Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff is moving quickly to deal with the fallout over the spending of some of the party’s former ministers.

Mr Goff returned from a trip to China today and was tonight talking to Shane Jones, Chris Carter and others embroiled in the scandal.

Party sources told NZPA that Mr Goff wasn’t going to wait for Tuesday’s caucus meeting and was likely to announce his decisions around noon tomorrow.

Mr Jones and Mr Carter are almost certain to be demoted and a third, Mita Ririnui, could also go down in the ranks.

Let’s review each of the three.

The decision to demote Chris Carter is an easy one. It was almost inevitable that he would have been demoted in the year end reshuffle anyway, and eas expected to retire at the next election anyway.

The potential danger around Carter is that if he got seriously disgruntled and resigned, he would cause a by-election in Te Atatu – a seat no longer guaranteed to stay with Labour – National narrowly won the party vote in 2008.

A demotion for Shane Jones is more challenging. There is no doubt it has to happen, but Jones was a potential rival to Goff as leader, and is unlikely to remain around for long if he sees himself in for a long spell on the backbenches. Hence he will be told that any demotion is temporary, even though I suspect it will be permanent. What they do not want is Jones resigning and bringing Judith Tizard back on the list.

Mita Ririnui lost his seat in 2005, and was lucky to make it back in 2008 as a List MP. He was also one of those expected to retire in 2011 anyway, so a demotion is no big thing. He wasn’t front bench anyway, and I can’t even recall what portfolio he covers.

The Herald reports:

The dinner, at the Volare Italian Restaurant last September, cost $810 and was listed as an expense on the mayoral credit card.

Last night, Mr Brown told the Herald that the dinner was “most definitely” council business, a fundraiser attended by council staff and community members.

Council chief executive Leigh Auton also issued a statement in relation to the Sunday Star Times article, confirming that staff did ask the restaurant to make up a new receipt.

But he stressed that was only so that a GST number was included – as the original did not have one – and in no way was the restaurant asked to exclude any details from the receipt.

Mr Auton said that during a regular internal audit process, council staff had made several phone calls to suppliers to get copies of transaction receipts.

But at no time was anyone asked to “make them up”, he said.

“Yes, a staff member did ask for a copy of a receipt. But at no time was the restaurant asked to fabricate or exclude details, and this has been confirmed by the restaurant owner.

I said in yesterday’s post that this was one of three possible explanations, and it is the most benign of the three scenarios, which is good.

It is still a bit alarming that an $800 receipt was accepted with no GST number, as this is a breach of the GST Act. Also having a new receipt created is also a breach. The proper procedure is to supply a copy of the original GST receipt and mark it as a copy.

While it seems clear there was no wrong doing to deliberately get less embarrassing receipts, I would still ask the question if the Council has a copy of a more detailed receipt, and if so will it release it under the OIA?

Can’t let this slip by without mention.

Seems like Kuwait has reverted to old school justice, the likes of which haven’t been seen in Europe since WWII, and in Kuwait since the 1980′s apparently.

Hat tip: Desert Girl

Jonathan Marshall at the SST reports:

Council officials working for Manakau mayor Len Brown approached a restaurant asking its staff to “make up” a dinner receipt that excluded details of beer and wine purchased during a $810 dinner. …

On Friday, a bundle of receipts was sent by the council’s chief executive, Leigh Auton. The majority of receipts were eftpos ones rather than tax invoices showing exactly what was purchased.

Council regulations require a tax invoice to be submitted for every transaction, especially for spends of more than $50.

One of the tax invoices provided to the Star-Times was for an $810 dinner at Manurewa’s Volare Restaurant on a Sunday evening in September 2009. The only details of the visit on the invoice are “dinner for mayor Len Brown, includes food and beverage”.

The tax invoice is different from the usual invoices given to diners at the South Auckland eatery.

The Star-Times has learned that council officials contacted the restaurant last week – 36 weeks after the visit – and asked them to produce a new receipt and fax it to council headquarters. Volare owner Daniel Nakhle yesterday confirmed “a new receipt was requested” just a few days ago.

This verges on fraud (unless the original receipt had been lost), and may be a breach of the Official Information Act. If this is correct, it is disgraceful that Manukau City Council staff believe it is their job to request suppliers to manufacture new invoices that hide the details of the spending.

If you worked in the private sector, and it turned out you had been going back to restaurants and asking them for new receipts/invoices which are less embarrassing to you, you’d probably be sacked by your boss.

If Council staff were ringing up restaurants to ask for new invoices that would be less embarrassing to the Mayor, it would signify the naked politisation of the Council staff, presuambly authorised by the CEO. And one would have to ask at whose request was any request made?

If media request credit card details under the Official Information Act, the obligation is to hand over any information you have that is legally obtainable.

The last thing public sector staff should be doing is ringing up restaurants and asking them to manufacture new invoices, so they don’t have to hand over the receipts they do have. The Ombudsman should be very concerned about this, and may even want to investigate.

The revelation comes as official documents show it took Brown 437 days to repay his council for a family Christmas ham he bought from a butcher.

The Sunday Star-Times revealed last week that Brown spent $10,864.98 in the past 12 months on council plastic. It has since emerged he racked up $16,977.22 since winning the mayoralty in 2007. The Star-Times requested copies of each receipt for each transaction since Brown was elected mayor.

On Friday, a bundle of receipts was sent by the council’s chief executive, Leigh Auton. The majority of receipts were eftpos ones rather than tax invoices showing exactly what was purchased.

Three scenarios come to mind here, for what Manukau City Council have done:

1. MCC has the full tax receipts showing details of how much alcohol was consumed, and asked restaurants to manufacture new receipts leaving off this detail, so they could hide the real receipts from disclosure under the OIA.
2. MCC never received the full tax receipts from the Mayor, in breach of Council policy.
3. MCC were given the full tax receipts by the Mayor, but despite being legally required to keep them for seven years have lost or destroyed them.

To some degree all three scenarios reflect very badly on those involved.

The questions I would be asking are:

1. Does MCC have the full tax receipts still, and if not did they ever have them?
2. Who made the decision to ring up restaurants to ask for new invoices/receipts?
3. At whose request was the decision made?

The HoS reports:

Radio NZ will allow its well-known and sometimes fractious star Sean Plunket to write a magazine column, despite having battled through the Employment Relations Authority to stop him.

The cash-strapped state broadcaster had won a ruling from the authority, allowing it to ban Plunket from writing the political column while he was on the public payroll.

I’m glad Radio NZ have decided to allow Sean, but at mystified about why they didn’t just say yes in the first place, and avoid all these court battles.

I could understand any reluctance if Sean wanted to spend his weekends hosting talkback on Radio Live. But this was a monthly column in a magazine!

The HoS reports Chris Carter is close to quitting Parliament:

New Zealand’s first openly gay Cabinet minister is close to quitting Parliament because he is sick of being attacked as a “luxury-loving gay boy”.

Chris will quite Parliament at the next election – because his colleagues are so pissed off at him.

“Do you want to live your life with this stuff going on all the time? You know, I love being an MP. But there might well be a point soon where I think this is just not worth it.”

Yes, how dare one have to endure scrutiny of spending.

But he said the public perception of him as living the high-life at the taxpayer’s expense was grossly inaccurate – and he still drives a 1996 Suzuki Swift.

The only thing grossly inaccurate is Chris’ perception. It is a shame – he used to have a well developed political instinct, but it has deserted him.

“I have lots of faults … but arrogance, pride and love of luxury are not among them.”‘

So why the $6,000 of limo hire?

No other Minister has been “forced” into hiring them, as you claim you were by the Australian Government.

Matt McCarten writes:

This week the credit card expenses came out on Thursday and none of it was good for Labour.

A number of former Labour ministers clearly didn’t know where the line between their public responsibilities and personal luxury needs started and finished. …

But what these ministers didn’t get is there are rightly different standards for them. They are in the privileged positions of being leaders, where their personal ethics and integrity are important no matter what their political stripes. Carelessly using a ministerial card for personal luxuries is thoughtless at best and corrupt at worst.

There are two types of politicians – those that think it’s a privilege to be a representative of the people and those who think it’s a privilege for us to have them. You can guess which category the ministerial card abusers fall under.

As we saw in the previous story.

And Kerre Woodham writes:

Phil Goff thundered sanctimoniously that Heatley’s position went to his head.

He’d barely been minister for a year, Phil Goff expostulated, and his sense of entitlement was such that he ordered two bottles of wine with dinner. Heads should roll, Phil finished.

Well, as sure as the karma bus will make a stop at your door, Labour has found itself having to explain away thousands of dollars worth of credit card bills run up by its former ministers.

Karma indeed.

Chris Carter, the serial trougher, was at it again. Despite being advised repeatedly as to what was appropriate use for his ministerial credit card, and despite being sent the entire parliamentary policy on credit card use, just as a reminder, Chris Carter continually bent the rules.

Movies, flowers, fruit and massages – whether the massages had happy endings isn’t specified on the bill – all popped up on Carter’s credit card.

Oh Kerre. Too much detail.

And the HoS editorial:

The most extraordinary aspect of the scandal over spending irregularities that has destroyed Shane Jones’ leadership aspirations – and possibly his entire political career – is that he ever imagined he might get away with it.

In numerical terms, Jones is not in fact the worst offender in the latest round of revelations: his one-time colleague in Cabinet, Education Minister Chris Carter, actually ran up 33 per cent more than Jones – on flowers, designer clothing and spa treatments.

Most gallingly, he used his ministerial card to buy flowers for Lianne Dalziel after she was sacked as Immigration Minister for lying about having leaked documents to a television channel.

The logic by which he could regard it as a ministerial duty to console a colleague who had sought to deceive the public remains obscure to everybody but him, it appears.

The thought of personally paying for the flowers did not occur I suspect.

… principal among them is the requirement that no personal expenditure be incurred on a ministerial card. That means precisely what it says: it does not mean that it is all right to run up private expenses with the intention of later reimbursing them.

Many of us run two or more plastic cards and make daily decisions about which to use, for reasons of our own personal accounting. It is no great burden to do so, and it is the least we might expect of someone carrying a card for which the taxpayer picks up the tab.

No great burden and very common.

The events of the week have surely irretrievably damaged the mana of a man who was widely tipped to succeed Phil Goff as Labour leader and, in the eyes of many, potentially the country’s first Maori Prime Minister.

Sad though that is, there is a sense here of history repeating itself. Winston Peters and John Tamihere were in their turn cloaked with the mantle of future premiership.

Hmmn, it does seem to be a sort of curse.

And finally the SST reports:

Jones is being urged not to resign as Goff looks set to use the scandal to shake up his front bench.

Jones and Te Atatu MP Chris Carter face demotion tomorrow after Goff’s return to a party in disarray over revelations going back seven years.

The release of credit card receipts last week show Carter notched up bills for limousines, flowers and massages, while Jones watched dozens of pornographic movies. He repaid the money before he handed in his credit card, but Carter is still paying money back.

Jones, who has been tipped as a potential leader, is considering his future, but has ruled out resigning.

Samuels said Jones shouldn’t quit. “He has got leadership qualities I don’t think anybody else in the party has. Many in Maoridom would be very disappointed if he resigned.”

And besides if Jones goes, who else will be there to grant citizenship for Dover’s mates?

Finally John Tamihere writes in Sunday News:

THIS week the Department of Internal Affairs disclosed detailed lists identifying expenditure of ministers in the Labour Government from 2003-2008. I was a minister from 2002-2004.

I had no idea I could order massages, flowers, porn movies and booze galore. The biggest scalp achieved by the clever release of this information was Shane Jones.

While others erred and were arguably worse, particularly Chris Carter, Jones is the big story.

He entered Parliament as the Labour Party attack weapon on the Maori Party and as a person who had huge cross-over appeal into non-Maori communities.

He has Dalmatian ancestry and was gaining significant support for a tilt at the Labour leadership once they lose the 2011 election.

I am not sure Jones was going to wait until 2011.  Phil Goff’s leadership has been made much safer by this.

The question is, can he survive as a politician? He is a list MP and does not have a constituency to fall back on. He is at the whim of the back-room Labour Party machinery.

That machinery is driven predominantly by a group of women who stretch across the gay, union and the woman’s divisions of the party. They control the moderation committee that decides where you sit on the party list. I sat on that committee for the 1999 and 2002 elections.

All of Shane’s colleagues are going to tell him he has a future in politics and not to quit. And then come the 2011 list ranking, he’ll be given an unwinnable place.

All four major editorials are on the credit card revelations. First the Herald:

Such scrutiny is, obviously, overdue given some of the ministerial behaviour that has come to light. Equally, it must be recognised that the very functioning of government sometimes requires ministers to dip into the taxpayer pocket.

In this regard, some of the criticism directed at ministers has been well wide of the mark. Take, for example, the fact that Trade Minister Tim Groser paid what, for New Zealanders, represents a lavish restaurant tip while at an Apec summit in South America.

Quite simply, that was the level of gratuity expected in Peru. Equally, the same minister, as part of his official duties, is expected to entertain dignitaries on his many trips overseas.

There should be no surprise that his spending on liquor and food is reasonably substantial.

Likewise, there is nothing out of the norm in Murray McCully spending nearly $2000 of taxpayer money on laundry services.

His role as Foreign Affairs Minister dictates not only that he travels frequently but that he presents a good image when meeting foreign dignitaries.

McCully naturally looks unkempt, so any investment in keeping his shirts wrinkle free is worth it

And there is Shane Jones’ lust for pornography, which led him to watch as many as three pay-per-view blue movies a night in hotel rooms and then charge them to his card.

The revelation will surely lead to the demotion of the former Building and Construction Minister when he faces his Labour caucus colleagues next week.

Labour leader Phil Goff has little option given his strong criticism of Housing Minister Phil Heatley, whose infringements were mild by comparison.

As Mr Jones conceded, he has dug a hole that may well prove to be his grave. It is difficult to see a way back, so deep and enduring will be the taint of the revelations and what they say about him.

Labour MPs are busy lining up to tell Shane that he can recover from this, but the political reality is that if he carries on he will spend 18 miserable months on the backbenches, and then disappear at the next election. They just want him to stay on, to avoid Judith Tizard returning.

The Press slams appalling judgements:

Some might argue that the credit card revelations are a media beat-up, but in the case of the worst offenders there are serious issues. The spending reflects appalling judgment and a misplaced sense of entitlement on the part of several senior politicians who once held ministerial portfolios, with some no doubt aspiring to do so again.

Another disturbing feature thrown up by the release of documentation is the tardiness of some ministers in filing receipts for their spending, with officials having to pester them to do so. Again, this reluctance to be accountable for spending taxpayer money showed poor judgment.

But again some balance:

This helps explain why food and drink receipts loom so large among the released documents. The current Trade Minister, Tim Groser, who was the subject of a complaint about his behaviour on an international flight, has now raised eyebrows with his mini-bar tabs. But Groser should not be judged harshly too quickly. Groser is required to be frequently overseas on portfolio business and should not be begrudged, after a long day of trade talks, winding down in his hotel room with a drink. Perhaps it needs to be explained, however, how he came to buy five $92 bottles of Famous Grouse scotch during the climate change conference in Copenhagen. Whether or not another former Labour minister, Judith Tizard, should have spent $155 on a single bottle of champagne is another question.

People who don’t travel much think that travel is fun. Being in other countries can be fun, but travel itself is not. Spending 200 days a year travelling overseas is a pretty miserable existence.

The Dominion Post focuses on Shane Jones:

Former Labour minister Shane Jones’ biggest sin was not that he watched pornography. It was that he got the taxpayer to pay for the pornography he was watching. Mr Jones’ purchase of porn betrays of mammoth sense of entitlement and a minuscule sense of propriety.

He is not alone. Judith Tizard moved on from being a chardonnay socialist to become a Bollinger bolshevik, charging up a $155 bottle of bubbly to the taxpayers.

Chris Carter felt it was appropriate to use his ministerial credit card to buy flowers for his partner, Peter Kaiser, and for colleague Lianne Dalziel when she was sacked, plus kitchenware in London, and massages in Buenos Aires.

Mita Ririnui used his card for golf clubs and at a bike shop. The list goes on. They can clearly read the menus and wine lists but apparently not the ministerial guidelines on spending.

The lack of remorse is what grates:

Mr Carter says his mistakes were “perhaps inevitable, but never excusable”. That offers no insight into why he thought the taxpayer should be paying for “kitchenware” – apparently mugs bearing the British Labour Party logo – and its postage back to New Zealand from London.

Former agriculture and forestry minister Jim Anderton is little better. He has rejected any suggestion it was improper that spa treatments at a Malaysian hotel were charged to his ministerial card, saying he paid the money back and “it’s just silly to think you’re going to carry a number of cards and pay for this on one and that on another”.

He is wrong. That is exactly what he should have done, and what most in the private sector expect to do when they are travelling with a company credit card.

Exactly. And the excuse that Ministers are too busy to check out themselves is trite. They can give their personal card to staff to use at checkout. They can get the bill the night before and indicate then what items are personal and pay for them.

Mr Jones, once touted as a future Labour leader, will pay a high political price. His credibility is all but gone.

In many ways a pity. He was one of the economically most literate MPs in Labour. But his colleagues are deluding him if they say he can get over this.

The ODT points out not all Ministers have offended:

Many members of the public and probably most of the media have long suspected politicians have so designed their professional way of life in such a manner as to rort the taxpayers as often and as deeply as they can get away with, surrounded such behaviour with a thicket of prohibitions on disclosure, and adopted denial as the first defensive posture when challenged.

The accusatory brush has been broad, yet as the recent disclosures show, unfairly so. By no means all present and former ministers have abused their special privileges at our cost; indeed, several have been quite circumspect, using their ministerial credit card with caution and within the rules. …

The exceptions have been disappointingly cavalier with their private spending and their hypocrisy for doing so while generally railing against wasteful state spending will do their reputations no good whatsoever.

Winston Peters has denied using his credit card, but it is clear from the records that his staff charged many items to it claiming they were expenses, never mind a reminder of the “unarguable” policy that credit cards not be used for personal expenditure, regardless of repayment.

Jim Anderton was also shown to have used his card for a massage and spa services for himself and his wife while on Labour government business.

Others have treated the taxpayer-funded card just as carelessly, but on a far greater scale. The contrast on television between the smirking former Labour minister Chris Carter and his shamefaced colleague Shane Jones perhaps spoke volumes about attitudes.

Indeed.

Colin Espiner blogs:

What a disaster for Labour. Any faint chance it had of winning the 2011 election has been buried in the rubble of the gluttony, greed, and wanton extravagance of its foolhardy MPs.

The ministerial credit card spending of Labour’s former stars makes National’s odd indulgences look like paragons of fiscal rectitude.

Even Tim the Groser’s bar bill pales into insignificance beside the flagrant disregard for taxpayers’ money shown by the likes of Chris Carter, Parekura Horomia, Shane Jones, Mita Ririnui and Judith Tizard.

At least Shane Jones admits he was wrong. I can’t believe the sense of entitlement from some of his colleagues.

Flowers for each other, $160 bottles of Bolly, 16 beers during a dinner for two, massages and spa treatments, health clubs, whiskey, cigarettes, helicopter rides, plane charters, fancy luggage, and all the other trappings of the high life.

To call a spade a spade, Labour’s MPs were taking the piss. They were taking the taxpayers of New Zealand for a ride.

It’s such a pity, too. Because the revelations contained in the thousands of pages of credit card statements released to the media reinforce every stereotype and prejudice the public has always had of MPs: that they were on the pig’s back at our expense.

And that’s something I’ve always argued against. Most MPs aren’t like that. Most are hard-working, have a conscience, and are careful with public money. But their colleagues have totally stuffed it up for them all.

It is worth noting that it is not a majority of Ministers who spent up large. In fact it will be interesting to see how the various Ministers and ex Ministers look once all the papers have been gone through.

Tracy Watkins reports:

Free-spending government ministers rorted their taxpayer-funded credit cards against the backdrop of a Yes Minister culture.

As former Labour ministers lined up to justify their spending – including a $300 tour of the Taj Mahal, a month-long, $22,000 tour of Europe and a five-hour taxi ride – Prime Minister John Key has told officials to show no mercy from now on.

“I’ve said to them it’s got to stop … They should be cutting up the credit cards of people who use them [inappropriately].”

This should make a significant difference. Ministerial Services officials have not in the past been able to do much but send letters and e-mails reminding Ministers of the rules. If the PM gives them the authority to cancel a credit card if there is repeated mis-use, then that will be effective.

Equally effective is the decision to open them up to scrutiny. Knowing they will now be released quarterly, will provide a strong incentive to make sure costs are not only within the rules, but are reasonable.

The Herald reports:

Shamed Labour MPs Shane Jones and Chris Carter are expected to be demoted ahead of Tuesday’s caucus for their credit card spending while they were in government.

I think that is an astute decision by Phil Goff.

That will mean freeing up their two major portfolios as well as their rankings – possibly to the new crop of MPs.

Mr Carter is foreign affairs spokesman and is ranked No 7, and Mr Jones is environment spokesman and ranked No 11.

Leader Phil Goff returns tomorrow from China. He is thought to want some issues sorted before the caucus on Tuesday. A fuller reshuffle is likely later.

Who to promote has two aspects to it. Who do you move to the front bench, and who do you give their portfolios to.

The two Labour MPs most deserving of front bench status in my view are Charles Chauvel and Grant Robertson. They will both clearly be senior Ministers in a future Labour Government.

As it happens, they both also have the experience to take up the portfolios up for grabs. Grant is a former MFAT staffer and would be an easy fit to Foreign Affairs. Charles has been very involved in climate change issues, so Environment also an easy fit.

However neither of them are particularly close to Goff, being more from the left of the party and very close to Clark.

Looks to be an interesting programme:

Guyon Espiner will delve into the eight boxes of documents released under the OIA this week and spell out the scale of the MPs credit card use.

Paul Holmes will talk to former party presidents Mike Williams from Labour and Michelle Boag from National. They know the MPs, the culture and the day-to-day pressure that our politicians are under. Is there a culture of hubris, or are our MPs misunderstood?

Then, New Zealand’s constitution. National and the Maori Party are committed to a constitutional review. In a special debate, former prime ministers and constitutional heavyweights Jim Bolger and Mike Moore talk to Paul Holmes about whether we need a written constitution, about the MMP referendum, the status of the Treaty of Waitangi, republicanism and more. Do we need to rein in our politicians?

Dr Jon Johansson from Victoria University will be joined by Tainui chair and former New Zealand First MP Tukuroirangi Morgan plus lawyer and former ACT MP Stephen Franks on the panel.

Tuku will feel vindicated, as it was Labour who went after him for his $79 undies!

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR
TO THE LAW AND ORDER SELECT COMMITTEE
ON THE ELECTORAL (DISQUALIFICATION OF CONVICTED PRISONERS) AMENDMENT BILL

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
2. I have a long standing interest in the Electoral Act and have written extensively on it.

   Executive Summary
   

3. I support the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Bill as it provides for a more logical threshold, in disqualifying convicted criminals from voting.

   Overseas exceptions to suffrage
   

4. Amongst the democratic countries, there is no clear policy or threshold at which those convicted of crimes lose or do not lose their right to vote.
5. Some counties have no disqualification at all. Even the worst serial killers and gang rapists are allowed to vote from prison, despite serving a life sentence.
6. Other countries (or states within countries) have laws which prohibit not only current prisoners from voting, but maintains a ban on voting, even after they have been released
7. Some countries, like Australia and currently New Zealand, have a ban which only applies for sentences of three years or more.
8. Countries which have a total ban on prisoners voting are the United Kingdom, Ireland (de facto), Luxembourg, Estonia, Romania, Russia, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Also 48 of the 50 states of the United States (covering 99.4% of the population) ban prisoners from voting.

   Where should the line be drawn?
   

9. I do not believe there is any clearly right answer to where the threshold should be. Arguments can be made for any number of scenarios, which range along a continuum.
10. Below I have listed, in approximate order of severity, some of the options open to a country in terms of restrictions on criminals voting.
    1. No restrictions at all.
    2. Those serving a life sentence can not vote
    3. Those sentenced three or more times to prison lose the right to vote while in prison (three strikes and no vote)
    4. Those sentenced to x years or more lose right to vote while in prison (status quo of three years)
    5. Those sentenced to prison can not vote while in prison (proposal of Bill)
    6. Those sentenced to any form of custody (home detention, periodic detention) can not vote while sentence is underway
    7. Those sentenced to prison can not vote while on prison or on parole
    8. Those sentenced to prison can not vote while in prison and for x years after release
    9. Those sentenced to prison are permanently disqualified from voting
    10. Those convicted of any crime can not vote for x years after sentencing
    11. Those convicted of any crime are permanently disqualified from voting
11. Starting at the least restrictive end of the scale, I believe having no restriction at all is highly undesirable. The like of Graeme Burton and William Bell have forfeited their right to vote, just as they forfeited their freedom of movement.
12. A case could be made that only those with life sentences be ineligible to vote, on the basis they will never re-enter society. However with parole a life sentence is not for life. This undermines the logic of restricting it to life sentences only.
13. The status quo is that only those sentenced to three or more years lose eligibility to vote. The problem I have with the status quo is that three years is very arbitrary. If you get sentenced for 2 years and 11 months you retain your vote, and one month more and you lose it.
14. The status quo also has the problem of defending why three years is the right dividing line. Why not four years? Why not seven years? Why not one year?
15. This then brings us to the proposal in the bill. For the ban to apply to any criminal in prison. I believe this to be less arbitrary and a superior dividing line.
16. A Judge does not sentence someone to prison lightly. They will in fact go out of their way to have prison as a last resort. Many criminals have dozens or scores of convictions before they actually get a prison term. Prison is regarded as reserved for either the more serious offences or repeat offenders.
17. Hence having voting rights disappear upon prison sentence strikes me as a more logical threshold. It is the threshold at which a Judge says that someone’s offending against society is so bad, that we have no choice but to remove their liberty and lock them in a cell.
18. I also believe that the right to vote is part of a person’s liberty, and it is quite consistent to lose that right upon going to prison – just as you lose the right to free speech, to freedom of movement, to freedom of what you watch, to freedom of sex, to freedom of meal choice etc.
19. On a practical note, it also means that it is easy to administer – no polling facilities or special vote facilities are made available in prison. No needing to work out which prisoners can or can not vote.
20. As I said earlier, there is no clearly right place to draw the line. Arguments can be made for or against most of the options I have outlined above. However I believe the preferred option is to link it to imprisonment, as this bill does.

In summary I urge the Justice and Electoral Committee to recommend the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Bill be passed.

David Farrar

The Herald talks OCR:

Money markets expect this tightening by way of small steps to prompt an official rate of 4 or 4.25 per cent by this time next year, and further increases to about 5 per cent by the end of 2011.

We should not, says Governor Alan Bollard, expect the rate to rise as far as the 8.25 per cent peak of the previous cycle.

Hopefully not, but several things could knock the ship off course. One is rising inflation, the central bank’s core concern.

I think the OCR will increase beyond 5%.

The Press also talks OCR:

Now, however, as recovery begins to look more robust here and among New Zealand’s main trading partners, the central bank must consider again the prospect that inflation will spike outside its target 1 to 3 per cent range. The move yesterday was modest – only a quarter of a percentage point – but it is an indication that the bank is determined to keep inflation expectations under control.

Some manufacturers and exporters have suggested that moving now on interest rates is premature. Manufacturers and exporters, like politicians and indeed all borrowers, never welcome interest rate rises, but the criticism in this case is unwarranted. The Reserve Bank under Alan Bollard has hardly been hawkish on inflation. A sign of this is the fact that, in an effort to balance competing forces during the boom years, the bank allowed inflation to nudge outside its prescribed limits three times in the space of six years. At the moment, inflation in the future is a possibility.

I still think the range should be 0% to 2%, so a midpoint of 1% is targeted.

The Press focuses on the Foreshore & Seabed negotiations:

Last year, the Government announced it wanted to restore the right of Maori to seek customary title in court, and acknowledge the foreshore and seabed not already in private title as public domain. It held nationwide hui, with Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson at each one. Though that impressed Maori, they did not like the “public domain” concept. They want ownership in iwi hands, the foreshore and seabed being inalienable.

Again I remind people that the Court of Appeal merely said that an Iwi could try and claim title in court, not that they would get it. They also said one would have to show unbroken usage since 1840. That is a world of difference away from saying Iwi own the entire foreshore & seabed.

What the Maori Party thinks at this point is not clear – it definitely wants the Foreshore and Seabed Act repealed but might be having to weigh up pleasing the ILG against pleasing an increasingly implacable prime minister.

As Mr Key found over the Tuhoe/Urewera matter, it is hard to placate Maori without upsetting many Pakeha or to ameliorate Pakeha fears without upsetting many Maori. He might have to reluctantly accept that the Foreshore and Seabed Act has to stay on the books.

That is an option. Another is to simply repeal the FSA and let Iwi test their claims in court.

And the ODT chides North Korea:

The jury appears to be out on the exact state of mind of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il, variously regarded when healthy as either cunning like a fox, borderline mad or just pathologically nasty.

It is rumoured that he suffered a destabilising stroke some 18 months ago and, at 68, is ailing. Consequently, the world’s only hereditary communist dictatorship seems to be gearing up for succession to the “Dear Leader”.

Cuba is looking hereditary also. Ironic that communism was meant to be a fight against inherited privilege.

Had there been serious evidence anywhere else in the world that a submarine of one sovereign nation had arbitrarily sunk a warship of another, in what appears to be an entirely unprovoked incident, the clamour for retaliation or justice would have been deafening.

This is my concern. You reward North Korea for being well mad.

The Herald reports:

One of New Zealand’s largest unions says the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) is “scaremongering” when it claims employees should face legal action for complaining about their jobs on Facebook.

The Engineering and Manufacturers Union (EPMU) has come out strongly against the call from the EMA, saying that prosecuting people for what they say online comes “dangerously close” to impinging on fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression.

EMA employment services manager David Lowe said the use of social media was untested in employment law but employers should take action if employees badmouthed them online.

“Some employees continue to say things on their social networking pages forgetting it isn’t private. Businesses must not sit back and allow their reputations to be sullied by the thoughtless comments of employees or ex-employees.”

Not much one can do about ex-employees, except to point out the obvious that slagging a former employer off in public may make it difficult for them to get future jobs.

In terms of current employees, the EPMU’s position seems rather strange. As much as I support free speech, that is not to say speech does not have consequences.

If an employer or manager posted on their Facebook site that they wanted to strangle a employee because the employee was always fucking things up, I have no doubt the EPMU would say this is outrageous and a breach of the good faith needed in employment relationships.

The same applies in reverse. If an employee is slagging off the employer, managers or even colleagues, that is a breach of the relationship.

Now having said that, an employer should not over react. If an employee is being indiscreet with their comments on say Facebook, the best approach would be to point out why this is a bad idea, and the consequences that could occur.

Now if someone has their Facebook page restricted to friends only, you can argue this is not in public. But then one presumes an employer would not get to see it. If they do, then pretty much by definition it is not private.

Air New Zealand have got into the fun with this advertisement for their $20 specials. Heh.

More details coming out today. The Press reports:

Progressive leader Jim Anderton racked up a $22,000 bill on his ministerial credit card during a month-long trip to Europe in 2003.

He also spent $324 on a gift from Kirkcaldie & Stains before leaving on the trip.

The cash splash while in Europe  from April 9 to May 3 included $3500 at Hotel Hilton in Frankfurt, $3400 at Hotel Conrad in Dublin, $2600 at the Palace Hotel in Helsinki and $1000 at a restaurant in Vienna. His wife and private secretary went with him on the trip.

At the Frankfurt hotel he spent about $2100 on “room charges”. No details are provided in the documents.

How do you rake up $2,100 in room charges??? That would tire even Shane Jones out.  I sure hope there are some details.

It also wasn’t easy on the tax-payer’s back pocket sending Mr Cosgrove and his wife to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. The accommodation for the nine day-stay in an executive deluxe room at China World Motel alone was $6,388.

A spokesperson for Mr Cosgrove said the hotel was designated by the Chinese government, with the Minister not allowed to choose.

Then Prime Minister Helen Clark agreed Mr Cosgrove had to go but questioned the length of the stay in a hand written note on the proposal for overseas travel.

I have no issue with the Minister of Sport attending the Olympics.But like Helen, I would question whether nine days is excessive.

Stuff also reports:

One night at a top-end London hotel in Mayfair cost the tax-payer $1435.93, Ministerial credit card receipts reveal.

Labour MP David Cunliffe travelled to London in his capacity as the Minister for Communications and Information Technology in March 2007.

The receipt from the staff credit card used to pay for the trip shows Cunliffe and one other person booked two rooms at The Westbury Hotel in Mayfair, London.

The Westbury is a five-star hotel on London’s exclusive Bond Street. The hotel charged $441 per night for each of the two rooms Cunliffe booked. Lunch at the hotel cost $117 and breakfast was $66.

I thought the opening sentence is actually a bit misleading as one could assume the $1,400 is the room rate. Only later on do you see the actual room rate is NZ $441 a night which frankly is pretty damn reasonable for London.I don’t see anything inappropriate there.

In the Herald, Chris Carter defends his spending as “minor mistakes”:

* $607 for some campaign posters and 14 British Labour Party coffee mugs:

“We had visitors [to the office] every hour and we served tea and coffee. While in a bookshop [in London] we bought 14 cups – they’re bright red and say ‘Labour’ on them. We could have bought cups in Briscoes but these had ‘Labour’ designs.

I’m amazed that this one was approved by Ministerial Services. The taxpayer should not be funding campaign posters from the UK and if a ministerial office needs some coffee mugs then one can get some very nice one locally for around $5 each – from Briscoes in fact. It looks like the “Labour” cups cost around $40 each.

A $5507 bill for car travel in Adelaide:

“We were told by Ministerial Services in Wellington that when a Minister goes to Australia you must use cars provided by the Australian Government because of security reasons.

“They’re horrendously expensive but that’s how it was. [We were] a prisoner of the Australian rules and had no choice. I would have been just as happy in the cheapest taxi.”

I am highly highly suspicious of this claim, and hope media ask some more questions on it.

My understanding is that many Ministers use taxis in Australia. I think Anne Tolley recently went there for two days and her taxi bills were around $80 to $100. So this requirement or policy Carter refers to has either lapsed or never existed.

Also remember that Chris Carter had the rental hire in his partner’s name in the Northern Territory. How would that be possible if the Australian Government really insisted that you had to use Government limos if you are a visiting Minister.

I think some calls to the Australian DFAT are in order!

I’d been wondering if the fuckwit who jumped up and down on John Key’s car was a Green Party activist. We now have a name, the Press reports:

A Christchurch teenager who jumped on the roof of Prime Minister John Key’s car during a protest over water issues is the son of an environmental educator for Environment Canterbury.

Luka de Spa, 17, was charged with wilful damage of Key’s Crown limousine after the incident outside The Press South Island Forum at the Isaac Theatre Royal on Wednesday.

De Spa’s father, Paul de Spa, said last night that he and his family had attended the protest but he did not want to comment on what happened.

So Paul decided to have the entire family along at the protest. This was not a case of Luka being there on his own.

But who is Paul de Spa, about from a neutral and loyal employee of Environment Canterbury?

Well he was ranked No 10 on the Green’s initial 2008 party list, before he withdrew. He would in fact be a Green MP by now if he had not withdrawn.

And he is not just a rank and file activist. He was the party’s co-convenor in 2008.

Luka himself appears to be a Green Party member, posting on their Facebook page and advocating a vote for the Green Party in 2011 just a few days ago.

So my instincts were pretty good, that the car jumper would be from the Greens.

The Herald reports:

Mr Anderton said his staff were yesterday unable to locate evidence the expense was repaid but had contacted Ministerial Services and hoped to locate the documentation today. He rejected the suggestion there was anything improper about paying for personal items on his ministerial cards.

“Be sensible about this – these corporate cards pay for the hotel and all the things attached to them.

It’s just silly to think you’re going to carry a number of cards and pay for this on one and that on another.”

As a Minister Jim Anderton would have signed a form promising not to use it for personal use. Ministerial Services had explicit policy that this was the case. So what we see is the typical Anderton arrogance is that the rules don’t apply to him. He says so long as the items are reimbursed, there is no issue.

What he calls “silly” is exactly what you should do. I’ve often split the bill when staying at a hotel.

When I worked at Parliament, I probably travelled domestically more than most staffers, as I had to go around every MPs electorate office to do training. Now before people get excited, you won’t find five star hotels on my bills, but more typically a motel in Matamata costing $70 and a meal costing $15.

It was quite common that only the room would be charged back to Parliament, and any personal extras (no not movies) you’d pay for on your own card.

What Jim Anderton doesn’t get is that he does not get to decide the rules. If the rules said that Ministers can charge personal expenses to their cards, so long as they reimburse them within 20 days, then that would be fine. But the rules don’t say that. They were explicit that you should not do this, and Anderton just chose to ignore it. At least other Ministers offered excuses or admited they were wrong. Anderton is genetically incapable of doing so.

The Herald has a feature from the Independent on the five contenders:

DAVID MILIBAND

He has a little rabbity tuft of hair going up in front. And if he was a woman you’d say it was a moustache on his upper lip. Intelligent, confident, fluent, popular, and high in the precedence of Labour. He’s backed by Peter Mandelson, and Tony Blair is said to be active on his behalf. Full grasp of policy. But he has to win every trick. You can see him trying to find something funny to say. He’s constructed, and work isn’t complete.

Tory fear factor 5/10

DM is definitely the front runner which is a good place to be, but means he will be targeted the most. Ladbrookes has him as 4/7 favourite.

ED MILIBAND

Cuter than David, has younger hair and a more welcoming attitude. He is Gonk to his brother’s Geek. Also, wider appeal (he says). Relates well to people (he says). Will bring people back to the party (he says). Proper leaders have other people saying this stuff for them. Depending on what he’s saying his mouth balloons on the right. It looks shifty.The idea of either Miliboy managing Labour by himself is a stretch.

Tory fear factor 4/10

EM would win if teenage girls got to vote. His odds are 5/2m and the odds of the next leader being a Milliband are 1/10 which is close to certain.

ED BALLS

Passionately wants to win, passionately supported by the Tories to do so. Strange, bulging eyes prove that Myxomatosis can jump the species barrier. Has a monotonous thumping voice and wonderful capacity for loathing. He is the Manichean candidate (he’s right, everyone else wrong). Relishes power and plots.

Tory fear factor 0/10

The Tories do loath Balls, as do many in his own party. He was one of the “poisoners” used by Gordon Brown. Odds are 10/1 against.

DIANE ABBOTT

Rank outsider with Harriet Harman’s backing. However, she has heart, humour and public profile. People have seen her on TV, so she’s real. She can wallop. She’s funny. David Cameron would be least comfortable dealing with her. She may be a bit bonkers on the box but these things can be reined in when the candidate is groomed. She has three months to play herself in. If she became a contender she’d electrify the contest and would make history as the first woman, the first black person to lead it.

Tory fear factor 7/10

I don’t think the fear factor is that high. Abbott can do electrifying speeches and is a good performer on TV. However there are judgement issues. She once attacked Finnish nurses on the grounds they may have never met a black person before. It was pointed out the reigning Miss Finland was black.

Her odds are 25/1, but they may improve as she will stand out from the rest.

ANDY BURNHAM

The mystery candidate. No one knows who he is. Minister of Local Communities, possibly, something like that? Tories defeat him in the noisy House but hate going on TV with him – because they always lose in the quiet and intimate battle. Pleasant, benevolent, well set-up in his background, nice eyes, nobody’s first choice, everyone’s second?

Tory fear factor 3, maybe 4/10

As a Minister he tried to bring in laws to “crack down” on the Internet as it was less regulated the television!

His odds are 12/1.

AAP report:

Britney Spears’ lead bodyguard has quit, claiming she sexually harassed him by parading around naked in front of him and inviting him into her bedroom.

How awful for him. He must of course sue.

Aah, made it back to Auckland last night. Knocking back the coffees now, hoping for inspiration.

Thought we’d go with a bird theme today- it’s the most famous kakapo in NZ at the moment.

Nocturnal birds are always a bit of a technical challenge to photograph, especially when flash has been ruled out. So this photo has had some careful editing.

It’s also I guess, an interesting example of the contributions that private sector, public agencies and volunteers can make to conservation.

I blogged on Monday the statement by the Ngai Tahu Chairman:

Maori will refuse to forgo their rights to the foreshore and seabed and see it vested in the public domain unless private owners do the same, says Mark Solomon, Ngai Tahu chairman and member of a Maori iwi leadership group.

I labelled this as unprincipled and unacceptable.

It seems the statements of Ngai Tahi were not the agreed position of the iwi leadership group. I’ve been sent a copy of a press release from Ngati Porou:

The Chairman of Te Runanga o Ngati Porou, Dr Apirana Mahuika, said today that more dialogue between the Crown and iwi was the way to resolve the foreshore and seabed issue.

Dr Mahuika said he was dismayed by reports over the last few days that the Iwi Leadership Group and the Government have reached an impasse over the issue of private title and the proposal to putthe foreshore and seabed into the so called Public Domain.

“Media reports that the concept of Public Domain was being rejected outright by the Iwi Leadership Group are incorrect.

“At the Iwi Leadership Group hui last Friday there was no resolution passed rejecting the idea of public domain and there was no resolution passed mentioning any challenge to private title,” he said.

Dr Mahuika said that discussion on these issues had been counter productive and unhelpful when in fact the resolutions passed by the ILG were much more conciliatory than what had been reported over the last few days.

This included:

• Recognition that what is currently on the table is an improvement on the 2004 position.
• Support for aspects of the Government’s proposal – such as the removal of Crown ownership
  and ensuring the foreshore and seabed is inalienable.
• Recommendation that there be further discussion and negotiation with the Crown.

I am glad to see that the suggestion that existing holders of title should have it removed from them, is not a formal position from the iwi leadership group.