Kiwiblog

Quoting a release from Gerry Brownlee:

Labour’s hypocrisy over mining has been laid bare, says Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee, after new figures released by Crown Minerals today showed Labour approved more than 200 permits for mining on the Conservation Estate.

“This from the party that launched a campaign yesterday saying it was explicitly opposed to mining conservation areas – not just Schedule Four land, but conservation land full stop,” Mr Brownlee said.

Labour’s pledge of opposition to mining on conservation land is similar to their ax the tax campaign.

200 permits in just nine years!

“But if that wasn’t enough, we also have the release today of information that Labour approved a mining consent on land considered special enough to warrant Schedule Four status, the very behaviour Phil Goff has been decrying as unthinkable.

“It turns out Labour approved a permit in 2006 for mining gold, garnets and other gemstones on 168.5 hectares of land at Hart Creek, inside Paparoa National Park.

And they mined national parks.

“The information shows Labour were happy for mining to take place on 21,961 hectares of land, meanwhile the government is seeking approval to release a mere 7,058 hectares of Schedule Four land, of which as little as 500 hectares might be mined,” Mr Brownlee said.

My view is that mining applications should be decided on a case by case basis – as both Labour and National have done in the past. Economic benefits need to be weighed up against conservation value for each site.

Figures released by Crown Minerals [attached] show 218 permits were approved under a Labour government for mining inside Department of Conservation land between December 1999 and October 2008.

That is an average of one permit every fortnight was issued under Labour for mining on conservation land. I repeat one permit every fortnight.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand’s economy accelerated in the fourth quarter, growing at the fastest clip in two years as manufacturing revived and companies built up inventories that had run down through the recession.

Gross domestic product expanded 0.8 per cent in the final three months of 2009, according to Statistics New Zealand, matching the median in a Reuters survey. Growth in the third quarter was revised up to 0.3 per cent from 0.2 per cent.

Well heading in the right direction but a fair way to go.

On a plane most of today so don’t expect much until this evening.

1. John Ansell highlights unfortunate words from Tiger Woods who announced that after extensive treatment he is “getting back to my old roots”
2. No Right Turn exposes Greenpeace fundraising tactics where they write to you, and if you do not respond, they take that as permission to increase your monthly donation. Moral is use automatic payment not direct debits
3. Not PC has quotes from the late night comics in the US
4. Whale Oil claims Ewen Gilmour will stand for Auckland Mayor.

One of the things that many may not realise around Obama’s Healthcare Reform, is that it does not in fact create a public health system. To increase health insurance coverage, it has made it illegal not to have health insurance, with limited exceptions such as hardship or religious belief.

If a Republican President had tried to make private health insurance compulsory, I suspect the left would have decried the reform, instead of supported it. And i guess the right would have supported it, instead of opposed it.

13 states have filed lawsuits claiming it is unconstitutional to force people to take our private health insurance. I suspect this issue will get to the Supreme Court, and you do have to think there is a reasonable chance that may breach the Bill of Rights.

What I find ironic, is that Obama’s reforms have now made the US system almost the polar opposite of the Canadian system.

You see in Canada, it is illegal in some provinces to even have private health insurance. And federally there are laws that forbid hospitals from charging private rates (even if a private clinic).

So effectively in Canada it is illegal to have private health insurance, and now in the US it will effectively be illegal NOT to have private health insurance.

Around six months ago I purchased the book, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

It then disappeared. I didn’t read it immediately as I had some others to get through, and despite extensive searches and excavations it could not be found. Maybe I lent it to someone I concluded, as I often have people grab books off me.

Anyway on Thursday at Auckland Airport, I walked past a bookshop in the terminal on the way to the plane and saw it on sale. I decided to buy it on the spot so I would have an extra book for the trip, but also so I can see what the hype is about, and decide whether to get the sequels.

So read the book the plane, and it was indeed a good read, so the sequels are on my to buy list. I like how the author only very slowly brought together the two main characters, and the multiple plot threads that linked together. I did guess who killed the niece, and also what had happened to her. I also enjoyed the ending with the bank accounts.

Anyway on Monday I was packing my suitcase on Bintan Island and as I was about to leave realised I had not packed the Dragon Tattoo book. rather than open up the suitcase again, I went to do my normal trick with stuff I have almost left behind, and zipped open the external side pocket to place the book there.

Upon opening the side pocket, I discovered my original purchase of the Dragon Tattoo book!!

I really should remember to check the side pockets when I unpack!

It will be interesting if Customs search my luggage as they will be potentially suspicious of why I am travelling with two identical copies of the same book!

Incidentially if anyone wants a free copy of the book, and can arrange pick up, just e-mail me.

All four editorials are on the same issue today – mining.

The Herald says:

Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee says these locations represent the relative size of a post card placed on the turf of Eden Park’s main field. Conservationists are alarmed, one noting that news of these recommendations was as if the country had been asleep and had awoken again in the dark, mining days of the 1980s.

Both views are overstated.

Mr Brownlee’s because it is not the size but the impact on value and utility of the land that matters. The anti-mining lobby ignores the fact that substantial advances in conservation of the past two decades are largely retained. The country’s habitats will remain better off than before. …

Yet there is nothing in the stocktake about the possible economic upside, either in jobs or general benefits to GDP or direct financial gains for the Crown.

The amounts the Government might expect as royalties from private companies exploiting non hydrocarbon deposits are likely to be small. The absence of an economic case, even theoretical, is an important omission.

National is trying to make its case for elevating real economic advantages of mining over the intangible values of preserving flora and fauna, but it does not do so. …

So far, all we know is the potential downside, a reduction in the area of land given high protection. Without the economic benefits, that grand $194 billion figure is meaningless.

I think this is a very fair point. It would be good to see some figures along the lines of if say $20 billion of minerals was mined, what would be the likely impact on GDP, on the current account deficit, the balance of trade, on jobs, on Crown revenue etc etc, and over what time period.

The Press says:

It is true that there are currently 82 concessions for mineral extraction in the total conservation estate, but there are only two mines on schedule 4 land. Ultimately, whether the proposals proceed could depend on the response of the mining industry. Some companies might be deterred by the small amount of land which would initially be opened up for mining, or by the costs of underground mining and other environmental protections.

Faced with a tepid industry response and a political backlash, the Government would have to conclude that discretion is the better part of valour.

It would be interesting to hear from mining companies, which areas they are most likely to want to mine at – ie where they think there is enough minerals to make an economic return on investment. If, for example, no company thinks mining in a particular site is feasible, then why remove from Section 4?

And the Dominion Post:

Ideally, the Government would have been able to test public opinion in lower-value conservation areas, but that does not appear to have been an option. If the Government had excluded from the exercise all the areas to which New Zealanders are emotionally attached, there would have been little left to mine. Mr Brownlee has a public relations fight on his hands.

New Zealanders want to close the economic gap with Australia, but they also like the country, or more particularly the countryside, the way it is.

The challenge facing the Government, and the mining industry, is to convince the public that the industry can now do what it says it can do, rather than what it has historically done. That is, surgically extract mineral resources from sensitive land without laying waste to the landscape, and poisoning rivers and streams. If it can, many of those now burrowing in clothes drawers for old “No Mining” T-shirts will give up the hunt. If it cannot, the Government is doing what it has studiously avoided doing until now – putting itself on the wrong side of an issue with the potential to politicise entire communities.

And finally the ODT:

Mr Brownlee wants a “rational conversation” and argues that the amount of land involved is very small and should be viewed in its proper context.

That is fair comment, but the “conversation” ought not be limited to rhetoric but include a thorough cost-benefit analysis, site by site, and, in broader terms, the potential of mineral exploitation to have a deleterious impact on our other established industries, including tourism, and particularly on the value of the New Zealand dollar and the likely effect on exporters.

It should also include details of proposed royalties and tax arrangements – and the level of present interest by mining companies in the sites.

I find it interesting that to some degree all four editorials are saying much the same thing. None of them have endorsed the proposed changes to Section 4, but none of them have said they should not happen either.

The common theme is more information is needed and the Government needs to make a more convincing case than merely relying on an estimate of potential mineral wealth in each area.

Got the last one wrong. Quiz is here.

Simon Upton writes:

I am shortly to take up a position at the OECD leading its Environment Directorate. …

The OECD was established to help governments with their thinking. While its origins may have been in the reconstruction of Europe after 1945, it has become a genuinely global policy resource with new members (such as Chile) joining as rising living standards dissolve the boundaries of the old “developed” world.

The OECD is one of the more useful global bodies.

As an economics-based institution, the OECD is dedicated to using economic analysis to highlight the tradeoffs its members face. It is easily caricatured (like Treasuries) as an organisation that seeks to reduce everything to dollars and cents. Clearly, not everything can be reduced to monetary values. But many things can be, and to the extent that the costs of alternatives can be placed on a common footing, decision-making should be improved.

To provide one very simple example: work at the OECD has shown that the costs of alternative CO2 reduction policies can vary by several orders of magnitude. Subsidies to biofuels can, in some instances, mean spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars for each ton of CO2 avoided – way above the sorts of carbon taxes that have been discussed and discounted.

And biofuel subsidies or quotas have been shown to have devastating effect on food supply, as land is converted.

Countries may be able offer good reasons for such outcomes. But it is harder to do so when the costs of alternatives are made transparent. This may explain one of the conundrums surrounding much environmental policy analysis. Consistently, the advice is to place a price on scarce resources. If they carry a price, they need to be measured; if they’re measured, they get managed. We don’t tend to waste things we have to pay for.

And this is why I do support putting a price on carbon – either through a carbon tax, or an ETS. It’s the same reason I don’t like tertiary courses which are “free” to the user – you get huge wastage, and the moment people do have to pay for something, you do have an incentive not to waste it.

There is dispute over the indirect warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, but there is basically no dispute over the direct warming effects. Hence for me the debate isn’t over whether one should have a price on carbon, to cover externalities, but what that price should be.

The Centre for Independent Studies has published a paper on electoral reform, which amongst other things advocates a Senate for New Zealand.

An opinion piece has also appeared in the Dominion Post.

Here are the salient features of the CIS proposal:

• A House of 79 MPs elected under FPP
• A Senate of 31 Senators elected under proportional representation and regional lists, also for a three year term, with a 4% threshold
• Senate acts as house of review but can not amend or initiate money bills
• Senators can serve as Ministers (they don’t specify that the PM can not be a Senator – a point to be clarified)
• No Maori seats

They analyse the problems, as they see it, with the current system:

• MPs re-elected to Parliament, after being rejected in an electorate
• Top politicians such as Michael Cullen and Don Brash accountable to their parties, not to local voters
• Winston Peters as Foreign Minister campaigning against the China FTA
• Maori Party over-represented due to over-hang
• ACT gained representation and NZ First did not despite higher party vote
• On overarching joint cabinet responsibility with minor party ministers able to disagree on all issues outside their portfolios

They conclude:

Clearly, an electoral system that produces such strange and sometimes bizarre outcomes could hardly be called exemplary. Yet, this system was only brought in less than two decades ago to deal with the deficiencies of its predecessors. It could well have been a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as we shall examine in this report.

They also remind us:

Any discussion of electoral reform should be based on the premise that there is no such thing as a perfect electoral system.

It is a balance between being able to deliver a coherent policy programme and having strong checks and balances on the Government.

They also note:

In a two-party FPP system, the winning party gets to implement its manifesto and can be held accountable for its promises. Under MMP, political results depend on negotiations between governing parties. What a voter eventually gets from a party may be quite different from what the party initially promised, cancelling the idea of representation of voter preferences.

I prefer MMP to FPP, but it should be acknowledged that MMP has weaknesses such as the above. It is harder to hold a party to account, when they can blame not having a majority for not implementing their manifesto.

Truing to the Senate proposal, a good point is made:

The difficulty for a Senate is to make itself relevant. In his critique of upper houses, Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes says, ‘if a second chamber dissents form the first, it is mischievous; if it agrees it is superfluous.

This is partly why NZ got rid of an Upper House. But it was also because the old Legislative Council was appointed by politicians, so had no mandate to oppose the Government of the day. A Senate, elected by proportional representation, would have a strong mandate to decline legislation put forward by the House.

Some may call this proposal FPP in drag, but that would be somewhat unfair. Let me explain.

Because the Senate would be elected proportionally, and can reject any bill (including the Budget) then no law will be passed which does not have the support of parties that gained a majority of the (threshold) votes.

So if for example Labour and Greens got 52% of the party vote and National got 48%. However National won 40 electorate seats and Labour 39.

National would get to form the Government (and that s no small thing), but Labour and the Greens could block any laws they want to, and could even force a new election by refusing to pass the budget if the Government didn’t win their support.

Of course forcing an election can have political consequences, so there would be an incentive for parties to work together to avoid this ultimate step. We see this a bit in Canada where sometimes the main Opposition party keeps the Government in office, rather than be blamed for forcing an election.

So what are the parts of the proposal I like. They are:

• Candidates stand either for the House in a seat, or the Senate in a party list. No more MPs being booted out of a seat but remaining in Parliament.
• More electorates, which means smaller electorates, making MPs more local
• Clearly defined different roles for MPs and Senators, rather than status quo where some List MPs pretend to be de facto electorate MPs
• Should result in higher quality candidates for the party lists. At the moment too many places go to MPs who lose electorates.
• A Senate would be a useful additional check on the Government and would hopefully result in better quality laws
• No more race based seats
• The party vote would still be all important in deciding what laws get passed
• A 4% threshold for the Senate, which should help keep minor party representation

But here are what I see as the drawbacks:

• Electorate seats go from useful for a party to vital – you win the most electorates and you get to be Government. This may encourage pork barrel politics for marginal electorates and also makes the boundary drawing process of supreme importance – who wins Govt may come down to who has the best rep on the Boundaries Commission, rather than popular appeal.
• While it will be popular, I don’t like the decrease in MPs from 120 to 110. I would go for an 80/40 split or ideally (this will be really unpopular a 90/50 (we should have 140 MPs under the cube root rule of thumb).
• A possible lack of diversity in the House. CIS argue that the recent increases in diversity is not just due to MMP, but having followed National Party selections for some decades, I know there are considerable obstacles in many seats, for woman candidates to get selected. Having said that, it is getting better – National has ten female electorate MPs to Labour’s six.
• The potential for stand off between House and Senate. This should not happen often, as the PM should negotiate a coalition that has a majority in both Houses, but not always possible. One could end up with a lost more elections.
• There may be issues of legitimacy over a Government that wins the most electorate seats but trails their opponent on the party vote. For example we may see this in the UK where Gordon Brown may win more seats than David Cameron and remain PM, even if Cameron’s party gets 5% more votes.

I think this would have been an excellent option for reform in the 1990s. I’m not sure how much salience it will have today though. However it is good to have the contribution to the debate, as it should just just be a debate on FPP vs MMP vs SM.

The Press reports:

Christchurch woman Cassey Quy, 29, quit her job in a flood of tears after three months.

As a single parent looking after her four-year-old son Riley, she gets $357 a week on the domestic purposes benefit (DPB), with some bills being paid by Work and Income.

Struggling to make ends meet, she took a part-time job as a laboratory assistant at Canterbury University in January.

After advice from a Work and Income case worker, Quy believed she would be better off by $100 per week.

However, her part-benefit, part-wage income left her $10 a week worse off.

After the Government changes were announced yesterday, Quy said she was scared she would fall back into debt.

“It doesn’t make sense, working but not earning money,” she said.

“It’s like the Government is punishing us.

I feel very sorry for Ms Quy, as no one should end up worse off by going into work. One of the changes announced yesterday will help a bit, by increasing the threshold before your benefit rebates from $80 a week to$100 a week.

In theory it should be near impossible to be worse off, by taking up work. There are high abatement rates on the main benefit and sometimes the accommodation supplement, but income from Working for Families should not decrease if you replace benefit income with work income – in fact the in work payment should make you better off.

It would have been useful if The Press had asked for and/or printed the details of how much the job she moved to was paying, because this would have allowed verification of the figures. By this I don’t mean that Ms Quy is misrepresenting them – more that she may be missing out on something she is eligible for – such as WFF.

Its frustrating that the story doesn’t detail why the combined income is $100 a week less than what WINZ estimated. Were WINZ wrong, or is some benefit not being fully claimed?

The Press reports:

Former Environment Canterbury (ECan) chairman Sir Kerry Burke is not ruling out running for the Christchurch mayoralty.

But his immediate focus is to defend “malicious attacks” from a Government-commissioned report that threatens ECan’s future.

Burke said he had been asked to stand against Mayor Bob Parker.

Burke said if commissioners were appointed to replace ECan councillors, there would be several councillors “examining their roles”, which could mean that many would standing for seats on the Christchurch city council.

Bob Parker must be delighted. Burke standing for Labour (or whatever they disguise themselves as down there) would guarantee Bob’s re-election.

This should scare anyone charged with a crime, or is teh victim of a crime. The Herald reports:

The Court of Appeal has talked of jurors consulting a ouija board during a trial and leaving deliberations to have sex.

Another juror who left the jury room screaming that they would not go back was grabbed and drawn back into the room, according to three judges.

The sex breaks for jurors is quite novel. Does the Ministry of Justice supply the sex also, or do jurors have to find their own?

The use of the ouija board was the fault of the Judge with his instructions. He told the jury not to discuss the case with any living person. So obviously they concluded seeking guidance from dead people was fine.

And physically restraining a screaming juror who wants to leave is obviously just modelled on the Catholic method of selecting a Pope.

So there’s really nothing to worry about at all.

I do now have a better understanding though of how David Bain was found not guilty!

If you are in Auckland and want to learn more about the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), there is a public briefing run by InternetNZ this afternoon.

The venue is the Coromandel Room, Level 1, Rendezvous Hotel, corner Vincent St and Mayoral Drive in Auckland’s CBD.

It commences at 2.00pm and will be finished by 4.00pm.

Speakers include

• Officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
• Jonathon Penney – the 2010 Cyberlaw Fellow at Victoria University of
  Wellington
• Colin Jackson – a Wellington consultant and blogger at IT.gen.nz
• Rick Shera – Lawyer, Lowndes Jordan
• Jordan Carter – Policy Director, InternetNZ

If you click on my ACTA tag you’ll find more info about ACTA and why it is important to be vigilant about it.

The Herald reports:

Mallard cleverly tricked National MPs into not objecting to leave for a motion congratulating Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce for getting his degree some two decades ago.

It was very amusing. The Govt did drop the ball on this one, and Labour deserved their fun.

The actual motion moved was to congratulate Steven Joyce on getting his degree conferred 21 years after he started it.

The Dim-Post is in fine form with its version of the Government’s mining policy:

• Amendment to Crown Minerals Act prohibits Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee from yelling ‘I’d like to open up her schedule four’ whenever an attractive aide enters the Cabinet room.

• Streamlined process for mining consents to make it easier for everyday New Zealanders to operate their own open pit cast mines or surgically excavate their back yards.

• State Services Commission enquiry to find out who keeps adding ‘unobtanium’ to the list of rare minerals detected in Mt Aspiring.

• $4 million dollars for extensive exploration of Coromandal focusing on area where Gerry Brownlee lost his beloved teddy-bear ‘Mister Wookie’ while on a day walk as a child.

The Mister Wookie one especially just cracks me up.

Google has redirected www.google.cn from its censored China located search engine to its uncensored Hong Kong search engine.

This is quite smart, as it is highlighting that China itself allows Chinese in Hong Kong much greater freedoms than on the mainland. If they block google.cn (which is likely) they are saying that Hong Kong Google is breaking Chinese law.

Searches from China must pass through the Chinese government’s extensive web filters – collectively known as the Great Firewall – which automatically weeds out anything considered pornographic or politically sensitive.

The move, in effect, shifts the responsibility for censoring from Google to the communist government.

And this is how it should be. Personally I want no censorship at all, but if it has to occur it should be the Government, not the search engine provider, that does it.

UPDATE: The SMH also reports Google has done a submission to the Australian Government strongly criticising their Internet filter, and warning it “would enable future governments to use it for political censorship”.

The Independent reports:

LONDON – Three former Cabinet ministers were suspended from the Labour Party yesterday over accusations they were ready to use their position to influence Government policy in return for money.

Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon had the parliamentary whip removed from them by party chiefs after being caught on camera by an undercover television investigation into lobbying by politicians.

The “cash for access” storm, which has overshadowed Labour’s election preparations, took a dramatic turn after the programme was broadcast yesterday.

The Labour Chief Whip, Nick Brown, and the party’s general secretary, Ray Collins, ordered their suspension pending a full investigation into the claims. Margaret Moran, the MP for Luton South, who featured in the programme, was also suspended by the party.

Three of the four MPs suspended are not obscure Backbenchers, but were high profile Secretaries of State.

Byers under Blair was Treasury Chief Secretary, and then Trade & Industry, Transport and Local Government Ministers. His former political advisor is the notorious Jo Moore who on 11 September 2001 sent out an e-mail advising people it was a good day to bury bad news stories.

Patricia Hewitt replaced Byers as Secretary of State for T&I and then became Health Secretary.

Geoff Hoon served under both Blair and Brown with portfolios ranging from Defence Secretary to Leader of the House, to Transport Secretary.

All three are high profile members of UK Labour – not quite household names, but very much part of the brand. Hard to see how this will not hurt them in the polls.

One Conservative MP was also stung as agreeing to lobby for money, but he has never held senior role, so most of the focus has been on the ex Ministers.

Bill English has pointed out how the current tax system allows well off people to in fact pay less tax than low income workers. This is one reason why we should have a flatter system, with less loopholes.

Mr English highlighted in Parliament how the current system can allow a household earning $100,000 a year, with two dependent children, to reduce the tax they pay from $27,500 a year to less than $10,000 a year.

Three easy steps:

1. Forming a company owned by another entity (on the current 30 per cent company tax rate), paying themselves a $48,000 salary and reducing their tax bill by $3000.
2. Qualifying for Working for Families on this reduced salary with two dependent children, they would receive an extra entitlement of almost $8500 a year.
3. Using an interest in a leveraged property investment producing, say, tax losses of $20,000 a year, their personal taxable income is further reduced to $28,000.

So what you then have as tax is:

1. $52,000 @ 30c = $15,600
2. $14,000 @ 12.5c = $1,750
3. $14,000 @ 21c = $2,940
4. WFF credit of -$10,726  (on $28k income)

That means a net tax bill of $9,564 on $100,000 or a 9.5% effective tax rate.

If National disallows offsets for property tax losses then the high income earner paying 9.5% effective tax will end up paying $15,990 tax, or 16%.

The PM has announced some welcome reforms:

1. Part-time work obligations for DPB recipients whose youngest child is aged six or over (to be referred to as the Phil U clause)
2. Part-time work obligations for people on a Sickness Benefit who have been assessed as being able to work part time
3. More graduated sanctions for people who don’t comply with their work obligations such as a reduction in benefit rather than just cancellation
4. An increase in the amount that people on the DPB and Invalids Benefit can earn each week, without affecting their benefit, from $80 to $100
5. Change the rules around the Unemployment Benefit so it can only be granted for a 12-month period, and then one has to reapply and undergo a comprehensive work assessment
6. More frequent reassessment for people on the Sickness Benefit

Now these are not radical reforms. But they are good sold steps in the right direction, reinforcing that welfare should generally be temporary assistance, not a lifestyle choice.

I’m speaking to a conference in Singapore today, on social media.  My hosts made the very sensible suggestion that if I come all this way, I should visit some neighbouring country while I am here (there isn’t that much to see in Singapore itself and I have been here several times before).

I looked at Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos, but decided that each of them really needs more than a few days, to do them justice. And then when I had drinks with Paul Buchanan (who lives in Singapore) he suggested a nearby resort island.

So I didn’t even know Bintan Island existed until I googled it. It is only a one hour ferry from Singapore, and is technically part of Indonesia.

I stayed at the Ansana, which has this very large swimming pool, and an open air restaurant on the beach. It is very reasonably priced – NZ$150 for a room including breakfast, and excellent service.

They even arrange to have a staff member on their day off hand deliver your Blackberry to you in Singapore, after you leave it behind!

Many an hour spent on the beach. I got through six books in three days (and have run out already!).

The view from the ferry terminal.

All up, I got to spend four days and three nights at a lovely tropical resort for under NZ$600. Can’t complain about that. Almost makes up for having to spend ten hours on a plane in cattle class.

No Right Turn blogs:

The Prime Minister has got himself a private spy agency.

OK, so he’s always kind of had one. Since 1990, the External Assessments Bureau, part of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, has been providing assessments to the government on foreign events. This was pretty uncontroversial – EAB had no operational role, was focused strictly on analysing information, and its target was strictly foreigners. It could not be considered any form of threat to the New Zealand public.

Having worked in the PMs Office, I got to see the occassional EAB analysis. They tended to be of two types – a country report or a person report, the persons generally being Heads of States and Governments.

They did not tend to use top secret information, from spying. In fact much of what was in the reports, you would find on the Internet. However they were sensitive because they would offer observations that can be blunt, and could upset other countries. Of course, there were probably some reports that did use more classified information that I didn’t see, but the vast majority was based on public sources.

So really, their job is quite straight forward – taking information from multiple sources, and doing summaries for the PM and/or other Ministers. They are often widely distributed within MFAT also – so again these are not generally top secret stuff.

Now, thanks to the Rugby World Cup, its been renamed the “National Assessments Bureau”, and has got itself a domestic focus. As well as looking at the politics of other countries, it will be looking at those of New Zealand. As well as looking at foreigners, it will also be “assessing”, and advising the government on, the beliefs, actions, and plans of New Zealanders.

Now this is a significant change, but it does not mean they are suddenly a spy agency. They have no powers, and AFAIK no field operations at all – they just analyse information and write reports based on it.

I guess the reason their role has been expanded, is because there was no one clear agency who was responsible for domestic security analysis, and there may have been a silo problem (such as the US had prior to 9/11).

As all the EAB, now NAB, is analysis, I don’t think portraying them as a new MI5 or SIS is helpful. Again, they have no powers. They can’t get warrants like the SIS. They can’t intercept communications like the GCSB. They can’t arrest people like the Police. They can’t shoot people like the military.

Having said that, the change is not insignificant, and where I do agree with NRT, is that there should have been some greater transparency around the change, including a better explanation of why the change was seen as desirable. Why, for example, would the Police not be in charge of domestic security analysis?

But NAB has no controls at all. It does not even have to issue an independent annual report giving a broad idea of the scope of its activities. And when they are assembling dossiers on New Zealanders for the Prime Minister’s consumption, that is simply unacceptable.

It has no controls as it has no special powers. It is part of the Department of PM and Cabinet and hence subject to the Official Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Ombudsman etc.

And they do publish an annual report – it is part of the DPMC report.

The NAB website says:

NAB is an unusual organisation. It has no role in providing policy advice to the government and no operational functions, and nor does it provide services to the public. Its mandate is sharply defined: NAB’s role is to provide assessments, not advice. This means that it seeks to explain events and developments, but it does not offer advice on what actions the government might take.

Having said all that, I am interested in the rationale for change, and think there should be a fuller understanding of what “gaps” in analysis there were, that this change will plug.

To that end I have just filed an OIA request with the DPMC for any information about the change of name and mandate for the EAB to the NAB. I have no doubt parts of any papers I receive will be redacted, but I hope to gain some better understanding of the change, and will blog it when I get the response.

Grant Robertson blogs:

Its nice to be able to say that I support  a government policy, albeit with some caveats.  I think there is considerable value in a Productivity Commission.  One of the main reasons is that it will ensure there is some critical long-term thinking about government policy.

Lianne Dalziel has also said supportive things. I’m pleased to see Labour supportive of this initiative, for two reasons.

The first is simply because it is a good idea.

The second is because the sucess of the Australian Productivity Commission is partly because it does have bipartisan support. and I have long stressed that any NZ counterpart needs to also have such support, to be truly effective.

As David Cunliffe has noted the principal concern about the commission announced here is the breadth of their mandate.  From the early indications it looks as though the mandate will be somewhat narrower than the Australian one.  I think that is a mistake.  Using a broader measure of productivity is essential for the commission to have a positive influence. For example, the Australian commission has recently done a report on the role of the not for profit sector in terms of productivity.  I am not sure that would fit in the terms of reference for NZ.  It should, if it is to give us some clear long term benefits to our wealth and well-being.

The terms of reference may change over time. I’m not sure it is a bad thing to start more focused, and then maybe expand the brief once it has some solid work done.

We need a commission with an independent and broad focus.  This can not be just about regulation and short term issues. I believe if we get the mandate right (and it has support across the political spectrum) it could play a vial role in our development as a country.

Independence is key. While it is not a constitutionally important role that needs the formal agreement of Parliament, I hope both National and Labour would agree on serious consultation with each other (depending on who is in Government) on appointments to the Commission.

Again, it is good to see support from Labour for a NZ Productivity Commission.

The Herald supports a new approach on whaling:

There comes a moment in intractable disputes when someone or something turns existing thinking upside down to reveal an altogether new approach to resolution. Upending the chess board, as it is known in some political circles, can unlock minds and banish stalemate. It was evident in the end of apartheid in South Africa and the troubles in Northern Ireland and in the change in fortunes for American troops in Iraq once some Sunni insurgents were co-opted to the general cause of peace. Domestically, the cross-party accord on the anti-smacking legislation removed that emotional political pit from the 2008 general election campaign. Now, a new way of Saving the Whales has emerged. …

For New Zealand to be party to an agreement which allows the hunting of whales by Japan, Iceland and Norway after two generations of bumper-sticker policy to the contrary is, superficially, preposterous. Yet if the end, rather than the means, is of real importance in this cause, then surely the status quo is equally preposterous. Whaling for “scientific research” would be one of the most offensive euphemisms and dangerous policy constructs in international affairs. In truth, the ability of New Zealand and allied nations to force Japan and others to stop their scientific lie, given the economic and diplomatic realities, is as depleted as the whale pods they seek to protect.

The Government should pursue the possibility of a qualified moratorium, one that could allow those of a nationalist whaling sentiment to save face while committing, over time, to stopping the barbarism. Either way, whales will die. But whole species could be saved.

Labour continues to support purity over practicality.

Both The Press and the Dom Post say Sharples is wrong. First The Press:

At regular intervals the Maori Party co-leader, Pita Sharples, makes statements guaranteed to raise the hackles of many New Zealanders.

His latest offering was to describe the principles of “one vote for one person” and “democratic elections” as artificial political concoctions. …

But to criticise cornerstones of our democratic system of governance does a disservice to the pioneers of electoral reform in Britain and New Zealand, especially as Sharples was speaking as Maori Affairs Minister and not as his party’s co-leader. Over centuries the franchise was widened until the present position was reached in which, with very few exceptions, all those 18 years and older have one vote, or two under MMP.

And the Dom Post:

Democracy (from the Greek demokratia) is an amalgam of two Greek terms: demos meaning people and kratia meaning power. It denotes government by the people or, literally, people power. It is a simple but incredibly powerful concept that has improved the quality of life of virtually everyone who has had the good fortune to be born into a state in which one person’s vote counts the same as every other person’s.

It is also a concept which millions, including New Zealanders, have given their lives to defend, and a concept that has to be defended against muddled thinking as well as evil doing.

Into that first category must be put Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples’ recent musings on the nature of democracy. According to Dr Sharples, the essence of democracy is not one person one vote, which he describes as an “artificial political concoction” but “goals towards equity … and inclusiveness”. …

Democracy is not simply one of many alternatives on a menu from which nations can choose with impunity. It is the only form of government that gives the meanest citizen the same power at the ballot box as the rich, the only system that has ever protected individual rights, the only system that ensures the peaceful transfer of power and the only system in which weak minorities have consistently been able to press their causes.

Hear hear.

And the ODT on the US and Israel:

While all these countries find much in common with Israel, and much to admire about it, its intransigence in the field of international relations is evidently a source of frustration and anxiety.

As much as Mr Obama is soft-pedalling in public over the recent spat, in private there is little doubt the Administration is furious.

The US desperately needs alliances, and sympathy, in the Middle East beyond its traditional bonds with Israel if it is to maintain pressure against Iran’s acquisition of the bomb.

One sure way it sees of achieving this is through making progress in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, an objective that, from time to time, seems to slip down Mr Netanyahu’s, and Israel’s, agenda.

The Herald reports:

A teenage boy who feared for the safety of his 12-year-old sister and her friend confiscated his drink-driving mother’s car keys and a partly consumed bottle of gin, then called police. …

The police prosecutor, Sergeant Ian Collin, said Jefferies drove to pick up her 15-year-old son at 7.30pm and had her daughter and daughter’s friend in the car with her.

“She had been drinking vodka and was intoxicated.”

Mr Collin said Jefferies drove from the New World car park in Wanaka towards her home.

“Her 15-year-old son realised his mother was highly intoxicated after she started to drive towards on-coming traffic.

“He feared for the safety of all and made her stop the car.

“He seized a partly consumed bottle of gin, the keys to the vehicle and a cellphone to call for help.”

The teenager called police and then told his mother, who ran away. She was found almost five hours later.

I am so impressed. He put his sister’s safety first and made the right call.

“She admitted she was an alcoholic and needed some assistance.”

Hopefully she will get it.