Kiwiblog

Labour MP Chris Hipkins blogs:

On the 8th of December I lodged a number of Written Parliamentary Questions to John Key in his capacity as Minister Reponsible for Ministerial Services. They all involved spending on services provided to ministers (eg. self-drive cars, VIP cars, ministerial housing etc). I had assumed that given the “Double Dipton” debacle they’d be keen to be seen as open and transparent.

So far John Key has replied to all of them with the same answer: “I am unable to provide the member with the information requested in the timeframe available. I will provide the member with the answer as soon as possible.”

All of the questions were lodged on the 8th of December, so he’s already had several weeks. In almost all cases there are examples of similar questions having been asked of Helen Clark in the past. I’m sure John Key isn’t going to argue that he should be subject to a lower standard of accountability than his predecessor, so I’ll look forward to getting his answers before he takes off for his holiday in Hawaii.

A snide wee post from Chris where he laves out certain key information. And we won’t even touch on his assertion that a period of 12 days is “several weeks” except to comment this proves the case for national standards in numeracy.

Now the first big omission from Chris is how many questions Helen Clark got as Minister of Ministerial Services. Over an entire three year term from 2005 to 2008, she got 150 – an average of one a week.

And how many have Chris and his mates submitted in just December 2009? 128!!!!

I am all for Ministers answering parliamentary questions – they are important. But frankly you look like a wally if you file 128 questions in the weeks before Xmas (and during a time when the PM is known to be overseas) and then complain that you don’t get replies promptly.

Also important to note is that many of the questions are not ones seeking just one item of information – ie something one staffer can do in under an hour. Some examples are:

How much office or administation area was leased by Departments, Ministries or Crown Entities for which they are responsible in the 2008/09 year listed by department/ministry/crown entity, building name, total area leased and rental cost?

How many days sick leave was taken by staff in each of the Departments, Ministries or Crown entities for which they are responsible for each month in 2009?

What was the total cost to date of petrol for ministerial self-drive cars received by their minister on or after 19 November 2008 and how does that figure break down by month?

Just imagine the scores and scores of hours it will take to compile that sort of information for 128 questions.

Now I am a firm defender of the right for the Opposition to ask these questions and gain the info. But frankly they should not expect to get 128 replies within a couple of weeks and have only themselves to blame for not asking earlier, or spreading them out more evenly.

Again remember, Chris and his colleagues have almost asked more in two weeks than Helen Clark got in three years for this portfolio – a piece of information he forgot to mention in his little snideness.

Do you remember the millions of people who denounced the Iraq War as being blood for oil – that it was only about the US trying to steal Iraq’s oil supply.

There were many good reasons to oppose the Iraq War, but the blood for oil slogan was particularly moronic. For a start the cost of the war has proven to be much greater than the value of any oil. But this article from Time Magazine may be of interest to those who still cling to the slogan:

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country’s giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend’s auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades.

That’s one myth destroyed.

In early November I blogged calling for nominations from readers for the Kiwiblog 2010 charity. There were roughly about 80 nominations which makes me think this is something really positive to fuel some great offline events and fundraising. More about these plans in the New Year, but basically there will be four components:

1. 10% of gross advertising revenues to go to the charity
2. Online link to dedicated donation page, and updates on charity’s work
3. A number of fun offline events as fundraisers
4. Seeking businesses interesting in doing matching donations

I narrowed the nominations down to a five organisation short-list based on the original criteria I stated:

1. Charity must be based in NZ (but can have international focus)
2. Should have broad appeal, and be relatively apolitical
3. Should have national relevance, not local only, and be topical
4. Should actually deliver services of some kind, not just advocacy
5. Should be reportable – as in the ability to keep people interested in the work they do with regular updates

Those that did not make this year’s shortlist are not necessarily out of contention for future years.

It is now time to put this short-list to a public poll.

Please use the poll in the blog sidebar to indicate your choice for the 2010 charity. Voting closes at midnight on New Years Eve.  2010 candidates in alphabetical order are:

• Alzheimers New Zealand Incorporated
• CanTeen
• Fred Hollows Foundation
• New Zealand Red Cross
• SPCA

Please remember that this process is designed to select a charitable beneficiary by majority vote from the community here. It is pointless for the vote to be skewed by what we can only call “campaigning” as the cause needs to be one that feels right for the people who naturally assemble here!

All five charities are great causes, and I expect over time many of them, if not all of them, will get to be Charity of the Year at some stage – if the concept proves worthwhile by having people get behind it.

Happy Voting!

Colin James writes:

The Maori Party’s Mr Harawira also spent taxpayers’ money on personal fun, in Paris. Confronted, he reverted to Hone, the abusive teenage protester. For that he earned a grandmother’s fierce disapproval.

That gutsy, determined kuia five years ago held off Labour’s heavy hitters and earned their fury for what they saw – and see in exchanges as late as last week – as duplicity. She went solo and now has four MPs alongside her. The party’s future is far from secure and many National policies are anathema to its voters. But it is in the game and winning points.

In that game it is Tariana Turia who anchors the party. Whacking Mr Harawira quarantined a threat to its important third constituency (after two sorts of Maori): an intrigued and respectful white middle-class that ungrudgingly (so far) concedes the points the party wins.

Mrs Turia is my politician of the year.

Kiwiblog readers also voted Tariana the Minor Party MP of the Year. I can recall the days when she was seen as electoral poison. She has achieved something quite remarkable with her establishment of the Maori Party, as I suspect it will be one of the four parties still existing in 2030.

Not a politics quiz, but a general trivia quiz from the Dom Post.

The Press reports:

The argument between couples as to who is better at parking, finally has a scientific answer.

Psychologists asked 65 volunteers to park an Audi in a sealed-off university car park.

The results found that women took up to 20 seconds longer to park in the same space.

But although they were more cautious about edging into position, it did not make them any more accurate.

Scientists from Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, found men were better at driving both head-on into the space and reversing into it.

However, the biggest difference was in parallel parking, where men were found to be 5 per cent better in their handling and positioning of the vehicle.

That reminds me of an old joke. It is better in person with hand actions than in print, but nevertheless it goes like this:

Why are women so bad at parallel parking?

Because men keep telling them that |                                                              | is six inches

Some years ago, was at a Xmas Party at Fords Cafe and a woman was trying ot park outside, and failing badly. Someone told this joke to the table and for several minutes we were pissing ourselves as we kept watching her try to park. She finally managed it and we were a bit worried she would think we were laughing at her (rather than the joke) so we sent someone outside to tell her the joke, and she also burst into laughter.

A good line from the ODT editorial:

Schools have nothing to fear from national standards if effective teaching is already taking place – as it clearly is in the majority of schools – and where it is not occurring, national standards will require improved practices, closer monitoring and steps to correct poor teaching.

Parents should demand nothing less.

Hard to disagree.

John Key is quoted in the Herald:

Prime Minister John Key returns home this morning from the Copenhagen climate change conference saying a binding agreement could be concluded in Mexico next year but that the negotiating process has to change.

“It’s progress, but there is a lot more to be done if we are going to achieve the outcome that we need,” he said last night from Los Angeles.

“There is a lesson to come out of Copenhagen and that is that trying to build uniform consensus across 193 countries on such a complex issue is not going to work. It is not the right process.” …

“Small countries like Bolivia and Sudan can jump up and down and stamp their feet but they are irrelevant when it comes to solving the challenge of climate change.

There would be no credible response to climate change without the United States and China, coupled with Brazil, India, South Africa and the European Union, the PM said.

Anyone country can veto a line in the agreement under UN rules. This makes agreement painstakingly slow.

As an example, at ICANN meetings you have meetings of the ccTLD managers (ccNSO) and also of the Governments (GAC). In the ccNSO the comminque is usually drafted by two or three of us over a beer, and circulated the next day, and approved basically within 10 minutes.

The GAC will usually spend most of their final day just approving their communique.

The PM is making a similiar point (by coincidence) to the one I made about who are the countries that make up 80% of the emissions. There are only about 20 of them (less if you take the EU as one bloc), and really you just need to get them in a room and get an agreement. The ask the rest of the world to vote to adopt it or not.

They’d be better to remove the negotiations from the UN, and give them to say the G20. The G20 includes 17 of the 20 biggest emitters – only ones left out are Iran, Spain and the Ukraine.

Tracy Watkins and Vernon Small rate the front benches. Their scores:

• John Key 9.0
• Bill English 6.5
• Gerry Brownlee 6.5
• Simon Power 8.5
• Tony Ryall 8.0
• Nick Smith 5.5
• Judith Collins 7.5
• Anne Tolley 3.5
• Chris Finlayson 7.0
• David Carter 4.0

• Tariana Turia 7.0
• Pita Sharples 6.0

• Rodney Hide 2.0

• Phil Goff 7.5
• Annette King 6.5
• David Cunliffe 6.0
• Ruth Dyson 5.5
• Parekura Horomia 4.0
• Clayton Cosgrove 6.5
• Chris Carter 2.0
• Maryan Street 5.0
• Darren Hughes 6.0
• David Parker 8.0

• Russel Norman 6.0
• Metiria Turei 4.5

While most of the ratings are common sense, I actually would disagree with a few. I can’t imagine how you can say the Shadow Attorney-General (David Parker) is a point higher than the actual Attorney-General (Chris Finlayson). I agree Parker has been one of the better Labour MPs.

Likewise the Dom Post seem to be reflecting Trevor Mallard’s view of Anne Tolley, than the real world. They have rated Parekura Horomia higher than Tolley. Yes, Anne Tolley was a bit unsteady in the House in her early days, but doesn’t look as bothered now. And frankly blaming Tolley for not getting the teacher unions to support national standards as absurd. That is like giving Michael Cullen bad marks as the former Finance Minister for not getting the Roundtable to endorse his policies.

I also can’t see where you rate Carter a 4.0 for Agriculture – just because he is low profile. The feedback I get is that Carter is very respected by the industry.

And on the Labour side, a totally lack of mention of Goff’s biggest fuck up during the year – the Richard Worth scandal. His championing of Neelam Choudary as some shy and retiring person who could not handle Worth blew up massively in his face and damaged his brand. He dropped significantly in the polls after that. A 7.5 is well rather generous for the man whose party is 25 points behind in the polls.

But hey it gets boring if everyone agrees on every rating.

Cactus blogs:

The political strategical stupidity in a coup is astounding in a party of 5 MP’s, 80% of whom are reliant for their place in Parliament solely on the electoral seat of the guy they plotted against as the party didn’t reach the 5% threshold. For that, the coup plotters deserve a slight fail. It would certainly have made a Constitutional sensation if there was a lost by-election and a Party was left with 4 MP’s having neither breached the 5% threshold or won an electorate seat. I can’t find out through internet resources as to what the outcome of that would actually be. A snap election with National polling on 60% the most likely outcome in hindsight.

For those who wonder, the ACT List MPs would remain in Parliament even if there was a by-election and ACT lost Epsom to National.

While Sir Roger is around he is a constant nuisance for anyone leading the Party. Heather Roy needed Sir Roger Douglas as co-leader or supporter as much as a hooker needs genital herpes to perform her job.

Heh Cactus has such a lovely turn of phrase.

All I have to say on the conclusion of the matter is that the coup plotters must now all fall on their swords, resign as MP’s and let the next candidates on the list: Hilary Calvert, Peter Tashkoff and John Ormond have a turn. I have no idea how any of those three would run as MP’s versus Boscawen, Douglas and Roy but anything must be better than a trio of turkeys who voted for an early Christmas. No idea what happened with David Garrett but one gives him the benefit of the doubt that he may very well have been at the pub at the time of the plotting.

Heh. I suspect Cactus is not the only ACT member upset with those Caucus members who thought a coup which would result in ACT ending up out of Parliament next election was a good idea.

Whale chips in:

Cactus is right when she says that the only thing worse than a leadership coup in a small party is a failed leadership coup. Especially so when you only need to get three out of five. …

Well traitors are traitors and there is only one solution. Death. I don’t mean physical death, I mean political death. The three of them are List MPs and the party could quite easily give them all the boot. …

I won’t repeat Whale’s suggested punishment for the person who leaked the putsch to the media!

The Sunday Star-Times reports:

FLAGS WERE in the air last week, and so was nationhood. Maoridom chose its Waitangi Day Flag by a big majority, but discontent with the New Zealand flag, with its conspicuous Union Jack in one corner, has been simmering for years.

So the Sunday Star-Times asked a handful of experts to design a new flag. Today we reveal fascinating new designs by artists Billy Apple and Dick Frizzell, by former ad-man John Ansell, who designed the famous “IWI/KIWI” National Party billboards in 2005, and by Wellington graphic design company Base Two.

Now John has six different versions of a fern flag on his blog site, and you can vote on your preferred designs.

My favourite is the classic black. Second equal would be versions E and F. The split colour looks quite good.

I’ve just voted, so go over to John’s site and have a vote also.

The SST report:

WORKERS WILL be allowed to swap one week of their holidays for cash from next year.

The government will introduce legislation early in 2010, despite opposition from unions who see it as a move to rewind the Labour government’s law change two years ago, which increased the minimum annual leave entitlement for fulltime workers from three to four weeks.

This was of course election policy. It also may not mean great change for some people as if you do not take all your annual leave, and leave your job, it gets paid out to you anyway. Also it gives an employee the right to sto an employer closing the business for four weeks over summer, and forcing them to take four weeks leave then. They can now only be forced to tale three weeks leave, and get the fourth paid out as extra salary.

The government will also legislate to standardise the rate at which leave is calculated. There will be a single rate of pay for all leave whether annual, sick, bereavement or public. …

Wilkinson said the only workers who would be worse off under the changes were those who engaged in “gaming” the system; for example, by manipulating their work hours to maximise their pay while on leave.

Under current law, holiday payments factor in penal rates in the four weeks before the holiday. An employee could exploit that by working considerable overtime before going on leave.

Seems sensible, and much much easier administratively.

Wilkinson said the review was needed because the current system was so complex and confusing that even the courts had trouble determining disputes between employers and employees over rates of pay for leave.

“We are not reducing entitlements. We think the new formula for relevant daily pay will be easier to calculate. We also think it will be fairer to employees and employers and prevent the `gaming’ of relevant daily pay calculations.”

I suspect very few employers apply the law absolutely correctly because it is so difficult to understand. Most just pay leave at the normal rate anyway I suspect.

Helen Kelly, president of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and a member of the review panel, was worried the government would allow bosses to transfer days in lieu and public holidays to avoid paying double time.

Although she was happy with the proposals as they stood, she was concerned that the final legislation could go further than the report, leaving workers worse off.

“There should be a condition [in the legislation] that the reason for transferring is not to avoid paying time-and-a-half.”

Nice to see a constructive approach by the CTU. They will of course be against the cashing in a weeks leave, but pleased to see not against the other changes necessarily.

Some workers spoken to by the Star-Times were pleased to hear of the law change, saying they would be keen to cash in their leave. Others though, would not. “Hell no, I don’t need the money…I would rather take the break from work,” said one.

And now they will have the choice, so both camps can be happy. Different employees have different needs. Those with kids probably love having a 4th week leave. Those without kids are more likely to love being able to earn some extra money by only taking three weeks. And there are also those in positions who find it hell to take too long a break, as the work piles up so much in their absence. So not treating all employees as wanting the same thing is good.

Among the 241 submissions was a call for March 18 to become a public holiday. Wilkinson said she was “amused” at the suggestion but was not interested in “legislating for behaviour that condones hangovers or the over-indulgence of alcohol”. March 17 is St Patrick’s Day.

Heh.

The Sunday News reports many prominent comedians are lining up to sign declarations that they are not the comedian with name supression charged with child abuse.

It occurs to me that at the rate comedians are saying “not me”, most people will soon be able to work out who it is, by process of exclusion!

Those quotes as saying it is not me are:

• Michelle A’Court
• Oscar Kightley
• Mike King
• Ewen Gilmour
• Te Radar

The guild wrote to TV3 director of news and current affairs Mark Jennings asking the network not to refer to the accused as a “well-known comedian”. “When people make a list in their heads of a well-known comedian, it is a really small group of people and this person would not be on this list,” A’Court said.

“Being charged with the sexual abuse of a child is as appalling as it comes. I feel very sad when I hear people outside of our group saying, `Oh, do you think it might be blah, blah’. I am really convinced that if his name becomes public, everyone will go, `Really, I wouldn’t call him a comedian’.”

Michelle A’Court has a valid point. If the name ever is made public, I don’t think most people would associate them with the term comedian.

As always, no guessing identities in comments please.

Was going to just be a quiet dinner with Auckland Girl in Karori. A visiting mutual Auckland friend tried to head up at 11pm to join us but her Iraqi taxi driver did not know where Karori was, let alone the street we were on. And her cellphone died so she spent 55 minutes in a taxi looking for us before returning back to town.

We then decided after that effort we had to head down to Courtney Place to her (temporary) place. The party there turned serious with the introduction of Mexicans (don’t ask if you don’t know) and I got home around 4.30 a.m. A very funny night.

Anyway we have a caption contest from the party, as one person managed to fall asleep next to the blaring stereo!

John Armstrong first talks about who not not be Politician of the Year (a new rule stops someone winning it two years in a row so Key is ineligible), and then hands out the awards:

But when it comes to Politician of the Year, it is difficult to go past Tony Ryall. The Health Minister has hardly put a foot wrong in a portfolio which traditionally has been a political graveyard. Ryall’s political management in his portfolio has been exemplary, first with respect to the swine flu scare and then with the Labtests fiasco in Auckland.

Well done Tony. I doubt a Health Minister has ever won the award before.

Backbencher of the Year: Act’s John Boscawen. …

Polite to a fault, the Aucklander is not afraid of putting Cabinet ministers on the spot with well-timed and astutely worded questions that deliberately ignore or undercut Act’s alliance with National.

A self-employed finance and property investor before entering Parliament last year, he scored a minor coup in securing a much-needed select committee inquiry into finance houses.

And the other awards:

Rising stars: National’s Steven Joyce and Paula Bennett; Labour’s David Parker, Grant Robertson, Charles Chauvel, Phil Twyford and Chris Hipkins; the Maori Party’s Rahui Katene.
The “we wish 2009 never happened … please say it never happened” award: Shared by National’s Richard Worth, Kate Wilkinson, Melissa Lee and Kanwaljit Singh, and Labour’s Phil Goff and Chris Carter.
Quiet achievers: Foreign Minister Murray McCully, Trade Minister Tim Groser and (increasingly) Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee.
Jury’s out: Anne Tolley’s performance as Education Minister; Shane Jones’ chances of becoming Labour’s next leader.
Once were farmyard roosters, now feather dusters award: Act’s Rodney Hide and the Maori Party’s Hone Harawira.
Missing in action: The Greens’ new co-leader, Metiria Turei; the Greens in general; large chunks of Labour’s front bench.
Gone – but not forgotten: The Greens’ Sue Bradford.
Gone – and already forgotten: National’s Richard Worth.

Fran thinks big:

Instead of tilting at windmills, the dairy industry should think big.

If cows are housed indoors for much of the time, their poop can easily be captured for commercial biogas.

And while they are about it, why not invent a gas exchange system to extract methane from the air inside cowsheds.

We could even follow the Swedes and run a railway on biogas produced from digesting the parts of cows that usually get discarded at slaughterhouses to extract residual methane.

The big upshot is our tourism industry will also be protected. And I will get my fishing back.

Is this genius or lunacy? Or both?

No Right Turn criticises some of the recent appointments to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

While I don’t endorse his language and descriptions, I do agree with him that the appointments look too politically loaded. Generally National has been much better than Labour in this area, and this is the first set of appointments which look unbalanced. It may be that each individual is qualified, but to have four out of nine members with a political background is not desirable.

The one that puzzles me is Brian Neeson. Brian quit National and actually stood against John Key in 2002. Generally parties don’t have a lot of time for people who quite and break their written word not to stand against the official candidate. So why is National appointing Neeson? It is hardly rewarding a supporter.

It has been amazing to see the intolerance on display by some extremist Christians. They have applauded the destruction of a church’s private property, because they don’t like the message on display.

It is only a small way removed from the Islamic extremists who burnt down an Embassy, because they didn’t like the cartoons of a newspaper in a country. Of course that was a more extreme act, but what they have in common is both sets of people think their God allows them to break the law to try and suppress a message or image they do not approve of. It is the thin end of theocratic rule.

There are many legitimate ways people could take action against the billboard of St Matthew-in-the-City. They include:

• Complain to the Advertising Standards Authority (as Family First did)
• Protest outside St Matthews
• Put up your own billboard with an alternative message
• Lobby for the leadership of St Matthews to be disciplined or sacked by the church hierarchy (if possible)
• Try and have the entire parish booted out of the Anglican Church

But instead the nutters have won, with their campaign of destruction:

After the latest attack, by an elderly woman with a knife last night, the church said the billboard would not be replaced.

The Vicar of St Matthew-in-the-City, Glynn Cardy, said the billboard was “attacked by a knife-wielding Christian fanatic who was then apprehended by a group of homeless people who care about our church. Later in the evening another group of fanatics ripped it down.

I wonder how the fanatics would feel if someone threw bricks through all the windows at their local church, because someone doesn’t like their message.

It isn’t far removed from the morons who vandalise Jewish graves because they don’t like Judaism.

There is no right in New Zealand not to be offended by a religious message. If you are offended, then tough. Either take action under the law, or lump it. But you do not have the right to destroy private property of a church, because you are offended by their message.

But for all those who cheer on the extremists and vandals, well don’t cry out for sympathy when the same happens to your church. I mean if the Catholic Church beatifies Pope Pius XII, then it must be legitimate for Jewish activists to vandalise Catholic cathedrals to protest such an offensive move (Pius XII refused to publicly condemn the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews), if you think it is legitimate for Christian activists to vandalise St Matthews billboard.

Tracy Watkins and Martin Kay hand out their awards:

• Politician of the Year – John Key
• Wally of the Year – Rodney Hide
• The Merit Award for Prime Ministers with English as a second language – John Key
• Koru Club Award For Services to the Airline Industry – Chris Carter with Roger Douglas runner-up
  
• Oliver Twist “Please, Sir, I Want Some More” Award – Bill English
• Interpol Award for Undercover Operations – Rick Barker
• James Bond Medal for Services to National Security – Keith Locke, Sue Bradford & Catherine Delahunty
• Nelson Mandela Award for Services to Race Relations – Hone Harawira with Phil Goff runner-up
• Lazarus Award – Lockwood Smith
• Gone by Lunchtime Award – Richard Worth
• Crimestoppers award – Melissa Lee
• Dr Doolittle Award – Nick Smith
• Stop Digging Award – David Garrett
• Pigs Ear, Silk Purse Award – John Key

The rationale for the Dr Doolittle Award is amusing.

The Herald reports:

The decision to allow the spelling of Wanganui with or without the “h” has been welcomed by both sides in what has, at times, been an acrimonious debate.

Mayor Michael Laws hailed the move by Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson to overturn the Geographic Board’s decision to go with the “h” as an “early Christmas present for the city and district”.

Ken Mair, a Maori activist and one of the driving forces in seeking a change in the spelling of the city’s name, said after conveying the decision to local Maori at a city marae: “We recognise it was a difficult and courageous decision to make, but the correct one.

Maurice will be pretty happy with those headlines, even if Colin Espiner calls him a whimp.

The Herald has a stunning story:

Act founder Sir Roger Douglas, with deputy leader and Consumer Affairs Minister Heather Roy, is understood to have led moves in the party against Mr Hide during the controversy over the international travel costs of his partner.

The Act board was told the caucus had issues over the leadership, and a special caucus meeting was called for November 22.

Some people in ACT must have a suicide wish. While Rodney did make an error of judgement with his trip (which he apologised for), ACT only survive in Parliament because he holds Epsom. If Rodney goes, then in all probability ACT will be booted out of Parliament at the next election.

Mr Key is understood to have learned about the moves against Mr Hide shortly before that – between his return from Apec in Singapore and his trip to Trinidad for the Commonwealth summit.

He told Mrs Roy that if Mr Hide were removed from the leadership, her own ministerial position would be in jeopardy.

It was naive to think a leadership change would have no impact. When National changed leaders in 1997, Winston approached Helen Clark and asked if she would be interested in forming a Government.

And it is believed that at the height of controversies in the two support parties – the Act leadership and the Maori Party’s turmoil over MP Hone Harawira – Mr Key briefly considered a snap election to gain National an outright majority.

Hell, that will send the 2010 election stock on iPredict upwards!