Kiwiblog

Danyl is dangerous when bored:

Labour Party MP Pete Hodgson will be leaving Parliament to travel back in time and attack the reputation of Prime Minister John Key as a young boy, senior Labour sources announced today.

The Dunedin North MP plans to establish a new identity in the past where he can be close to the future Prime Minister – possibly as a teacher or friend of the Key family – and accumulate enough evidence to permanently damage Key’s reputation and preclude him from entering politics and becoming leader of the National Party.

‘We believe that as a ten year old child Key was involved in illegal currency speculation that badly damaged the New Zealand economy,’ Hodgson said. ‘We also have information suggesting that at about this time Key and his friend Derek shoplifted a pornographic magazine from a local dairy.’

‘I believe these crimes are related,’ Hodgson added. ‘My goal back in 1971 will be to piece together the evidence and present them to the New Zealand public. They will know that slippery John Key is not to be trusted even if the people of today will not. If I am successful the voters of 2008 will never even know Key’s name! How will you spin that Crosby/Textor?’

The Prime Minister refused to comment on Labour’s plan, saying only that he would be sad to see Mr Hodgson leave Parliament and adding that the Dunedin MP reminded him of an elderly man who lived next door to him as a child. ‘I don’t remember his name though,’ Key said.

Court records indicate a P Hidgson lived across the road from the Key family in Burnside during the early 1970s. He was later arrested in the United States attempting to blow up the headquarters of Merril Lynch in New York in 1981.

‘I often wondered what happened to that crafty old guy,’ Key chuckled. ‘He really had it in for me, always hatching some scheme to get me into trouble. When I think about it I wouldn’t be here today if I wasn’t for that sense of cunning and strategy he cultivated in me as a boy.’

I almost hurt myself from the laughter reading this one.

Scrubone blogs:

I’m stunned at the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club’s vote to ban all head coverings.

Before now, the policy could have been put down to a historical quirk, where all gentelmen were expected to doff their bowler hats at the door. Having it pointed out that this quirk discriminated against members of the Sikh religion, one expected to see it removed.

But the club has endorsed it. Having done so, they deliberately done something that will discriminate against a certain group of people. This effectively has moved the rule from the status of a quirk, to being full-on, all-out racism.

I agree. I would be ashamed to be a member of such a club. Of course they have the right to discriminate, but people have the right to criticise their discrimination.

What really surprises me is that this is a club in Manurewa – which has a significant Indian and hence Sikh population.What a great way to offend a significant proportion of your community.

In all the debate about Ecan’s sacking, people seem to forget about why they were sacked. There were two primary reasons.

The first is that after 19 years, they were the only Council in the country to have failed to come up with a water allocation plan. They have had six sets of elections, yet no plan. Environmentalists should be outraged at this.

The second is they were the most incompetent Council in New Zealand at processing resource consents. This is not just the view of the review team – it was documented by the Ministry for the Environment in 2009.

Of the 84 territorial and regional councils, ECan was ranked 84/84. They only processed 29% of resource consents on time.

If that does not qualify for a sacking, what does? Would you leave in place an organisation that can’t even comply with the law 71% of the time? Would you take no action against the most incompetent Council in New Zealand?

The Herald says the reshuffle is only the start for Labour:

Probably the most notable aspect of the Labour Party’s reshuffle was Phil Goff’s acknowledgment that further change is needed.

Halfway through the electoral term, his party is struggling to dent the Government’s popularity, despite the helping hand provided by policies such as the mining of the conservation estate and an increase in GST.

Clearly, Mr Goff will need to place more figures with vigour and political appeal around him before the end of the year. Yesterday’s reshuffle of positions and responsibilities should have been merely the starting point. …

Mr Goff has acted decisively against those exposed for their misuse of credit cards. A tougher test will be orchestrating a thorough Labour renewal this year.

The party’s failure to gain traction leaves Labour that option or one other – a resuffle from the bottom, in which Mr Goff and deputy Annette King are moved by their colleagues rather than the other way around.

I believe Goff is safe until the election.

The other three editorials are on the foreshore and seabed announcement. First The Press:

The 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act was one of the most contentious and deeply flawed pieces of legislation passed by the previous government.

The act stripped Maori of the basic right to have the courts test foreshore and seabed claims and led to the split in Labour ranks which produced the Maori Party. Labour was subsequently unable to find an acceptable alternative to its legislation but now Prime Minister John Key has achieved just this, with a solution that is fairer for all New Zealanders. …

For Key and Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, the agreement brokered this week is one of the most significant achievements of their first term in the Beehive. It offers the prospect of a balanced and lasting settlement to a divisive issue which has for six years been, as Key aptly noted, a “weeping sore” in New Zealand.

And the Dom Post:

A last-minute pre-Cabinet meeting on Monday, involving Mr Key, Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson, the Maori Party and the Iwi Leadership Group, came up trumps. In a deal that is too timid for some Maori and too bold for some Pakeha, the hated 2004 legislation will go, foreshore and seabed now vested in the Crown will become “public space”, which cannot be sold, and customary title and customary rights will be recognised by way of a new court process or direct negotiations with the Crown.

Mr Key seemed genuinely to want this agreement. He has increasingly grasped the uncomfortable fact that the country cannot move forward unless and until Maori grievances are honourably settled. With that at least partially achieved thanks to Monday’s deal, the prime minister, Maori Party MPs and iwi leaders, however, must do more than pat each other on the back. That many Kiwis are unhappy almost goes without saying.

And finally the ODT:

The Government has had its way with its favoured plan, and despite contending otherwise, has made some concessions whose effective outcome may be determined not by elected Parliament but by unelected courts – hardly a desirable situation in a property-owning democracy headed by a Government which purports to have sought “balance” in its scheme.

The Maori Party can claim a long-term gain sufficient to cover any embarrassment about its short-term compromise.

There may yet be room for adjustment, or at least for some acknowledgement of the equal status – if it still exists – of the vast majority of New Zealanders, including urban non-tribal Maori, whose future connection with the foreshore and seabed is apparently to be legally classified as of inferior virtue.

Thus does grievance lie upon grievance.

The ODT very unhappy it seems.

Phil Goff had looked strong on Monday with his demotions, and has wisely decided to save the promotions for the next day, so he would stay in the news cycle for an extra day. It was a good strategy, but one in tatters by the end of the day after Chris Carter went rogue.

I think there are some lessons to be learnt from this for Labour, as in my view yesterday was avoidable. This isn’t putting the boot in, but genuine advice.

When dealing with stuff such as demotions or sackings, you don’t leave things to chance. The master of this was Alastair Campbell who would turn up to a Minister’s office with their letter of resignation.

A senior staff member who has the undisputed authority of the leader should have been dispatched to each person being demoted, and talked them through what was going to happen, write their press release for them, and also advise them on what media they should front for and not front for.

This advice should have included that you need to front up on the way into caucus, and basically what words of regret they should use. This may sound over the top, but this is how the professionals do it. By working this out in advance you avoid the fiascos like yesterday. If the demoted MP refuses to follow script, then you know this quietly in advance, and can send the Leader in to insist.

This comes back to a problem that I believe Phil Goff’s office has – no chief of staff. This is no denigration of the three or four senior staff who report to Goff – they are all competent in their areas, but it is widely chatted around Parliament that the lack of one overall boss is an issue, as things do fall through the cracks.

A chief of staff is exactly who you need to deal with the demotions of the last two days. Anyone less, and the MP may refuse to accept they are speaking on behalf of the leader.

I’ve worked in both a PM’s office with and without a chief of staff and also an Opposition Leader’s office with and without a chief of staff.  No matter how good the calibre of the senior staff, things never work that well without a chief of staff. They don’t have to be a Heather Simpson like figure, if that is the resistance to having one. Other Chiefs of Staff have been quite proficient, without having a 20 meter zone of fear around them.

If Phil Goff wants to be Prime Minister, he has to look like he can run the country. A sub-set of that is he first has to look like he can run his own caucus.

With some reluctance, I think he really does need to demote Chris Carter all the way now. The fact is that Chris has yet to face up to the media and in any way accept he made some bad decisions. And his resistance to doing so is now so well entrenched with the public, that any attempt to now do so will look like too little too late.

I say with some reluctance, because on a personal level I have always liked Chris Carter. He was good mates with one of my best mates, and so I got to know him quite well. He had a great, very mischievous sense of humour, and had great political instincts. I always found him to be a nice guy – with the usual caveat I don’t agree with his policies.

In 1996 I was actually hoping he would win Waipareira against Brian Neeson, because Neeson’s views on various issues were too extreme for me. No I don’t always back the National candidate. In fact almost every election there have been one or two seats which has me quietly supporting the Labour candidate.

It seems clear to me that Chris’ political instincts have been eroded since becoming a Minister. It happens to a fair few MPs – his case just seems quite extreme. He can’t see the forest for the trees. He looks at each of his overseas trips and thinks I can justify them on a case by case basis – rather than look at the totality of his travelling and spending and asking whether it looks excessive.

Chris is now in a position where Goff could further demote him without push back from his caucus. There is some genuine anger within Labour over what happened yesterday – it was meant to be the day that they got positive headlines over the promotions of future cabinet ministers such as Chauvel and Robertson.

So why won’t Goff treat Carter the same as he treated Shane Jones (who has fronted up and shown genuine contrition)? My best guess is because Chris has threatened to quit Parliament and cause a by-election.

I’m not sure how credible such a threat would be. But even if it is credible, then you have to wonder why does that stop Phil Goff from doing what is obviously now needed?

The logical answer is that Phil is worried Labour would lose the by-election to National. While they won the electorate vote by 5,000 or so votes, they actually were second in the party vote.

The Herald reports:

Earlier, it emerged that Mr Brown continued to break rules after being warned by senior staff to provide correct documentation when using his council credit card.

Finance director Dave Foster yesterday said he told Mr Brown about twice in the past year that he was not providing the correct documents with his card purchases.

Other senior staff had also raised the issue with the mayor.

But not much they can do when it is the Mayor – they can’t threaten to remove his card.

An Audit New Zealand-initiated probe of incomplete tax invoices has identified 25 cases among the council’s 172 credit card holders.

Of the 25 cases, 13 relate to Mr Brown, including an $810 dinner at Volare Restaurant in Manurewa that is also missing written documentation specifying the purpose of the dinner, who was present and giving an itemised breakdown.

So Len Brown represents 52% of undocumented credit card transactions at the Council, despite being just 0.6% of the card holders.

I can understand people initially being sloppy, but what does it say when you ignore your own senior staff’s warnings and requests that you are in breach of Council policy?

Anything that isn’t a loss is a win. 1-1 against Slovakia got us our first points at the Football World Cup 2010.

Phil Goff is starting to look foolish for his leniency with Chris Carter. Carter won’t apologise or front, and gets rewarded with the major portfolio of Conservation.

Then as it becomes apparent that he is showing no contrition at all, Goff sends him home. He disobeys this and goes into his office to draft a press release which still manages to come across as forced and grudging (because it is).

This is enough to keep him with the conservation portfolio, and he heads off home, despite Phil Goff wanting him to front up to the media.

It is very obvious Chris Carter does not think he did anything wrong. His behaviour has been the opposite of Shane Jones, yet he has not been treated anyway near as harshly.

The Labour whips will finally force Carter at some stage to front up to the media and pretend to be sorry. But it will be a farce. Goff will win kudos if he calls Carter’s bluff and demotes him all the way. Carter will not have any sympathy within Labour, and would be an outcast for all time if he forces a by-election.

John Key has just announced that Kevin Rudd will visit on 29th of June for talks on progressing the single economic market for Australia and NZ.

The PMs always meet up annually, but what is unusual is that Rudd has been invited to address the House of Representatives – the first foreign leader to do so.

This seems quite a smart move to me – emphasises the special relationship between the two countries.

Will try and pop into the gallery to see this.

The NZ Herald reports:

Manukau Mayor and Super City mayoral front-runner Len Brown broke nearly every rule in the book when he put $810 on his council credit card for a dinner at a Manurewa restaurant last September.

The council credit card policy bars card-holders from submitting only an eftpos receipt to verify spending, but that is all Mr Brown provided after the dinner at Volare Restaurant.

He also breached rules requiring him to explain the purpose of the dinner, list who was present, provide an itemised breakdown of the dinner, a GST receipt and a tax invoice.

It was approved merely on the basis of an EFTPOS receipt. This is hugely sloppy.

Mr Brown’s credit card problems will come under the microscope today when documents detailing $16,977.22 of his credit card expenditure since 2007 will be discussed by the council’s policy and activities committee.

Whale Oil has details of some of these. I’ll return to that.

Mr Brown cut up his credit card on Campbell Live last week and told the Herald that if he became the first mayor of the Super City, he would use a purchase account and regularly publish details of his spending.

He said he accepted the public scrutiny, but believed it was part of a smear campaign by his opponents because of his poll lead over Mr Banks.

This is just hysterical nonsense. Sure opponents jump on the stories, but one has to be demented to think that the Sunday Star-Times is working for John Banks. They are the most left wing newspaper in New Zealand. They have actually scrutinised the expenses of all four major Auckland mayors, after Andrew Williams came to attention. Bob Harvey was covered also (and he is not standing for anything) but his affairs were not too out or order. The problem for Len Brown is his use of it on repeated occasions for personal purchases, and also nickel and diming it for every conceivable expense, despite a household income of probably well over $300,000 a year.

Whale Oil has details of some of the spending, They include:

• $280 to attend Labour Party conference (later refunded)
• $2,800 to Dress for Suc­cess Celebrity Wait­ers
• $768 at the Viaduct Restaurant and Bar. Now one might assume this is in Auckland, but in fact it is in Christchurch – rather distant from Manukau.
• $316 for food after the santa parade

He has also put up a 74 page pdf of all the spending – from kids ice creams to bottles of wine.

Phil Goff has announced:

Nanaia Mahuta and Charles Chauvel move to Front Bench seats while Grant Robertson moves to the second row.

Chauvel was a no brainer. On performance I still maintain Robertson would be ahead of Mahuta for the front bench, but I guess it would ruffle too many feathers to put a new MP there so quickly. Mahuta has been a competent opposition MP, but not one I would have thought screamed front bench.

• Charles Chauvel picks up Environment and drops Energy.
  
• David Parker picks up Economic Development and drops Conservation.
  
• Darren Hughes picks up Infrastructure.
  
• Maryan Street picks up Foreign Affairs and drops Tertiary Education.
  
• Stuart Nash picks up Forestry from Mita Ririnui.
  
• Grant Robertson picks up Tertiary Education.
  
• Nanaia Mahuta picks up Energy and Associate Law and Order.
  
• Chris Carter picks up Conservation.

Chauvel to environment is logical and what I predicted. He is one of the few MPs who understand the complexities of the ETS etc.

Giving Parker economic development also sound. When Cunliffe becomes leader, Parker is the likely replacement for him in finance.

Not sure how Darren will go with infrastructure, as he made little impact against Steven Joyce on transport. Darren’s strengths is more in the House.

Street makes some sense for Foreign Affairs as she had was covering Trade. Some risk that she will push the party’s foreign stance to the left, but on trade she has been quite moderate.

Nash is under-used so giving him forestry makes sense.

Robertson in tertiary education is very interesting as it will play him against Steven Joyce. Grant is a former NZUSA president so knows the sector well.

Somewhat puzzled by energy and associate law and order to Nanaia Mahuta as they don’t seem to be areas of interest previously. But a chance for her to prove her front bench ranking.

Carter has been given Conservation, which is easy for him as a former minister.

However you’d be a bit pissed off if you were Shane Jones and Mita Ririnui. Carter has arguably been by far the worst trougher, and is totally unrepentant. Yet he only goes back to the second row, and gets given a major portfolio. Jones and Ririnui have no portfolios at all, and are on the back row.

As I understand it, a fuller reshuffle will happen in November.

A reader writes:

The local Chinese media are saying that the NZ government is blocking their accreditation to cover the visit of the vice president Jinping this week. According to them no local Chinese media allowed at any function or press conference. …

Surely there’s a way to security check the local Chinese media to see if any are crazed Falung Gong and exclude them rather than them all?

This blog entry was brought to the attention of the Department of Internal Affairs.

The Department has responsibility for the overall management and coordination of media activity for the official visit by the Mr Xi Jinping, Vice President of the People’s Republic of China. There are a series of media opportunities over the period of the visit.

We can assure you there is no attempt to block the local Chinese media from attending various activities during the Vice President Xi JinPing’s visit or adopt any form of censorship. Invitations have been issued today to local media including Auckland and Wellington based Chinese media. We have also extended invitations to Press Gallery journalists and local Auckland and Wellington media. The only media restrictions that will apply are camera pool arrangements where there are space constraints. In such situations both the official Chinese media and local New Zealand media will have an equal opportunity to participate in the pool.

Enquiries are welcomed from all interested Chinese local media and we encourage them to contact us if they are interested in attending events during the Vice President’s visit or have concerns. We will endeavour to accommodate their needs within the space and security constraints. These are the same considerations that would apply for any official overseas government visit to New Zealand.

Internal Affairs operates an open, responsive media policy and is committed to ensuring that news media has reasonable access to information about the activities of the Department.

The media advisory outlining media opportunities is available from the Department of Internal Affairs.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the concerns that have been raised.

Fairfax have put all 17,000 pages of expenses claims online. They want your help to review them all. Go this page and it will then assign you a page yet to be reviewed. A great way to share the burden.

They even have a guide as to what to look out for:

1) Items that cost much more than they should (eg: $1000 suits, $200 bottles of wine)

2) Spending lots of money in short periods of time (eg: $1000 in restaurant bills is alright for a month, not for a day)

3) Strange explanations from MPs (Do they keep losing their luggage on overseas trips? Do they give vague reasons for large bills?)

4) No details on the bill (eg: $2000 on “room charges” in a hotel bill, with no more info).

5) Things that have no business being paid for by the public (eg: movie tickets, new cars, home electricity bills)

This is an excellent initiative. What I especially like about it is how you don’t have everyone covering the first few pages. You can give feedback to their reporters on what pages to check more closely.

In some ways it is similar to what many US states have done – put their entire cheque register for all agencies online. Then you get a legion of armchair auditors going through them.

I’m currently going through Judith Tizard’s expenses and finding notes complaining there are no receipts or details. The only response is she took some arts people to dinner.

It would be great if enough readers can review claims to get though all 16,522 pages in a day. No doing your normal jobs until they are all reviewed!

A little birdie tells me that Sean Plunket resigned from Radio New Zealand this morning, or more correctly took up CEO Peter Cavanagh’s long standing offer to resign.

This comes ironically just after he finally got permission from Radio NZ to do the long contested column for Metro.

I guess Sean’s departure from Radio NZ means he will be a full time columnist. I am sure he will cope going from 60 hours of live broadcasting a month to one column

NZPA reported:

As Maori Party leaders hail the new foreshore and seabed legislation as a victory for their party, one of their MPs says justice hasn’t been delivered.

Hone Harawira said tonight he was “gutted” because the Government didn’t agree to give Maori title to the foreshore and seabed. …

“I’m disappointed, but not surprised, that the prime minister wasn’t bold enough to do the right thing and I’m disappointed he chose to pander to the rednecks rather than give Maori the justice we deserve.”

Mr Harawira said two Maori demands had been met — repeal of the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act and restoration of Maori access to the courts to test claims to customary rights and title.

“But what Maori were really after was Maori title,” he said.

This indicates very well how difficult the Government’s job was, and the gulf of expectations between what some Maori wanted, and what the Government was offering.

Hone Harawira has a world view that Maori own the foreshore and seabed – always have and always will, and the only problem is the Crown turned up and took it off them.

This is a long long way from what the Court of Appeal found. The Court of Appeal found that an iwi or hapu could make a claim for a discrete portion of the foreshore and seabed if they could prove unbroken customary usage from 1840 to the present day. They stressed this was a high threshold to meet.

So getting an agreement in the face of such diverging views, is no small achievement. It’s one Labour tried to do, but failed at.

It was looking wobbly, but the howls of victory from Labour were premature. John Key has just announced an agreement in principle with Iwi leaders and the Maori Party. Key details are:

• The 2004 Act will be repealed and replaced with new legislation
• The foreshore and seabed area currently vested in Crown ownership will be replaced by a public space which is incapable of being owned in a fee simple sense (ie can never be sold)
• Existing Maori and Pakeha private titles would continue unaffected
• Customary title and customary rights will be recognised through access to justice in a new High Court process or through direct negotiations with the Crown
• The test for customary rights and for customary title under a replacement regime will be the same as in the consultation document, and reflects the position the Govt thinks the Courts would have come to if the previous government had not imposed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004

A bill will be introduced in August, which will be open to public submissions.

The devil may be in the detail, but on what we know so far I have to say I think it is a considerable improvement on the status quo:

• Property rights of existing title holders are protected
• Iwi and hapu have their right to go to court restored
• The public foreshore will remain with a right of access to all, and can never be sold into private hands
• The test for customary rights and title will broadly reflect the test the courts would have probably applied

Just as there is no one universal view of women, or youth, there will be no universal view of Maori on thsi deal, but I suspect it will be welcomed by the majority.

And I think many non Maori will welcome a package that restores the right of a group of New Zealanders to test their claims in court.

Gareth Hughes blogs at Frog Blog:

A Sunday Times investigation has exposed Japan for bribing small nations with cash and prostitutes to gain their support for the mass slaughter of whales.

The British seem to excel at this type of investigative journalism (think Fergie) and this will really embarrass the Japanese whaling industry. While we’ve known for a long time that Japan uses aid money to buy votes at the IWC, this investigation gives amounts and a personal touch to the reality. For example, the Tanzanian IWC Commissioner Geoffrey Nanyaro, who talks about an all expenses paid trips to Japan and being set up with prostitutes there – “…it starts by saying: do you want massaging? Are you not lonely? You don’t want any comfort?” Like the experiences certain former ministers are having here, these practises behind closed doors look outrageous once they are out in the open.

Will it impact on the IWC negotiations currently happening in Morocco? I’m not sure – it’s embarrassing but I imagine the ‘bought’ nations will keep voting with Japan who also provocatively sent out its whaling fleet for the Northern Pacific hunt last week.

I’m not a fan of the lunatics at Sea Shepherd, but neither am I fan of the Japanese Government on the whaling issue. Their shameless vote buying at the IWC would get them jailed if it was done on a person to person basis, rather than govt to govt.

This is partly why a negotiated agreement with Japan would be a useful outcome – it would end the years of corruption that has almost destroyed the IWC’s credibility.

New Zealand has negotiated in good faith to try and reach a diplomatic compromise, and I still hope we can reach one that strengthens whale conservation, but this really is an outrageous practice by Japan that makes joining Australia in taking a case to the International Court of Justice a much more appealing option.

Like Gareth, I believe a diplomatic compromise that enhances whale conservation would be a good thing. I have to say it is not looking highly likely. If the diplomatic route fails, then the ICJ is worth considering. However that has its dangers also – if you lose, then the Japanese position will be greatly improved.

A 13 year old uses the c word twice on television. But not in an offensive way – she was repeating a text sent between two teenagers (one of whom was her best friend) where she called him a rapist and he called her the c word. The TV presenter I thought handled it very well and said we need to be careful of language but says that’s all right sweetheart.

While such language is not generally allowed on free to air television, I don’t see that the network could do much about it. I do wonder what would the BSA do, if this happened in NZ.

What is perhaps surprising, is that the 13 year old didn’t think not to say the word on air. It indicates perhaps that it doesn’t have a lot of shock value to that generation. Or it might just be that she was being literal in referring to the content of the e-mails.

Hat Tip: Murray Report

Phil Goff has announced:

Shane Jones repeatedly misused his ministerial credit card and this requires a clear sanction.

He will lose his front bench position and the two major portfolio responsibilities he holds. …

Chris Carter also wrongly used his card on several occasions over six years as a Minister on things outside the rules for Ministerial expenditure. He has now repaid the money.

These items by themselves would not warrant removal from the Foreign Affairs portfolio. However there has been public controversy around the frequency and cost of Chris’ travel as a Minister accompanied by his partner which damages his ability to continue in this portfolio.

Chris has lost the portfolio and his front bench seat and will sit on the second bench. Given the importance he attached to his portfolio this will be a severe sanction for him. …

Mita Ririnui wrongly used his Government credit card to purchase golf clubs and a bike. These are clearly personal items, involving significant expenditure and occurred on two occasions.

He did not do so with any dishonest intent and reimbursed Ministerial Services for that expenditure at the time.

However it was clearly outside the rules and he should have been aware of that and showed poor judgement.

As a result he will lose his shadow portfolio responsibilities for forestry.

I can’t complain about Goff’s decisions – mind you he had little choice after his attacks on Heatley over $70 of wine. But well done to him for taking some action.

The outcome is a bit unusual now. Carter is MP for Te Atatu and still has electorate duties. He also retains Spokesperson for Ethnic Affairs.

However Shane Jones and Mita Ririnui now hold no portfolio at all, and are List MPs. One has to seriously ask what value they will bring to the taxpayer, sitting there for 18 months with no portfolio responsibilities, and no electorate. Their sole responsibility will be to attend their select committees, yet get paid the same as they are getting paid today. It is a political demotion, but not a financial demotion.

We’ll find out tomorrow who gets promoted.

I blogged last week about micro-financing, and the site I use – Kiva.

I mentioned how you can lend money in multiples of $25, to help third world small business owners access capital.

Now some people may have wondered how much of a difference does $25 here and there make.

Well by chance just had the latest newsletter from Kiva. In just 56 months they have lent US$140 million to 363,000 third world small business owners in 53 countries. And 98.2% of loans have been repaid.

UMR have just released a poll of 350 people (through an online panel) from Christchurch. Their findings:

• Unprompted Mayoral choice is Jim Anderton 46%, Bob Parker 21%
• When asked head to head it is Anderton 61%, Parker 30%
• Parker has 49% disapprove and 35% approve
• Anderton has 21% disapprove and 63% approve

Things are looking good for Saint Jim to be getting his hands on the Mayoral credit card.

The Sunday Telegraph reports:

SENIOR Labor MPs says the leadership is Julia Gillard’s for the taking before the election – if she wants it.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s control of the party has entered a treacherous phase, with Cabinet ministers and backbenchers canvassing the idea of changing leaders before this year’s federal election.

As Ms Gillard was forced yesterday to publicly deny she wanted the top job, Labor MPs described Mr Rudd as a “leader under fire” and said his prime ministership was “terminal”.

Rudd has never been that popular within his Caucus – respected but not popular. He appointed a Cabinet without going through faction heads. Personally this was a good thing to do, but it did create enemies.

I’ve just been reading the infamous Quarterly Essay on Rudd by David Marr. This is one one where he refers to the Chinese as trying to “rat fuck” Australia at the Copenhagen summit.

Marr points out that both Rudd and Gillard were seen as potential challengers to Kim Beazley, and that they met to decide who would challenge. Gillard actually had more MPs backing her, but Rudd refused to consider being her deputy, so she agreed to serve as his deputy.

She is unlikely to challenge, because she knows that will create more enemies for her. But there may come a point where for the good of the party, she is pressured into becoming Leader.

Senior Labor sources said Ms Gillard has always had the numbers to seize the leadership, but not necessarily the will to challenge for the top job.

“She would get it pretty easily right now, but I don’t think she wants it,” the source said.

I think she wants it, but on her terms. Labor are waiting for Tony Abbott to self destruct, but if he does not then they may panic and try to roll Rudd before the election.

However even then Gillard may prefer to let Labor lose, become Leader of the Opposition, and then try to become PM in her own right within three years.

The Herald reports:

A Ngapuhi leader is calling for a nine per cent economic development tax to be levied on everyone living inside the iwi’s boundary as part of its treaty claim.

Matarahurahu hapu chairman David Rankin said the proposed flat tax rate, which would be administered by the Inland Revenue Department, would “pull Ngapuhi out of a depressed state” and ultimately benefit the entire region.

He would like it to fund social and economic development projects such as aquaculture programmes, and make Ngapuhi as prosperous as iwi like Ngai Tahu and Tainui, which benefit from rich resources in their regions, he said.

Before people get too excited over this, I should point out that David Rankin does not speak for Ngapuhi. He has a long history of saying things which range from the stupid to the even more stupid.

However, there had also been “one or two” members of the Ngapuhi Runanga, who administer the claim, who expressed their strong opposition and threatened to bar Mr Rankin from speaking at Waitangi Tribunal hearings.

So this is clearly not a formal position of the Iwi.

I won’t even bother to speak to the fact that such a tax would never be agreed to. I want to point out the economic stupidity of it.

If you have a 9% tax on economic activity in Northland, that will not help the region – it will kill it. People will leave Northland in their droves if the tax rate in Auckland is 17.5% and in Northland it is 26.5%.