Kiwiblog

Trevor Mallard is not getting a good strike rate with his allegations. Strike One was the allegations that Melissa Lee used taxpayer funds in 2008 to make an election advertisement. Strike Two was that Melissa Lee had pakred on a disabled car park.

The Herald reports on Strike Three:

The exchange turned testy when Mr Mallard, who is Labour’s education spokesman, accused her of giving an “inappropriate one-fingered gesture” across the floor of the House.

But Mr Mallard – who suggested Ms Bennett’s denial could be a breach of parliamentary privilege if TV film showed her making the gesture – was later forced to apologise to her.

Labour staffers rang him to say the film showed she had waved her hand without making the gesture.

So if Bennett’s denial (if incorrect) could be a preach of privilege, could an incorrect accusation also be a breach of privilege?

The Herald reports:

Mr Peters is writing a sports column for Sky Sport Magazine, and his first missive includes one of his trademark political lines: “Let’s get the facts straight about this.” …

Mr Peters’ “last post” column says the great institution of Maori rugby is being neglected. It draws on his personal experience as the captain of Auckland Maori and details the important contribution Maori teams have made to the game and society.

The writing contains several Winstonisms: “Work that out” (twice), “Unbelievable really” and “We need facts, not self-serving, egregious nonsense and attendant unfairness”.

Mr Peters is unable to resist a political swipe while criticising a new book on Maori rugby, Beneath the Maori Moon, by Malcolm Mullholland.

“Facts and words do matter and yet this publication disregards both, qualifying it more for the parliamentary press gallery than as an historic work on a great institution.”

Winston would be a great sports writer – and yes I am being serious. They should also make him a rugby commentator – would be superb.

Mr Peters would not be drawn on whether he would make a political comeback by running for the Auckland Super City mayoralty.

“Unless I say it, then nothing’s true.”

Some would argue the opposite

NZPA reports:

The Government will consider adopting a Green MP’s bill to prevent confusing and ambiguous referendum questions, Prime Minister John Key said today. …

Today Green MP Sue Bradford said she was hoping her bill to prevent confusing questions would be drawn out of the next ballot.

The Citizens Initiated Referenda (Wording of Question) Amendment Bill required the Clerk of the House to allow only referendum questions which were “not ambiguous, complex, leading or misleading”.

Where a question was not allowed a person would be able to re-write it until it met the criteria.

Firstly I am suspicious about all this sudden concern in the wording of referenda questions. There have been far more ambigious questions in the past. I suspect this is politicians finding reasons in advance to ignore the result of the referendum – because they know the public do not like the new law.

But putting aside the suspicious rationale, it is worth considering the merits of Bradford’s bill. On the face of it, it would make referenda more useful and hopefully harder to ignore.

But it does give huge powers to the Clerk of the House. Now the Clerk is not the sort of person who would abuse such powers but Bradford’s bill is asking her to make subjective judgements, not objective judgements.  It is very subjective as to what is leading or misleading.  Any decisions made by the Clerk could lead to political attacks on that office – and that would be regrettable.

Blogging will probably be lighter than normal over the next three weeks.

1. Fri 19 to Mon 22 June I am on Great Barrier Island. There is very little Internet access on GBI.
2. From Tue 23 June to Sun 28 June I am in Washington DC for a political conference and general business on behalf of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
3. Mon 29 June to Fri 3 July will be in Boston, Martha’s Vineyard, Cape Cod etc relaxing.
4. Back in DC to celebrate US Independence Day on 4 July
5. Then visiting New York from 5 to 8 July
6. Back in NZ on 10 July.  As I said, blogging may not be light during that time.

Lindsay Mitchell blogs:

Don’t miss this. On Friday nights we always watch Homai Te Pakipaki on Maori Television. Last Friday I was floored by this kid. I wrote to Maori TV suggesting they get him up on YouTube – who needs Susan Boyle – and just got a reply saying done, already. I’ve just watched it again and it had the same powerful effect. Made me cry.

He is great – well worth a watch.

Today’s Dom Post Press editorial is on referenda wording, but that is not the focus of this post. Their editorial says:

Regrettably, although the Clerk of the House of Representatives has responsibility for overseeing the wording of referendums, his powers are limited. He must ensure only that the question clearly conveys the purpose and effect of the referendum and he must ensure that only one of two answers can be given to it. In this case those criteria are met. In future, however, if referendums are not going to be done away with entirely, some thought must be given to tightening the procedure for their wording.

The Dominion Post, of all newspapers, Press should be aware the Clerk is a she, not a he. And even if they did not, it would take ten seconds to check that Mary Harris is the Clerk.

UPDATE: Teach me to be pedantic – I got the newspaper wrong. It was not the Dom Post, but The Press.

Some extracts from an e-mail a reader sent to me. I suspect he speaks for many people:

I would like politicians to know why the anti-smacking debate is important to me and people like me– This is why National and John Key need to be be careful about something that they consider unimportant.

I voted for John Key in the last election but I voted for Helen Clark in 1999 and 2002. I like John Key and believe his positive attitude is good for New Zealand but if he continues making those statements like yesterday I will vote for Labour again, or ACT (at least Rodney is against this bill). This is not a threat just a fact. Myself and my wife believe that the Government should spend my money to pave the roads, keep my safe and provide a bit of entertainment (ah la Richard Worth). I expect nothing from the government unless I am completely screwed. (that is why I would hate to vote for Labour again)

I am a father of 3 girls ages 5 and under. I have never smacked two of them and the other one (who I love equally) does get smacked about twice a year. She is stronger willed and more likely to bully the others. She is probably more like to succeed tooJ

The reason I am so angry with JK’s attitude is because I have to deal with the normal bullshit everyone else has to deal with like housing costs, bills, rates etc but the fact that if my wife or I feel that a smack is deserved occasionally is my business not anyone else’s. The fact that CYFS can take our children away if we break this law would destroy us. Therefore we will do whatever we decide to keep our little world together, even it means voting for someone I don’t like because I don’t expect any from the government I really don’t care who’s there. Most of my friends are the same we all work hard and try our best to bring up good children (we don’t all succeed every day). …

I know that an occasional smack works with some children and makes them better people. This is not a debate that Plunket (who have lost touch with parents) and the Government need to worry about as there are thousands of Parents who “know” the same thing. New Zealand is basically a good country and it is the fear that my children could be taken away that is more important to me than any economic policy, climate change strategy or social welfare policy could ever be. If I lose my job I have my family, if I lose my family I have nothing.

This fear may be unfounded but Sue Bradford’s law does not allow for people like me – people who abide by the law and care about their family. The party (or person) who can allay this fear will win the next election. Chester Burrows amendment to s59. I thought was perfect. It would actually secure them the next election by implementing the wishes of the people.

I am sending this email because John Key lost more votes with his attitude over the smacking referendum then he will ever lose over Richard Worth, Melissa Lee or Christine Rankin combined – none of them effected my life, this bill does.

I want John Key to be our Prime Minister after 2011 but he needs to understand he needs to treat this issue with respect. The thought of Phil Goff being the next PM is horrible but it might happen if John Key thinks this current law works – it doesn’t because it makes parents criminals.

I encouraged the reader to send his e-mail to the PM and his local National MP.

The Office of the Clerk is doing a ballot at midday to randomly select two private member’s bills from 24 put forward. The list is:

Only two National MPs have bills in the ballot. All three ACT backbenchers have a bill, as do all nine Green MPs. Maori Party has two, and Labour has eight.

Pardon the formatting – it is a cut and paste.

UPDATE: The luck of the Greens continues. Both draws picked a Green bill – Jeanette Fitzsimons’ Sustainable Biofuel Bill and Catherine Delahunty’s Customs and Excise (Sustainable Forestry) Amendment Bil.e

Chris Finlayson announced:

The government has responded to concerns from the legal profession and will restore the title of Queen’s Counsel to recognise outstanding members of the independent bar, Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson announced today.

Can’t say I’m too bothered either way. When or if we become a republic, the name will have to change – but any change should be part of an informed public debate and decision.

When QEII dies, all the QCS will then become KCs – that will be a lot of reprinting!

The title of KC/QC started in 1603 with Sir Francis Bacon.

Nick Smith said:

A joint report by economic consultants NZIER and Infometrics concludes that a modified emissions trading scheme is the best way forward for New Zealand on climate change policy.

“This report is a useful contribution to the important debate on how New Zealand meets its environmental goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least cost to the economy,” Dr Smith said today in releasing the report.

The report was commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment and provided to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee as part of its terms of reference.

“This report concludes that a modified emissions trading scheme is the best way forward. I am releasing this report to assist with informed public debate on climate change.

“The report highlights that the costs to New Zealand’s climate change policy are significantly greater if other countries do not put a price on carbon. This reinforces the Government’s policy of aligning our response more closely with other countries.

Yep any post-Kyoto arrangement must include all major emitters.

Anyway let us look at the actual report. They note:

There are a number of policy options available to New Zealand to pay for any international liability. The options are all on a continuum between the following two ‘extreme’ bounds:

(i) The government purchases all of the liability offshore using general taxation to raise the revenue required to do so. In this scenario, no carbon price is introduced in the New Zealand economy.

(ii) The government introduces a price for all greenhouse gases in all sectors, with no exclusions. In this scenario, emitters face the entire burden of the international liability.

They conclude:

Our modelling shows that if the rest of the world takes steps to price carbon, and technological change is induced by this pricing, then a broad-based domestic carbon pricing scheme is the least cost way to meet New Zealand’s international obligations. Without action by the rest of the world or technological change, the least cost option can include the free allocation of permits and exemptions for some industries and/or gases.

My version of this is they say we should have an ETS. If the rest of the world signs up to a price on carbon, then our ETS should cover all sectors. If however major emitters (such as China and the US) do not sign up, then some industries should be exempted from an ETS – agriculture being my guess as the most likely.

Indeed I am right. They say:

On balance, our recommendation in the short run is to introduce an ETS with free allocation to competitiveness-at-risk sectors, with agriculture excluded if measurement of its emissions is prohibitively expensive. Free allocation should be output-linked and phased out as our competitors adopt carbon pricing. If agriculture is initially excluded it should be transitioned into the ETS, with free allocation if required, as measurement becomes economic.

It will be interesting to see what the Select Committee recommend.

The Herald noted how many MPs were out campaigning in Mt Albert, who do not live in Auckland:

MPS IN MT ALBERT

The Herald saw at least 17 out-of-Auckland MPs on the campaign trail.

LABOUR HAD 12

Annette King, Darren Hughes, Maryan Street, Moana Mackey, Sue Moroney, Grant Robertson, Jacinda Ardern, Clare Curran, David Parker, Charles Chauvel, Grant Robertson and Clayton Cosgrove.

NATIONAL HAD THREE

John Carter, David Carter and Aaron Gilmore.

THE GREENS HAD TWO

Metiria Turei and Sue Kedgley.

They seem to have double counted Grant Robertson. Amazing how many Labour MPs all suddenly had parliamentary business in Auckland.

Professor Geddis said MPs’ campaigning was a grey area which was difficult to address.

One way was to be “incredibly specific” about what MPs could do – which would lead to opposing parties “bludgeoning” one another with allegations of breaches.

The other option was to accept that MPs were “political beasts” as much as they were public representatives.

Professor Geddis said MPs’ free travel could be suspended before general elections, but this would be more difficult for a byelection that took place alongside their routine work.

There is no easy answer. Even suspending travel in the period before a general election is problematic as Ministers still have Ministerial duties and would retain travel rights, so that would give the incumbent Government an advantage.

Six hours after I blogged on their illegal Directorships, Messrs Choudary and William Reddy resigned their Directorships of OSCM International Ltd.

It will be interesting to see if this means no action is taken against them for their false declarations.

NZPA reports:

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples wants universities to consider open entry for Maori students.

He said in a speech last night Maori students had the lowest rate of progression from school to tertiary education of any ethnic group.

His actual speech is here. He also notes, correctly, that:

Maori participation in tertiary education is higher than for any other ethnic group – and that is something to celebrate.

This graph (from here) shows very clearly that since 1999 the tertiary participation rate has been higehr for Maori than non-Maori. In fact the rate if 50% higher for Maori than European.

Now Dr Sharples also said:

But – and it’s a big qualifier – much of this participation is at levels one to three on the National Qualifications Framework. All of us know the benefits of a bachelor level qualification – the second challenge, therefore, must be how to boost participation for Maori to higher levels of study.

Now Dr Sharples is right that Maori participation is very high at Levels 1 – 3. But as we can see Maori have a higher participation rate than non Maori at Levels 4 to 7 Certificates and Diplomas also. And even at Bachelors level the Maori rate is around 75% to 80% of the European rate.

Personally I think too many people are going to university rather than other forms of tertiary education. I would not hold up a Bachelors degree as the holy grail for tertary education.

Dr Sharples also said:

Thirdly, I want to suggest a quantum leap could be achieved, if Victoria were to consider the following:

- Open entry for Maori students. We have seen how the dice are loaded against Maori, right through the school system. That is not any reflection on the academic potential of our young people. Reserved places for Maori have proven the ability of Maori students to rise to the challenge if they are given the opportunity.

This makes me wonder what the completion rate is. And yes that has a graph also.

And as we can see here the completion rate for Maori is above average for Certificate and Diplomas but a lot lower for Bachelors. This to me suggests that open entry for Maori students would not by itself improve outcomes – it would probably just lower the completion rate even more. The key to improving the university participation rate for Maori, would in my opinion improve educational outcomes at secondary school.

Two economists – Eric Crampton and Matt Burgess, has scrutinised a report by BERL, which cost the Government $135,000. The BERL report concluded the annual social costs of alcohol was $4.79 billion (and has been quoted as a reason to tax alcohol more etc), while Crampton and Burges says BERL have exaggerated costs by 30 fold. Crampton blogs:

“What we found shocked us. BERL exaggerated costs by 30 times using a bizarre methodology that you won’t find in any economics textbook,” Dr Crampton said.

“BERL has virtually assumed its answer. The majority of the reported social costs rest on two very strange assumptions which BERL has asserted without any reason or evidence,” said Dr Crampton said.

“The report assumes that one in six New Zealand adults drinks because they are irrational; that is, they are incapable of deciding what is good for themselves. BERL further assumes that these individuals receive absolutely no enjoyment, social or economic benefit from any of their drinking,” Dr Crampton said.

“These assumptions allowed BERL to count as a cost to society everything from the cost of alcohol production to the effect of alcohol on unpaid housework. That’s bad economics.”

Among other serious flaws, Dr Crampton said the report’s external peer review was done by the authors of the report’s own methodology, important findings in academic literature that alcohol had health and economic benefits were ignored, BERL did not properly warn readers about the limitations of its methodology, and used language in the report that was frequently misleading.

And that is just from the press release. The actual report is as savage as I have seen in critiquing an economic work:

This paper reviews BERL’s report, finding it contains serious deficiencies. For reasons of time, we focus exclusively on BERL’s tabulation of the costs of alcohol. Methodological errors account for approximately forty percent of BERL’s listed costs: double-counting of the costs of insurance and the costs of insured losses; counting as costs all of the alcohol consumed by harmful drinkers rather than just the portion harmfully consumed by those drinkers; incorrect use of multipliers; not accounting for cohort differences between serious alcoholics and the rest of the population in labour force characteristics; and, assuming an implausibly large reduction in crime in the absence of alcohol.

And further:

First, for alcohol consumers BERL uses an epidemiological basis to define the threshold for economic harm. This definition is crossed after 1.8 pints of beer and is low enough to catch one New Zealand adult in six. …

Second, BERL assumes all harmful alcohol and drug consumption is irrational. Irrational consumers are incapable of detecting private costs in excess of private benefits. To the extent those private costs exceed benefits, they are counted as social costs. Third, BERL assumes irrational consumers enjoy zero gross (not net) benefits, meaning all private costs are counted as social costs. The second and third assumptions are not justified – they are simply asserted by BERL. The effect of these assumptions on BERL’s cost estimate is profound. An analysis that would otherwise be confined to externalities is instead inflated by private costs.

And even more:

The credibility and independence of BERL’s work is also questionable, further limiting its usefulness. The analysis ignores most of the large body of peer-reviewed economic literature in favour of a few (mostly commissioned) reports by a very small subset of health economists whose reports have been subject in that literature to many of the same criticisms leveled here. BERL’s report can be reasonably characterized as a New Zealand implementation of a methodology developed by Professors Collins and Lapsley, cited over 100 times in the BERL report. These same authors provided the external peer review of the report.

And finally the summary:

It is customary in reviews like this to offer at least some praise, but BERL’s report has few redeeming features. Beneath its professional veneer, BERL’s report fails in multiple dimensions. Its conclusion is assumed. Its core assumptions defy both reason and the body of peer-reviewed literature. Its headline figures are overstated by an order of magnitude. The methodology is without foundation in the economics discipline, and the report has been peer-reviewed by the authors of its flawed methodology. Its literature review is highly selective. The report contains elementary errors and misunderstandings of economics, and policymakers are likely to be misled by the report’s loose terminology and spurious comparisons1
2. The BERL Study . In sum, these flaws render the report of negligible use for subsequent policy-making.

Now that is brutal. And the Government paid $135,000 for this report and the Law Commission has been citing it as a rationale for its advocacy.

I suspect the BERL report is just one of money where only costs are looked at, benefits ignored, and costs inflated to the maximum.

No Right Turn cries out:

Not content with turning Auckland into a dictatorship to prepare it for National’s Wellington-imposed gerrymander, the government is now planning a wider assault on local government democracy, with Environment Minister Nick Smith threatening to appoint administrators to run eight councils if they don’t improve their handling of resource consents.

The Minister certainly has this power (the relevant section is s25 of the RMA), but it has never been used, and for obvious reasons. Local authorities are democratically elected and accountable to the people. Replacing them, even in the area of resource consent planning and processing, with an unelected administrator removes that accountability. It silences local voices and crushes local democracy. And that is simply not acceptable in a democratic society.

I always enjoy having a diehard supporter of the Electoral Finance Act talk about silencing voices and crushing democracy. I mean really.

Nowhere in the rant does Idiot/Savant offer any criticism of the Councils for the reason they are being threatened with Administrators. It is because they are consistently breaking the law and failing to process resource consents in time. Local bodies are not above the law, and frankly it would be a good thing for them to suffer consequences for sticking it to everday residents by not processing resource conensts within the time frame set out in law. This is not crushing local democracy – this is ensuring local Councils are not above the law.

Also NRT fails to grasp that the Minister has not appointed Administrators. He is using his power to do so as a threat, so that they improve their performance and start obeying the law. This is a good thing.

Blaise Drinkwater’s blog is becoming a daily read. He does lots of good fisking.

The Sun has an exclusive first review of Bruno:

The film follows the camp presenter’s bid for fame in LA after he is sacked from his beloved fashion show on Austrian TV for bringing a Milan catwalk show to a standstill with his all-in-one Velcro outfit.

The scene is utterly brilliant and wipes the smiles from the faces of the snooty fashion world.

Brüno has only been in love twice. Once for just seven minutes with Eighties pop act MILLI VANILLI and the second time with his pygmy boyfriend who dumps him when he loses his TV show.

And here lies a warning — the pygmy sex scene is one of the most horrific incidents ever committed to celluloid.

I’m talking fire extinguishers, champagne bottles and mechanically adapted fitness equipment. Teenage boys should under no circumstances watch this with their parents.

This sounds superb. The naked wrestling in Borat was horrible enough, but this sounds even worse.

Brüno decides to become heterosexual — “like TOM CRUISE, JOHN TRAVOLTA and KEVIN SPACEY”. And an interview with a pastor, who specialises in turning gay men straight, is priceless.

Oh I can’t wait. It gets released on July 10. I am tempted to do a group booking for the Reading Gold Lounge – I know so many peopel who want to see it.

I have previously blogged on how the Greens Super Fund buys houses near Parliament, and then rents them out to their own MPs so that taxpayers will pay up to $24,000 a year rent to their super fund. It is legal under Parliament’s rules but a clear conflict of interest when you are effectively both landlord and tenant – but with Parliament paying the bills.

The Herald reveals today another conflict:

A taxpayer-funded Green Party pre-Budget brochure promoted a company in which its “Green Futures” superannuation scheme is a shareholder without disclosing the interest.

The brochure on the party’s jobs stimulus package “Green New Deal” was paid for by Parliamentary Services and went to about 300,000 homes before the Budget last month.

It included an article about a worker at wind turbine manufacturer Windflow Technology as an example of jobs in a company in “a new green economy”.

The party’s Green Futures Super Trust holds about 6000 shares in the company out of 12 million shares. The shares are are worth $1.82 each. No mention of its interest was included in the article.

Not a good look. Of course they did not mention it to increase their share price, but disclosure of the conflict would have prevented any criticism.

Sent in by e-mail.

Unlike John Key and Phil Goff, I will not be abstaining. I will be voting No. There are several reasons I will be doing so.

1. First of all, I have consistently supported the Borrows amendment as a highly sensible compromise. I do not support a return to the old law, and if it was a choice between the old law and the current law, I would stick with the current law. But the Borrows amendment explicitly excludes force as being reasonable if “it causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory or trifling; or any weapon, tool or other implement is used”.
2. I also support the Borrows amendment as it actually gives more protection to children in non-correctional situations. For example parents under Bradford’s law can use an undefined level of reasonable force in situations to prevent disruptive behaviour. Yes we have a law that says you can not smack for correctional purposes but can use an undefined level of reasonable force to prevent a child from continuing in disruptive behaviour. Do you want to argue the difference with the Police?
3. I don’t agree that the law is working well. It depends how you define well. If you look at criminal convictions only, I agree there have not been any convictions that are unreasonable. But I don’t think that is the only measure. I never expected scores of parents would be sent to jail for smacking their kids, just as I never expected scores of people jailed for breaching the Electoral Finance Act. That doesn’t mean it is good law though. The current law is confusing, parents do not understand it, and many absolutely fine parents have had to go through unnecessary Police or CYFS investigations.
4. I have a belief that the state should not intervene in how parents raise their children, unless there is clear harm to the children. Parenting is an exceptionally challenging and complex duty, and most parents excel at it without the state telling them how to correct their children’s behaviour. The tragedy is the the state often fails miserably at intervening with horrendous cases of child abuse, yet does intervene when a parent lightly smacks their child. A light smack is not child abuse. It is not assault. Good God it was only 20 years ago that most schools had corporal punishment.
5. Supporting the Borrows amendment is not the same as supporting smacking as a preferred correctional device. It is about not having the law declare parents criminals if they do a light smack for correctional purposes.
6. The wording of the referendum, while not perfect, is more than clear enough. the current law makes any form of correctional smacking a criminal offence – whether part of good, bad or neutral parenting. If you think smacking is automatically bad parenting then vote yes as Sue Bradford will do. If you think that there are situations where a parent should be able to lightly smack for correctional purposes without breaking the law then vote no.

Finally if you are unhappy with the $9 million cost of the referendum, remember that the former Labour Government refused to schedule it at the time of the general election, which would have saved millions.

If the No Vote clearly wins, and there is a significant turnout (say over 50%), then John Key and Phil Goff should support the Borrows amendment (now a private members bill by John Boscawen) as a sensible compromise.

Is there nothing the Fun Police don’t want to stop or restrict?

On the day of a record $26 million Big Wednesday Lotto draw, gambling counsellors are calling for a lower limit on lottery jackpots.

Problem Gambling Foundation chief executive Graeme Ramsey wants the $30 million cap on jackpots – doubled from $15 million in 2005 – to be cut to $12.5 million, which is below the level at which the public usually gets excited.

Oh yes we can’t have people getting excited.

If you accept the notion that because a very small minority of people have a problem with an activity, then everyone should be prevented from taking part in an activity – well we end up with a sterile society.

But the Lotteries Commission appears happy to see jackpot limits go even higher.

In a November briefing paper to then Internal Affairs Minister Richard Worth, the commission said it was looking into joining a proposed “world lottery” headed by Britain’s National Lottery.

“It is very likely that participation would entail lifting the current $30 million prize limit set on our games,” the paper said.

Great. There should be no limit. So long as there is transparency over the odds of winning, we should be able to have as big a prize pool as people want.

And while we are at it, why does the state have a monopoly in Lotto?