise Drinkwater is unamused by Labour’s 1000s of frivolous amendments to the Auckland Council bill.

I’m not quite on the same page. I do support the rights of the Opposition to filibuster – within reason. In fact I was the primary staffer who helped National delay the Employment Relations Act by a week in 2000.

But a filbuster is a blunt weapon for an Opposition to use, and if you get it wrong, it can hurt you.

I tend to think an Opposition should do a full filibuster only once per parliamentary term – it should be used against the piece of legislation that you think is most harmful to the country.

This was the test National used in 2000 with the then ERB. It gave all sorts of special favours to unions, and National decided it was the law they were most against.

Now some will say why filibuster at all? Well an Opposition can not defeat a law, so all they can do when it is a really really bad law, is delay it to show how bad they think it is.

And this is the aspect I find somewhat bizarre around Labour choosing the Auckland Council to filibuster. Labour actually support there being an Auckland Council, and set up the Royal Commission that recommended it.

Now some will say, but wait the Government has changed some of the RC’s recommendations. Yes, this is true. But all those details such as the composition of the Council, Maori seats and the structure of the second tier are dealt with in a second bill, that is going to select committee for full consultation.

My other criticism of Labour’s filibuster is they overhyped it, and underdelivered. Labour MPs talked about keeping the House sitting until the Budget, when in fact they failed to even keep it sitting until Saturday midnight. They made two tactical blunders with their filibuster:

1. Had too many amendments on the Part voted on just before midnight Friday. Labour had hundreds and hundreds of amendments to Part 3. Normally each of them would take around a minute to vote on, so they were counting on it taking up much of Saturday. But there is an exception to the rule that the House rises at midnight under urgency. It does not rise until all the amendments for a Part have been voted on, if that vote has started. So instead of having the voting delay things further, it just meant that MPs ended up sitting past midnight. There was no debate to be had – just a series of votes.
2. They had too many amendments on the same clause, allowing the Government to take them out in a first strike? How? Well any Government amendments get put first, and if the Government amendment is passed, it can make redundant an Opposition amendment. The easiest example is the date the law comes into force – meant to be the day after royal assent. The Opposition put up hundreds of amendments proposing alternative dates. The Government then put up an amendment to change it it the second day after royal assent, and that wiped out all of Labour’s amendments.

Tactic No 2 stopped the House sitting until around 5 am Saturday as it wiped out most of Labour’s Part 3 amendments. But I was amused to get a call a bit before midnight asking me to bring in blankets and sleeping bags for National MPs. I felt like the Red Cross!

The NZ Herald editorial favours the new health targets:

Targets can be the bane of any organisation. Unless they are well defined and readily measurable they are worse than useless, create more work than necessary and waste time and money that could be used for something more useful. The Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, has found some classics among the previous Government’s targets for district health boards (DHBs), which he has culled from 10 to six.

Worse than that:

As he put it, “We have inherited a system overburdened with 13 health priorities; 61 objectives, with an additional subset of 13 health objectives; a set of 10 health targets measured through 18 indicators; 25 other indicators of DHB performance; not to mention four hospital benchmark indicators assessed through 15 measures; and an outcomes framework with nine outcomes measured against 39 headline indicators”.

And think of all the administrators needed both at DHB level, but also at the MOH to measure and report on all these.

When Labour scrapped the previous National Government’s business model for hospitals and related services, replacing Crown health enterprises with district health boards, it made much of the democratic element of elected boards. But in fact the boards were set up as branch offices of the Health Ministry, which decided most of what they would do.

Having elected members on DHBs, actually dilutes accountability as it allows the Minister to blame the local DHB and vice-versa.

This Government is content to keep Labour’s administrative structure and the best it can do is try to simplify its procedures. Impractical, largely symbolic declarations on nutrition, obesity and physical activity have gone. As Mr Ryall said, how could a district health board be held responsible for increasing the number of people who ate the recommended daily portions of fruit and vegetables?

The six goals he has set look sharper: shorter stays in emergency departments (95 per cent of patients to be admitted, discharged or transferred within six hours), faster elective surgery (an increase of 4000 a year), shorter waits for cancer treatment (radiation within six weeks by August next year, and four weeks by December).

Those three are treatment targets, the rest are preventive: immunisation for 85 per cent of 2-year-olds by July next year, rising to 95 per cent two years later; help for hospitalised smokers to stop; more people to be assessed for risk of heart disease and more free checks for people with diabetes.

Inevitably, there will be complaints that worthy causes have been ignored. Already the Obesity Action Coalition asks where responsibility for nutrition, physical activity and obesity lies if not with health boards. Well, many could answer that one. It lies with the individual.

You can’t trust individuals – once you start doing that, society will crumble.

Simon Power said some very interesting things on Q&A this morning. His whole interview was excellent – other Ministers/MPs should take notes. Extracts:

SIMON: Essentially what I’m interested in is having a broad discussion about three things initially. The first is the way our jury system works. Presently under the bill of rights if you’re charged with an offence that carries a term of imprisonment of three months or more you can elect to go to a jury trial, I’m very keen to see that threshold raised.

GUYON To what?

SIMON Oh well I think three years would be appropriate. You would see a savings on jury trials about a thousand a year along with a couple of other smaller changes we could make in that area.

So someone charged with a crime that has a maximum sentence of between three months and three years, would see their trials be judge only. I’d be interested to see where the line is drawn in other OECD countries. Power mentioned five years is the threshold in Canada.

The crimes that would now be judge only, from a quick skim of the Crimes Act are:

• Wrongful communication, retention, or copying of official information
• Unlawful assembly
• Riot
• Forcible entry and detainer
• Contravention of statute
• False statements or declarations
• Use of purported affidavit or declaration
• Failure of duty that permits person in lawful custody to escape
• Blasphemous libel
• Distribution or exhibition of indecent matter
• Indecent act in public place
• Indecent act with intent to insult or offend
• Indecent act on a dependent family member under age of 18
• Indecency with animal
• Criminal nuisance
• Misconduct in respect of human remains
• Infanticide
• Concealing dead body of child
• Injuring by unlawful act
• Aggravated assault
• Assault with intent to injure
• Assault on a child, or by a male on a female
• Common assault
• Poisoning with intent to cause inconvenience or annoyance
• Leaving a trap in place
• Possession of offensive weapons or disabling substances
• Feigned marriage or feigned civil union
• Intercepts any private communication by means of an interception device
• Theft of between $500 and $1000
• Being disguised or in possession of instrument for burglary

And a few more.

GUYON I’ll come to that in a second, but is part of the factor here that you’re struggling to get jurors to actually sit on those trials?

SIMON No that wasn’t part of the thinking, what was driving the issue was the delays that we’ve been seeing in our justice system, in the District Court for example, on average it takes about 12 months before a trial kicks off, in the High Court it’s about sixteen and a half months over the 2008 year. We have to address this, this is not without controversy I accept that, but the fact is our criminal justice system has not been delivering justice served seen to be done in a timely and helpful fashion. Victims of crime find this process incredibly difficult.

And the delays are especially hard on the victims.

SIMON Well I’ll leave that up to you to decide, but the other two areas that I’m looking particularly closely at is this ability where somebody doesn’t appear at a hearing the only sanction available to the courts in general at the moment is to schedule another hearing. There are some provisions under the Summary Offences Act that allow convictions to be entered for non appearance at trials. I think we need that souped up. I think we need to have a situation where the presumption shifts – if you don’t show up, unless of course the circumstances would be manifestly unjust for good reason – if you’re not showing up to a hearing to have your time in court, the court should be able to enter that conviction. Now that’s different to sentencing where the accused would have to be present.

Power clarified that this does not mean you can be found guilty if you never appear to make a plea. But if you have actually entered a please of guilty, and then don’t turn up – that the court can enter the conviction.

SIMON Yes we are, which leads me neatly into the third issue which is that I think it’s time that the courts were able to hold lawyers, both prosecution and defence to account, for not moving through hearings in a timely and appropriate way. I just think we’re at the point now where the gaming of the system around the criminal justice processes has to be front footed.

GUYON Is that what court lawyers are doing?

SIMON Oh look I believe what we’re seeing is the system being badly incentivised particularly around legal aid, to encourage multiple appearances on issues that should be dealt with in a short and timely way at first appearance.

And again the real losers are the victims.

SIMON Well the courts presently have available to them a mechanism to be able to fine a lawyer for gross negligence in the sense of bringing that case. My view is that should be more readily available to the courts, and if you’re a legal aid lawyer, you should have your eligibility to do legal aid cases tested if you’re not proceeding in a timely way. To simply not be ready, to not be available, and to not show up, are not good reasons. Look when I was admitted to the bar, many years ago in 1994, in my short time as a lawyer I was always told that a lawyer’s first duty, his first obligation is to the court, and we have not seen that in the way that our criminal justice system has operated, it’s time for some change.

That is quite neat. If you drag out trials for years on end on legal aid, then you lose your eligibility. Those accused of crimes have the right to a fair trial. But that is not the right to have the trial delayed for years and years.

LAILA HARRE – Union Leader

Well I think that what we saw today was somebody taking a pretty objective and considered approach to the criminal justice reform, and that’s a good thing because there’s usually far too much emotion vested in this and most of that emotion will be coming from lawyers over the next week, it’s probably a pretty good distraction too from the inevitable continuing fallout of the Rankin debacle I would imagine too.

Some praise from Laila.

PAUL Wow. Exactly so. But of course the notion of juries is a very British thing isn’t it, I mean it’s not written on stone from God that you should have a jury, I mean they operate very well right through Europe with judge panels don’t they?

THERESE ARSENEAU – Political Analyst

Well it goes back to the Magna Carta, so it is quite a rich history of right to be tried by your peers, but we also have a basic right to a quick and speedy trial and in a sense you’ve got two rights perhaps in conflict here, and I agree with Fran that my understanding is that it’s the pre trial battles that eat up so much of the time, so the fact that the Minister is also going to look at what lawyers do before the trial I think is really important too.

And Therese usefully clarifies that it is balancing the rights to a speedy trial, with other rights.

What I like is that Simon has not announced these as firm policy. He has identified three measures he thinks will help victims (and accused) get speedier justice, and said he wants to have discussion about them.

Hopefully Opposition parties won’t rule them out instinctively but look carefully at whether the pros outweigh the cons.

My God. Labour in their dying days snuck through a regulation forcing bakers to plant a synthetic form of folic acid into every loaf made in NZ.

The plan aims to reduce the number of brain-damaged babies, although the fall may be a few as four a year.

But new research shows folic acid may cause an increase in colon cancer cases. And another study suggests it may cause colon cancer to grow faster.

The Bakers’ Association has labelled the compulsory introduction “mass medication” of the population, and warned that bread containing folic acid will be less safe than it is now.

This is like National Hospital’s unfortunate experiment – no informed consent for the test subjects.

The scheme was a favourite of former Health Minister Annette King but never went before Parliament. It was passed under special rules which do not allow the same level of public scrutiny.

The mandatory scheme was developed after it was decided the current scheme – in which specific brands are fortified with folic acid – was unsuccessful.

So the public didn’t choose the right sort of bread, so Labour passed a special law (regulation) to force everyone to have folic acid in their bread.

To me this is different to the flouridation debate, where the water supply is centralised. But at least with that debate, people can get their own water tank and supply. But this regulation will mean people have no choice to get bread without folic acid.

Bakers’ Association head Laurie Powell said it was difficult to address the issue because the industry did not want to put consumers off bread. “Our products are safe but probably not as safe with folic acid.”

He confirmed concerns about the scheme had led the association to ask the Government for legal indemnity.

“If it is found in 15 years’ time this stuff is bad and it causes health problems, we would be sued,” he said.

Powell was also concerned the industry could not regulate the amount of folic acid going into each individual loaf.

“It is a mass medication experiment that won’t work,” he said. “A trip to your baker should not be a trip to the pharmacy.”

The bakers have a point – they could get sued.

Authority officials confirmed pregnant women would not get enough folic acid from fortified bread and would still need to take supplements.

Which means the scheme may be counter-productive as it could mean women think they don’t need the supplements.

After The Press earlier in the week alluded to issues around Christine Rankin’s latest marriage, it was inevitable the Sunday papers would go the whole hog, and sadly the HoS has.

I’m no fan of the Rankin appointment (mainly on political grounds), but I think this sort of scrutiny of personal life is way over the top. The Families Commission is not about Commissioners having perfect family lives, but about advocating for public policy that is good for families.

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

Police HQ have repeatedly thumbed their nose at the former political leader by assigning a hopelessly inept cop (when it comes to prosecuting politically aligned crimes) to take charge of the investigation. The top cop was allowed to get away with tarrying for the best part of a year before getting down to business, then refusing to release the full file of his on-again off-again investigation.

The investigation was almost as pitiful as the investigation into Labour’s 2005 overspending.

Brash has had no help from Prime Minister John Key. It is within Key’s powers to direct an independent review of the police investigation. But though he was the direct beneficiary of Brash’s downfall he is reluctant to give the case oxygen.

Ummn which power is this?News to me that the PM can direct a review of a police investigation.

Brash has had no help from Police Minister Judith Collins either. Collins was Brash’s close political chum during the dying days of his leadership when it seemed as if he might just survive. But she has not asked for a review.

In her well intentioned sympathy for Don Brash, Fran has over-reached. I refer people to the Policing Act 2008, specifically s16(2):

The Commissioner is not responsible to, and must act independently of, any Minister of the Crown (including any person acting on the instruction of a Minister of the Crown) regarding—

(a) the maintenance of order in relation to any individual or group of individuals; and

(b) the enforcement of the law in relation to any individual or group of individuals; and

(c) the investigation and prosecution of offences; and

(d) decisions about individual Police employees.

The Minister can not interfere, and in fact it would be highly undesirable for Ministers to get involved in a case involving their former Leader.

If Ministers could get involved, then I am sure they would love the Police to redo their investigations into Painertgate, the 2005 overspending and the stolen e-mails.

From the Herald:

The number of Budget bids from Government departments for extra money halved from last year, and 25 per cent of them were “savings” bids, says Treasury Secretary John Whitehead.

“That’s a significant and positive change in approach,” he told an invited audience of analysts, officials, academics and journalists at the Treasury yesterday. .

Departments need approval even for spending cuts, to ensure they are areas the Government wants cut.

25% of budget bids were bids to save money. My God. I doubt in nine years of Labour there even a single budget bid to save money, let alone 25% of all bids.

“We focus too much on new spending and not enough on the very significant base, even though polices introduced five or 15 years ago, may no longer be as effective or fit Government objectives.”

He criticised the public service “year-end spend-up”, in which departments spend any spare money they have, fearing that if they don’t, their grants will be be reduced the following year.

In the private sector, you get rewarded if you underspend your budget. In the public sector, you may get sacked if you underspend!

From the NZ Herald:

For the seven days before Duwayne Pailegutu died, he was kept inside his mother and stepfather’s small flat in Nelson – so no one could see he had been beaten so badly he was paralysed, incontinent, and slowly suffocating on his own blood.

The left side of his body was disabled after repeated blows to the right side of his head which caused a stroke, and he struggled to eat or drink.

In addition to the haemorrhage, an autopsy found at least 10 deep bruises to his scalp – some of them inflicted by the shoes of his stepfather as the little boy cowered in the corner of his Fergusson St bedroom.

A further 75 bruises were found over the rest of his small body. …

For the week before he died,Duwayne sat, partially paralysed and fitted with nappies, slowly suffocating on blood which he inhaled into his lungs as he vomited during “exercises” in which his stepfather made repeated blows to his stomach to make him cough up blood.

In an attempt to “shock” Duwayne into movement, Joachim dipped his paralysed foot into boiling water, leaving the largest of four scald wounds on his right leg.

When he became frustrated that Duwayne could not move, Joachim threw him against a wall.

And for the six weeks before his death on July 2 last year, Duwayne had been living with three broken ribs.

Words again fail me, that I share a species with the person who did this.

The print Qantas Awards were last night.

Winston helped with two of the awards. The Weekend Herald won Newspaper of the Year, partly on Audrey Young’s revelation of email evidence that Winston Peters’ interests did receive funding from Owen Glenn.

Also the Dom Post reports:

Phil Kitchin was again named senior news reporter of the year at last night’s ceremony in Wellington. He also won best politics story for his investigation into the NZ First funding saga.

We owe Audrey and Phil our thanks.

Some of the more notable winners:

• Qantas Fellow to Wolfson – Chris Barton
• Outstanding Achievement – Peter Bromhead
• Newspaper of the Year – Weekend Herald
• Large Daily – Waikato Times
• Small Daily – The Daily Post (Rotorua)
• Weekly Newspaper – Weekend Herald
• Senior Reporter – Phil Kitchin, Dom Post
• Junior Reporter – Sarah McDonald, NBR
• Business Columnist – Fran O’Sullivan, NZ Herald
• Politics Columnist – John Armstrong, NZ Herald
• Blog – Moata Tamaira, Stuff
• Website Breaking News – Stuff/Dom Post – election night
• Business Website – interest.co.nz
• Web Design – Stuff
• News Website – nzherald.co.nz

Well done all.

NZIER have done a very interesting report on the balancing act between jobs and debt.

The fiscal stimulus of almost $10b over four years will result in an extra 10,000 jobs in the short run, but it will reduce future consumption by $160 per person per year. We can spend now, but we have to pay for it eventually.

And that is the key thing to remember – that debt has a cost.

We find that a policy that reduces the cost of employing people could boost employment more at a similar cost to long-run consumption. Better still would be well-targeted spending on infrastructure to deliver longrun productivity improvements. Given New Zealand’s longer term growth challenge, any fiscal efforts to stabilise the economy and avoid a more severe recession should have productivity at the centre of the policy radar screen.

Productivity growth is all important.

we find that the current package is likely to:
• generate an extra 10,000 jobs in the short run
• raise GDP in the short term by 0.6 percentage points
• lead to lower employment after 2012 and a 0.8 percentage point fall in long-run real consumption per annum than without the stimulus.

Again debt has consequences. And just think about how much more debt there would be with Labour – not just $1b+ for their pet tunnel, but they have oppossed every cost saving in the public service.