Kiwiblog

NBR reports:

A call from the Dominion Post may have been the “final straw” which pushed leading crime lawyer Greg King to take his own life.

Wellington lawyer Nikki Pender says it looked like Mr King did get a call from the Dominion Post which she says was just the “final straw”.

This confirms the story broken by Truth. The only other media publication to touch on this revelation is NBR. I’m amazed that Mediawatch did not deem it worthwhile to even ask the Dominion Post if their staff called Greg King just before he died. Did the Herald ask any questions of the Dominion Post such as “Is it true you had written a story on Greg King, which you pulled just before the print deadline”.

Greg King’s death is tragic and profoundly sad. It is even more tragic if the catalyst was a story about a dispute over $1,500 of legal aid hours. Would journalists at the Dominion Post accept a refuse to comment from any of the subjects of their investigations? So, why is it acceptable from the newspaper itself?

I’m not saying the Dominion Post has done anything wrong. But I am saying they should front up and explain exactly what their involvement was.

When Christine Rankin was thought to be involved with the family of a woman who killed herself, the Dominion Post and other Fairfax papers pursued the story with vigour. There was no sense of being inappropriate to comment until the Coroner’s Report. The double standards in this case are hypocritical. I can understand the double standard from the Dom Post (who naturally do not want bad publicity), but why are other media and shows that are meant to focus on the media not reporting on this?

NBR reports:

Truth’s story quotes unnamed sources close to the King family claiming the Dom Post contacted Mr King on Friday, November 2, allegedly informing him they were running a front-page story based on an accusation made by one of their snitches in jail.

The story has information which could only have come (directly or indirectly) from family members.

Dominion Post editor Bernadette Courtney told NBR ONLINE the Truth story was wrong and she had no further comment.

That’s the sort of response you normally get from politicians, not media. It is called a non denial, denial.

Saying a story is wrong, and saying nothing else, means that one word could be wrong. It is not saying that the substantive allegation is incorrect. A proper denial would be “There was no investigation and there was no contact with Mr King or his family that week”. Of course you can only make a denial like that, if you are sure that no one can not prove otherwise.

Also rare to have an Editor to refuse to comment beyond a non denial, denial. If you worked for Fairfax and were doing a story on the ethical conduct of a business, would you accept such a statement from the CEO and regard it as the end of the matter?

The Dom Post editorial:

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett’s White Paper on vulnerable children includes steps that, properly implemented and resourced, will help ensure better reporting and information sharing by state and non-governmental agencies dealing with kids at risk.

It proposes mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse in all but name. Agencies working with children will be required by law to have policies on identifying and reporting possible abuse and neglect and professionals will have a clear responsibility to act.

The White Paper also proposes a central database of vulnerable children to give professionals working with them a comprehensive picture of their lives. Doctors, teachers, social workers, police and other agencies will have access to the database and be able to enter information. Details from a new child abuse line to take and triage calls from the public will also be fed into the database if concerns are found to warrant further attention.

The database will also include information on adults who have abused or neglected children, allowing those accessing it to see whether a child they are concerned about is in contact with someone who poses a danger to them.

Such a database is long overdue. There have been too many examples of one agency or professional having contact with a child in danger, but not acting to protect them.

There’s many worthwhile initiatives in the white paper, but I think this is the most important.

Too often the early abuse is not detected or acted upon until it is too late.

The Dom Post editorial:

New Zealand should have learned from bitter experience that it cannot shield itself from the vagaries of the international market. Labour and National tried that in the 1970s and early 1980s and ran up debts that took a generation to repay.

New Zealand is a small trading nation a long way from its markets. The only way for it to survive and prosper is to be flexible, adaptable and resilient. If the balance of economic power in the world is shifting, there is no use pretending it is not.

The decline in the value of the US dollar and the euro is a reflection of the decline in the relative worth of the American and European economies.

The attempts by American and some European policy-makers to reboot their economies by printing money are acts of political desperation.

It makes no sense for a country which has weathered the global financial crisis better than most of its Western counterparts to emulate their risky tactics. Printing money – or quantitative easing as it is technically known – fuels inflation, devalues assets and reduces purchasing power. Once started it is difficult to stop, as Germans discovered in the 1920s when wheelbarrows replaced wallets as the most efficient means of carting cash.

The Greens plan will see shares in Mitre 10 and Xerox increase!

It is interesting that Labour has not ruled out printing money also – just that they don’t want their fingerprints on it. The summary is:

• Greens will force the Reserve Bank to print more money, driving up prices for all NZers
• Labour will amend the RBA, to encourage the Reserve Bank to print more money, driving up prices for all NZers

The Dom Post editorial:

The anti-Muslim movie blamed for the wave of violence sweeping across the Muslim world is an appalling piece of propaganda. The work of a convicted conman, it is utterly without merit – artistic, historical or intellectual.

The same might  also be said of the grotesque caricatures published  by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo depicting the prophet Mohammed in a range of demeaning positions. They are offensive, insulting and designed to provoke.

Neither, however, is reason for the murder of innocents, the storming of embassies or the further propagation of hatred. Perhaps the most shocking of all the images seen since United States ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed in an attack linked to the movie was that of a small child at a protest in Sydney holding aloft a sign bearing the words: ”Behead all those who insult the Prophet.”

That is not the Australian way, it is not the Western way and it should not be the way anywhere. As one Australian politician observed: ”Kids of this age should be playing hide and seek, not calling for jihad or beheadings.”

That was so incredibly disturbing. The one good thing from it is that there has been such a backlash against these violent protests in Australia, that the extremists are being marginalised.

The Dom Post editorial:

The exact date of Maori arrival in New Zealand is a mystery, although carbon dating and Maori oral tradition point to the 13th century. About one thing, however, there is no doubt. Contrary to the impression created by the bellicose posturing of the Maori king, Maori have not ”always owned the water”.

Scientists estimate New Zealand broke away from the Gondwana supercontinent about 85 million years ago. Give or take a few hundred millennia, that means Maori have inhabited the country for about 0.0009 per cent of the time it has existed as a distinct entity. Rain fell from the skies, coursed down the hills and found its way into rivers, streams and lakes for millions of years before Maori first hauled their canoes up onto beaches, and will continue to do so long after humanity has ceased to exist. Claiming ownership of the water is about as foolish as claiming ownership of the wind, the air or the stars.

Thank you.

That is not to say Maori do not have a spiritual and emotional connection to particular waterways and lakes. They do, as do many non-Maori. Nor is it to deny that Maori may have ”residual proprietary” interests in particular streams, rivers and lakes arising from guarantees contained in the Treaty of Waitangi. The Waitangi Tribunal has ruled they do and Crown lawyers have effectively conceded the point. The argument is over the extent and nature of those interests.

However, to suggest, as King Tuheitia did, that Maori own the water in the same way that someone can be said to own a television set, washing machine or pair of shoes is nonsensical.

Water cannot be owned; water rights can be, but they are a different thing and come with lesser entitlements. Conflating the two antagonises non-Maori, raises Maori expectations to levels that cannot be satisfied and undermines public support for the settlement of historic grievances.

Exactly. The posturing of the King has damaged his own cause – significantly.

The Dom Post editorial:

Observing the wailing and teeth-gnashing that has accompanied the latest welfare reforms, a visitor could be forgiven for assuming the Government is hellbent on introducing Dickensian-era workhouses to New Zealand.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The new sanctions unveiled by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett are not an attempt to deny assistance to the children of beneficiaries, but to ensure they get it.

Exactly. Making sure they get taxpayer funded user-free ECE, making sure they attend school, making sure they do their free Wellchild checks is hardly bad for the kids.

Every child deserves a decent upbringing and the opportunity to develop to his or her full potential. Simply handing money to bad parents is no guarantee that their children will be fed, clothed or loved.

The wider Kahui clan was reportedly receiving more than $2000 a week in benefits when 3-month-old twins Chris and Cru suffered the injuries that caused their deaths. There is no reason to believe that more money would have made a difference. Similarly, four adult beneficiaries were living in the Rotorua home in which 3-year-old Nia Glassie was mortally injured. Would larger state payouts have prevented her from being stuffed in a tumble dryer, beaten and hung from a clothesline?

The left are convinced that more money is the solution to everything. It isn’t. Labour and Greens are about to vote for a bill to extend the $60 a week in-work tax credit from working parents to parents on benefits, in the belief this will cure child poverty.

Child poverty is defined as being in a household that earns less than 60% or 50% of the median income. So if the median income drops, this will actually be celebrated as bringing kids out of poverty!!!

The problem in both cases was not the level of state support, but values. A small section of society has so lost touch with the notion of right and wrong that it does not even recognise the obligation to take care of its own.

The minister’s reforms are an attempt to fix the problem by using benefit payments to remind those tempted to neglect or abuse their offspring that with rights come obligations. By any standard, the new “social obligations”, which will take effect next July, are measured, moderate and compassionate. Beneficiaries will not be penalised for failing to use services that do not exist in their areas and, before any sanctions are imposed, they will be given three opportunities to comply with the new regime. Furthermore, the minister is promising the speedy restoration of entitlements once failing parents do the right thing.

The best policies tend to use both carrot and stick. The carrot should be that these services are free, and they are good for the child and family. The sick is sadly necessary for some families.

Instead of condemning the new measures, Labour, the Greens, Plunket and beneficiary advocate groups should be applauding Mrs Bennett for having the courage to tackle a problem that decades of well-intentioned but ineffective policy-making have failed to remedy.

What I would find interesting is a clear statement from Labour on whether they will repeal the requirement?

The Dom Post editorial:

If Lower Hutt’s Dowse Art Museum was a private institution, nobody could complain about it showing a work that only women were allowed to see.

However, the gallery is operated by Hutt City Council and paid for by ratepayers. As a publicly funded entity, it cannot justify staging exhibits from which half the public is excluded.

Personally I think it is all a publicity stunt from Dowse to get publicity. I can’t say I worry about not being able to see an exhibition I have no interest in seeing.

But the editorial is right. If you are a public institution, you can’t ban half the population from an exhibition.

The Dom Post editorial:

Labour leader David Shearer tells a good story. Unfortunately, the punchline is missing.

If he can deliver it, voters might start listening to Labour again, but till he does the story serves only to illustrate the paucity of critical thinking within his party.

The story goes like this: during the 2008 election campaign Mr Shearer knocked on a door in his Mt Albert electorate. “See that guy over there,” said the man who came to the door, gesturing to a neighbour’s house. “He’s on a sickness benefit, yet he’s up there painting the roof of his house … Do you guys support him?”

Mr Shearer recounted the encounter at a Grey Power meeting in Auckland this week. The answer to his constituent’s question, he told his audience, was no, Labour was not in favour of people receiving the sickness benefit when they were fit for work. Fairness was a core feature of the social contract. People who needed assistance should get it, but once they were back on their own feet they should pull their weight and contribute to society.

Regrettably, that was the beginning and end of the lesson.

Mr Shearer said the government’s role was to ensure the transition from welfare to work occurred through upskilling, educating and giving a “nudge” to those not honouring their side of the bargain. But he did not say how he proposed to persuade the sickness beneficiary to descend from his roof and seek paid employment.

Given that the last Labour government had nine years to upskill, educate and nudge, the public could be forgiven for assuming that under Mr Shearer Labour has nothing new to offer.

That is the real issue. I’ve got no problems with the story as an example of what shouldn’t be tolerated, and think the Labour activists condemning it are being rather precious.

The real issue is that Shearer said he was against this happening, but his party has opposed policies to prevent it – and offers nothing new.

The Dom Post editorial:

Marriage should be the union between two people. Whether they are both men or both women should be no business of the state. …

There is also no reasonable explanation as to why gay weddings would undermine the sanctity of marriage. Each marriage is an individual union between two people. It stretches credulity to suggest that heterosexual couples will suddenly decide not to tie the knot, or to get divorced, just because gay couples have the right to marry.

Although gay couples can enjoy many of the benefits of marriage through civil unions, the fact remains that denying them the right to marry purely because of their sexuality relegates them to second-class citizens.

The law as it stands belongs to a society that disappeared long ago. It is discriminatory and it is time it was changed.

A good editorial. In 15 years time, people will look back with surprise that this issue was even controversial.

The Dom Post editorial:

For the first time in about 7000 years Egypt has a democratically elected leader. After days of delay, Mohammed Morsi, a 60-year-old United States-trained engineer, was yesterday declared the winner of the country’s first genuine presidential election.

His victory is the fruit of the popular uprising that ousted military strongman Hosni Mubarak in January last year. However, it remains to be seen whether the election changes anything.

Mr Morsi, a technocrat who stood only because the Muslim Brotherhood’s preferred candidate Khairat al-Shater was barred from the contest, has begun by making all the right noises. He has resigned from the Brotherhood and its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, pledged to preserve Egypt’s international accords – a reference to its peace treaty with Israel – and promised to “represent” all Egyptians and appoint non-Muslims to key positions in his new government.

I’m not a fan of the policies of the Muslim Brotherhood, but that is no reason that the Mubarak dictatorship should continue. I suspect part of the reason the brotherhood gets so much support is because they were almost the only force against Mubarak.

It is possible that things may go badly for Egypt, especially if their new Government did try to attack Israel or break the peace treaty. But actually being in Government tends to moderate the rhetoric of opposition.  As you get focused on growing the economy, providing better healthcare etc, reducing crime, you realise these are what really matter to voters. There is of course a risk that if things go badly, they will try and provoke a fight with Israel, in order to bolster domestic support. The Iranian President does this often.

However imperfectly Mr Morsi fits the bill, he is the embodiment of the hopes of the young Egyptians who risked life and limb to bring about the end of the Mubarak regime and the tens of thousands of others who have protested on the streets of Bahrain, Algeria, Yemen, Iran and now Syria.

How he manages the tensions with Egypt’s military, relations with Israel and the West and how he treats women and minorities will be watched not only in Egypt but around the globe.

Egypt has its first democratically elected President. That is what all countries deserve – the ability to elect their own leadership.

The Dom Post editorial:

The Government’s review discussion paper also argues that although the state has a clear role in protecting children and vulnerable adults, its role in resolving what are private parenting squabbles should be reduced. It says, “The court should promote children’s welfare, not parents’ rights”. Neither the Greens nor Labour can fault that, surely? The discussion paper considers, too, whether Domestic Violence Act matters should properly become the preserve of the Domestic Violence Courts, and asks whether opening Family Court hearings to greater public scrutiny might make the courts more transparent and the parties more accountable for what is said in court.

Chief Family Court judge Peter Boshier notes the trivial matters that, under present arrangements, reach the bench time and again. “Answers are sought from judges”, he says, “on everything from choice of school to choice of surnames”. Thus, the new fee regime is the least of Family Court issues that should worry Opposition MPs and family lawyers. If its processes are being abused, the family law community has a responsibility not only to ensure that taxpayers get value for the millions they invest in this branch of law, but also that children, not their parents, are front and centre in the process. A Family Court hearing should surely be a last resort.

I think the emphasis on the Family Court being a last resort for feuding couples is the correct one. Having taxpayers pay for court rulings on which school a kid goes to is bad for us, but also bad for the kid that his or her parents have no incentive to sort such disputes out themselves.

The Dom Post editorial:

The facts, as set out during sentencing by Justice Rodney Hansen, are these: in January, September and October 2007 Iti organised, and the others participated in, a series of camps, or rama, near Ruatoki. During the camps semi-automatic weapons, sawn-off shotguns, and sporting rifles were fired. In addition, Molotov cocktails were made and thrown at one of the camps. When police terminated their surveillance operation, three rifles, two of them semi-automatic, were found under a tarpaulin at Iti’s Ruatoki house, four rifles and a semi-automatic shotgun were found in the boot of Kemara’s car and in a caravan he occupied, and a .22 rifle was found in a backpack at a Wellington campsite occupied by Signer and Bailey.

I think the Police said a total of 18 firearms were found, and none of these people were licenses to have them.

A crime committed in pursuit of laudable objectives is just as much a crime as a crime committed for base motives. Those who have rushed to defend Iti and his fellows should ask themselves how they would react if a group of white supremacists was found to be covertly preparing for guerilla warfare.

A point I also made. We should condemn anyone who mixes politics with guns. Europe bears the scars of such legacies.

The sentences are just. They serve as a warning not just to Iti and his fellows, but to others of all political persuasions that political activity must fall within the bounds of the law.

The rule of law depends upon all being equal before the law.

The deterrent factor is important.

Chris Trotter blogs:

The persons arrested as a result of “Operation Eight” were not held incommunicado, denied access to legal advice and tortured until they confessed. Nor were they tried and executed in secret. On the contrary, they were given a fair trial in an open court and only convicted on a number of firearms charges. Two of the accused were jailed for two-and-a-half years. Their convictions and their sentences are now being appealed.

 So, no. The “real life” Tame Iti is not the same as the fictional hero “Smith” played by Sam Neill. He was not fighting a murderous dictatorship. He was not being hunted down by US “advisers”. Nor were he and his followers being strafed and bombed by RNZAF Skyhawks.

What Mr Iti does appear to have been doing, however, was giving practical effect to the numerous discussions, extending over many decades, in which Maori nationalists and their far-Left Pakeha allies have weighed the pros and cons of organising a revolutionary Maori army.

Yesterday’s Dom Post editorial:

It is a toss-up which is more embarrassing for the Labour Party – former associate immigration minister Shane Jones’ explanation for granting citizenship to a shadowy Chinese millionaire with multiple identities or leader David Shearer’s initial acceptance of that explanation.

Not just an initial acceptance, it seems.

However, Labour’s problems go far deeper than Mr Shearer’s timorous leadership and Mr Jones’ quixotic approach to his ministerial responsibilities.

While Labour’s leader and senior spokespeople um and ah about what they would do differently from the Government, its putative ally, the Green Party, is eating its lunch.

Having shed itself of the nutty Sue Bradford, now helping the Mana Party plumb public opinion poll depths, its 14 MPs are bringing a previously unseen focus to environmental issues.

There will be many who shudder at the prospect of the introduction of a carbon tax, and the other tax changes proposed by Green Party co-leader Russel Norman in a pre-Budget article in last week’s Dominion Post. The party’s philosophical objections to major roading projects and its feel-good plans for state-owned power companies are equally alarming.

However, there is no disputing that the Greens know their stuff and are arguing from a position of principle. The contrast with Labour could not be starker. It is apparent every day – in Parliament during question time, and on the airwaves.

The Greens are sharper and more intellectually rigorous. Labour’s MPs give the impression they are waiting to be told by their researchers what the public thinks about an issue before taking a position. The Greens, on the other hand, are setting out to change public opinion.

It is interesting to have the Dominion Post saying this. I made much the same comments in my NZ Herald column a couple of months ago, and concluded that if you are a genuine left-wing voter then it is hard to see why you would vote Labour rather than the Greens.

But while the Greens continue to expose the inadequacies of their Labour opposites, there is little prospect of Labour reasserting itself.

Labour needs to deal with its historical baggage and sort out what it stands for quickly. Otherwise it might as well forget about the 2014 election and start planning for 2017.

The Labour Governments of Helen Clark managed to form Governments on winning around 40% of the vote. Labour’s ambition nowadays seems to be to get 30%, and hope that Greens, Mana and NZ First can get enough votes to propel them into office.

Today’s Dom Post editorial:

Whatever the outcome of the citizenship-fraud trial taking place in Auckland, former associate immigration minister Shane Jones has some explaining to do. …

According to evidence presented to the High Court in Auckland last week, Mr Jones was told in 2008 that Yan was the subject of Interpol Red Notices based on arrest warrants issued in China and that the Internal Affairs Department did not know who he was because he had two passports, two names and two birth dates. Yet Mr Jones approved his application one day after receiving his file.

Mr Jones, now an Opposition front-bencher, has refused to comment on the matter while “it’s in front of the court”, other than to say he had “most certainly not” gone to China.

It is worth noting the outcome of the court case has little bearing on whether Jones acted properly. The court case is about whether Liu lied on his immigration forms. But the focus is on Jones is about why he approved the citizenship when the officials told him this guy has multiple identities, multiple passports, multiple dates of birth and an Interpol arrest warrant.

However, his leader, David Shearer, said yesterday he would not stand the list MP down after receiving assurances from Mr Jones, speaking to other MPs with knowledge of the case and reviewing information retained by Mr Jones. The Labour leader is attaching his reputation to that of Mr Jones in the same way that his predecessor fatefully attached his reputation to that of former Labour whip Darren Hughes when he chose not to stand him down while police investigated a complaint against him.

To be fair to Shearer, the allegations were known about before the 2008 election. It was Helen Clark who should have done a stand down. I’m not sure a stand down is needed. What has been needed for the last three and a half years is a clear plausible explanation for why Jones granted citizenship, apart from he did it to keep his good mate Dover Samuels happy. And if Jones can not give a convincing reason (and by convincing I mean being able to point to some proof that Liu was not dodgy – rather than merely taking Liu’s word for it) for giving citizenship to such a dodgy character, than Shearer should rule Jones out of any future Ministerial role.

It is a risky strategy that leaves Mr Shearer open to charges of hypocrisy given that he has called for ACT MP John Banks to be stood down from his ministerial duties while allegations about his 2010 Auckland mayoral campaign are investigated.

Mr Shearer says Mr Jones followed due process. That sounds impressive, but simply means Mr Jones considered the material associated with the case before exercising his authority as minister.

It does not explain why the then minister ignored the concerns of officials who met twice with him about the application.

I’m glad the Dom Post has seen through the spin about process. And yes it is hypocrisy.

The case must now be allowed to run its course. But, once it is completed, there is clearly a need for a full inquiry reviewing Mr Jones’ actions, the material put before him by officials and the involvement of other members of Parliament. Yan’s application for citizenship was supported by letters from National’s Pansy Wong and Labour’s Dover Samuels and Chris Carter.

New Zealanders rightly take pride in this country’s reputation for propriety. Anything that threatens that reputation should be treated with the utmost seriousness.

We definitely need a full inquiry into this. The problem is that if the National Government establishes an inquiry into the actions of a Labour Minister, it looks hopelessly partisan no matter how credible a person is appointed.

But if David Shearer was to come out and agree to an independent inquiry, and agree on the terms of reference with the Prime Minister – then that would be a great sign of bipartisanship – and would allow the true facts to be established.

The whole case is very murky. The person who helped Liu apply for citizenship was a fundraiser for the Labour Party. His brother worked for Shane Jones. Liu had donated to at least three MPs (two Labour, one National) and may held fundraisers at his restaurant which may have raised tens of thousands of dollars. And not only was the citizenship granted despite the official advice, a Labour MP arranged a special citizenship ceremony in the Maori Affairs Select Committee Room at Parliament just a few days later.

The perception is that Shane Jones sold citizenship. Now maybe he did not. Maybe the fact that he was a donor to Labour MPs was not a factor. Maybe the fact that his very good friend Dover Samuels lobbied him intensely did not impact his decision to grant citizenship to Dover’s friend and donor. But Jones argument that he made his decision on humanitarian grounds is pitifully weak. That might be a reason to grant permanent residency, but not citizenship. One can live in NZ all your life as a permanent resident, without being a citizen.

Also note that there has not been a shred of proof that Liu was associated with the Falun Gong. What there is proof of is an arrest warrant for fraud charges.

UPDATE: John Armstrong’s column is “A nasty smell that needs cleaning“. He concludes:

That Shearer is understood to still be keeping his options open in terms of calling in some independent body like the Auditor-General to conduct an inquiry into the approval of Yan’s citizenship suggests the Labour leader realises he is not on terribly strong ground in not standing Jones down, if only temporarily.

There should be an independent inquiry. The inquiry needs to interview all the people involved – the officials, the MPs who advocated, Shane Te Pou and his brother Daniel who worked for Jones. David Cunliffe also as Minister of Immigration who also didn’t act on official advice. The inquiry should also ask the Chinese authorities to document the nature of the fraud allegations that Liu was charged with.

Armstrong’s column is a good read, but I would note that he has missed what I think is a critical point in comparing the Banks case to the Jones case. Banks when advocating for Dotcom was a private citizen and not in power. Samuels was a Government MP and Jones was the actual decision maker. And Banks advocacy was turned down, despite the officials making no recommendation. While Samuels advocacy on behalf of his donor was successful, despite the officials strongly advising against.

Two editorials on the increase from $3 to $5. First the Dom Post:

With the Government promising a “zero budget”  next week the choice for him was simple: ask people to  pay slightly more for prescription medicines or tell patients needing cancer treatment and elective surgery to wait longer. He has chosen to ask families to pay up to $40 more a year for medicine. Few, apart from those who like to pretend the Government has a limitless supply of money, will disagree with that choice.

The increase, which takes effect next January, will push the price of a single item up from $3 to $5. For a family the maximum payable in a single year will increase from $60 to $100.

That is 11c a day per family maximum.

Prescriptions for children under the age of six will remain  free and families that cannot afford to pay the increase will be able to obtain assistance from Work and Income NZ and primary health organisations.

The reality is this is a very minor changes, that reduces the drugs bill to the taxpayer by just 4%.

In Australia the average fee is A$35.40 (NZ$45), although  those on low incomes pay a lesser fee. In England the average charge is NZ$16 and in Finland, Labour’s utopia,  Mr Ryall says individuals have to fork out  $1107 each before the cost of prescription medicines is limited to about NZ$2.50.

So we have a cap 10% that of Finland.

The NZ Herald:

Much angst has greeted the Government’s announcement that prescription charges are to increase from $3 to $5 next year to fund reinvestment in the health sector. Opposition parties have warned that lower-income groups, the elderly and the chronically ill will be hit hard. The Mana Party leader, Hone Harawira, has gone so far as to claim it “will lead to children dying”. Such concern is vastly overstated. This is, after all, the first increase in prescription costs in 20 years, and could be justified merely on the basis of inflation.

Vastly overstated? More like insanely hysterical. And the charge was originally $15, reduced to $3 in 2004, so at $5 is still just one third what it once was.

For many people, the rise in cost will be easily manageable. They need prescriptions relatively rarely, and their families’ requirements will get nowhere near the 20 items of medicine a year, after which prescriptions for the rest of that year are free. Such people would not have been unduly perturbed if the increase had been more than $2. Indeed, it would have made more sense for the Government to charge a larger sum for each prescription but to lower the trigger point for free prescriptions.

Not a bad idea.

At its worst, the increased prescription charge will cost a family an extra $40 a year. That sum hardly tallies with the dire consequences predicted by some Opposition politicians. Even so, the move is predicated on the universality that so marred the previous Government’s early childhood and welfare payments. A more astute targeted approach would have served those with substantial medication requirements better and left little room for criticism. Unfortunately, the Government has missed that opportunity.

Subsidies should generally be targeted at those in need, not made universal as this is economically inefficient.

Paula Bennett has proposed that taxpayer fully subsidise contraception to beneficiaries, on an entirely voluntary basis.  A policy which also happens to have widespread support. One can debate the pros and cons of it in terms of effectiveness, but it is a quite middle of the road proposal.

This of course is compared to Josef Mengele who was Chief Medical Officer at the Birkenau and later Auschwitz extermination camps. Mengele once ordered the gassing of 750 women because their block was infected with lice. Mengele also injected chemicals into children’s eyes to try and change their eye colour, amputated limbs for no medical reason, sterilized girls against their will, killed twins so he could dissect them, had two twins sewn together to try and conjoin them.

Cartoonists enjoy a wide latitude by their editors. This is how it should be. But there is a point at which an editor should say a cartoon is so offensive they do not wish to publish it.

The Dominion Post has made a grievous judgment of error in publishing that cartoon, and at a minimum owe an apology to Paula Bennett. There is no room in our political discourse for comparing MPs to Nazis, especially Josef Mengele.

The Dom Post editorial:

One what would happen should a State Services Commission employee approach chief executive Iain Rennie, place his or her hands on his head, and inquire what is going on in there.

Till a few days ago conjecture would have been irrelevant. The employee would have been stood down while an inquiry was conducted, then, once the facts were confirmed, dismissed for unacceptable behaviour. The whole process would have taken a matter of days. Some things are simply unacceptable in the workplace. One of them is employees manhandling their bosses; another is bosses manhandling employees.

I’m not sure this is the case. Certainly such behaviour is unacceptable. But one can not sack without warning someone for doing something unacceptable unless it meets a threshold. I suspect an employment tribunal would find in favour of an employee sacked for the above, if it was a one off, and they were otherwise a good employee.

Hence I am not one of those saying Katrina Bach should have been sacked. She should have been disciplined, warned and (unlike most employees) is suffering a financial penalty for her misconduct.

Again I am not defending her conduct. I’m just saying that the law applies equally to all employees.

The Dom Post editorial:

No application by a foreign investor looking to buy New Zealand land has attracted more attention than Chinese company Shanghai Pengxin’s bid for the Crafar farms.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that opposition to the deal, approved yesterday, is mostly driven by the nationality of the purchaser.

Of course it is. Not all of it, but much of it.

When Canadian film director James Cameron purchased more than 1000ha of Wairarapa land, including a 250ha dairy farm, the news was generally welcomed, even though the residency requirements he must meet mean he has to live in New Zealand for only 44 days in each of the final two years of a three-year investment period. The sale of the Crafar farms, on the other hand, has met howls of protest, despite Shanghai Pengxin having to satisfy 27 stringent requirements.

These include establishing a farm school on one of the properties, to be run by state-owned enterprise Landcorp, which will also manage the farms, and providing $5000 university scholarships to two students. It must also provide public walking access across two of the farms, protect Maori archaeological sites and undertake significant conservation requirements.

The company has also, apparently on its own initiative, undertaken to spend at least $100 million over five years promoting New Zealand dairy products in China and elsewhere in Asia, a key developing market. The increased trade that could flow from that will benefit all New Zealand dairy farmers and, with it, the wider economy.

As I have said for some time, I see this sale as having huge opportunities for New Zealand.

The Dom Post editorial:

Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples needs to decide whose side he is on. Is it vulnerable children, many of them Maori, or is it the providers of social services, who have failed them?

His advocacy on behalf of five Maori organisations that have had lucrative Family Start contracts terminated by the Social Development Ministry suggests it is the latter.

The five – Te Roopu Awhina Family Start in Porirua, Turuki Health Care in Mangere, Papakura Marae, the Waipareira Trust and Te Ha o Te Whanau Trust in Opotiki – have been told they will not be funded to provide intensive home-based support to vulnerable families after June 30.

According to Dr Sharples the providers are the victims of “funding cuts” that will reduce the likelihood of positive change in communities with high and complex needs.

The claim does not withstand scrutiny. The providers have not had their contracts terminated because of a funding cut but because, in the words of the ministry’s head of Family and Community Services, Murray Edridge, they provided “inconsistent and, in some cases, unsafe social work practice to families”.

Good intentions are not enough. I’m mildly surprised to see the Waipareira Trust as one of those defunded as for many years it was held up as a model for integrated services.

Terminating the contracts of the five providers will not reduce the likelihood of positive change. It will increase it if the funding is picked up by any of the other 27 Family Start providers, who are delivering useful assistance to the 15 per cent of the population at greatest risk.

Yep.

Dr Sharples has also accused the ministry of failing to communicate properly with the affected organisations. “For Maori organisations, it’s about kanohi ki te kanohi (talking face to face),” he told National Radio yesterday. That claim also appears to be of questionable merit. According to Mr Edridge and Social Development Minister Paula Bennett, the ministry has bent over backwards to try to help the affected providers to come up to standard. Ms Bennett told Parliament yesterday that the Waipareira Trust alone had received 14 visits from the ministry since July last year. Mr Edridge says the failed providers could not have been in any doubt about the ministry’s concerns. All had received regular feedback that they were not meeting the standards required.

If anything, maybe the fair criticism isn’t the decision to defund, but that it has taken so long!

Rather than berating the ministry for being too tough on Maori organisations, he should be thanking it for looking out for those his party has pledged to represent – the most vulnerable members of society.

By doing so the ministry has acted not only to protect children but the reputation of the Whanau Ora scheme established at the behest of the Maori Party to promote Maori solutions to Maori problems.

Nothing will undermine public support for the scheme faster than evidence that money is being wasted or that ministers are turning a blind eye to non-performance.

Exactly. There will be providers from time to time who do not meet the standard required or are wasteful. The Government’s job is to act on those issues, not ignore them.

The Dom Post editorial:

Local authorities have only themselves to blame for the Government forcing them to live within their means.

During almost a decade in which rates rose at more than twice the level of inflation and the debt owed by New Zealand’s 78 local bodies grew fourfold, councils have shown a disturbing lack of appreciation of the circumstances faced by their communities.

Ratepayers are not a bottomless pit.

It will give control of council staff numbers and salaries to councillors, rather than chief executives, and require annual reports to include the number of staff in $10,000 salary bands, as state agencies do now.

That move follows the huge increase in council wage bills after changes to the Local Government Act in 2002, which widened the scope of local authorities.

When the changes were implemented, the total salary bill for all councils was $884 million. By 2010, it had grown to more than $1.6 billion, an increase of more than 80 per cent. In the eight years before the changes, the salary bill increased by a total of just 8.7 per cent.

That’s even faster growth than in the civil service. Labour certainly created jobs – but jobs funded by taxes and rates, rather than paying taxes and rates (in a net sense).

The Dom Post editorial:

Does Wellington City Council think the capital’s residents are stupid?

Once again, the council is proposing increases to parking fees, and once again it is trying to pull the wool over motorists’ eyes by claiming the higher charges are aimed at increasing turnover at parking spaces, not raising revenue.

The claim is simply preposterous. There are already sufficient controls to govern turnover at parking spaces in the city, and in suburban areas as well, in the form of time restrictions. In some cases, limits for free parking can be as little as 10 minutes, while in the city centre, metered parking spaces are restricted to two hours. 

The Council seems to have an infestation of tax (rate/levy/fee) and spend politicians. I think we need a ticket for the next election of candidates who pledge not to increase spending in real terms. Wellington families and businesses can’t afford to fund a Council whose spending keeps increasing faster than not just inflation, but overall economic growth also.

The Dom Post editorial:

Those pioneers of the welfare state would never have envisaged the benefit system New Zealand has today.

They would have been appalled by the thought of thousands of perfectly healthy adults spending more than a decade on the dole and thousands more 16- and 17-year-olds being paid to sit around and do nothing.

To them, figures showing one out of every seven people of working age is on a benefit, with 220,000 children living in welfare-dependent homes, would not have been a sign of the success of the system they championed, but of its abject failure.

National’s welfare reforms, due from the middle of this year, aim to address this sorry state of affairs by placing new requirements on all beneficiaries who are fit to work. The requirement on them to make honest efforts to find work is a welcome move to restore the balance in the social contract that underpins the welfare state. 

Yet sadly Labour are opposing the reforms.

Critics who have branded the reforms “nasty” or claimed they spell the end of the welfare state as we know it have either not studied the detail or are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. The reality is that the Government is not threatening to cut or stop payments for beneficiaries who fail to get work, but simply requiring them to make honest attempts to look for jobs and accept reasonable offers that come their way.

Exactly.

The Dom Post editorial:

“Turkeys,” Richard Prebble once observed, “don’t vote for an early Christmas.” The former Labour Cabinet minister and ACT leader was commenting on the improbability of politicians voting to reduce the size of Parliament, but his words hold just as true for local body politicians contemplating a potential shakeup of local government.

Why would the plethora of mayors and councillors in the Wellington region act to do themselves out of jobs? The answer is they won’t.

Just as many Mayors in Auckland were against the Auckland reforms.

If the region is to follow Auckland’s example and amalgamate its nine councils into a single body, it will be in spite of local government politicians not because of them. With a handful of notable exceptions, Greater Wellington regional council chairwoman Fran Wilde prominent among them, the region’s local body politicians have determinedly stonewalled all attempts to initiate change.

The issue goes beyond Wellington also. I am gravitating to the view that two levels of local government is too much for a country our size.  I think unitary authorities are the way of the future, so you don’t have millions wasted in lawsuits, liaison and consultations between regional councils and territorial authorities.

Whether the region would be better served by a single council covering the whole region, or whether it would be better served by two or three unitary councils, is an open question. So is the balance of responsibilities between regionally elected councillors and local community representatives. However, the need for reform is not.

The debate should be about the nature of reform. The status quo is simply ridiculous.

The Dom Post editorial today:

When David Shearer became Labour leader at the end of last year, he touted himself as a fresh face for the party and promised a “fresh vision for New Zealand”. So far, his face has barely been seen by most of the voting public and his vision, if there is one, remains hidden from view. …

By contrast, Mr Shearer has yet to tell voters in any great detail how, if at all, a David Shearer-led Labour Party is different to the one under Mr Goff. His stated vision of a “clean, green and clever New Zealand” is so platitudinous as to be almost meaningless. It would have some resonance if Mr Key was advocating a dirty, polluted, dumb New Zealand, but he is not, and nor is anyone else.

Mr Shearer needs more than a slogan to make a real impact in what is after all a contest of ideas. Where does he stand, for example, on Labour’s promise to extend the in-work tax credit to beneficiaries, a reckless policy that undermined the party’s claims to fiscal responsibility and which alienated many of the workers it claims to represent? Or the plans to remove GST on fresh fruit and vegetables, introduce a capital gains tax and raise the age of retirement?

I think Shearer has done the right thing by not rushing things. The election is two years and nine months away. However he does need to start laying some pegs into the ground. My suggestion would be that in the next six weeks he does a major speech where he outlines the values that will drive his policies, and announces a couple of Goff era policies he is dropping, and maybe one new policy of his own.