Kiwiblog

Just been relayed this story from a grandfather whose grand-daughter is visiting him.

The grand-daughter goes to St Brigid’s School in Johnsonville and she told her grand dad about how some of the other 11 year olds at the school were earning money, specifically $10 an hour, to wave signs List for MP and candidate Charles Chauvel.

Isn’t Labour saying the minimum wage should be $15 and hour and there should be no youth wages?

Not a lot of local support it seems if you have to hire sign wavers.

I do hope Charles is including the wages of his hired help in his campaign budget disclosure. I also hope he is deducting and paying tax. As a lawyer I am sure he very aware of the law.

Rosemary McLeod in the Dominion Post writes on Charles Chauvel:

MINE is a thankless trade. Surely all writing is. You beaver away with scarcely a word of encouragement – and then screens take the place of paper, and you become endangered as well as thankless.

You don’t anticipate this. You couldn’t have imagined a time when yesterday’s work wouldn’t be wrapping tomorrow’s takeaways. But that day is fast upon you, and it’s time to get a grip. What would Labour MP Charles Chauvel do in a situation like ours? That’s the question.

Which Rosemary goes on to answer.

Jordan Carter has blogged on the now well publicised accusations over what was said and denied at the Rainbow Wellington election forum. A number of Labour Party candidates and supporters have all accused ACT candidate Stephen Whittington of getting it wrong.

Well to para-phrase Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they. But Green MP Kevin Hague has backed Whittington’s version of events. Now unless one subscribes to Labour’s mad theory of a vast right wing and non-labour left wing conspiracy, I think we can trust Kevin Hague as an honest witness.

With that in mind, Jordan may regret the title of his blog post – a clarification for some liars out there.

Does this mean he is calling Kevin Hague a liar?

I get a mention also, which I need to respond to.

This has been amplified today by that well known defender of the rights of queer people, David Farrar, on his blog KiwiBlog, and by Whittington himself in a media release.  The result is this Stuff story “Labour accused of homophobia cover-up” by Andrea Vance.

Now the reference to me as a “well known defender of the rights of queer people” is obviously meant to be sarcastic and imply I am insincere when it comes to this issue, and just using it to score political points.

I think my record stands for itself. I have blogged in supports of gay issues such as civil unions, gay marriage and gay adoption on scores and scores of occasions. I actively lobbied in favour of the Civil Union Bill, assisting Tim Barnett with it.  I blogged in 2004 how great the Civil Unions Bill party was to celebrate, and how great it was to be a very small part of helping something positive happen.

Unlike many in Labour I have been willing to criticise MPs from my own party on these issues. At the time of the Civil Unions Bill I blogged somewhat critically of some of the speeches from MPs against, including National MPs. The following week my public criticisms were raised in Caucus (so I am told, I don’t attend of course) by some of the MPs I had criticised, asking for something to be done to shut me up.

Also just last year I blogged quite harsh criticisms of a Cabinet Minister for comments which I thought were taunting a gay MP. It actually turned out (once I saw the video and wasn’t just going off the NZPA report) that I had misinterpreted the comments, and it was a fairly good natured exchange, so I actually was unfairly critical of the National Minister. But again, note I was publicly critical.

So even though Jordan was using the term sarcastically, I think I have been consistent in my advocacy on gay rights. Perhaps my crime is actually being heterosexual and a National supporter – after all how can a straight right winger be anything but insincere on gay issues?

Farrar’s allegations are nonsense.  He (and Whittington) are lying when they say that Grant and Charles denied Trevor’s ‘tinkerbell’ stuff.  They did no such thing.

Well let me quote Kevin Hague:

Green MP Kevin Hague, who was also at the meeting, backed Mr Whittington’s version of events. “My sense was that Charles and Grant were denying that Mallard and Cosgrove had abused Chris Finlayson in a homophobic way.

Also Jordan and Grant’s version of events are not even backed by Chauvel himself. In the Herald he said:

Mr Chauvel said he had never heard anybody refer to Mr Finlayson by that name “and if I did hear it, I would tell them that was unacceptable”.

So Charles was denying anyone had ever said it. So now the list of liars is Stephen Whittington, myself, Kevin Hague and Charles himself.

They would have been stupid to. The remarks were well covered at the time.  We told Trevor what we thought. Making slurs like that in Parliament is totally unacceptable.

They were well covered at the time. Do you know why? Because I blogged about them. Off memory there was no publicity around this until I highlighted this. No one in Labour did anything about Trevor and Clayton until there was adverse publicity.

And don’t think it was only the three times it has been recorded in Hansard. Hansard only records comments if made in a speech or if an interjection is responded to. I understand Trevor and Clayton has yelled out Tinkerbell to Finlayson on numerous occasions – but as Finlayson ignored them they do not get recorded.

So good on Jordan and others for telling Trevor (and hopefully Clayton) to stop. But did you say anything publicly like I have with National MPs?

What they denied is that Mallard is homophobic. They are right.  Trevor has been a staunch defender of social liberal causes and was a key player in the fight to decriminalise homosexuality in the 1980s. His voting record on queer rights issues is perfect.

I tend to agree that Trevor is not homophobic. He is just someone willing to use homophobic comments to attack other MPs. It’s much the same with Winston. I don’t think Winston really hate Asians. I think he just knows it is effective to bash Asian immigration, so does it to be popular.  I note Jordan has not said whether or not he thinks Clayton is homophobic.

In terms of the argument that someone can not be homophobic because they have a perfect voting record on queer right issues. By that logic, Senator Larry Craig can’t be homosexual because he has a perfect voting record against queer rights. I think behaviour counts as much as one’s voting record.

So my message to Whittington and to David Farrar is: stop lying on this point.

I trust Stephen’s integrity, just as I trust Kevin Hague – a gay Green MP who politically has nothing to gain by backing up the ACT candidate’s version of events. And then add onto that the fact that Chauvel has said he has never heard anyone refer to Finlayson by that name, and I am very comfortable with what I have blogged.

Jordan would do well to stop shooting the messengers. If only he spent as much time condemning the remarks publicly when they were made, than denying they were denied.

For someone who is a social liberal, David sure does spend a lot of time stirring up nasty stuff.

I love this Orewellain view of the world. If I was a Labour activist who criticised a National MP for denying homophobic comments from other National MPs, I would be trumpeted as the good guy, and the National MP would be the nasty guy.

But no God forbid that I criticise a Labour MP/s because in the heat of a debate they made the wrong call and embarrassed by the mention of these homophobic comments by colleagues they tried to bluff it and deny said comments had been made.

I can only conclude that criticising a Labour MP for anything at all, is automatically nasty stuff.

On that note I’ll talk about why I did the series of posts on Charles Chauvel. It is not because he is gay as Charles has suggested, or because some mythical polls show him leading in Ohariu and Peter Dunne has put me up to it.  It is because I received information (from a number of sources, including people in his own party) that revealed he was doing shameless self-promotion to a degree that was deceptive.

In the past I have been complimentary of Charles, such as when he was moved to the extended front bench, noting:

Chauvel was a no brainer.  … Chauvel to environment is logical and what I predicted. He is one of the few MPs who understand the complexities of the ETS etc.

And before the reshuffle I said:

But a couple of others would also be contenders on merit for the front bench, or at least the front row of the cross-benches. Charles Chauvel and Grant Robertson would be the two strongest contenders. …

I also blogged in favour of his private members bill on credit reform going to select committee.

Charles is not the only MP who is a self-promoter. All MPs are (by necessity) to some degree. But I think where most MPs are under-graduates, Charles seemed to be well on his way to a PhD in it, so I called him out on some of his practices. No conspiracy, no homophobia, nothing to do with Ohariu. At the end of the day if you don’t write letters praising yourself and send them out to people, then there is no way I can be sent a copy of them to blog about it.

UPDATE: Whale Oil has blogged that the video of the House shows Chauvel was present when Mallard used the term, and sitting just three seats along and one back from him.

UPDATE2: The Secretary of Rainbow Wellington has released his summary of the meeting based on his detailed notes. Tony Reed’s summary states:

The Banks issue was taken up further and the Labour MPs reminded us of his homophobic actions in the House when Chris Carter came out as the first openly gay MP. Stephen agreed this was wrong, but in turn accused Labour MPs of making homophobic remarks about Chris Finlayson, a charge which was hotly denied.”

I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology for being called a liar.

Labour’s just released Rainbow policy states:

Many GLBTI New Zealanders continue to be subject to insult, verbal and physical abuse, and to be made to feel inferior, most damagingly in schools.

This comes from the party whose MPs (Mallard and Cosgrove) yell out “Tinkerbell” when a gay National Minister is speaking in the House.

ACT Wellington Central candidate Stephen Whittington referred to this in the Rainbow Candidates meeting last night. And do you know what Grant Robertson and Charles Chauvel said? Did they apologise for their colleagues? Did they say they had asked them to stop? No, they lied and denied that any Labour MP had ever said that. They actually accused Whittington of making a personal attack on them.

In case anyone actually thinks Robertson and Chauvel told the truth, look at this video here of Trevor Mallard (start at 2.30). Also note this interview with Green MP Kevin Hague who said:

Hague said he had never been the target of taunting over his sexual orientation since entering the halls of parliament in 2008.

The same, he said, couldn’t be said for other gay MPs, citing “prejudice” directed at Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson.

“Trevor Mallard, and also Clayton Cosgrove, refer to Chris Finlayson as `tinkerbell’. And I f—ing hate it,” Hague said. “That sort of overt taunting as a `fairy’, it is nothing other than prejudice. I don’t like that culture of abuse.”

Now in case you think the video is doctored and that Kevin Hague is the liar, instead of Robertson and Chauvel, you can also look at Hansard here and here.

Discrimination against GLBTI people worldwide continues. The worst manifestation of this is the criminalisation of consensual adult same-sex activity, and its punishment as a capital offence.

This comes from the party which has a List MP who said (from Wikipedia):

In July 2005 Choudhary came to the public’s attention again when he refused to condemn outright the practice of stoning people for homosexual and extramarital sexual behaviour. In TV3′s 60 Minutes show on July 4, 2005, Dr. Choudhary was asked: “Are you saying the Qur’an is wrong to recommend that gays in certain circumstances be stoned to death?” He replied: ” No, no. Certainly what the Qur’an says is correct.” He then qualified his statement, “In those societies, not here in New Zealand”.

When Whittington raised this at the Rainbow debate last night, again Labour again accused him of lying.

So how does Labour reconcile its rainbow policy with having an MP who said it is fine to stone homosexuals and adulters to death, so long as it is not here in New Zealand?

National is far from progressive on gay issues, but I can’t recall a National MP ever saying that it is fine to kill homosexuals, if it is done in other countries.

Then we look at their detailed policy.

Modernise the law relating to the care of children to ensure that the widest pool of suitable adults is lawfully available to provide care to children in need

My God, why can’t they just say they will allow gay couples to adopt? Are they so scared of having the words gay and adoption in the same sentence? There are thousands of children being raised by gay parents and gay couples already. The law should focus on what is best for the child, and if that is a gay couple, then they should be allowed to adopt. What is so hard about saying that explicitly?

This is the third and final part of a three part series of a case study in self promotion.

Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here.

In Part 3 we look again at the video surveillance bill, and specifically Chauvel’s SOP. As I had previously blogged, his much vaunted SOP was a cut and paste from the wrong version of the Search & Surveillance Bill.

Now in Parliament Chauvel refers to the SOP “I have drafted” (at around 12 mins), and in fact told his colleagues that he had stayed up until 3 am working on it.

But when it turned out the SOP was based on the wrong version of the bill, Chauvel blogged correspondence with the Office of the Clerk, blaming them for the errors in the bill. So it is Chauvel’s SOP when it is about the credit, and the Office of the Clerk’s bill when it is about the blame. And the only sign of working at 3 am is an e-mail at 10 pm asking for the bill to be redrafted.

What surprised me is that a former partner in a major law firm didn’t even pick up the drafting errors. It is not unusual to use the OOTC to draft amendments, but you expect MPs (especially those who are lawyers) to check any SOP in their name.

Now this incident is by itself no big issue. But when you combine it with the other two issues of authoring letters to the editor praising yourself, and laying down bottom lines *after* you have been told what the Govt has agreed to, it does all fit together into a pattern of an MP who is absolutely obsessed with getting the recognition he thinks he is due.

I’ve been happy to help with getting him the recognition he is due.

Kate Chapman writes in the Dom Post:

LABOUR MP Charles Chauvel has accused National affiliates of hacking his email and trying to paint him as a gay “rich prick” after a Right-wing blog claimed that he asked fellow lawyers to put their names to a self-congratulatory letter he penned.

Don’t you love it how Chauvel tries to turn this into an issue where he is the poor oppressed person. I have never ever made an issue of his sexuality. In fact as most people know I have always championed civil unions, gay marriage, gay adoption and in fact have often handed out demerits to commenters who bring an MPs sexuality into the debate.

But nevertheless Chauvel tries what is known as the Chris Carter defence – they are only criticising me because I am gay.

Yesterday, Mr Chauvel refused to say whether he wrote the letter, saying he did not comment on the content of “stolen correspondence”.

It’s not stolen. I made inquiries when it was forwarded onto me, and am satisfied that it was voluntarily passed on.

He said he had no idea how Farrar got hold of the email but said it was either taken electronically or obtained through a Wellington consultancy firm that was working with the lawyers.

This is Chauvel finding excuses to avoid admitting that he sits at his taxpayer funded desk authoring letters promoting himself, and attacking journalists who do not duly recognise his brilliance.

Mr Chauvel believed Farrar had a copy of polls showing him ahead in the Ohariu electorate and the blog post was part of a smear campaign and dirty politics.

“This is what they have to resort to, try to paint me as a rich prick, or gay, or somehow devious, or all three and try to blacken my character and make me less attractive for election.”

Now this is a wonderful attempt here by Chauvel to muddy the waters by listing two things it is wrong to attack him over, and one where it is legitimate.

In my series of three posts I have not painted Chauvel as gay or a rich prick. But yes absolutely I have tried to paint him as devious – because he is!!! What else can you call his self-authored congratulatory letter to the editor?

The sad thing about Chauvel’s use of the Chris Carter defence, is it actually increases hostility against gay politicians. Rather than just admit he got caught being a self-promoter he tries to turn himself into the victim of some homophobic campaign.

On Friday I blogged on how Charles Chauvel sent one or more e-mails out to lawyers asking them to send in letters to the Dominion Post praising him, and insulting a press gallery reporter who didn’t praise him enough in an article.

That was Part I of a three part series on the lengths Charles will go to, to bolster his image. Part III will be tomorrow.

For today, I want to focus on the Police video surveillance bill. Now I’m one of those on the record as having said I thought Labour and Chauvel did well to insist on a select committee process and get some changes to the bill. But there are some very interesting timings with the bill.

The Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures Bill) had its first reading on Tuesday 27 September, and was referred to select committee the same day. Submissions were due by end of Wednesday 28 September and it reported back on Monday 3 October 2011.

Now first a bit of a lesson on how select committees work. They generally first hear initial advice from officials in private, and then hear submissions from the public in public. After public hearings they meet and discuss the bill in private, go through any report from officials and signal potential amendments.

Inevitably the ranking Government members on the committee will brief one or more Ministers on the deliberations. They will outline the nature and tenor of the public submissions, the views of the Government members on the select committee and the views of the opposition members. They will discuss what changes the opposition wants, what changes they think are desirable and where a deal can be struck. The Government generally has the choice of either trying to pass it without co-operation from the Opposition, or compromising aspects to get wider agreement.

Now this sort of negotiation is always done in private. You need to give MPs room to explore compromises freely and frankly. This is fundamental to the success of our select committee system. The Standing Orders actually make leaking deliberations a contempt, SO401(p):

divulging the proceedings or the report of a select committee or a subcommittee contrary to Standing Orders

And the Speaker in Speakers Ruling 187/4 has noted:

The deliberations of the members of a committee and any draft report are not available for release and any unauthorised disclosure of them is a breach of privilege. This is not a mere technical rule. It is essential, if members are to work well together on a committee, that the integrity of the process be maintained by respecting each other’s confidences. Furthermore, the House is entitled to the first advice of the conclusions of one of its committees in a report rather than individual members of the committee taking it upon themselves to communicate committee decisions to individual journalists.

That was Speaker Kidd in 1997 talking about the importance of integrity in the process. Speaker Grey in 1993 in SR 187/3 noted:

Parliamentary privilege exists to protect the integrity of the parliamentary process. In that process members of select committees deliberate amongst themselves on the evidence that they have heard, and draw up a report to the House that embodies their conclusions. This process is seriously undermined if drafts that are to be submitted to the committee for inclusion in its report can, with impunity, be released to all and sundry …

It is one thing for members to say in advance of a select committee meeting that they intend to argue for inclusion of a particular point of view in the committee’s report. That is quite acceptable. But it is another thing altogether for members to draw up a document that purports to embody the views of a minority on a select committee—views that are clearly put forward as those members’ contribution to the drafting of the committee’s report—and that are in fact subsequently laid before the committee.

Such a document is clearly one that should be conveyed to the committee first, so that it can consider it in its deliberations. To release it prior to its consideration could pre-empt deliberation and prejudice the proper functioning of the select committee process. Anything that has a tendency to prejudice the select committee process can be regarded as a contempt of the House.

Essentially this says a member of a select committee can express a public view before deliberations begin, but not during deliberations.

Now I want people to focus on two press releases by Charles Chauvel. The first was issued at 4 pm on Thu 29 September, and set out four bottom lines for tthe bill to proceed:

Having heard the evidence, Labour now sets out its position on the Bill and the amendments that National will be required to agree if it is to have Labour support to pass the House next week:

And five days later Chauvel puts out a further release:

Charles Chauvel said the Bill made the four major changes that Labour required in setting out its bottom lines last Thursday following the hearing of evidence in the select committee.

So the narrative from Charles is the brave Labour Party setting down their four bottom lines, holding fast to them, and forcing the Government to agree to them.

There are two issues here. The first is that the first press release from Chauvel was done after deliberations had started on the bill. It is a clear breach of privilege. The House has risen so it is not possible to have a complaint considered by this Parliament and anyway amazingly Chauvel is actually Chair of the Privileges Committee.

But undermining the integrity of the select committee process is only part of Chauvel’s efforts to promote himself. The actual truth is even more incredible.

I understand the press release from Chauvel setting out Labour’s four bottom lines was done around 60 minutes after Chauvel had been briefed on what changes the Government had agreed to. He already knew the Government’s position when he wrote that press release.

So you may ask yourself what sort of MP would breach standing orders just so they can put out a press release laying down bottom lines on a confidential negotiation, when they already knew what had been agreed to? One obsessed with making himself look good is the answer. There is a pattern here.

Note this blog post where Chauvel complains:

We saved the right to silence, and stopped the Government from being able to try people in absentia.  We got the usual level of credit – none –  from the media, and from left-wing commentators. …

If we get legislation that complies with the four points I just summarised, the Nats will have lost big time in a major attempt to interfere with our human rights.  And it won’t be because MPs from a couple of minor parties stood clear of the debate and held their noses.  It will be because Labour pushed the envelope as far as possible given the numbers in the House.  In most democracies, that would be regarded as a pretty significant achievement given the right:left imbalance in Parliament right now.  Here, expect us to get the usual level of credit.  Ah well.

Now recall that when he writes about how National will have lost big time, and how it is unfair he doesn’t get enough credit for stopping them, he already knew what the Government had agreed to, and his four bottom lines were released after he had been told what had been agreed to.

It’s the sort of thing you would expect from someone who, well, writes letters to the editor praising himself and asks others to send it in, in their name.

Part III tomorrow.

One of my legion of spies has passed on a very interesting e-mail. It was sent to a lawyer asking them to send a letter to the editor of the Dominion Post. The headers are:

Date: Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:44 AM
Subject: Hoping you would be comfortable with something like this to the Dompost – if not, let’s discuss
To: xxxx@yyyy.com

And the text of the letter that the sender wanted sent to the Dom Post was:

Sir

We are lawyers/I am a lawyer practising in Auckland who are/is not aligned to any political party.  We were/I was extremely concerned about Simon Power’s assault on the right to silence – and other fundamental liberties – and so we involved ourselves/I involved myself in the debate and the lobbying effort to reverse those changes.

We were/ I was, frankly, amazed to read Andrea Vance’s opinion piece in your newspaper on Saturday.  Her account of what really happened here is completely off-beam.

Labour’s Justice Spokesperson, Charles Chauvel, authored a stout defence of the right to silence in a minority report when the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill came back to Parliament.

His work picked up on significant concerns raised during the submission process.  Rodney Hide and John Boscawen took a long, hard look at the Bill in light of these concerns, and were instrumental in ensuring that ACT re-examined its position on the legislation.

Chauvel, along with his caucus, and Hide and Boscawen, are the MPs who merit credit in this process.  We/I have found them willing to examine the arguments for and against reform, and to work patiently, often behind the scenes, to reject the extremes in the argument and bring National around to a position that works going forward.

In contrast, Simon Power, Christopher Finlayson, Hilary Calvert, Peter Dunne and other government-aligned MPs have pretty much toed the party line, failing to do what we/I expect of our parliamentarians – examine legislation dispassionately and in light of the evidence.

Parliament is likely to pass criminal procedure reform in the next fortnight.  It won’t be perfect law by any means.  But thanks to Chauvel, and to Hide and Boscawen, it will be much better than it otherwise would have been.

Maybe your newspaper should get a reporter who understands the law to report on it from now on.

Yours sincerely
etc

So who sent the e-mail requesting this letter be sent in by a friendly lawyer. Well the headers also reveal that:

From: Charles Chauvel <charles.chauvel@gmail.com>

Charles must have been stewing all day about the story, as he sent the e-mail at 1.44 am. I’m not sure what is more amusing – the shameless self-promotion, or the attack on the reporter. I wonder if he had the guts to say it to their face, rather than get someone else to write in on his behalf, using his supplied words.

Residents of Ohariu should think carefully about the values they want in their MP.

Andrew Geddis proposed that instead of passing a law to suspend the Supreme Court ruling on Police video surveillance, that Parliament could just instead pass into law the provisions of the Search and Surveillance Bill as reported back by Select Committee.

Labour adopted this idea as their policy and Charles Chauvel drafted a bill which he said did this. He whined that the Government refused to grant leave for it to be introduced. But there was a very good reasons for this. Poor Charles cut and paste from the wrong version of the Search and Surveillance Bill. He used the bill as introduced, not as reported back by select committee. This is an incredibly stupid and basic error to make.

Chris Finlayson pointed out:

“Charles Chauvel’s draft SOP for the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill demonstrates the danger of taking parts of draft legislation out of the context in which they were drafted,” Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson says.

“Mr Chauvel has, apparently inadvertently, drafted his SOP using large sections of the Search and Surveillance Bill as introduced to Parliament, rather than as reported back from Select Committee last year,” Mr Finlayson said. “This has created some serious problems in what he proposes.”

A number of problems are evident in the SOP posted by Mr Chauvel on the Labour Party blogsite:

• Mr Chauvel’s clause 7(1) refers to a period not exceeding 72 hours. But this was in the Search and Surveillance Bill as introduced, not as reported back. The Select Committee altered it to 48 hours, to reduce the period of time a surveillance device is first used without obtaining a surveillance device warrant. This increases surveillance powers, something Mr Chauvel previous expressed concern about.

• Mr Chauvel’s clause 8(3)(a) uses the wording of the Search and Surveillance Bill as introduced, not as reported back. He would require a residual warrant be disclosed, even though the Select Committee ruled this out.

• Mr Chauvel’s clause 11 is completely deficient. He uses clause 50 of the Bill as originally drafted, leaving out important additions made by the Select Committee, particularly section 42AA dealing with restrictions on some trespass surveillance and use of interception devices.

What a fail. But I love his response in the Herald:

Mr Chauvel returned fire, saying the Government could have improved his SOP, rather than spend time scrutinising it and putting out a press release.

“It’s a shame we have a minister who would prefer to take the approach of chipping at the opposition, rather than looking at how we can improve the law.”

Oh yes how dare the Government point out the Opposition cut and pasted the wrong version of a bill, and that Labour were proposing a law change that would be worse than what the select committee had recommended.

Talking of the Bill, it is online here. If you wish to make a submission, you only have until midnight.

The Electoral Commission has announced:

On 15 August 2011, the Electoral Commission referred the following matters to Police:

• Charles Chauvel MP, Ohariu Census,
• ACT Party newspaper advertisements in Sunday Star Times and NZ Herald
• Labour Party ‘Prices are Rising Faster than Wages’ flyer.

It is the Electoral Commission’s view that the publication of each of these items constitutes a breach of sections 204F and 204H of the Electoral Act 1993 because the items are election advertisements that do not contain a valid promoter statement and were not authorised in writing by the party secretary.

This isn’t rocket science. The requirement for a promoter statement has been a core part of our electoral law since 1977, and something every party should be complying with out of habit. Failing to do so is a basic failure of political competence. After all, if you can’t publish a fucking ad properly, how do you expect us to believe you can run the country? Sadly, I don’t think Labour will acknowledge that failure and commit to fixing it. Based on their past performance, we’ll be treated to more arrogant whining instead.

As always, funny not nasty. Enjoy.

Charles Chauvel at Red Alert blogged:

I’m in Cancun, Mexico, at the 16th UN Climate Change Conference. Like last year at the 15th Conference in Copenhagen, I am representing Labour as its climate spokesperson; I paid my own way to get here; I am part of the delegation from the International Trade Union Confederation (thanks to Helen Kelly and Sharan Burrow).

I wonder what would be the reaction if a National MP turned up at an international forum as part of a business lobby group?

I’m here to support efforts to get an ambitious, binding, global deal to limit the problems that we are all likely to face as a result of human-induced climate change, and to support a just transition to the different world we are all to shortly going to find ourselves living in.

There will be no binding deal at Cancun. Cancun will make progress in a number of areas but no one expects a binding deal.

So why am I here? Well, just because the media isn’t talking about it so much doesn’t mean that the issue isn’t just as serious as it was last year. My aunts’ home in Tahiti, 6m from the high tide line, is no less likely to be washed away by rising sea levels than it was last year.

This is th part which I think is ridicolous scare-mongering – I expect it from ill informed people, but not from the official Labour Spokesperson on climate change.

The IPCC 4th report had a number of scenarios. In the most optimistic the mean sea level rise by 2100 would be 18 cm and the most pessimistic would be 59 cm.

So the IPCC have said the worst case scenario is that by 2100 the sea level may have risen 10% of the 6 metres above high tide.

If that rate kept up, Charles’ auntie’s place will get swept away in the year 3000. Now regardless of sea level change, Tahiti is also sinking or subsiding at around 25 cm every 100 years. So in fact around 2700 or so it might get hairy.

Of course by then it will be 18 generations or so on from Charles and his aunt.

I’ve often said politicians who scare-monger like Charles are in fact very damaging to their own cause. Such ridicolous statements (which strongly implied that a six metre rise could happen in his aunt’s lifetime) just provide ammunition to sceptics.

[UPDATE: Several commenters have pointed out that a more likely meaning is that the house is 6 metres along the beach from the high tide mark. If that is the case, then it all depends on the angle of the beach. If the angle is more than 9 degrees, then it still isn't until 2100 that you get problems.

The projected rate of sea level rise is not dramatic (it is undesirable though). The increase per decade last century has been 1.8 cm/decade. From 1993 it has been 3 cm/decade and the IPCC projects the worst case scenario is 6 cm/decade up until 2100.]

The Herald reports on the sweeping changes to trials in the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill.

The one that will probably attract the most debate is moving the threshold for jury trials from a maximum three months to a maximum three years.

While the list of offences that would be affected is long, officials have advised Mr Power that the most common cases would be theft of between $5oppos00 and $1000; receiving between $500 and $1000; possession of a class A drug; common assault; and assault on a female or child.

I’d be interested in what the stats are for these offences, in terms of how many people convicted of them even receive a jail sentence at all. A maximum is just that – and generally never given out.

The opposition Labour Party’s associate justice spokesman, Charles Chauvel, said that while some change in the threshold for jury trials made sense, Labour would reserve its position until it had heard select committee submissions.

That is a very sensible position to take, and good on Labour for not being opposed just for the sake of it. I’m not 100% convinced myself moving the threshold to three years is the right point – maybe it should be two years – again would be good to see hard data on this.

Some of the charges no longer tried before a jury (with current maximum term):

SIX MONTHS
* Ill treatment or wilful neglect of child
* Possession or use of class A drug

ONE YEAR
* Possession of unauthorised seed or fruit

TWO YEARS
* Driving with excess breath alcohol (3rd offence onwards)
* Driving while disqualified (3rd offence onwards)
* Bigamy
* Infanticide

THREE YEARS
* Assault with intent
* Making intimate visual recording
* Aggravated careless use of vehicle causing injury or death
* Indecency with animal

Oh that is unfortunate. If these changes come through, I’ll never get to be a juror on a donkey sex case. I always thought if one has to be a juror, that would be more interesting that an assault or burglary case etc.

On the other hand these donkey sex cases tend to always be in Nelson or Christchurch, so I guess I would not have got one anyway. And add to that, that in 25 years of availability I have never once been summoned for jury service.

The four speakers are Simon Power, Charles Chauvel, Caroline Morris and Philip Joseph. I missed some of the written constitution session as I had to go out and buy a new power cord for my laptop.

Power is speaking first. Basically just going over work to date – MMP referendum, new Electoral Commission, EFA repeal. Highlighting that the crucial thing with its replacement has been a transparent inclusive process.

Power has effectively said that any further changes to the finance law will require identification of some clear harm to be fixed, that is agreed across the political spectrum. This means that not everyone will be happy, but that there will be nothing that any group finds offensive.

Next up was Chauvel. Mainly focusing on why MMP is good.

Joseph argued that the Maori seats should not be entrenched and in favour of a longer and fixed parliamentary term. I agree with him on all points. He only favors a fixed term if it is longer.

However Joseph is pessimistic on the chances of reform.

Finally Morris is up. Focusing on conduct of MPs. Says discipline of MPs should not be left to party leaders.

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.

The Herald reports:

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has attacked the integrity of a solo mother who is asking for $15,000 to settle a privacy complaint against the minister, after previously denying she wanted any money. …

“I ruled it out right at the beginning, there wouldn’t be any cash settlement and I was incredibly surprised, particularly after her advocate [Labour MP] Charles Chauvel saying that she wasn’t looking for a cash settlement, to then get a letter from the Privacy Commissioner a matter of days later saying categorically that she was.”…

Mr Chauvel said he helped Ms Fuller draft the complaint and the letter sent a few weeks ago, but had since recommended another lawyer.

Charles seems to be backing away from Ms Fuller at fairly high speed.

1. The story would not have made both TV channels if the MP didn’t respond by accusing two of his own (wannabee) constituents of being bad parents. A response to the blog post of “I don’t recall it quite like that but I regret if any offence was taken” would have killed the matter. A Helen Clark apology where you say you regret any offence is often the best way to kill a story.
2. It is hard to take the moral high ground about MPs should not have such relatively trivial stories blogged about them, when Labour MPs on their own parliamentary blog are running a story about a National MP text messaging during some road opening.
3. It is a fact of life that as an MP you should be polite in all your encounters with the public – the example I always give to candidates is that being an MP means you can no longer give someone the fingers if they steal a carpark from you or cut in front of you in traffic.
4. With a story like this, it is not about “winning” the story, but not having it as a story at all. Even if 60% of people back you, and 40% do not, none of the 60% who back you are going to then vote for you because of it, while it is quite possible a fair segment of the 40% minority may be put off supporting you.

BoomTownPrat blogs:

I had a great weekend in Auckland. The most wonderful Pixies on Friday with exceptional friends and then a couple of days with family et al.

Now I have a beautiful and very patient wife and three children, the children are 4, 3 and 2! Travelling is not easy, but I am of the firm belief that practice makes perfect. We travel often and prefer to fly as it is quick. With my work I also fly frequently, as does my wife. We therefore use Koru and Gold Elite to our advantage and when we fly we are seated up the front of the plane. That’s the way it works. I have been loyal to Air NZ and as a result,a 1 or 2 row seat, on a domestic flight is a benefit. With my family my flights are paid with post tax income.

I am also a row 1 or 2 person.

Tonight the 1900 flight to Wellington (Home) was busy. I sat down in row 2 EF with my daughter and my wife, daughter (1D), and son (1F) sat in front of us. Behind me in 3F (Chauvel) and friend in 3 E. Pause to get the picture. So most of my family are in front and Mr Chauvel is to my right and behind in Row 3. I can hear most of what he says though the middle seat gap as can my 3 year old in 2 F

The flight takes off, my kids make a bit of noise. The usual kid stuff, no one blinks( except a muffled rumbling behind …..seat 3F) My kids can perform, you may have heard them! But tonight they were fine. The odd squawk a few yells and disagreements but nothing that your average person on a short domestic flight could dismiss undercover of an insipid tea, a packet of crisps and a magazine.

Not 3F (MR CHARLES CHAUVEL LABOUR LIST MP). 20 minutes into the flight I hear the first, hissed,,,,,”Will you just shut up!” This I think was directed at my 2 year old in row 1. I hear it well given my position. I think he doesn’t realise that that object of his ire has a father directly in front.

I’ve once or twice asked a child to be quiet, and always ask politely. Yelling shut up at someone else’s kids is unwise for anyone – let alone an MP.

40 minutes a more vocal…..”Will you just shut up!”

At this point I got angry and sarcastically told my kids to be quiet as there were very important men behind us who needed their peace.

We start to land when my 2 year old gets some ear pain and cries. A bit like a baby, not to intense. At this point 3F lets out his true feelings and prejudices as he turns to his friend in 3E and says……..” I DONT KNOW WHY THEY LET THEM UP THERE”

God forbid parents with kids are now allowed at the front of the bus plane.

Anyway, here is the irony:

Some Points to Mr Chauvel in 3 F.

The “them” you refer to, is me, the voter.

I vote in Ohariu.

I paid for my seat….did you?

Those children you despise, will probably pay for your superannuation.

And Lastly Mr Chauvel in 3 F, I pay your salary, I would prefer it if you and your friend did not verbally abuse my 2 year old in front of my 3 year old.

I have no reason to construct this. This is what happened. This is how a Labour front bencher acted in public, when his party is on 30% in the polls, when the accusations of “out of touch” are still ripe and the electorate is still trying to digest the “many but the few” mantra.

I suspect the numbers of voters in Ohariu that Charles has alienated is far more than the father and mother. Imagine how many of their friends and neighbours will be told the story over the next two years.

Labour has announced four selections, reports the Herald:

Labour has already chosen its 2011 election candidates for Auckland Central, West Coast-Tasman, Ohariu and Maungakiekie.

First-term list MP Jacinda Ardhern will contest Auckland Central and Carol Beaumont, also a list MP, will contest Maungakiekie. Both are held by National.

List MP Damien O’Connor will try to take back West Coast-Tasman, the seat he lost to National in the last election.

Senior MP Charles Chauvel, another list MP, will contest Ohariu, which is held by United Future leader Peter Dunne.

I wonder why Labour did not open nominations for NZ’s most marginal seat of New Plymouth? Is it because Andrew Little plans to parachute in there later, as that is his home town?

There were four nominations for Waitakere, the seat held by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett, and a selection meeting will be held on March 20. The nominations were Ann Pala, Carmel Sepuloni, Hamish McCracken and Phil Twyford.

It will be pretty devastating to Twyford’s career if he fails to win the nomination, after having been scared out of both Mt Albert and Auckland Central.

He is a more polished politician than Sepuloni, but Labourites may not be keen to put up a “white middle aged male” against the young at heart fiesty Paula Bennett.

McCracken is a perennial candidate – his list ratings have been in 1999 he was no 60, in 2002 no 52, in 2005 no 49 and in 2005 no 50. I can’t see him beating one, let alone two, MPs to the nominaton.

Ann Pala is a Fijian immigrant who was President of the Waitakere Ethnic Board, a director of Winmac Computer Solutions, member of the Islamic Women’s Council. To her great credit she has criticised her party’s association with Winston Peters.

Less agreeably, Pala called for an “ethnic ward” for the Auckland Council, which would elect two or three Councillors. Pala seems to be the only actual West Auckland standing for the Waitakere nomination.

Meanwhile the Dominion Post reports:

United Future leader Peter Dunne faces a tough battle for his Ohariu seat after Labour kicked off its campaign and National vowed it would not stand aside to give him a free ride.

List MP Charles Chauvel will begin door knocking and leaflet drops within weeks after he was the only nomination as Labour’s candidate.

The seat is the eighth most marginal in the country. It was held by Mr Dunne by just 1006 votes at the last election – well down on his 7702 majority in 2005 and the 12,000-plus margin he racked up in 2002. …

Mr Dunne won 12,303 votes in 2008, compared to 11,297 for Mr Chauvel and 10,009 for Ms Shanks.

I expect National will vigorously contest the seat. The reality is that if both National and Dunne stand, then it is possible Chauvel could win the seat due to vote splitting. However if Peter retires from Parliament, then it would be a safe seat for National. Take a look at recent election results.

In 2008 National’s party vote was 17,670 to 12,728 for Labour. In a clear two way contest National should win the seat by 3,000 to 5,000 votes (depending on if many Greens tactically vote).

The split voting statistics tell a story in Ohariu. This is where Dunne has picked up votes in the last three elections:

• 2002 – Dunne got 47% of Labour voters and 57% of National voters
• 2005 – Dunne got 34% of Labour voters and 52% of National voters
• 2008 – Dunne got 16% of Labour voters and 44% of National voters

Peter used to pick up strong support from Labour and National voters. However from 2002 to 2008, he support from Labour voters declined by two thirds. Ironically it was during this period he supported them with confidence and supply, so there is no gratitude in politics!

Now that Dunne can’t attract large number of Labour voters, the main impact is to split the electorate vote of centre-right voters between him and the National candidate. Hence why Chauvel would have a reasonable chance of winning, if Dunne stands in 2011.

But if Dunne retires, then Ohariu should become the only National held seat in Wellington.

As the Copenhagen summit looks like ending with no agreement, around the only substantial achievement (to date) was the launch of the Global Research Alliance on agriculture greenhouse gases.

This is hugely important both for NZ and internationally.

The importance for NZ is it could help find a way to reduce methane emissions from livestock, which would save the country billions in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

The importance for the world is to avoid what happened with biofuels – that food producing land is converted into other uses, leading to global food shortages.

So it is one of those rare initiatives that almost everyone from business lobby groups to the most hardened Greenie supports. And kudos to Tim Groser and others for getting 20 countries to all pledge funding to it – from Australia to Vietnam to the US. Much better than NZ funding all the research,

Back in NZ, it won support from the Wgtn Chamber of Commerce (no fan of an ETS):

“The reality is that rather than the current proliferation of poorly designed cap and trade systems, science and technology are the real keys to solving the greenhouse gas emissions challenge, and this initiative plays to New Zealand’s research strengths,” said Chamber CEO Charles Finny. …

“This is a good example of trans-national cooperation with a number of countries pooling their expertise to solve a global problem. New Zealand going it alone would be less likely to produce results and it runs against the grain of what this global issue is all about.

“It is increasingly likely that this will be one of the few concrete initiatives to come from Copenhagen and so John Key and Tim Groser deserve full congratulations for the leadership they have shown in delivering this outcome,” Mr Finny concluded.

So business likes it. And what about the Greens. Well this is Kennedy Graham:

Minister Tim Groser advised that, on Day 1, some US$150 m. had been pledged, and it was hoped that this would leverage private funding as well.  But he stressed that it was not just a question of finance – the essence was coordination, of research already underway and new research yet to be funded.  France, for example, already has some 500 researchers in agriculture and climate change who would form part of the Alliance.  India’s contribution would be immense as well.  Once the political momentum was underway, it was important to turn it over to the scientists.

Denmark gave the most impressive example of the potential of the Alliance. Since 1990 it had increased agricultural production by 16% yet agricultural emissions had dropped by 23%.   This had been achieved through optimisation of the nutrient chain and improving water management. …

We should take a positive view of this initiative.

And Jeanette Fitzsimons said:

The Green Party today welcomed the announcement that New Zealand will lead a Global Research Alliance for reducing climate change emissions from agriculture, adding that it is crucial to pursue science and ideas that enhance our clean green reputation.

“I am delighted that New Zealand is finally doing something serious about fighting climate change and reducing agricultural emissions,” said Green Party Climate Change and Agriculture spokesperson Jeanette Fitzsimons. …

So New Zealand has achieved around the only positive announcement from Copenhagen, with an initiative that pleases both ETS sceptical businesses and the Greens. So who does that leave?

Labour’s Charles Chauvel. In a bizarre press release (one which Clark would have called treasonous if she was still PM) he has attacked the Global Alliance claiming NZ should have gone it alone:

“The multinational nature of the Global Agriculture Fund will inevitably mean that New Zealand won’t own the results of any research paid for by it.

“So, as well as there being substantially less money for investment in the reduction of emissions from agriculture, New Zealand will be poorer because we lose the opportunity to sell or share emissions reduction technology in our singular area of expertise on our own terms.

“Despite the self-generated fanfare and bright lights, National’s approach represents a failure. It totally lacks ambition and is a huge missed opportunity for New Zealand,” Charles Chauvel said.

Yes Chauvel thinks NZ could have solved the problem all by itself. He also misrepresents intellectual property laws (being pat of a multilateral alliance does not mean individual institutions abandon intellectual property rights over their inventions). It is a shockingly stupid stance.

In Opposition, there are times when mindless opposition just for the sake of a press release is a bad idea. As the Greens show, there are times you can say this is a good initiative – even if we don;t like the other things you are doing.

I wonder what Phil Goff, a respected former foreign and trade minister, thinks of his MPs claim NZ should not have helped set up the global research alliance, and gone it alone? I can’t imagine he possibly agrees.

My God. Someone please ring up Hell Pizza and ask them to deliver some humour transplants to the Labour Caucus Room.

ACT staffer Andrew Falloon joked on his Facebook status that he is off to the Abel Tasman National Park for 8 nights before Gerry Brownlee rips it up and Charles Chauvel both uses this in a question in Parliament, and blogs about it on Red Alert.

Really that is just so sad. I am so glad I no longer work in Parliament if I have to put up with crap like that.

At least Gerry Brownlee shows he still has an excellent sense of humour:

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This summer will be the largest exploration activity ever seen in New Zealand waters.

Hon Darren Hughes: That’s just the Minister on the beach.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Seven offshore wells are being drilled, and thousands of kilometres of seismic data are being shot. In fact, New Zealand is ranked in the top 10 countries for offshore exploration wells. This year we have put in place a seismic data acquisition programme to continue the success. It is a good programme. I know that you do not like us responding to interjections, Mr Speaker, but I just want to say that in order that no one rushes to the beach to save the whales, I will be publishing the dates that I am on holiday.

Heh.

You can make a submission until 10 December on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill.

The bill is generally excellent – it merges the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Office, and allows the Commission to give advice on the legality of propose ads etc.

The one change I would like is to the method of appointment of the Electoral Commissioners. The current bill provides for the Minister to (effectively) appoint them after consulting with other parties. I would like to see the appointments either made by Parliament directly, or for the consultation requirement to be made an agreement requirement.

The reason is that different Ministers interpret a consultation requirement in different ways. I know in the 1990s that National consulted Helen Clark as Opposition Leader on some appointments and actually withdrew proposed nominees after Clark objected.

But when Margaret Wilson was Attorney-General, she was terrible. Her idea of consultation was to send a letter out Friday notifying the name of the person she proposes to have Cabinet appoint on Monday.

I was hoping some MPs would touch on this issue in the first reading, and they did:

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : The Labour Opposition will be supporting the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I thank the Minister of Justice for the consultative process that has surrounded this bill. He has properly engaged with Labour, as, indeed, I am sure he has with other parties in this House in the preparation of this bill. As a consequence of that, Labour members are happy to support it in its reference to a select committee. Initially, the Electoral Commission, which is a new body set up by this bill and not the current Electoral Commission, was to include the Secretary for Justice as a member. Labour and, I understand, some other parties said that would not be right. Of course, the Secretary for Justice is the head of a Government department, so it would not be appropriate for that office holder to hold a role on the new Electoral Commission. The Minister agreed with that, so the commission will now be fully independent, and we agree that that is appropriate.

This is an example of good consultation. Simon Power had feedback from other parties, and modified the proposal. My concern is not about Simon as Minister of Justice failing to act on consultations. He won’t be Minister for ever, and my concern is some future Minister will act like Margaret Wilson and ignore any objections from consultation. That is why I think it should requirement agreement, not consultation.

I think there is still a question as to how the commission should be appointed. I have heard some people suggest that the commission ought to be appointed by Parliament, rather than by the Minister as part of the Government. I think that some people may submit on that issue to the select committee. We in Labour would be interested to hear from submitters and be informed by them on that matter.

I’m glad David Parker raised the issue, and hope that Labour will agree to a change – despite the fact they will be Government again one day.

The need for independence is even greater now, with the Chief Electoral Officer being one of the three Commissioners, as the CEO is the key individual who actually runs the election, and declares the result.

Previously the CEO was within the Ministry of Justice. So the State Services Commissioner appointed the Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of Justice appointed the CEO. While I don’t particularly like it being witin the Ministry of Justice, it did make it hard for a Minister to put in someone inappropriate.

Now though the Minister can appoint the Chief Electoral Officer directly. That is too great a power I submit.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : I do not intend to take a long call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. The Green Party will support its first reading to get it before the select committee. We look forward to submissions by the public on the bill. …

When the National Government consulted the Greens on the proposal, we suggested from the outset that an Officer of Parliament – type body should be established, that it would be preferable to ensure that the new agency is absolutely and fully independent of the Government, and does not report to a Minister. The Officer of Parliament model is used here in Aotearoa with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, for example. It is also used in Canada for their electoral organisation and management. It places the oversight of the body with Parliament, as opposed to a ministry of the Government managed by one particular political interest. It reinforces its role to oversee and enable free and fair elections, which is a core concern of the House of Representatives and of Parliament. Certainly an Officer of Parliament model would be perceived by the public as more truly independent and would have more ability to comment on how the electoral process is operating, because it would not report to a particular Minister in the executive.

I agree with Metiria that the Commission is most suitable to be an Officer of Parliament. If this change is not practical in the short-term, than a fallback option is to at least require the Minister to gain agreement, not just consultation, with a super-majority of parties on appointments.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) :

There is also the police, and I will speak a little bit about their function, because the police are the enforcement body as far as our electoral law is concerned.

Although Labour supports this bill being read a first time, we believe that the bill does not address the issue of the enforcement machinery when there is a breach of electoral law. I suggest that that might be something the select committee looks at. The problem that the police always have, of course, is that electoral offences never go to the top of the queue. The police will always be concerned with crimes against the person, and with dealing particularly with violent crime. They will never be able to prioritise electoral matters, nor will they necessarily have the forensic expertise to do so. These days those questions require skills in dealing with tracking donations and financial disclosures, and so on, which call for quite sophisticated levels of skill that are probably more properly found in organisations like the Serious Fraud Office rather than the police. It might well be that with the forensic skills that are required, it would be useful to think about having an enforcement function under this new independent Crown entity rather than the police being responsible for that function, if we are truly interested in bringing all the functions together in an expert body that has the resources and the time to deal with the questions before it.

I agree with Charles that the Police do not see electoral breaches as a priority and it would be better with the Commission. However that is not so much an issue for this bill, but more for the bill which will come out of the Govt’s electoral finance review.

The final point I make is that if one has a look at the explanatory note, one sees that one of the options canvassed was to have an Officer of Parliament for this function. Personally, I think that would have been the most compelling option to go for. The explanatory note suggests there was not enough time to get that sort of apparatus going before the next election. But if we really want a truly independent body, charged with the conduct of elections in an honest and serious way, then, given the conduct of our other Officers of Parliament, in whom we have enormous faith, then that seems to me to be the best way to go.

Excellent.

What has been nice is that all the Opposition praised Simon Power for his consultation with them over the bill. It is great to see the merger happening after years and years of no action, and electoral law should be an area of bipartisanship as much as possible – it is too important to be treated as a bauble of office, as some sort of winner takes all prize.

I hope other people take the time to do a submission. If you don’t, then no complaining if you wake up one day in the future to read that Winston Peters has been appointed as an Electoral Commissioner

The Press reported:

Labour yesterday called on the Government to stop taking big profits from the electricity state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

“The Government could do this today, with the instant result of lower electricity prices for hard-working Kiwi families and better security of supply from renewable energy,” Labour energy spokesman Charles Chauvel said.

The Government should tell electricity SOEs to cut dividend payments and invest the money in renewable generation that could flatten power price rises, he said.

I have previously blogged on the hypocrisy of Labour preaching lower profits, after it banked $3.1 billion in dividends from energy companies during their term of Government.

A Ministry of Economic Development energy outlook released this week says wholesale power prices are likely to rise by 40 per cent over the next 20 years.

That is much less than the near-50 per cent rise in some residential tariffs over the past five years.

40% over 20 years sounds a lot better than 50% over five years!

But is this standard hypocrisy, or even worse hypocrisy than normal? Because before Charles become an MP, he was a Director of Meridian Energy.

In fact Charles was Deputy Chairman of Meridian Energy in 2005. And what was the company’s net profit after tax in 2005/06? It was $857 million.

Yes in 2005/06 Meridian had an EBIT of $1.03b on gross revenue of $2.22b. Now some of this was from a one off sale, but that money could have been used to lower power prices, as Charles now claims should be done.

Now maybe in 2005/06 the Government was short of money, and didn’t think it could manage with a lower dividend and profit. So what as the deficit in 2005/06? Oh no – it wasn’t a deficit. It was a whopping $11.5b surplus.

So where was Charles in 2005 demanding Meridian pay a smaller dividend, when the Government had an $11.5 billion surplus? Oh he was writing the cheques out.

And now in 2009, when the Government is running a deficit of $7.2b (over 11 months), Charles and Labour cry out to make Meridian less profitable as he says a dividend of $294 millions is far too high.

I am going to enjoy repeating posts like this, everytime Labour call for reduced profits from Energy SOEs.

The Australasian Study of Parliament Group had a seminar in the Beehive on Wednesday on the issue of Parliament and the Courts.

The first speaker was Professor Philip Joseph, who is widely considered the leading constitutional scholar in New Zealand.

Professor Joseph discussed the issue of parliamentary sovereignty and whether or not it exists or is absolute.  There were references to musings from Lord Cooke and Chief Justice Elias that such sovereignty is not absolute.

This does not mean that the judiciary is sovereign either. In fact the theme pushed was neither institution was sovereign, and there is mutual respect for the roles of each, with boundaries between them.

There was a suggestion you could call this co-sovereignty, looking at it being the Crown through her Parliament and the Crown through her Courts being co-sovereign, but sovereignty tends not to be shared (the Roman Republic did effectively share it through having two Consuls but that didn’t work too well eventually).

The example by CJ Elias was whether the judiciary would uphold a law that (for example) said all blue eyed babies must be killed.  Of course that would never be passed (and if it was, the Governor-General might not assent to it) so it is an academic argument.

Professor Joseph said that the rule of law does exist outside of legislation and that it pre-dates the concept of parliament sovereignty by many hundreds of years.

An example would be in countries that have had a coup. Often the judiciary will adopt or refer to the doctrine of necessity to maintain the rule of law – even without legislative backing.

The second speaker was Labour MP Charles Chauvel, in his role as Chairman of the Privileges Committee. He had some interesting historical facts such as how Magistrates were not seen as Independent Judges until just a few decades ago, and how the Minister of Justice used to actually be accountable in the House for their decisions.

His main theme was respecting the boundaries between Parliament and the Judiciary, and how the Privileges Committee decision to recommend limitations on an MPs ability to breach a court suppression order, helps respect those boundaries – especially as it was initiated by Parliament voluntarily.

He took a swipe at both Justice Minister Simon Power and his colleague Trevor Mallard for their recent comments, plus also at Attorney-General Chris Finlayson for not publicly defending the Judges concerned. Power criticised CJ Elias’ call for prisoners to be released early and Mallard criticised the lack of jail in the Moses exorcism manslaughter case, saying they would have got jail time if they were not Maori.

Chauvel said he thought both Power’s and Mallard’s comments pushed against the boundary of mutual respect, or comity.

In fact he revealed the Opposition was concerned enough about Mallard’s comments they their Justice Spokesperson wrote officially to the Chief Justice disassociating themselves from the comments, and saying he was speaking as a local MP only and not on behalf of Labour. The letter and response from the CJ was shown briefly on the screen.

The seminar was well attended and ably chaired by Colin James, with extra chairs having to be found for everyone. Definitely only a topic for constitutional geeks, but it is a fascinating area for New Zealand as one of the few countries with no written constitution.

Brian Fallow writes:

The sort of number the Government has been directing our attention towards, in a non-committal way, is a 15 per cent cut from 1990 levels. That would also be 15 per cent below the current commitment under the Kyoto Protocol.

But as New Zealand’s gross emissions are 24 per cent above 1990 levels, such a target would be a cut of nearly a third from where we are now.

Yes. This is talking gross emissions and a cut of a third in ten years is not some wimpy cop out but bloody ambitious. Some say it is not so hard as what counts is net emissions. Not quite that simple though. Apart from the fact by 2020 gross and net emissions may be similiar, as I understand it our target is always in gross emissions, but the amount we will have to pay will be based on net emissions. In other words the rest of the world expects us to actually cut emissions, not just plant trees.

It would be the equivalent of eliminating, within 10 years, all emissions from transport and electricity generation, and then some. Transport accounts for 20 per cent of national emissions, the electricity sector 9 per cent.

That is for a target of 15% below 1990. Remember that when the Greens claim anything less than 40% is a cop out.

“The nightmare for the Government is that even what looks like a very modest target is incredibly challenging, because we are starting 24 per cent behind the eight ball,” says Climate Change Minister Nick Smith.

Thanks Helen. Despite her carbon neutral rhetoric, emissions grew faster in NZ under Clark than in the US under Bush, compared to 1990 levels.

There are three ways New Zealand can meet its target: physically reducing emissions within the country, expanding the forest area or buying carbon credits on the international market – which represent emissions reductions which have occurred somewhere else in the world.

All three methods cost money. How much is educated guesswork: all the economic modelling tells us is that the more ambitious the target and the higher the international carbon price, the greater the cost will be.

Yep. The greater all the targets are for reduction, the higher the price per unit and hence the price consumers and businesses will pay in NZ.

Satellite and aerial mapping has confirmed an increase of 566,000ha in the area of plantation forest, which the Government expects will just about cover the increase in gross emissions over the same period.

But most of those trees were already in the ground when the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997.

Net afforestation has collapsed since then, and the trees planted in the 1990s will be ready for harvest in the 2020s, turning the forestry sector from a net sink for carbon into a net source.

This is why reliance on our net emissions being at 1990 levels is little comfort for the 2020 target.

Unless, that is, the rules for counting forest emissions are changed. At the moment the carbon sequestered in trees is deemed to be all released to the atmosphere when the tree is felled, which is nonsense if it is used for building timber.

New Zealand is seeking a number of changes to the rules relating to LULUCF (land use, land use change and forestry). Groser said that within the range of environmentally credible or defensible rules the difference between the best and worst case outcomes on the rules from a New Zealand perspective could swing the country’s emissions by as much as 70 per cent. The rules will not be finally decided at Copenhagen.

Those potential rule changes are of huge significance.

Labour’s climate change spokesman Charles Chauvel says it is better to be bold than timid.

“We will be a target-taker, let’s face it, when we get to the negotiations. The benefit about being bold in setting a target now is that it will obviously be provisional given that we are going into negotiations and we will effectively be given a target by bigger players.

With all respects to Charles this is a pretty stupid strategy. As he points out there will be international negotiations and in those negotiations big players will try and push up what our target should be. Now knowing this is likely to happen, why would you go in with a target already at the top end of what is possible, as this then removes any flexibility from the negotiations. Sure our initial negotiating target has to be credible, but this talk of boldness (and note Labour refuse to say what target they support) is silly fluff. Ask any negotiator if your starting bid should ever be your final position.