Kiwiblog

Anna Leask writes on the case of the abused nine year old:

CYF will also investigate claims by the girl’s teacher that reports of abuse by the school were not investigated.

In an email to Prime Minister John Key, the teacher said she reported her concerns about “constant abuse” the girl was suffering to school management on a “weekly, almost daily” basis.

But the message the school got back from the child’s social worker was that she was “clumsy and accident prone”.

Mr Key forwarded the email, sent six days after the girl was found and her parents arrested, to Ms Bennett.

“I have grave concerns about issues raised in the letter, including the fact the teacher says she made others aware she suspected abuse was occurring,” Ms Bennett said.

“It must be incredibly heart-breaking to be closely involved with a child who has been the victim of such horrific abuse.

“I have asked for a full report on this and I intend to get to the bottom of the matter.”

In her email, the teacher said she felt powerless to do anything to protect the girl and keep her safe.

“This child has come to school with black eyes, a swollen face, swollen nose, bruises, abrasions and infected wounds that have all been explained as her being ‘clumsy and accident prone’.

“However she is only accident prone at home, she has not had a so-called accident while at school …

“Why do we have to wait for a child to be seriously injured or killed before action is taken?”

The teacher said the emotional toll of seeing the girl suffer all year was “extreme”. She had resigned from her job because she felt her concerns were not taken seriously.

“A young innocent child has suffered unimaginable pain that at her age she should not have suffered,” she told Mr Key. “Please don’t sit back and do nothing.”

Ms Mackenzie said CYF records showed concerns were raised by the school on one occasion.

“This was looked into by the social worker who did not believe this to be a result of abuse.”

“I find the issues raised by the teacher very worrying and am determined that the review gets to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

The poor teacher. If they had listened to him or her earlier, a lot of the abuse may have been prevented.

On the surface it seems both the school management and the social worker may be at fault. If the teacher raised concerns weekly and the school management only once passed these onto the social worker, then they’re let that teacher and the child down.

But it also seems clear the social worker did not investigate at all. In fact the excuse “accident prone” should ring alarm bells.

Yay – some very good announcements from Nick Smith:

Key decisions announced today include:

• No increase in workplace, motor vehicle or earner levies for 2011
• Introduction of experience rating in the Work Account
• Extension of the Accredited Employers’ Programme (AEP)
• Greater independence of the Disputes Resolution Service
• Decision in principle for introduction of choice in the Work Account

No increase in levies will be welcome, however the changes made by Labour added so much extra costs, further increases may be inevitable.

Experience rating is excellent. It rewards safer workplaces. It means employers get a carrot, not just a stick, to be safer.

But best of all is the decision in principle to restore choice for workplace accident insurance. This was flagged in the 2008 manifesto and it is not privatisation. It is allowing other providers of workplace insurance to compete with ACC.

National was looking hestitant on bringing back competition, but this is where it is useful to have ACT in Parliament. They put the pressure on for choice and competition to occur in the work account, as an unofficial quid pro quo for the previous levy increases.

Jim Anderton is one of those who has railed against anonymous donations in politics. So The Press reports:

Big spending did not necessarily translate into success in October’s local body elections, figures show.

Mayor Bob Parker paid for most of his $60,281 campaign to win a second term, but nearly two-thirds of the $62,283 campaign run by his main rival, Wigram MP Jim Anderton, was from anonymous donations and contributions from two Christchurch Labour MPs.

Election expense claim forms obtained by The Press also showed that two new city councillors, Tim Carter and Jamie Gough, both spent more than $20,000, while several sitting councillors who were re-elected spent a fraction of that.

Others who spent a large sum failed to win a council seat. Former councillor Bob Shearing spent more than $15,000 in his bid to retain his Riccarton-Wigram seat, only to lose by 32 votes, while Sir Kerry Burke spent more than $15,000 for a Spreydon-Heathcote seat but was defeated by the two incumbents, who together spent just over half that.

In the US some candidates spent $150 million and lost massively. Spending money gets your message haerd, but doesn’t mean that it gets well received.

Katie Chapman at the Dom Post reports:

Impatient drivers won’t be able to zoom past traffic queues by using passing lanes these Christmas holidays.

The New Zealand Transport Agency is preparing to close some passing lanes in the Wellington region to keep traffic moving as much as possible.

Getting rid of extra lanes to speed up traffic seems daft to me.

But it seems the reason is we are so crap at merging traffic back together, which probably is true.

Bryce Edwards has put up over 200 Wikileaks cables on his blog – it is a 613 page pdf.

And Danyl has broken them down into individual cables on his blog.

Fun reading.

Derek Cheng in the Herald reports:

The Labour Party will be ready to fight a byelection in the West Auckland seat of Te Atatu next year if incumbent MP Chris Carter quits before the end of the parliamentary term.

If Carter goes, it wll add to the record number of departures. MPs who were elected to this Parliament, and left are:

• Richard Worth, National
• Pansy Wong, National
• Helen Clark, Labour
• Michael Cullen, Labour
• Winnie Laban, Labour
• David Garrett, ACT
• Jeanette Fitzsimons, Greens
• Sue Bradford, Greens

So eight down, and maybe a ninth to come.

Two useful columns by Dita De Boni on child abuse. Earlier in December she blogged:

… after reading that a Whanganui man that kicked a two year old to death was found guilty of the boy’s murder in Tuesday’s paper, I could think about nothing else all day.

As I read with a resigned horror of this crime – and let’s be honest, it hardly seems spectacular or outstanding any more for young Kiwi children to die violently at the hands of their caregivers – there was a fact about it that really stuck in my head.

On the day he died, the young boy woke up from a sleep on the couch and found he had wet it. He was trying to rub the wet patch away when discovered, grabbed by the scruff of the neck and struck against a coffee table.

When the boy then had the temerity to emerge from the toilet 10 minutes later with toilet paper in his hand, he was “round-house” kicked across the room, and died of internal injuries. …

As awful as that is, the horrible thought that haunted me all day was this: a normal two year old doesn’t care, much less notice, when the inevitable toilet training accident occurs.

I have a two year old, and I can testify that if she ever woke up wet from a sleep – say, if we’d forgotten to put a nappy on her – she’d hardly miss a beat, let alone be frantically rubbing away a wet patch.

The only child that would do this is one that is terrified of the consequences. At the age of two, that is a pretty precocious terror.

Sadly true. Of the many things you want a two year old to know, terror of parents is not one of them.

But I also believe strongly that part of the problem is one of short term vision by a succession of policy makers, where funding to preschoolers is effectively seen as “nice-to-have”, but not essential.

For example, in my years as a volunteer for Plunket we have had to raise funds for heaters, measuring tables and clerical help for our nurses, who are already overburdened with work.

It’s a mystery why this service, which actually goes into the homes of babies and toddlers and can see firsthand the conditions in which a child is being raised, is so underfunded by our tax dollars.

I agree that early childhood education is worthy of greater investment. But I would dispute that investment in it is decreasing. It is hard to get exact numbers, but one ECE provider told me they estimate that some children may get up to $60,000 spent on them before they enter primary school.

And today Dita writes:

Over the weekend we were once more treated to a story that reminds us that some (many?) children live in abject misery in this country. No Merry Christmas for them.

In this case, a nine-year-old Waitakere girl was beaten, starved and neglected over a period of two years and finally found hiding in a cupboard earlier this year.

She was taken into hospital shortly afterwards suffering starvation and dehydration. Her parents are in court facing 36 charges related to her care. …

We know social workers are overworked and underpaid – it is fruitless blaming them for this disaster. I am prepared to bet that the problem is one of a general policy that CYF has of “reuniting families” – even when this is in the worst interests of the child.

Linked to this, is the policy that if one can’t keep them with their parents, then they go to a member of the extended family – and this can also be a highly dysfunctional environment.

It might be true that the policy of returning kids to their families stands because there are not enough foster parents out there. But there are good reasons people do not take up fostering, and one of the main ones I have heard from people considering this option is that they know that the same families that spat out these unloved, neglected children have the right to see them and take them back, seemingly on a whim.

There is no way a normal person would put themselves through fostering a child, only to see it return to its abusers – or the abuser’s wider, also dysfunctional, family.

I’m not sure it is on a whim, but there has to be a stage at which the rights of the parents are limited.

Telecom has just published their second set of regulatory accounts, which breaks down their income, expenses and profit between different sections. The 2010 historical cost accounts show:

• Access Services (Chorus) – a profit of $571m on revenue of $1,059m, so profit is 54% of revenue
• Wholesale Services – a loss of $10m on revenue of $925m, so profit is -1% of revenue
• Retail Services – a profit of $143m on revenue of $3,301m, so profit is 4% of revenue

This shows that basically even Telecom Wholesale struggles to make a profit because the charges from Chorus are so high.

This is why structural separation will be a good thing (if done properly), as Telecom will have to compete for its profit, not just use the monopoly infrastructure to get it.

A friend of mine has their kids at St Marks (which by coincidence was my intermediate school) but it has got too expensive for him as fees have gone up 25%.

They live in the Hutt but are happy to move to the right suburb to get into the right school.

Any readers out there have any recommendations or experiences with primary schools in Wellington. if so, please share them in the comments.

Iain Dale is the most widely read UK blogger. I read him and Guido almost every day.

He announced last week that he is going to stop blogging. This has made news not just in the blogosphere, but also in the mainstream media.

Looking at some of the reasons why Iain has quit, I can understand his decision. There are times when it does get pretty challenging.

Well, I am afraid this is the blogpost where I tell you that I am giving up blogging. This decision has been coming for some time and was nearly made a month ago, but I couldn’t quite bring myself to do it then. Well, today I can.

There’s no single reason, but let me try to explain as best I can why I can no longer blog in the way I have been doing over the last five years. First of all, let me say what it’s NOT about. It’s got nothing to do with the Conservatives being in power. There’s this myth that blogging in government is less interesting than in opposition. I’ve never bought that argument. I think I have been quite open in making clear when I think the coalition have got things wrong, but I accept that is not the perception, and probably never will be.

I agree it is not less fun in Government. I thought it would be, but I am finding no shortage of things to blog on – in fact my challenge is the topics I miss out due to lack of time or resource.

I’ve been thinking of going through the year’s posts and counting the number of times I have criticised or disagreed with the Government. It’s several score at least.

The truth is, I no longer enjoy blogging and I think that this has been evident for a few months now to my readers. I hate the backbiting that goes along with it. I hate the character assassination that is permanently present.

I’ve always said I’ll give up if I don’t enjoy it. But unlike Iain I don’t get too bothered by the haters out there. The more someone spews venom at me, the more I think that I must be doing a good job for them to feel so threatened. If someone I respect criticises me, I take that very seriously – but they tend to do so in non-personal terms.

So I can’t see myself ever giving up because of the haters. Quite the opposite – it encourages you even more.

I no longer enjoy the pressure of feeling I have to churn out four or five pieces every day. I used to enjoy sitting in front of the TV at home in the evenings and writing blogposts at the same time. I can’t do that any longer as I am on the radio every weekday evening. And when I am in the office during the day I have two companies to run. Something has to give.

This is where I can totally empathise with Iain. Once upon a time the blog was not an “obligation”, just fun. But I do feel a sense of (mainly self-imposed) obligation to try and do around 8 – 10 posts a day, to cover off major issues and to be topical.

There are days and weeks when I am exhausted from trying to manage the blog, actually earn money from Curia, contribute to InternetNZ’s activities, do various media obligations, and a near non stop range of meetings and speaking arrangements.

Even getting up at 5 am doesn’t leave enough time, and friends have to put up with me trying to catch up on a backlog of e-mails while watching DVDs on a Friday night.

To cope with what will be an even busier in 2011, I will be soliciting some volunteers to help with certain aspects of the blog. I’ll provide details in January. I’m also going to learn the value of the word “no” and start declining speaking requests – not all of them, but some of them.

And if I am honest, I now feel that my blogging is having a negative effect on various aspects of my business and broadcasting life.

I estimate I could probably double my income, if I gave up blogging. Partly due to the extra time I would have to do business development – in six years of business, I’ve never responded to an RFP or solicited a client. It has all been word of mouth. Also the blog makes me too risky a choice for many government sector clients.

I’m working 9am to 10pm five days a week. I enjoy it. I relish it. I thrive on it. I’m running a very successful publishing company which is, I believe, on the brink of great success. I’ve achieved a lifetime’s ambition of having my own daily radio talk show. I am not about to put either of those things at risk. And frankly, I’m not going to put my health at risk either. As I said above, something has to give in this life I am now leading, and I am afraid it is the blog.

The health factor is real also. I left Parliament, partly because of the insane hours. They’re not as bad as when I was at Parliament, but it is a long way from a 40 hour week.

But at the end of the day, my challenge is to get a better balance, not to give up blogging. I’ve actually been debating politics online since 1996, and blogging is just a continuation of that. If I can get the balance right, I hope to blog until I am happily (or grumpily) retired.

I have also decided to give up all party political activities, as they too have hampered aspects of my business and broadcasting career in the past. I am, and will remain, a Conservative supporter, but that’s as far as it goes.

I made that decision after the 2005 election, and it was the best thing I have ever done. I will attend the odd party conference if it is interesting, but have managed to avoid any roles or offices.

The only party role that might interest me in the future would be on the Board of Directors, but I suspect it would be incompatible with my blogging as you can’t really have a Party Director criticising a National-led Government, even mildly.

Finally, I’d like to thank all my readers for sticking with me through good times and bad over the last five years. To the many enemies I have made along the way, I’ll just say in a very Nixon-esque manner, just rejoice in the fact that you won’t have me to kick around any longer. For the moment, anyway. For the most part, I have enjoyed the blogging experience and made a lot of friends through it.

Iain’s departure is a real loss to the UK blogosphere. I always enjoyed his blog, as he was very reasonable and fair. And it was a great way to keep up with UK politics.

Critics of the Iraq war claimed it was about oil for blood – that the motives for the US sending troops and spilling blood, was to gain control of Iraq’s oil. This of course was leftish paranoia – the US has gained no control of any oil, and the cost of the war has been massively more, than any oil revenue could match.

But Wikileaks has revealed that one country which did send troops to Iraq, qas motivated by commercial factors. Yes, Helen Clark sent in troops to Iraq (something Labour hopes that people forget), and the reason was to help Fonterra.

So there was no oil for blood by the US, but Helen Clark was willing to trade blood for milk.

I look forward to Labour talking about their principled foreign policy.

Parliament is considering a bill which lifts the threshold for jury trials from offences with a maximum three months jail, to offences with a maximum three years jail.

I’m of mixed mind on this change. Overall I think there is a good case to increase the limit, as the massive delays we have for jury trials need to be reduced. It is unfair on victims and defendents to have these delays.

However the thought of people spending up to three years in prison without a jury trial, doesn’t sit too well with me.

But just because a maximum offence penalty is three years jail, doesn’t mean that is a common sentence. I wondered what the actual penalty range was for each offence. The data wasn’t online, so I asked the Ministry of Justice.

33293 – David Farrar – Final Response

The Ministry kindly collated and gave me the information which you can see in the document above.

The first table shows what percentage of convictions for an offence that would no longer be covered by a jury trial (ie maximum sentence of six months to three years) actually result in going to prison at all.

I’ve had to cross-match the data in the letter to the frequency of each offence class. Overall the position seems to be that only about 20% of those found guilty of an offence with a maximum penalty of six months to three years get a prison sentence at all.

The second table shows what the maximum sentence ever given out for that category of offence is. Most years around half the offence categories have someone given the maximum three years. So it is possible some defendants could end up being sentenced to three years jail on the basis of a judge only trial.

What we don’t know ifs whether those who were given the maximum sentence were also charged with other more serious crimes, and hence would be having a jury trial anyway.

The third table shows the median sentence for those who did get a prison sentence – which was around 20% of those convicted.

On a weighted average the median sentence looks to be 120 days or four months. Now sentences of under a year are always halved for parole (off memory), so actual time served would be 60 day or two months.

So my conclusion is that if trials go judge-only for offences with a maximum penalty of three years or less, then 80% of those will serve no prison time at all, a further 10% will serve up to 60 days (taking parole) into account and a further 10% could serve between 60 days and up to two years (when parole is near automatic for a three year sentence).

So as I said at the beginning, I’m reasonably comfortablw with moving the limit up from three months – the vast majority of those facing judge alone trials will not go to prison. However the 10% who might end up spending more than 60 days in prison on the basis on a judge alone trial are a concern. A limit of two years might be fairer.

What do readers think the right place to draw the line is – 3 months, 3 years, in between? less than 3 months, more than 3 years?

Matthew Hooton wrote in the NBR:

It’s ghastly writing anything that could be construed as support for the University of Auckland’s Jane Kelsey but the radical leftist has a point when she argues the negotiating text for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) should be released.

Her concerns are more the usual nonsense that a free trade agreement (FTA) could somehow stop the government from funding the Plunket Society. More real are concerns that, in their eagerness to do a deal, trade negotiators might undermine the true value of the TPP.

It’s a very warm day in hell when I agree with Jane Kelsey, but Matthew has a very valid point.

As the TPP’s founder, New Zealand should be absolutely staunch about who gets to join our club and the price of entry. There can be no compromise over agriculture, including dairy. If the US wants to enter our clubhouse, the terms are straightforward: ban all production and export subsidies, currently running at around $US20 billion a year for “farm income stabilisation” alone and eliminate all quantitative restrictions and tariffs. Only once those points have been conceded should New Zealand be prepared even to entertain the US’s complaints about intellectual property and competition policy.

A free trade deal which doesn’t require an end to agricultural protectionism (over time) isn’t worth doing. The US-Australia FTA was form over substance.

The fear is that it will be the other way around. New Zealand will agree to make immediate concessions, in exchange for the US agreeing to “work toward” the things we want, on an “agreed roadmap” but without any deadlines or even a timetable. Were that to happen, we’d no longer have the TPP as envisaged but just another Apec, doomed to drift and fail.

That is the fear. If we can get an end to agricultural protectionism, then yes we’ll have to concede in some other areas. But if we can’t get a “high quality” FTA, then we’re better leaving the TPP as it is, amongst existing parties.

The good news is that, on trade, Mr Key is absolutely staunch. When free-trade recalcitrant Japan asked about the club, Mr Key was unequivocal. If they were to join the talks, it would be on our terms or not at all. Agriculture had to be on the table and “sea anchors” weren’t wanted.

That was very welcome. I was amazed that a NZ PM was so blunt with Japan, but at least there is no room for misunderstanding.

To keep everyone honest, it couldn’t hurt for the negotiating text to be released. After all, a copy is held by the US State Department so it can only be a matter of time before it’s leaked to Wikileaks. Prof Kelsey, Julian Assange and Nicky Hager probably already have a copy. Better it’s released by the free-trade camp than by those three with their far-left spin.

I agree.

Over 500 votes in the Kiwiblog Awards. The winners are:

• MP of the Year – John Key wins easily with 61% iof the votes
• Labour MP of the Year – Grant Robertson wins with 43% of the vote, double the next Labour MP – David Cunliffe
• National MP of the Year – Steven Joyce pips Judith Collins by 2 votes – 166 to 164.
• Minor Party MP of the Year – John Boascawen wins with 36% but a creditable second place to Metiria Turei on 26%
• Press Gallery Journalist of the Year – a close contest byt Guyon Espiner wins with 55% to 45% for Duncan Garner
• Public Servant of the Year – Bob Parker on 45% edges out the Auditor-General on 37%

Congrats to all the winners, and finalists.

The Dom Post published the political awards from teh Fairfax staff on Saturday. They were:

• Politician of the Year Award – Gerry Brownlee for how he handled the Government’s response to the Canterbury earthquake, the weeks working behind the scenes to negotiate the deal that saw The Hobbit pictures stay in New Zealand and his calm, measured and reassuring presence during the Pike River tragedy
• Backbencher of the Year – Green MP Keith Locke – forever challenging the Government – exactly what an Opposition backbencher should be doing
• Wally of the Year – Chris Carter
• Loser of the Year – ACT leader Rodney Hide
• The Frederick Forsyth ‘Day of the Jackass’ Award for Political Self-Assassination – David Garrett
• The Deep Throat award for all the wrong reasons – Labour MP Shane Jones
• The Johnnie Walker award for services to minibars – Climate Change Negotiations Minister Tim Groser
• The Keep New Zealand Beautiful award for the most manicured lawn – Pansy Wong’s husband Sammy who made 35 trips on the taxpayer to and from Christchurch in a year to mow the lawns and look after their former home.
• The Mule award for stubbornness – Manurewa MP George Hawkins
• The Biggest Twit award for gratuitous use of social media – Tau Henare for philosophical tweets such as “I hate waking up. But I spose if we didn’t wed be dead.” [sic] and “had Peiking [sic] Duck for tea. Yum.”
• The Ghandi award for religious tolerance – Maurice Williamson
• The Emily Post award for etiquette- Paul Quinn
• The not-quite Oscar Wilde award for wit – Kevin Taylor, the prime minister’s chief press secretary, for ill-temperedly branding Labour MP Pete Hodgson a “f . . . . . .” when the Pansy Wong scandal broke.
• The Mogadon award for dull political speechifying – Green MP Kennedy Graham
• The Epic McPhail award- To consultant Hugh McPhail
• The Birdbath award for shallow media analysis – To Labour’s Clare Curran, who spends huge amounts of energy criticising the mainstream media for its lack of depth, resourcing and breadth and then throws her weight behind every social media platform going. Go figure.
• St Jude award for championing hopeless cases- Tariana Turia, who added to her long list of supporting hopeless cases like Donna Awatere Huata by passionately defending Hone Harawira and Pansy Wong.
• The Lord Cardigan award for bravery in the valley of death – Speaker Lockwood Smith who, like the famous Light Brigade, charged into the fray on behalf of MPs travel perks . . . only to find he was alone.
• The Drinks Are On You award for personal generosity – Housing Minister Phil Heatley
• The “That’s All, Folks” Award – Warner Bros, for managing to wring more than $30m out of the cash-strapped Government to keep The Hobbit movies in New Zealand.

The Dominion Post also awards a weekly winner, loser and wally award. I’ve bene noting them down every week, and some interesting stats for 2010:

• Winner of the Week – John Key awarded it the most at 4 times. Next on two each were Kris Faafoi, Phil Goff, The Greens, Steven Joyce, David Parker, Heather Roy and Tariana Turia
• Loser of the Week – Phil Goff awarded it the most at 5 times. Second was Chris Carter at 3 times. On 2 each was Bill English, Rodney Hide and Nick Smith,
• Wally of the Week – John Key a clear “winner” getting it 7 times. Chris Carter 2nd with 4 times, Gerry Brownlee 3 times, Bill English Rodney Hide Matt McCarten and Lockwood Smith all got it twice each.

National MPs won winner of the week 12 times, loser of the week 14 times and wally of the week 22 times.

Labour MPs won winner of the week 8 times, loser of the week 10 times and wally of the week 5 times.

ACT MPs won winner of the week 3 times, loser of the week 3 times and wally of the week 5 times.

Green MPs won winner of the week 2 times, loser of the week 1 time and wally of the week no times.

Maori Party MPs won winner of the week 4 times, loser of the week 1 time and wally of the week 1 time.

Looking at those states, you wonder why on earth National is 24% ahead in the polls!

While some student associations are run by muppets, others are well run and professionally managed.

One of my complaints about most associations, and indeed most tertiary institutes, is they make no real effort to find out what facilities and services students actually want to fund.

UCSA is a proud exception to this. A reader sent me a copy of a 66 page research report, surveying what Canterbury University students through of various services, and how they should be funded.

The research report is here – SSLAB_Preferences_Research_17092010

At a minimum, all the other universities should be committed to doing research like this. They take millions of dollars from students in service and facility levies, with minimal consultation.

They found the services deemed the highest priority:

1. Health Centre;
2. Dentist;
3. UC Careers;
4. Subsidised Food in the UCSA cafes; and
5. Disability Support.

And least priority:

Accommodation Services
Maori and Pasifika
Adult Student Support.

The five highest priority ones were the only ones which had a majority of students ranking them essential. The 13 other services had a majority rate them as merely “nice to have” or “expendable”.

There are breakdown by ages and ethnicities etc, plus some very interesting comments from the focus groups. It is very clear many students do not see value for their $600.

The challenge now is to use the research to make decisions to better service their students.

Photo from the Sunday Star-Times.

Getting married and having a family puts politics in perspective I reckon. Congrats to a great couple.

This is a non-political thread, so any comments should be in that vein.

This week it is the Herald on Sunday thatembass has the stories. Note, that these are the views of US embassy staff, and are not generally first hand accounts of meetings.

1. This story is about how the US was poised to mend the rift with NZ in 2005, but Trevor Mallard’s slander about how the National Party was having its policy written in Washington DC pissed them off so much it almost caused a rift.
2. This story is about how John Key told the Chinese Premier that he would not be meeting with the Dalai Llama. This is not exactly news, but still disappointing – I commented previously here.
3. An index of cables is here. Lots of them
4. This cable is called “the sleaze hits the fan” and is about Labour’s lies. Interesting they say “Goff agreed that a line had been crossed”.
5. This one is quite big – reveals that the NSA has an officer in Wellington attached to the Embassy but actually has an office in the GCSB.
6. An interesting profile of Jenny Shipley when she became PM
7. This cable notes relations between George W Bush and Helen Clark: “We further note that PM Clark is apparently much more willing to highlight her excellent relations with President Bush when speaking to an Australian audience than to domestic Kiwi audiences.”

Three News has this video of the PM’s banter at the Rugby Awards. He rips on Dan Carter for coming second to him in the Best Dressed Awards. Richie McCaw is loving it.

As widely expected Phil Twyford won the Labour nomination for Te Atatu, which should eventually kill off his nickname as “Shadow Minister for the Homeless”.

Now the focus will be on whether Chris Carter finds a job in the next few months. His book is due to be completed in March and published in May.

Anyway congrats to Phil Twyford – better late than never!

Victoria Robinson at the Dom Post reports:

A former Social Development Ministry employee landed in hot water after posting a Facebook description of herself as a “very expensive paperweight”, “highly competent in the art of time wastage, blame-shifting and stationary [sic] theft”.

The Employment Relations Authority in Auckland this week refused to uphold a complaint from Tania Dickinson, 34, that she was unfairly dismissed from her role as a prison reintegration case manager at Work and Income’s Kawakawa service centre.

She was sacked in April for her comments on the social networking site, as well as arson charges she was facing at the time, and an incident in 2007 where she had been given a formal warning for accessing records of clients that she knew.

I suspect her arson charges were the bigger factor. However one does wonder whether the descriptions of her job were in fact correct.