The Herald has announced:

At this time in every previous year, the Herald has been able to select one person from many notable contributors to national life as its New Zealander of the Year. The choice is never easy, but never has it been more difficult than this year.

Three young New Zealanders made major waves internationally, as well as locally. The achievement of each was, in its own way, so extraordinary and distinct that it would be pointless to try to rank them. This year, therefore, Eleanor Catton, Lydia Ko and Lorde share the accolade.

At a first glance, the feats that thrust the three young women to global prominence appear to have little besides their youth and gender in common.

Eleanor Catton is the youngest author to win the prestigious Man Booker Prize; Lydia Ko scaled the heights of women’s golf while just 16, becoming the youngest person and the only amateur ever to win an LPGA tour event; and Lorde, at the same age, became the first New Zealander to top the Billboard Hot 100 chart in the United States.

A good choice. All three have achieved amazing things, and I don’t know how you could pick between them.

Fairfax rates the frontbench MPs. The summary is:

• Bill English 8.0
• Paula Bennett 8.0
• David Cunliffe 8.0
• John Key 7.5
• David Parker 7.5
• Russell Normn 7.5
• Judith Collins 7.0
• Jonathan Coleman 7.0
• Shane Jones 7.0
• Gerry Brownlee 6.5
• Chris Hipkins 6.5
• Hone Harawira 6.5
• Te Ururoa Flavell 6.0
• Chris Finlayson 6.0
• Tony Ryall 6.0
• Clayton Cosgrove 6.0
• Metiria Turei 6.0
• Winston Peters 6.0
• David Parker 6.0
• Steven Joyce 5.5
• Grant Robertson 5.0
• Jacinda Ardern 5.0
• Kevin Hague 5.0
• Annette King 4.5
• Peter Dunne 4.0
• Tariana Turia 4.0
• Hekia Parata 3.0
• Tracey Martin 3.0
• John Banks 1.0

I was expecting the yes vote in the referendum to be around 15% to 20%. I’m amazed it was 32.1% and the no vote won by 2:1 rather than 4:1.

There wasn’t a single party or organisation campaigning for a yes vote. On the other side Labour, Greens and the unions spent hundreds of thousands first promoting the petition and collecting the signatures and then campaigning for no votes.

There was little reason for yes voters to vote. I actually never got around to it. You knew what the result would be, and more to the point you knew that the referendum was pointless as three of the five companies have already been sold down to 51%.

On the other side there was a lot of reason for a no voter to vote no – it was a way to punish the Government, and try and stop any further sales.

I honestly thought they’s get over 80%, maybe as high as the anti-smacking vote at 85%. Instead they got 67.2% and turnout was well under 50% at 43.9%.

Sure it is still an official victory for the no vote, but far from the crushing blow they wanted – especially considering that they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on getting this referendum. How can Labour and Greens demand National implement the result of a 67% referendum result when they remain 1000% opposed to implementing the results of the 85% referendum result on smacking law.

But hey, if Labour thinks the referendum result trumps the last election result, I look forward to their clear policy pledge they will buy back every share sold.

Yeah, Nah.

Having now read the EY report commissioned by the Auckland Council Chief Executive, I believe Len Brown must resign as Mayor of Auckland. I only formed this view after reading the report, and did not believe what had previously been disclosed was substantial enough to warrant resignation.

But the report makes Clear that Len Brown publicly lied to the media and the public, and also that there were ratepayer resources used for his affair. Taking the findings one at a time:

The mayor used his council provided phone to make 1,375 calls and texts to Ms Chuang between 19 November 2010 and 21 October 2013, out of a total population of 13,797 calls and texts. Ms Chuang advises the mayor’s calls and texts to her were all of a personal nature. The mayor has advised two-thirds of the calls and texts he made to Ms Chuang were of a personal nature.

He even lied to EY. How could anyone think that a third of his calls and texts were work related, when she isn’t a Councillor or even a board member.

Personal use of mobile phones is permitted by the Elected Members Technology Policy and Guidelines. Costs relating to personal calls and texts are required to be reimbursed by the elected member in accordance with the policy. The mayor made one reimbursement of $263 for personal phone use on 25 October 2012 for the 2011/2012 period. No subsequent reimbursements have been made by the mayor.

10% of his total calls and texts as Mayor were to Chuang, and he only did one reimbursement. The ratepayers paid for all the other calls and texts. He should have done monthly reimbursements. He also is a fool for doing so many calls from his work phone – the staff who pay the bills would have noticed the same number cropping up. Brown should immediately repay the cost of all the calls and texts – but it is too late anyway. Only paying it back after the auditor finds it is not good enough for a Mayor – and he has form here.

Ms Chuang attended several functions as the mayor’s translator, mayor’s guest or as an Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel (“EPAP”) member where she provided translation services. We did not find any evidence that she was paid for providing these services by council. Ms Chuang has never been, and is currently not, included on the list of official translators maintained by council.

He only took her along as he was having an affair with her. He used his position as Mayor to further the affair. She was not an authorised translator.

The mayor, via one of his Diary Managers, provided a brief written email reference for Ms Chuang on 5 July 2011 in relation to her application for a role at Auckland Art Gallery. Earlier that day, the mayor made three phone calls to the Auckland Art Gallery Head of Development but was unsuccessful in speaking with her. The mayor has advised he provides references for people on a regular basis. Upon request, the mayor provided a number of character references and nomination support letters to us (for other people). However, these were not references for specific employment roles.

The fact he could not provide one example of another specific reference for a specific job implies he never has done such a reference before.  he even tried to call three times on her behalf. And worse it was for a job at a Council CCO. A clear example of using his power as Mayor to further the affair, or commence it.

It is a pity the EY review does not ask the Head of Development at the Auckland Art Gallery how much weight the reference from the Mayor played.

During the period of the mayor’s relationship with Ms Chuang, the mayoral vehicle and driver were used to transport Ms Chuang to her home after a number of official functions

Did anyone not sleeping with the Mayor get lifts home in the Mayoral limo? Another example of use of resources to further the affair.

The mayor has received nine complimentary (free) hotel rooms or suites which have not been registered as gifts or disclosed in his completed annual Declaration of Interests. The value of the complimentary rooms/suites based on rates provided by the hotels is $6,130.

He has broken the Council’s disclosure policy. Each room on average was worth almost $700. Even worse three of the rooms were at Sky City, and he of course was an advocate of the convention centre deal with them. That would get you before the Privileges Committee if he was an MP.

Stuff reports:

“I was not charged for nine of these hotel rooms, including one occasion in relation to Ms Chuang.

This confirms Len Brown lied to the media and the public. On 19 October the Herald reported:

Mr Brown also denied claims by Ms Chuang that some hotels rooms he booked for the pair were offered free of charge.

In a written statement to the Weekend Herald, the mayor’s head of communications, Dan Lambert, said: “He was not offered, or has accepted, free hotel stays in connection to the relationship and paid the standard rate out of his own pocket.

That is a direct lie, contradicted by the evidence.  He has only told the truth now because of the audit.

The mayor has received hotel upgrades (to better quality rooms or suites) which have not been registered as gifts or disclosed in his completed annual Declaration of Interests. A total of 64 such upgrades has been identified. The value of the upgrades based on rates
provided by the hotels is $32,888.50.

By itself, this would not necessarily be an issue. You may be unaware of the upgrade, or its cost. And upgrades get given to many people. Free rooms do not. But the combination of the free rooms combines with the upgrades to paint a picture of Brown receiving massive personal benefits from the hotels.

There is also the issue of why the Mayor has had to stay in an Auckland hotel on at least 64 occasions.  The reason offered of late nights and early starts is ridiculous. His home is in Totara Park, which is just 20 minutes from the CBD.

We did not identify any improper preferential treatment by the mayor in relation to Ms Chuang’s appointment to the EPAP, New Lynn Night market, Howick Local Board contracts and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (“ATEED”) services.

There may not have been preferential treatment, but it shows how involved Chuang was with the Council. She was not a purely private citizen. She was on a panel personally appointed by the Mayor, and had no less than three contracts with the Council. That is what you call a power imbalance.

Another possible lie:

On that night, the mayor advises us he had dinner in the hotel restaurant with the Mayoral Office staff member who accompanied him on the trip and a personal friend the mayor advises us he knows well. This person had been requested by the mayor to provide translation services on the Guangzhou extension (13 and 14 November 2011). No evidence of payment has been found for these translation services. The Mayoral Office staff member has advised us she has no recollection of the dinner or attending the dinner.

I believe the mayoral staff member. Len invented her presence at the dinner to justify charging it to the Council. I wonder how often this “personal friend” provided translation services for the Mayor, and was their selection on the same basis as his selection of Bevan Chuang?

No one can force Len to resign, but he has lied to the public and mis-used Council resources. He should resign. He can stand in the by-election if he thinks Auckland voters are okay with what he has done.

Also the Auckland Council needs to take action and at a minimum censure the Mayor for his use of Council resources and his failure to disclose gifts. They can’t do more than censure him, but they can at least do that.

Karul du Fresne writes:

The latest census confirms what was already obvious: New Zealand has quietly undergone a profound demographic revolution. From being one of the world’s most homogeneous societies, it has become one of the most diverse.

One in four New Zealanders was born overseas – an astonishing statistic that makes us one of the world’s most immigrant-friendly societies. Asian ethnic groups have almost doubled in size since 2001.

The change is most dramatic in Auckland, where a 2011 study found that 40 per cent of the population was born in another country.

What’s even more remarkable is that, in contrast with Britain and Australia, this has been accomplished without any obvious social or racial tension.

Apart from the pressure on housing prices, New Zealand has painlessly absorbed the new arrivals. Our embrace of ethnic diversity confirms that we are essentially a liberal, tolerant and easy-going society.

And we should be proud of that.

Yet that social harmony is potentially under threat – and the great irony is that the threat comes not from conservative New Zealanders, but from people purporting to represent immigrant groups.

On Jim Mora’s Afternoons programme on Radio New Zealand this week, Dr Camille Nakhid, chairwoman of Auckland Council’s ethnic people’s advisory panel (whose members include Bevan Chuang, erstwhile paramour of mayor Len Brown), talked about the need for ethnic groups to have more say in local government.

No-one could object to such groups having an advisory function, but Dr Nakhid, an academic who lectures in something called social sciences (no surprises there), was talking about much more than that.

She believes ethnic representatives should be given a statutory role in decision-making – just like Auckland Council’s non-elected Maori statutory board, whose two members recently exercised a casting vote in favour of a living wage for council employees.

Dr Nakhid talked airily about not compromising democratic principles, but in fact was advocating exactly that. She seemed to draw a self-serving distinction between democratic “principles”, which she believes justify special rights for ethnic groups, and something less important called the democratic “process”.

Apparently the tired old idea of one person having one vote doesn’t quite cut it anymore.

She talked about the need for ethnic minorities to have “separate but equal” representation with Maori in Auckland – in other words, compounding what is already an abuse of democracy. And she didn’t really answer Mora’s question about how ethnic representation could be arranged when Auckland has an estimated 200 ethnic groups. A minor technicality, no doubt.

If Dr Nakhid had deliberately set out to create friction where currently there is none, she couldn’t have found a better way to go about it. Nothing is more likely to arouse resentment of immigrant groups than demands for privileged treatment.

This is the problem with special privileges for one race. Others then want the same.

The Dom Post says the MFAT leaks were justified:

That is why the leakers could argue they had a wider duty than their narrow duty of loyalty to the Government. Of course bureaucrats should not and must not leak willy-nilly. A broadly impartial public service should be able to be trusted with certain kinds of information. Leakers know they run a risk if caught. They must be quite certain that the public benefit of the leak outweighs the duty of confidentiality. And they must be prepared to face the music if caught.

In this case there was a wider public duty and therefore the leak was justified. No government has the right to demand silence from the victims of a misbegotten purge. No government should expect the “debate” to be confined to the victims and their executioners. No government should seriously expect this sort of thing not to leak.

I note the Dom Post was the recipient of many of the leaks.

The Press has a different view:

The proposed restructuring, which had been ordered by the new head of MFAT to better align the ministry with New Zealand’s evolving trade promotion and diplomacy needs from Europe to Asia, aroused enormous opposition within the ministry. MFAT people had, of course, every right to oppose the changes. But, as Rennie observes, at that stage the correct and professional way to do that was through the proper process, which had then barely begun. In this case, the public servants concerned were not blowing the whistle on any impropriety but were seeking rather to shortcut and sabotage a proper process.

This is key. The Tier 3 managers resorted to sabotage before the process had barely begun.

The motive, at least so far as the leaker of the Cabinet papers is concerned, was ultimately to discomfit the Government. That person could not be identified with certainty but there was a strong suspicion it was a former member of the Labour Party research unit. Other MFAT individuals may have been trying to protect themselves and their own positions in MFAT.

The point about leaking and whistleblowing is that they are justified as serving the public interest by the need to protect the integrity of an institution or a system. In this case, the leakers undermined the system by taking on what amounted to a party-political role. They also undermined the honourable cause of whistleblowing.

I agree with The Press.

The Herald reports:

Scientology has been recognised officially as a “religion” in Britain after the country’s highest court swept aside 158 years of law to rule that worshipping a god is not essential to religion.

Five Supreme Court justices redefined religion in law in order to enable Scientologists to conduct weddings.

If anyone can set up a religion, it makes me wonder whether religions should have any special rights under the law. I’m all for having the right to believe or follow any religion you want to, but the state should not be recognising what is a religion, and granting religions certain rights.

Audrey Young interviews Colin Craig:

Increasing oil and mineral exploration

It’s almost criminal to be so well vested with resources and not use them. I wonder at the logic of that. I find it fascinating that if you dig a hole and plant a tree in it, you are a greenie; if you dig a big hole, take the gold out of the ground and plant a forest, suddenly you’re an eco-terrorist. There’s no consistency in that. I do think we should make sensible use of our resources. I’m not so keen, however, on letting foreign corporations take the lion’s share … Norway did it well.

Well said.

Labour’s target to get 50 per cent women MPs by 2017

I don’t believe positions should be picked on the basis of whether you are a man or a woman. I think it should be merit. I’m not a politically correct person. I despise political correctness because what it actually really does is just keeps people quiet. I would rather live in an environment where we could freely debate things.

Hear hear.

On the Maori seats and the Treaty of Waitangi

We think the Maori seats served a purpose at a time; that time is over. They don’t serve that purpose any more so we need to move forward and moving forward means getting rid of the Maori seats.

I think they should go, but only if Maori agree. What I would do is have a referendum every nine years on whether to keep them, amongst those of Maori descent. I’d replace them with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the electoral system to have no threshold for Maori parties to gain List MPs.

Parliament now has 25 MPs of Maori descent. I doubt there is another Parliament in the world that has the indigenous minority so over-represented in their Parliament. I don’t think it is a bad thing we have such over-representation. But I do think it weakens the case for retaining the Maori seats.

Stuff reports:

West-Coast Tasman MP Damien O’Connor also said the settlement looked like a “stitch-up”.

“The families have said they want justice more than money and this tragedy will have no end until justice is seen to be done,” he said.

Bridges denied yesterday’s announcement left New Zealand’s justice system a “laughing stock”.

“I disagree with that. It was a decision based on legal principles, and determined by the Ministry after clear legal advice from the crown solicitor and the solicitor general.”

He said he was advised of the decision only this week, after the decision had already been made. 

“I had no involvement in it, and that’s as it should be. I think politicians shouldn’t be involved in deciding whether or not to prosecute individuals.”

The decision was made after assessing the level of evidence available and whether or not it was in the public interest, Bridges said.

“In terms of the evidential test, the factors taken into account there included witnesses not being prepared to make themselves available, [and] contest between experts and other pre-trial issues. 

One can sympathise with the families that they wanted to see a conviction in court. But if a trial had a low probability of a conviction, I’m not sure they’d be much happier having to sit through a five month trial, and have Whittall almost certainly found not guilty.

It is worth noting also that the charges Whittall faced could not have resulted in imprisonment. The only thing that could have happened was a fine and the stigma of conviction.

Whether or not he has a formal conviction, I doubt Whittall will ever be employed in the mining industry again.  In fact he may never again be employed by anyone. The stigma of a conviction would not change his employment prospects.

Whittall was hailed as a hero (including by me) for the way he fronted up and openly communicated during the immediate post-explosion stage. But I said at the time:

But he would know, that admiration for his post-explosion performance, will not protect him if it transpires that Pike River Coal has some culpability for what happened. Admiration for fronting up does not remove accountability and responsibility.

The Royal Commission clearly found that there were numerous failings by Pike River, and Whittall. Note however he was mine manager, not CEO, for most of the time. If a prosecution of Whittall had a reasonable chance of success, then it should have continued. But it is very clear from what MBIE have said that their prosecution would have failed. The Judge all but said so herself.

The Herald notes:

Judge Jane Farish was doubtless on the mark when she said yesterday that the likelihood of a prosecution of Peter Whittall was “extremely low” and the case may never have reached trial. As such, it was right for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to drop the 12 health and safety charges against the former Pike River Coal chief executive. 

Radio NZ reports:

Daljit Singh was convicted on two charges of forgery in the High Court in Auckland on Thursday over the registering of 116 voters in the Otara-Papatoetoe area, where he was standing for the local board in 2010.

The Royal Federation of Justices Associations says the integrity of its members is paramount and it has asked the Auckland association to seek Singh’s immediate resignation.

Singh was made a JP in 2005 by then Justice Minister Phil Goff. You have to be nominated or supported by an MP and I understand that his application was supported by Taito Phillip Field.

A tier 3 manager is a very senior manager. They are one step off the executive team who report to the CEO. They are the managers who manage large sections or teams within an organisation.

The Rebstock report into the behaviour of a number of Tier 3 managers at MFAT shows an alarming lack of political neutrality and professionalism. These are not junior staffers, but what should be trusted senior public servants. Some extracts:

• Nine Tier 3 managers misreported to the investigation how they handled the HOM’s joint letter and so misled the investigation.
• Two Tier 3 managers (no longer employed by MFAT) were so opposed to
  the change proposals they ignored the fact that the consultation was a staff in confidence process. … They encouraged or supplied unauthorised government information to the partners group and the FSA for use in their public campaigns and encouraged former New Zealand diplomats to lobby Ministers directly.
• The evidence obtained by the investigation, as outlined in this section, showed that [Y] and [Z] engaged in a strategy designed to ensure the change proposals did not
  become a reality. This strategy included working outside the staff in confidence consultation process prescribed by the Secretary.
• This pattern of ignoring the requirement to protect the confidentiality of discussions in the Division Directors’ meetings continued through March 2012. On several occasions [Y] forwarded his notes of these meetings and other communications intended only for senior managers to other MFAT staff outside his own team, including the FSA President, who were not attendees at the meetings or intended recipients of other communications.

Persons Y and Z have been named as Nigel Fyfe and Derek Leask. Leask is now retired, but Fyfe is a Deputy Secretary at the Ministry of Justice.

I can not imagine how the Secretary of Justice, or Ministers, could possibly have any confidence in Fyfe , in light of the evidence of the Rebstock report that he passed on confidential documents to people not authorised to have them. I would think the SIS would have grounds to revoke his security clearance. Note I am not saying he leaked outside MFAT – but if your employer says this is for tier 3 and 2 managers only, you don’t e-mail it to other staff.

More to the point, how could the Secretary of Justice have confidence that any restructuring at Justice wouldn’t be undermined and confidential information given to unauthorised persons?

And let us not think this was about any high and mighty noble purpose. Rebstock notes:

It is natural for every public servant to want to protect their own personal interests, but they have a duty to the Government and to their organisation not to use their professional position, including access to Ministers, to promote their personal interests.

Those who leaked to Labour sold out their department and their neutrality to keep their 30 pieces of silver.

It is not known who within MFAT was talking to Labour, but calls were made directly to Phil Goff from MFAT conference rooms.

MFAT telephone records for 2 April 2012 show a call to the Labour Party Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs and Trade’s cellphone number at 4.54pm. The call lasted seven minutes 44 seconds. The telephone used was installed in a small meeting room on Level 14. The whole of Level 14 is accessible only with security
cards.

Incredible – one or more MFAT staffers calling an Opposition MP on his cellphone from a secure MFAT conference room.

MFAT’s email records, between 26 March 2012 and early May 2012, show [Y] exchanging emails with a reporter from the Fairfax Political Bureau. The reporter appears to have initiated this exchange after a work trip to Seoul which they had both attended. [Y] met the reporter for coffee on 23 April 2012 and for a drink on the evening of 2 May 2012. The investigation has not been able to establish what was discussed at these meetings. [Y] said his reason for meeting the reporter was to seek information about current issues at his new employer.

Yeah, right. You don’t meet a journalist to find out what is happening with your employer. You meet to tell them what is happening.

Furthermore, [Y] did not resile from his actions during the MFAT change process and submitted that his behaviour was justified because the change proposals were unprecedented and the management of the process was “deeply flawed”.

So as I read this Fyfe is saying he would do the same again, if he disagree with a restructuring process. That would make me very nervous if I was his employer.

A couple of pics today of the kaka.

Excitement in Auckland increased briefly when some were recently spotted around Torbay 🙂

click for larger, higher res image

Click for larger, higher res image

Also, if you want to see some pics of our very unusual pseudoscorpions, I’ve got a blog post on them at my website.  I spotted the small arachnid hitching a ride on the leg of a fly.  They’re actually common this time of the year.

Cheers B

The Herald reports:

A Labour Party candidate in the first Super City elections has been found guilty of two counts of using forged documents but has been acquitted on the remaining 18 electoral fraud allegations he faced.

Daljit Singh has been on trial in the High Court at Auckland on 20 charges of using forged documents to increase his chances of winning a seat on his local board.

The jury of 11 returned their verdicts this afternoon after deliberating for nearly five days.

This was an orchestrated attempt to fraudulently win a local election by an official Labour candidate.

And worse for Labour, even after he was charged with fraud, Labour candidates and MPs had him at their campaign launches. Whale has a photo of him with no less than then Labour Leader Phil Goff in February 2011 – some time after he had been arrested and charged.

You can’t be responsible for what a rogue candidate might do, before you are aware of it. But if after he has been charged, you are having him at campaign launches, and attending fundraisers – then you can be held responsible.

Claire Trevett hands out some political awards for 2013:

Oscar Wilde award for best insult

But the best single insult goes to Finance Minister Bill English, who, after revelations Cunliffe’s CV was a tad glossier than reality, observed that it was “a living document” – “like the Treaty, but without the principles”.

Heh.

The Boy George Karma Chameleon Award

David Cunliffe, for singing the songs of solidarity to the unions, only to go outside and add the fine print for the benefit of a wider audience: “If economic conditions allow.”

Yeah, Nah.

Don Brash walking the plank award for missed photo opportunities

Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy for his attempt to get the Prime Minister to hold a live electric fence in Chile.

I missed that.

The Herald reports:

The Government’s ambitious goal of reducing reoffending by 25 per cent is so ingrained in the Corrections system that prisoners are repeating it back to officials, Corrections Minister Anne Tolley says.

An Auditor-General’s review of the Corrections Department’s efforts to reduce reoffending has praised its overall strategy and individual programmes, in particular the extension of rehabilitation to offenders serving short sentences.

Its reoffending policies were not without flaws, and the Auditor-General made recommendations such as ensuring that rehabilitation did not lapse once inmates had finished programmes and better management of offenders’ release into the community.

As part of the Government’s goals for the public sector, Corrections was aiming to reduce the rate at which prisoners reoffended within a year of release by 25 per cent before 2017.

Corrections Minister Anne Tolley said the ambitious goal had penetrated from officials at the top through to inmates, who had discussed it with the Auditor-General’s office during the review.

The report said the target had “struck the hearts and minds of staff” and encouraged them to innovate, because a “business as usual” approach would not allow them to reach the goal.

The Auditor-General said Corrections had a strong emphasis on evidence-based policy such as its focus on education and drug and alcohol programmes to cut offending.

All power to them. Many prisoners can not be rehabilitated and will keep offending until age gets to them. But we should do what we can to help those who can be rehabilitated to stop offending.

Corrections’ crusade

Goal: Reduce reoffending by 25 per cent by 2017*
Progress: 11.4 per cent reduction to December 2013
*from a June 2011 baseline

A good start.

Mount Taranaki / Egmont at sunset. Viewed from Waiiti Beach, Taranaki. New Zealand landscape photography by Sarah Sisson

My four week winning streak with posting Wednesday Wallpapers on an actual Wednesday came to a grinding halt yesterday due to flaky internet service all day.  The frustration was well worth it though –  as van-loads of embattled Chorus technicians were hooking up the new fibre cabinet down the road – our rural ADSL speeds have more than doubled overnight!

Today’s image was made by Sarah during our caravan delivery trip, last school holidays and I am posting this as a ‘reminder-to-self’ that the world will keep turning when school breaks up tomorrow 😉

See you next week!

Cheers – Todd

Free Wallpaper Download

You may download the large version of today’s image from this link:   Password = wwp

This image is now available as a limited edition Canvas Print \ Framed Print | Fine Art Photographic Print.

Thanks for your support!

Cheers – Todd [website]  [Blog]

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

Should recently selected party insider Chris McKenzie retain co-leader Tariana Turia’s Te Tai Hauauru seat for the Maori Party next year, he will become the latest in an increasingly long line of those who have made the leap from political employee to MP.

Phil Goff, former employer of a handful of present MPs, says a stint working in Parliament is the perfect training ground for those with ambitions of changing society for the better through politics. But former Act MP Stephen Franks says the increasingly well worn path from the Beehive’s back offices to a seat in the House is symptomatic of the worrying rise of a self-interested political class.

They are both right.

Goff is correct that being a staffer in Parliament is good training for being an MP. You can come into the job knowing how Government works, how oral and written questions work, using the OIA, standing orders, parliamentary debates and the like.

But Franks is also right that there is a growing trend of a political elite – in Australia also, where a growing proportion of MPs come through the party machine, and have not done much in their lives except work in politics.

So my advice is that it is great to have some parliamentary experience if you are a prospective MP, but before you stand make sure you go out and do some other stuff. Work in the private sector. Set up a business. Become a teacher. Raise a family.

If you are a New Zealand MP, there’s a one in 10 chance you worked for your party in Parliament before getting elected. And if you are one of those 12 current MPs who has worked in Parliament before, there’s a better than one in three chance you worked for Phil Goff.

The crop of Goff office graduates in Parliament comprises Labour’s David Shearer, Kris Faafoi, Jacinda Ardern, Moana Mackey and National list MP Paul Goldsmith. “Five disciples and a renegade”, jokes Mr Goff. “Maybe they thought if this guy can do it, anybody can do it.”

Goff has been there so long, I’m surprised more haven’t worked for him 🙂

But Mr Franks said the number of MPs who’ve come from the ranks of party employees parallels the emergence of a “political class”, a group of people “who’ve never done anything else with their lives”.

He is worried such people have achieved little “other than worming their way around political process and therefore will be judged on politics as if it’s a game”.

“It’s an insider class. They tend to be a bit contemptuous of outsiders, they tend to share more with their opponents who have a similar background than those they purport to represent. There’s an absence of deep conviction and there’s no external track record on which to judge them. All we know is whether they’re good at the game which is basically the game of greasing.”

As I said, it is when they have not done anything else with their lives that I worry.

Today may see three reports released – the Rebstock report into the MFAT leak, the EY Australia report into Chorus and possibly the EY NZ report into Len Brown.

However it seems Brown is trying to get the reported changed or delayed. The Herald reports:

The use of hotel rooms by Mayor Len Brown is believed to be at the centre of a legal wrangle holding up the release of the Ernst & Young report into any use of council resources during the mayor’s extra-marital affair with Bevan Chuang.

The Herald understands Mr Brown was not impressed when the first draft of the report raised his use of rooms outside the handful of times he booked into hotels for sex with his 32-year-old mistress.

The mayor is known to have used hotel rooms when he had late-night and early-morning commitments in the city, which came up as part of an exhaustive investigation by Ernst & Young (now EY).

The details of what the investigators found is not known, but Mr Brown is taking legal advice after being handed a copy of the draft review on Friday to ensure it is factually accurate and provide feedback.

I’ve heard that the report asked the hotels to provide details of when the Mayor stayed and who paid. The hotels said they need a privacy release from the Mayor to provide this info, and the Mayor has refused. Now this is just gossip, but if true it calls into question the Mayor’s insistence he never took free rooms. If you refuse to allow the hotels to confirm this, then people will be sceptical.

Yesterday, Mr Brown’s office refused to comment on the review, except to say the process was in Mr McKay’s hands. His staff would not say who Mr Brown’s legal adviser was and whether the mayor or ratepayers were picking up the tab.

if the Mayor and the CEO have both engaged expensive lawyers, and ratepayers are paying for both, then the costs continue to mount.

The full report is here. Some key extracts:

Actions of some MFAT employees in supplying information and personal views directly to Ministers, to the Labour Party Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs and Trade, to officials and former public servants outside MFAT and to the media fuelled the political debate. This directly undermined MFAT’s ability to provide Ministers with robust, unbiased advice once the Secretary had consulted and considered the views of staff at  MFAT.

61 Prior to the change programme, MFAT had been regarded as an agency that could be trusted with government information. This trust, locally and internationally, is critically important given the role that MFAT undertakes on behalf of the Government and all New Zealanders.

62 The leaks of documents that had been prepared by MFAT staff detrimentally affected MFAT’s reputation as a trustworthy organisation, thereby damaging New Zealand’s interests and the Government’s trust and confidence in MFAT.

Those MFAT managers who did the above put their personal interests ahead of the interests of their department.

But it almost certainly wasn’t one of them who leaked the cabinet paper. We turn to X:

[X] was employed by SSC through an employment agency on a short term contract during the period relevant to the investigation. SSC was aware that before joining SSC, [X] had been employed by Parliamentary Services in the Labour Party Research Unit.

And:

[X] confirmed [X’s] previous role working for the Labour Party in the office of the Labour Party Leader and that [X] had maintained social contact with colleagues from that time. SSC’s logs of external email traffic for [X] showed [X] was in touch with some colleagues in the Labour Party Research Unit, including in the fortnight before the Cabinet Committee papers were leaked.

Some details:

9.02am: Scanned a document of 10 pages
9.04am: Scanned a document of 18 pages.

The Change Programme Cabinet Committee Paper was 10 pages long, the Europe Posts Cabinet Committee paper was 18 pages long.

[X] could not explain the scanning of documents of the same number of pages as the two Cabinet Committee papers, either side of the photocopying activity.

It’s not proof, but in the absence of any explanation as to what document he was scanning in, the conclusion that it was the Cabinet Papers is very reasonable.

His initial denials were not much:

When asked: “Are you quite clear [X] that you didn’t scan those Cabinet Committee papers to provide them to someone who was not authorised to receive them?” [X] replied:

I can’t recall to be honest. I can’t remember.

I can’t recall if I leaked it or not!

Now X of course has name suppression which means that suspicion will fall not just on him, but all former Labour parliamentary staff.  If they find it hard to get jobs in departments or companies that require professionalism and confidentiality, then they should blame X for his name suppression which leaves the rest of them under a cloud of suspicion.

I can’t find the exact reference but I recall Phil Goff claiming the leaks were from affected MFAT diplomats. If Person x is the leaker (which is almost certain), then Phil Goff lied because I guess saying it is a leak from a former staff member who is a temporary clerk in the SSC doesn’t sound as good.

Stuff reports:

Meanwhile, further revelations about the nature of the charges against the Megaupload founder could be made public, if a court lifts a suppression.

US prosecutors are seeking to expose the allegations against Dotcom and his co-accused, so victims of his alleged crime can make a claim against his cash and assets seized in the raids.

The US has asked New Zealand authorities to lift the order on the case record, an almost 200-page document with all the details – before the victims’ claim rights expire.

Dotcom is fighting the request, saying it will affect his chance of a fair trial, according to his US lawyer Ira Rothken.

A decision is expected later this week.

Dotcom relentlessly plays to the public, and tells his side of the story. Yet he is in court demanding that the other side of the story not be allowed to be made public. If he really thinks he has done nothing wrong, then why oppose it? Shouldn’t he want it released so he can rebut it in his favourite court – the court of public opinion.

Stuff reports:

Alana Jones is not your typical foodbank client.

Her husband has a good income, she was employed until the birth of her 5-month-old baby and she is not eligible for a benefit.

But with up to eight mouths to feed, constant rent increases and only about $200 for bills and food each week, she needs help.

This is the second time in two weeks Jones has visited the Christchurch City Mission for a food parcel.

Between Jones and her partner they have six children. They live in a “cold, damp” three-bedroom rental in Avondale. Two children have asthma and one has a heart defect.

She is $25 over the threshold to be eligible for a Housing New Zealand property, and her husband earns “just” too much for them to qualify for a benefit.

After rent, bills and petrol are paid from her partner’s $700 weekly income and their $420 Working for Families supplement, Jones estimated they had $200 to spend on food “if we’ve got it”.

Making ends meet was now getting “harder and harder”.

“We look back at what we used get and you can’t get that any more.

“We’ve lost internet, phone, TVs – so you can imagine it’s like camping. We can’t afford the bills.”

As well as having six children, Jones has five cats she rescued after the earthquakes and “can’t part with”.

She said she had “no money to free up anything” for her children. They could not afford school shoes, so they bought $5 pairs of canvas shoes each week to compensate.

It was her daughter’s birthday last week, but there were no presents.

“They don’t understand [our situation].”

To earn extra money on the side, Jones’s partner has been buying things off Trade Me, doing them up and reselling them, and they have been selling eggs from their chickens.

But they are still in the red.

I have huge sympathy for Mrs Jones. Raising six kids on what is now a single income must be incredibly difficult. The kids looks delightful and well cared for, and the sacrifices they are making to make ends meet is commendable.

According to the WFF calculator they should be getting $494 WFF a week, but that is based on assuming all six kids are young. Without the ages of each kid, hard to know.

But regardless of how much WFF is, the reality is that caring for six children on a single salary of $700 a week is, I am sure, incredibly hard.

The question I have is why they decided to have a sixth child, when presumably their finances were already stretched to the maximum. I don’t want to sound critical of what seem to be a great hard working family. It may be that the pregnancy was unplanned. But I think there is a general principle that the vast majority of families decide to limit the number of children they have to the lower of how many they want and how many they can afford.

I think we should have a welfare system that helps families with one or two kids, as I think you want every couple that wants children to have them. But whether we should be using limited taxpayer money to fund families than have four, five, six, seven kids etc – there I am less convinced. We do of course provide WFF for additional kids, but that is not a substitute for a couple deciding if their own incomes can support further children.

Time Magazine has announced:

But what makes this Pope so important is the speed with which he has captured the imaginations of millions who had given up on hoping for the church at all. People weary of the endless parsing of sexual ethics, the buck-passing infighting over lines of authority when all the while (to borrow from Milton), “the hungry Sheep look up, and are not fed.” In a matter of months, Francis has elevated the healing mission of the church—the church as servant and comforter of hurting people in an often harsh world—above the doctrinal police work so important to his recent predecessors. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were professors of theology. Francis is a former janitor, nightclub bouncer, chemical technician and literature teacher.

And behind his self-effacing facade, he is a very canny operator. He makes masterly use of 21st century tools to perform his 1st century office. He is photographed washing the feet of female convicts, posing for selfies with young visitors to the Vatican, embracing a man with a deformed face. He is quoted saying of women who consider abortion because of poverty or rape, “Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?” Of gay people: “If a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge.” To divorced and remarried Catholics who are, by rule, forbidden from taking Communion, he says that this crucial rite “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

Pope Francis has improved the image and respect for the Catholic Church in a way almost unimaginable a year ago. He is a good choice for Person of the Year.