Kiwiblog

Sideswipe discovers that John Key also starred in Galaxy Quest!

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.

I’m amazed. It seems that Phil Heatley’s resignation is a genuine resignation, not a sacking. This is incredibly rare, and I cynically assumed this was the case.

Let me explain what is normally the case. 95% of Ministerial departures are “officially” resignations, but are de facto sackings. Richard Worth in an official sense merely resigned, but in an unofficial sense he was sacked.

A resignation is almost always at the request of the PM. Maybe not directly, but because the Chief of Staff or PM has advised the Minister their situation is probably untenable.

Alastair Campbell in the UK was often the person who negotiated resignations on behalf of the PM.

But in this case, it does appear to be the very rare beast, that a Minister voluntarily went, while the PM was still willing to keep him on. The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key says he hasn’t lost confidence in resigning Housing Minister Phil Heatley and wouldn’t have asked him to quit had he not insisted on resigning.

Mr Heatley resigned from his housing and fisheries portfolios this morning over an error in his expense accounts.

Mr Key says he has accepted Mr Heatley’s resignation “with regret”.

“I wouldn’t have asked him to resign. It would have been my preferred pathway that he chose to stand down [during the Auditor-General's investigation] because I think that’s important, but I wouldn’t have asked for his resignation. It was the minister himself who offered his resignation and I have respectfully had to accept that.”

This also means that Heatley’s exile may not be as permament as I assumed. However Phil himself said that he is not expecting a quick return.

Mr Key did not rule out bringing Mr Heatley back into Cabinet and returning his ministerial portfolios in the future. But he said he would wait for the Auditor-General’s report.

The sad reality for Phil is that unlike the previous Government, there is a fairly talented backbench who are eagerly waiting for their chance to have Ministerial responsibilities.

Last night Mr Heatley told Mr Key that he wanted to resign and hand over his accounts to the scrutiny of the Auditor-General, but Mr Key told him he would prefer that he stand down during the Auditor-General process.

He told Mr Heatley to sleep on it, and he would accept whatever decision he came to in the morning.

Mr Heatley called to offer his resignation this morning, and it was accepted.

While Phil’s actions with the expenses were wrong and not acceptable, his decision to resign, rather than wait for the Auditor-General’s report, does him credit.

Other Ministers will be somewhat nervous, as this effectively lowers the barrier to what one should resign over. I suspect more than two Ministerial credit cards are heading towards the scissors.

The Dom Post reports:

At least one Government minister has been forced to pay back expenses wrongly billed to his taxpayer-funded credit card and others are scrambling to check their spending.

Housing Minister Phil Heatley will repay Ministerial Services today for the $70 cost of two bottles of wine that he bought for National Party members at AMI Stadium in Christchurch last year and billed to his ministerial credit card.

An embarrassed Mr Heatley admitted, after checking with officials following questions raised by The Dominion Post, that he should never have paid for the wine with his ministerial card.

It suggests officials have been rubberstamping ministerial expenses.

The wine purchase was one of hundreds of transactions by ministers revealed by the release of credit card details in response to an Official Information Act request.

Mr Heatley has also run foul of the rules for running up expenses on his card and later reimbursing Ministerial Services – a practice he acknowledged was against the rules, though he was not aware of that till yesterday.

This is basically unacceptable, no ifs, no buts.

The rules about credit card use are set out in the Ministerial Services handbook. Now yes it is a huge document, but one new Ministers should read upon taking office – and as importantly, one their senior office staff should be aware of.

A Ministerial credit card should be used very sparingly in New Zealand. It is generally on overseas trips that they are needed.

It is a concern that Ministerial Services did not query some of the purchases at time of processing. We’ve seen in the UK what can happen when there is no push back from the authorities on expenses.

I suspect it may have already happened, but the PM needs to remind all Ministers of the need to be like Caesar’s wife when it comes to credit cards and expenses. Otherwise they may share the fate of Pompeia!

The Herald reports from Parliament:

Finally it was back to the Prime Minister for the last question – this time about his holding of shares in Jackson Mining.

Asked how he could not have known the company had merged with another and was now involved in uranium mining, he began with: “There was the small technical issue – I have been busy running the country.”

He added that he would be the first to admit it was “sloppy” but said the last time he had looked they were trading at 3.5c “and when I offered them to my son, who was 12 at the time, even he did not want them”.

I was absolutely stunned that TVNZ had as their lead story that the PM had admitted he was “sloppy”, as if this was Watergate II.In fact there was nothing that came within a million miles of being a conflict of interest.

John Key had declared the mining shares in his register of interests. This is what you are meant to do.

Now a conflict of interest tends to relate to something favouring a specific company, not something that affects an entire industry.

The mining company in question is Australian, does not operate in NZ, and has no plans to operate in NZ. Anyone who thinks this creates a conflict of interest, just because the Government is promoting mining is biased or stupid.

The Government promotes agriculture. So should Jim Bolger have had to sell his family farm when he was PM?

Helen Clark was a residential property investor. Should she have sold all her houses because the Government made decisions that affected rental properties?

Of course not. No reasonable person thinks that is a conflict of interest. If you adopt that standard, then every MP would be forced to liquidate all their assets and have only cash in a bank. But oh no, wait Government can affect banks, so lets force them to store their cash under their bed.

Having shares in an Australian mining company that does not operate in NZ is not a conflict of interest. Even if they did operate in NZ, it would not be a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest would be if a decision was made to grant some licence to that particular company, which the PM took part in.

The PMs statement that he had been sloppy, simply relates to the fact he hadn’t bothered to keep track of what the company was doing, as its shares were near worthless.

Now that may deserve a couple of paragraphs in a political story in a newspaper, but to have TVNZ make it their lead story is unbelievable.

UPDATE: Colin Espiner has previously blogged much the same thing:

As for the mining story, I’m a bit nonplussed. Frankly I don’t give a monkey’s whether Key owns shares in an Australian mining company, and I think TVNZ’s pretext that it’s a story because the Government is planning to mine national parks is a little flimsy.

If owning shares in a mining company could become an issue, it should already be an issue, since there is already extensive mining in this country. And we’ve known for ages that Key’s share portfolio includes mining companies. I remember him talking about it during the election campaign.

As for the second leg of the story – that it’s a bad look for a PM of a nuclear-free country to own shares in a company that mines uranium – I’m sorry, but I don’t get that. Uranium might be a precursor to the manufacture of plutonium, which is used in nuclear weapons.

But it’s also used in a vast array of medical and scientific procedures. I’ve always thought it funny that people claim we’re “nuclear free” when there’s enough plutonium in our hospitals and universities to make your hair fall out.

This is about TVNZ promoting itself. Because the so called “revelation” was made on a TVNZ show, that means they feel they have to keep it alive as a news story.

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

Australia now earns more than A$1 billion annually from exporting uranium ore concentrate. By 2014, that figure is expected to be A$1.7 billion.

There are tight controls: Australian uranium is produced only for export and is used only for peaceful purposes in civil nuclear power stations outside of Australia and is trumpeted as a contributor to global climate relief.’

The reason Australia doesn’t have a suite of nuclear power stations is it burns cheap coal for power.

But NZ is stuck in a 1980s cul de sac: Nuclear equals bad.

Secondly, is the PM now expected to order the administrator of his blind trust not to invest in any company that could be mining uranium simply because New Zealand has anti-nuclear laws?

If so, that rules out many companies with diverse interests. Bizarre really.

I thought it was bizarre. Nuclear power is indeed a way to reduce carbon emissions, so wy the fuss over the PM having shares in a company that helps reduce carbon emissions.

The SST reports:

Prime Minister John Key might be on the wrong side of 40, married, and with a job that is more stressful than sexy, but that has not stopped Kiwis voting him as the country’s hottest politician.

The 48-year-old pipped (with 43% of votes) his much younger, and some would say more cosmetically appealing colleague, Tauranga MP Simon Bridges (33%), in an online survey of 700 Kiwis.

Friends and family of Simon Bridges have been keeping a non-stop vigil on him, since he received the news that a 48 year old father of two was judged hotter than him.

After multiple interventions and counselling, we think he will be okay and over time will recover. But members of the public are asked to help safeguard his mental health and not mention the poll results to him.

Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye took out the female title with 32% of the votes, followed by another National MP, Melissa Lee (24%), and young Labour MP Jacinda Ardern (19%).

Kaye said that although she thought it was “lovely” that she had been chosen as the nation’s hottest female politician, she was not sure whether it would help her love life. Kaye is single.

“Yesterday I turned 30 and I was feeling down in the dumps, I had the 30 blues, but this news has just made it all better – it has made my day.

“I just hope there weren’t too many of my relatives in the survey sample.”

Good God, I thought Nikki was the MP for Auckland Central, not the MP for Tasmania.

Incredible. The bidding for the John Key flag doodle has reached $19,238. Now I suspect the bidding is more for the morning tea with John (and Pippa) than the artwork itself – I certainly hope so!

As at 6 am:

• Top Bid $19,238
• 188 bids
• Approx 250 questions and answers – many of these are hilarious. Well done to the TVNZ staffer answering them.
• 73,622 page views

The Cure Kids charity will be pleased, especially with five days left in the auction.

The Herald reports:

Television NZ bumped Prime Minister John Key from its prime-time current affairs show so it could feature former All Black Robin Brooke saying sorry for groping a teenage girl. …

John Key’s office has refused to comment on the Close Up show’s decision not to talk to the PM about his state of the nation speech.

Instead, most of Tuesday’s show was devoted to host Mark Sainsbury interviewing Brooke about his explanation for the New Year groping incident in Fiji, a story that has featured in newspapers.

Close Up ignored the changes the PM foreshadowed to the tax system.

Mr Key’s chief press secretary, Kevin Taylor, said: “It is TVNZ’s editorial decision for the programme and we will not be saying any more about it.”

But it is understood the Prime Minister was surprised by the decision to ditch a scheduled interview with him just two and a half hours before it was due to go out live.

Such “bumping” is common in television entertainment shows when they run out of time or there are better offers.

From a ratings viewpoint, sadly I guess more people would tune in to Robin Brooke. But having already pencilled in the PM, I am surprised they didn’t find a way to include both. It is meant to be a news and current affiars show after all.

John Armstrong writes:

No politician enjoys confessing to having broken a promise – especially one made during an election campaign when credibility is very much the issue.

The Prime Minister has now shown himself not to be exempt from that rule of thumb.

Having flagged a hike in GST in the Government’s economic statement on Tuesday, John Key was yesterday hammered by Labour for having categorically ruled out such a move in the lead-up to the last election.

“National is not going to raise GST. National wants to cut taxes – not raise taxes,” he told an impromptu press conference in the 2008 campaign, the video of which is receiving heavy play on the internet.

Key could not have been clearer. But his response yesterday was to argue he had been talking at the time in the context of fiscal forecasts which showed the country’s accounts sinking into deficit for the next decade. What he had been saying, he insisted, was National would not raise GST as a means of reducing the Budget deficit.

Key should be asking himself why he bothered to mount this defence. No sooner had he done so than Labour dug up quotes from Finance Minister Bill English seemingly similarly ruling out increasing GST after receiving Treasury advice shortly after the election to do so and then clearly reiterating that position in a speech two months later.

Given Key and English were almost certainly genuine in their holding that view at the time, it would surely have been more advisable for the Prime Minister to have been straight up and down yesterday and instead argued along the lines of “that was then and this is now”.

Rather than getting a ribbing from Phil Goff in Parliament, Key could have turned defence into attack, arguing that raising GST was now necessary to remedy what English describes as New Zealand’s “lopsided” economy – one suffering from too much consumption by debt-ridden households at the expense of much-needed savings and investment.

The question is whether Labour’s highlighting of this broken promise really matters all that much. It is not in the same league as cutting national superannuation or selling state assets after promising not to do so. At stake, however, is the Prime Minister’s credibility.

Key’s trust rating is extremely high, judging from polls scoring such attributes. Tax hikes are never popular, however. Key has to overcome public suspicion that any rise in GST will leave people worse off.

I understand a 2.5% rise in GST will probably lead to a one off inflation increase of 2.0%. In recent years our inflation rate has been around 3%, so I’m not sure how much people will notice.

I think they key will be the details in the May budget, as to the “compensation” through tax cuts, benefit adjustments and WFF support.

The label of a “broken promise” may be the bigger issue, even though there is a defence around the context of the statement.  There is probably a lesson there about being careful with pre-election statements – it is tempting to rule things out, but often wiser to be more subtle and say things like “That is not in our tax policy” rather than “We will not do that”.

The EU had a reception at the Backbencher last night, so lots of MPs and journalists there to chat to.  The typical opening line from a National MP was “So about that B grade” while from Labour MPs it was “Unlike Annette we won’t use Farrar and respect in the same sentence unless there are some other words in between”

Phil Goff was there also, so I said I looked forward to him quoting me more often in future . Actually had an interesting chat generally on economic stuff, such as land tax. If Labour are bold they could consider proposing a land tax (tied to income tax reductions) for 2011. That could attract some support from economic reformers.

General consensus I got from pundits there was that there was definitely some good stuff in the Government’s work plan – in fact more detailed plans that most Governments announce in the PMs statement.

But what may trip the Government up is they misplayed the expectations game. Building the statement up as the “most important” one ever was a mistake, as was talking about it being a “step change”. Again, there is some good stuff there that certainly will help lift economic growth. But will the announcements alone close the gap with Australia? Of course not. But the rhetoric leading up to it, got expectations artificially high.

With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better to have positioned the statement as a typical PMs statement – a general overview of the Government’s achievements and workplan, and then surprise the media and opposition when it turns out to have close to 30 specific initiatives in it.

As I said yesterday, I welcome the focus on growing the economic cake, not just how to split it up, and look forward to more details in the budget.

Reaction from others:

• John Armstrong – 4/10 for economic boldness
• Fran O’Sullivan – John Key deserves an A- for intent. But a mere D for the dreadful prime ministerial statement that buried a coherent economic agenda in a mass of confusion.
• Tax Working Group members seem happy
• NZ Herald editorial calls it a stutter not a step-change
• Bernard Hickey hits new levels of hyperbole
• Canterbury Employers call the package welcome but light
• Solid Energy is excited
• Colin Espiner gives it a pass, but with much more to do
• Tracy Watkins looks at the risks
• The Press editorial says it was lacking boldness
• The Dom Post editorial says it was a welcome focus on growth, not slogans

Overall pretty encouraging that the Government is going to pursue some economic reform that will increase the size of the national cake, rather than merely get obsessed with how to divide it up as the left do. If we grow the cake, then everyone benefits in time.

Major points by subject:

Economic

1. GST increase to 15% under careful consideration – this is code for will be announced in May. This is good, as it will allow taxes on income, savings and investment to reduce, encouraging savings and investment instead of consumption
2. If GST is increased (and they really have to after not ruling it out) there will be across-the-board reductions in personal taxes, and higher levels of payments for beneficiaries and WFF recipients.
3. No capital gains tax – good too complex
4. No RFRM for taxing residential property – also good as could cause real cashflow problems
5. No land tax – a shame, as I think the one off whack it would cause to land owners would be worth it for the efficiency gains, and also the fact it would bring foreign land owners into the tax base
6. There will be changes in the Budget around how property is taxed – almost certainly to include getting rid of claiming depreciation on appreciating buildings.
7. Most government agencies to have no additional funding for several years – hear the PSA squeal.
8. Changes planned for the way the Crown invests in CRIs
9. Science and innovation a priority for new spending in 2010 budget – very good.
10. Holidays Act to be amended as per Advisory Group
11. Review of personal grievance decisions, and possible amending legislation to give more certainty in this area
12. Govt to propose through a discussion document that some land in Section 4 be removed from it, and replaced with some land not currently in Section 4, to allow mining in areas with high mineral wealth but lower environmental value. This is probably the most ballsy move.
13. Govt will establish a Conservation Fund from royalty revenue from mining on crown lands to invest in conservation projects, so more mining means more money for conservation. I like it!
14. Law changes to remove regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury, and also for the aquaculture industry
15. Possible law change for capital restructuring of Fonterra
16. Response to Capital Market Development Taskforce to be delivered in the next week or so
17. $24 billion of spending in the next five years on capital expenditure

Social Sector

1. National Standards will be supported by reform to ensure taxpayer funds make it through to schools and students who need the extra support
2. Changes to early childhood funding to get better support to children currently missing out on ECE
3. A policy on use of information collected through National Standards to be announced in 2010. Not sure what this means, but so long as they do not amend the OIA, not sure what impact it will have, and will be ropable if they amend the OIA.
4. Funding changes for secondary schools to modernise, and ensure they can provide more practical and trades skills.
5. Focus in tertiary education is programmes with over 50% drop-out rates
6. Whanau Ora to continue to be developed as a new way to fund and co-ordinate social service contracts
7. Hint that there will be restrictions on funding for tertiary students who keep failing and/or never leave university – presumably meaning the eternal under-graduate.
8. Benefit reforms that focus on helping people get back to work, while supporting those who can not.
9. Sickness Benefit criteria and testing to be adjusted
10. Reapplication requirements for those on the dole for an extended period
11. Work and training requirements for those on the DPB
12. A change to the benefit abatement regime to improve incentives to take up part-time work
13. Legislation to be introduced to reduce harm from binge drinking by stopping excessive proliferation of liquor outlets. That’s just government by slogans, as there is no proof that it is the number of liquor outlets that cause the binge drinking
14. Two prisons to be opened up to private management

There is a nice stat about how moving 100 DPB recipients off their benefit and into work will save close to $10 million over their lifetime. And moving 5% of DPB recipients whose children are aged over six into work will save $200 million over 10 years.

Overall I give the package a solid B. If the GST was 100% confirmed (I judge it 90% confirmed) and they had gone for land tax also, I would have gone for a B+. And if they left out the nonsense about the number of liquor outlets being a problem I may have even gone for an A- after a few rum and cokes

UPDATE: Phil Goff liked my analysis so much he quoted my “B” grade as almost the first thing in his speech!

TVNZ have just put out a PR saying:

Prime Minister, John Key was asked to draw his version of an alternative NZ Flag by TVNZ’s Pippa Wetzell on Breakfast at 7:15am this morning.

By the time the programme went off-air at 9am, TVNZ had received many pledges of money for the A4 sized doodle, the highest being $1000.  Mr Key gave his consent for the drawing to be auctioned for charity and it has been listed on Trade Me this afternoon with all proceeds going to the children’s charity, Cure Kids.

Mr Key described his drawing as a “silver fern”.  Pippa Wetzell described it, perhaps more accurately, as a “lop-sided Christmas tree”.

I have to say Pippa has the more accurate description. But at least John drew it himself!

The interview Breakfast interview is above. Will be nice if bit of fun during a TV interview can raise some money for charity.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key has vowed to stick with his goal of closing the income gap with Australia, despite an embarrassing dismissal by the Reserve Bank Governor who said there was no chance of it happening.

Speaking on TVNZ’s Q+A programme yesterday, Alan Bollard said Australia had been “blessed by God sprinkling minerals” and had handled its economy well. He said New Zealand would do better to make the most of the “crumbs that come off the Australian table”.

He said it was up to the Government what its own goals were, but he did not believe catching up with Australia was possible.

However, Australia’s success was good news for New Zealand and the real challenge was in working out how to capitalise on it.

The Governor is quite right that it is not practical to think we can close the gap with Australia by 2025 – quite simply the gap is just far too large.

However I think we can aspire to something more ambitious than making the most of the crumbs that come our way from Australia.

Even if the gap is not closed by 2025, we do want a very strong focus on higher levels of economic growth so the gap gets smaller, or at least doesn’t grow as quickly.

There are effectively six scenarios going forward, from worst to best:

1. NZ growth rate in next 15 years is even lower than for last 15 years, meaning gap between Australia grows even faster than previously.
2. NZ growth rate in next 15 years is the same as last 15 years, so the gap grows as fast as previously.
3. NZ growth rate in next 15 years is higher than the last 15 years, but still not as fast as Australia, so the gap continues to grow – but slower than before.
4. NZ growth rate rate in next 15 years matches that of Australia, so the gap remains relatively constant.
5. NZ growth rate in next 15 years is higher than that of Australia, but not high enough to close the gap by 2025, so the gap closes but is not gone by 2025.
6. NZ growth rate in next 15 years is so much higher than Australia’s that the gap is closed by 2025.

Now like the Governor, I don’t think No 6 is realistic. We are starting too far behind. But personally I’d be pretty delighted with either No 5 or No 4 – both would be absolutely major achievements. Even No 3 would be better than the status quo.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key will use his Waitangi Day address this morning to tackle extremists on both sides of the race relations divide, saying they cynically damage the goodwill needed to put an end to grievance in New Zealand. …

His comments will target both sides – including Pakeha who believe the Treaty settlement process is a “gravy train” and that the price is too high, so past injustice should be ignored.

He will also tackle Maori extremists, describing them as those who promote a culture of entitlement and separatism, who believe colonisation entitles Maori to special treatment and whose sole objective is division.

I think the speech is necessary and overdue. However that does not mean it will automatically be effective.

In his speech at the marae yesterday, Mr Key discussed progress on Treaty settlements and said 2010 could be the year for a breakthrough on the foreshore and seabed. However, he said he needed to voice a note of caution that both sides had to compromise.

He also raised the 15 per cent Maori unemployment rate, saying improving education outcomes for Maori children would help address that.

I think improving education outcomes for Maori children is the most important thing that the Government can do. Except of course there is a limit to how much the Government can do by itself.

Trevor’s post at Red Alert are just getting more bizarre. And I say this as someone who said many times last year Trevor was an excellent blogger. Something has happened over summer.

Trevor’s latest missive is to call John Key racist for criticising Hone Harawira!

So why has John Key been so aggressive in his criticism of Hone?

Hone is a sometimes an easy target. He puts his head up and I’ve certainly had a go at him when it is appropriate.

But contrast this question of a perceived (but not actual) conflict of interest of a member of Hone’s family with the decade of the English whanau ripping the taxpayer off by pretending to live in Dipton. And Wiremu was found to have an interest. And it is continuing.

So is Key kicking Hone because he is Maori and if not what is his explanation for his hypocrisy?

First of all Trevor is lying about Bill. No less than the Auditor-General, Jonathan Hunt, Margaret Wilson and Lockwood Smith have all ruled Bill has been eligible for the Wellington accommodation supplement.

But even putting that falsehood aside (and teh stupidity of trying to compare an issue about a flag with housing allownaces), it is pitiful to suggest that John Key is racist because he criticised Hone Harawira.

Calling the Prime Minister a racist is not an accusation an MP should make lightly. I wonder if Phil Goff would agree with Trevor that Key is a racist for criticising Hone? Maybe someone could ask Phil in front of Hone as he welcomes him onto Waitangi.

I note over at John Ansell’s blog that a Kevin Campbell commented:

Brilliant design John & Ken, now you just have to convince John the Jew. You get my vote.

He defended his comment:

Basil, relax, its a fact he’s a Jew. If it was Helen Clark I would have said Helen the dirty filthy communist.

So presumably Kevin sees both things as very bad.

I find the reference very distasteful and derogatory. It is like if he had Pakistani ancestry, calling him John the Paki.

Now normally I would not highlight comments like the above, unless the person is of some significance.

But a Kevin Campbell is currently standing for the Vice-Presidency of ACT.

Now ACT can not control which of its members stand for office and the comments of one member is no reflection on them. But this may help their members with their voting decisions, assuming it is the same Kevin Campbell.

John Key has announced:

Steven Joyce becomes Tertiary Education Minister, allowing Anne Tolley to fully focus her efforts on the Education portfolio, and in particular the implementation of the Government’s national standards policy.

I said almost a year ago that I thought both Education and Tertiary Education was a huge workload, especially with no Associates from your own party.

I will be fascinated as to Steven’s approach to tertiary education. It has quite a few pressure points in it.

Kate Wilkinson becomes Conservation Minister, a portfolio in which she is currently Associate Minister. This change reflects the fact that Tim Groser is frequently out of the country representing New Zealand’s interests in the Trade and Climate Change fields.

In other words Kate has effectively been the Minister, so this makes it official.

Mr Groser, because he has primary ministerial responsibility for the international negotiations aspects of Climate Change, will have a change in title and becomes the Minister Responsible for International Climate Change Negotiations.

That should not take up too much time, as there isn’t much to negotiate. The US, China and India are all running 100 miles an hour away from an agreement.

The Herald reports:

But it took only one surprise sentence from a kaumatua speaking on the marae to indicate that while Labour leader Phil Goff will have the crowds when he appears tomorrow, he could face a more difficult time.

Joe Everett, a morehu (Ratana follower), noted the long connections the Church has with Labour but then said that since becoming Prime Minister, John Key had abided by his promises to the Maori people.

“In the short time you have been in power, you have done so much more than others have done for the Maori people.”

The overt praise and implicit criticism of the previous Labour government made it clear the Church followers at least are openly reconsidering their alliance with Labour.

Church elder Andre Meihana said Mr Goff could well face criticism over the controversial speech he gave last year, as well as what some saw as a failure by Labour to foster its close ties with the Church over the past five years.

I thought Key might get some stick for not agreeing to Maori seats on the Auckland Council, but that seems to be an agree to disagree issue.

And the Dom Post:

Mr Key opened his speech by joking about flowerpots at the marae – six were blue and four were red.

“I like that. Don’t go changing that when the other fellow [Labour leader Phil Goff] turns up on Sunday.”

He said his almost exclusive focus this year was to improve educational standards in the country, “so that every child in New Zealand gets the opportunity to succeed in life”.

Of course Labour and the educational unions are against having national standards and reporting to parents on them.

I love this. The media break the convention of not publishing photos of the SAS while deployed, and then they try to turn the story into blaming John Key for confirming that Apiata was Apiata. Did they want him to look like a moron and say he can’t confirm that the photo of Apiata was Apiata when it clearly was?

Anyway the Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key yesterday defended his decision to reveal the identity of SAS soldier Willie Apiata in a photograph taken in Kabul this week and published in the Herald.

He said he had revealed the name because media outlets viewing the photo in the Herald had suspected it was Corporal Apiata and he knew he would be asked.

“I’m not going to stand up and lie to the New Zealand media. It was pretty clear to anyone who knows the man that that’s who it was.”

The Herald editorial defends their decision of course. I do hope they note their own readers in their own online polls are saying that made the wrong call by a 7:1 margin.

A French cameraman offered us photographs of two of them uniformed and armed, apparently on patrol in an urban street. We published one. The picture told us something about what our forces are doing. Their appearance and their surroundings suggested they are not always engaged in the clandestine operations, often behind enemy lines, that can justify a policy of extreme secrecy for special forces.

We did not know for certain that one of the photographed soldiers was Corporal Willie Apiata VC and would not have named him if we had known. Mr Key’s decision to identify him the next day was needless and unwise. Our intention was not to expose Corporal Apiata but to give the public its first sight of our forces in Afghanistan.

Note the weasel words “for certain”. That suggests they thought it was Apiata. And again I like the hypocrisy of the media complaining that the PM told the truth. It is inane to think that Apiata was not going to be associated with his own photo- and of course the media were planning to ask Key if it was Apiata, in some sort of game to see if they could get him to deny the obvious, so they could then no doubt complain about it.

The Herald also runs an op-ed from Commander Shaun Fogerty who is the NZDF Comms Director:

I believe that media have until now respected the need for anonymity, and appreciated operation security risks that images of the SAS present, especially from within an operational theatre.

For example, when media think they have a good photograph of two soldiers in the field, it is entirely possible that captured within that image are weapons configurations, ammunition quantities, communications equipment, and protective clothing that may be revealing to an adversary.

That is, close study of such images by an enemy may present them with something they will exploit in the future – directly affecting the safety of these personnel.

In the case of insurgents in Afghanistan, we know them to be technologically sophisticated and to be adept at using tools such as the internet.

So with pictures revealed in the New Zealand media it is entirely possible that they will be seen and studied by insurgents on the other side of the world. We do not say to New Zealand media “do not publish”. Instead we urge caution, and ask that media weigh carefully these points in their consideration to publish.

Our concern about showing the faces or other identifiable traits of members of the SAS is about creating situations in which their identity, including that they belong to this particular unit, might be used against them.

I just hope the lapse in this case doesn’t become the new standard for the future.

John Key, Rodney Hide and Judith Collins have just announced an agreement to implement a version of ACT’s three strikes policy.

They key difference is that the third strike is not life without parole (unless the strike is for a homicide), but for the maximum sentence (without parole) for that offence. So if the third strike is an indecent assault, they get seven years (the maximum), not life.

This compromise is very sensible, and in fact near identical to what I proposed back in March 2009. Great minds think alike

The three strikes regime will only apply to serious offences, which generally are violent or sexual offences carrying a maximum sentence of at least seven years. The three strikes will be:

1. Judge decides term of imprisonment, and Parole Board can let out early on parole (near automatic at two thirds of a sentence)
2. Judge decides term of imprisonment, but no eligibility for parole
3. Judge has to sentence for maximum term for that offence, with no parole, unless doing so would be manifestly unjust

This will not affect a huge number of criminals, but it will mean the repeat serious violent and sexual offenders will not get released so quickly.

Also the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (currently before the Law & Order Select Committee) allows a Judge (regardless of which strike) to impose a sentence of life without parole on the worst killers – so a Clayton Weatherston (for example) would never be eligible for parole until he was old and infirm. This won’t apply to all murderers – just the very worst ones – the Bells, the Burtons, the Weatherstons.

On a process matter, I’m pleased to see the Government is recommending to the Select Committee that they reopen submissions to allow submitters who previously submitted, to submit on these proposed additions to the Bill. All too often the Government introduces major changes after select committee hearings, and then the public have a limited opportunity to have their say.

As I said, I’m very pleased with the agreement. It is a good win for ACT, and a good policy for the Government. Apart from the fact it will be very popular with the public, it is also the right thing to do – repeat serious offenders should be locked away for longer.

The Standard is obsessed with the fact that John Key holidays in Hawaii. They go on about it all the time. The obvious answer that it gives him and his family some privacy is far too obvious.

Anyway a new low was reached in their comments section. Now this is not by one of the authors of The Standard, but from one of the Key hating commenters. And here is his theory:

i wish the standard had enough cash to send someone after Key on his hollidays to snoop around in Hawaii. what the hell does he do there anyhow? i hope it’s all savory activities. no strip clubs etc…. if he were going to indulge in anything that offends “mainsteam NZ” he sure as hell wouldn’t be doing it in Wellington.

at the very least an expat NZ asset could be developed to keep tabs on him.

No that is not the ghost of Mike Williams, but Roger Nome.

When challenged on his plans, he responds:

this is politics not kinergarten. the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of lower-income nzers is at stake here – and Key is screwing them. they’re more important than this filthy rich dude’s privacy (of course within the boundaries of the law).

Ironic that he posts under an alias, yet says there is no right to privacy. Oh, sorry no right for filthy rich dudes.

The Herald reports:

United Future leader Peter Dunne has given up on his annual list of worst-behaved MPs, saying Speaker Lockwood Smith’s reign has ushered in a new era of dignity and propriety.

To be fair, I think the absence of Winston helps also. But the House has been a far less toxic place this year.

Mr Dunne did honour Labour’s Trevor Mallard with a lifetime achievement award in bad behaviour “for services to melodrama, fisticuffs, and generally aberrant behaviour”.

When Lockwood orders him to apologise, you can actually see the supressed rage in his eyes!!

The Herald does find a few insults though:

Labour’s Moana Mackey apologised for referring to Hekia Parata as “Lady Parata” and “her royal highness”. National’s Paul Quinn was pulled up for calling Labour’s backbench “monkeys”.

I’d rather be called Lady Parata than a monkey I have to say – well if I was a female Parata that is!

Some apologies:

SHANE JONES
For saying of Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee, “the notion of him and energy is a mathematical impossibility”.

PHIL HEATLEY
For claiming another “fiddled the books” in ACC and Housing; for wishing the Speaker would use a 90-day eviction order on Trevor Mallard.

Heh.

RODNEY HIDE
For North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams’ “madness”, for calling Trevor Mallard “the angry one”.

Isn’t truth a defence?

JOHN KEY
For claiming Green MP Metiria Turei thought Phil Goff was “racist”. She had said his speech was “the worst kind of politics”.

So worse than racism?

A health warning for those with musical talent, but this nine minute video of John Key on The Edge with JJ and Dom includes him singing Snoopy’s Xmas. Stuff has an amusing story here.

What I found amusing was how they got him to do it by saying Helen wouldn’t sing on air for them, and he replied that is probably why she lasted nine years

He also was in at The Rock, and they have audio of him here. It’s also pretty damn funny and he answers some non-PC questions such as:

Would he rather travel with Rodney Hide or Hone Harawria?
and Can women parallel park?

Also John comments how having DPS means you never need dial a driver and they interview any boys wanting to date Steffi

And finally not including John, but The Rock puts the can men park better theory to the test, with video of their experiments.