Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

State Services Minister Tony Ryall yesterday gave an update on the Government’s “cap of core government administration”.

The number of full-time jobs in core administrative roles fell by 1480 or 3.8 per cent last year to 37,379.

At the same time, said Mr Ryall, 540 full-time equivalent jobs had been added in “key frontline agencies outside the cap”, including Child, Youth and Family, Work and Income, and Community Probation.

“National campaigned to cap the size of the core bureaucracy and we’ve done that. This allows us to free up resources for improving frontline services,” Mr Ryall said.

After a 50% increase in the size of the public service under Labour, this is a great achievement.

It is so popular than even Phil Goff was trying to have it both ways. On TV last night he was claiming that Labour would also have capped public sector numbers – just not reduced them. Yeah, Right.

“We would have looked at the quality and the need for the staff, it would have been more about capping and not cutting,” says Labour leader Phil Goff.

I wonder what Grant Robertson thought of his leader’s endorsement of National’s policy of capping the number of staff. Maybe Grant could clarify what Labour’s policy now is? I am sure the PSA have been on the phone to him.

At the last election National campaigned on capping core public service jobs, a policy PSA national secretary Brenda Pilott said was “a farce”.

So is Brenda saying Phil Goff is supporting a farce?

“The Government has been cutting, not capping, jobs at a time when unemployment rose to a 10-year high.”

And the Government is borrowing $240 million a week. Private sector jobs create income for the Government, while public sector ones soak up that money. The fewer jobs we have in the private sector, the fewer we can afford in the public sector. This is why economic growth is rather important.

NZPA report:

Prime Minister John Key says New Zealand has more government agencies than a country its size needs and has signalled there could be several mergers to reduce their number.

The state sector consists of 41 departments and ministries, 84 statutory Crown entities, 11 Crown entity companies, 17 state-owned enterprises, 31 tertiary education institutions and numerous ‘’schedule four entities” like the Lottery Grants Board.

I don’t really count the 31 tertiary education institutions in the core state sector, but even excluding them that is 153 state entities, plus the Schedule 4 entities.

If Labour really thinks three small mergers is a radical restructuring, they need to get real.

Labour actually started the mergers off – they combined Courts and Justice back together. Does Grant Robertson think this was a radical restructuring?

What a shame to see Labour oppose something that they actually got right in the last Government.

Emily Watt and Colin Espiner report:

The Government is planning a shake-up of state services, with mergers expected in Internal Affairs, MAF and the science sector.

It is not clear how many jobs will be lost, but “back office” functions such as human resources, IT, payroll and communications are likely to be cut back to avoid duplication.

The Dominion Post has been told there will be three mergers, which are to be announced on Wednesday and will see departments, ministries and agencies folded into each other.

Sources say space has been booked at the National Library to announce the formation of what they are calling a Ministry of Information, which would roll National Library and National Archives into the Internal Affairs Department. It is understood Land Information New Zealand and Statistics had also been considered in that merger.

Oh I would so love to be Minister of Information. That would just be the best title, next to Minister of Propaganda. Imagine the first class treatment you would get in all the despotic regimes around the world, when your business card declares you are the New Zealand Minister of Information.

The Agriculture and Forestry Ministry is also due for a shake-up with the Food Safety Authority, with an annual budget of $99.6m, expected to be brought back under its roof.

The science sector will also come under the scalpel, with the Foundation of Research, Science & Technology and Research, Science & Technology Ministry being merged.

I’m delighted to see even this minor reform as it heads in the right direction. We do not need 200+ state sector CEOs, and 200+ IT systems, 200+ HR systems etc. In my ideal would you would have all agencies grouped within a dozen super-ministries.

Mr Robertson said it appeared Mr Key had broken his pre-election promise not to radically reorganise the public service.

Oh Grant. This is not radical. Three small mergers is a welcome but cautious step. It is such a shame to see Labour oppose every measure to reduce bureaucratic duplication and costs in the state sector. Their sole state sector policy seems to be to borrow and spend more money.

Labour should welcome these changes, as they continue a trend started under Labour to bring smaller agencies together. National went the other way in the 1990s and in hindsight got it wrong. Again it is a pity to see Labour oppose something they should support.

The Public Service Association has not been briefed on the plans, but said it was supportive of the Government “sticking things back together” after several decades of splitting departments up.

Indeed. On this one, I agree with the PSA.

The Herald reports:

A directive from the Ministry of Education telling an Opposition MP that information requests needed to be answered by the minister was a communications blunder, the ministry says.

Labour Party state services spokesman Grant Robertson said he would write to the State Services Commission and ask it to investigate after MP Ruth Dyson made an inquiry to the ministry regarding policy about funding for disabled students.

She said she was trying to support the parents of a student whose support funding had been cut and was told that operational issues raised at a local level by government MPs could be dealt with locally, but requests for information from non-government MPs needed to go to the relevant minister formally for a response. …

The ministry said yesterday the directive given to Ms Dyson appeared to be the result of a staff member misunderstanding the rules.

Senior ministry manager Jim Matheson said the error was “regrettable”.

“The ministry will take steps to ensure such an error will not be repeated.”

It is 99% likely to just be a stuff up, but it is an important principle that MPs dealing with constituents issues are treated equally.

I think it would be useful to have the SSC to investigate – not so much to find any improper behaviour, but to send out a signal to other agencies how important it is not to make mistakes like this.

Grant Robertson blogs:

The end of the State Services Commission?

That might not be a title that sets the heart racing for all but the policy wonks. But actually it is important for the health of all the public services that we rely on everyday that there is someone to balance the power of the Treasury in the direction of the public sector.

Sigh. I think there are good reasons for and against having the SSC< but really the old bogeyman of anti-Treasury is so 1990s. You don’t spend $35 million a year on a department, just to “balance the power of Treasury”. That’s simplistic and puerile.

First of all the so called power of Treasury is a myth. Cullen ignored most of what Treasury said for nine years. The current Government goes against Treasury advice pretty regularly also.

And right now the SSC is not doing it.  What’s more if we believe the talk, it might not be around much longer in any case. The rumour mill in Wellington is rife that SSC might be merged into the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

I think it is a legitimate question. We have three central co-ordinating agencies – Treasury, SSC and DPMC. For a small country, that may be overkill.

And as Grant himself acknowledges, SSC is not highly effective. The Commissioner is well regarded, but SSC as an institution is not thought of very well by many in the public sector. Some years ago it was seen as adding a lot of value, but in recent years I hear more and more complaints about it.

The place of the SSC in our public service has changed a lot. Until the state sector reforms of the 80s it played a very hands on role in terms of everything from setting pay to deciding how and when you could order stationery. There is widespread agreement that no one wants to go back there. But even post the 1980s the SSC had a position as the development and quality manager for the public service.  Now it seems all it does is employ the Chief Executives of other departments.

Umm Grant, under which Government did this all happen? It is a trend that started under Labour. And to some degree, it is because SSC got over extended and was trying to do too much. So they are focusing on doign fewer things well.

SSC has already had the responsibility for E-Government work taken away and given to the Department of Internal Affairs.

And when was this decision made? In 2007. And why was it made? Well the SSC record was somewhat patchy – think the huge loss making Government Shared Network.

SSC being absorbed into the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet would be a bad move from my perspective as it would decrease its independence from the Executive of the day. But given its diminished role it is little wonder that this kind of speculation is about.

Oh Grant. You have worked in the public service. So you know better than talking about the SSC being independent from the Executive of the day. The SSC has the same status as DPMC, and is not independent from the Executive – they are part of it.

I don’t know what point Grant is trying to make. Is he saying that Labour was wrong to diminish the role of the SSC? Or is he saying it should be retained, even though it no longer provides much of a role other than employing CEOs?

Why not propose your own preferred state sector structure, rather than just complain about the power of Treasury? Do we have too many, too few or the right number of agencies for example?

There is a need for change and adaptation in the public sector, and SSC should be  big part of that.  I have given some of my thoughts on how this could happen before. We need the Treasury to be carefully analysing all the spending done by the government, that is their job.  But we have seen before the impact when they are too dominant.  In the case of the public service there needs to be someone looking at the health of the overall system in terms of the quality of services New Zealanders receive, not just from a fiscal perspective.   This should, and could, be the SSC in my view.  But right about now they are on the margins, and in the end it is the public services that all New Zealanders use that will suffer as a result.

but Grant doesn’t say why this so called essential role, can’t be done by DPMC (who are highly regarded and respected by those who deal with them)? They are not the Prime Minister’s Office – they are a Department of State.

Anyway I will float an idea of my own, that who knows Grant may even agree with, in terms of “balancing the power” of Treasury. It is to have a Ministry of Social Policy that is so highly regarded, that the top social policy people in New Zealand want to work there, and just as Treasury comments on basically every Cabinet paper from an economic perspective, an MSP would comment on every paper from a social policy perspective.

Not so much a rival to Treasury, as a peer organisation.

This MSP, should replace the multitude of existing small agencies – specifically Pacific Island Affairs, TPK (their policy arm), MSD policy arm, Ministry of Youth Affairs, Ethnic Affairs Unit,  Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Disability Issues Unit etc etc.

I know some people like the identity of having separate ministries such as Women’s Affairs, but with no offence to the staff, they hold almost no weight with Government. The objections of MWA to a policy probably cause a Minister to pause for five seconds at most as they read that section of a Cabinet paper – and no I am not just talking about National. The small ministries and units are not well regarded.

But if you had an MSP, that attracted the very top social policy analysts in NZ, that was the place where almost all social policy graduates want to work at for at least a few years (as Treasury and MFAT is for many people), then that would carry weight with Government. The “gender equity” team of an MSP, would have far more influence withing Government that the MWA has. Because when their analysis goes out, it goes out with the authority and credibility of the entire MSP and its Chief Executive.

So my model for the public service would be:

1. Merge existing small social policy ministries and units into one top class Ministry of Social Policy, that is resourced to be able to contribute to Cabinet papers to the same degree Treasury is. Treasury’s job will be to report on the economic effects of a polcy, and MSP on the social policy effects.
2. Merge SSC into DPMC.
3. Admit National was wrong in breaking up large Departments like Justice into stand alone agencies (Courts, Corrections, Justice etc) in the 90s and continue the trend started by Labour to merge agencies in a sector together with an eventual goal of a larger number of super-ministries such as the existing MED, DIA, and a smaller number of stand alone agencies. Eventually one might have a dozen super ministries – economic, law& order, health, education, business, social policy, service delivery etc. This should reduce backend costs, but also lead to better leadership and co-ordination.
4. Reduce the number of Ministers in Cabinet so there is one per super ministry.
5. Increase the number of Ministers outside Cabinet who may have delegated responsibility for units or branches within super-ministries, but be accountable to the Minister within Cabinet for them. This is a bit like the UK system where you have two tiers of Ministers – a small Cabinet with Secretaries of State, and a larger external Ministry with Ministers of State.

I’m not wedded to the exact model above, but I would love to see a party or Government give it a serious examination, look at pros and cons, costs and savings etc.

First the hypocrisy exposed by Keeping Stock:

Mr Rennie said the pay rises flowed through from a decision in 2005 to increase the overall funding for chief executives by 5 per cent a year for five years. …

Yes that is right. Labour signed off on a formal policy to increase CEO salaries by 5% a year for five years. A policy cancelled by National in 2009.

Then we have both the hypocrisy and a lie, from Grant Robertson.

I actually find it hilarious that Grant, the self appointed defender of the public service is promoting Goff’s idiocy.  Grant has oppossed every cost savings National has made in the public service, demanding more public servants and higher wages, and then suddenly he is for a pay cap!

But the lie is this:

A raw nerve has been struck very quickly with David Farrar over the commitment in Phil Goff’s speech to cap Public Sector Chief Executive pay at the level of the Prime Minister. He describes the policy as “idiocy”.

I wonder how DPF’s friends in the UK Conservative Party would feel about him calling David Cameron an idiot. Because, as Phil Goff said in the speech today, this is something that the UK Tories are also talking about.

Grant is wrong. Maybe he did not read his own link and just trusted that Phil Goff was correct, He’s a smart guy so won’t make that mistake again.

What does the article say David Cameron wants to do:

• speculation that public sector salaries may be frozen if the Conservatives are elected – something Labour and the PSA no doubt would condemn
• named several public-sector employees who he indicated are overpaid – and I could name some here also.
• said a Conservative Government will “out” quangocrats and mandarins who have been “getting rich at the taxpayer’s expense” by publishing details of all public sector salaries over £150,000 – well we already publish salaries over $100,000
• Mr Cameron said that means-tested tax credits for people earning over £50,000 would be scrapped to save taxpayers’ money – scrapping their equivalent of WFF – again not sure Grant is endorsing this.
• seek to reintroduce Gordon Brown’s “golden rule” – to keep Government borrowing below 40 percent of national economic output – wish Labour would tell us their debt target – seems to be the higher the better
• The Conservative leader also indicated that the Conservatives may freeze public spending in future – wow a spending freeze

Nowhere at all does David Cameron talk about having a policy that no public servant can be paid more than the Prime Minister who gets 197,000 pounds.

His Shadow Chancellor did in one speech suggest that the Chancellor’s permission be necessary for any pay above the PM. His exact words were:

In the current climate, anyone who wishes to pay a public servant more than the Prime Minister will have to put it before the Chancellor.

There is a huge difference between needing to make a case, and a blanket ban which Goff announced, as the House of Commons itself resolved.

Osborne also incidentally proposed a 5% pay cut for Ministers, cutting the number of MPs by 10% and closing off the parliamentary pension scheme and most of all cutting the cost of Whitehall by one third!

Now the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee happens to have just published a report on top pay in the public sector. Let us see what they think of Phil Goff’s idea:

Public servants who earn more than the Prime Minister are very well paid indeed. Reward at this level deserves a clear and public justification, and close and sceptical scrutiny. But any proposal to use the Prime Minister’s salary as an absolute cap on public sector pay would be little more than a political stunt.

Little more than a political stunt. That’s NZ Labour.

Labour MP Grant Robertson blogs:

I probably disagree with John Minto about as much as I agree with him in terms of the various statements he makes.  I know that he irritates some New Zealanders, but he is someone who stands up staunchly for what he believes, and has played a real part in raising issues that  are important to New Zealand and New Zealanders.

If  it is true as reported on Stuff that the police are seeking an order to destroy the megaphone he used as part of his protest at the tennis in Auckland last week, then this is shocking.  We have to defend the right to protest in this country.  I have been on both sides of the fence when it comes to protests and they are a critical part of a functioning democracy.

Now I agree with Grant the Police should not be seeking an order to destory the megaphone. If Minto broke the law, then he will have his day in court, but destroying megaphones is a bad act symbolically.

Labour’s love of megaphones though seems only to extend to when they are in Opposition. What did they do when they were Government. This is what Labour, NZ First and the Greens voted for in reporting back the from select committee the Electoral Finance Bill:

Other types of broadcasting, such as the use of loudspeakers and megaphones, would be captured by the new provision in paragraph (i).

Paragraph (i) was expanding the definition of publish to include:

(i) bring to the notice of the public in any other manner

So Labour, the Greens and NZ First wanted to make it illegal to use megaphones to advocate against a party or candidate, unless one spoke your name and home address out loud to authorise the message.

So while supporting Grant on John Minto’s megaphone, I do wonder where was Grant’s voice when his own party was trying to regulate megaphone use in election year?

Incidentally the outcry from myself and some others over this odious clause, saw the then Government backdown on it just a few days later.

This has the potential to get interesting. Firstly Goff does a further u-turn on the foreshore and seabed:

Opposition leader Phil Goff has indicated Labour is backing away from its stance of allowing customary title of the foreshore and seabed to be awarded to iwi that meet the criteria involved.

Labour’s submission to the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act earlier this year recommended the legislation be amended to allow customary title, rather than simple redress and protection of customary rights. …

Asked to clarify whether that meant its position on customary title had changed, Mr Goff told the Herald he remained open to considering it but would first have to be convinced it was necessary.

So Phil Goff is advocating a position different to Labour’s own submission on the law. As expected, this is causing some tensions within Labour, according to Vernon Small:

Labour leader Phil Goff will be asked to explain his controversial “nationhood” speech at next week’s party caucus meeting.

Discontent, especially on the Left of the party, has centred around Mr Goff’s comments on the foreshore and seabed policy.

A Leader who has to “explain” a speech to Caucus has some problems.

Labour sources said Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson questioned the speech at last week’s caucus meeting. He was again expected to be prominent among those expressing concerns at next Tuesday’s caucus meeting.

It is significant that Grant is leading the charge, for several reasons.

The first is that Grant will just be doing his job as a local MP. Wellington Central is a very liberal seat, and Labour activists there are very liberal. I have no doubt Grant will have been bombarded by supporters asking what the fuck is going on.

The second is that Grant is often (correctly) described as a future Labour Party Leader. Despite being first term, he is a heavyweight in caucus. Having Grant criticise a speech by the Leader, is not the same as having George Hawkins criticise it.

The third is that Grant is clearly from the leftish faction in Caucus. Now under Helen Clark factional warfare almost ended, and the factions were informal and flexible. But Goff’s speech and the reaction to it, may be the start of the factions becoming a bit more significant.

Sources said the party’s ruling council had already asked Mr Goff to explain the speech on Saturday .

“There will be questions at caucus on Tuesday,” one senior MP said.

The party’s council is almost exclusively from the liberal left side, so this is no surprise.

But another discounted a move against Mr Goff’s leadership, saying the concern should not be read as a sign of “deep divisions” in the party.

Oh absolutely it is premature to start talking of moves against the leadership. Such a possibility would not be considered until late 2010 at the earliest, and even then only if the polls remain dire after the 2010 budget.

Some Left-wing bloggers such as No Right Turn and Labour MP Grant Robertson are crying foul over the government’s use of urgency and getting stuck into Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee.

Now Labour are being rather hypocritical here, and I will explain the different sorts of urgency. In essence there are four version of urgency. They are

1. Extraordinary urgency. This is incredibly rare and can only happen if the Speaker consents to it. It tends to be used for tax bills only, and means the House sits without pause (except meal breaks) until the bills covered by the extraordinary urgency are passed.
2. Urgency to pass a bill through multiple stages. This is when the House goes into urgency (which means longer sitting houses) to pass a bill through all stages, without referring it to a select committee. This is generally quite undesirable as bypassing select committee both robs the public of a chance to submit, but also means drafting flaws are less likely to be corrected.
3. Normal urgency. This extends the sitting hours of the House, and effectively cancels question time, but bills do not generally go through more than one stage at a time.
4. Urgency with question time.This is when the Government goes into urgency to extend the sitting hours, but modifies it so the House can still have question time every day. This reflects the importance of the Opposition being able to hold the Government to account through question time.

Now a lot of people don’t realise that the House normally sits for relatively few hours each week. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays it sits from 2 until 6pm, then 7.30pm until 10pm. On Thursday it sits from 2pm until 6pm.

That’s 17.5 hours. That sounds like quite a bit of time for the government to pass bills. But remember that Question Time happens each day between 2pm and 3.15-3.30. On Wednesdays there is a general debate between 3.30 and 4.30. And every second Wednesday is a members’ day, when the government can’t advance government business.

All this means that in a normal week, the government gets only around 12-13 hours (depending on how long Question Time lasts) to pass Bills. Every second week it gets only 7.5 hours! I won’t even get started on urgent debates (granted by the speaker), motions of condolence, etc, all of which take more time. Overall it tends to mean less than 10 hours a week on average to actually pass laws.

Urgency means that the House extend its sitting times. From the day after the motion is moved (so Wednesday if moved on a Tuesday) the House sits from 9 am to midnight, which is 13 hours a day excluding meal breaks.

In theory the House could sit until midnight Saturday, which would be 58.5 hours. In reality normally the House still rises on a Thursday, so the extra time gained is Wednesday and Thursday mornings plus Thursday evening.

This is what the government has been doing lately – just extending the hours on Wednesday and Thursday.

The problem of lack of time to pass Bills is not one that has just affected this government. That is why Labour is being totally hypocritical over the use of urgency. Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins in particular know better given they were advisors to the last government. Dr Cullen regularly put the House into urgency between 1999 and 2008 and a helpful reader has done the numbers for me.

In the 1999-2002 Parliament, Labour took urgency 22 times and extraordinary urgency twice. 23 bills passed their 3rd reading under urgency. Indeed in Labour’s first year in office, they took urgency ten times.

In the 2002-2005 Parliament, Labour took urgency nineteen times and a massive 78 Bills passed their 3rd reading under urgency!

In the 2005-2008 Parliament, Labour took urgency ten times and 48 bills passed their 3rd reading under urgency.

Urgency was often moved in October, November, and December of each year under Labour, as the end of the year approached. That’s what this government appears to be doing as well. It’s nothing to do with poor House management – it’s simply extending sitting hours in the traditional pre-Xmas period.

The other thing that I want to stress is that urgency normally  means question time is not held, how ever National has consistently arranged urgency so that question time is still taken, ensuring Ministers remain accountable to the House. This was very rare under Labour.

I expect as the Parliamentary term goes on the use of urgency will decline a bit. Further down the track the government might like to take a look at the sitting hours and practices of the House. Should the House sit regularly on Thursday night for example? Is there potential to have the House sitting regularlyin the morning even while select committees are considering Bills?

Personally I would change Standing Orders also, to reflect the different types of urgency. I personally would not call merely extending the sitting hours “urgency” if question time (and members day) is retained. I would also look at whether the Speaker’s permission might be needed for urgency which is used to bypass select committee, to make it harder for Governments to do so.

Grant Robertson blogs:

Barack Obama is facing all kinds of issues in the US at the moment- healthcare reform, whether to put more troops into Afghanistan, climate change, you name it. All the while, he faces huge expectations on the left and visceral anger on the right.

But one thing he can point to is a stimulus package that  has made some big investments in covers green jobs, extensive social assistance and research. The stimulus package included $21.5 billion in funding for research and development, particularly in leading edge genetic research. The money has been spread around the US, and is having a great effect in encouraging research where private sector funding has dried up.

This is the kind of long term thinking that has been missing from NZ’s response to the recession. Of course we don’t have $21 billion to do this, but our government has set on the sidelines, and worse still pulled back from research funding. If we want to improve productivity and develop a new economy, we need large scale investment. On this issue, the Obama administration is showing the way

While I am all for genetic research (then we can clone Hayley Holt), I think Grant’s drooling over Obama’s fiscal stimulus is rather regrettable. Even if one puts aside the huge fiscal deficit Obama is running (which makes you wonder about how large a deficit NZ Labour is planning), have a look at this graph from Harvard Economics Professor Greg Mankiw that someone linked to in the comments.

So the light blue line is what Obama said would happen without his fiscal stimulus, and the dark blue line is what he said would happen with his fiscal stimulus. And the red line is what has actually happened.

And this is Labour’s solution to rising unemployment!

Incidentally in NZ, where we had a more modest fiscal stimulus, consisting of tax cuts and advancing necessary infrastructure investment, the unemployment rate is just 6.0%. It was projected to peak at 8% (or even 9.8% on the downside scenario), but the latest Reserve Bank forecast is now for it to peak at 7.0%.

Now this doesn’t mean a massive fiscal stimulus spendup makes unemployment go even higher. I am not saying Obama caused unemployment to go higher than projected.

The lesson is that the Government impact on unemployment is limited. The private sector is what creates job, not the Government. Government created jobs are funded from private sector taxes and you need private sector jobs to pay those taxes.

Obama has saddled future generations with an out of control deficit, and debt which will soak up money which could be spent on health or education.

This is what Labour wanted for New Zealand. They have proposed mounds of extra spending that would have stuff all impact on unemployment, but leave a massive debt burden for the future.

This is from today’s Herald. The only small problem is that that they have run a photo of Chris Hipkins in the place of Grant Robertson, and they really are not twins!

Maybe Grant needs to pop around the gallery a photo of himself to help with future identification.

As a public service for Grant, Kiwiblog is pleased to run this photo of him, so people do not confuse him with Chris Hipkins in future.

After I blogged yesterday about some media incorrectly calling Afghans, Afghanis, Grant Robertson pointed out that a few weeks ago John Key called them Afghanistanians.

I’d like to make clear I take no responsibility for the Prime Minister’s inventing of new words

He does this quite often. I suspect his staff have told him that even though he is Prime Minister, he really should stick to using existing words instead of inventing new ones. But to no avail.

I know the Dominion Post has been compiling a list of words invented by John, and in due course they will publish the extended New Zealand Dictionary (PM’s edition).

Labour MP Grant Robertson blogged:

Out in the electorate this morning, the rising tide of anger about the cuts to Adult and Community Education shows no sign of abating . . . I think Anne Tolley will have to do something as the campaign is not going to let up.  In the meantime here is an extract from one of the letters I received this week that sums up a lot of the feelings out there.

I have been involved in adult learning as a student on and off for nearly ten years and would like to tell you how much these programmes mean to me. Over the years I have learnt how to make a mosaic, I’ve dyed silk scarves, built pots out of clay, extended my knowledge of French and been taught the skills to run a small business. These courses have enabled me to learn new things and meet lots of people but they also offer me so much more. Although these things may just be considered hobbies, to me they give me a greater sense of self-esteem and a feeling of connection to my community.

Danyl points out:

Can’t you just see Bill English standing up in the house and sneering about how Labour’s answer to the recession is to borrow money to pay for silk scarf dying classes? Don’t get me wrong, I think adult education is a great thing, and if we were a really rich country with no economic or financial problems then I think people should have access to all the french and scarf-dying classes they want, but they’re also some of the first things I’d cut when things went south: if these things are truly important to people then they’ll pay for them out of their own pocket. I’m generalising here but Robertson represents one of the wealthiest, best educated electorates in the country and I kind of doubt that a constituent of his taking classes to ‘extend their knowledge of French’ is going to be hard up for cash.

The key point here is that Labour do not seem to have caught on the surpluses are gone. We face a decade of deficits and they are whining about silk scarf dying classes. Their answer to everything is to borrow and spend more.

Labour won the 2005 election on a platform of extending the welfare state to the middle class and I wonder if they still think that’s the road to success; if so they’re wrong. A narrative is forming around the party that their solution to everything is to borrow more money and fritter it away on trivialities, seen in that light making the case for silk-scarf dying night classes is simply crazy.

What it paints to me is how out of touch Labour are with normal New Zealanders. If you regularly got out into provincal cities and towns, you would not be thinking that NZers want their taxes to go on such luxuries when we are in a global recession.

I think part of the problem is they have lost so many electorate seats. They have only 19 general seats left. With only a couple of exceptions they are now a party that only holds electorates in South-West Auckland, Wellington, parts of Christchurch and Dunedin.  When you lose contact with so many NZers, you lose your perspective on what is important.

Bill Ralston makes easy work of the PSA and Labour:

Erect a stake, pile wood around it as a pyre, tie Treasury Head John Whitehead to it and throw in a match.

The man has committed heresy. He said the public service needed to rethink its approach, trim its fat, move out of its comfort zone and generally get its act together or someone else will come and do it.

Shocking. Dreadful. Appalling.

Next he’ll be advocating that the world is not flat and that the Earth revolves around the sun.

The reactions to that sensible speech were so predictably knee-jerk mid-numbingly stupid.

Of course.

“The groundwork is being laid here for privatisation and further deeper job cuts”, says Labour’s State Services spokesman Grant Robertson.

No it isn’t. Whitehead talked of contracting out some services if it made sense. If a department could get say cheaper legal or accounting services from the private sector, why wouldn’t it look at that option rather than retain or expand its in-house services?

Heresy.

The PSA’s Brenda Pilott chimes in, “We’re amazed Mr Whitehead says we should be privatising public services when bad management in the private sector has created the worst global recession since the Great Depression.”

If this is the PSA’s grasp of economics and world finance then God help its members.

Ms Pilott might be interested to know the recession arose out of the credit crunch brought on by the failure of the US subprime mortgage market. Basically a relatively small group of bankers went greedily mad in a largely unregulated market.

To condemn the entire private sector for the failure of one small part of the capitalist system is nuts.

So primary producers, manufacturers, the services sector and any other part of the private sector nationally and internationally must all beat the blame for the recession?

Would we condemn the entire public service because of the single failure of, say, the Corrections Department? Tempting but unfair.

A good example of the stupidity of those who rant against the private sector and think this means all of capitalism has failed.

A horrified Grant Robertson claimed it signalled the resurgence of Treasury’s influence over the public sector.

Hang on. “Resurgence of Treasury’s influence?” Hadn’t his previous Labour government somehow banished Treasury to a corner where it could not exercise any influence over the financial performance of the public service?

Yes.

Grant Robertson has blogged his concern about the Department of Labour advising staff they should not take part in a pay equity rally.

He has noted:

In recent election campaigns  I have noticed that public servants seemed to be getting inconsistent and inaccurate advice about how involved they can be in campaigns, including whether they could have hoardings on fences, deliver pamphlets or even be seen with a candidate.

I believe that the rights of public servants to participate in the political process as private citizens need to be protected, and if necessary clarified.  Of course their should be guidance as to how to ensure they can continue to serve the government of the day and avoid compromising their ability to provide quality advice and support, but the interpretation of that guidance should respect the professionalism of public servants and give them their hard won democratic rights.

So presumably he deplores as abhorent the sacking of Madeline Setchell from the Ministry for the Environment, because of her boyfriend’s job?

I mean Grant blogs about how he was able to work for MFAT and be a Labour Party campaign manager. Yet Madeline, who has never been politically active herself, got her career destroyed by Labour because of her boyfriend swapping jobs from journalist to working for John Key.

Hopefully Grant was also appalled by Erin Leigh’s treatment by Labour. Another public servant crucified.

And also I hope Grant was appalled that Setchell was also blacklisted from MAF, after they chekecd with Jim Anderton.

Really having Labour go on about public sector neutrality is like Charlie Sheen go on about monogamy.

I had to laugh at this story in the Herald that has, of all people, Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins complaining about Ministerial purchase advisors.

Grant and Chris were both highly partisan ministerial staffers for a number of Labour Ministers, including the PM. Now nothing wrong with that – I was once upon a time also. But not the people I would then choose to act outraged over Ministerial purchase advisors.

The purchase advisors are not even that political. And they are not new – I recall some in the 1990s. What they are about, is every year the Minister signs a huge purchase agreement with their Department. The Departments authors and writes it. It is a bloody good idea for the Minister to have an independent advisor who can look for feather bedding etc. These people probably save the taxpayer huge amounts of money. They are not generally full-time staffers (like Robertson and Hipkins were) but they are contracted to do a specific job. They don’t even have an office in the Beehive.

Bill explains well the good these people do:

Mr English said the purchase advisers were experienced in the public sector and been most helpful to new ministers in showing them how the system worked – “which levers to pull, what the tricks are, and what the bureaucratic jargon means”.

“We did need some objective advice because the public service had been used to getting whatever it wanted and big increases in spending every year,” he said. “The benefits would be shown through in the Budget where he had been able to make significant savings. We have had to make a pretty sudden change to respond to the economic conditions and the ministers and the purchase advisers have done a very good job.”

I suspect each advisor pays for his or her salary 20 times over. Of course Labour would hate that – they are finding and cutting the waste they left behind.

Labour MPs hosted a roundtable on Tuesday evening to discus copyright issues – not just S92A, but longer term issues over how copyright law intersects with modern technology.

I’ll touch on the politics of it more in my NBR column, but this is smart opposition politics, and a good move for Labour. And I’m not just saying that because I was one of those invited – I’ve spent enough time in the Opposition meeting room to not feel a need to visit it often!

The turnout from Labour was impressive for what is not a top tier issue. Comms/IT spokesperson Clare Curran moderated. Arts/Culture spokesperson Grant Robertson was also there as was Lianne Dalziel who chairs the Commerce Committee that will presumably consider the Government’s law change. Maryan Street also there for a bit (Maryan was on the original Commerce Committee and was a key player in getting some good changes made at the select committee – which sadly were later overturned) as was Trevor Mallard and also David Cunliffe. So four former Ministers and six MPs in total.

There were a couple of dozen stakeholders there, and the discussion was useful. The first half probably saw more heat than light, but as time went on there were quite a few areas of agreement. Lynn Prnetice from The Standard and myself even agreed several times

Pretty much everyone agreed the current law is hopelessly inadequate for modern day copyright infringement issues. The law is only really set up to deal with situations where people make money infringing copyright, and is based around economic remedies. But a major problem today is infringement for personal use.

Everyone in the room said that there should be some cheap and quick (but fair) process where personal infringement offences can be adjudicated and dealt with. No one at all said one should be able to avoid paying for works by downloading. The Internet people all thought fines would be appropriate penalties – maybe tied to the value of the work they have infringed plus a penalty. It was thought maybe it could be like the IRD – if you download 100 songs that cost $1 each you’d be fined the $100 value plus maybe 50% penalty so $150. I did joke that people could just disclose their volume of ilegal downloads to the IRD on their tax returns

The rights holders rep said he would prefer Internet disconnection than fines as a sanction, as they think it is a bigger deterrent. I did get the impression though that any sort of meaningful sanction would be a step forward for them.

Quite a lot of discussion over future business models. The point was made that no one has a right to make money from their “art” – they have the right to have the “opportunity” to make money, but technology does disrupt traditional business models, and no industry is exempt – ie the media are just as disrupted by the Internet as the music industry.

I suggested the long term future is something along the lines of you pay $40 a month to your ISP for Internet access, and if you want it goes to $55 a month for Internet access and all the songs you can download legally, and say $65 a month to also subscribe to legal TV downloads and say $80 a month to also get movie downloads. And if ISPs are keeping a share of the license fee, they gain an incentive to crack down on those doing free copyright infringing downloads. A fair few people agreed this would be a desirable future.

I also advocated that rights holders and ISPs should try and get a voluntary agreement, regardless of any law, that allows right holders to have education notices to alleged infringers sent through ISPs. Even without sanctions involved, it is likely this would see a significant drop in infringing downloads. But right holders can’t expect ISPs to act as their mailmen for free s that is a key issue. Ant Healey from ARPA indicated they had been discussing just that with the TCF, which is good.

Without beating up on Healey (who made many constructive contributions), I was a wee bit disappointed that he did repeatedly go on about how the room was unbalanced with so many”Internet people” there and so few artists. This was the one issue that got people a bit worked up as many of the Internet people somewhat angrily proclaimed they were also artists.

S92A was discussed, but the focus was on wider issues around the law. Many people (including myself) advocated for a full first principles review of the law which would take account of today’s world where digital copying is instant and cost free, the fact the nature of infringing is now for personal use not economic gain, and most importantly to look at having a broad fair use doctrine that covers stuff such as parody, satire, fair quoting etc etc. Copyright is not just about music. Healey made the point that you have international treaty obligations so a first principles review may be pointless as you can’t avoid those. Personally I don’t think the two are incompatible.

Overall it was a good initiative by Labour. The MPs engaged well, and were not defensive about their role in originally supporting s92A. In fact a couple of former Ministers said they had been going back through old Cabinet papers to find out why they supported it at the time. The MPs participated but mainly were there t listen and consider possible ways forward for their positioning based on contributions.

No magic solution engaged, but I think most people found it quite worthwhile, and you know the Government would gain some kudos if it did the same and had an open dialogue with relevant Ministers and stakeholders. I think it would help them in progressing a law change.

And another three MPs profiled in the Herald- Grant Robertson, Aaron Gilmore and Carmel Sepuloni.

Grant Robertson

Mr Robertson cited the proposition put forward in 1939 by Education Minister Peter Fraser and leading educationalist Clarence Beeby that every citizen, whether rich and poor, town or country, had a right to a free education of the kind best fitted to them.

He said he had come to Parliament to develop this vision for the 21st century.

No surprise Grant is a former student associaton president.

He said being gay was a part of who he was, as was being a fan of the Ranfurly Shield – currently held by the Wellington Lions. His sexuality had defined his politics “only inasmuch as it has given me an insight into how people can be marginalised and how much I abhor that”.

Mr Robertson, 36, said he and his partner of 10 years, Alf Kaiwai, “were living proof it pays not to stereotype”.

“We met playing rugby. I was the number eight and he was the halfback – a great combination.”

This month the pair swapped vows and rings in a civil union ceremony at Old St Paul’s in Wellington.

And congrats on the wedding civil union.

Aaron Gilmore

Aged 35. Came in as number 56, the last on National’s list. Is the luckiest new member having got in by less than 40 party votes from throughout the whole country.

It does not get much closer than that with over 2 million votes cast.

Named after “the great Elvis Aaron Presley”. Is an amalgam of “Irish, Scottish, Danish and a little bit Maori but I am 100 per cent Kiwi”. Admits to having done well enough to be known by some as a “rich prick”. Contracted a rare eye condition when he was 25 and told he would never see again, but thanks to modern technology he can.

“About 25 years ago I sat in the living room of our family state house in Corhampton St, Aranui. It was early August and freezing cold as that night we didn’t have enough money to put into the meter for electricity. We had some light from large candles on the table and my grandmother and I were having Weetbix for dinner. The next morning we couldn’t afford breakfast and I went hungry till a teacher bought me lunch.”

Another state house kid who has done well. How dare National keep attracting such people!

Carmel Seploni

Former equity manager, research project manager in Pacific health and student mentor adviser at University of Auckland. A trained teacher, who worked at the Robert Louis Stevenson School in Samoa. First MP of Tongan descent.

Born and raised in Waitara. Father was a Samoan-Tongan-migrant who worked at the freezing works and was a staunch unionist and Labour man. Mother’s parents were Pakeha sheep farmers from Stratford and “resolute Tories”. Is the mother of a young son.

I don’t know Carmel, but she is well regarded within Labour I understand, and like Grant is likely to be a Minister the next time Labour get into Government.

Enter in your captions for this photo from the Dom Post of new Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson.

Captions should be funny, not nasty. If you can not work out the difference, then stay silent!

Whanganui had a 3% lead in the party vote in 2005, and this expanded out to 22% in 2008. And the 3,500 majority for Borrows goes to 6,000.

Rangitikei sees a 25% lead in the party vote and Simon Power moves his majority from 9,000 to 11,000.

Tukituki has an 18% lead in the party vote, and a 2,600 majority for Craig Foss gets a boost thanks to Labour’s sacking of the local District Health Board to over 7,000.

Palmerston North has been held by Labour since 1978. The party vote was narrowly won by National but Labour’s Iain Lees-Galloway held off Malcolm Plimmer by 1,000 votes.

Wairarapa has National 17% ahead on the party vote. And John Hayes turns the seat safe with a 2,900 majority converting to 6,300 in 2008.

Otaki was a huge battle. I’ve door knocked Otaki in the past and it is not natural National territory in the Horowhenua parts. So winning the party vote by 8% is good for National after trailling by 3% last time. Darren Hughes put up a huge fight to protect his sub 400 majority but Nathan Guy grabbed the seat by almost 1,500.

In Wellington, Labour does a lot better starting with Mana. Labour remains 6% ahead on the party vote but reduced from 18% in 2005. Winnie Laban’s 6,800 majority shrinks only slightly to 5.300.

Rimutaka was the last hope for NZ First. Labour won the party vote there in 2005 by 11% and in 2008 by 0.3%. On the electorate vote just as narrow with Labour’s Chris Hipkins pipping Richard Whiteside by 600 votes. Ron Mark got a credible 5,000 votes but stll trailed by 7,000.

Hutt South is home to Wainuiomata and Trevor Mallard. Trevor delivered a party vote margin for Labour of 4% and a 3,600 majority for himself. In 2005 the party vote margin was 14% and the personal majority 6,600 so some movement there.

Rongotai is now the home of the Labour Deputy Leader. But even before her ascension, Rongotai gave Labour a massive 11% margin on the party vote – 43% to 32% for National. And her personal 13,000 majority in 2005 was only slightly dented to just under 8,000. If that is her low tide mark, she’ll be happy.

Wellington Central saw in 2005 a party vote for National of just 33%, Labour 43% and Greens around 16%. In 2008 it was National 36%, Labour 34% and Greens around 20%. Marian Hobbs had a 5,800 majority and Stephen Franks cut that to 1,500 against new MP Grant Robertson with some Green party votes giving Robertson their electorate vote to keep Franks out.

Ohariu was assumed by almost everyone to be safe as houses for Peter Dunne. But it got close this time. First on the party vote, National beat Labour 43% to 40% in 2005. This time it was 47% to 33%. On the candidate vote Peter Dunne dropped from 45% to 33% making him vulnerable. National’s Katrina Shanks lifted her vote from 21% to 26% and Labour’s Charles Chauvel from 26% to 30%. The Greens candidate got 7% of the vote and may have ironically saved the seat for Dunne.

Two fun opportunities for people interested in the Wellington Central race.

First we have the four main candidates on Backbenches tonight. Stephen Franks, Grant Robertson, Sue Kedgley and Heather Roy. They’;; be talking about the economy, tax cuts and why you should vote for them!

I suspect a big audience tonight so pay to be there early. The show screens at 9.10 pm on TVNZ7.

Also iPredict has launched a set of three Wellington Central stocks.

You can invest in a Grant Robertson victory, a Stephen Franks victory or a “Other” victory in Wellington Central. The share will pay $1 if you win and the initial offer price is 55.5c for Grant, 43.5c for Stephen and 1c for Other.

Advanced investors can also buy a bundle of all three shares for exactly $1. If the combined price of all three is over $1, then you can make money buying the bundle and selling the individual stocks (or just the stock you think is over priced).

From Labour’s Wellington Central candidate’s (Grant Robertson) latest newsletter:

Hoarding sites
Do you have a house, fence or garage that is visible and gets plenty of people or traffic passing by? Please consider putting up one of my signs. There are various sizes available. – contact Ross: ross.xxxxxxx@epmu.org.nz.

Ross is employed in the Wellington Office of the EPMU. It is of course wrong for EPMU staff to take unpaid leave to be a candidate for ACT but fine to help run a Labour campaign from work.

The EPMU has 103 staff according to its website. Far too much attention is paid to just how much money they spend. Their real value in in allowing staff pretty much as much time as they want to help Labour’s campaign and candidates out during the campaign.

Let’s say the average staffer earns $48,000. If they spent around 160 hours each (that is around 12 hours a week over three months) helping Labour campaign, then the total value of that contribution is over $400,000. That is on top of the $120,000 they are planning to formally donate and/or spend.

Now that’s all legal. But a useful reminder of the role big union money and resources can play in an election.

Grant Robertson comments on the suggestion by Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa that all future Finance Ministers should also be Treaty Negotiation Ministers also.

Dr Cullen has made admirable progress, and should be congratulated for it. I suspect his job was made easier by the fact that he got to replace Mark Burton who showed the same skills at Treaty Negotiations as he did with Electoral Finance.

I would not tie the job into the Finance Minister job (even though Bill English would do a fine job) but I agree with Grant you do want Ministers who are motivated to do the job and have some mana. National has at least three people who could contribute very well to the portfolio.

Chris Finlayson is the current spokesperson and has worked in the Treaty area professionally before he entered Parliament, and has good relations with many prominent Iwi leaders. Georgina te Heuheu is a former member of the Waitangi Tribunal, and was NZ’s first female Maori lawyer. The other person whom I would advocate should be included (I think the portfolio is important enough one should have one or maybe two associate Ministers) is Tim Groser. Tim is a highly experienced negotiator in the trade field, and at the end of the day a large component of Treaty settlements is a commercial negotiation.

Aaron Bhatnagar had Judith Tizard bail him up and tell him he was a disgusting individual. What did he do? Speculated ten years ago (yes ten years ago) to her niece about Judith and Mat Rata. Good God – that is holding a grudge.

Conservator Occidentalis notes that Grant Robertson may be breaching the Electoral Finance Act. How? His website is authorised by him, not by his financial agent. Now a candidate is his or her own financial agent until he or she appoints one, but Grant appears to now have one, as their details have appeared on other material.

Guido Fawkes has the wonderful screen shot of senior Labour Minister Harriet Harman appearing to back Boris Johnson for Mayor of London.

So how did this happen?

username : harriet
password : harman

Yes that was the username and password for her blog. Someone should be shot. Guido notes the Government is looking to make it a criminal offence to be reckless resulting in loss of data!