Kiwiblog

Andrea Vance profiles Simon Lusk:

Simon Lusk is one of the most intriguing figures in politics. The arch political fixer shuns the limelight, rarely venturing from his home in Havelock North to Wellington. He maintains a strict silence about his clients – mostly wannabe National MPs. …

Certainly, Labour are fixated on this Right-wing bogeyman. Last year, the party’s chief whip Chris Hipkins lodged 259 written questions of ministers, asking about their communication with Mr Lusk.

And what were the results of that great fishing expedition? Nothing. What a waste of money.

Some believe he is a Whaleoil alter-ego – regularly penning posts for Cameron Slater’s Right-wing blog. Others say he is close to Cabinet minister Judith Collins, and the pillar of a triumvirate of Nasty Nats, including Slater and pollster and Kiwiblog founder David Farrar.

Woo hoo, we are a triumvirate. Are we based on the first triumvirate or the second triumvirate? I’m not sure which one I’d prefer – probably the second as they got to proscribe their enemies

In the flesh, Mr Lusk, 40, is disappointingly un-evil. There’s no maniacal laugh or sophisticated spinning, just a man who drives a ute and dotes on his three dogs, Bruce, Lucy and Mabo. He is punctilious and very serious, absorbed with politics and fixated on going fishing and hunting.

Mr Lusk doesn’t make his money through politics – but is reluctant to say what he actually does.

“I contract part-time to a number of long-term clients . . . my background is strategy and marketing.”

One such firm is based in the British Virgin Islands. Friends say he works odd hours, so that he can devote large amounts of his spare time to his two passions: politics and hunting.

He spends “two to three hours” a day reading political literature from the US “looking for knowledge that can be applied here”.

Simon is very focused, and more so on fishing and hunting.

“Political parties always need people who are willing to upset the status quo . . . As to nastiness, I am temperamentally unable to be as nasty as some of the Labour Party.”

Heh, a great quote – and so true.

“Currently, I am not doing anything for National, but pragmatism dictates if they were to ask I would likely accept contracts where I could be useful.”

He says he prefers to work for individuals – and only those on the Centre-Right.

“Many on the Left lack grace and I find it hard to deal with people who lack grace.”

And some tips:

He won’t divulge details but Simon Lusk is said to have won four electorate campaign races in 2008, and three in 2011. Some of his tips include:

“Start with a good candidate. Politics is hard enough without a good candidate . . . Preparation is crucial and the best candidate [is] willing to do the most work.”

“I am thorough in documenting every campaign and the lessons learned . . . Predicting trends is a crucial part of my business.”

“The simple rule is that it is possible to overturn a majority of about 6500 in a single election, although this is entirely dependent on having a good candidate.”

“Local government is a fine training ground for candidates, and is used very effectively by National’s opponents.”

The entire article is an interesting read.

John Roughan writes in NZ Herald:

The little church basement where the Campbells Bay Community Association holds thinly attended public meetings was packed on Tuesday night. People were polite to the Auckland planners and patient with the deceptive language that planning employs.

A man at the back, English by his accent, lost his composure when it was confirmed that three-storey apartments could be built on either side of him and he would have no right to object. The rest of us absorbed the news quietly, as New Zealanders do.

Just about all our properties were zoned for this prospect on a map projected on a screen at the front of the room. Mine was in a strip designated a special environmental area, which appears to mean the trees could prevent multi-unit developments, but most were not so fortunate.

The man with the English accent declared that he was going to sell to a developer as soon as he could, in case his neighbours did so. …

I haven’t seen real suburban unrest before. This isn’t a “rates revolt” where people come to public meetings and sound off about an additional hundred dollars as though it matters. There is a deathly quiet about this plan.

The impact of higher rates is tough on people, but not devastating. Losing your view and being forced out of your family home does instill as Roughan says, a deathly quiet.

The debate over the containment of Auckland’s sprawl appeared to be about whether the bulk of the additional population projected by 2040 could be accommodated in suburbs that have a railway station.

I’ve been criticising this notion for years, arguing that people come to Auckland primarily for its climate and coastal attractions and that planners who want to reshape the city to support public transport are swimming against the tide.

The Unitary Plan was designed by town planners for town planners. It is of huge benefit for them and for the Council as an institution. But not so much for actual Aucklanders.

The mayor has stressed that the plan is a draft and will be changed, but it would be dangerous to rely on that. It is the careful and deliberate work of members of a profession who believe fervently in what they do.

They have been producing this sort of scheme for a blessedly powerless regional body for the past 40 years. They knew that every time a council tried to impose their desired densities on a place such as Panmure, the residents rebelled. But they persevered, convinced that urban planning should not be led by the plain preferences of ordinary people.

Nimbys, they call us. We prefer that our backyard not be overlooked and shaded by apartment blocks next door. If that is too much to ask of Auckland’s planners then I think the rumbling in the suburbs is going to become an eruption that will have its way.

An eruption. Words that may well come true.

Stuff has a profile of Paula Bennett. Extracts:

Her conference speech had just outlined the Children’s Action Plan – a piece of work that Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills calls the greatest focus on child abuse since 1989, and the piece de resistance of Bennett’s tenure so far as the country’s welfare kingpin. …

Next stop is Work and Income’s Manukau office. The 10 people waiting in stacker chairs by the door show no interest as Bennett breezes past. They clearly have no idea who she is. Or maybe they just have more pressing worries.

She parks up behind the reception desk and greets a woman with a baby with a cheerful “good morning”. She’s undeniably good with people. She seems genuinely interested and there’s no supercilious talking down. And why would there be? She has been that young mum with a stroller asking about her benefit.

Raised with two brothers in a roundly middle class family, Bennett is no longer sure whether getting pregnant at 17 was a conscious choice – a continuation of the smoking, drinking, truanting, protesting rebellion that marked her teenage years. “I don’t know if I got in with the wrong crowd – that seems so cliched really. Some would argue I led the wrong crowd, given half a chance,” she says with a trademark cackle.

But she does remember what shook her out of a “lonely, scary, frustrating” life of welfare dependency in which a future was hard to see. It was the school holidays and she was looking after daughter Ana and a friend’s children. Her two-bedroom unit was “an absolute disaster zone”.

“Someone knocked at the door. It was someone I had known from school who had been away and come back and I just remember standing there in my pyjamas with this house that was an absolute bombsite and imagining how I looked through their eyes. I just went ‘This is it. This is actually my reality unless I do something about it.’ I do remember that being quite a moment of reflection and change.”

An interesting profile.

Stuff reports:

Economist Ganesh Nana wants the Reserve Bank to intervene in foreign exchange markets for as long as it takes to bring the kiwi dollar down.

The Berl economist told deer farmers in Wellington the bank should become a daily trader till the exchange rate fell to “something sensible for our export sector”.

The dollar has traded close to US86c recently, falling to almost US80c this week, before rebounding to about US80.9c yesterday.

“Sooner or later the speculators – Japanese housewives and Belgian dentists – will find somewhere else to play.”

That may be one of the most risky and/or stupid strategies I have ever seen. In fact the more a Government intervenes in a currency, the greater the profits are for those speculating against it.

I can think of several countries that have tried that strategy – and all have lost.

The reason why they played in New Zealand was because they knew it was an easy win.

Asked if New Zealand had the resources to do this, Nana replied, “It’s called a printing press. I’m not kidding,” he said to laughter.

“You can afford it. The Government has the legal right to print as much dollars as it likes.”

The Green Party policy. Just print as much money as possible.

It certainly would lower the dollar.

It will also increase prices and bring  back rampant inflation.

Winston has proclaimed:

John Key and his ministers have made it clear that our future lies with the Peoples’ Republic of China. …

The Government is talking of a million more people in Auckland soon and there is no prize for guessing where most of them will come from.

It’s the Yellow Peril!

But to this government it’s a great chance to bring in rich Chinese tourists through a half-baked – fast track, special treatment visa scheme.

Not available to you or any other nation.

Absolute lies. Scores of countries do not need any visa whatsoever. The only scheme in place for China is allowing airlines (including Air NZ) to use frequent flyer status as a proxy for a certified bank statement.

And when the so-called rich tourists have finished at the blackjack tables or the pokie machines there’s another attraction nearby.

If Winston is suddenly against gambling, why then as Minister of Racing did he double taxpayer support for racing – one of the most destructive forms of gambling.

The Hong Kong born Chow brothers are thoughtfully providing a fifteen storey brothel, in what used to be an historic building, just across the road from the casino in the heart of Auckland!

Those evil Chinese – also building brothels. There were none in Auckland of course before the Chinese got here.

One concerned citizen sent me a copy of that scurrilous magazine Truth.

It’s chocker with page after page of sex ads – most based in this fair city.

Is that what you voted for?

Whale Oil will be pleased Winston reads Truth. As far as I know Truth has had sex ads in it for 40 years or so. Blaming it on the Government or the Chinese is rather pathetic, but probably lapped up the a few dottery people.

This is a word cloud of Winston’s speech. To think he was once Foreign Minister!

Of course some Chinese immigrants are criminals, are involved in the sex trade etc etc. But Winston cherry picks a few horror stories to effectively demonise several hundred thousand New Zealanders. No mention of the fact Asian crime rates are far far less than other ethnicities. No mention of the fact their educational achievements are way higher than other groups. No mention of the fact they tend to have a lower unemployment rate etc.

It’s classic old Winston. Find a group and make them the scapegoat for everything wrong in society.

The Dom Post reports:

The national tourism agency has successfully defended a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority laid by Fiji-based sustainable transport researcher Peter Nuttall, which was not upheld.

Mr Nuttall laid the complaint in March and said New Zealand could be the most pristine environment in the world.

“But it ain’t. Instead, we are saddled with short-term, narrow-focused profit-driven free marketeers more interested in spin-doctoring a myth to the world,” he said.

Takes a special kind of person to try and sabotage his own country’s tourism campaign. No wonder he lives in Fiji.

His complaint was backed by controversial freshwater scientist Mike Joy, who made headlines in November when he questioned the integrity of 100% Pure.

You’re either being malicious, or a moron, if you take a slogan as a literal statement of fact.

I look forward to the Greens and their supporters complaining about the following slogans also:

• Arkansas – The Natural State; how dare they claim to be natural when they have cities
• Idaho – great Potatoes, Tasty Destinations; where is the peer reviewed evidence their potatoes are great?
• Iowa – is this heaven?; a blatant false statement
• Michigan – Pure Michigan; Will Nuttall and Joy complain about Michigan also?
• Vermont, naturally; Another hideous false claim as they also have cities
• Pure Russia; I suggest they complain in person to Mr Putin
• Switzerland Get Natural; Gnomes are not natural
• Maldives: Always Natural; Clearly false

I wonder if those other countries have to put up with the same idiocy?

Greg Ansley at NZ Herald reports:

Unemployment rate of 5.5 per cent set to rise with more job losses in manufacturing sector Ford’s decision to shut down its production lines in Australia at the cost of thousands of jobs across the automotive industry has dealt another heavy blow to Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s ailing minority Government.

Although Ford’s exit has long been expected after 20 years of declining fortunes for the industry, the disappearance of its iconic Falcon is not only a heavy blow to the national psyche but will also further undermine voter perceptions of Labor’s economic credentials.

Ford’s announcement comes a week after a federal budget marked by major spending cuts and expectations of continued deficits, driving down consumer confidence and placing employment squarely in the spotlight for the September 14 election.

Luke Malpass wrote at Stuff how Australia is not living within its means:

A regular question in New Zealand and Australia is whether our respective nations succeed because of, or in spite of, our politicians.

As both nations’ Budgets were read this week, it was a story of two countries that have faced a vastly different set of circumstances over the past five years, and the choices both have made in light of that.

In 2008, Australia had a mining boom, rising wages and no debt. Its government had delivered consistent surpluses, tax cuts and targeted cash payments to targeted voter groups. Growth was assumed and household wealth doubled during the Howard years. It even avoided recession.

In contrast, New Zealand was lurching into debt, had a collapsed non- bank finance sector, a tradeables sector that had been squeezed for several years, a real recession in advance of the global recession, and a structural deficit

So when Finance Minister Bill English announced last Thursday that New Zealand is on track to record a budget surplus (albeit tiny) in 2014-15, it stood in stark contrast to Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan announcing his sixth budget deficit.

Unfortunately for Mr Swan, he had been promising a surplus for 2013 since 2009, and last year he announced “four years of surpluses” to begin this year. So his staggering A$19.4 billion deficit, with years of deficits ahead, was quite incomprehensible.

And recall how certain parties attacked every single act of spending restraint done by the Government over the last four and a half years.

Since Mr Swan has taken over as treasurer, tax revenue has increased by roughly the equivalent of New Zealand’s entire budget. Unfortunately, he and prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard spent all of the increase plus some, and are miffed because revenue did not increase at an even higher rate.

Yep. While NZ Labour’s plan are to bring in some new taxes, and hike spending.

Budgets are ultimately about choices. The Australian Government chose to run it close to the wind, increasing spending by as much as the most optimistic revenue forecasts would allow.

New Zealand made a very different and far more difficult set of choices. In 2008 the issues were obvious: productivity growth was poor, taxes too high – particularly at a relatively modest level of income – and the tax system had little internal integrity.

Government was chomping its way through far too much of the national pie, crowding out private sector activity.

One important thing the New Zealand Government has done is tamp down expectations of spending increases, concentrating on core activities and not using government as a vehicle to give handouts to partisan coalitions of voter groups.

In fact much of the extra spending by National has gone in areas where there are not high pressure lobby groups demanding more money for themselves, but in areas that will promote economic growth such as tourism and science.

But there are still worrying signs. Both New Zealand and Australia have superannuation burdens set to grow immensely, and health and welfare spending continues to outstrip the ability of society to pay in the long term.

Yep. They will be the big challenges for the future.

Matt McCarten in the Herald on Sunday wrote:

Abolish 15 per cent GST. Replace with 1 per cent financial transaction tax as recommended by the New Zealand Bankers Association. Same money.

Earlier this week I ran into a couple of executives from NZBA. They had the good sense not to read Matt’s column, so were surprised when I told them that Matt said they supported a Financial Transactions Tax.

They do not, of course. It has been a disaster in the couple of countries that have tried it.

They complained to the Herald on Sunday about the misrepresentation, but their complaint was decline on the basis they they once did support an FTT – in 1985!

Would anyone reading that column think that was a 30 year old position, rather than a current position. Of course not. Entirely misleading.

I don’t know why print media are so loath to run corrections. I think it helps your credibility when you do.

I look forward to the Herald on Sunday and Matt McCarten talking about how Labour supports privatisation, because they once did in 1985.

Worth noting one other policy of Matt’s:

 Abolish PAYE on wages and salaries. Replace it with a wealth tax and a capital gains tax when shares, businesses, land and property are sold. People are taxed when they’re cashing up, not when they are making it.

I’m sure Matt does want PAYE abolished, as UNITE doesn’t pay it anyway.

The Press editorial:

The proposal that the Minister of Education, Hekia Parata, put forward yesterday for changes to five schools in the eastern suburbs is a compromise and will not please everyone.

It does, however, demonstrate that the minister has been prepared, as she promised, to listen to the submissions made to her from the community and to change her mind in some areas. The consultation process will continue – the schools still have 28 days to respond to this interim proposal before Parata will announce a final decision.

I’d say the Government has been very flexible and accommodating with its decisions around Christchurch schools. Around 25% of initial decisions have changed.

It is a pity that this level of consultation was not undertaken before rather than after the appallingly mishandled initial announcement for the reorganisation of Christchurch schools was made last year.

Yep. That poisoned the well. The primary fault lay with the Ministry, but the Minister is responsible and should not have just left it to the Ministry to do.

So far as the eastern suburbs were concerned, Parata originally proposed that five schools – Aranui School, Avondale School, Wainoni School, Chisnallwood Intermediate and Aranui High School – be combined at the Aranui High site to create one school that would take pupils from year 1 to year 13.

The idea was to take account of the fact that many of those schools had facilities and grounds that were damaged and had suffered sharp declines in enrolments that were expected to continue, probably for several years.

Parata’s new proposal is to combine four schools, leaving Chisnallwood Intermediate to continue to operate separately. This compromise, if it goes ahead, will please Chisnallwood, which strongly opposed the original proposal, but will disappoint Avondale, which also did not want to join with the other eastern schools.

It should also please Aranui, Wainoni and Aranui High, since it largely reflects their submission to Parata that they have a similar spirit, were a natural fit and should unite at the Aranui High School site.

Leaving Chisnallwood out of the new proposal makes sense. A very large proportion of its enrolment already comes from outside its zone. If it had been combined with the other schools, most of those pupils would almost certainly not have gone to the new site.

Does seem sensible.

Yesterday’s announcement leaves 17 still to hear final decisions on whether they will merge or close by the end of this month.

After the uproar at the beginning, the ending is much less tumultuous. To some degree, that must be because of the intensive discussions that have taken place in the interim.

If Parata deserved blame for the botchup at the beginning, she deserves some credit for being prepared to listen and if necessary change her proposals since then.

A fair editorial.

Stuff reports:

A bid by ethnic communities to have a decision-making role within the Auckland Council appears unlikely to succeed any time soon.

The ethnic advisory panel that reports to the council asked Mayor Len Brown for a “decision-making” role on council committees in its quarterly report, given the growing ethnic population in Auckland.

It is inevitable that if you have seats reserved for one race, that other races will want seats also. That is why I think Maori seats at national and local government is a bad idea, albeit well intentioned.

I also note that there are two Councillors from the Pacific community. So why do you need ethnic communities to have a decision making role on Council committees, when members of those communities are being elected to Council in their own right.

Shane Cowlishaw at Dom Post reports:

A man who helped dozens of people with their ACC claims says the corporation has driven him into bankruptcy and depression.

After more than 20 years of acting as an ACC advocate, Mike Dixon-McIver has spent the past six years locked in a battle with the corporation after it tried to prosecute him for fraud.

That case was thrown out and a judge awarded Mr Dixon-McIver, of Upper Hutt, full legal costs. But the corporation has refused to go to mediation to discuss damages.

This has infuriated Mr Dixon-McIver, who at noon today will host a barbecue protest outside the corporation’s head office in Wellington to publicise his plight.

He plans to camp outside the office until ACC agrees to meet him.

“Nobody has said ‘we’re sorry’, nobody, and that’s the first thing I ever wanted from them.”

Adding to his frustration, he and wife Jolene will be forced out of their home on Friday after an option to buy the property expires.

He sent ACC a starting figure for damages and losses of $4.69 million, including sums for loss of earnings and impact on his mental health.

You want $4.7 million from ACC levypayers because of a failed prosecution against you that didn’t even go to trial?

Good luck with that one.

Incidentally Mr Dixon-McIver seems to have had some compensation issues of his own, after the Employment Court ordered him to pay three months salary and $6,750 for distress, humiliation and injury to feelings to a former employee who was constructively dismissed after he threatened to assault her, following his son assaulting her.

The Herald provides a guide to the Auckland Unitary Plan:

Height is at the top of many people’s minds with the Unitary Plan.

Whether it’s walls of apartments on the ridges overlooking Browns Bay or 18-storey high rises in Newmarket, the council is facing a chorus of complaints.

Buildings in central Auckland will have no height restriction, and 10 metro centres such as Takapuna, Henderson, Botany and Newmarket will have an 18-storey limit. In another 37 town centres, the limit will be eight, six and four storeys, and in local centres, such as Mt Eden, it will be three or four storeys.

To prevent a canyon effect, any buildings of four storeys or more will have to be set back from the street and require resource consent.

After nine weeks of saying the maximum height of “small scale apartment buildings” in the residential “mixed housing” zone was two storeys, it emerged last week that the height limit is three storeys.

That omission of the real height limit is what has destroyed a lot of trust.

The days of “shoebox” apartments are back with plans to reduce the minimum apartment size from 35sq m to 30sq m, plus a minimum balcony space of 8sq m.

I’m not sure there should be a minimum size at all. If someone wants to live in a 25 square metre apartment, then let them.

The proposed rewrite of Auckland’s tarnished heritage rules leaves power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and shuts out the public.

This is the view of the Character Coalition – a group of heritage and community organisations – that called for Auckland to follow Brisbane, which prevents demolition of pre-1945 houses unless the owner can make a case. The public have a say in the process.

On a visit to Auckland in March, Queensland Government architect Malcolm Middleton said the Brisbane model had been considered radical when introduced 15 years ago, but was now largely accepted and worked for the amenity and value of character suburbs.

The rules in the draft Unitary Plan will see council or consultant planners using case law to decide if applications to demolish or remove a house would be publicly notified or not. The council says more applications will be publicly notified. When this method was used by the former North Shore City Council, two of 17 applications were notified in eight years.

The council has proposed widening the heritage net to pre-1944 houses outside the existing heritage character areas and requiring owners to obtain a resource consent for demolition. The council, however, says the public will have no say in this process and officers will make the call because many landowners bought in these areas knowing they were not heritage areas.

Mayor Len Brown and chief executive Doug McKay are refusing to release the documents of a political working party, that meets behind closed doors, used to draw up the heritage rules.

The documents should of course be released, before submissions close on 31 May.

I think extending the definition of heritage to all pre-1944 houses is daft. Old is not the same as heritage.

Michael Goudie, a 28-year-old councillor, was picked by Mayor Len Brown and Penny Hulse to fire up young people to counter the views of generally older “Nimbys” – Not in My Backyard.

But instead of a legitimate campaign to get teens and 20-somethings to jump on social media with their views, Brown and Hulse turned a blind eye when Goudie promoted an anonymous blog labelling the elderly as “selfish, arrogant and narrow-minded” who should “just hurry up and die”.

Charming.

Nick Smith has announced:

Conservation Minister Dr Nick Smith today announced his approval under the Crown Minerals Act for an access agreement for Bathurst Resources for its Escarpment Mining Project on the Denniston Plateau, near Westport.

“This approval is for an open-cast mine on 106 hectares of the 2026 hectares that comprise the Denniston Plateau. This area is not National Park, nor Conservation Park nor does it have any particular reserve status. It is general stewardship land, which is the lowest legal status of protection of land managed by the Department of Conservation. The area does have conservation values although there has been some disturbance from previous mining including roads, bulldozer tracks and an artificial reservoir. The area also has some infestation from weeds like gorse and broom,” Dr Smith said.

“The loss of conservation values is compensated by a $22 million package by Bathurst Resources. This will fund pest and predator control over 25,000 hectares of the Heaphy River catchment in the Kahurangi National Park, 4,500 hectares on and around the Denniston Plateau, as well as for historic projects on the Plateau itself. This is the largest ever compensation package negotiated by DOC for a mine or other commercial venture.

The Greens say they are not against all mining, just some mining. But what is the bet they condemn this decision despite $22 million for conservation.

It will be interesting to see what Labour says on this decision, and especially Damien O’Connor.

Stuff reports:

The Green Party has called the independent report on the 2007 Urewera raids damning and said a dramatic overhaul of police culture was still needed.

The review, released today, labelled police actions ”unlawful, unjustified and unreasonable”.

The party’s police spokesman, Dave Clendon, said it was not okay to “descend like masked ninjas” on a small community, adding that police thinking about the raids had not fundamentally changed.

He believed racial discrimination played a part on the abuse of rights and illegal detention of innocent people.

“Would the police have raided Remuera in Auckland, or Khandallah in Wellington in the same way?” he asked.

Ummm. Engage brain before operating mouth,

Can anyone think of a high profile raid a couple of years ago in Coatesville? One that involved armed police and helicopters? I’m pretty sure the targets were not Maori, but German and Finnish.

And according to the 2006 census, the ethnicity of Coatesville is 80% European, 4% Maori, 3% Asian and 12% other so the racism claim from the Greens is quite unfounded.

The Dom Post reports:

Wellington’s mayoral race has just moved up a notch, with veteran councillor and former New Zealand cricketer John Morrison declaring his candidacy.

John is very well known, and will be a serious contender. I can’t see him being asleep at the wheel and not even aware of the costs of his own office refurbishment.

“The city and the council need good leadership and some decisiveness and some action. We’re the centre of the region, so we should be leading the pack, not following.”

The Council is ineffective and embarrassing at present. Not all Councillors – but overall.

It was not likely he would run for a ward position again, meaning his stab at the mayoralty could be his final performance.

However, he was confident he had strong support around the council table and was keen to use the talent available.

“Everyone at that table has to come offering something for the city.”

The Council is not divided on left v right terms. One of the biggest critics of Celia’s mayoralty has been Ray Ahipene-Mercer who has a life-time of activism on the left including the Clean Water and other environmental campaigns.

Stuff reports:

Mr Faafoi said the latest Ten One police magazine showed more than 50 sworn officers had resigned around the country in the past month.

“It’s the sheer number and the experience of these officers that’s of concern,” he said.

A meaningless number. The Police have around 11,500 staff. How many staff normally resign in a month? What has been the rate for the last year. A month’s figures by themselves may be a blip.

Mr Faafoi said the problem stemmed from cost-cutting and he was not surprised that there was nothing extra in the recent Budget for police.

Actually the Police were given an extra $4 million in the Budget for operational spending, and since 2008 their funding has increased by $173 million which is considerable, even more so when you consider the structural deficit inherited from Labour.

“It was more about the National Party’s mates than hard-working Kiwis and that extends to the police as well,” he said.

I think Labour came up with this slogan before they saw the Budget and are too lazy to change it. Is Kris really saying $100 million for home insulations for low income families is helping National’s mates, not hard working Kiwis? I thought Labour used to claim they cared for low income families. Does he think the extra $1.6 billion for health is restricted to National’s mates? And the $900 million for education? And please Kris tell us how the $2.1 billion extra for Christchurch is for National’s mates. sounds like National has lots of mates, and Labour has none.

As a result communities were not feeling as connected to police as they did in the past and Mr Faafoi believed this could have resulted in the drop in reported crime.

Trying desperately to spin his way out of the fact that not only is reported crime down, but serious violent crime is significantly down – and the notion that serious violent crimes are not being reported is laughable.

Mr Faafoi said Labour had a track record of looking after police officers and would look to rebuild the public’s confidence in the organisation.

Really. Please tell us about this track record. Labour’s opposed almost every law change that the Police have supported such as three strikes.

Stuff reports John Key as laying out the choices for Canterbury:

1. Council borrows money for infrastructure projects
2. Council raises rates for infrastructure projects
3. Council changes its asset mix to fund infrastructure projects
4. They don’t proceed with or downsize some of the infrastructure projects

My preference is (3) but it is a decision for the locals. If residents don’t want a new stadium, then absolutely that is their call. Likewise if they want one, but are happy with higher rates, then also their call.

Clare Curran exposes at Red Alert the right wing agenda. It seems to be:

1. Tony Abbott spoke at the 70th anniversary of the Institute of Public Affairs
2. Tony Abbott is advised by Crosby Textor
3. The NZ National Party is also advised by Crosby Textor
4. Hence the NZ National Party plans to implement the policy agenda of the institute of Public Affairs

Clare goes on to list some of the policies that may find their way into National’s policy agenda here, which she disagrees with. They include:

• Allow the Northern Territory to become a state
• Introduce a special economic zone for northern Australia
• Rule out federal funding for 2018 Commonwealth Games
• Privatise the Australian Institute of Sport
• Cease funding the Australia Network
• Abolish the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
• Privatise the CSIRO and the Snowy-Hydro Scheme
• Abolish the Commonwealth Grants Commission
• Privatise Australia Post, Medibank and SBS
• Halve the size of the Coalition front bench from 32 to 16
• Break up the ABC and put out to tender each individual function
• Abolish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

I’m pretty sure we won’t see any of the above implemented in New Zealand. Well, we could try to implement them but Australia may not take too kindly to us passing laws on their behalf.

There is one policy Clare agrees with:

Force government agencies to put all of their spending online in a searchable database

That’s good to see, as I’ve been pushing this for some time. I would have thought Clare also supports:

Rule out government-supported or mandated internet censorship

As it happens I think many (not all) of the IPA’s policies are very laudable and sensible. Ones I especially like are:

• Means-test Medicare
• Abolish the Baby Bonus
• Abolish the First Home Owners’ Grant
• Repeal the alcopops tax
• Allow individuals and employers to negotiate directly terms of employment that suit them
• Introduce a single rate of income tax
• Return income taxing powers to the states
• Cut company tax to 25 per cent
• Cease subsidising the car industry
• Privatise Australia Post, Medibank and SBS
• Halve the size of the Coalition front bench from 32 to 16
• Reduce the size of the public service from current levels of more than 260,000 to at least the 2001 low of 212,784
• Force government agencies to put all of their spending online in a searchable database
• Repeal the mining tax
• Introduce fee competition to Australian universities
• Means test tertiary student loans
• Reintroduce voluntary student unionism at universities
• Introduce a voucher scheme for secondary schools
• Rule out government-supported or mandated internet censorship
• End public funding to political parties
• Introduce voluntary voting
• Legislate a cap on government spending and tax as a % of GDP
• Legislate a balanced budget amendment which limits the size of budget deficits and the period the government can be in deficit
• Allow people to opt out of superannuation in exchange for promising to forgo any government income support in retirement
• Remove all tariff and non-tariff barriers to international trade
• Deregulate the parallel importation of books

The Herald reports:

Newly released papers raise fresh questions over Prime Minister John Key’s claim that Solid Energy asked for $1 billion of taxpayers’ money to fund its transformation into a massive resources company.

Mr Key made the claim earlier this year when it was revealed the state-owned coal miner was on the verge of collapse under the weight of almost $400 million in debt.

Former chairman John Palmer, who approached the Government with the plan in 2010, denied asking for the money but later said he understood why Mr Key might have said the proposal involved “those sorts of costs”.

But Solid Energy documents released by Treasury yesterday detailing the proposal contain noreference to a request for the money.

Solid Energy’s business proposal said the Government’s willingness to forgo dividends from Solid Energy and Kupe were essential for the project to proceed, and it would require extra equity of up to $1 billion on top of that to fund the expansion.

However, it did not seek that from the Government in the proposals, saying: “All this can be achieved … without requiring a direct Government equity contribution (other than forgoing dividends from Solid Energy and Kupe for up to 5-10 years).”

This is being pedantic, and the PM’s interpretation of Solid Energy seeking $1 billion (in fact up to $3 billion) of equity is entirely consistent with being interpreted as a potential call on taxpayers. The difference between not taking dividends and a capital contribution is semantics. Both increase the Crown’s equity in the company.

Thank God, the Government said no.

Also interesting to note in the released papers that what forced out into the open the lack of substance to Solid’s forecasts was in fact the mixed ownership model preparation. It was only the preparation for potential partial float that got the detailed coal price forecasts out of Solid Energy. Without that policy, the extent of their optimism may have gone unnoticed for much longer.

Solid Energy is a superb example of why the Crown should not be the sole shareholder of a risky commercial business. The transparency and discipline you get from being listed on the NZX is significant.

Stuff reports:

Trade Me has joined 31 consumer and lobby groups from New Zealand and overseas in writing to Trade Minister Tim Groser to voice concerns about the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement.

The company is a member of the New Zealand-born umbrella group the Fair Deal Coalition, which was set up last year during the Auckland round of the negotiations to lobby against possible provisions in the yet-to-be-completed trade agreement.

The coalition fears the trade agreement could unduly strengthen intellectual property rights, for example by extending copyright by 20 years and introducing new controls on parallel imports. …

In its letter, the coalition asked Groser to reflect on the “variety of sectors” that stood to be adversely affected by such provisions. “As a group we are diverse, but we share one thing in common: we seek appropriately balanced intellectual property laws,” it said.

Trade Me spokesman Paul Ford said the firm backed the coalition because it was concerned the agreement could “result in a crappy deal for both Kiwi consumers and a decent chunk of the Trade Me community”.

“We reckon parallel importing is pretty important to New Zealanders as it means Kiwi sellers can source goods direct from licensed suppliers around the globe, so buyers get more choice and, with any luck, better prices too,” he said.

The Fair Deal Coalition has attracted support from advocates in six of the 12 countries which are party to the trade negotiations, including the United States, Canada and Australia.

The group’s founders include Consumer NZ, InternetNZ, the Royal NZ Foundation for the Blind and the Telecommunications Users Association.

I’m one of those involved in the Fair Deal coalition, and it is great to see it gain supporters in the major countries involved in the TPP.

I’m all for free trade deals, but that doesn’t mean I want a deal at any price, and I think the proposed US chapter on intellectual property is not balanced or a fair deal. I think the current NZ intellectual property laws are relatively well balanced and we should not agree to anything that would force a change to them. If enough countries stand firm on these issues, I am hopeful the US will modify its position. And to be fair to the US, they have already moved a considerable way by agreeing to writing exceptions to copyright restrictions into the text – a first for a free trade deal with them. But the current proposed wording is still not suitable.

Consumer NZ spokesman Hadyn Green said his group believed the trade deal’s documents had provisions “which may remove parallel importing in New Zealand”. That would mean retailers could no longer import copyright goods, from software to branded clothes, without the permission of the manufacturer, which Consumer NZ feared would push up prices for many products.

Bans on parallel importing work against free trade, and should not be in FTA.

A Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry spokeswoman said last week that the parallel importing of copyright works had been raised in negotiations but there was no consensus among the negotiating parties on whether an agreement “should include specific provisions on this issue”.

Which hopefully means it won’t include such a provision.

The Dom post editorial:

Labour MP Nanaia Mahuta has fired a broadside at Parliament’s rules after she found herself stuck in the debating chamber late at night with her 5-month-old baby.

She was aiming at the wrong target.

Instead of having Parliament’s standing orders in her sights, she should have trained them on her party colleagues.

Labour talks the talk on family-friendly workplaces, but it appears it is not so good at walking the walk when it comes to helping a breastfeeding colleague, even one as senior and respected as Ms Mahuta.

Exactly. They have 9 proxies they can use every day. They have only one MP with an infant. Plus as they are not in Government, they can even vote with reduced numbers without consequence.

If Ms Mahuta felt she should be among those whose presence was not required, then the correct place for her to have directed her complaint was chief whip Chris Hipkins, who organises the roster and should have been alert to the high likelihood of Parliament going into urgency after Thursday’s Budget, and her Labour colleagues.

All it would have taken for her to have the night off would have been for Mr Hipkins to give her priority or for just one of those Labour MPs who was excused to have offered to step in and take her place. Surely, Ms Mahuta would have returned the favour when her circumstances allowed?

To be fair to Hipkins, it has been reported she originally had leave for Friday, but asked to swap it. I’m not sure all the blame is with the Whips. To some degree what we are seeing is a continuation of Labour’s internal warring – it is no coincidence that Mahuta is part of the marginalised Cunliffe faction and she has no love for the party leadership and whips after her demotion.

After Ms Mahuta’s complaint, Speaker David Carter is examining whether even more can be done. In the meantime, Labour, the champion of family-friendly workplaces, can help Ms Mahuta no end by practising what it preaches.

A fair point.

The Press reports:

A Christchurch city councillor says the city could offload non-core assets, including its own offices, to help pay its share of big-ticket rebuild projects.

Cr Tim Carter said last night that less important assets were expendable if it helped ease the council’s debt burden in funding anchor projects such as the new convention centre and roofed sports stadium.

“We should question whether we should be owning half of the civic office building and the Henderson properties.

“The Henderson properties … add nothing to ratepayers. The council had no plan for how we were going to develop them when the council decided to purchase, and we still have no plan.”

The council’s projected debt from earthquake recovery of $2.1 billion was not sustainable, he said.

“The council’s finances are in a very precarious position and we should consider our options rather than passing on higher rates,” Carter said.

He was against selling strategic, money-earning assets such as Christchurch International Airport, Lyttelton Port, Orion, and Enable, which is installing ultra-fast broadband in Christchurch.

The Council has adopted an absolutist position in which it will not sell any assets, no matter what. It’s a recipe for debt and massive rate hikes. Many commercial businesses sell some assets in order to purchase or build other more valuable ones. Decisions should be on a case by case basis.

Danyl at Dim-Post looks at the share price of Fletchers over the last month after Nick Smith 10 days ago announced an inquiry into the cost of building materials. As the price has dropped Danyl says:

According to the Steven Joyce/Fran O’Sullivan theory of political sharemarket vandalism, Nick Smith has ‘destroyed’ about $260 million dollars worth of wealth in the last ten days. I look forward to their columns/press releases warning of capital flight, skies raining blood etc.

This is one of Danyl’s more silly comparisons. In his world I guess there are no shades of grey. An inquiry into high prices is the same as a unilateral announcement with no consultation that the Government is going to dismantle the competitive market and set prices.

Let’s look at what Nick Smith actually said:

Housing Minister, Nick Smith, speaking on “The Nation” said there was significant concern that items “the likes Batts, likes of Gib and concrete” were more expensive than what they were in Australia.

Batts and Gib are Fletcher’s brands and the company is a major concrete supplier.

But Mr Smith denied the Government was singling Fletcher’s out.

“We need in a very thorough way not on the basis of rumour or speculation, on the basis of really good analysis and information, to have a hard look at how the building materials’ market is working and to ensure that there are the competitive pressures that are there,” 

“In terms of tariffs and those things, you know New Zealand has a pretty liberal regime for bringing products in, but are there other barriers? 

For instance, we have a Body Standards New Zealand that sets the standard, and sometimes I’m concerned that the industry groups have too much influence over those standards, that are then effectively adopted by councils and do not allow product from overseas to be able to give Kiwis real choice about those products.”

Mr Smith said his inquiry was going to look what regulatory tools that the government had at its fingertips, that could try and get building materials costs more reasonable for the industry. 

So no mention or even hint of price controls. In fact the announcement seems focused on increasing competition in the market, and reducing regulatory costs. And also note that these products are just a few of many produced by Fletchers.

This is hardly in the same universe as what Greens and Labour did with Contact Energy and the 13 other generators. They have been attacking Contact for a couple of years, claiming (falsely) their prices are higher than the SOEs. Contact has only one product – electricity, and their announcement was that if elected they will unilaterallly determine the price Contact can sell electricity at in the future. This is the Government deciding the price for the sole product Contact produces. It is not about increasing competition, but removing it all together. It is in fact a de facto nationalisation as if the Government gets to set the price you charge for your sole product, they effectively own your company.

So as I say, the comparison is beyond silly.

Stuff reports:

A list of organisations that have expressed interest in running charter schools has been outed, revealing a high proportion of religious groups, including a Manawatu church arguing it has the right to teach creationism using taxpayer money because state schools teach evolution.

The Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) has defended its decision to print the list in this month’s edition of its members’ magazine, which names 21 organisations that registered interest – almost half of them religious groups – with president Angela Roberts arguing that the process had been shrouded in secrecy.

The secrecy is probably to prevent nonsense stories like this one.

That school referred to – has not even applied.

However, the PPTA yesterday named organisations including The Sabbath Rest Adventist Church. The church had been interested in the options presented by partnership schools but had decided not to make an application this year while charter schools legislation remained before Parliament, trustee Jill Friar said.

So this shock horror example is of a church that has decided NOT to apply. Of course many readers won’t get that far.

Asked if she thought taxpayer money should be allocated to schools teaching creationism, Mrs Friar responded it was tantamount to funding secular schools to teach evolution.

“Look at the state school system – they teach evolution as if it’s a fact and it’s not a fact. Even scientists say it’s a theory, so what’s the difference at the end of the day? Why should we teach evolution as if it were a fact when there is a theory that is an alternative?” Mrs Friar said.

“It’s education and caring for children that is important – to me that’s what the argument should be all about.”

PPTA president Angela Roberts said taxpayer cash should not go to schools teaching creationism.

I agree that no charter school should get funding if they wish to teach creationism. But again this church has not even applied to be a charter school, and I’m 99% confident that they would never get approved if they do wish to teach creationism as science.

Labour education spokesman Chris Hipkins said it was an example of why critics feared the charter school model.

“Those are their beliefs – but the state should not be paying for it. Those parents and kids can choose to believe and to receive a religious education. But not to the exclusion of other sciences, and I think in this case that is really inappropriate,” Mr Hipkins said.

It’s an example of nothing. Their big worry is that all the applicants will be so good, they won’t be able to demonise them.

The Makahika Outdoor Pursuits Centre (MOPC) in Levin, which offers alternative education for young male offenders, also registered interest. The organisation’s work is currently sub-contracted by the Ministry of Justice. Co-director Sally Duxfield said she and her husband paid up to $60,000 a year out of their own pockets to finance the programme.

MOPC was considering becoming a charter school because the funding style could allow them to extend to a full-year residential programme, Mrs Duxfield said.

The centre would use the New Zealand curriculum and employ registered teachers.

“The mainstream system doesn’t work for these boys. Some of these boys haven’t sat at a school desk since they were 10 or 12 because they’ve beaten people or stabbed people . . . they come here because they are unable to be educated safely [elsewhere].”

Wow, how awful if they applied, Some of the most at risk youth might get a better education. What terrible stuff.

A reader e-mails:

Just read your blog on housing affordability. Good stuff.  The other point that is worth making is that the left go on about average housing prices and how they are out of reach of 1st Home Buyers. It is such a chardonnay socialist concept. For gods sake – who as a first home buyer buys an average priced property? Only a few well heeled young professionals. Most, nearly all, first homebuyers buy at the bottom end of the market (including myself). It’s called doing the hard yards by starting at the bottom of the property ladder.  And to get on the ladder they may have to buy in suburbs which are not their first preference.

While that may come as a shock to some, just check out the numerous options on www.realestate.co.nz of properties under $400k in Auckland. On the first page alone I saw a 2 bedroom flat in One Tree Hill (nice suburb) for $338k. A $20k contribution to a couple from Kiwisaver ($10k of their own savings) would get them into this pretty easily depending on their combined incomes.  Nice starter with the opportunity to add some value. Have a look at the options on the various real estate web sites.

Sure – not ideal for a large family but people should be aiming to get into the property market before they endow themselves with multiple kids, get themselves established and then have children. Even with this flat you could have your first child before moving up to a bigger home, but by that time you might have been in the property market for 4 to 5 years (2 to 3 as young couple and another two with a baby) and have built some tidy capital.

It is a good point that we should not overly focus on the average price. For first time buyers the level of say the 25th percentile is probably a more useful figure.

I’ve only owned two apartments. The first one cost me around a third of the second one, as I worked my way up the property chain. I would never ever have been able to consider going straight into what I own today.