Kiwiblog

I am surprised at the number of parallels there are between the UK 2010 formation of Government, and what happened in 1996. Here’s a few of them:

1. The third largest party gets to decide who forms the Government.
2. It is a party that professes to be centrist but overall is distinctly centre-left
3. They had a choice of a majority Government with the CR party or a minority Government with the CL party. This was a key factor in 1996 and 2010.
4. They went with the centre-right party, despite great policy similarity with Labour
5. In both cases the arrogance of the Labour negotiators was a significant factor in pushing the third party to go the other way.
6. The agreement between the two parties is a full coalition, with the minor party leader becoming Deputy Prime Minister
7. Rather than confront issues when they come up and agree up front on just a few policies (as has happened from 1999 onwards in NZ), they have negotiated a very detailed policy programme.

The question is, will it end up the same way as National/NZ First – in divorce.

The agreement to set a five year term of Parliament (proposed that one needs a 55% vote in Parliament to have an early election) will encourage them to work out differences.

However the policy differences are huge in areas like Europe, and with fiscal policy. Sure they have reached agreement for now, but in two or three years Conservatives will want to push harder one way, and Lib Dems activists harder the other way. It is hard to see enough common ground to last for five years.

Three factors in favour of them lasting the distance are the three leaders:

1. Nick Clegg is not Winston. He can be trusted and is rational.
2. Cameron is a centrist and should be able to work with Clegg. The challenge is keeping his Caucus happy.
3. Will Labour be a credible alternative. It will depend on who becomes Leader, and how well they do.

Overall I would not put money on them lasting the full five years. I think they will last at least a couple of years, but after that the differences in policy direction may get to be too great.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has apologised over a joke which has been interpreted by some as linking Tuhoe with cannibalism.

Mr Key this morning sparked a frenzy of outrage when he opened a speech joking that if he had a meal with Tuhoe he would have been on the menu – taken by some to be a suggestion members of the iwi were cannibals.

Mr Key said he thought Tuhoe would get the joke, but it appears they were not amused.

Mr Key this afternoon told reporters he was sorry for any offence caused.

“Ahh look, it was a light-hearted joke, a bit of self-deprecating humour, but if anyone is offended, then I deeply apologise.”

One of the many reasons why I would not stand for Parliament is the fact my sense of humour would constantly get me in trouble. Especially with the gingas.

The Herald is on the new state sector rules:

One of the important principles of any liberal democracy is the political neutrality of the state service. For our system to function smoothly it is necessary for the public and political parties of all persuasions to have rock-solid confidence that the state service will behave professionally and impartially, no matter who happens to be the government of the day.

This is so basic that it almost goes without saying, and yet the State Services Commission has felt it necessary to take steps to clarify just what public servants’ obligations are under their code of conduct. Much of its 33 pages of guidelines for interpreting the code is good, common sense, but in one respect it seems to have broken new ground.

It now seems public servants need to be careful not just about their own political and pecuniary interests but also those of close family members as well. Not surprisingly, this has caused some raised eyebrows because, in political terms at least, it seems fundamentally unfair to judge a person by someone else’s allegiances.

I agree you should not be judged by a family member’s activities.

To apply such a standard generally would lead to endless and pointless complications, especially in a small country. What, for instance, would it make of a pair of brothers one of whom was the most senior public servant in the land and the other a leader of a political party?

In most cases a public servant will take a common sense approach and tell their boss that they have a family member politically engaged if it is relevant to their job. Not because there is anything wrong with it, but to protect themselves. However there is no need to codify it.

The Press looks at Tuhoe:

Speaking at a National Party conference on Sunday, Prime Minister John Key presented an optimistic scenario of improved race relations and he praised the contribution to his Government of the Maori Party.

Yet within one day Key had outraged the Maori Party and Tuhoe by scuppering a deal to give Te Urewera National Park back to that iwi, as part of its Treaty settlement. The real mystery here is why Key suddenly lost his nerve and intervened at the very last minute after months of negotiations.

This agreement was understood to have been due to go before Cabinet on Monday. It is believed it would have vested ownership of the park in Tuhoe’s ancestors to prevent its sale. …

The Tuhoe settlement would have come after New Zealand signed up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted the Whanau Ora policy of the Maori Party and agreed to replace the foreshore and seabed law.

And in my minds, that is probably what led to the Tuhoe deal having a limit placed on it publicly. It would have been too far too many “wins” within a very tight timeframe.

The question for Tuhoe now is whether they still try to make a settlement with this Government, or whether they hold off and hope they can get a better deal from a future Labour Government.

The Dom Post focuses on alcohol:

Neither an increase in the tax nor lifting the drinking age would have saved James. The vodka bottle from which he was seen drinking as if its contents were water had come from his grandmother’s drinks cabinet.

However, making alcohol more expensive and reducing its availability to teenagers might just prevent another youngster from making the same mistake.

Denying those old enough to vote, to marry and to go to war the right to buy a cold beer at the end of a hot summer’s day would be a draconian measure. So would putting up the price of everyone’s favourite tipple to make alcopops less attractive. But something has to be done. The evidence is incontrovertible that New Zealand’s unhealthy attitude to alcohol is spreading downwards to those least equipped to deal with it.

Again, I think a drinking age is the best option. It would be a clear message to both adults and youth that you should not be drinking when you are at an age (and brain development) unable to handle it.

Sixteen-year-olds are in no position to assess the dangers of binge-drinking. Fifteen, 14 and 13-year-olds even less so. If the industry cannot find a way to keep alcohol out of the hands of children, society must.

The industry did not supply the bottle of vodka. But I agree alcohol should be kept out of the hands of children. Make it an offence for a young person to possess or consume alcohol except in the company of their parents. And make it an offence for anyone but a parent to supply alcohol to young persons.

A conference on social media is being held in at SkyCity in Auckland on 17 May next week. It is Social Media Junction and normally costs $700 to attend. The conference programme is here.

I am not attending myself (I will be in Taupo on Monday) but I do have a complimentary ticket to the conference. If you would like to attend, then the first people to e-mail me their name and contact details gets the ticket.

To introduce a tiny amount of skill into the give-away, responses need to state what year was Kiwiblog founded.

UPDATE: Well done Kate – you have won the ticket.

The Press reports:

Some Christchurch men are taking more than a wife when they say “I do”.

Traditionally, brides have accepted their husband’s name when they tie the knot. However, in Christchurch some men are taking their wife’s surname.

Dale Brooking recently became Dale Paterson when he married Lisa Paterson.

I am not a traditionalist when it comes to most aspects of relationships.

Absolutely delighted if my partner earns more than me. If kids ever eventuate, then my expectation would be we both go part-time to share caring duties.

Would be absolutely relaxed about whether or not a future wife keeps her own surname.

But would I ever give up my own surname? Nope. Unthinkable. Maybe if I was a Smith or a Brown I might think differently.

Hyphenation is a possibility, but Farrar is not a name that lends itself to that.

Maybe it is just amongst my circle of friends, but I would say 80% of the women I know have kept their “maiden” names once they are married. Once it was very rare, but now it is very common.

Most of them though go with the bloke’s name for the kids.

The Herald reports:

The average New Zealand earner’s total tax burden is second-lowest in the OECD when superannuation and other compulsory taxes are counted, according to a new report.

This is not a measure of the overall level of taxation in the economy. It is a measure of the difference between gross pay and net pay. There is a huge difference.

The report also said that New Zealand had the smallest tax wedge for  one-earner married couples with two children earning the average wage, at 0.6 per cent.

The OECD report includes welfare payments made through the IRD (working for families) as negative tax.

This does not mean NZ has low levels of tax. It means we have high levels of welfare delivered to families with children.

Many countries had lower tax rates than New Zealand, but had compulsory superannuation and social security payments that increased their tax wedges.

Indeed, so again not apples and apples. KiwiSaver is near de facto compulsory but not included. The Australian compulsory super is included as part of the “tax wedge” even though the amount deducted goes to you personally, not the Government.

The other aspect not included in the tax wedge is indirect taxes such as GST are not included in the tax wedge:

Green Party co-leader Dr Russel Norman said the report showed the Government was misleading people that New Zealand had high taxes, to justify tax cuts for the highest-earners.

This just shows Russel is trying to misled people, or does not understand what a tax wedge is. It is purely a measure of how much the Govt takes out of your pay. It is NOT a measure of the overall level of taxation in the economy.

Again for those who are really really stupid, the tax wedge:

1. does not include indirect taxes (those with GST are shown to be lower)
2. includes deductions made by the Govt, even though they are going to your own personal super account (ie those without compulsory super are shown to be lower)
3. includes welfare payments made through tax system (tax wedge would be much higher if they were done through WINZ)

So if anyone carries on claiming that a low tax wedge means a low level of overall taxation, they are lying.

The better measure to use is the OECD study of the ratio of overall tax revenue to GDP. Now this does have us (thankfully) in the lower half of the OECD, but not second to bottom.  In 2007 tax was 35.7% of GDP and the OECD average was 35.8%.  Note however that amongst OECD pacific countries the average is 30.4%. Australia is 30.8%.

Again comparisons can be difficult as state government revenue should be featured also.

I blogged on the 23rd of March about the renaming and focus of the External Assessments Bureau to the National Assessments Bureau. I was mainly rebutting hysteria that the PM was getting a private spy agency, and pointing out that the EAB/NAB do analysis only – they do not collect intelligence or “spy”.

However I did note:

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 got a partial response from DPMC which I blogged on 7 April. It revealed that NAB is now tasked with establishing quality standards for intelligence analysis across the entire NZ intelligence community, and that they are moving into the same office building as the SIS and GCSB.

The request was also passed into the SSC who did the review of the intelligence community, and today I received a response from the State Services Commissioner – 2010 05 12 letter to mr david farrar re murdoch review and oia release.

I was not expecting a great deal of information, due to the nature of the agencies concerned – probably a lot of blanked out lines. But the SSC has prepared and released a summary of the review of the intelligence agencies done by Simon Murdock (former DPMC and MFAT head). The summary is here – 2010 05 12 summary of murdochreview released under the OIA.

This is a welcome level of openness, The SSC also advises the PM is going to make a public statement on the review late afternoon.

People can read the review for themselves, but here are the parts I found interesting:

1. The current shape of the NZ intelligence community (NZIC) is due to historical legacies, rather than design, and mainly modelled on overseas.
2. NZIC was predominately focused on foreign intelligence. Post 9/11 there is a greater “homeland security” focus
3. A need to have a balance between intelligence which is about risk mitigation, and intelligence which reveals and helps understand medium-term trends and intentions. In other words strategic and tactical intelligence.
4. That the EAB Director should have his role to set quality control standards across the NZIC revalidated.
5. Encourage NZIC agencies to pool corporate and back office functions
6. Against merging SIS and GCSB as they have different cultures and centres of excellence. “They both collect secret information, but in very different ways”. Also they have different requirements for what they do and do not share with overseas partners.
7. That the SIS and GCSB Directors should be subject to performance reviews (they are currently outside the state sector CEO framework)

What I find interesting is that the Murdoch review does not explicitly recommend the change of name and focus of the EAB to the NAB. It fits in with with the Murdoch review, but is not explicit.

So how did the decision arise. Well, I look back to the TVNZ story in March:

It is now called the National Assessments Bureau and it has a new mission – to look at both domestic and foreign security risks.

Security for events like the Rugby World Cup is one of the factors driving the change.

“Of course we would engage our intelligence agencies to make sure we can provide the appropriate level of protection for New Zealanders and international visitors that come for the Rugby World Cup so in that regard it is a National Assessments Bureau as opposed to purely external,” says Prime Minister John Key.

As the change is not explicitly states in the Murdoch review, I wonder if the idea came from the PM himself. The RWC is a major focus for him, and he would want to make sure that intelligence and security for the event was not falling between different agencies – hence giving the EAB a wider focus, to cover all intelligence, not just foreign intelligence.

Personally I think the change is quite sensible, and good to see that not even the intelligence community is immune from the drive for efficiency and cost savings. The NAB’s role is purely analysis, not collection, so it doesn’t mean greater “domestic spying”, just that foreign and domestic intelligence will be analysed by the one agency.

As I said in comments, I did well with the UK election. I could have lost over $1,300 if the outcomes were different.

For those interested, here are my current investments in iPredict:

• Rodney remains sole Leader of Act in 2010
• Jim Anderton to announce he will not stand at the next election, in 2010
• The PM after 2011 election will be National
• The top tax rate will be from 33% (inclusive) to 35% (not inclusive) after the Budget
• John Tamihere will not run for Mayor
• Stephen Tindall will not run for Mayor
• The age for on licence alcohol purchases will not increase to 20
• The US and Australian dollars will not reach parity in 2010
• None of Phil Goff, Bill English, Annette King nor John Key will lose their jobs in 2010
• GDP will not be negative for any quarter in 2010
• GST will not go up before July 2010
• That there will not be another Ministerial departure in 2010
• That Winston will not return to Parliament
• The neither the ACT nor the Maori Party agreements with National will terminate in 2010
• That Andrew Little will not become the MP for New Plymouth
• That Obama will have a positive approval rating on 1 June 2010
• That the OCR will not increase before 1 July 2010 (I realise this is not likely to be the case, but I got the stock cheap so staying with it)
• That Sarah Palin will not run for President in 2012

If you disagree with any of my predictions, then buy some stock yourself and make some money if you are right.

This week’s quiz is here. 26 seconds for 10/10.

Over the last year Labour have made numerous attacks on National MP Pesata Sam Lotu-Iiga as was on the Auckland City Council when he got elected to Parliament, and continued doing both jobs until recently.

Now personally I don’t regard being a Councillor as a full-time job. In fact one of the problems in local government is that it has become a full-time job for too many Councillors. But there can be no doubt at all that being Mayor is a full-time job, especially Mayor of the second largest city in New Zealand.

So what did Labour MPs say about being a Councillor and an MP:

People of the Tamaki Maungakiekie deserve better representation than a sometime City Councillor, says locally based Labour MP Carol Beaumont

“The people of Maungakiekie deserve a fulltime MP to represent their views; likewise the people of the Tamaki Maungakiekie ward of the Auckland City Council deserve a fulltime City Councillor – at the moment they are being short-changed by Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.

Can’t be clearer than that. Labour said doing Councillor and MP was wrong.

So why are they all so enthusiastically backing Jim Anderton to be a Mayor, an MP and a party leader? Once again they just come across as a hypcritical bunch of snake oil salepersons.

Auckland based Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni said: “ensuring Pacific Island people are well represented in local Government is an important issue. Mr Lotu-Iiga should have stood aside immediately after becoming an MP so as to allow someone better placed to fulfil the responsibilities of the role – he’s doing a disservice to the public by doing the two jobs.

That’s two Labour MPs saying you can’t do both.

Associate Pacific Island Spokesperson Su’a William Sio, who is a former Manukau City Councillor, said when he entered Parliament midway through 2008 he resigned from the council immediately because it was impossible to do justice to both jobs.

And a third Labour MP. So where are their voices now? Why has a journalist not gone to those MPs and asked them if they agree that Jim Anderton can not be a Mayor and an MP?

“Labour is also concerned that National is allowing Maungakiekie MP Pesata Sam Lotu-liga to participate in debate on, and vote on, this issue. He is an Auckland City Councillor and clearly has a conflict of interest. It’s bad enough that he’s double-dipping by drawing a salary for both jobs.

And that is a fourth Labour MP against doing both jobs.

Far North Mayor Wayne Brown injects some common sense into the mining debate:

As mayor of the 42 towns and 7500sq km of the Far North District it is my job to lift the economic performance of our region and its people.

Only one-third of our vast sprawl contributes rates with the other two-thirds being Maori land and Department of Conservation land. Much of these areas are vast tracks of scrub and gorse, with some high-value pockets such as Manginangina and Waipoua, that can be left alone.

And some of that scrub land is in Section 4, I am told.

But the single policy that offers most opportunity to our district is Minister of Energy Gerry Brownlee’s moves to prospect and mine rural tracts such as ours, so I am writing to balance the recent widely reported, but rather shallow and negative, press coverage of this policy.

Thousands of ill-informed urban dwellers recently marched against mining with the encouragement of the well intentioned but misguided celebrity actress, Lucy Lawless. What next? Master Chef winners to decide the Official Cash Rate?

Heh, exactly.

Now to that ridiculous urban myth that mining cannot co-exist with tourism. Hello! Mining central, being Australia, has more tourists than we do and I would encourage you to send a reporter up here for a look. Travel along Matauri Bay Rd, then turn right up the little known loose metal road at Tepene Tablelands, like many others do each day.

For over 30 years, scores of locals have driven up there daily to well paid and satisfying jobs at the open cast mine, processing plant and rehabilitated areas of Imerys’ china clay holicite mine.

Lots of others drive up there daily to the other address on this road which is the internationally acclaimed, uber-expensive but very beautiful Kauri Cliffs Golf Resort.

Being next door to an existing mine didn’t stop billionaire owner Julian Robertson from investing in this golf course, nor has it stopped his wealthy guests from coming in good numbers to support the local jobs that this created.

As I said, a very good article that restores some balance to the debate.

My prediction that Vodafone’s new calling plan for on-network calls was a massive own goal, has been proven correct. Launching the plan just days before the Minister was due to decide on the recommendation not to regulate mobile termination rates will go down as arguably their biggest stuff up to date.

To be fair, their competitor Telecom, has many to choose from – CDMA, XT, AAPT etc etc.

The Herald reports:

Vodafone’s latest marketing deal has pushed the Commerce Commission to backtrack on an earlier decision and it is now recommending the Government regulate mobile phone ‘termination rates’. …

In a draft report out today, the commission says earlier undertakings offered by Vodafone and Telecom would not address competition concerns.

Considering the Minister asked the Commission to reconsider its 2-1 recommendation to accept commercial undertakings rather than regulate, what is the chance he will now turn down the new recommendation to regulate? I’d say close to zero.

If Vodafone had held off their new pricing plan for a couple of weeks, I reckon there was an 80%+ chance the Minister would have gone with the recommendation to accept the commercial undertakings.

Had outages today! Not with Kiwiblog, but Vodafone which meant I could not connect to Kiwiblog.

David Cameron is now the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Congrats to Prime Minister Cameron and my many friends in the UK who were fighting for this outcome.

The Telegraph has a great timeline of the last few hours, as the Labour and Lib Dems negotiation fell apart.

Nick Clegg is to be Deputy Prime Minister in a full coalition. That should give stability. They have also agreed on the desirability for a fixed election term, which means the next election which can be held any time up to May 2015, may be set in law for May 2014 and every four years there after.

The Lib Dems have five Cabinet posts.

David Cameron is the 19th PM from Eton, out of 53 in total. He is the youngest for 200 years, aged only 43. I can safely say no one will ever beat Pitt the Younger’s record of becoming PM at age 24. Pitt was PM for a total of 20 years.

I’m very pleased by the result.  Apart from the obvious political leanings, I had a lot of money on iPredict for Cameron to become Prime Minister.

Just had a very entertaining evening at Downstage watching Joel Salom’s Gadgets, which is part of the comedy festival. It is on at Downstage until Saturday.

Salom reminds me of a cross between Jim Carrey, and Mr Bean. Physically, he is a delight to watch with his frantic antics. He is literally a comic. His two sidekicks work well with him, and between them they are a great act.

His show has a lot of juggling in it from ping pong balls to flaming torches. He is a very accomplished juggler, and he also manages to stuff multiple ping pong balls into his mouth, which must be painful.

The highlight for me was Erik the robot dog/god. You will love Erik, both when he looms large on the screen, and in real life.

There is a fair bit of audience interaction with Joel. Be careful if a spotlight shines on your seat! And the juggling musical laser display at the end is impressive.

The only negative for me was the initial segment with the ping pong balls stretched on a bit too long. But it was a minor minor flaw in a very enjoyable performance. I can happily recommend it for people who want a fun evening with lots of laughs.

A minor gripe, not associated with the performance, is that the seats were not assigned (possibly only applied to this first night) which means we were encouraged to turn up early to get good seats. However those who turned up and entered early were told to go to the back of the theatre, and sit in the sides, not the middle. So the “reward” for getting there early was to be shunted to a corner at the back. Not very logical.

Was very amused that the pair next to us overhead me joking to my companion that I would not buy an engagement ring until I was 65, as it will be much cheaper once I retire (based on the three months salary rule). They took it rather seriously  and started lecturing me on not being such a cheap bastard

The Press reports:

Canterbury police have used a Taser for the first time, firing at a knife-wielding man who wanted the officers to shoot him.

Laurence William Berry, 28, pleaded guilty in the Christchurch District Court yesterday to a charge of possession of an offensive weapon.

The police summary of facts said that when police arrived at a central Christchurch property last Wednesday, Berry was holding a butcher’s knife with a 40-centimetre blade.

He walked from the Armagh St property on to the road toward police, holding the knife.

Despite police warnings to drop the knife, he refused and was Tasered.

In explanation, Berry said that he was hoping the police would turn up with guns and shoot him, the summary said.

If the Greens got their way and had the Taser banned, that man would now probably be dead.

The Herald looks at the Tuhoe negotiations:

At the best of times, reaching a comprehensive settlement over Waitangi claims is a delicate and tricky matter. But for a number of reasons the Tuhoe negotiations are proving especially difficult, and not just because some people in the National Government are becoming increasingly worried that their party is earning a reputation among voters for conceding too much to the Maori Party. …

But what makes the Tuhoe claim especially difficult is that the tribe is seeking a major concession that departs radically from precedents set in other Waitangi settlements. After two years of negotiations, Tuhoe remains adamant that ownership of Te Urewera National Park is at the top of its agenda.

If the Government were to concede, the resulting settlement would go far beyond any similar previous arrangements in which iwi have obtained significant areas of Department of Conservation land only to return them immediately as part of the deal. For instance, Ngai Tahu gave Aoraki/Mt Cook back to the nation after its settlement.

At a practical level, the Tuhoe claim seems to envisage something similar inasmuch as it promises that public access to some of the country’s most beautiful land would not be compromised in any way. But, importantly, it goes much further in aiming to take over the ownership and financial management of the land from the department after a 10-year transition period.

Given the justice of its claim, there is no question that Tuhoe is in line for major concessions and a payment that will be close to the Tainui and Ngai Tahu settlements of $170 million each. All the most recent historical research suggests the Tuhoe people were treated exceptionally harshly and that they are owed a full apology and generous compensation.

Tuhoe was always going to be the most challenging negotiation.

The Dom Post says Jim Anderton must choose between Mayor and MP:

Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton is a man untrammelled by self-doubt.

In a political career that stretches back 45 years to his days on Manukau City Council, he has been a member of four political parties and fallen out with virtually every high-profile figure he has worked with. Never does it appear to have occurred to him that he could be in the wrong.

So true.

Hence it comes as no surprise that Mr Anderton believes he can perform the roles of MP for Wigram and Christchurch mayor at the same time. He is mistaken.

They are both fulltime positions. One is based in Christchurch; the other is split between Christchurch and Wellington. Both carry fulltime salaries.

Anderton will earn a total of just over $400,000 (including super and allowance) or over $7,500 a week doing both jobs.

Christchurch ratepayers are paying good money to be represented by a mayor who devotes his energies to advancing the city’s interests. He cannot perform that role if he is spending several days a week in Wellington.

Taxpayers are paying good money to Mr Anderton to represent the interests of his electorate in Parliament. He cannot perform that role from the mayoral chambers.

One could clone Saint Jim.

However, it is not Parliament’s role to serve as a safety net for politicians who would like new jobs but are not sure whether they are going to get them.

If Mr Anderton wins the Christchurch mayoralty in the October local body elections, he should resign from Parliament. In fact, he should give thought to resigning ahead of those elections, or at least take unpaid leave for the duration of the campaign, as many other candidates for public office are obliged to do.

Just as he will not be able to represent Wigram’s interests in Parliament if he becomes mayor, so he will not be able to do so on the campaign trail.

Saint Jim has a private members bill that requires an MP to resign from Parliament if they contest a by-election. Yet he thinks he should be able to contest a Mayoral election as an MP.

The Press looks at the UK:

For the Lib Dems, electoral reform is at the top of their wishlist in any deal, whether it be a formal coalition or the sort of support arrangements common in New Zealand, with either Cameron’s party or Labour’s Gordon Brown.

This stance is not surprising given last week’s disproportionate election result. While the Lib Dems got 23 per cent of the votes cast, which was a disappointment following polls showing them at abound 30 per cent at one point, they won about 200 fewer seats than Labour, which gained 29 per cent of the vote. At the other end of the scale, the Tories gained 36 per cent of the vote, but won about 47 per cent of the seats.

These sorts of outcomes are as palpably unfair and undemocratic as was the unreformed voting system in New Zealand, and Nick Clegg should hold firm to his party’s proportional representation policy as he talks to Cameron and Brown.

And the ODT:

The election result has presented Mr Clegg with choices: going into government with the old Conservative foe, risking alienating many in his own party ranks; or throwing in his lot with Mr Brown and a governing coalition otherwise comprising a number of smaller independents, the chief danger of this being the perception of Labour, a distant second in the poll, as tarnished.

This could work against any subsequent referendum on electoral reform, thus defeating the chief purpose of such an alliance.

The markets, already spooked by Greece, have shown their impatience.

Mr Clegg’s role as “king-maker” – one he might have formerly anticipated with some eagerness – has been served up by the voting public along with a generously sized poisoned chalice.

We await the outcome with fascination.

The Herald reports:

As blood dripped from stab wounds inflicted by one of his students, maths teacher Steve Hose yelled at the rest of his class to get out.

The 53-year-old, the popular head of Te Puke High School’s mathematics department, was about to start class at 11am with his Year 9 students when one of them, a 13-year-old boy, attacked him with a 10cm kitchen knife.

He was stabbed twice in the back of his neck and twice in the shoulder. …

Mr Clement said the boy – who because of his age cannot be charged with a criminal offence – had been co-operative with police who questioned him.

Hopefully one of our many lawyers will help me out, but why can’t he be charged? The Crimes Act in S22 says:

No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of any act done or omitted by him when of the age of 10 but under the age of 14 years, unless he knew either that the act or omission was wrong or that it was contrary to law.

I am pretty sure he knew that it was illegal and/or wrong to stab your teacher with a knife.

The Herald reports:

An Auckland jail is to be handed over to private management under legislation passed last year.

The tender process for the handover of the joint Mt Eden-Auckland Central Remand Prison will begin within a month, with a decision early next year. A formal handover is pencilled in for August 2011.

Great.

Labour’s corrections spokesman, Clayton Cosgrove, said the party would reverse privatisation of any prisons.

“If Labour were elected government, it would be our intention to revert back to Crown management of prisons.

There is no way there is the same level of accountability or parliamentary inquiry, as they have now with a government agency.

“Corrections is the core responsibility of the state.”

This is ideological nonsense.

What Collins is doing in Corrections is almost identical to what we already have for prosecutions. Almost all prosecutions are managed by private law firms, with Crown Law setting overall policy and standards.

Is Labour proposing to nationalise prosecutions and remove crown prosecution warrants from the dozen or so law firms that have them?

Prosecutions can be deemed just as much a core responsibility as corrections. But what counts is that the Crown sets policy and standards in the area – they do not need to provide the service.

Auckland Central Remand Prison was privately run by the Australian GEO Group from 1999 to 2005, when the Labour Government refused to renew the contract.

Ms Collins has praised GEO for introducing new rehabilitation services and having fewer positive drug tests and an excellent safety record – only one suicide and three serious assaults in 2004 – but the Corrections Association has challenged this.

This is the key. You provide financial incentives for not allowing drug use by prisoners, having improved safety and most of all for fewer escapes. Incentives matter, and they work.

The Herald reports:

Civil servants will be encouraged to discuss their political activities with their managers and the political interests of close family members under new guidelines released yesterday.

The State Services Commission has toughened up its code of conduct for public servants with more prescriptive rules around political activities and potential conflicts of interest.

Not sure if this is needed, or not. But I was staggered to read this:

Mr Robertson, a former public servant, said it was reasonable for state servants to discuss their political activities with their managers “but dragging family members into it is taking it to another level”.

Has Grant heard of Madeleine Setchell? Really having a Labour MP talk about not dragging family members into it is just too much.

Both David Benson-Pope and Jim Anderton effectively blackballed Setchell from employment, because of who her boyfriend was.

The Herald reports:

A doctor and mother of a King’s College student – spurred by the death of 16-year-old James Webster – has written to fellow school parent John Key to demand action from the Government over New Zealand’s youth drinking culture.

“Today my son (and yours) dresses in formal uniform to go to school and remember another student who has died this year,” Margaret Abercrombie said in her letter to Mr Key yesterday.

At first I thought it was the dead boy’s mother, but it is another mother at the school.

Dr Abercrombie told the Herald she had a teenage son at King’s and was aware of the pressures he faced at school.

“His mates drink and he’s 13. They drink seven shots in half an hour of neat vodka. And they drink until they vomit, and that actually probably saves their lives sometimes.

And this is totally legal under both the current law, and the law proposed by the Law Commission. The Law Commission only targets purchase age and supply. They do nothing about whether it should be legal for a 13 year old to drink vodka.

I am happy to say I support a law where it is illegal to drink under a certain age. One can debate what the age should be but it is definitely above 13.

One could even have a graduated age like Germany had or has. At 14 you can legally drink beer, and at 16 wine and spirits. Again this can be debated.

But again changes to the purchase age for alcohol will do nothing to stop what happened. Neither will the new proposed law about supply, because no one supplied the dead 16 year old. He swiped a bottle of vodka from his home. And kids will always be able to swipe alcohol, unless families lock it up like they do with firearms.

Hence there needs to be some responsibility on the young drinkers. At the moment the law says you can get pissed on vodka at 13. If the law had a minimum drinking age, then parents could use it as a reason not to allow youth drinking, and Police could intervene at parties where 13 and 14 year olds are drinking spirits without adult supervision. At present they can do nothing.

The Telegraph reports:

On a day of high political drama, Mr Brown seized on David Cameron’s failure to secure a pact with Nick Clegg by opening formal talks to agree a so-called “coalition of losers”.

In a surprise announcement, the Prime Minister offered to oversee talks between the two parties before stepping down by the time of the Labour conference in September, when a new leader would be chosen by party members. …

If accepted, the proposal would mean Mr Brown remaining in Downing Street for another five months and voters being presented with a second unelected prime minister in a row.

It would be quite remarkable if the Prime Minister turns out to be someone who wasn’t even a party leader at the election. It rather undermines the notion of informed consent by voters.

Of course it is not unusual for leaders and PMs to change mid-term. This is how Geoffrey Palmer and Jenny Shipley became PM. But I can’t recall an occasion when a person becomes PM pretty much straight after the election, despite not being the party leader who contested it.

This puts some pressure on the Conservatives. Either they make a better deal to the Lib Dems, or they remain in Opposition, and hope they can bring the Government down quickly.

The Lib Dems have a risky decision to make also. If they go with Labour, because of a better deal on electoral reform, they will be desperately hoping the Government lasts long enough to allow for an electoral reform proposal to be agreed on, drawn up in detail, and put to the public in a referendum. This could well take 18 months or longer.

If they shut the Conservatives out, then they will do everything they can to bring the Government down early, and in a second election could well win a majority which means the Lib Dems lose the chance of any electoral reform at all.

To some degree it is a bit like the old saying about a bird in the hand vs two in the bush. The Conservatives and Lib Dems combined can definitely remain in Govt and implement any deal on electoral reform – even if it is only preferential voting (which will help the Lib Dems in many seats). However Labour is obviously willing to offer “two birds” electoral reform which may be something in between SM and MMP. But it is less likely they can pass it into law, as they will not have a majority.

It will be fascinating to see what happens. My money is still (literally) on David Cameron becoming PM, but I note the share price for this has dropped from 92c to 86c.

The Herald approves of the electoral finance bill:

The Government’s long-awaited bill reforming electoral finance law solves many of the problems created by its contentious, discredited and repealed 2007 predecessor and the dated 1993 Electoral Act. …

It is better than both the EFA and the status quo. Personally I wanted to see considerably more reform, but accept the Government made a decision not to push through changes, which did not have wide parliamentary support. Effectively Labour were given a veto over the changes.

Several new measures have been raised since details of the reforms were announced in February.

The most welcome is news that a separate bill will finally be introduced to tighten the use by parties and MPs of parliamentary funds to campaign to voters. …

A bill later this year will align the parliamentary and electoral law definitions in the “regulated period” or three months before an election. Parties will no longer be able to spend parliamentary money for communications other than those that “explicitly” seek people’s support or party vote or donations or membership of their party.

News I exclusively broke here, using papers I obtained under the OIA.

The Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill sets a three-month regulated period, down from the entire calendar year of an election in the 2007 law, and limits it still further if an election is called fewer than three months from polling day.

The regulated period is shorter if the election date is announced less than three months before the last possible election date, not just the actual election date. Expect to see this change at select committee.

The Dominion Post has advice for Nick Clegg:

Welcome to our world. Britain is about to face the realities of coalition government. The voters have delivered an MMP result under a first-past-the-post system, effectively leaving the Liberal Democrats to decide who gets to form the next government. It is small wonder that the New Zealand Cabinet Manual is being avidly read in Whitehall offices. …

However, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will have to be careful not to overplay his hand. His party’s tally of 57 seats is fewer than he and others expected, and he needs to be conscious that how he behaves now will play a huge role in how Britons view proportional representation.

Mr Clegg is unlikely to have a better chance to push the cause of electoral reform with the other parties than he does now while still in the role of kingmaker – at the time of writing no deals had been struck – but if he is seen as putting his party’s interests ahead of those of the country, or of seeking to be the tail that wags the dog, there will be a backlash.

As some NZ parties have found.

And the ODT looks at local government:

The pros and cons of what exactly are local government’s “core activities” continue to be debated by the public in a somewhat desultory fashion, while it is obvious central government has long embarked on providing the statutory means by which local councils can shed what might once have been regarded as essential services in favour of the private sector. …

Mr Hide’s Local Government Amendment Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which has received its first reading in Parliament and will now be further considered in select committee, enables local councils to offer tenders to private companies to provide water services for up to 35 years, essentially a technical change since councils can already take that action, but only for a 15-year period.

He has argued that the change is necessary because 15 years is not sufficient to enable an adequate return on the economic life of water assets.

In other words, his Bill is designed to make the possibility of privately contracting water services more attractive.

But even if the Bill survives without radical change, it does not necessarily mean water services will be privatised.

Indeed, councils will retain control of services should they opt to have components contracted to private providers; the restrictions on the sale of council water services in the Local Government Act 2002 remain.

d