Has been fascinating to look at the nexus between certain MPs and Kim Dotcom. We now know some MPs have had multiple meetings with him at his mansion (lesser mortals visit MPs in their offices, but for Dotcom they flock to his mansion), and the same MPs have asked multiple questions about his case in Parliament. And again at least one of those MPs is vowing to fight his extradition – even if the NZ Courts find he should be extradited. And finally, we have learnt that Dotcom will wind up his political party during the election campaign and endorse one or more other parties – no doubt those who have been helping him so much.

So who have been Kim’s little helpers. I’ve searched the parliamentary database and these MPs have asked multiple questions on his behalf or about his case.

• Trevor Mallard – 132 questions (128 written, 4 oral)
• Winston Peters – 82 questions (71 written, 11 oral)
• David Shearer – 36 questions (22 written, 14 oral)
• Grant Robertson – 17 questions (15 oral, 2 written)
• Russel Norman – 13 questions (7 written, 6 oral)

We know that Mallard has met with Dotcom, Peters has been to his mansion three times and Norman at least twice. Norman can’t recall whose idea the meetings were.

Audrey Young has written on how Peters is back to his Owen Glenn tricks and refusing to answer questions about his taxpayer funded trips to talk to Dotcom. Many a wag has suggested he should wave the NO sign up when asked if Dotcom has donated to his party or him.

John Armstrong also writes on the issue:

It is bad enough that the Greens are naive enough to sign up to the fan club which accords Kim Dotcom the folk hero status he clearly craves, but scarcely deserves as some modern-day Robin Hood of cyberspace.

Much worse, however, is that it now turns out that party is blithely willing to play politics with New Zealand’s courts, the country’s extradition laws and its extradition treaty with the United States.

Were John Key to allow some right-wing businessman facing extradition to stay in New Zealand in exchange for him abandoning his plans to establish a political party which might drain votes off National, then the Greens would be climbing on their high horses at break-neck speed and leading the charge in slamming the Prime Minister in no uncertain terms. And rightly so.

Indeed.

By appearing to countenance such a massive conflict of interest through political interference in Dotcom’s potential ejection from New Zealand, Norman has instantly disqualified his party from having any ministerial posts in a coalition with Labour which involve responsibility for the extradition process.

In fact, Norman has probably disqualified his party from having any role in the Justice portfolio full stop.

That’s a win for New Zealand!

Stuff reports:

An instructor teaching his militant recruits how to make car bombs accidentally set off explosives in his demonstration on Monday (local time), killing 21 of them in a huge blast that alerted authorities to the existence of the rural training camp in an orchard north of Baghdad.

Now that’s karma!

A play about fear is showing at Circa Theatre as part of the Fringe Festival.

It’s a quirky and hilarious 65 minute production about, well, fear.

I wasn’t sure if it would be very good at first. The first few minutes are a segment called Freak Accidents with the cast acting out different situations involving fear from sharks to serial killers. But around a third of the way through the play a discrete plot line emerges around the Cult of William. I won’t give too much away, but the plot is very funny, and there’s some superb acting.

The set is basically an inflatable paddling pool and five lightbulbs, but they use them to ingenious effect. There’s one particular scene with the paddling pool which is especially hilarious (hint it is deflated).

The actress who plays the pseudo-lead, Charlotte, does an excellent job with her character.

As I said, I wasn’t sure how good the show would be around 15 minutes into it. It was funny, but wasn’t quite sure where it was going. But as the plot unfolds, the humour intensifies and the overall experience is excellent. A great fringe show.

Day 3 started off very wet, and the forecast was for it to get even wetter as they day went on. So we decided to again make an early start and were off before 8 am.

A lot of the third day is dipping into valleys and out of them, in fairly barren landscapes. Some of them looked like Mars!

Eventually we hit some shrubs.

And then after a couple of hours, we hit actual bush with canopy cover. Yay. And even better the forecast proved crap, and the sun came out.

You descend quickly down to a stream, and cross it by bridge.

Then there is a fairly demanding climb up on the other side.

Then one crosses over the top and head down through more bush towards the new Waihohonu Hut.

We got to the hut in around two and a half hours, and were the first people there. That meant we got the individual bunk beds rather than the shared ones 🙂

We then decided to go explore a couple of local attractions. By chance the DOC Warden (Rachel) had just started the day before so she was also keen to check them out, so we went exploring together. This is the foot of the nearby Waihohonu Spring emerging from underground.

The spring opens up into a large body of water. It is a 1.2 km walk from the hut only and a cold but lovely place for a swim.

Enjoying the spring was this very rare Blue Duck. We were told to report the sighting to the DOC office at Whakapapa as they like to monitor where they are seen, and try to protect them from predators.

After the spring we went to see the original Waihohonu Hut built in 1904. Around 800 metres away.

The inside of the old hut. They had separate rooms for men and women!

Then back to the hut. This is one of the new huts, or really a lodge. Infinitely nicer than the old huts.

As you can see, lots of room inside.

We had a very relaxing afternoon and evening just relaxing at the hut, playing cards and attempting to sleep. More on that in Day 4!

Also met during Day 3 a young couple from Palmie and Hawke’s Bay who were running the entire Northern Circuit in one day. Further they plan to run all eight of the Great Walks, in eight days (one per day but not consecutive). That’s an impressive level of fitness. They were having a brief meal break at the hut before carrying on.

Not that difficult to run 50 kms or so in a day. Is more difficult to do it on rough terrain and much more difficult to do it when there are steep 1000 metres ascents as part of the run,.

Rob Salmond (former Labour Parliamentary Political Director) blogs:

As readers will know, Kim Dotcom has promised to wind up his party if it isn’t polling 5% by the time the ballots are printed, and then throw his (considerable) resources behind another party of his choosing.  …

I think it is almost certain that the Internet Party will not be polling 5% at any point this year. The party’s figurehead cannot legally run for anything, they will have no TV presence, and no debate presence, either. Further, the party’s policy offerings are “thin” to say the least, not covering the issues that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders say they care most about. Together with a crowded field in a close contest, all this spells near certain failure. (The TV3 revelation that one in five people said they would “consider” voting for the Internet Party – when specifically pushed on the subject – does nothing to change my mind on this.)

If I am right about that, then come ballot-printing day Mr Dotcom will be throwing his weight in with someone else. And by “his weight,” I presume he means large buckets of money. That sets up an silent auction for parties to compete for Dotcom’s money on the basis of policy promises, first and foremost about Dotcom’s own extradition case. That is, if parties decide they want to play.

I think the opposition parties should all take a pass. 

Very pleased to see Rob say this. I think all the party leaders who have been repeatedly going out to Dotcom’s mansion to discuss his party and extradition case should front up and reveal how often they’re met him, and what promises (if any) have been made to try and get him to endorse their party once he withdraw’s the Internet Party.

To me, it all sounds pretty icky. One of the reasons the left parties worked hard to try and make election funding fairer in the late 2000s was to limit the influence of individuals seeking to essentially buy government policy for cash. (These measures were, naturally, rejected by the right, citing freedom of speech and freedom of spending and so on.) Breaking it down, this gambit looks exactly like a convluted version of a rich guy offering up cash in exchange for personally favourable policies. Yuck.

Rob’s wrong on the Electoral Finance Act (and I note third party spending limits were retained by National, as well as donation transparency) but he is right that this looks like a rich guy trying to purchase policies that benefit him personally.

A new column in the Dom Post is how to greenify your life. The column cites some stats to motivate you. Now I think it is very laudable to encourage recycling, use solar power etc etc but I also think one has to take care with some of the stats.

According to National Geographic, each year we’re losing 46,923 square kilometres of forest due to human activities. That’s an area the size of Panama. 

Firstly Panama is 75,517 square kms, not 46,923.  Also worth noting that the rate of deforestation is declining. I agree the rate is too high, and ideally any trees cut down should be replaced by new trees.

More than 50 percent of all living creatures on the earth reside in tropical rainforests, and they’re disappearing at a rate of 100 species per day. 

The 50% figure is fairly well established. The rate of disappearance is less so, as it is an estimate based on forests lost and average density of species. WWF say the rate of loss may be somewhere between 200 a year and 100,000 which is a daily rate of 0.5 to 274.

Average temperatures will increase by 2 – 6 degrees celcius by the end of the 21st century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at the current pace. 

Actually the IPCC range is from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees.

So all important issues, but be careful of getting the facts right.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00-3.00PM.

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “there are more children in poverty than at some point in the past”, and if so, does he remain concerned about child poverty levels in New Zealand?
2. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s economic programme supporting stronger economic growth, more jobs and higher incomes?
3. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Do her measures of success for vulnerable children include lowering child poverty, child abuse and child neglect rates; if not, why not?
4. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to assist areas that face difficulties recruiting and retaining health professionals?
5. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Social Development: What papers or reports, if any, did her office produce in the last 12 months relating to the measurement of child poverty?
6. RICHARD PROSSER to the Minister of Conservation: Does he stand by all his statements on the use of 1080 poison by the Department of Conservation?
7. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: Why do the Government’s proposals for improving freshwater management allow New Zealand rivers to have higher concentrations of nitrogen pollution than China’s Yangtze River?
8. COLIN KING to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What steps is the Government taking to strengthen the governance of New Zealand universities and wānanga?
9. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that all of the funding allocated to Partnership Schools will be spent on educating students; if not, why not?
10. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What recent reports has she received on the number of end users able to connect to the Government’s Ultra-Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband Initiatives?
11. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Prime Minister: Is the Hon Peter Dunne a suitable person to hold the position answerable in this House for the security of information held by Government in light of him repeatedly declining to deny, in the House yesterday, that he made the draft Kitteridge report available to a Fairfax reporter, and, if so, has he received an assurance from Mr Dunne that he did not make the document available to any reporter?
12. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: What progress is being made in planning for Gallipoli 2015 commemorations?

Questions to Members.

The Herald reports:

A 68-year-old man duped into smuggling 1.5kg of meth into the country believed he was actually collecting $8.5 million in cash.

The Auckland man lost tens of thousands of dollars to Nigerian scammers over a number of years in an online fraud and flew to Papua New Guinea in November to receive $8.5 million as a reward. The cash never arrived but he was again promised a large payment if he carried a laptop back to New Zealand.

Instead, he was tricked into taking luggage on his flight back to Auckland with 1.5kg of methamphetamine hidden inside.

So sad and so stupid.

If they scam you once, why would you then trust them again – let alone fly to PNG on the promise of $8.5 million. And then actually agree to carry a suitcase back for them to NZ. I’m not sure you can actually be that gullible, can you?

The Herald reports:

He made his comments after Labour leader David Cunliffe said the plain-packaging tobacco legislation to be debated later today should be passed through its stages without delay and accused the Government of “running scared of tobacco interests”.

Running scared? I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. The Government has hiked tobacco excise tax massively and decided to introduce plain packaging, and signed up to a plan to reduce smoking rates to under 5% by 2025. How the hell is that running scared? It’s more than Labour ever did.

While the Government bill providing for mandatory plain packaging on cigarettes will get a first reading later today, its final passage will be stalled until a World Trade Organisation case against Australia’s plain-packaging law has been concluded.

“I think that is regrettable,” Mr Cunliffe said this morning. “I think the best way through this would be for New Zealand to take a very clear and upfront position on plain packaging.”

Let us think about how stupid this position is. If Australia loses the WTO case they will have to pay tens of millions of dollars of damages to countries affected by their plain packaging law. Cunliffe is saying that we should not wait for the lawsuit to be resolved, but go ahead and pass the law while the case is being heard – which will mean that NZ taxpayers will also have to pay tens of millions of dollars to foreign Governments if the WTO case goes against Australia.

Mr Cunliffe in Parliament this afternoon called on the Government to release the text of the TPP agreement before the Cabinet signs it – although not until the negotiations have concluded.

His motion to have the issue debated was blocked by the Government, as can be done by any member on a motion without notice.

When asked earlier if Labour had conducted negotiations with China for a free trade agreement in the same way as the current Government was negotiating TPP, Mr Cunliffe said: “We took a different approach to full and open briefings by including folks like environmental and labour groups on our delegations so they were briefed as the negotiations were going on.

“The current Government has not done that. What the current Government has done is negotiate effectively in secret.”

I’m sorry but that is a lie and a slur on the MFAT staff who have been working on TPP.

MFAT staff have held numerous briefings on the negotiations with stakeholders. I know this because I’ve been at some of them. They can not show you the exact text being negotiated (as that would get NZ expelled from the negotiations) but they have been incredibly open and helpful about what the key issues being negotiated are, and what the NZ position is.

The draft text that was leaked on Wikileaks, shows that the NZ negotiators had been entirely honest with stakeholders about the NZ position. What they told us they were asking for, is reflected in the draft text that was leaked.

As far as I know there has been no difference at all between how the Government has consulted stakeholders with the TPP and the previous Government did with the China FTA.

Cunliffe is saying do what I say, not what I did.

Even putting aside the hypocrisy, what Labour are demanding is simply not possible. NZ can not unilaterally release the text until the parties unanimously agree to release it. NZ would be expelled from the negotiations and never allowed into a trade negotiation again if it did so.

I support the draft text being released. I think it would be a good thing to have draft chapters released at certain stages. But that has to be agreed by all negotiating parties at the beginning of the negotiations – it can not be done unilaterally halfway through.

The Herald reports:

A group lobbying for a return to a 10-year passport claims New Zealand passports are more expensive per year than most other comparable countries and the fee has become a simple revenue-gathering exercise.

Kyle Lockwood has presented a petition signed by about 12,000 people to Parliament to return from a 5-year to a 10-year passport and will speak to the select committee on his petition today, despite the Government ruling out extending the term last year.

A Taxpayers’ Union briefing report by Jordan McCluskey on international comparisons put the cost of a New Zealand passport at $28 a year – about double the cost of other countries such as France, Germany, Sweden, Britain, Canada and Sweden. Only Australia’s cost came close, costing $26.40 a year for a 10-year passport. Most of those countries also had 10-year passports. Mr McCluskey, who is also in the Young Nats, said the Government’s claim that five-year passports were necessary for security did not ring true given other countries such as Canada, China and the Netherlands had returned to 10 years recently.

The briefing from Jordan McCluskey of the Taxoayer’s Union is here.

While not all OECD countries have their terms publicly available, what has been discovered is that Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the UK and US are all on 10 year terms.

The argument that we need a shorter term so one can roll out new security features doesn’t hold water with me. One can and should roll out new security features whenever you can. But that doesn’t mean all passports have to be using them straight away. If people choose not to get a newer passport, then they end up with likely longer delays at the border. As an example those on an older passport can use the Smartgate service. But why force someone who may travel once every two years to get a new passport, just for the new technology.

Also of concern is that the Government has built up a surplus of $21 million from passport fees. This suggests the fees are too high, and should be reduced.

The Herald reports:

Crime is at a 34-year low, incomes and employment are rising and teenage pregnancy has plunged, a new report on the state of our nation shows.

Research by the Salvation Army also shows infant mortality is the lowest in our history, achievement gaps between rich and poor schools are closing, gambling is declining, and Auckland’s housing shortage is finally starting to ease as house-building recovers from the recession.

Even child poverty may be declining, although it’s too soon to be sure.

This is a report from the Salvation Army, not the Government. Not bad.

But other problems are not budging. Child abuse is still rising, New Zealand’s imprisonment rate remains one of the highest in the world, the Salvation Army is still giving out more food parcels, and household debt is increasing again after briefly dipping in the recession.

I’m not sure child abuse rates are still rising and the imprisonment rate is dropping.

The Press editorial:

Councillors were told this week that the rating base had declined by 2.3 per cent and the council faces a larger-than-forecast operating deficit. The decisions to be made will undeniably be difficult and are likely to be unpopular.

There is one option that Mayor Lianne Dalziel appears to have ruled out.

“It’s not a question of adding to the rates; it’s a question of re-allocating within budgets,” she said.

That is the right approach. Rates are already set to rise by 6.5 per cent this year and probably by similar amounts in years to come. Just adding more to property owners’ rates burden would be evading the problem not facing it.

It’s good to see Lianne Dalziel rule out further rates increases. The Council needs to adjust its expenditure to match its income – not take more money off struggling ratepayers.

News.com.au reports:

The inquiry into building industry and union criminal practices will be a sword cutting both ways, the Government said today in a warning to both trade unions and employers.

The powerful royal commission by former High Court judge John Dyson Heydon will highlight dodgy deals which Attorney-General George Brandis today said were “widespread, systemic and ingrained across a range of institutions”.

Findings would be passed on to police for possible prosecutions.

Employment Minister Eric Abetz said: “This is a sword that will cut both ways and we are determined to ensure that the rule of law exists in our construction sector.”

This is well overdue. Almost every week there has been a story detailing more corrupt activity in certain Australian unions, with prosecutions occurring in some high profile cases. The problem seems systemic, not just about a few isolated individuals.

Patrick Gower writes:

So now it is becoming clear why Kim Dotcom wants a change of Government so badly – Labour and the Greens could stop his extradition.

Yes, it is that simple: a Labour/Green Government could save Dotcom’s bacon.

Because under the Extradition Act, the Government of the day’s Justice Minister has the final say on whether someone stays or goes.

It doesn’t matter what the courts find, the Justice Minister can stop one “for any reason”.

The Extradition Act 1999 says the Justice Minister can say no “for any other reason the Minister considers that the person should not be surrendered”.

So Dotcom has a final get-out clause should he lose the extradition hearing.

I have consistently said that the decision on whether DotCom gets extradited should be made by the appropriate Judge, after hearing the evidence. The Minister should and must go along with the decision of the court. We head towards corruption if people can buy themselves a different decision.

Yesterday, we asked David Cunliffe and Russel Norman.

David Cunliffe:

3 News: In terms of Kim Dotcom – would you stop him being extradited?

Cunliffe: That’s in part a legal matter – and I would want to take some further briefing before I gave you a view on that.

3 News: You know it’s a Government that signs off an extradition – if it was a Labour Government – would Kim Dotcom have a chance that any court decision could be overturned?

Cunliffe: “I haven’t formed a view on that yet and I’d want to see more of the arguments. Prima Facie the current Government’s operation against Mr Dotcom appears to be outside the law in a number of respects my anticipation is that would make it quite difficult for an extradition to proceed but because that’s currently before the courts I don’t think that’s a matter politicians should be opining on”.

Russel Norman:

3 News: A Government of the day has to sign off on Kim Dotcom’s extradition – should the Government sign off on Dotcom’s extradition?

Norman: No. I’ve always said I don’t support the extradition process. I mean, I just don’t think it’s fair. I mean the fairness isn’t there – look at the way they have been acting illegally against him… They illegally raided his mansion, they illegally obtained evidence, they illegally gave the evidence to the U.S Government against the directions of a judge. That is not a lawful or fair process…The case that John Key has jacked up with the US Government I don’t think stands up.

3 News: So if the Greens were in power, would you fight to keep Kim Dotcom in New Zealand?

Norman: Yes. I think that we would

This is appalling. The only acceptable answer is that the decison is one for the courts to make, and we will not over-turn whatever decision they make.

Russel Norman has been out twice to meet Dotcom, and ask him to support the Greens instead of setting up his own political party. And in return he is offering that a Labour/Greens Government would basically corruptly over-turn the decision of the court in Dotcom’s favour. Cunliffe is not ruling out that he would also over-turn any court decision. We also learn Winston Peters has been out to meet DotCom multiple times.

I have no animosity towards Dotcom. He has been charged with serious criminal charges in the United States. The decision on whether the charges warrant extradition should be made by the relevant NZ Judge after a hearing, and if he is extradited the decision on his guilt or innocence is up to a US court. It shouldn’t be up to politicians, who are saying they will over-turn the courts in his favour at the same time as they meet him to discuss political strategy. That is pretty close to corruption.

Which brings me to the folly of Dotcom’s Internet Party – having a political movement behind him will obviously be another argument against extradition.

While it polled 0% in the first 3 News-Reid Research poll since it was named, when asked specifically, 1 in 5 voters said they would “consider” voting for it.

Most of its potential voters come from “undecideds” or Labour/Greens/NZ First – technically the Opposition.

But with Dotcom incredibly unlikely to make 5% or win an electorate seat, then this will be what’s called “wasted vote”, rather than change the Government.

And that favours one person – John Key.

It seems a bit of a selfish political own goal by Dotcom to me, and is why Russel Norman has been scurrying up to the mansion begging Dotcom not to stand.

But what a delicious irony: Kim Dotcom might actually help John Key win the 2014 election.

That would be irony.

Also Kim Dotcom has tweeted that if his party is not polling 5% by the time ballot papers are printed, he’ll scrap the party and endorse another party. Wonder which party? Maybe the very same party that is promising not to extradite him! So much for one law for all.

Labour can’t even agree on whether it is fine for Kiwis to go to Syria to fight in a civil war.

Labour Leader David Cunliffe does the Nah and says the Government should be doing more to stop them:

Mr Cunliffe shares the Prime Minister’s views, and is calling for tougher laws like in Australia, where citizens who enter a foreign country to engage in hostile activity can be jailed for up to 20 years.

And for the Yeah we go to Labour Defence Spokesperson Phil Goff:

Stopping people’s rights to go abroad to fight for a cause that they believe in, and some of them are liberal democrats – people that we would associate with that are doing that, I think is wrong,

Once again Labour trying to appeal to those on every side of the issue.

Hat Tip: Whale

The Green Party Co-Convenor, Georgina Morrison, has e-mailed an explanation of their list ranking process:

I thought it would be useful to clarify the list selection process used by the Green Party.

 In my view the Green Party has the most democratic list selection process out of the major parties. We are proud of the high level of member involvement.

It is largely members who draft the initial list and then all members subsequently get a direct say on that list. This initial list has not yet been developed, contrary to inferences on your blog.

Let me also be clear that there is no proposed list circulated by “party hierarchy” or leadership, such an action would be seriously frowned upon by members. The list selection process is one that is proudly owned by party members only. There is no parliamentary involvement in it. 

All candidates seeking list ranking attend our election year candidate conference, which is taking place this Friday through Sunday in Auckland.

Each electorate sends delegates to this conference, which has the primary purpose of giving the delegates the opportunity to access the candidates. The number of delegates per electorate is determined by the number of members in the electorate. These delegates then go back to their electorates and discuss their observations of the candidates with branch members. Each delegate takes this feedback and ranks an initial list. There will be 132 delegate spaces at the conference.

In addition each candidate also gets to rank a list. There are 52 candidates.

Finally the key leadership roles in the party get to rank a list too. These positions are our Co-leaders and party convenors and policy convenors. However each person can only rank one list. Thus only the Co-convenors will submit a list as both the Co-leaders and policy Co-convenors are also standing as candidates. That means there will only be two lists from the party leadership.

In total there will be 186 lists submitted. 70 percent of those lists will be from electorates, 28 percent from candidates and two percent from party officials. STV (successive elimination) is the voting method used to determine the initial list that goes out to a members vote.

All members (who have been members for more than six months) are given the chance to rank a list. They are provided with the draft list for an indication of what the branch delegates and branch meetings thought of the candidates. STV (successive elimination) is again used as the voting system. The only influence the initial list has is that it is sent to all the members. Members can ignore it entirely if they wish. The final members list is the list that goes to the candidate selection committee and leadership group and may be subject to minor adjustments for gender, race, age and location. No candidate can move more than two places from where the party members ranked them.

As to the issue of a draft list in circulation, I can only assume that, if the list is genuine, it is nothing more than the individual musings of an individual member. Because we allow all members the opportunity to vote on our list it is not surprising that people are thinking ahead.

However for the list to be purported on your blog as holding some form of official significance is totally false and misleading. Let me be clear, there is never a list prepared by party or parliamentary staff at any point. The candidate conference later this week kicks the list process off and is driven by members the whole way. Your readers would be advised to wait and see what members decide when the list they rank is released later this year.

Regards
Georgina Morrison
Green Party Co-convenor

It’s good to have the process explained in detail, and I agree it is more democratic than the other parties. I have been critical of National’s list ranking processes on several occasions, and think National’s list ranking doesn’t give sufficient weight to regional rankings.

I do note that the leadership group and candidate selection committee (the hierarchy) can “tweak” the list as voted on by members, and even a movement of two places may be the difference between being an MP or not. But I agree overall the Greens have a very good process. However the views of those in Parliament I am sure have great influence on the outcome (as they do in National) and I look forward to seeing (hopefully) both the draft list and the final list.

My thanks to Georgina for the explanation.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe’s chief of staff Wendy Brandon has resigned five months into the job, citing ill health.

Ms Brandon was a respected Auckland lawyer before taking up the role in Mr Cunliffe’s office last September.

Sources said Labour’s caucus and staff were told today she had resigned because of a serious case of shingles.

Ms Brandon has been on leave for several weeks because of the illness.

I blogged when Brandon was appointed that she was highly regarded at the Auckland Council and a good appointment. Her departure is a loss to Labour. It means they will shortly be onto their 5th Chief of Staff in just over two years.

We left Mangatepopo Hut at 7.30 am as we wanted to have time to try climbing to the Ngauruhoe summit in the background. At this stage the weather looked great.

The walk along to the Soda Springs is easy and crowded as the one day Tongariro Crossing hikers are out in force.

The climb up Devil’s Staircase is tiring. You can see this group making their way up.

There’s lots of stairs! But according to those who have done it before, it is easier than the old route.

We then had to make the call as to whether to try the climb up to the summit of Mt Ngauruhoe. They say you shouldn’t climb it if it is windy, foggy or if there is volcanic activity. Well one out of three isn’t bad, right! No volcanic activity, but it was pretty windy and sadly a fog has descended onto the top half of the mountain. We convinced ourselves that it might clear up top, and decided to give it a go.

There is no marked trail up. You basically just head up. The main advice is avoid the scree going up as for every three steps up you go two and a half steps back. But it is hard to avoid it entirely.

Taking a break around halfway up. The slope varies between around 30 and 45 degrees. At times you literally climb up with hands and feet. The climb is not exhausting as the pace is relatively slow (around two hours to get up) but it is hard work – especially straight after the Devils Staircase.

An example of the volcanic rock all over the place.

Finally we got to the top. This is right on the edge of the crater.

Sadly the view was around 5 metres in any direction. The final stages of the ascent were pretty challenging. It was cold, windy and wet and you couldn’t see where to go. We just figured if you keep pointing up, you’ll get there! Was very cool to make the summit and already planning to try it again in better weather.

On both the way up and down there were quite a few rocks that bounce down towards you as they get dislocated by other climbers. Some of them are very large and fast moving and would break more than a few bones if they hit you. I’m amazed they don’t have more serious accidents on the slope. But people are very good at yelling out if rocks are falling, and you just dodge them if heading your way.

We had a stroke of luck on the way down, as this guy from Taranaki is a mountain guide and had a GPS device which guided him (and us) on the best route down. We probably descended twice as quick as we otherwise would have thanks to him. He also taught us how to scree run, which is best described as a semi-controlled landslide. You basically just push back on your heels, toes up and start moving your feet. Within seconds you’re sliding down a moving column of scree at a pretty fast pace. You turn sideways to stop – just like skiing. I loved it, despite one fall which grazed my leg.

At the bottom we grabbed our packs, and started again through the red crater and had lunch near the top of the pass. Our overall vertical ascent this day was around 1200 metres or so. The pass was also very windy and foggy and we were glad to get over the top and then descend to the Emerald Lakes.

A mountain daisy on the path.

Then it was around a 5 km trek to Otuere Hut. Otuere is a pretty small cramped hut and was full up. Most of the bunks are in the main cabin so not a lot of sleep that night.

The hut warden was an American girl called Kat. DOC has quite a cool scheme where you can work as a volunteer warden for eight weeks, so no work permit is needed. They get free accommodation and food, and of course get to enjoy the scenery. Kat’s hut briefing was hilarious with her safety briefing being that if the hut catches fire you should go outside and watch it burn down. She also had a trivia quiz on the area and handed out prizes, being stuff the previous days occupants had left behind such as a toy soldier.

This was the longest and hardest day. Around eight hours of tramping, with half of that being up pretty steep slopes. Much more rugged than the Heaphy Track. We were glad tomorrow was a relatively short day.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00PM – 3.00PM

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “personally I’ve been of the view that transparency is a good thing. As Prime Minister I’ve tried to lead that charge…”?
2. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
3. Hon KATE WILKINSON to the Minister of Finance: How is the stronger New Zealand economy supporting more jobs and higher incomes?
4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: By how much did wages and salaries increase between December 2008 and December 2013 according to the Labour Cost Index and how does this compare to inflation according to the Consumer Price Index over the same period?
5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement “I think there’s going to be an expectation, particularly for those people with skills that are in demand, that they will be doing better than zero pay increases”?
6. MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received about the number of young people in employment, education or training?
7. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that the establishment of Partnership Schools represents value for money to the taxpayer?
8. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is his Government’s emissions trading scheme working, given hundreds of thousands of seedlings are being destroyed across the country due to the collapsed carbon price?
9. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Did he ask Prime Minister Tony Abbott to take any action against the supermarket ban on New Zealand products and unfair treatment of New Zealanders living in Australia; if so, what did he ask for?
10. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on recognising and celebrating the teaching profession?
11. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Further to his answers to supplementary questions to Oral Question No 11 on Thursday 30 January relating to his responsibility for the security of information, does he believe that all his actions as a Minister mean he is an appropriate person to hold the position of Minister of Internal Affairs?
12. MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has she made on the number of foot patrols undertaken by Police?

Today Labour are asking five questions. These are whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, pay increases, partnership schools, the Australian supermarket ban on NZ goods and the suitability of the Minister of internal Affairs to hold the portfolio. New Zealand First is asking the Prime Minister about transparency. The Greens are asking about Wages and the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Patsy of the day goes to Simon O’Connor for Question 10: What recent announcements has she made on recognising and celebrating the teaching profession?

Debate on the Prime Minister’s Statement 3.00PM-4.00PM.

This will probably be debated for one hour. There is 6 Hours and 37 minutes remaining.

Government Bills 4.00PM – 6.00PM and 7.30PM-10.00PM.

1. Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill – First Reading

2. Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill – Third Reading

3. Victims of Crime Reform Bill – Second Reading

The Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill  is being guided through the House by the Associate Minister of Health, Tariana Turia. This bill introduces a plain packaging regime for tobacco products.

The Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Conservation, Dr Nick Smith. This bill would create three new marine reserves.

The Victims of Crime Reform Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. This bill amends legislation so as to implement the Government’s reform package for victims of crime.

The NZ Herald reports:

A hard-hitting law change to stamp out the tobacco industry’s last avenue of marketing is likely to get wide support when it comes to Parliament.

The Smokefree Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill could get its first reading today and is expected to be backed by all parties except New Zealand First and the Act Party.

On the eve of the debate, United States business groups fired a warning shot at the New Zealand Government, urging it to halt the “unwise” legislation because it trampled on company’s trademarks.

The Government expected to have to defend its plain packaging regime in court, and Prime Minister John Key said yesterday it would wait until Australia resolved its legal challenges before passing the legislation.

As I’ve said before, my preference is to trial plain packaging, and for it to be implemented only if it is effective in reducing smoking rates. Introduce it in say the South Island and over three years see how the smoking rates differ in the South Island compared to the North Island. If the South Island’s smoking rate reduces significantly faster than the North Island then implement it nationally. If it does not show a significant difference, then scarap it. Have the decision based on science and facts, not emotion.

The other issue is that we now know that whatever is pushed in the present as an anti-tobacco policy, will in a few years be also promoted for other industries such as alcohol, food, soft drinks, sugar etc.

Act leader John Banks, on the other hand, said he would oppose the bill. He told the Herald: “No one dislikes smoking more than me”. But he was against the state seizing property rights without compensation.

Will ACT be the only vote against? Maybe at select committee they could propose an amendment so the law is trialled before being implemented.

Business NZ has published a report by Sapere on the Labour/Greens power policy, which is effectively to destroy competition among generators and have the Government set wholesale prices.

Sapere find:

The primary driver for lower wholesale electricity prices under the alternative proposals is that a single buyer would compensate generators for fixed costs at a fair return on historic costs, and pay for the operating costs of the generation plant. These purchasing arrangements are unlikely to lead to lower wholesale electricity costs in the short-term and would lead to higher costs over time.

Of course costs would rise once the Government is setting the price. The Government will be a monopoly buyer and seller and will treat power prices as a way to effectively increase tax revenue for spending promises. Plus add on their proposed ETS changes and power prices will be rising faster than ever.

It is not clear how the proposals would result in more retail competition. If all retailers are able to access a comparable homogeneous product from NZ Power, then the emphasis for retailing would shift from service innovation and differentiation in managing price and volume risk, to achieving economics of scale. Price and volume risk would sit with NZ Power. Smaller new entrant retailers, and retailers wishing to provide niche services to customers, would suffer from having to spread fixed costs over a small customer base. The result would be consolidation to fewer, larger, retailers and less innovation. This is perhaps why no country has managed to implement retail competition under a single-buyer wholesale model.

This is key. The Labour and Greens policy would not just destroy competition with generators, but also reduce competition with retailers. We have a hugely competitive retail market with hundreds of thousands of households swapping companies to get better deals.

My body corporate has just signed up to do an all of premises deal with a small nice power retailer. That retailer would probably be out of business if Labour and Greens get in – and the significant savings we are looking to make will be gone.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand passport holders have been identified fighting alongside anti-Government forces in Syria, Prime Minister John Key says.

In some instances, the Department of Internal Affairs had cancelled their passports – some were dual nationality, including Australians, he said.

A small number also had their documents confiscated before they were allowed to leave for the civil war-torn Middle Eastern state, the prime minister said.

Rebel factions have been battling to topple President Bashar al-Assad since 2011.

Key refused to say how many Kiwis have been fighting, or give any details.

He knew of no prosecutions, saying “it was handled in a different way”.

The revelation comes after weekend reports that Australians were “flocking” to the front line. Across the Tasman, the government fears the fighters will return as hardline radicalised Islamists, ready to launch domestic terror attacks.

“Yes, there is likely to … have been a small number of New Zealanders who have fought with the rebels in Syria,” Key said today.

“There are a small group of people that have gone to Syria to fight. There’s a small group that were going to Syria that we stopped … we have physically stopped some and we are clearly aware of others who are in Syria.”

Asked if any of the alleged fighters had been affiliated to extremist Islamists al Qaeda, Key was vague: “I am not going to go into their individual details. I mean, they have fought against the government so you can choose which particular rebel group you think they are fighting for … it involves people who are opposed to the Assad regime.

“There are a variety of rebel groups but I think my understanding is the largest rebel group is associated to al Qaeda.”

That’s a bit of a wake up call. It’s one thing to say you think Assad should go. It’s another to fly over there and join in a civil war. What happens when they want to return?

“We certainly need to be clear that if they return to New Zealand whether they pose a threat to other New Zealanders if they have become radicalised … there is always a risk that someone who goes into that environment comes back to New Zealand in a radicalised state.”

That is a very real risk.