After it was revealed by Whale Oil that Scoop founder, editor and general manager Alastair Thompson was the proposed Party Secretary for Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party, he has resigned his roles with Scoop. This was a necessity as Scoop was probably facing losing its press gallery accreditation if their editor was also running a political party.

A number of journalists are pretty upset that the involvement was not disclosed earlier. There had already been eyes raised at the extent and nature of questions Thompson would ask at the PM’s weekly press conference.

The resignation of Thompson as editor and general manager is not quite the end of it for Scoop. Alastair is the sole director of Scoop. Also according to the Companies Office, Alastair, his partner and his mother own over 50% of the voting shares in Scoop, which is a controlling amount. So it raises real questions of independence.

Another interesting revelation in this, is a new shareholder in Scoop is Selwyn Pellett. Some reports even say he is now the majority shareholder.

Pellett is a vocal supporter of Labour, and a major donor to their Auckland Central candidate. This means Scoop is linked to two left-wing political parties. Now everyone knows Scoop is left-wing, and I’m the last person to say there is anything wrong with a website having a political leaning, or even affiliation to one or more parties. But they key thing is that the affiliations should be public, and the extent of any involvement must be a factor in whether or not you are eligible for press gallery membership, which gives you significant privileges and access around Parliament.

Scoop used to do the advertising for Kiwiblog, and I wish them well. But they do have a number of issues to work out, for them to retain credibility going forward.

UPDATE: It seems Alastair is not leaving Scoop, but merely taking a sabattical. So this leaves the company controlled by the party secretary for the Kim Dotcom Party and a significant Labour donor. Now I’ve got no problems with that, but it does undermine the claim to be independent. Has Scoop ever published anything negative on Dotcom? Will they now?

UPDATE2: A thoughtful post by Gordon Campbell on this.

The apparent resignation of Alistair Thompson from Scoop – there seems to be some dissent as to whether he has resigned or gone on sabbatical – was triggered by the release of information about his involvement with Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party. If his exit does prove to be permanent, this would be a sad way for Al to end his leadership role at this site. Scoop has been the flagship for alternative journalism in New Zealand for nearly 15 years.

It is unclear whether it is a temporary or permanent departure. At this stage he is still listed as the sole director and his family as majority shareholder.

Because so much of the Internet Party looks like a toy and vanity project for Dotcom, the likelihood is that such a party will function – at best – as only a voter recruitment vehicle that by mid year, will have lost its ability to amuse Dotcom. Especially if and when the polls are indicating by then that the Internet Party hasn’t a hope of (a) winning a seat or (b) reaching the 5% mark that would make its “kingmaker” role anything more than delusionary. At which point, Dotcom may think that he can throw his imagined legions behind Labour or the Greens.

I don’t think the intention of the party is to gain seats in Parliament. I assume the intention is to make it as hard as possible for Dotcom to be extradited. Being a political party leader makes what should be a judicial decision, a political one.

Hawkes Bay Today reported:

The CEO of Hawke’s Bay Cricket Association, Craig Findlay, has come under attack after scoring a blistering 307 retired from 115 balls against a schoolboy bowling attack last weekend.

Findlay, who smashed 27 sixes in his innings for his Complete Flooring Napier Technical Old Boys (NTOB), was last night having second thoughts about his mammoth feat as outraged parents, players and fans questioned his motive in the division one match against the St John’s College First XI team at Nelson Park, Napier, on Saturday.

The former first-class cricketer pummelled the Hastings schoolboys into submission with a strike rate of 266.66.

If you are the senior cricket executive in the region, whose job is to get people into cricket, it seems unwise to pummel a schoolboy team in that way, even if they play in a club league.  I’m not saying don’t try and score, but maybe declare or retire after your century

You can vote in the 2013 Kiwiblog Awards at SurveyMonkey.

The nominees are:

2013 National MP of the Year

• Gerry Brownlee
• Bill English
• Steven Joyce
• Tony Ryall

2013 Labour MP of the Year

• David Cunliffe
• Shane Jones
• Louisa Wall

2013 Minor Party MP of the Year

• Clint
• Peter Dunne
• Kevin Hague
• Hone Harawira
• Winston Peters

2013 MP of the Year

• Bill English
• John Key
• Tony Ryall

2013 Press Gallery Journalist of the Year

• Andrea Vance
• Hamish Rutherford

Vote at the link above, and results will be declared later this month.

Note that you should only vote for one person in each category.  This isn’t restricted in some questions, and I can’t change it once voting has started. But if you vote for more than one choice, the vote won’t count.

The Taxpayers Union yesterday revealed that ACC has spent $19 million funding Business NZ and the CTU for training which even if it lowered accident rates by 50%, would only return a benefit of 16 cents for every dollar spent.

The CTU has tried to justify their troughing by saying:

“We trained nearly 2000 health and safety representatives last year and the feedback from participants has been overwhelmingly positive. 97 % felt they could perform the role of health and safety rep more confidently than before the course, 96 % said the course showed them how they could improve health and safety in their workplaces and nearly 99 % found that these courses were beneficial and helped with their understanding of the role and the importance of health and safety at work. Feedback has been consistently positive since we began these courses.”

The measure of effectiveness is whether there are fewer accidents at workplaces that receive the training, not on whether participants in a course tick a form saying they enjoyed the course.

The CTU is rightfully focusing on the appallingly high level of deaths in the foresty sector. They would be outraged if the Government’s response was that it doesn’t matter whether or not there are fewer deaths, so long as as employees who do a safety course rate it as beneficial.

CTU President Helen Kelly has also had a rant at The Daily Blog. She thinks there is something sinister that the TU got a response to our OIA 19 days after it was filed. Is she unaware that 20 days is the legal limit? She also says:

The training deliverables for the contract do not focus on the outcomes of the training only the numbers trained but the course is approved and overseen by a tripartite group.

That is the problem. It should be about outcomes. The CTU demand better outcomes in the forestry sector (and I agree with them) but don’t think their own levy payer funded training courses should be linked to improving outcomes. This is the problem when you stick your hand out for government funding – you become conflicted and even hypocritical.

The Herald reports:

The Government has defended its decision to award an $8 million ferry contract to a Bangladesh company rather than a local boat builder as the option offering the best value for money.

Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce said the difference between the local tenders and the Bangladesh bid was around $14 million.

“The numbers here were just too big to bridge, whatever way you want to cut it. If we were to prefer New Zealand suppliers at any cost, it would be a recipe for economic disaster,” Joyce said.

Twelve shipyards from Australia, Bangladesh, China, New Zealand, Poland and Singapore submitted tenders for the 43m vessel.

If the costs are similar, then there is sense in favouring the local company. But its would be a reckless use of taxpayers money to pay three times the price, just to go with an NZ company.

Also note that with CER one can not discriminate between NZ and Australian tenders.

Labour’s spokesman for economic development, Shane Jones, said the contract showed the Government’s new procurement rules were merely paying lip service. “It is bizarre New Zealand’s boat building industry was good enough for Oracle Team USA but is not good enough for the Pacific Islands,” Jones said.

So Labour support the taxpayers paying an extra $14 million. Is it now their policy that they will withdraw from all trade agreements and CER and ban all overseas companies from being able to tender for NZ Government contracts? I presume they will also be happy for overseas Governments to do the same, and ban NZ companies from being able to win overseas Govt contracts.

Kim Dotcom has announced the name of his proposed political party will be The Internet Party. Wallace Chapman has also stated he was asked to stand for it, and has declined. He has also been asked to stand for Labour in the past he discloses.

Also of interest is that Martin Bradbury is talking up the Dotcom Party, and states that “urban professional male Gen X National Party voters who don’t derive an income from the Dairy Industry will find Kim Dotcom’s economic vision a genuine way forward”

What I find interesting is how Martin knows what that economic vision is, when their policies have not been released. It’s almost as if he is involved. But of course he would disclose that if he was, right?

UPDATE: In an exclusive Whale Oil discloses how two journalists are on the payroll of the Internet Party, or hold a leadership role in it. They key details are:

• Martyn Bradbury on payroll for $8000 per month plus $5000 advance payment for technology upgrades
• Bradbury to stand for Auckland Central
• Scoop General Manager Alistair Thompson is to be the Party’s Secretary (a statutory role)
• Scoop has registered the domain names for the party

This is the second time that Bradbury has been revealed to be on, or seeking to be on, the payroll of a political party he blogs favourably about, without disclosing it.

There are serious issues for Scoop and the press gallery also. Can a member of the press gallery be a senior office holder of a political party? Is it appropriate to have a party secretary asking hostile questions of the PM at his media press conferences, in his role as a journalist.

UPDATE: Bradbury says he has not yet been placed on the payroll, it was just a proposal. But the problem remains that he is publishing favourable articles on them, while trying to advise them, get paid by them, and be a candidate for them.

Stuff reports:

The face of New Zealand healthcare will change before the year is out as Kiwis are signed into patient portals allowing them to self-manage their medical records, book doctor appointments and chat to their GP online.

The new multi-million dollar electronic healthcare system is a hybrid of internet banking and social networking – giving patients a secure account to view their medical records and test results, but also a private platform to instantly message their GP.

National health IT board director Graeme Osborne said the patient portal service was “ground-breaking”. It would empower Kiwis to take control of their own healthcare.

More than 50 per cent of the country’s general practices would be using the service by the end of 2014, he said.

“This is more than a hope. Each region and each district in New Zealand will roll this out.”

Online services would initially include a list of the patient’s medical conditions and medications, notifications when laboratory test results were available, the ability to book doctor appointments and order repeat prescriptions online and a messaging system to email GPs for health advice.

That would be great. I’d love being able to book appointments online and being able to access my own test results.

The BoP Times reports:

Independent MP Brendan Horan has been cleared of any wrongdoing following an investigation into allegations he took money from the accounts of his late mother.

In his final determination dated October 1, 2013, sighted by the Bay of Plenty Times, the executor of Olwen Horan’s estate John Buckthought says an investigation into the claims found no evidence which enabled him to find any claim against Mr Horan.

Mr Horan, who was expelled from NZ First in December 2012 after his half-brother Mana Ormsby claimed he had inappropriately used their mother’s bank cards, has come out fighting.

Mr Horan said he was not ruling out defamation proceedings against one or more parties.

He said he planned to remain as an independent MP, and would contest the Tauranga electorate seat at this year’s general election.

At the time of his expulsion, NZ First leader Winston Peters said that after seeing “substantive” information, he had no confidence in Mr Horan’s ability to continue as a MP.

As I said at the time, that regardless of the substance of the allegations, the process used by Peters was flawed:

I do believe Peters has done the right thing in acting against Horan if there is substantive proof of wrong-doing that Horan can’t credibly rebut. But the process he has followed has been seriously flawed and dictatorial and for Peters especially very hypocritical.

It now turns out there was no proof of wrong-doing, and the process used a kangaroo court. Peters made the decision without even talking to his caucus or board about it. In a later post I said:

On the basis of what is known, I actually think Peters was right to take action against Horan. But the way they have taken action has been appalling in terms of process. They need to write to him and put the complaints to him, and have a hearing where he can put a defence.

If NZ First had followed due process, then they might have decided to only suspend Horan until the independent investigation reported back.

Of interest, Horan says he is setting up his own party.

Stuff reports:

Two decades after he was first elected to Parliament, MP Eric Roy has announced he will not stand for re-election at the end of this year.

First elected in 1993, Mr Roy said he had been humbled and privileged to serve Southland.

“People put their trust in you every three years to represent their views and voices, in a way that has been my humble driver,” he said.

He was first elected to Parliament in 1993, as MP for Awarua When seat was dissolved forthe 1996 election he became a National Party list member, , serving electorates in the lower South Island.

In 2002 he contested the Invercargill seat, but was narrowly beaten by Labour’s Mark Peck.

Mr Peck announced he would not stand for re-election after his second term. , and with 49.51 per cent of the vote, Mr Roy was elected Invercargill MP, a position he has maintained for three terms.

He said politics was always in his blood and being an agent of change was just how he was “wired”.

“But in politics you have to remember one thing: you will agree with about 80 per cent of anything, 10 per cent you can be persuaded on and 10 per cent you don’t agree with – that’s the basic rule when you are in any party, otherwise you will stand for nothing,” he said.

Eric is one of the nicest and funniest guys around. He’s the current Deputy Speaker and has the respect of MPs across the House for his work in that role.

The rejuvenation trend continues for National with this announcements. Retirements since the election have included:

1. Shane Ardern, TKC
2. Chris Aunchinvole, List
3. Jackie Blue, List (already gone)
4. Cam Calder, List
5. Phil Heatley, Whangarei
6. Paul Hutchison, Hunua
7. Colin King, Kaikoura (challenged)
8. Eric Roy, Invercargill
9. Katrina Shanks, List (already gone)
10. Lockwood Smith, List (already gone)
11. Chris Tremain, Napier
12. Kate Wilkinson, Waimakariri

National needs rejuvenation to increase its chances for future elections. There is still one more possible announcement I would say, and also one more electorate challenge to be decided.

Stuff reports:

A retired police officer has shot and killed a man who wouldn’t stop texting during a movie in Florida, US police say.

To be fair it is a very annoying habit, and it may have been a very good film.

71-year-old Curtis Reeves asked Chad Oulson, 43, to stop texting.  When he didn’t, Reeves allegedly shot him.

The major problem with that, is you probably then don’t get to see the rest of the film.

An interesting case from the Employment Relations Authority. A Fonterra worker was dismissed for taking part in two Harlem Shake meme videos filmed at Fonterra’s Takanini plant.

Reading the judgement I agree that dismissal way way over the top for a pretty minor infringement of the rules. The health and safety risk was minimal, and the appropriate reaction would have been a warning at most. Dismissal was an over-reaction and it is good to see an order for reinstatement.

I missed this when released, but Stats NZ does a general social survey every two years.  Some of the results for 2012 compared to 2008:

• Satisfied or very satisfied with life 86.7% (+1.7%)
• Adequacy of income not enough 15.3% (-0.1%)
• Have a major house problem 33.5% (-3.8%)
• Feel safe/very safe in neighbourhood 67.2% (+15.7%)
• Have experienced discrimination in the last year 9.6% (-0.5%)
• Household mainly recycles 80.1% (+6.6%)

A massive increase in the proportion who feel safe in their neighbourhood, and minor improvements in other areas.

As I did for 2012, I thought it would be useful to highlight some of the posts in the last year where I have disagreed with the Government, or said things unhelpful to it. While I obviously support and want National’s re-election, I have and will continue to say what I think on issues on their merits.

• I agree with the concerns of principals on Govt changes to school powers of search
• I support Grant Robertson’s call to give the Electoral Commission power to penalise electoral law breaches
• I call on the Government to automatically release all Cabinet papers
• I criticise the Government’s intention to over-rule the Commerce Commission on copper Internet prices, calling it the wrong decision
• I say the OIA should apply to Parliament for financial matters
• I say the Government should regionally trial plain packaging, rather than just hope it works
• I blog that I support the Clare Curran amendment on the Patents Bill
• I praise the Young Nats for criticising the Government
• I blogged several times in support of Louisa Wall’s Same Sex Marriage Bill
• I support David Clark’s Mondayisation Bill, opposed by National
• I call on the Government not to do a deal with Rio Tinto
• I criticise the Prime Minister for phoning Ian Fletcher to encourage him to apply for the GCSB job
• I support No Right Turn in calling for BORA opinions on all stages of a bill
• I congratulate David Clark and Grant Robertson for getting a law change in opposition
• I call for Cabinet to be reduced from 20 to 12, agreeing with Trevor Mallard
• I criticise the Govt for their use of urgency (and in fact had it wrong)
• I say that National should back changes to MMP thresholds
• I again criticise the use of urgency
• I support the Fair Deal Coalition and their work on the TPP
• I agree with Russel Norman that waka jumping laws are bad
• I back a land tax
• I back the CTU over the EMA that the trial period should be 90 days not 180 days
• I criticise Parliamentary Service for releasing Andrea Vance’s swipe card details
• I support congestion charging on Auckland roads, which the Government rules out
• I criticise Nick Smith’s decision on a tunnel to Milford Sound
• I attack the proposed exemption for some quota holders from requiring FCVs to be flagged in NZ
• I support a comprehensive no exemptions Capital Gains Tax
• I call on the Govt to scrap Part 6A of the ERA
• I call the possible limit of three snapper, ridiculously low
• I label the proposed changes to copper pricing a “copper tax”
• I label the Rio Tinto deal as “screwing taxpayers for $30 million”
• I say Labour’s proposed Super age of 67 is a modest step in the right direction
• I’m mildly critical of LVRs
• I endorse David Cunliffe for the Labour leadership
• I’m disappointed the Government is not pushing for a unified independent media regulator
• Kiwiblog joins the Coalition for Fair Internet Pricing
• I praise David Cunliffe for his Chief of Staff appointment
• I say Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill on the blood alcohol limit should be supported at first reading
• I support Gareth Hughes’ call to review the Parliamentary Prayer
• I propose changes to standing orders
• I call on the Govt to fast-track e-voting option for local goverment elections
• I support Russel Norman’s bill on Reserve Bank OCR decision making going to a select committee
• I’m critical of the extension to the parallel importing ban on movies
• I call on MPs to support Brendan Horan’s amendment so MPs salaries are fixed for each term of Parliament
• I praise Jacinda Ardern for Labour’s policy to scrap the Families Commission
• I co-found and help launch the NZ Taxpayers Union which will scrutinise central and local government spending
• I praise Crown Law for taking on the John Banks prosecution
• I praise Labour for considering a referendum on moving to a republic
• I criticise the new regulations around pool fencing
• I praise Labour’s selection for Rangitikei

I recall the quote of Keith Holoyoake who said he only agreed with around 80% of what National did, even when he was Prime Minister! I suspect with Muldoon, he agreed with 100% of what his Government did!

The Herald reports:

The Accident Compensation Corporation will end a health and safety training programme it said today after activist group the Taxpayers Union highlighted almost $20 million in spending on the training which generated few benefits.

The union today released documents detailing the corporation’s spending since 2003 on the programme to train employees in health and safety practices.

Beginning in 2003, the money was paid to the Council of Trade Unions (CTU), employers’ group Business NZ and private training provider Impac Services.

However the documents showed the $19 million spent “did little, if anything, to reduce workplace accidents”, Taxpayers Union executive director Jordan Williams said.

The release and detailed data from the Taxpayers Union is here. What is staggering is that even if you make the incredibly generous assumption that the training resulted in a 50% reduction in workplace accidents in sites visited (and of course it did not), then it is still wasting 84 cents in the dollar.  The benefits are just 16 cents for every dollar spent, even under the most generous assumptions.

It should have stopped years ago.

ACC analysis found that over the time the programme was working there was a reduction in claims even in workplaces where no safety or workplace activity has occurred.

The analysis suggested that even if the training was responsible for half of the reduction in accidents, at best only 16c in every $1 spent did any good, or in other words, 84c in every $1 was being wasted.

The documents reveal that Business NZ and the CTU worked together with ACC to create the venture and doubts about the value of the scheme had existed since at least 2008.

“Business NZ and the CTU have created a nice little earner for themselves”, said Mr Williams.

“It’s a disgraceful example of big corporate and union welfare chewing through taxpayer cash.”

There are many many organisations out there receiving taxpayer funding, and not producing enough benefits to justify it.  It’s good that ACC has decided to put a stop to this one, saving employees and employers money.

WCC Watch blogs:

During the campaign it was reasonably well known that the Green Party had given somewhere in the region of $5,000 to all of their candidates in the election – there were a few other candidates who were pretty jealous of the fact, particularly after people like David Lee started bragging about it.

Good on Sarah Free for doing the legal thing and declaring a total of eight donations from the Green Party to a combined total of $4880.14 (one of the individual donations – $1916.46 was above the donation threshold on its own!)

However, that then leaves us with a very interesting question – what about the other candidates? David Lee and Iona Pannett both filed in donations returns without mentioning their Green Party donations. Did they not get any, or did they file a false return?

Very good questions.

Both of the Green regional council candidates declared large donations from their head office, with Sue Kedgeley getting $4657 and Paul Bruce getting $4393. It is really starting to look like Lee and Pannett have filed false returns.

If the returns are false, then they could face the same charges as John Banks is.

An interesting article in Haaretz on what Sharon was looking to do:

Ever since Ariel Sharon sank into a coma eight years ago, many have wondered whether he would have taken the peace process with the Palestinians any further after the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza.

A series of cables from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to the State Department that were leaked to Wikileaks show that in fact, even before the Gaza withdrawal, Sharon was planning his next big diplomatic move. Moreover, leaked Palestinian documents show that after Yasser Arafat’s death in November 2004, and even more so once Mahmoud Abbas was elected Palestinian president the following January, Sharon made efforts to coordinate the Gaza withdrawal with the Palestinian Authority. …

In his summary of that meeting, then-U.S. Ambassador Dan Kurtzer makes it clear that Sharon had no intention of stopping with the Gaza withdrawal, but planned to take far-reaching steps in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Kurtzer noted that Sharon put emphasis on annexing the major settlement blocs, implying he would concede other parts of the West Bank, and that while he would not even discuss dividing Jerusalem, he would consider handing over some Arab neighborhoods, “but not the Temple Mount, Mount of Olives or the City of David.”

We’ll never know what would have happened if Sharon had lived, but I think we would be closer to a peace settlement. However I doubt we would have one, as both parties need to want peace, and while Fatah sort of do, Hamas do not.

Steven Joyce writes in the NZ Herald:

So how do we keep growth happening? How do we lift New Zealand’s longer term growth rate so that we add more jobs, reach our potential, and become a true “Pacific Tiger” rather than just a short-term success story? I think there are several key things:

1. Keep opening our markets and building strong people to people relationships. The lesson of the China FTA is obvious. If we can get a good TPP deal, then we should grab it – along with other FTA and trade opportunities.

2. Innovate, innovate and innovate. The National-led Government is putting a lot of taxpayers’ money into assisting firms and their ideas. As a country we are starting to see the power of innovation in our industries but we need to keep lifting private sector investment in research and development to international norms.

3. Keep building the skills of a successful and innovative trading nation. Encourage more of our young people into the careers that breed innovation, like engineering, ICT, and science.

4. Encourage more capital to invest in New Zealand. The mixed ownership programme has helped set up a stellar year for our stock exchange. We need to build on that. Capital investment in competitive industries creates sustainable jobs.

5. We need to keep removing red tape and provide certainty to investors, especially in resource industries. That means making decisions quickly and effectively, while also working to improve environmental outcomes.

6. We need to keep building infrastructure to support a growth-oriented country. Great progress has been made in electricity transmission and ultra-fast broadband. Those projects need to be finished. And we need to keep investing in our transport systems for safety and efficiency. That means high-quality four-lane roads in and out of our main centres, resilient highways elsewhere, and quality public transport that people want to use.

Finally – and above all – we need to make responsible fiscal and economic decisions that keep the tax burden low and pay off debt. We need to keep rewarding New Zealanders with efficient public services and lower income taxes than elsewhere. It’s talented, hard-working Kiwis who get out of bed every day that make all this happen. Kiwis strive and succeed because they see the benefits of their hard work. If politicians keep remembering that then New Zealand will truly become a Pacific Tiger.

In terms of the skills referred to in No 3, Joyce also announced yesterday:

“Four years ago we had a highly complicated vocational training system in New Zealand with a total of 39 separate industry training organisations and more than 4500 separate qualifications”, Mr Joyce says.

“ITOs were falling over each other and had signed up many trainees that were trainees in name only. Single employers were in some cases having to deal with a number of ITOs.

“With the latest ITO merger just prior to Christmas, we start this year with only 14 Industry Training Organisations,” Mr Joyce says. “This smaller number of generally larger scale organisations means that they can provide a better service to trainees and employers. There is now, for example, just one ITO for the primary sector – down from seven ITOs three years ago.

The number of qualifications at the vocational level has also been reduced. There were 4610 separate qualifications at Levels 1 to 6 at the beginning of 2011 and this has been reduced by 63 per cent so far to less than 1750 by the end of last year. The current targeted review of qualifications seeks to have the number reduced to around 1300 by the end of this year.

4,610 different trade qualifications was insanely high.

“We had a huge spaghetti of qualifications at sub-degree level in this country,” Mr Joyce says. “It was difficult for learners to decide when and how to study, and difficult for employers to understand the nature and quality of the different qualifications. The targeted review has meant that we have reduced, for example, 213 ICT qualifications to 14, and similarly 69 mechanical engineering qualifications have been reduced to nine.

213 ICT qualifications!!

The Herald reports:

The mayoral office is working on ways to rebuild Len Brown’s shattered reputation after his sex scandal. The strategy involves setting outan action plan and contacting communities.

Good to see Len’s six spin doctors hard at work.

Mr Brown and his advisers are considering a new year speech with a focus on public transport, in which Mr Brown wants to make a start on the city rail link in 2016.

Sounds good. Just tell us where the money is coming from.

Meanwhile, the right-wing local body ticket Affordable Auckland is organising a “Stand Down Len Brown” march up Queen St at noon on February 22.

Leader Stephen Berry and spokesman Will Ryan said the march was not so much about Mr Brown’s private life as his undeclared activities and poor financial management.

May take more than a speech from Len to make this go away.

Wellington City Councillor Nicola Young writes in the Dom Post:

Councillors often stress the need for evidence-based, reasoned and clear decisions; correct process; and the need to avoid writing blank cheques but there was little – if any – consultation and analysis of the impact this wages policy would have on Wellington households and businesses. Ironic, considering the council has also committed to the capital being “open for business”.

Mayor Celia Wade- Brown has defended this Alice in Wonderland approach by pointing out the council didn’t consult on the chief executive’s salary either. The reality is that the CEO is paid the going rate in a competitive international market, whereas the “living wage” is an artificial intervention to boost incomes of lower paid workers who happen to work at the council.

The “living wage” proposed by the Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand Campaign, is higher (relative to GDP per capita) than the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. Incredibly, ours is higher than London’s; the 18th most expensive city in the world (Wellington is ranked at 74th in Mercer’s Cost of Living survey).

The Council voted to outsource their wages policy to Rev Waldegrave. Whatever he says they should pay, they will pay it. It is the opposite of evidence based policy.

A review of the research that produced the New Zealand rate of $18.40 by researcher Brian Scott concluded the rate is over-stated and questioned its method and data (as did Treasury). It also questioned whether conclusions reached from overseas research on productivity, morale and poverty could be safely applied to New Zealand’s situation.

Preliminary research by the Auckland Council came to the same conclusion. Not everyone would agree that Sky TV, pets, international travel and video games are “basic necessities”; some expenses – childcare costs, for example – are counted twice and money is allowed for building and mortgage insurance, despite the stated assumption that recipients are tenants.

Good to see politicians taking notice of the Scott analysis.

Wellington may be a comparatively wealthy city, but with an older population; much of the council’s largesse will be funded by pensioners struggling on fixed incomes, well below the “living wage”.

The “living wage” is a one-size-fits-all tool, based on a two-adult, two-child family.

The reality is that almost 80 per cent of those earning less than $18.40 have no children; many are students living at home.

The concept of a single living wage is fundamentally flawed. Each different household composition will have its own level of needed income. A family of four has different needs to a single 18 year old living at home.

Wage policies shouldn’t be based on emotional arguments; it should be based on careful analysis and facts. The lack of consultation, research and analysis of this policy is a failure of governance, and will damage our city’s economy and reputation as a place to do business. The “living wage” policy is a poor solution looking to solve a complex problem.

Well said.

Olivia Wannan at Stuff reports:

Older public servants have borne the brunt of recent government job cuts.

In the past two years, 412 government workers aged over 55 have been laid off, 42 per cent of the 970 redundancies in 10 agencies, figures released under the Official Information Act show.

Opponents say the loss is undermining the country’s democratic process.

Really?

The Public Service Association’s Brenda Pilott believed the Government initiative to condense levels of management was one factor behind the age skew.

“In that case, it is inevitable you’re going to be losing people who are in the older age group, as they’ve moved up into those middle and senior roles.”

So the Government is reducing the number of managers, and this is anti-democratic according to Labour?

It is a good reminder that Labour have opposed pretty much every state sector spending reduction in the last five years, and under them we’d not be heading into surplus, but ever growing deficits.

Labour state services spokesperson Maryan Street said the figures showed the public sector had lost many of its most experienced employees.

“The Government is, I think, deliberately stripping out the institutional knowledge and experience of the public service.

“This leaves a workforce that is not going to challenge anything ministers do and that is one of the things the public service is there for . . . It’s not good for our democratic apparatus.”

So Labour think it is the job of the public sector to challenge Ministers, not assist them?

What is depressing is once again Labour conflates quantity and quality. They think more of something is automatically good.

About 2.5 per cent of all public servants at the nine government agencies were made redundant over the past two years.

2.5%? And Labour is calling it the end of democracy. Sigh.

Stuff reports:

Right-wing lobbyist Matthew Hooton has ruled himself out from contesting the ACT party leadership.

He has joined former leader Rodney Hide in removing himself from the list of potential candidates in the past week.

In a column written for the National Business Review, Hooton said he was certain he would win the electorate if he stood, but felt he was too closely aligned to the National Party.

“If ACT is to succeed in the longer run, it must strongly differentiate itself from National, especially given the interventionist tendencies of the current regime, and it must be a genuine party, without any suggestion of being a subsidiary of the bigger brand,” he said.

Hooton endorsed a split configuration of former Cambridge philosophy-lecturer-turned-management-consultant Jamie Whyte as leader of the party, and David Seymour as the candidate for Epsom.

Hooton’s column is here.

Compared to Matthew’s current earnings, being an MP isn’t a living wage 🙂