Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key has swiftly shot down speculation that next month’s Budget would include an announcement on some form of legislated cap on Government spending.

This is a pity. I am definitely fan of a cap on spending as a percentage of GDP.

“We have our own self-imposed cap,” he said referring to the $1.1 billion limit on new spending announced last year.

And that is a useful discipline, but I think there is a difference between a cap on new spending and a target for how large the state’s portion of the economy should be.

The Act Party favours a legislated cap which would freeze government spending in real per capita terms, that is, only allow spending to increase in line with inflation and population growth unless over-ridden by a public referendum.

Again I think this is a worthwhile policy. Only allowing inflation and population adjustments might be a bit too restrictive, but one could set it as a maximum increase in real per capita terms of 1% a year for example.

The 2025 taskforce chaired by Don Brash recommended legislation requiring the Government to set a medium-term target for its operating spending either in real per capita terms or as a share of GDP.

And such a requirement would force transparency from parties on their spending plans. I want to have parties tell us their desired share of GDP for the state. National might say 30%, Labour 35% and ACT 25%, and one can make an informed choice about which policy you prefer.

Key said he did not support measures limiting something to a specified share of GDP.

Many governments had responded to the global financial crisis over the past 12 to 18 months by increasing their spending as a percentage of the economy. “If they are talking about something different, we could look at that.”

The PM’s concern seems to be that such a legislated cap would remove the ability of a Government to respond to a recession. But I think one can deal with that issue by having the cap as a medium term target, with the legislative requirement being to report progress against it – not to be illegal to ever exceed it.

Key does not seem to have ruled out a cap, if it leaves the Government with some flexibility. I think that is achievable and would encourage National to work towards that.

The Herald reports:

National has bowed to Maori Party wishes and agreed to support the highly contentious United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples despite the previous Labour Government issuing dire warnings that the document is fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal systems. …

The declaration recognises the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination, being able to maintain their own languages, being able to protect their natural and cultural heritage and manage their own affairs.

Dr Sharples, one of the Maori Party’s co-leaders, said this morning’s announcement restored the mana and moral authority of Maori to speak in international forums on justice, rights and peace matters.

But National appears to have given its backing to the declaration on condition a proviso is attached saying that progressing Maori rights occurs within New Zealand’s “current legal and constitutional frameworks”.

Which appears to me to be a sensible proviso.

National’s concerns appear to have been dealt with by the attachment of the rider to New Zealand’s statement of support. This proviso reaffirms “the legal and constitutional frameworks that underpin New Zealand’s legal system” and notes that those existing frameworks define “the bounds of New Zealand’s engagement with the declaration”.

Dr Sharples said the Labour Government’s position had called into question Labour’s commitment to Crown-Maori relations and undermined New Zealand’s credibility on human rights issues.

There will be some anguish amongst Labour’s Maori MPs that National and the Maori Party found a workable solution to this issue, which their party did not.

Personally I’m not someone wildly concerned about non binding UN declarations, and whether or not we say we support them or not. But if it is important to a “coalition” partner, then I’d much rather have something like this given to them as a “win”, than something which I have serious objections to.

So far, there have been five major “wins” for the Maori Party. None of them have caused me great disquiet. They are:

1. Repeal of Foreshore & Seabed Act – have long supported this on the basis of not taking away the right to go to court of any person or group
2. Dropping of opposition to Maori Seats in Parliament. I support the Royal Commission’s recommendation to abolish them (and in exchange have a lower party vote threshold for Maori parties) but National was never going to get the numbers to repeal the seats unilaterally anyway, and in exchange the Maori Party dropped their efforts to entrench them.  It’s a freezing of the status quo.
3. Whanua Ora – the principle of it is something I have long supported, and is linked to the Family Start programme started in the 1990s. I have concerns over how well it will be implemented, but all in favour of devolving resources to the private sector, to help get better outcomes for disadvantaged families.
4. UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Does not change legal rights under NZ law, but symbolically important to Maori.
5. A Maori Flag flies on Waitangi Day alongside NZ Flag. As the day celebrates a treaty between the Government and Maori, think flying both flags is a fine idea.

Now if the Government had agreed to legislate special Maori seats on the Auckland Council, that would have gone down badly with me.  I think it would have entrenched the notion of race based seats as being a good form of Government, that should be spread to all levels of Government.

The deal with the Maori Party over the ETS was a fairly shabby one, which I don’t think one can defend on particularly principled grounds. However I note that was a horse trade over getting a law passed, not directly liked to the confidence and supply agreement. In other words would probably have occurred even if there was no National/Maori Party agreement.

The very nature of MMP and minority Government requires larger parties to agree to some things they would probably not have otherwise done. My test is how “bad” one considers those concessions to be.

While I have a fundamentally different world view to the Maori Party on many issues, I don’t regard any of the above five concessions as particularly “bad” – some in fact I would support National having done regardless of the Maori Party’s wishes.

And I compare that to the demands of NZ First under both National and Labour. Winston demanded weakening of monetary policy, making superannuation more unsustainable, huge increases in funding for his pet portfolios, appointments for his mates, protectionism etc etc – a lot of stuff that I regarded as fundamentally bad for NZ’s future.

A while back the Herald reported:

When is a swear word not a swear word?

When it is used on the Hollywood red carpet, says TVNZ.

Close-Up presenter Mark Sainsbury raised the question when he used the word “fugly” in a promotion for his show during Wednesday’s 6pm news. …

The utterance on prime-time television has prompted queries to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

But TVNZ says the word has become so popular it has lost its original sting and become a new term.

“Whilst a long time ago it might have been short for … two words … it is now being used regularly, particularly in entertainment circles, as simply an adjective. For example it is being used to describe an attitude or a dress,” said TVNZ news spokeswoman Andi Brotherston. …

Broadcasting Standards Authority chief executive Dominic Sheehan said the authority was flooded with hundreds of emails and phone calls after Mr Henry’s “retarded” comment, whereas “fugly” generated only two inquiries on Thursday.

People who contacted the authority to complain were told they needed to go through TVNZ’s internal complaints process first.

Mr Sheehan said “fugly” was not on the list of offensive words that were gathered in a recent survey of 1500 people, despite being commonly used.

“It is not even on anyone’s radar … – and they [survey respondents] have put a lot of words in there,” he said.

But he could not recall “fugly” being used during a news programme.

“This is new territory for us.”

“We haven’t tested the word and we have never had a complaint about it.”

Heh having someone complain about fugly is as amusing to me, as the fact someone complained about the use of the word “frack” on Battlestar Galactica.

I blogged last month the results of a BSA survey on the acceptability of various swear words. This got me wondering how those survey results contrast with actual practices in media newsrooms.

So I e-mailed all major media outlets in NZ, asking them what their editorial policy was on each of the 31 swear words, on the following scale:

• A This word/phrase would never be used on air/in our newspaper
• B There are no restrictions on use of this word or phrase
• C This word/phrase is not banned, but would only be used if essential to a story

Sadly only one media outlet responded. Thanks to the NZ Herald, who did respond, and their responses are below:

1. Cunt Herald: A
2. Nigger Herald: C
3. Mother Fucker Herald: A
4. Jesus Fucking Christ Herald: A
5. Cocksucker Herald: A
6. Get fucked Herald: A
7. Fuck off Herald: A
8. Fuck Herald: A
9. Faggot Herald: B
10. Cock Herald: C
11. Retard Herald: B
12. Slut Herald: C
13. Whore Herald: B
14. Wanker Herald: B
15. Arsehole Herald: C
16. Jesus Christ Herald: C
17. Dick Herald: B
18. Prick Herald: C
19. Jesus Herald: B, but C if used as an expletive
20. Piss Herald: C
21. Bitch Herald: B
22. God Herald: B
23. Piss off Herald: C
24. Bastard Herald: B
25. Shit Herald: C
26. Balls Herald: B
27. Bullshit Herald: C
28. Crap Herald: B
29. Bollocks Herald: B
30. Bloody Herald: B
31. Bugger Herald: B

These are listed in the order of acceptability as the BSA survey found them.

So the Herald has a total ban on seven words or phrases, generally those using the cunt, cock or fuck.

14 of the 31 words have no restriction on their use. Mainly those at the lower end of the scale, but including retard (Paul Henry take note), faggot, whore and wanker. Of course that does not mean they will go out of their way to use them.

10 of the 31 words are in the category of only would be used if essential to a story – that is likely to be direct quotes from some one. This includes nigger, cock, slut, Jesus Christ, and shit.

The Herald also provided a couple of useful examples of when they might go outside their normal policy:

The Herald might allow words such as “fuck” in direct quotes if uttered by, for example, a member of the royal family or the Prime Minister, because that use would, in itself, be newsworthy.

That makes sense to me. John Key had better watch his language then

In our first reports of 9/11, we allowed the word “fucking” in the front-page lead: “Shortly after the first attack, a person who answered the phone on the trading floor at interdealer-broker Cantor Fitzgerald, near the top of the World Trade Center, said ‘We’re fucking dying,’ when asked what was happening, and hung up.”

Again, I think that is a sensible exception. I doubt anyone would be offended by direct reporting of those quotes, considering the circumstances. They help convey the atmosphere in a way, which asterisks would not have.

It is a shame, other media outlets did not respond. It would be very interesting to compare their different policies. Again my thanks to the Herald for being so open.

Clare Curran blogs:

This is one of those times when the Opposition says the government’s done a good job.

Which I think it did last week in chairing the secret talks on ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) and gently pushing for transparency. I think they’ve listened to the people who are raising serious concerns about the secret trade talks and the rights of citizens.

After more than a year of sustained pressure, the countries negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) decided that the time is right to release the draft text of their work.

Kudos to the Government for their part in this decision. Not only did they obviously push for transparency, but chaired the session that finally got agreement from everyone to do this.

MFAT also hosted a reception last Tuesday where local stakeholders could meet the negotiators and discuss issues. This was a welcome initiative, and I found it quite useful. Was impressed when a couple of officials told me that they actually agreed with most of the points in the Wellington Declaration. Also had interesting chats with some of the EU negotiators over their copyright laws, and our S92A.

Clare also blogs on the software patents issue:

Giving the government more credit. Twice in once day. Phew.

Now don’t let your eyes glaze over just because I’m talking about patents! I’m giving the government credit so listen up.

The Patents Bill, which is about to come back before the House for its second reading was originally crafted in 1953 it was long overdue for a redraft.

One of the most interesting changes to the Bill is  a proposal to exclude computer software from being patentable, on the basis of it being, like books or movies or music, based on a concept and receiving protection under copyright. …

And Simon Power recently announced the Government would back the Select Committee’s recommendation, which I think is the right call. This is already the case in Europe.

Many software patents have been used to stifle competition or extort money from firms. A few years back a Canadian firm, DET, sent invoices to hundreds of NZ small businesses demanding royalties as they had a patent for mulit-currency e-commerce systems. The patent was eventually disqualified, but it took considerable effort.

The NZ Computer Society has backed the proposed law change, and a poll of their members found 80% support for that stand. Their letter to the Simon Power sets out the arguments well.

Good to see an Opposition Spokesperson taking the time to say “Hey we actually think the Government made the right calls here”.

The Herald focuses on media freedom in Fiji:

Two developments in Suva provide renewed evidence of the regime’s distaste for democracy in any real meaning of the word. They must surely have dismissed any thoughts among transtasman officials and politicians of achieving change by appeasement.

This is the unfortunate thing, with the timing. I think NZ, and Australia, were edging towards a more constructive relationship. But this draft decreee pushes them in the other direction.

First, Fiji’s just-published draft of a Media Industry Development Decree would virtually eliminate freedom of expression in the country. It is a remarkable document, one which would make Zimbabwe proud and Singapore blush.

I am one of those who believe taking away a voice is worse than taking away a vote.

The decree protecting the regime from prosecution is a more abstract threat to democracy – a coup leader’s fantasy that surely, once this sorry interregnum is over, will be declared null and void by a legitimate court – with the case against him then reported by a free press. That time can come, though, only if New Zealand and Australia continue to hold hard to democratic principle and the regime is subjected to the greatest sanction, the decision of the Fijian people to call time on their dictator.

This is why I don’t think the Commodore will even surrender power. He has no exit plan which guarantees him immunity from prosecution.

The Dom Post looks at trade with the US:

The US has much to gain from improved access to Asian markets for its goods but it is an unsentimental dealmaker, which swaps its free trade principles for self-interest when it sits down at the negotiating table.

The new ambassador to Washington, Mike Moore, has work to do. So does Mr Key, who is hoping for a formal invitation to the White House later this year and the heft that will give him with US business and farming organisations.

And the ODT talks apples:

The Australian apple market is not huge and estimates for New Zealand exports range around $15 million to $20 million per annum, small but significant.

On the other hand Australian apple consumption is much lower than New Zealand’s and better prices and more competition could be what is needed to stimulate demand.

It can be a win-win,

Australia is in this instance, however, a blatant hypocrite.

It battles for free trade in agriculture while putting up several specific agricultural barriers to protect its own, including against New Zealand apples.

Yes, and if they refuse to act on this issue, will risk undermining their credibility as the WTO can then approve trade sanctions against them.

The Press reports:

Political veteran Jim Anderton may yet run for the Christchurch mayoralty after earlier ruling it out.

Speculation is rife over who will be the Left-leaning 2021 group’s candidate to stand against Mayor Bob Parker.

Anderton yesterday refused to say if his name would be on the ballot.

“I can’t rule it out, and it is not ruled in either,” he said.

Despite being aged 72, Anderton would be a strong challenger to Bob Parker. If he won, I expect Megan Woods to stand for Labour in the by-election.

It would e very interesting for the City Councillors if Anderton did become Mayor. Anderton is well known as an autocrat who hates dissent, and believes decisions are best made by him, not by a Caucus. He even left his own party he founded because they refused to hand over supreme power to him.

So an Anderton-led Council could be a fairly unpleasant experience – not for the Opposition Councillors, but for his own team.

Cameron Brewer is well known as the ranking media whore in New Zealand. His ability to get his name or the name of the Newmarket Business Association in the media is legendary.

I think he may have set a new record with this story though:

Ross Bay was yesterday ordained Anglican Bishop of Auckland.

His ordination and installation as 11th Anglican Bishop of Auckland took place in Parnell’s Holy Trinity Cathedral in front of about 1000 people.

Cameron Brewer, chief executive of the Newmarket Business Association, described Bishop Bay’s rise in the church as “meteoric”

He’s even worked himself into a story on the new Bishop of Auckland. Amazing.

The Waikato Times reports that Phillip Stevens thinks the pictured genitals are too large:

His nine-year-old son had noticed the carvings as they entered the garden. “He asked us `is that a penis?’,” said Mr Stevens. “It was pretty obvious what it was, but as you go on there’s one with big testicles, then there’s one holding it. We tried not to make too big a deal of it, and just told them it was a bit inappropriate.”

He said nude works from European art traditions would not offend him in the same way as the genitalia were of more natural proportions.

So the problem is not having genitals on the carving, but that they were out of proportion!

A definite case of showing that size does matter.

Had a great night last night at a friend’s 50th birthday party. Shirley has always been one of these super mums, who just copes with everything including four kids. I remember once being at her place and she is simultaneously cooking dinner, making sandwiches for lunches the next day, mediating arguments between a couple of kids, making sure others are leaving the house with the right gear, and also the kids having three or four friends there too, so the general noise level resembled a rock concert. I would not have lasted half an hour.

Anyway just had to share a great story from her eldest, Katherine, which was regaled to use last night, that summed Shirley up perfectly. A few years ago Katherine was due at a recital, where she was to play the violin. She was due there at 7 pm for a 7.30 pm start and there had been huge delays due to a crash, so it was 7.25 pm and she was almost there when a police car pulled out and signalled them to pull over.

Katherine related how Shirley not only pulled over quickly, she jumped out of the car, ran towards the Police car hammering the windows. As we don’t live in the US, the officer didn’t shoot her, but wound down the window to have Shirley exclaim “Daughter due at violin recital, can’t be late, just wait here please and I’ll be back”. Shirley then jumped back in the car and took off down the road leaving behind a rather speechless officer.

20 minutes later Shirley returned to the spot, having got Katherine there just on time, to be annoyed the officer was no longer there. No doubt he decided one encounter was enough!

Just as amusing, for me, was when we left and my mate Chris was trying to wind Katherine up by suggesting that her brother David gave a better speech than her. Katherine’s response was along the lines of “But you’re a ginga, so who cares what you think”. Chris had no comeback to this.

Grant Smithies at the SST writes:

I can happily report that he’s right. As a former fan who grew up during the reign of the second and third Doctors, Patrick Troughton (1966-1969) and Jon Pertwee (1970-1974), and who has watched the show intermittently ever since, I’d even stick my neck out and say Smith is the best Doctor I’ve seen. Better, even, than Tennant, the actor credited with revitalising the franchise.

I concur. Matt Smith is brilliant in the role. May he remain the Doctor for many years.

“The Eleventh Hour” was smart, it was scary, it was hilarious, it was even sexy; Doctor Who’s new companion Amy Pond (played by Scottish actress Karen Gillan) is hot beyond belief.

Amelia Pond may prove to be one of the most favoured companions. Romana is still my No 1, followed by Rose Tyler. Oh and K9 of course!

And yes Gillan is very hot. She makes gingas look good

Computerworld reports:

A controversial plan to crack down on online piracy and counterfeiting will be opened up to public scrutiny for the first time next week, when the negotiating text of a secret international copyright treaty will be made public, the European Commission said on Friday.

Negotiations over the past two years have been conducted in secret. Leaks of the draft text have sparked a public outcry, mainly because of how the text deals with online copyright infringement.

Countries involved in talks on the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) agreed unanimously to make the documents available to the public at a meeting in New Zealand this week, the Commission said in a statement.

This is excellent news and a real win for those who have been pushing for transparency. Having the draft text out there helps people make informed submissions.

However, they don’t plan to reveal their individual negotiating positions.

Which would be useful also. However the release of a draft text means the Government can be asked questions relating to that text.

The HoS reports:

North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams is facing fresh criticism after comparing himself to Jesus on the cross.

In an email about reports he urinated on a tree after drinking at a Takapuna restaurant, he wrote to councillors: “Two people were crucified at Easter – and one of them is me.”

And the SST:

“I now know how General Custer felt surrounded by a thousand Indians wanting his blood. But on this occasion me thinks that right will win through and the `dark forces’ will eventually be put down.”

Jesus and General Custer? So that is General Jesus Williams?

Whale Oil has obliged by providing a photo of General Williams.

Went with Auckland Girl to the movies last night to celebrate her 25th birthday, and saw Boy. I’d heard from several people it was very good but hadn’t planned to go out of my way to see it.

I was very glad I did see it as it was a quite delightful and entertaining film.

Most of all though, it was so powerfully New Zealand. Not just the Maori dimension, but everything from the tools in the garage, to the remote dairy, to the cars, to the landscapes, to the cannabis plantations.

Michael Jackson and Billy T James as cultural icons added humour to the film, and make sure you don’t leave the moment the credits start.

James Rolleston showed real talent as “Boy” and I also liked Taika Waititi’s depiction of his father. Not a hero, but not a total villain. In many ways a loser, but also moments of him being a great dad, when he played storm the barricades with Boy.

Waititi also wrote and directed the film. He is definitely a growing talent and I’d go see another of his films.

The Dom Post reports:

The fate of Wellington’s Brooklyn wind turbine swings in the balance.

The 17-year-old turbine, New Zealand’s oldest and first commercially viable one, has not been operating for four months, as some of the machinery needs repair.

Meridian is reviewing whether it should repair, replace or remove the turbine, and plans to ask the community to help decide its fate.

For my 2c I think the turbine is a great icon for Windy Wellington, and it s a great excuse to take visitors up to its location to admire the view. I hope Meridian do keep it going.

Vernon Small at the Dom Post reports:

Halting contributions to the Cullen superannuation fund has cost the taxpayer more than $30 million.

If full contributions had been maintained, it would have earned almost $50m more, calculations based on the fund’s returns to the end of January show.

Even accounting for the extra borrowing costs the Government would have faced to keep up contributions, that would still have netted taxpayers about $1m a week during the past eight months.

First of all, it has not “cost” the taxpayer anything. The taxpayer may have been able to make a gain of $30 million if it had borrowed more money, for the fund to invest. That is certainly true, but it is a potential gain only.

You can not automatically assume that any additional investments would have achieved the same return as the existing investments. An extra $2 billion may have been invested in a stock that did not do so well, or may have meant a higher average price for buying such stock.

It is fair enough to talk about a potential gain or that was missed, but that is not the same thing as stating that potential gain as a loss let alone a cost. That is a sloppy short cut.

Also it is worth reminding people that reward is always linked to risk. One could borrow $10 billion a year to invest in stocks, and probably get a good return on them. But it would also be risky.

What we don’t know if whether or not we would have got a credit downgrade, if the Government decided to continue to borrow money to invest. And if we had, then that would have had a very real cost on every New Zealander.

It is also worth noting that over the entire life of the fund, the rate of return is still below the risk free rate of return. The NZ economy would be hundreds of millions of dollars better off if the fund had never been set up, and the money used to repay debt.

Amused to read this by Audrey Young:

How did you feel about being caught up in the middle of an incredible scandal in Canada?

Well, given that it dominated all the questions on the Canadian side [of the press conference], it shows that universally sex sells. I don’t even claim to understand it nor could I even understand the question, given that it was in French. But it sounds interesting.

Perhaps Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked for your advice because you sacked a minister, Richard Worth, last year and didn’t tell the media why?

It wasn’t lost on me that there were similarities.

Did you pass that on to Mr Harper?

I did actually.

I always wondered with Prime Ministers talked about when thet got together. It seems is it something like this:

NZ PM: Well I had one Minister who had this thing for Asian women – he even tried sleeping with a Labour Party candidate.

Canadian PM: Ha – I can beat that. I had a female Minister who was arranging threesomes with prostitutes for her and her husband.

NZ PM: But my one used taxpayer money to fly his girls to Wellington

Canadian PM: Well my one used her own money, but to buy cocaine

NZ PM: Okay, you win

Back to Audrey’s story:

The King of Jordan came over and saw me. He has absolutely perfect English. Obviously educated in England, in one of those public schools I’d say.

A very English accent. He said to me he’s keen to come to New Zealand. He wants to bring his motorbike and drive down the South Island. He’s apparently famous for it. He apparently drives his protection people absolutely crazy.

Heh I can just imagine it – the King of Jordan hooning along the South Island. And with diplomatic immunity I’m guessing he’ll be doing 200 km/hr on the Canterbury Plains.

Fans of libertarian Ron Paul have got very excited by this Rasmussen poll:

Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Could a 77 year old libertarian from Texas really beat Obama?

Five Thirty Eight puts it into context:

But as regular readers of this website will know, the person conducting the poll can have a profound impact on its results. Rasmussen, in particular, has had a substantial Republican-leaning house effect thus far this year. Perhaps they will turn out to be right (although their idea of trying to apply a “likely voter” model 2.5 years in advance of an election is dubious). But it would be wrong to take a Rasmussen poll (or any other) at face value without taking into account this context. …

After adjustment for house effects, Obama’s lead over Paul is not 1 point but more like 10. This result is closer to that obtained by a PPP poll in November, which had Obama ahead 46-38 against Paul (PPP’s 2012 polls have also had a very slight Republican-leaning house effect.)

Paul’s 9.9-point deficit is not awful — it’s better than of Newt Gingrich (-12.2), Jeb Bush (-13.4) or Sarah Palin (-14.4) do — but lags behind the performance of Mitt Romney, who is just 5.6 points behind, or Mike Huckabee, who is down 6.6. It also lags behind the performance of a so-called generic Republican, who is actually slightly ahead of Obama.

This is what is interesting. A generic Republican candidate beats Obama by 1.9%. But the moment you name a specific candidate, Obama leads by 5% or more. At this stage I think Obama will be re-elected – due to the lack of electable Republican candidates. But if they do find someone without serous baggage, then it is definitely game on.

Back to the Rasmussen poll, the Tea Party movement gets stronger:

Twenty-four percent (24%) of voters now consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement, an eight-point increase from a month ago. Another 10% say they are not a part of the movement but have close friends or family members who are.

The TP movement was derided or ignored for months, but it has become the most powerful grass roots movement in recent times. It dwarves liberal counterparts such as Move On.

When it comes to major issues confronting the nation, 48% of voters now say the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than Obama is. Forty-four percent (44%) hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.

Again, there may be some house bias, but that is still a powerful result.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

KEVIN Rudd has downplayed reports he and his ministers treat staff like dogs as a near-record employee burnout of almost 60 per cent in just more than two years has been revealed.

Despite Mr Rudd pledging to tear up former prime minister John Howard’s hated WorkChoices, 262 ministerial staff – from a total of 444 positions – have departed since Labor came to office.

Three ministers have recorded staff turnover of more than 100 per cent, with Youth and Sport Minister Kate Ellis having 13 departures from a staff of 10. At least one was a part-time university student while several others left to have families.

The Prime Minister himself has lost 28 staff, with Government insiders describing his office as resembling a “transit lounge”.

Rudd is well known as being near impossible to work for. He dreams up crazy ideas and demands they are implemented within days, and has temper tantrums when they are not. His own colleagues resent his style, almost as much as his staff do.

But Mr Rudd said the high pressure of a political office meant it couldn’t be compared to the private sector.

“It’s a tough life. People often have to relocate, there are crazy hours, it’s very intense, people are on the phone wanting X, Y and Z done in a short period of time,” he told Fairfax radio today.

“But I go back to the simple fact: We are elected by the Australian people to do a job.”A staff working year is probably like a dog year, that is it’s probably worth seven years in normal life.

“So if folks stay with me for three or four years, that’s probably 28 or 30 years or more in actual time.”

This is spin. Jobs in Parliament are definitely tough with long hours and an ever changing array of issues. And MPs demands can be frustrating as travel and appointments often change at the last minute. This is why the turnover rate is higher than the normal 10% private sector.

However 60% over two years is very high for any Ministerial office, let alone the PMs Office. The PMs Office is sort of top of the food chain, and it has to be pretty bad for people to leave the office after just a year or two. Most people wait for an election.

Taking John Key’s office as a comparison, I think John has had only two staff leave in two years. One to go overseas and one to have a baby. So Rudd’s claim of a 60% departure rate being normal, is not the case.

Some former staff are privately seething at his management style, claiming he can fly off the handle at a moment’s notice.

Never good to have former staff slag you off. Most former staff of a PM stay ferociously loyal.

Brooklyn Group CEO Brian Russell also queried why Government advisers had left in droves.

`You shouldn’t be having 100 per cent turnover in any team. If you’ve got autocratic management, lack of direction – basic fundamentals – especially in a small group, people will leave,” he said.

Bingo.

The NZ Herald looks at Canada’s dole:

New Zealand is somewhat unusual among OECD nations in having a non-contributory scheme that pays unemployment benefits directly from general taxation. But it shares a common need to seek ways of reducing unsustainable welfare spending, and to encouraging the jobless to return quickly to the workforce.

For those reasons, it is more than appropriate that the recently established Welfare Working Group will look at alternative means of financing unemployment compensation, including those based on pre-funding some benefits through insurance. Most notably, this will involve the examination of Canada’s employment insurance scheme.

The group’s chairwoman, Paula Rebstock, has already pointed out one obvious benefit of such insurance. “Right now, if you are in a relationship with someone and you become unemployed, the chances are you would not be entitled to a social welfare benefit,” she noted. “But if you are involved in an insurance scheme and you have contributed then you would also be in receipt of an unemployment benefit for a period.”

A very worthwhile point.

In Canada, workers pay premiums of 1.73 per cent of insured earnings for benefits if they lose their jobs, and employers contribute 1.4 times the value of employee premiums. The amount received by an unemployed worker and how long they can stay on the insurance depends on their previous salary, how long they were working and the local unemployment rate. The scheme is operated by Service Canada, a government agency, and sits alongside the welfare system, as would be the case if it were adopted in this country.

Just so long as we don’t get ACC to run it!

The Dom Post warns “celebrity” directors:

News this week that the Securities Commission has filed civil proceedings in the High Court at Wellington against four finance company directors – including two former justice ministers – highlights yet again the risks associated with celebrity endorsements.

They have also filed criminal proceedings.

If mum-and-dad investors need to do more due diligence, not only about the independence of the financial advisers they consult but also about the companies they might invest in, the so-called celebrities who lend their names to the letterheads of those companies need to do so, too.

Reputation is everything to those with integrity. To have one’s name dragged through the courts is unpleasant, undignified, and undoes all that went into creating a reputation in the first place. Sir Douglas and Mr Jeffries will be most unhappy this week. Former deputy prime minister Wyatt Creech and former police minister John Luxton, too, must rue the day they agreed to serve on the Blue Chip board, even though they quit before it went under. Famous one-time All Black Sir Colin Meads surely squirmed when Provincial Finance, about which he said publicly: “Solid as, I’d say”, keeled over.

Due diligence is all important. I’ve been on a panel interviewing prospective company directors and the good ones turn the interview around and do due diligence on the company to make sure it is a company they wish to be on the board of.

The ODT remembers closing the gaps:

In 1999, the Labour Party threw into its election campaign mix the policy objective of diminishing the widening gulf between Pakeha New Zealanders and those of Maori or Pacific Island ethnicity – as evidenced in a variety of well-publicised statistics.

These included prison populations, employment figures, health outcomes, income levels, educational achievement, and intergenerational benefit dependency in all of which areas Maori and Pasifika peoples were shown to fare poorly compared to the rest of the population. It labelled the policy it would devise to address such disadvantage “Closing the Gaps”. …

In practice, it seems funds which would otherwise be distributed through a range of social services will be channelled through centralised Whanau Ora providers in an holistic approach to troubled and vulnerable families’ needs – bulk funding for social betterment.

This may erase some duplication of administration costs, but is equally likely to prove problematic in monitoring and measuring effectiveness. It is also unclear at this point just what the policy will cost.

Over at NBR (subscriber section) I blog:

Documents released under the Official Information Act this week reveal that both the Cabinet and the Parliamentary Service Commission have approved a law change to amend the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, to prevent a repeat of electioneering materials such as Labour’s 2005 pledge card being funded by the taxpayer.

This will be welcome by many, especially when you realise the current law.

The current law still allows Parliament to fund blatant electioneering material so long as it does not explicitly solicit votes. A parliamentary party could spend half a million dollars on billboards and newspaper ads promoting their election promises in the week before the election, and send the taxpayer the bill – even though Parliament had been dissolved a month earlier.

I expect we will see a bill implementing the change in the next few weeks.

Full details of the proposed change are at NBR.

Audrey Young reports:

New Zealand does not want Canada joining negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement because Canada wants dairy products exempted from any deal, Prime Minister John Key said in Ottawa last night.

“The sticking point is Canada wants to exclude dairy, and that would be unacceptable to us,” Mr Key told the Herald.

I did not realise how protected Canadian dairy is until I read:

Canada, which has about 13,000 dairy farmers, runs what is called a supply management framework to control supply and demand and it even runs a quota system for cows. Farmers cannot just increase their herds if they want.

Good God. Canada runs it dairy system, like NZ runs it schools!!