Huge win for Goff tonight at the Press debate. One sided – he absolutely smashed it.

Sadly for John, he seems to be a minority of one. Fairfax’s Vernon Small who actually attended the debate wrote:

Who won?

On first and final impressions from someone typing madly in the front row?

Key had the audience eating out of his hand – a showman in top form.

A clear victory for the PM.

I presume Trevor Mallard won’t attack Vernon as a tool of the vast right wing conspiracy.

John Hartevelt tweeted:

A clear win to Key tonight. Proud that The Press hosted such a great debate.

Many people said the format was much better.

ZB’s Felix Marwick:

Calling tonight’s debate for Key. Goff undercut himself by not definitively answering the $ question

And the Herald’s Claire Trevett:

What a jolly Press debate that was. Both entertaining – Goff stood ground till Key Jerry McGuired him, good and hard.

I am deeply disturbed by Claire’s choice of metaphor.

Vernon Small goes further today:

If the first TVNZ debate was a narrow-points victory to Phil Goff, last night’s Press debate was not far short of a rout by John Key.

The next time John Pagani calls something a huge crushing win for Goff or Labour, I’m going to buy National win shares on iPredict!

Funnily enough when judging a debate, I tend to be harder on those whose arguments I agree with. The reason why is because I know thee arguments so well for “the right”, that I’m always thinking (or yelling at the screen) “You should have said this …..”

UPDATE: Danyl at Dim-Post notes:

Goff couldn’t respond. He couldn’t account for the $14 billion shortfall. Instead he prevaricated. He talked about asset sales. He talked about tax evasion. Key continued to press him, and Goff insisted we’d get a spreadsheet ‘soon’, which explained everything. Then he spent the final quarter of the debate insisting that he’d already explained where the money was coming from, while Key and the audience simply laughed at him.

It was a humiliating defeat. And totally unnecessary. Three-and-a-half weeks from the election and Labour’s leader can’t produce a credible budget.

I suspect we will see Labour’s costed budget later today or tomorrow. I also predict it will miraculously balance and show no extra borrowing needed. What will matter is whether Labour’s figures hold up to scrutny. Anyone can make a budget balance by just fiddling with assumptions, such as saying “Our policies are good for the economy, so we predict economic growth will be 05% higher which means this much more tax revenue”.

The Labour Party claims its work and wages policy, which it released this week, will boost the country’s economic performance and generally provide a better future for workers. That is very unlikely. The policy’s strange mish-mash of bureaucratic centralised wage-setting, legislated higher minimum pay and repeal of some of the present Government’s liberalising workplace reforms has gruesome echoes of the unlovely 1970s. Far from being a forward-looking policy, as the Labour leader, Phil Goff, has declared it to be, it recalls policies long thought dead and buried.

The policy has been welcomed by unions, as well it might be. It could well have been written by them.

I shudder at the thought of a union being able to go to a group of mates appointed by Labour and get them to set terms and conditions for an entire industry. Employers, no matter what their size or location or profitability, will suddenly have to comply with the dictates of this new commission.

According to Goff, the policy would help stem the flow of people to Australia. Given that the effect of much of it would be to price some jobs out of existence, quite how it would do this is unclear. Labour still does not appear to understand that it cannot legislate its way to prosperity.

It’s a basic concept, but one which seems alien to them.

As might have been expected, the Green Party has jumped on this incident to advance its campaign against exploration for oil in deep waters off New Zealand. This is just political opportunism. There can be no comparison between a properly run deep-sea drilling operation, far offshore and subject to rigorous environmental safeguards, and an accident in which a ship has hit a well-charted reef a few hundred metres off the coast. As the Prime Minister said, the only connection is that both are at sea.

How it hit such a well charted reef is yet to be determined. Hopefully there will be some accountability for what has happened.

Labour’s proposals are, at this stage, not much more than a fine-sounding wishlist. As one red-zone resident noted, the plans were “about as useful as wallpaper”. This is largely driven by the party’s poor showing in opinion polls.

Wallpaper can be useful, to be fair.

Unless there is more substance that Labour has yet to announce, some of them would raise more problems than they would solve. It is also difficult to see how some of them could be made to work. The gaping hole in the proposals is the lack of any realistic assessment of their longer-term impact on the public finances. And while Labour’s leader, Phil Goff, was scornful of the capacity of a “market solution”, he appeared to be oblivious (or chose to ignore) the potentially huge, unintended consequences of ad-hoc interventionism.

A centrepiece of Labour’s plan is the proposal to spend $230 million on “affordable” sections that would be sold “at cost” to 1500 red-zone homeowners. This would, Labour says, control cost inflation among private developers. Quite how the government buying sections, instead of private interests, would control any inflation in the market is not explained. Also, “at cost” suggests that Labour would subsidise the price of the sections, which means a few fortunate buyers would get sections they could not otherwise afford at the expense of taxpayers.

The most notable flaw in this proposal, however, is that it does not explain how the lucky 1500 would be chosen out of 6000 or so who can no longer remain on their land. Whether they were chosen according to some stated criteria, by a lottery or selected by some other method, a host of inequities would be bound to arise.

Perhaps they would go to those who can prove they voted Labour?

Jim is incredibly determined when it comes to chasing up issues for people. He can also be incredibly stubborn – on several occasions, he re-affirmed his (mistaken, in my opinion) belief that he could have been mayor and MP, had it not been for the earthquake.

Of course he could have been both. He could have done them both “standing on his head”  if I recall his quote correctly. And remain a party leader also.

But it looks like Jim may have lots of time to stand on his head – the latest Press poll has him at 20%, 16% behind Parker.

Labour’s promise to remove GST from fresh fruit and vegetables reeks of desperation.

With his party languishing at 32 per cent in the latest Colmar Brunton poll – a formidable 22 points behind National – Labour leader Phil Goff’s desire for a circuit breaker is entirely understandable. However, that does not make his choice any less wrong-headed.

And the inconsistencies:

Mr Goff and his senior colleagues are experienced enough to know that to open the door for exemptions is to also open a can of worms.

They will be asked why those who buy their peas fresh should be favoured over those who buy them frozen – there is little, if any, difference in the health benefits they deliver.

They will be asked why the exemption should apply only to fruit and vegetables, and not to other elements of a healthy diet, such as fish and lean meat.

They will be asked why they do not provide for other exemptions to promote other activities that benefit society – removing GST from bicycles or solar panels, for example.

Most of all, they must pledge to also remove GST from condoms. Does Labour not care about herpes? Are they unconcerned over AIDs? Do they want to be responsible for tens of thousands of abortions, because they have not removed GST off condoms?

And The Press:

After spending more than two decades assiduously defending the integrity of the GST system it originally introduced, Labour has back-pedalled with its promise to scrap the tax on fresh fruit and vegetables. …

Despite Labour claims to the contrary, retailers have rightly warned that making fresh fruit and vegetables exempt would still compromise the simplicity of the system, which was one of its greatest virtues. This will inevitably lead to added compliance costs for many businesses and, in terms of monitoring or administering the GST change, for the government as well.

The benefit accruing to families, which Labour puts at $6 a week and National at just $1 a week, must be offset against the hidden compliance costs and the lost tax revenue of around $250 million a year. …

Rather than increase the costs to retailers, the Government focus, especially in post-quake Canterbury where employment losses are likely, should be on providing an economic environment which fosters job and income growth. This is a preferable way to ensure that fruit, vegetables and other healthy foods are affordable.

Exactly.

Anderton has been weakened, though, by his insistence until now that he would not quit Parliament if he won the mayoralty. He asserted that he could handle both jobs “standing on his head”. It was an assertion that did not go down well before the earthquake and has now been shown to be horribly overweening. Anderton belatedly recognised this with his announcement yesterday that he would in fact relinquish his parliamentary seat if he became mayor. But the concession was made slowly and reluctantly. He had dithered over it long enough for some voters at least to call into question his judgment and temperament for the job.

I’d forgotten that quote that he could do both jobs standing on his head. Anderton has never suffered from a lack of confidence.

In the end, South Canterbury Finance was not, as some had predicted, too big to fail.

The Government, quite correctly, resisted the temptation to support the recapitalisation of the country’s second-biggest finance company, consigning it to receivership. …

There was, however, no point in keeping South Canterbury Finance afloat. Bad governance and loan practices have destroyed a once strong brand.

The Press:

South Canterbury Finance’s decision to call in the receivers yesterday had an inevitability about it. …

But the investor repayments, and the fact that the receivership process means there will be no fire sale of assets or fast call-in of loans, should limit the economic, and perhaps political, fallout. This might otherwise have been more serious at a time when the economy is still fragile, a strong reason for the Government to act.

The Dom Post:

The failure of South Canterbury Finance is a tragedy – for founder Allan Hubbard, for South Island businesses and for taxpayers who must now make good the deposit guarantee made by the last government.

Mr Hubbard, 82, is no Mark Hotchin or Rod Petricevic. There are no multimillion-dollar mansions, flash cars or luxury yachts lurking in his cupboards. He lives in a modest Timaru bungalow and drives an ageing Volkswagen Beetle.

However, the $1.6 billion SCF owes investors is roughly three times the amount Mr Hotchin’s Hanover and Petricevic’s Bridgecorp each owed investors when they collapsed. …

It is time for the loyal band of letter-writing supporters who believe Mr Hubbard can do no wrong to bite their tongues. Their hero is decent, generous and well-intentioned. Earlier this year he put family assets worth more than $150m into SCF in an attempt to shore up its balance sheet. Those assets have now been lost.

The interim report of the statutory managers appointed to run his affairs, plus those of other companies and charities associated with him and his wife, Jean, suggests the acumen that made him the South Island’s richest man has deserted him. …

Many will wonder why the last government ever agreed to guarantee the deposits of investors who went looking for higher interest rates in finance companies. The answer is that both Labour and National, then in Opposition, considered the guarantee the lesser of two evils. Better payouts than the total collapse of the financial system. They may have been right, but the payouts announced yesterday still stick in the craw. This is not what we pay taxes for.

The Dom Post is on the money. It is easy in hindsight to say that one should not have had the guarantee scheme, but in late 2008 the wordl financial system was on the brink of possible collapse, and pretty much every OECD country did much the same as a stability measure.

The ODT:

But with SCF’s investors largely covered by the guarantee scheme, the Government chose to see it go into receivership at least in part so that it could have some degree of control over the impact of the company’s failure on the core South Island economy – and so the fallout could be managed, as far as possible, in an orderly manner.

SCF may be regarded as the biggest single South Island casualty of the recession, and without the greatest care by the receivers and the principal debtor – the taxpayer – the long-term consequences may be a chief cause of slowing the economic recovery.

Everyone in the South will hope that prospect can be avoided.

On the brighter side, some sensible reduction of rural land prices may eventually result from this failure, just as it appears to be occurring in the urban property market once the speculative bubble burst.

None of the four editorials are saying the Government should have stepped in to stop receivership, which is what some were urging.

It is true that Anderton’s energy and work ethic are high and his well-organised electorate office could do the bulk of his constituency work. But his Wigram voters would surely expect their MP to be representing their interests in Parliament, playing the role of a vastly experienced politician in opposing the current Government and attending to the other duties of an MP, such as select committee work.

The more time he spent on his central government commitments, the less attention he could devote to Christchurch issues. And if Anderton’s stinging criticism of the present council is well- founded and his analysis of the city’s problems is correct then the mayoralty must certainly be a fulltime position. …

Jim – campaigning to be a part-time Mayor.

Labour Party leader Phil Goff should have learned a harsh lesson about authority from the tragicomic events of the past 48 hours: when the knives are out, leaders must strike first.

He should be regretting that, when Chris Carter’s reluctant apology over the expenses rort finally emerged, rather than merely demoting him he did not suspend him outright, allowing him back only with the lowest rank in the caucus.

Goff wasn’t tough enough then. His leniency towards Carter has now exploded in his face.

The Press also says Goff should have acted sooner:

It’s axiomatic that Labour MP Chris Carter has written his political death warrant. The only question that remains is whether he has sealed the fate of his leader, Phil Goff, as well. Goff’s mistake in dealing with this saga was not to have been tougher on his errant MP quite some time ago.

What will be interesting is what Carter does after the NZ Council makes its decision.

The Dom Post says Carter does not get it:

Chris Carter just does not get it. Thrown an undeserved lifeline by Labour leader Phil Goff after his extravagant sense of entitlement was laid bare by the release of details of ministerial spending, Mr Carter instead chose to defy party rules by taking an overseas trip – albeit one paid for by the Chinese Government, not the New Zealand taxpayer – without seeking permission.

Then he chose to try to derail Mr Goff’s leadership in a particularly inept way. His not very confidential letter shows that not only does he lack any sense of political reality, but also even the most rudimentary grasp of political tactics.

In between all his travel, and all his time on Waiheke, I wonder how often he even appears in Te Atatu?

And finally the Herald:

Mr Goff has ended up with his position fortified even though there is little reason to doubt much of what Mr Carter was saying.

The stark results of recent opinion polls must surely have many Labour MPs and activists thinking the party will lose the 2011 election under its current leader.

Indeed, barring a dramatic change in the political landscape, National’s lead of about 20 percentage points leaves room for no other conclusion.

In such circumstances, it would be totally unsurprising if some in the party were not contemplating a leadership change.

As I said on radio with Paul Holmes, the question is not will Labour win with Phil Goff. They probably will not. The question is will Labour do better with someone else as Leader, and the answer is probably not.

The second was the introduction of a grandly titled Media Industry Development Decree. It means, among other things, that the Fiji Times, the country’s oldest and largest newspaper, has three months to remove Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd as its owner or face closure.

If the first development borders on farce, the second should remove any lingering illusions about the regime’s view of democratic niceties. The decree effectively eliminates freedom of expression in Fiji.

Aside from the restriction on foreign ownership, a tribunal has been established to ensure nothing is printed or broadcast against the “national interest or public order”.

In essence, Fijians will no longer know what their rulers are up to. Special attention is being paid to the Fiji Times because, according to the Attorney-General, it has been “the purveyor of negativity, at least for the past three years”.

The move against the media is part of an ongoing removal of Fijians’ rights. This has included the abrogation of the constitution, the squashing of dissent and the dishonouring of pledges for a return to democracy.

There is sadly no evidence that there will be a return to democracy. I can’t see a scenario where the Commodore will give up power and let Fijians actually decide on their Government.

This step should also occasion a rethink by New Zealanders who spend their holidays in Fiji. Tim Pankhurst, of the New Zealand Media Freedom Committee has suggested a boycott.

He has a point. Tourists might like to say that Fijian businesses and jobs should not be penalised for the sins of the regime. But they are undermining their own country’s diplomatic efforts.

Fiji’s tourism-driven economy attracts 60 per cent of its patronage from New Zealand and Australia. No official boycott can be imposed, nor should it be.

But a rethink by would-be tourists would apply further pressure. And if, ultimately, it is up to the Fijian people to send Commodore Bainimarama back to the barracks, tourists temporarily moving away from Fiji for other Pacific destinations would hammer home a message about the pariah status of their rulers.

Rather than out all the onus on consumers, the media could play their part. Rather than just write editorials, APN and Fairfax could refuse to accept advertising for Fiji tourism. That would be a sign of solidarity with their colleagues in Fiji, and show real commitment rather than just words.

The Press lashes FIFA:

Football prides itself on being the “beautiful game”, but the current World Cup in South Africa has been marred by too many ugly refereeing decisions.

One of the most egregious occurred this week when England’s Frank Lampard was not awarded a goal against Germany despite the ball clearly crossing the goal line after hitting the crossbar.

This must serve as a wake-up call for Fifa boss Sepp Blatter and his top officials to get their heads out of the sand and harness the electronic technology successfully used by so many other sports.

It is a no brainer.

The Dom Post looks at smoking in prisons:

But surely an outright ban goes too far? How about halfway measures first, such as a prison smoking-room, or a ban on smoking in cells? If she is wedded to a total ban, what are known as “cessation assistance” programmes – already available to anyone, including the incarcerated, who want to quit – must be funded appropriately. …

As usual with any broadbrush proposal, the devil will be in the detail. But that detail should acknowledge union unease. The minister has already attended the funeral of one prison guard this year – a political show that bore an uncanny resemblance to former prime minister Helen Clark’s infamous appearance at the Folole Muliaga funeral in 2007. Ms Collins does not want the option of attending another.

What an incredibly stupid comparison, in terms of funerals. Jason Palmer was employed by the Government and died doing his job, and as a result of his job. I don’t know anyone who thinks a Minister should not attend the funeral of law & order professionals who get killed by criminals. In fact it is almost disrespectful not to go.

What that has in common with the circus generated around the Muliaga’s I don’t know.

The ODT also looks at smoking:

With this background, it may have surprised some readers to learn that the inmates of our prisons are permitted to smoke, including in their cells, unlike in Canada, some British prisons, and those in some Australian states, where the practice is banned.

The intention of the Minister of Corrections to ban smoking in our jails from July next year is certainly easily justified on health grounds alone, and the overseas precedent suggests the fears being raised here by vested interests are largely groundless. …

Objectors have raised two main issues: the right of prisoners to smoke in what is effectively their “own home”; and the potential for violent reaction from prisoners required to cease smoking.

The first claim is groundless.

Prisoners are, in effect, tenants.

The State, as landlord, can and does impose conditions of use.

Additionally, prisoners who do not smoke – and prison guards – are entitled to not be confined in conditions where their own health may be damaged by second-hand smoke.

The department has anticipated prisoner reaction by giving a year’s notice of the measure, and by its intention to offer a cessation programme, including nicotine replacements, for those who seek such help.

That approach is not unreasonable.

Meanwhile 65% of people in Labour’s poll say they back the ban, so I expect we will see them come out backing it shortly.

From the middle of next year New Zealand’s prisons are set to emulate Australia’s and become smokefree.

It is a long overdue move. It was an anomaly that prisoners could still smoke in their cells as the rest of New Zealand moved increasingly towards a no-smoking regime.

School grounds, hospitals, and other government departments have gone smokefree, as have bars, restaurants and businesses, and, in Christchurch, there is even a smokefree policy in parks.

For many prisoners – two-thirds of inmates – an enforced cold turkey regime will seem a hardship or even a civil rights breach. But those who have committed crimes against society should not expect the right to smoke, just as they cannot legally have alcohol and drugs.

What amuses me is the policy dilemma for Labour. They instinctively are in favour of anything that is anti-smoking but against anything that they see as punitive to prisoners.

So how does Labour solve this dilemma? They run a blog poll to decide their policy

The Dom Post looks at the trans-Tasman relationship:

When Julia Gillard became prime minister of Australia, Prime Minister John Key was the first foreign leader to phone in his congratulations.

He needs to hope his fast dialling finger will deliver a better result than his predecessor, Helen Clark, achieved with her swift flight over for a cup of tea with Kevin Rudd when he got the job – in his time as prime minister Mr Rudd never quite made it to New Zealand for an official visit.

Mr Key, like Miss Clark before him, is smart enough to realise the onus is on Wellington to keep reminding Canberra what the “NZ” stands for in Anzac. The reality, however unpalatable it might be to some, is that New Zealand is simply not as important to Australia as Australia is to New Zealand.

Australia is New Zealand’s most important trading partner and its most important security relationship. …

Talk about whether New Zealand and Australia should take their relationship to the next level and look at issues such as a common border can wait until the Australian election is over.

Mr Key’s job is to ensure New Zealand’s interests are not damaged in the meantime.

Miss Clark and John Howard reportedly enjoyed a warm relationship despite their different political ideologies. The hope must be that the state-house son of a refugee and the daughter of a 10 immigrant from Wales can do the same.

The irony is that PM from opposite parties seem to have got on better than PMs from the same side of the spectrum.

The ODT looks at OSH:

It is one of our cultural stereotypes: the rugged, versatile, no-nonsense farmer – the sort of person for whom most regulations are made by townies for townies who have no real understanding of the demands and constraints of a working life in the country; and, further, how the red tape that such people unhesitatingly impose on the rural sector can seriously impact on proven working methods and productivity.

In no other sphere is this more pronounced, or more irritating to some, than on-farm safety: the rules and regulations promulgated by the Department of Labour, Occupational Safety and Health and ACC are frequently seen as at best a brake on freedom and individual responsibility and, at worst, the interfering actions of bureaucrats and the “politically correct”.

Sadly, the reality is that such organisations have reason to be concerned.

According to the latest figures released by ACC, farmers are killing themselves in work-related accidents at the rate of one every 28 days.

Last year, 13 farmers died in accidents on New Zealand farms.

There were 18,600 injuries on farms, with quad bikes, farm machinery and poor animal handling featuring as the most common causes.

Raw figures by themselves mean little. What would be more useful is the injury rate per employee.

The collapse of international whaling negotiations at Morocco is a chilling moment for the future of controlled whaling, let alone the prospect of a complete ban. The collapse is no less disturbing for the fact that it has always been as likely as not.

The International Whaling Commission proposal to the three nations that permit commercial whaling, Japan, Norway and Iceland, never satisfied either side. …

With all hope of a compromise now gone, the New Zealand Government will probably join Australia in its case against Japan at the International Court of Justice.

It is not a course that promises effective policing of the Southern Ocean even if the court can be persuaded the Antarctic is a whale sanctuary in international law. Even if a favourable ruling can be obtained, the case is likely to take years and leave the ocean open to unrestricted whaling in the interim.

Not even Greenpeace and other environmental lobbies at Agidir favoured court action over a negotiated compromise. Mr McCully went out of his way to praise their helpful approach to the negotiations, an approach that helps keep non-whaling governments and most of the public firmly behind the effort to end all whaling.

I suspect we will join the court case now.

The Dom Post looks at Allan Hubbard and the SFO:

The good people of Timaru seem stunned by news that highly regarded local businessman Allan Hubbard, and wife Jean, might have fallen foul of the law. Last Sunday, Commerce Minister Simon Power took the rare step of putting the couple themselves, Aorangi Securities and seven charitable trusts into what is known as statutory management. He said the objective was to “prevent fraud and reckless company management [and] to protect investors …”

The city’s newspaper, the Timaru Herald, said in an editorial last Monday that the Hubbards’ sin, in official eyes, seemed to be the unconventional way they did business. It went on: “If the allegations are unfounded, the officials involved will have humiliated one of the country’s most successful and generous businessmen for nothing. They will also have wasted a good deal of taxpayers’ money at a time when there is no shortage of directors of failed companies to chase.”

It is that latter point that so upsets Mr Hubbard’s supporters.

All those who broke the law should face consequences for that.

Little wonder that Mr Power, aside from rejigging the justice system, is upending securities law, too. He plans to have a new and independent Financial Markets Authority, consolidating the powers and functions of the Securities Commission, some of those of the Registrar of Companies and Government Actuary, and some of the NZX’s regulatory role, operating early next year.

He has also completely restructured the financial advisory industry, and now wants submissions on how to replace the Securities Act and Securities Markets Act, in a bid to strengthen the financial markets, and restore investor confidence. “The Government cannot and will not legislate for risk,” he said this week, “but we can build a regime that makes those risks more transparent.”

A unified regulator makes sense.

The Press farewells Kevin Rudd:

Even by Australia’s brutal political standards, the dumping of Kevin Rudd was spectacular. Sudden, decisive and risky, it cast out the man who had brought his party into power and governed until recently with substantial voter support.

That Rudd at the beginning of the week seemed secure in his job but by the end of the week had so little party support that he could not contest the challenge is testament to a ruthlessness in Labor. The party has shown not a shred of loyalty to the man who won it a landslide election after years in the wilderness, who had done little wrong in government, and who had shaky polls but no worse than John Howard at the same part of the election cycle.

Loyalty is two ways. If you run Government through a inner circle of just four people, you alienate your colleagues.

The ODT focuses on debt:

The economy, it is fair to say, is very gradually improving after the short-lived recession, although the position so far as internal and external debt is concerned remains grave.

New Zealand, fortunately, is nowhere near in as bad a way as Britain, whose economy is practically in ruins, and where after last week’s budget, every household will be worse off as the new government tries to rebuild.

A vast range of cuts has been imposed to try to reduce government spending and pay off the colossal debt load.

New Zealand has dealt with similar problems in budgets of the past two years, but beyond the immediate future the economy faces what may turn out to be a difficulty of very serious proportions: a lack of capital. …

The kind of public service job creation the Clark government indulged in has also proved to be a serious drag on the economy: since 2004 more than half of all new jobs were in public administration, health, and education.

Over the same period 40,000 jobs disappeared from agriculture, horticulture, forestry, manufacturing, and transport – what some have described as the “earning side ” of the economy, the tradeable sector.

The tradeable sector went into recession in 2005 and only came out of it in 2009.

Treasury forecasts show steady economic growth of about 3% a year and that is an extremely modest number.

Clearly, though, there will be no new “value-added” jobs unless and until the confidence of businesses to invest and to employ is restored and investors are willing to risk their money.

Our collective failure to do that will inevitably mean all taxpayers will face what the British and other European disaster economies are now confronting.

We need investment and business confidence.

Tensions between generals in the field and their civilian masters are a fact of life. Armed forces chiefs are able to focus solely on battlefield strategy and having the necessary manpower and resources.

The purview of politicians must be wider, not least in considering the popular appetite for war.

Not surprisingly, generals often become impatient at what they consider interference in the prosecution of a war. In moments of candour, they might convey their annoyance to well-trusted aides. Otherwise, they keep their counsel.

They know that if such sentiments become public knowledge, their position becomes untenable. Such is now the case with General Stanley McChrystal, the United States commander in Afghanistan.

And he has paid the price.

General McChrystal’s blunder is the more unfortunate in that his strategy is the best chance of achieving a stability in Afghanistan that will pave the way for an orderly exit.

His approach has eschewed lofty goals, such as embedding a model democracy, and concentrated on “Afghanising” the conflict through the rapid training and arming of Kabul’s forces.

He also understands the importance of gaining a settlement with more pragmatic elements of the Taleban, thereby creating a political consensus. The present “surge”, which has achieved mixed results, is an attempt to accelerate that outcome.

The eminent sense in General McChrystal’s strategy means he has not been without his defenders. One of the more interesting was the much-maligned Afghan President.

A spokesman for Hamid Karzai said he believes General McChrystal is “the best commander the United States has sent to Afghanistan over the last nine years”.

A sad end to a fine career.

The Press looks at the breath testing of spectators for a school by rugby match:

The scene outside the front gate of Christ’s College on Tuesday was extraordinary.

Eight police officers were lined up administering breath tests to spectators arriving to watch the annual Christ’s College-Christchurch Boys’ High School rugby match. The police were required to enforce a zero alcohol policy imposed by Christ’s College for the match in an attempt to stop the drunken yahoo off-field brawling that has, over the last decade or so, become a feature of the encounter.

The policy seems to have been a success. For the first time in years, the game passed off without an outbreak of violence or indeed any untoward incidents at all. No-one was arrested or ejected from the ground, in a striking contrast with last year’s event which was, as Inspector Derek Erasmus observed, notable for “baton charges and multiple arrests”.

Something we have seen recently is that a huge amount can be done within the current Sale of Liquor Act.

The Dom Post opines on the departure of Sean Plunket from Radio NZ:

Broadcaster Sean Plunket has finally made good on his threats to quit Radio New Zealand National to seek fresh fields. Though his willingness to ask hard questions will be missed, his decision – a long time coming, given his testy relationship with his masters – will be good for him and might even be good for the company. …

Plunket’s departure, alongside suggestions that Robinson will retire within two years, gifts RNZ’s chief executive, Peter Cavanagh, and the board a rare opportunity. Does today’s three-hour mix of hard news and the odd joker work as well now, in a multi-media environment, as when the hour-long programme launched 35 years ago?

And the ODT finally comments on the China protest:

According to the police, a number of witnesses were spoken to after Green Party co-leader Russel Norman complained of assault by Chinese security agents attending the visit to Parliament by China’s Vice-president, Xi Jiping, last week.

Presumably, these included members of the force stationed at Parliament Buildings.

Police also studied film footage and photographs of the incident, and had sought, to no avail, to speak to the Chinese alleged to be involved.

It was concluded – quite swiftly in the circumstances – there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a prosecution.

This should be no surprise.

The prospect of the police mounting a sufficiently strong case was weakened as soon as it became clear that Dr Norman had apparently moved from his initial location at the foot of the steps to Parliament’s main building to the entrance of the Beehive to be very much closer to the point at which the vice-president passed, thus himself contributing to a degree to the predictable response by Chinese security guards charged with protecting their leader. …

The fact remains that he was allowed to have his protest – his “free speech” action was not suppressed and could be heard loud and clear, although it must be considered a certainty the Chinese security guards had not the faintest notion who he was.

Successive New Zealand governments have in the past decade or more routinely expressed concern – on behalf of Dr Norman and other protesters – to Chinese visitors about the infringements of human rights in China, while successfully maintaining a relationship that has resulted in China becoming our second largest trading partner.

That relationship is hardly to be jeopardised on the strength of one MP’s needless behaviour.

Working out rules for MPs (or others) protesting should not be difficult.

Should they be allowed in an area where they can be seen? Yes.

Should they be allowed in an area where the target of their protest can hear them? Yes.

Should they be allowed close enough to a VIP that they could seriously humiliate them by grabbing them, spitting on them, throwing or squiriting something at them – no.

So the question is merely how wide should the corridor be, which they can’t cross into. I’d say around 10 – 12 metres. You can protest very effectively still at that range.

Hats off to Ryan Nelsen, the captain of the New Zealand soccer team.

Not only for the way he marshalled his side as the All Whites claimed a hugely significant 1-1 World Cup draw against Italy, the reigning world champion, but for his straight talking after the match.

Sport is replete with players who utter only polite noises. Nelsen told it like it was. Guatemalan referee Carlos Batres, who awarded the softest of penalties to the Italians, had had “stars in his eyes” and his partiality had ruined the game.

“If he’s the best that Fifa offer up then, gee whizz, I would hate to see the worst,” Nelsen said. …

Paraguay appears to be the best team in the All Whites’ pool. While many other countries have struggled, it had confirmed its standing as the second-best qualifier from South America.

If New Zealand is to advance to the knockout stage, probably nothing less than a victory will suffice. The odds will, once again, strongly favour its opponent. But who would now bet against the All Whites?

I’ll be in Australia for that game, and making sure there is no doubt the All Whites are not an Australasian team!

The Press defends the right to protest:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman’s decision to protest at Parliament during the visit of Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping was eminently predictable.

His party has long supported the free Tibet movement and highlighted China’s shocking human rights record. Just as his predecessor as the Greens’ male co-leader, the late Rod Donald, did in 2005 during the visit of another Chinese dignitary, Norman waved a Tibetan flag as Xi’s delegation arrived at Parliament. Norman did go further than Donald, who mounted a silent protest, by also calling out for democracy. But the attitude of New Zealand authorities in these two cases was quite different.

That is because Rod Donald did not advance on the VIP.

In 2005, police and security staff respected the right of Donald to protest and rejected calls from Chinese security guards to remove him. But no action was taken last Friday by New Zealand authorities when Norman had his flag taken from him by Chinese security personnel and a scuffle broke out. Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully later lambasted Norman, saying the Green MP had abused Parliamentary privilege and his actions were calculated to give offence.

McCully was half right. Norman’s protest was a stunt aimed at provoking the Chinese and to attract publicity for the Greens and the Tibetan cause, about which China is hugely sensitive. But McCully is totally wrong to accuse Norman of abusing his position. Unlike members of the public, whose protests at Parliament are carefully controlled, Norman is an MP who has the freedom of the building and its grounds.

Not total freedom. An MP can’t enter the offices of other parties without permission for example.

He was perfectly entitled to exercise his right to freedom of speech where he did. And if his position was perceived as a threat to the personal security, rather than just the sensitivities of the visitors, it is up to New Zealand authorities to take action.

I agree. The NZ authorities should have kept Norman from getting so close to the Vice-President. If he had remained at the foot of the steps of Parliament, I would have expected him to be protected. But he rushed up to the Beehive entrance, right up against the Chinese security guards.

The Chinese security guards were wrong to try and interfere with his flag, but he was also wrong to advance so close. He should have negotiated a position to stand at where he could be clearly seen and heard (if desired) but not within spitting distance of the Vice-President.

The Chinese officials who took the flag and scuffled with Norman probably had limited understanding of Norman’s rights as an MP. New Zealand security personnel still should have stepped in to protect him.

They did.

New Zealand does have a close and valued relationship with China. This has been shown by the recent free-trade deal with it and by the emphasis placed by New Zealand on its participation in the Shanghai Expo.

But these economic ties must not obscure the fact that there are differences between us and one of these is New Zealand’s strong commitment to human rights, including freedom of speech and the right to protest peacefully.

Instead of berating those who, like Norman, exercise these rights, New Zealand ministers should have firmly reminded the Chinese that in this country, unlike their own nation, these rights are sacrosanct and must be respected by foreign guests.

As John Key has pointed out there was a continual protest outside the hotel where the VP was staying, and no one interfered with their right to do so. It’s because those protesters stayed at a distance where they could not be considered a danger.

The Dom Post talks money and morality:

Yesterday The Dominion Post reported that a Napier church had taken at least $20,000 in donations from Whetu Abraham, a rest home resident. Those caring for him had tried to stop the donations, and rest home manager Lucy Dever believes what the Oasis Elim Church has done is unethical, immoral and un-Christian.

Mr Abraham says he gave the money because of his faith, and because of his simple understanding that “you help them, they help you”.

Church pastor Bruce Collingwood says the money was given willingly by Mr Abraham “out of his own heart”, and he was comfortable about taking it after he and Mr Abraham had talked about Mr Abraham’s financial and medical situation.

Others, including the church’s national body, are not.

The relationship between churches and money has been fraught ever since Jesus drove the moneychangers from the temple. …

There is no doubt the money Mr Abraham gave will help the Oasis Elim Church, but churches depend on their moral authority as much as their bank balances. For many, accepting large sums from a sick man who had little to begin with diminishes that authority to near bankruptcy.

And the ODT also praises the All Whites:

Yesterday, much of the nation discovered the round ball belongs to a sport that delivers heroes every bit as outsized as the oval one.

A good portion of the labour force turned up for work emotionally drained, sleep-deprived and running on adrenalin, having just witnessed the best performance – and result – from a New Zealand football side.

The heroics and hyperbole of the 1-1 draw with Slovakia were cast aside as the All Whites took on the might of Italy and held those fancied, fleet-footed, blue-shirted millionaires to a 1-1 draw. …

There is no bigger tournament in world sport than the Fifa World Cup.

To qualify is a mission in itself, full of its own pulsating dramas – witness the fateful decider with Bahrain at Wellington’s Westpac Stadium earlier this year, the Rory Fallon header for goal, the Paston penalty save.

The eyes of the world are upon this tournament as they are no other, even arguably, the Olympics, and in their spectacular form-upending results to date, the All Whites will have had those eyes turning in this direction …

In the lead-up to the tournament, website sbnation.com predicted the All Whites had “as much chance of advancing out of group stage as a paraplegic pig thrown into a tiger pit has of walking out of there unscathed”.

That quote should be read out to the team just before the Paraguay match.

Unease has been generated by Attorney-General Chris Finlayson’s statement that customary title is “an ownership title”.

This creates a considerable breach with the existing 2004 legislation, which vested the foreshore and seabed in the Crown.

Iwi and hapu whose claims succeed will receive a deed giving title to a coastal area.

They will not be able to sell the property or block public access, but they will have considerable control, including the ability to veto or initiate development, permit activities, and exploit non-nationalised minerals.

He says the compromise reached between the Government, the Maori Party and the Iwi Leadership Group means that, from the staging post of the public domain, there will be few awards of customary title by the courts or as a result of negotiation with the Crown.

That, says John Key, is because the threshold for the granting of such title is high.

Iwi and hapu applicants will have to show continuous and exclusive occupation of the area claimed since 1840.

A test the Court of Appeal said would be hard to meet.

The Dom Post focuses on health issues:

Decisions on health spending are among the most difficult of all those that governments face. They can literally be a matter of life and death.

There are no easy options. Though the public purse is not bottomless, the demand for health services is. There is always a new drug that can be bought or an extra treatment that can be added, always a demand for extra dollars to be spent.

In health, the issue is always where the line is to be drawn, the line that divides patients between those who get to have the state pick up the bill and those who are told that their health needs are their fiscal responsibility.

The line being debated at the moment is who should get bariatric surgery and who should not. The operation costs between $17,000 and $35,000, but has been shown to have dramatic effects on the morbidly obese, with patients halving their weight and with weight-related health problems vanishing along with the kilos.

There are those who will say that the obese have brought it on themselves, and because of that should not be a priority for health spending.

That is not an approach that is applied elsewhere in the health system. Smokers are not told their lung cancer will not be treated because they knew the risks and continued to smoke anyway. Those who spent their summers acquiring a deep mahogany tan are not told that the skin cancer that resulted will be left untreated. And drunk drivers and the thousands of others who injure themselves because they drank too much are not turned away from the hospital doors because they made the wrong choices.

But maybe they should be, to some degree. If you protect people from the consequences of their choices, then they may continue to make bad choices.

If a smoker is told their health insurance premiums will be an extra $1,500 a year because they smoke, that could result in many quitting.

The Press drills into the oil spill:

For BP, the scale of the disaster is such that it looks as though it will bring about the end of the company in its present form. Some estimates suggest that the rapidly mounting costs for the company from the fines and damages it will have to pay could reach $40 billion. Even for a company with annual sales of a quarter of a trillion dollars and profits last year of $17 billion, that is a huge sum to absorb. Already BP has lost half of its value on the sharemarket (incidentally hitting pension funds hard) and it is possible it will have to file for bankruptcy protection and reorganise itself in order to survive. Yesterday it cancelled its dividend (further hitting pensioners and others who are invested in it) in order to pay for a $20 billion fund to meet its present estimated liabilities. The costs are clearly going to spread far beyond the Gulf of Mexico.

The environmental scope of the disaster will not be known for some time. But if the Exxon Valdez could be described as the worst oil-spill disaster in the world, then this one is catastrophically larger. Exxon Valdez was in a remote, sparsely populated part of the world and while wildlife was devastated, the human impact was small. The Gulf of Mexico is just as rich in wildlife and is also, of course, heavily populated. Those people are now seeing their livelihoods, resorts and living areas destroyed.

They have been infuriated by what they saw as a somewhat insouciant response to the calamity by President Barack Obama. It was not helped by a speech he made on Wednesday, which although it gave a pledge that BP would be made to pay for all the damage it was responsible for, also told Americans a truth they have been unwilling to hear – that part of the problem is their addiction to oil-based fuels.

But the president is correct and his remarks apply as much to New Zealanders and others as they do to Americans. Consumers’ continuing addiction to oil have driven prospecting companies to take ever greater risks to meet that continuing demand. The demand itself remains high because those risks are not factored into the price they pay for petrol and other oil products. The Gulf of Mexico disaster emphatically shows that that cannot continue. Markets are already adjusting to this new reality. Consumers will have to do so too.

As oil becomes more expensive, other technologies will become more viable.

The latest example of misuse is the $120,000 that the Auckland City Council’s finance and strategy committee has voted to spend on commissioning a history of the council from 1989 to 2010. …

Never mind, also, that the money is being spent on a work which, no matter how worthy, will be of interest to few and read by even fewer.

Two previous volumes covering the history of Auckland from 1871 to 1989 hardly featured on bestseller lists. …

In time, an uncommissioned historian would surely come up with a far more interesting and relevant work.

I blogged on this, this morning, and agree with the Herald that it is un-necessary expenditure.

The other three editorials are all on Labour and Chris Carter. First The Press:

Last week, before his demotion from the Labour Party front bench over his misuse of his ministerial credit card while in government, Chris Carter spoke of being close to quitting because of the uproar over the matter.

It was apparently only a passing thought but now that he is cooling his heels at home after the Labour leader, Phil Goff, bluntly told him to take some time off to consider his future, it is a question he should seriously consider. Carter’s appalling behaviour in the days after the exposure of his credit card transgressions is only the latest indication that he may lack the temperament, moral compass and gravitas that should be the basic equipment of a member of Parliament and Cabinet minister. …

Carter’s first response, on the other hand, was a pig-headed refusal to accept that he had done anything wrong. Even when Goff finally made it clear to him on Tuesday that his performance had not been acceptable, he still declined to apologise to his fellow Labour MPs and fled from journalists who tried to question him on the matter. It was only after Goff told him to go home and calm down that he finally made the public apology he should have made days earlier. By this time he had forced Goff into the farcical position of having to hold a third press conference of the day to deal with the matter.

The Dom Post:

They show that ministers in the last Labour government thought nothing of spending more on a night’s accommodation, a meal or a taxi ride than some of their constituents could earn in a couple of weeks. The difference between Mr Carter and the other two Labour MPs who misused their ministerial cards for personal expenditure – Shane Jones and Mita Ririnui – is his lack of contrition. …

There are even times when it is in the national interest for them to splash out on a particularly good bottle of wine or expensive meal, for example, when hosting their international counterparts. What the records released last week show, however, is that ministers in the last government lacked the ability to distinguish between spending in their interest and the country’s interest.

That is a problem not just for Mr Carter, who cannot ever hope to hold another ministerial post, but for his party. Bollinger, lobster, massages, limousines, helicopter rides and $700 taxi fares are not the way middle New Zealand lives, let alone Labour’s traditional supporters, the ones Labour’s MPs rely on to give up their free time to hand-deliver mail, knock on doors and ferry supporters to the polls on election day.

Labour has a credibility problem. It will not be fixed by ceremonially beheading three big-spending MPs. It has to reconnect with people who don’t drink Bollinger, stay at luxury resorts or eat like royalty by demonstrating that their concerns are its concerns.

That is the long term challenge indeed.

The ODT opines:

When Labour leader Phil Goff named his shadow cabinet in November 2008, it was clear his natural caution influenced his decisions.

He did not promote any of the new entrants in Labour’s caucus, relying instead on the experience of ministers who had served in the Clark government.

His rationale may have been that they would be best suited to attack the new government and maintain Labour’s poll standings; if so, it was a strategy that failed.

Which is why he will do a full reshuffle later this year.

In that sense, the opportunity presented to Mr Goff by the expenses scandal has proved a godsend.

He was able to remove from the spotlight one serious contender for the leadership in Shane Jones, and in dealing with the other major offenders would finally be able to give a public demonstration of the strength of his own leadership.

Labour has been damaged by this, but Goff personally has come through it ok.

If Mr Carter gets the message, he likely will return in a state of contrition.

If he does not, he will resign, forcing a by-election – a prospect Mr Goff probably would not welcome.

Well who wants to fight a by-election caused by an MP resigning because he resented criticism of his overseas travel?

A leader with better advice than Mr Goff appears to be getting would have acted more ruthlessly, and perhaps Mr Goff – who evidently does not have a personal chief of staff – should consider hiring a political adviser not inclined to shelter him from unpleasant realities.

I recently saw an exceptionally good quote from Solon, a Greek lawgiver in around 600 BC, which was “In giving advice, seek to help, not please, your friend“. This should be pinned up in most parliamentary offices.

Probably the most notable aspect of the Labour Party’s reshuffle was Phil Goff’s acknowledgment that further change is needed.

Halfway through the electoral term, his party is struggling to dent the Government’s popularity, despite the helping hand provided by policies such as the mining of the conservation estate and an increase in GST.

Clearly, Mr Goff will need to place more figures with vigour and political appeal around him before the end of the year. Yesterday’s reshuffle of positions and responsibilities should have been merely the starting point. …

Mr Goff has acted decisively against those exposed for their misuse of credit cards. A tougher test will be orchestrating a thorough Labour renewal this year.

The party’s failure to gain traction leaves Labour that option or one other – a resuffle from the bottom, in which Mr Goff and deputy Annette King are moved by their colleagues rather than the other way around.

I believe Goff is safe until the election.

The other three editorials are on the foreshore and seabed announcement. First The Press:

The 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act was one of the most contentious and deeply flawed pieces of legislation passed by the previous government.

The act stripped Maori of the basic right to have the courts test foreshore and seabed claims and led to the split in Labour ranks which produced the Maori Party. Labour was subsequently unable to find an acceptable alternative to its legislation but now Prime Minister John Key has achieved just this, with a solution that is fairer for all New Zealanders. …

For Key and Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, the agreement brokered this week is one of the most significant achievements of their first term in the Beehive. It offers the prospect of a balanced and lasting settlement to a divisive issue which has for six years been, as Key aptly noted, a “weeping sore” in New Zealand.

And the Dom Post:

A last-minute pre-Cabinet meeting on Monday, involving Mr Key, Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson, the Maori Party and the Iwi Leadership Group, came up trumps. In a deal that is too timid for some Maori and too bold for some Pakeha, the hated 2004 legislation will go, foreshore and seabed now vested in the Crown will become “public space”, which cannot be sold, and customary title and customary rights will be recognised by way of a new court process or direct negotiations with the Crown.

Mr Key seemed genuinely to want this agreement. He has increasingly grasped the uncomfortable fact that the country cannot move forward unless and until Maori grievances are honourably settled. With that at least partially achieved thanks to Monday’s deal, the prime minister, Maori Party MPs and iwi leaders, however, must do more than pat each other on the back. That many Kiwis are unhappy almost goes without saying.

And finally the ODT:

The Government has had its way with its favoured plan, and despite contending otherwise, has made some concessions whose effective outcome may be determined not by elected Parliament but by unelected courts – hardly a desirable situation in a property-owning democracy headed by a Government which purports to have sought “balance” in its scheme.

The Maori Party can claim a long-term gain sufficient to cover any embarrassment about its short-term compromise.

There may yet be room for adjustment, or at least for some acknowledgement of the equal status – if it still exists – of the vast majority of New Zealanders, including urban non-tribal Maori, whose future connection with the foreshore and seabed is apparently to be legally classified as of inferior virtue.

Thus does grievance lie upon grievance.

The ODT very unhappy it seems.

Such scrutiny is, obviously, overdue given some of the ministerial behaviour that has come to light. Equally, it must be recognised that the very functioning of government sometimes requires ministers to dip into the taxpayer pocket.

In this regard, some of the criticism directed at ministers has been well wide of the mark. Take, for example, the fact that Trade Minister Tim Groser paid what, for New Zealanders, represents a lavish restaurant tip while at an Apec summit in South America.

Quite simply, that was the level of gratuity expected in Peru. Equally, the same minister, as part of his official duties, is expected to entertain dignitaries on his many trips overseas.

There should be no surprise that his spending on liquor and food is reasonably substantial.

Likewise, there is nothing out of the norm in Murray McCully spending nearly $2000 of taxpayer money on laundry services.

His role as Foreign Affairs Minister dictates not only that he travels frequently but that he presents a good image when meeting foreign dignitaries.

McCully naturally looks unkempt, so any investment in keeping his shirts wrinkle free is worth it

And there is Shane Jones’ lust for pornography, which led him to watch as many as three pay-per-view blue movies a night in hotel rooms and then charge them to his card.

The revelation will surely lead to the demotion of the former Building and Construction Minister when he faces his Labour caucus colleagues next week.

Labour leader Phil Goff has little option given his strong criticism of Housing Minister Phil Heatley, whose infringements were mild by comparison.

As Mr Jones conceded, he has dug a hole that may well prove to be his grave. It is difficult to see a way back, so deep and enduring will be the taint of the revelations and what they say about him.

Labour MPs are busy lining up to tell Shane that he can recover from this, but the political reality is that if he carries on he will spend 18 miserable months on the backbenches, and then disappear at the next election. They just want him to stay on, to avoid Judith Tizard returning.

The Press slams appalling judgements:

Some might argue that the credit card revelations are a media beat-up, but in the case of the worst offenders there are serious issues. The spending reflects appalling judgment and a misplaced sense of entitlement on the part of several senior politicians who once held ministerial portfolios, with some no doubt aspiring to do so again.

Another disturbing feature thrown up by the release of documentation is the tardiness of some ministers in filing receipts for their spending, with officials having to pester them to do so. Again, this reluctance to be accountable for spending taxpayer money showed poor judgment.

But again some balance:

This helps explain why food and drink receipts loom so large among the released documents. The current Trade Minister, Tim Groser, who was the subject of a complaint about his behaviour on an international flight, has now raised eyebrows with his mini-bar tabs. But Groser should not be judged harshly too quickly. Groser is required to be frequently overseas on portfolio business and should not be begrudged, after a long day of trade talks, winding down in his hotel room with a drink. Perhaps it needs to be explained, however, how he came to buy five $92 bottles of Famous Grouse scotch during the climate change conference in Copenhagen. Whether or not another former Labour minister, Judith Tizard, should have spent $155 on a single bottle of champagne is another question.

People who don’t travel much think that travel is fun. Being in other countries can be fun, but travel itself is not. Spending 200 days a year travelling overseas is a pretty miserable existence.

The Dominion Post focuses on Shane Jones:

Former Labour minister Shane Jones’ biggest sin was not that he watched pornography. It was that he got the taxpayer to pay for the pornography he was watching. Mr Jones’ purchase of porn betrays of mammoth sense of entitlement and a minuscule sense of propriety.

He is not alone. Judith Tizard moved on from being a chardonnay socialist to become a Bollinger bolshevik, charging up a $155 bottle of bubbly to the taxpayers.

Chris Carter felt it was appropriate to use his ministerial credit card to buy flowers for his partner, Peter Kaiser, and for colleague Lianne Dalziel when she was sacked, plus kitchenware in London, and massages in Buenos Aires.

Mita Ririnui used his card for golf clubs and at a bike shop. The list goes on. They can clearly read the menus and wine lists but apparently not the ministerial guidelines on spending.

The lack of remorse is what grates:

Mr Carter says his mistakes were “perhaps inevitable, but never excusable”. That offers no insight into why he thought the taxpayer should be paying for “kitchenware” – apparently mugs bearing the British Labour Party logo – and its postage back to New Zealand from London.

Former agriculture and forestry minister Jim Anderton is little better. He has rejected any suggestion it was improper that spa treatments at a Malaysian hotel were charged to his ministerial card, saying he paid the money back and “it’s just silly to think you’re going to carry a number of cards and pay for this on one and that on another”.

He is wrong. That is exactly what he should have done, and what most in the private sector expect to do when they are travelling with a company credit card.

Exactly. And the excuse that Ministers are too busy to check out themselves is trite. They can give their personal card to staff to use at checkout. They can get the bill the night before and indicate then what items are personal and pay for them.

Mr Jones, once touted as a future Labour leader, will pay a high political price. His credibility is all but gone.

In many ways a pity. He was one of the economically most literate MPs in Labour. But his colleagues are deluding him if they say he can get over this.

The ODT points out not all Ministers have offended:

Many members of the public and probably most of the media have long suspected politicians have so designed their professional way of life in such a manner as to rort the taxpayers as often and as deeply as they can get away with, surrounded such behaviour with a thicket of prohibitions on disclosure, and adopted denial as the first defensive posture when challenged.

The accusatory brush has been broad, yet as the recent disclosures show, unfairly so. By no means all present and former ministers have abused their special privileges at our cost; indeed, several have been quite circumspect, using their ministerial credit card with caution and within the rules. …

The exceptions have been disappointingly cavalier with their private spending and their hypocrisy for doing so while generally railing against wasteful state spending will do their reputations no good whatsoever.

Winston Peters has denied using his credit card, but it is clear from the records that his staff charged many items to it claiming they were expenses, never mind a reminder of the “unarguable” policy that credit cards not be used for personal expenditure, regardless of repayment.

Jim Anderton was also shown to have used his card for a massage and spa services for himself and his wife while on Labour government business.

Others have treated the taxpayer-funded card just as carelessly, but on a far greater scale. The contrast on television between the smirking former Labour minister Chris Carter and his shamefaced colleague Shane Jones perhaps spoke volumes about attitudes.

Indeed.

Money markets expect this tightening by way of small steps to prompt an official rate of 4 or 4.25 per cent by this time next year, and further increases to about 5 per cent by the end of 2011.

We should not, says Governor Alan Bollard, expect the rate to rise as far as the 8.25 per cent peak of the previous cycle.

Hopefully not, but several things could knock the ship off course. One is rising inflation, the central bank’s core concern.

I think the OCR will increase beyond 5%.

The Press also talks OCR:

Now, however, as recovery begins to look more robust here and among New Zealand’s main trading partners, the central bank must consider again the prospect that inflation will spike outside its target 1 to 3 per cent range. The move yesterday was modest – only a quarter of a percentage point – but it is an indication that the bank is determined to keep inflation expectations under control.

Some manufacturers and exporters have suggested that moving now on interest rates is premature. Manufacturers and exporters, like politicians and indeed all borrowers, never welcome interest rate rises, but the criticism in this case is unwarranted. The Reserve Bank under Alan Bollard has hardly been hawkish on inflation. A sign of this is the fact that, in an effort to balance competing forces during the boom years, the bank allowed inflation to nudge outside its prescribed limits three times in the space of six years. At the moment, inflation in the future is a possibility.

I still think the range should be 0% to 2%, so a midpoint of 1% is targeted.

The Press focuses on the Foreshore & Seabed negotiations:

Last year, the Government announced it wanted to restore the right of Maori to seek customary title in court, and acknowledge the foreshore and seabed not already in private title as public domain. It held nationwide hui, with Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson at each one. Though that impressed Maori, they did not like the “public domain” concept. They want ownership in iwi hands, the foreshore and seabed being inalienable.

Again I remind people that the Court of Appeal merely said that an Iwi could try and claim title in court, not that they would get it. They also said one would have to show unbroken usage since 1840. That is a world of difference away from saying Iwi own the entire foreshore & seabed.

What the Maori Party thinks at this point is not clear – it definitely wants the Foreshore and Seabed Act repealed but might be having to weigh up pleasing the ILG against pleasing an increasingly implacable prime minister.

As Mr Key found over the Tuhoe/Urewera matter, it is hard to placate Maori without upsetting many Pakeha or to ameliorate Pakeha fears without upsetting many Maori. He might have to reluctantly accept that the Foreshore and Seabed Act has to stay on the books.

That is an option. Another is to simply repeal the FSA and let Iwi test their claims in court.

And the ODT chides North Korea:

The jury appears to be out on the exact state of mind of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il, variously regarded when healthy as either cunning like a fox, borderline mad or just pathologically nasty.

It is rumoured that he suffered a destabilising stroke some 18 months ago and, at 68, is ailing. Consequently, the world’s only hereditary communist dictatorship seems to be gearing up for succession to the “Dear Leader”.

Cuba is looking hereditary also. Ironic that communism was meant to be a fight against inherited privilege.

Had there been serious evidence anywhere else in the world that a submarine of one sovereign nation had arbitrarily sunk a warship of another, in what appears to be an entirely unprovoked incident, the clamour for retaliation or justice would have been deafening.

This is my concern. You reward North Korea for being well mad.