Kiwiblog

Above is the winning entry at the 2009 World of Wearable Arts. All photos from the Dom Post, who have 60 of them in their album.

Before the show we went to Trade Kitchen for dinner. They had a WOW special menu which I can highly recommend. Not only is it a great price ($30 for 2 courses or $40 for 3 courses), and quick service, the food was delicious. One of the best risottos I have had.

This is my 4th WOW Awards. I’m amazed at how well the creative team do to keep it fresh. Each year is very different to the year before.

This design was very very cute and got several citations.

Also one of the big winners.

If you have never been to a show, you might think it is just about people walking onto stage and showing off costumes. It couldn’t be further from the reality that it is a show of music, dance, set and costume.

The sets this year were amongst the best. Vines drop from the ceiling, bushes hide models beneath them etc.

Towards the end they had skimpily dressed cowboys singing “Macho Macho Man” and at one stage had the whole audience joining in singing and clapping.

There was also a “fight” scene between around 25 Supermans and a variety of lycra clad female super villians.

It really is an iconic production and we are so lucky to now have it in Wellington.

Friday’s Dom Post:

Once upon a time, the National Party caucus principally comprised farmers and lawyers. Few cockies remain in the Key-led Government’s serried ranks but legal eagles sit at the Cabinet table. Justice Minister Simon Power is one; so, too, is Attorney-General Chris Finlayson.

And neither, it seems, is afraid to challenge one-time colleagues.

Earlier this month, Mr Power published a discussion document that, in part, criticises counsel who earn some of their income from the legal aid budget. Some defence lawyers are unimpressed.

Last week, it was the attorney-general’s turn, although he seemed to be gunning for lawyers who undertake civil cases as well as those practising in the criminal courts. The tragedy for all lawyers, he told the Bar Association, was that “some of our number let us all down … they cannot even get the basics right. We have tolerated them for too long”.

He didn’t stop there: “If litigation, both civil and criminal, has reached a crisis … in this country, it is at least partly because some in our ranks are simply not up to the job. Either they shape up or ship out.”

It is commonplace for a National-led administration to lambast parts of the trade union movement, for example, but rarer for ministers of a blue hue to challenge the professions, particularly lawyers and doctors. But Mr Power and Mr Finlayson are at one on this.

I think it is called governing in the national interest.

The justice minister is on record as saying that one of his priorities is for the justice system to be refocused on the participants who don’t earn their living from it. That removes from centre stage, but puts into a more uncomfortable spotlight, lawyers of every stripe, including those who practise civil law.

Anyone involved in civil litigation knows about the time it takes and the prohibitive expense. It is why some cases find resolution via arbitration, and the number of civil actions is falling.

At a seminar for civil litigators early last year, former Bar Association president Jim Farmer, QC, said no-one could sensibly argue that the cost of civil litigation was reasonable, blaming complex and prescriptive court rules, grinding “discovery” practices, too much paperwork, judges failing to rein in litigators, and a shift to lawyers billing by the hour. Chapman Tripp’s Jack Hodder backed him up: “…the mainstream civil justice system is profoundly flawed and offers depressingly little value to any litigant …”

No wonder ministers are speaking frankly. They know that, when courts take aeons to hear a case, justice is more than delayed. It undermines public confidence in the justice system.

Hopefully there will be some results in due time, in terms of shorter delays etc.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Green MP Sue Bradford’s sudden retirement from Parliament yesterday reflects little credit on her party. With typical candour she declares her decision was prompted by the party’s co-leadership election a few months ago, which she lost to a young Maori, Metiria Turei.

Normally this would sound like sour grapes but whatever one thinks of Ms Bradford’s politics, she does not seem to suffer from wounded pride or excessive self-importance. She is remembered for the indignities she was willing to suffer in the years before entering Parliament when she was pictured in every small protest sit-in, usually being carried away by the police.

This is true, but I still regard it as a bad look for an MP to bail out of Parliament just a few months after they got elected.

Being elected to Parliament is a huge privilege, and MPs are elected for a three year term. It is one of the downsides of MMP that List MPs especially are being shuffled into and out of Parliament outside the electoral cycle.

I think no MP should bail out of Parliament early, unless it is for ill health, or to take up an appointment.

When Jeanette Fitzsimons relinquished the female co-leadership this year Ms Bradford was clearly the strongest candidate to replace her, and she knew it. Ms Turei was barely known outside the party and Sue Kedgley, another previous campaigner who has found her feet in Parliament, seemed not to be interested.

I’m not sure I agree. First of all Turei was deemed the favourite to win at a very early stage. Secondly the skills at being a good legislator (which Bradford was) are not necessarily the skills of leadership. Leadership is about taking people with you – and I think Bradford has never shown much in the way of skills there.

So why did Ms Bradford miss out? It is reasonable to conclude the Greens wanted a different face. They are a party sensitive to demographic character, as evidenced by co-leadership from different genders. Ms Turei offered youth and ethnic diversity. In the four months since her election she has not shown much else.

A party that puts appearances before substance is making difficulties for itself.

The Herald overlooks another issue – maybe the biggest issue. Bradford has rarely been involved with environmental issues. Her causes are social justice. In fact some in the Greens had grumbled her fights for so called social justice diminished the Greens branding as an environmental party.

Russel Norman (who like Bradford used to be a communist – Marxist not Maoist though) also has a background more on the social justice side, than the environmental side. Since becoming co-leader his focus has changed – but nevertheless I think a combination of Norman and Bradford would have weakened the Greens brand as an environmental party – and I suspect this was a factor in Turei’s victory.

John Armstrong writes in the Weekend Herald:

The time has come for Bill “Double Dipton” English to end the charade.

It has been apparent for a while that it is no longer tenable for him to stipulate his primary place of residence as being in his Clutha-Southland electorate when his real home has long been in Wellington.

I’m a bit surprised by the timing of this, as the Auditor-General is now making inquiries and presumably in time will advise whether or not Bill English has followed the rules correctly.

His highly questionable claim to be an out-of-Wellington MP – a status which made him eligible for an accommodation allowance while in Opposition and which entitles him to taxpayer-funded ministerial accommodation now he is in Government – has become unsustainable in purely political terms.

Of course there is a wider perception issue that goes beyond the rules. But I’m wary of the precedent that gets set if you punish MPs for having a family, and even worse punish them because they chose *at their own expense* to have some of their family live in Wellington with them while they are an MP.

English’s predicament has in part come about because of public expectation that MPs should reside in their electorates. That many don’t will come as a shock to many people. Those who don’t live in their electorates thus feel they have to perpetuate a fiction that they do, especially in large rural seats like English’s which feel isolated from and neglected by Wellington.

I doubt there were many people in Clutha-Southland who were unaware that during most of the year, Bill is in Wellington and his family are also. It was never a secret.

But this is not a new issue, and in fact one that the Electoral Act has been quite explicit about since at least 1956. First we have s 72(6)(b):

The place where, for the purposes of this Act, a person resides shall not change by reason only of the fact that the person is absent from that place for any period because of his or her service or that of his or her spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner as a member of Parliament

Now this is for the purposes of electoral enrolment, but it shows that long long ago it was recognised that MPs would be forced by their job to reside outside their normal home, and that it was undesirable for this temporary relocation to be deemed a change of primary residence.

We also have s72(10)(a):

In the case of a person who is appointed to be a member of the Executive Council, or who is the spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner of any person so appointed, the following provisions shall apply notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this section, namely so long as he or she holds that office he or she shall be deemed to continue to reside at the place of residence in respect of which he or she was registered as an elector of an electoral district (in this subsection referred to as the original district), notwithstanding his or her absence therefrom at the seat of Government or otherwise, unless and until he or she duly applies for registration as an elector of another electoral district of which he or she is, apart from the provisions of this paragraph, qualified to be an elector.

This is why both Bill and Mary English (the media have incorrectly reported she is enrolled in Wellington – she is enrolled in Clutha-Southland) are residents of Clutha-Southland for electoral purposes.

Now the electoral district enrolment is not the only test for primary residence. The Auditor-General in 2001 laid out a series of factors. Now these are not black and white in that you must tick 11/11 or 9/11 to be deemed to live in Place A or Place B. Ultimately the Speaker decides on the totality of the factors. They are:

(a) the extent of the MP’s parliamentary duties, and the amount of non-parliamentary time available to the MP to return “home”;

It takes around ten hours return (five hours each way) to get from Parliament to Dipton. And in the last decade English has held senior roles in Government and Opposition with duties around the country. I doubt there is much dispute on this factor that he has little time to return to Dipton, even if his family had stayed there.

(b) the locations where the MP spends most of that nonparliamentary time;

During most of the year it is Wellington, but during the summer break it is Dipton, as I understand it.

(c) the locations where the MP’s current spouse or partner and family live, and where other dependent family members usually live (including where they spend most time, work, or attend school);

And this is clearly Wellington.

(d) the person in whose name (whether the MP, the MP’s spouse or partner, or some other individual or legal entity) each property is owned or rented, and the utilities (e.g., electricity, telephone) are supplied;

I’m not sure but think the Dipton property is in Bill’s name and the Wellington property in the name of the Endeavour Trust.

(e) the level of the MP’s financial commitment to meeting the financial outgoings on each residence, including property maintenance;

Same for both I guess.

(f) the type of accommodation available to the MP at each residence (e.g., boarding, flatting, or full occupation), and who else lives there (other than the MP’s family);

Both are fully available.

(g) the availability of each residence for use by the MP at any time (e.g., whether it is rented out in periods of absence);

As far as I know Dipton is not rented out, during periods of absence. This is a key factor in my eyes. The provision of accommodation in Wellington is designed so that an MP is no better or worse off. If you were renting out your electorate home, then you would be gaining money.

(h) the nature and extent of the MP’s ties to each local community in which he or she has a residence;

I have little doubt Bill will have stronger ties to Dipton than Karori.

(i) the residence where the MP intends or expects to live should he or she cease to be an MP;

Bill has said he will return to Dipton when he is no longer an MP.

(j) the residence where the MP and members of his or her family are registered for electoral purposes; and

Bill and Mary are registered in Clutha-Southland. The children of voting age are enrolled in Wellington Central – as required by law.

(k) for electorate MPs, the location of the electorate.

Which is Clutha-Southland.

Now as I said there is a degree of subjectivity involved, as it is not just a case of ticking all 11 boxes one way or another. You can reasonable argue the merits.

This is why I think it is absolutely correct the Auditor-General is investigating. This is not a bad thing. This is a desirable thing.

Now John Armstrong is right that there is a wider issue of perception, and political judgements have to be made with that in mind. But personally I think it would be desirable to wait for the Auditor-General to report back before rushing to any decisions.

Whoops. Forgot to blog my iPredict column from Wednesday:

Clare Curran has blogged at Red Alert:

Communications and IT Minister Steven Joyce has just told the House in question time that there has been no delay in rolling out ultrafast broadband.

It’s amazing how this government can tell a barefaced lie with a straight face. The election was almost a year ago. The $1.5 billion delivery of broadband to 75% of New Zealand homes was a core election promise. Supposedly ready to go!

If Clare is going to use terms like bare faced lie, I’m going to have to point out how that description is one which better applies to her own blog post.

John Key announced the ultrafast broadband policy in May 2009. I was there when he did it. So was most of the industry. And they know what John Key said. So they get very puzzled when Clare claims the broadband package was supposedly ready to go. Let me quote John Key’s speech:

Delivering on these five principles will require a carefully thought-through and negotiated investment and regulatory model. National will conduct these negotiations in our first year of government.

2009 is the first year of Government. If anything, Steve Joyce is three months ahead of schedule. Everyone in the industry knows that National said the policy was a policy about what they wanted to achieve, and they would take 12 months working out the best way to achieve it.

And frankly it is somewhat bizarre that Clare keeps demanding that decisions should have been made quicker, because she has also blogged what an incredibly complex area this is. If the Government had made decisions more quickly, I suspect Clare would criticise that. Being in Opposition does not mean you have to criticise everything.

Clare then compounds things by claiming:

They axed the previous Government’s programme which was poised to rollout and put everything on hold for months while they recast a plan which now looks remarkedly like the previous government’s. That’s taken all year.

Now I was a big supporter of most of what the previous Government did in the Communications/IT field. But it is not at all correct to claim the previous Broadband Investment Fund is the same as what National is doing. The previous fund was not for a national fibre network reaching 75% of New Zealanders. It was $325 million (compared to $1.5 billion) and was not for fibre to the home. It was for mainly broadband to businesses and MUSH (municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals).

Now that was a good fund and certainly better than doing nothing (from my point of view). But to be blunt National trumped that with a policy that was far more ambitious and with far more funding – around 400% more.

Personally I suspect the former Minister, David Cunliffe, would have loved to have matched or exceeded National’s policy – but the simple fact of the matter is he couldn’t get the extra funding out of Clark and Cullen.

So while there are of course some similarities between the former BIF and the current Government’s proposal (mainly that they both use a regional competive process which is hardly surprising) they are in no way the same plan. And again, most people in the industry know this.

This government talks about investing in infrastructure. It seems to think that infrastructure is purely the network of roads, wires or fibre required to create a physical structure. What Mr Joyce, who is also the Associate Minister of Infrastructure, doesn’t seem to get, or pays lipservice to, is that with broadband, you can just invest in the fibre. You’ve got to invest in what will pass through the fibre. Services that will benefit society. And that’s the government’s role.

I’m not sure what Clare is suggesting here but I don’t want the Government competing with telcos, ISPs, Sky TV etc etc as the applications and services level. The infrastructure level, which is inherently non-competitive in most cases, is where I want the investment to happen.

It’s unknown whether the private sector investment required to make up the shortfall between $1.5 b and $6 billion will manifest itself, because its unknown what level of public investment will be made in the health, education and enregy sectors which will stimulate demand. That’s the real question.

No it is not. Expecting the Government to declare today what services it might seek to deliver in ten years time over the network is incredibly naive – especially considering the pace of change in the Internet industry. Any declaration today is likely to be more inaccurate than a Treasury forecast of the deficit!

The private sector will make their investment decisions on the basis of international experience and their own market research. They will not make them on the basis of what the Government may do online in ten years time.

The Dom-Post reports:

Deputy Prime Minister Bill English’s use of his taxpayer-funded accommodation allowance is to come under scrutiny from the auditor-general.

Following a complaint fro Progressive MP Jim Anderton to Auditor-General Lyn Provost about the finance minister claiming out-of-town accommodation expenses, the Office of the Auditor-General confirmed today it would make “preliminary inquiries”.

I’m delighted the Auditor-General has agreed to investigate. It is entirely appropriate she does so as questions of propriety have been raised.

I actually think the Auditor-General should have been asked to investigate much earlier on. In fact it would have been smart politics for Bill English himself to have asked them to investigate a month or so ago.

John Key doing the Top Ten. They chatted for quite a bit about New Zealand first so the segment is almost five minutes long.

The ten are:

10 The Auckland Airport now has a cinnabon
9 We have the loosest slot machines in the Pacific Rim
8 Only a convenient 20-hour flight away
7 It’s like England without the attitude
6 Down there Leno’s on at 9 o’clock
5 Get the whanau together, stay in a bach, crack open the chilly bin and slap on your jandals
4 Visit in the next 30 days, I’ll pick you up at the Airport
3 70% of our energy is generated through renewable hydropower – look they don’t all have to be jokes
2 We drive on the left side of the road, like the British and Lindsay Lohan
1 Unlike most of the world, we still like Americans

No 2 and No 1 were my favourites.

No Minister has a copy of a letter to the Auditor-General asking them to investigate the extra funding Jim Anderton gets (both personally and for expenses) by purporting to be the leader of a political party.

Sadly it will not be successful. Standing Order 34(1) is clear:

Every party in whose interest a member was elected at the preceding general election or at any subsequent by-election is entitled to be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes.

So under the rules of Parliament, Anderton is entitled to still be seen as a Progressive MP (and Leader) even though he has announced they will not stand a party list in 2011, and has endorsed Labour and encouraged all his members to join Labour.

But as with Bill English and his housing situation, it is not just about the “entitlement”, it is about the perception and Anderton fails on the perception front. He gets an extra $13,500 a year salary and no doubt an extra $2,700 a year superannuation. And his office gets an extra $100,000 a year budget. Total extra cost to the taxpayer over three years is $348,600.

I talk about the Government’s spending problem in my Dispatch from St Johnnysburg. An extract:

The simple fact of the matter is that Dr Cullen’s spending spree over the last nine years may well turn out to be unsustainable. Rather than borrow $400 million a week to fund it, why not reduce it by $400 million a week!

Sue Bradford has announced she is quitting Parliament on the 30th of October.

It’s basically because she lost the co-leadership election to Metiria Turei. Things are obviously not that happy in the Green camp.

More later.

UPDATE:

Some thoughts on Sue. Before she entered Parliament I thought she would be an atrocious MP – someone like Pam Corkery who was only good at protest and unsuited to actually making a positive (as in positive for their point of view) contribution.

I was wrong. She was in her first two terms a very effective MP. She was named Backbencher of the Year in 2000 by the NZ Herald. On select committee she asked useful and intelligent questions. She didn’t grandstand much. And she actually stood up a bit for small businesses – reasonably sympathetic to not burying them in compliance costs.

She also was a successful backbench legislator, getting three laws passed.

The anti-smacking law was one of those bills. Now I don’t think any worse of Sue because I disagree with the substance of the law. There are many laws I don’t agree with, and I don’t expect Green Party MPs to be promoting that many laws I like.

But where I am highly critical of her, is that she was fundamentally dishonest in her promotion of the law change. I think her rhetoric at times was as disgraceful as some of her opponents. And she basically lied when she said the law change was not about making it illegal to smack, when it was. She has since made quite clear that it was not just about stopping child abuse, but about legislating against correctional smacking.

If Bradford had promoted her law change more honestly, my previously high opinion of her would have remained. But I think she did herself and the country a disservice on that issue – and again I am not talking about the law change itself, but the way she conducted it.

Regardless I hope she has a happy career outside Parliament. Maybe she will stand for Mayor of the Auckland Super City?

This has exposed some unhappiness within the Greens. No matter how much you sugar coat it, an MP bailing out of Parliament with over two years to go is a bad look. Lots of MPs lose leadership contests, do not get selected for Cabinet, are not ranked as high as they want.  Almost all see their term through.

There is a wider issue, which I have alluded to before also. Green voters voted for a Green list with Jeanette as Leader and Bradford as an MP. I am not a fan of having significant changes so soon after an election. It almost stretches to false pretences. If there is to be a managed change of leadership it should be in the final year of the parliamentary terms, not just a few months after an electoral mandate has been granted.

I’m amazed no one in the media, or even the Greens, have picked up on this revelation in a story on Tony Gibbs.

And then, on behalf of GPG shareholders, there was 2006′s epic joust with the Labour government over its plan to change tax rules on foreign investments. …

Mr Gibbs launched a vigorous and ultimately successful campaign to get the government to back down. …

Former Labour Party president Mike Williams has dealt with Mr Gibbs for several years, including when Mr Gibbs was attempting to defeat the tax legislation being promoted by the Labour-led government. “He put up a hell of a fight and he won. He convinced me that it was unfair and, to be honest with you, I lobbied for him – it was unfair.”

Now just think about this. The Labour Party President, their chief fund-raiser, was lobbying his own Government Ministers on behalf of Mr Gibbs and GPG to secure the defeat of tax legislation.

Party Presidents should not be lobbyists for corporate interests. It is a fundamental conflict of interest to collect the money from corporates, and then lobby on their behalf to the Government.

This just reminds me how hollow Labour’s claim of concern about transparency in electoral financing is.

Believe it or not but daylight saving starts on Sunday. Don’t forget to put the clock forward an hour.

A snap of Sir Roger with Salient Editor Jackson Wood, showing off one of the badges funded out of compulsory student association fees that say “Leave us alone Roger”.

The irony is that it is fact the compulsory student associations that won’t leave students alone. And that they spend their compulsory funds on stupid badges.

I doubt anyone actually believes the press releases from various student unions, but just in case. First of all OPSA:

ACT’s bill differs from previous attempts at voluntary membership. It will not only force voluntary membership on all campuses irrespective; but it is essentially the same as the “full-blown” type tried in recently in Australia, where institutions are not allowed to charge a compulsory services levy and use this to buy services from students’ associations.

The bill is in fact very much in line with the three previous bills in the 1990s. They all allowed individual students to decide whether or not to join. The current law was a last minute compromise by NZ First.

The issue of service levies has arisen, because it has become de facto compulsory membership in some areas with an institution funding an association through this back door.

Then Te Mana Ākonga:

“The National government have expressed previously that they would like better outcomes for Māori in education. TMA questions how this view is possible if they take the reliable tools we have, this being our voice and the right to express our autonomy” said Poutu

Except Maori students do not have autonomy. They are forced to join the compulsory student associations. Post VSM, Maori student associations could actually compete for members with the main student associations. Students should have a choice as to whether to join any or all of the main campus association, their faculty association, a Maori association if they are Maori.

Then Albany Students Association:

The Albany Students’ Association, a not-for-profit incorporated society that currently serves over 7,000 Massey University Albany campus students, relies heavily on student membership levies and, without them, would be economically crippled. “Contrary to what the ACT Party is suggesting, students are able to opt out of membership if they do not want to be a part of their students’ association, but most of them appreciate and support the fact that we provide student-focused services such as Orientation; student publications, independent advocacy advisors, and welfare services.

They contradict themselves in the same paragraph. They claim with compulsion they would be crippled, yet also claim students can opt out and the fact most don’t is because they do such a good job.

NZUSA do the same:

“Independent representation, advocacy and support, sporting and cultural clubs and social events such as Orientation would all be under threat in the unlikely event that this Bill succeeds, and all in the name of choice – which already exists!” said Blair.  …

New Zealand would do well to heed the lessons from the disaster that recently unfolded in Australia, which saw associations collapse nationwide under a voluntary system, …

I think the SAs must think MPs are morons. They keep claiming there already is choice, yet also claim that voluntary membership will see associations collapse.

What they really mean is that students have choice, in the Cuban sense of choice. A Claytons choice.

NZUSA vows to fight to keep students in the driving seat and interfering politicians out, and to win the battle to protect universal membership and retain quality advocacy and representation for New Zealand students. They deserve nothing less.

Oh really NZUSA should feature in a George Orwell novel. Their fight to stop students being able to decide whether or not to join a student assocaition they label as fighting to keep students in the driving seat.

It sounds like apartheid era South Africa’s defence of the “homelands” on the basis of keeping Black South Africans in the driving seat.

And then they use the Orwellian term universal membership and call it something to be protected. This is like calling armed forces conscription “universal service” and pledging to fight for the right fo young people to be conscripted!

Finally they push the myth they represent New Zealand students. They do not. No one body can represent NZ students. Students have diverse views on issues, and students should be able to decide to fund the views they agree with.

The CTU also joins the fray. Yes the Council of Trade Unions. Their members lost the right to have compulsory membership in the 1980s but they battle for student unions to remain the last hold out

CTU president Helen Kelly said the bill guaranteed the loss of essential student support services.

“Student associations provide critical services such as student loan advice, welfare support, advocacy services, sporting and cultural clubs and facilities that are all essential for student welfare,” she said.

“The loss of these services would be incalculable.”

What a load of nonsense. Student Loan advice?? VUWSA (for example) couldn’t even balance its own budget for most of the decade. Their history of financial mismanagement would make them as suitable to be student loan advisors, as it would be Charlie Sheen to give monogamy advice.

Advocacy services, means advocating for Labour and the Greens – not an essential service. Students should get to choose their advocates.

And is the CTU really claiming that sporting and cultural club are “essential” for student welfare? Oh my God what would we do without the chess club.

Of course that also assumes these clubs would disappear under VSM. They won’t. They just won’t get grants to subsidise (generally) their travel. But the vast majority of clubs will carry on – with students deciding to join and participate in them – as they do now.

Almost no-one in New Zealand will know who Jim Irwin was, but he was well known to those involved in the International Democratic Union having served as Treasurer for many years.

I’ve just been told the sad news that Jim passed away this week, aged 73. Jim was a generous man who often personally funded many events for the International Young Democrat Union. He was great company, as those of us who got to know him can testify. After one meeting in Thailand, he took a few of us out on his yacht (actually a super-yacht) around the Pee Pee Islands for a few days. It was a wonderful time as we would have every meal on a different island, always diving off the ship and swimming to shore. The water was so warn we even went swimming at midnight some nights!

Jim was a self-made man. I’m not sure of his exact wealth but think he was a billionaire. He was a proud Irish-American, and his father was a battalion chief in the New York City Fire Department. Jim took over IMPAC in 1972 when it had six staff, and built it into a company today with over 2,000 staff.

His generosity was not limited to the IDU and IYDU:

In 1994, James B. Irwin endowed the International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award, the globe’s richest literary prize for a single work of fiction. Each year a winning author receives 100,000 Euros.

James B. Irwin is also the founder of the leading literary prize for Mexican Writers, the IMPAC Monterey Literary Award, conducted in partnership with Monterey Institute of Technology. The IMPAC Award for Young Writers, which honors the best work of young authors from throughout the State of Connecticut, was established by James B. Irwin and is co-sponsored by the Connecticut State University.

The, United States National Task Force for Children has honored James B. Irwin, for his work in promoting children’s rights throughout the United States. He had been honored and recognized by the Adam Walsh Foundation for Missing and Exploited Children, The Muscular Dystrophy Association, The American Cancer Society, The American Heart Association and many other charitable and philanthropic organizations around the world.

Jim will be sorely missed by not just his family, but all those who knew him.

I might be wrong, but I suspect Helen Clark hated that her first meeting with Barack Obama was having John Key introduce her as his predecessor, after Obama goes out of his way to say hi to Key.

We sometimes forget what a great reputation our country has overseas as a place to live:

Mr Obama had a friend living in New Zealand who had raved about the country praising its golf courses, skiing and lifestyle for families.

If Obama does visit at some stage, he’ll be a lot more popular than he is back home. UMR released a poll yesterday on NZers views of world leaders. The net positive ratings were:

1. Barack Obama +82% (88% favourable, 6% unfavourable)
2. Kevin Rudd +45%
3. Angela Merkel +15%
4. Nicolas Sarkozy +2%
5. Gordon Brown -1%
6. Silvio Berlusconi -16%
7. Vladimir Putin -19%

I am firmly against separate justice systems, but all for making the system more effective and this initiative seems a good one:

The Youth Court will sit at Manurewa Marae from November, and supporters say justice served in a Maori setting won’t be soft. …

Gisborne’s Te Poho o Rawiri Marae spearheaded the initiative last year, but Mr Sharples said Auckland was the logical extension of it because of the population base – one in four Maori live there.

Justice on marae was often far more uncomfortable for offenders than courtrooms, he said.

“Tamaiti [a boy] can stand in front of his family and be accounted for – it’s easy to go to a Pakeha court and go ae, ae, [yeah, yeah] and give the fingers and go out.

“But to stand in a court at your marae with your ancestors and your aunties, uncles and cousins – it’s scary. Some will think it’s soft but this is the hard option.”

I think Dr Sharples is spot on here. The change in venue could well make it more difficult for young offenders to be as disrespectful as they sometimes are in traditional courts.

And it is the same justice system, with the same Judges and same penalties. Just a different venue.

Judge Greg Hikaka will sit at Manurewa once every two weeks.

He said it was too early to say how many would go through the marae but offenders would have to be referred by the court after a family group conference.

That conference would set out a plan to address the young person’s offending which would be monitored by the marae.

But victims would not be left out of the picture as they would have to agree to it, the judge said.

And that is a vital part of it also.

Most will have heard the news by now:

Sir Howard died suddenly in Rotorua this morning, aged 74. …

Sir Howard’s family confirmed the singer’s death to the Herald this morning, saying he had become ill while visiting Rarotonga last week.

His condition had not improved since his return a few days ago. …

Very sad, as generally he appeared to still be full of life, and lots to live for. He was one of the giants of New Zealand entertainment.

The Herald has tributes.

The Herald reports:

Publicans in suburban Auckland reckon the city council should leave the running of neighbourhood bars to the locals.

There’s a difference between suburban bars and inner-city boozers, says Jason Breen, managing director of Remuera’s Villager restaurant and bar.

Local bars responded to the patrons’ needs, which meant they needed flexibility.

Mr Breen is saying leave it to the local bar owners, but it got me thinking about another issue – why doesn’t the Auckland City Council not make any changes at all to licensing rules, and wait for the Super City.

Because then the new local boards will be able to set rules for their local communities, rather than have them set centrally. That would seem a win-win.

A reader e-mails:

We learned a couple of things about the Greens, yesterday… They don’t support human rights and they don’t care about climate change.

First, they wouldn’t support the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill – even just as far as select committee.

And secondly, when Parliament ran out of members’ bills to debate, and started debating the various reports on the order paper that they almost never get to, the Greens wouldn’t even take one call to discuss the Select Committee Review of the Emissions Trading Scheme. Every Green MP could have taken a 10-minute speech to lay out the Greens’ vision for combating climate change, they could have controlled Parliament’s agenda and presented a unified and united view on what they think we must do. But I guess they don’t have one. Like everyone else, they preferred to take the evening off. Human rights and climate change just aren’t that important…

Ouch. What does Frog say in defence?

AAP report:

Mr Rudd joked that as the US is absorbed with its own policy debate on health reform he had had his own experience of “socialised hygiene”.

“I woke up this morning at the appropriate hour before some further breakfast organised for me by staff and then, only to encounter a queue, a line of people outside my bathroom, led by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Foreign Minister of NZ and most of our diplomatic staff,” Mr Rudd told a lunch in New York on Wednesday (NY time).

“So, if Mayor (Michael) Bloomberg is here, I would say this is an extreme way to treat our Kiwi cousins,” Mr Rudd said.

The story explained:

Prime Minister John Key was forced to go cap in hand to the residence of the Australian Ambassador to the UN for a wash this morning (Wednesday NY time) after water to his hotel was cut off.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd got more than he bargained for when he woke to find a queue of unwashed Kiwis waiting to use his bathroom.

In the true spirit of trans-Tasman cooperation Mr Rudd extended a cousinly hand to Mr Key in his hour of need.

Mr Rudd and his wife Therese Rein are staying at the residence of the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations near the UN building on the east side of Manhattan and were close at hand when the water was cut off at the hotel next door.

Dozens of people, including the New Zealand and other foreign delegations, along with members of the Australian diplomatic party and Mr Rudd’s staff were left without any water for several hours, as they woke up to get ready for another day at the UN.

I can see Rudd dining out on this for for quite a while!

The Herald reports:

NEW YORK – Prime Minister John Key had a surprise meeting with United States President Barack Obama at a lunch at the United Nations here this afternoon (New York time).

The pair were scheduled to meet for the first time at a US Presidential reception this evening but Mr Obama approached the Prime Minister unexpectedly at a lunch hosted by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

The pair chatted for two or three minutes.

Mr Obama asked Mr Key how he was enjoying the UN. The pair exchanged pleasantries before the US president moved on.

Mr Key will have another chance to meet the US leader at tonight’s reception.

What I find amusing is that the PM is meeting the UN Secretary-General, US President, NATO Secretary-General etc etc, yet the average Kiwi is only interested in his appearance on Letterman!

The Letterman episode will screen Friday night NZ time.