Audrey Young reports:

Mr English said that about $5 million had so far been paid by ACC to the families, on the same basis as any other family that suffers a workplace accident or death, and that the full support from ACC would amount to $20 million when paid.

This is why we have a no faults ACC system.

New Zealand Oil and Gas has already paid $25 million since the disaster for salaries, creditors and tunnel recovery. A resolution at its annual meeting in October to pay more was lost.

There are few companies that would voluntarily pay $25 million, when there was no legal reason for them to do so.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00PM – 3.00PM

1. Hon PHIL HEATLEY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy – and especially on further signs of economic momentum in the regions and among manufacturers?
2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: How much did the Government’s share sales in Mighty River Power, Meridian, and Air New Zealand raise, given that the Supplement to the 2010 Investment Statement of the Government of New Zealand projected that those sales would raise $5.18 billion?
3. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for ACC: How much did ACC invest in Pike River Coal Limited and in New Zealand Oil and Gas Limited over the last eight years, and how much has it made or lost in total on its investment in each company, taking into account share purchases, subscriptions and sales, dividends, and current share prices?
4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Māori Affairs:Does he stand by his statement “I know Māori want to talk about the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in our constitution, and how our legal and political systems can reflect tikanga Māori.”; if so, why?
5. Hon SHANE JONES to the Associate Minister of Finance: Is he satisfied with his performance in regard to his delegations as Associate Minister of Finance?
6. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has he received regarding the state of the building and construction sector?
7. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister for the Environment: Did the Environmental Protection Authority assess the full version of Anadarko’s Discharge Management Plan and Emergency Response Plan as part of its evaluation of the company’s Environmental Impact Assessment for the Deepwater Taranaki Well; if not, why not?
8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister of Finance: When, if at all, did Cabinet approve the timing of the Air New Zealand sell-down and what directions did Cabinet give the shareholding Ministers?
9. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Housing: What steps is the Government taking to rebuild Christchurch’s housing stock damaged or destroyed by the earthquakes?
10. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by his statement “The opportunity, and challenge, for our meat producers now is to add value to different cuts of meat and continue to sell the New Zealand story”; if so, why?
11. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Local Government: How is the Government improving councils’ financial reporting?
12. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does he stand by his statement that “I am especially keen to hear what affected parties have to say on the Part 6A proposals in the Bill, and will carefully consider their submissions and the recommendations of the select committee”?

Labour is today asking five questions. These are about the investments of ACC, performance of Associate Ministers of Finance, the Air New Zealand share sale, adding value to meat exports and proposed Labour law changes.

Patsy question of the day goes to Nicky Wagner for Question 9: What steps is the Government taking to rebuild Christchurch’s housing stock damaged or destroyed by the earthquakes?

Government Bills 3.00PM – 6.00PM and 7.30PM – 10.00PM (The House is sitting under urgency)

1. Statutes Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

2. Unit Titles Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

3. Medicines Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

4. Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) – First Reading

The Statutes Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Courts, Chester Borrows. This is an omnibus bill proposing amendments of a technical nature to 30 Acts.

The Unit Titles Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Courts, Chester Borrows. The provisions of this bill were divided out from the Statutes Amendment Bill (Formerly part of Statutes Amendment Bill).

The Medicines Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Associate Minister of Health, Todd McClay. This bill amends the Medicines Act 1981 to address some problematic provisions affecting the approval and prescription of medicines and medical devices.

The Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) is being guided through the house by the Minister of Immigration, Michael Woodhouse. The Bill will ensure that New Zealand’s immigration system is robust, supports the security of the borders, and the integrity of the immigration system.

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

Former High Commissioner to London John Collinge hopes a legal victory which has seen the recall and destruction of copies of a book claiming he enjoyed a table-top romp at his official residence will put the “urban myth” to bed once and for all.

Former lover Barbara Stones’ claim that the pair had sex on the dining table at the residence in London’s Chelsea Square was made in a letter read out in court 15 years ago as she faced charges of harassing him and his new love Margaret Postlethwaite, who is now his wife.

This is a key fact that I was unaware of until recently.

I always thought that Stones has claimed in court the table sex romp, and you tend to give something claimed in court a fair degree of credibility, as there is a risk of perjury,

But actually she never testified that the romp happened. The claim was in a letter to Collinge’s new partner, designed to try and make her break up with Collinge. It was read out in court as evidence in a harassment case against Stones. That makes it far less likely to be credible.

However, the story got a new lease of life late last year when Joanna Woods, the wife of former top-ranking diplomat and spymaster Richard Woods, published her bookDiplomatic Ladies.

It included an entire chapter on former National Party president Mr Collinge’s time as High Commissioner to London between 1994 and 1997, focusing on the messy love triangle.

The chapter closes with the comment that Mr Collinge had never denied the dining-table incident took place.

Mr Collinge said the chapter was “a very highly personal and comprehensive attack that raised matters as though they were true”.

Mrs Woods’ version of events and her “derogatory comments” were aired in articles about her book that appeared in the Herald, the Listener and even the Institute of International Affairs Journal, prompting Mr Collinge to take legal action.

An out-of-court settlement was reached this year which resulted in what Mr Collinge says was “an unreserved apology” from Mrs Woods.

Her book has been recalled by publisher Otago University Press, pulped and reprinted without the chapter about Mr Collinge.

Which I think is a good indication it never happened.

Martin van Beynen writes in The Press:

Lawyer James Rapley, representing Fabian Mika, has certainly stirred up a hornet’s nest in arguing that Maori offenders are entitled to an automatic consideration of the history of the Maori people when sentenced.

The Mika argument appears to be as follows:

– Sentencing is largely governed by the Sentencing Act. The relevant section says the court must take into account the offender’s personal, family, whanau, community, and cultural background in imposing a sentence.

– The court must recognise Mika’s Maori (cultural) background.

– The cultural background section of the Sentencing Act is partly designed to address the overrepresentation of Maori in the prison population (about 51 per cent).

– In Canada, under different legislation, the courts take account of the fact an offender is from an indigenous background.

– Maori should have a special status to recognise them as victims of colonialism, displacement, high unemployment, lower educational attainment and a higher level of incarceration.

– Maori are not entitled to an automatic reduction in penalty, but the court must take their Maori background into account in a meaningful way.

– Maori do not need to show a link between their cultural background and the offending. The devastating effects of the historic and systemic discrimination and deprivation of Maori and its intergenerational effects on Maori should be a given.

It looks very much like an argument ahead of its time.

Although it’s a carefully nuanced train of thought, the argument will no doubt be treated as advocating a penalty discount just for being Maori.

Which it is.

Sentencing took take account of an individual’s circumstances, but arguing that every Maori offender should get a reduced sentence due to colonialism is pretty insane.

If the Mika argument was put into practice, sentencing judges would have to start with a consideration of the offender’s ethnicity, a fairly tangled question in itself.

If Maori, the judge would then have to consider how generations of deprivation or dysfunction have shaped this individual.

Sentencing would become a lottery.

If the court makes allowances for being Maori, then red heads or left handers or gays might also have a valid case for special treatment.

Many will criticise such allowances as damaging the important principle of everyone being equal before the law.

And it would damage it massively.

The Representation Commission has released the proposed new boundaries for the 2014 (and 2017) elections). These are not final. There will be a round of sub-missions and cross-submissions on them, and final boundaries will be announced next year on 17 April. However the proposed boundaries tend to not change massively in the final determination.

The biggest changes are in Auckland and Christchurch:

The number of general electorates in the Auckland region has increased from 23 to 24. Proposed boundary changes have resulted in the creation of two new electorates: Upper Harbour in north Auckland and Kelston in west Auckland. The existing electorate of Waitakere has been replaced as a result of the proposed boundary changes to the Te Atatū and Helensville electorates and the new Kelston electorate.

So Paula is left without a seat, and there are two new electorates.

Major boundary changes in the Christchurch area were required because of significant population movement from Christchurch East, Christchurch Central and Port Hills electorates. At the same time Waimakariri, Wigram and Selwyn have increased beyond the permitted electoral population limit. The three Christchurch electorates that have lost population have been expanded into Waimakariri and Selwyn, with Port Hills proposed to include all of Banks Peninsula, and Wigram to lose Hei Hei to Selwyn.

27 electorates have no change.

Other significant changes include:

• Auckland Central has lost population to Mt Albert at Westmere and Grey Lynn
• Mt Roskill has gained population from Maungakiekie and Epsom in the east and lost population from New Windsor to New Lynn in the west 
• Maungakiekie has gained population from Manukau East and Tāmaki
• Hamilton West has lost the western rural area to Taranaki-King Country and gained population from Hamilton East and Waikato at Horsham Downs
• Ōhariu has gained Wadestown from Wellington Central and lost Korokoro and Maungaraki to Hutt South and Normandale to Rimutaka.

Goff’s seat of Mt Roskill could get interesting. The Auckland Central changes are bad for Jacinda Ardern as she now lives outside Auckland Central and loses red voting areas. Maungakiekie may become more marginal for National. Ohariu becomes a more blue seat.

Stuff reports:

An atheist teacher who says he was fired for refusing to pray at school events – and also accused a man who is now a National MP of assaulting him – will not have his case investigated. …

Roy also added a new allegation to his employment claim, telling ERA member Tania Tetitaha that in 2009 he was assaulted by Alfred Ngaro as he was leaving a First XV rugby after-match function at Kings College.

At the time Ngaro was a school board of trustees member. He entered Parliament in 2011 as an Auckland-based list MP.

I said at the time this was reported, I found the allegation preposterous. The ERA did not find Mr Roy very credible. They noted:

In a judgment released today, Tetitaha did not make a finding about the alleged assault but found there were several issues with Roy’s statements including:

– Despite initially identifying Pamaka, Roy changed his evidence at the hearing, saying he didn’t see her strike him at all.

– He changed the location of his injuries

– There was no corroborating evidence

– The alleged motivation for the assault – Ngaro’s displeasure at Roy’s refusal to bow his head during grace – did not ring true.

– When Roy took the matter to police, they declined to investigate

– Roy said he wanted to work out the matter by taking a “submissive” role however the court found that didn’t fit with his previous behaviour.

The ERA also found a lack of evidence of bullying behaviour.

I think the credibility, or lack of, is pretty clear.

Stuff reports:

All state house tenants will now be subject to reviewable tenancies following the passage of a controversial new bill under urgency today.

The Government’s Social Housing Reform Bill will also increase the role of the private providers in the social housing sector and see needs assessments shifted from Housing New Zealand to Work and Income.

State house allocations should be based on need, not on longevity.

The reviewable tenancies would remove the right of state house tenants to remain in those homes for life, he said.

Smith pointed to a Nelson fishing boat captain who he said once had high need but who was now earning more than $100,000 and still living in a state home but whose tenancy could not been reviewed under the old legislation.

“A person living in a state house earning over $100,000 a year has a right, a legal right to stay in that house forever while there are families with high needs.”

Absolutely. If you are earning over $100,000 a year, then time to give up the state house for someone who needs it more.

Labour’s Housing spokesman Phil Twyford accused Smith of hypocrisy by pointing out he had remained in his ministerial home for six weeks after being sacked as a minister, saying Smith had claimed he did not want to move as it would disrupt his childrens’ schooling.

“That is an outrageous double standard,” he said.

How is that a double standard? Six weeks is a pretty small amount of time. Most tenancies involve giving three months notice. Housing NZ isn’t going to be telling people they must be out in a few weeks. They’ll be reviewing whether a tenancy is renewed months before it expires.

Stuff reports:

Federated Farmers may be preparing for a change in government. With Labour Party leader David Cunliffe due at its annual conference, president Bruce Wills said he would go and find “the minister”. Mr Wills did, however, query Mr Cunliffe’s supplied biography, which referred to him as the “next prime minister“.

I’ve never heard of an opposition leader including that line in their supplied biography.

Sure at party conferences and the like, it is normal for the person introducing the leader to use a line like that. But a fairly significant difference between having someone else call you that, and referring to yourself as the next Prime Minister.

Labour are insisting the exact right share of Air New Zealand for the Government to own is 73%. Or alternatively they are saying it is only acceptable for the Government to increase their shareholding in Air New Zealand, not dilute it.

Well consider their history with Air New Zealand.

1. Labour privatized it in 1989 – selling it to Singapore owned Brierleys and Singapore Airlines.
2. Labour bought 80% of it in 2001.
3. Labour agreed to sell 22.5% to Qantas in 2002 – 2004
4. Labour never reinvested the dividends so that’s why the share is down to 73% in 2013. It has been a creeping privatization since 2001. 

National has sold 20% to New Zealanders. The Clark Government tried to sell 22.5% to Qantas, who are not only foreigners (not that I care about that) but would have destroyed trans-Tasman competition!

The Herald reports:

The Opposition may as well pack up and go on holiday: next year’s election is already won and John Key will be the Prime Minister for all eternity, says the monk at Thailand’s Wat Pho temple.

Mr Key and his wife Bronagh were shown around the Wat Pho temple in Bangkok yesterday, one of the city’s oldest wats with hundreds of Buddhas covered in gold leaf – including the famous Reclining Buddha, 15m high and 43m long.

Mr Key was shown around by monk Phrasuthi Thammanawat, who proved to have a good sense of humour.

He told Mr Key that his brush with the Reclining Buddha meant he would be the PM forever.

We could rename ourselves as North Zealand 🙂

“If you believe it, apparently you’ll get luck. And he’s convinced I’ll be the permanent Prime Minister of New Zealand.”

Mr Key appeared slightly horrified by his new fate, but clearly hoped the luck would hold for at least another year.

I can think of previous inhabitants of that office who would be delighted, not horrified, by that prediction.

What he had not seen was that his wife was moving behind him, filling them even more diligently. Given Mr Key has promised Bronagh will have some control over his post-politics life, it is likely that her version of good luck was the opposite of him becoming the Prime Minister in perpetuity.

Heh, I think that is a safe bet.

Stuff reports:

Senior police did not closely watch a corrupt officer within their ranks after a woman accused him of indecency – because they knew nothing of her complaint.

Sources have told The Press that Gordon Stanley Meyer’s supervisors at Christchurch South police station were not told about the 2007 complaint until after his 2011 offending came to light.

Police National Headquarters said last night there were no “lawful grounds” to tell them about it.

This is bureaucratic nonsense. There may be no lawful grounds to discipline an officer over the earlier complaint, but that is very different from not noting it on his file, and ensuring his supervisors are aware of it.

The senior constable accepted an offer of oral sex to let a 23-year-old woman off a drink-driving charge in September 2011 and touched an 18-year-old’s breasts in a patrol car in April 2011.

After his guilty pleas, police revealed a woman made a complaint six years ago that Meyer indecently touched her in a public place, also while he was on duty.

Police investigated, but found there was insufficient evidence to prosecute or discipline Meyer.

Police Assistant Commissioner Grant Nicholls told Radio NZ that Meyer was not issued a warning over the 2007 complaint, nor was a monitoring programme put in place. “You would have thought he would have heeded the warning of the inquiry. Obviously he didn’t.”

You would have thought the Police would make a file note!

When asked why Meyer’s supervisors were not informed of the 2007 complaint, a police spokesman said: “Police are bound by the same laws as any other employer. In the absence of sufficient evidence in either the criminal or employment context police had no lawful grounds to take the measures … outlined.”

This is where the Police have it wrong. There is a difference between the level of proof needed to take action, and to inform supervisors.

The principal of the Northland school who didn’t tell anyone about the complaint about his deputy principal was castigated by everyone for his failure. The Police seem to be doing the same.

The 2007 Bazley report recommended that all relevant information to give a “complete picture of an officer’s full record of service” should be accessible to supervisors when making appointments, monitoring performance and investigating complaints.

A police spokesman said they had until 2017 to implement the recommendations.

They should get on with it.

Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has marked the third anniversary of the Pike River mine disaster with a promise to pay the full court-ordered compensation to the families.

“Under the Labour Government I lead, the Government will pay the full $3.4 million court-ordered compensation to the families of the dead miners,” he said today.

There are two things to note here.

The first is that we have ACC which Labour introduced as a no faults compensation system. All families have received large amounts of money from ACC.

The $3.4 million court order is for unlawful acts by Pike River Coal. It was Pike River Coal that was charged and found guilty. It was not the Government.

Now of course the Government can agree to pay fines on behalf of private companies. But should it? If there is a bus crash killing 20 people and an inquiry finds the Ministry of Transport needs better regulations on bus safety, would you want the Government paying the fine on behalf of the bus owner?

Cunliffe said he would be surprised if legal avenues were needed, but he left open that option as well as a legislative change as a last resort to force payment.

“The companies’ shareholders and directors have two choices. One is the easy way, the other is the hard way.”

As prime minister he would use the authority of the office, including perhaps a private dinner with the chairs of the relevant companies “where they see good sense and decide to take something back to their boards or a range of other tools at the prime minister’s disposal”.

That is quite extra-ordinary. It is close to blackmail. Pay the Government some money or else we will legislate to take it from you.  The precedent is beyond terrible.

It is not as if Pike River shareholders have got off with paying nothing. Basically every shareholder in Pike River has lost 100% of their investment. There were many small share-holders in Pike River. They lost every cent.  Now of course their financial loss is nothing compared to the tragedy of loss of life, but reporting often glosses over this fact – some readers may think Pike shareholders have got off with losing nothing. They lost every cent invested. And some like NZOG put in an extra $25 million off memory on a voluntary basis.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Minister 2.00PM – 3.00PM 

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
2. Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES to the Minister of Labour: What is he doing to improve industry standards and to resource safety inspectors appropriately in order to respond to analysis from the Chief Coroner that the forestry sector has the nation’s highest rate of workplace injury deaths?
3. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has the Government made on the next steps in its share offer programme, which is freeing up money to invest in new public assets without having to borrow from overseas lenders?
4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No. 9 yesterday?
5. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister for Economic Development:How is the Government’s Business Growth Agenda helping to strengthen the New Zealand economy?
6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration; if so, why?
7. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: How much of the over $1 billion announced for refurbishing Christchurch schools last week will come from money the schools were already due to receive in the form of regular property funding, leaky buildings remediation, and insurance payouts?
8. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Corrections: What recent updates has she received on the use of GPS technology to monitor offenders?
9. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement to the New Zealand petroleum industry annual conference that “This Government is very clear, we won’t let cowboys operate here in New Zealand”?
10. MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Housing: What international reports has he received on how housing affordability can be improved and what lessons can New Zealand learn from these experiences?
11. DAVID SHEARER to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement with regard to his conversation with the British Prime Minister the Rt Hon David Cameron, about Sri Lanka, that: “I just sort of said to him ‘where do you think it’s all going?’ I mean, like us, I mean I think everybody is now really focused on what’s the next steps going forward”?
12. Hon PETER DUNNE to the Associate Minister of Health: Does the Government support the fluoridation of water supplies?

Today Labour are asking four questions. These are about whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, waiting lists at hospitals, funding for Christchurch schools, and relations with Sri Lanka. The Greens are asking about oil drilling. New Zealand First is asking about Immigration.

Patsy question of the day goes to Louise Upston for Question 8: What recent updates has she received on the use of GPS technology to monitor offenders?

Government Bills 3.00PM-6.00PM and 7.30PM-12.00AM. (The House is sitting under Urgency)

1. Game Animal Council Bill – Second Reading

2. Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill – Second Reading

3. Building Amendment Bill (No 4) – Committee Stage

4.Financial Reporting Bill – Committee Stage

5. Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Covered Bonds) Amendment Bill  – Committee Stage

The Game Animal Council Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Conservation, Dr Nick Smith. This bill establishes the Game Hunting Council as part of a national wild game management strategy.

The Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Maori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples. This bill amends the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act 2003 following the report of a review panel comprising the Minister of Maori Affairs, the Minister of Finance, and the chairperson of Te Putahi Paoho.

The Building Amendment Bill (No 4) is being guided through the house by the Minister for Building and Construction, Maurice Williamson. This bill implements policy decisions of the Building Act Review to provide incentives for building professionals and trades people to take responsibility for their work and to stand behind it.

The Financial Reporting Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Commerce, Craig Foss. The purpose of the bill is to improve the financial reporting system by making general-purpose financial reporting consistent with the primary objective of the financial reporting system, which is to provide information to external users who have a need for an entity’s financial statements but are unable to demand them.

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Covered Bonds) Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Finance, Bill English. This bill seeks to establish a legislative framework for covered bonds.

Stuff reports:

Turns out they were not an ex-comedy group after all. Merely resting. Pining for the fjords.

The Beatles of comedy, the (surviving members of) Monty Python, have confirmed what they have hinted at, flirted with, and otherwise squabbled over for years: a reunion.

The official announcement is due at a press conference on Thursday in London, but the punchline was spoilt by a nudge-nudge-wink-wink cryptic tweet from group member Eric Idle, followed by an unsourced exclusive in London’s The Sun newspaper, then confirmation from Terry Jones to the BBC.

Jones told the BBC that he and John Cleese, Michael Palin, Terry Gilliam and Eric Idle were “getting together and putting on a show”.

If their show comes to New Zealand, I’ll be first in line for tickets!

Stuff reports:

Air New Zealand has revamped its Airpoints loyalty scheme making it more attractive for shorter flights, while also adding an exclusive by-invitation-only membership tier for its highest spending passengers.

Air New Zealand’s head of customer loyalty Mark Street said many fares will earn higher points, particularly on short routes. But fewer points will be earned on some cheaper fares.

“But overall we expect Airpoints members to earn several million more Airpoints Dollars each year,” Street said.

I’m suspicious. Almost without exception in the past, any changes to their airpoints scheme has resulted in frequent flyers getting done over and losing value.

It will be nice if this is not the case this time, but I remain suspicious until we see exact details.

There’s also good news for members of the renamed Elite membership tier (previously Gold Elite) who will receive an additional complimentary upgrade each membership year for use specifically on short haul routes across the Tasman and to the Pacific Islands.

This is in addition to the existing two free ”recognition upgrades” redeemable across the whole Air New Zealand international network.

Now that is useful, and welcome. Probably makes commercial sense for Air NZ also as they probably get very few people using upgrades on the shorter routes, so giving some complimentary ones away to elite flyers probably is almost no revenue cost – but some extra good will.

The airline’s top spending passengers will be invited to receive an exclusive Elite Priority One annual membership which will come with additional benefits to be revealed in the New Year.

The programme update follows a nine month review and a marketing push by rival Qantas in New Zealand, using a replica Mars Rover to entice travellers to join its Frequent Flyer programme.

This might explain the changes, and why perhaps this time they are actually beneficial to frequent flyers. Competition is good.

As Labour start claiming an exodus of people from NZ, we get record inflows. Likewise as they claim a crisis in manufacturing, manufacturing indicators reach record highs. The latest Labour claim has been that the regions are being starved, and growth is happening in the major cities only.

So what does the quarterly ANZ Regional Trends report tell us. The six strongest growing regions in the last quarter were:

1. Taranaki
2. Gisborne
3. West Coast
4. Otago
5. Northland
6. Nelson-Marlborough

All have quarterly growth ranging from 1.3% to 2.5%, which is incredibly high.

Of course the Greens want to eliminate most of the industries in Taranaki and the West Coast!

Stuff reports:

Regional economic growth is at its strongest in nine years, with only the Canterbury region recording a slower rate of annual growth for the year to September.

Labour’s track record at picking issues continues to excel.

First light plays out on Mount Robert – viewed from the jetty at Lake Rotoiti, Nelson Lakes. New Zealand landscape photography by Todd Sisson.

I love this spot.*

I grew up in Nelson and I recall many fun visits to Lake Rotoiti with family, schools and scouts over the years – I even learned to ski up at Mount Robert, before  global warming (cue flamefest) left it looking like this in mid winter…

This image was made the day after my Grandfather’s funeral back in August, adding another layer to my catalog of Lake Rotoiti memories.

Cheers – Todd

*the sandflies suck – those I don’t love…

Free Wallpaper Download

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

The image can also be found on our website as a limited edition print.

Thanks for your support!

Cheers – Todd [website]  [Blog]

A further guest post, responding to the PPTA guest post, from the Villa Education Trust:

The Villa Education Trust is one of the 5 organisations given the opportunity to begin a Partnership School to start in Term 1 of 2014. The new school is South Auckland Middle School. http://www.southauckland.school.nz/dir/index.php/ The Trust is not for profit and also runs Mt Hobson Middle School in Newmarket http://www.mthobson.school.nz/dir/index.php and has done so for 11 years. The process to get permission from government to begin a new school has been, rightly, arduous and rigorous.

We have never looked for a confrontation but I am interested in a number of the PPTA comments as they have certainly tried to be obstructive to the new schools and I do not believe all of their points are accurate.

Also of interest is that we are not getting the feeling from teachers that the PPTA are trying to convey. We had 105 applicants for our 8 teaching positions – many of them current PPTA members – and have been able to appoint a very good staff to South Auckland Middle School. 

That’s a good level of applicants. Will the PPTA expel members who take up a job with the South Auckland Middle School? 

In terms of their statements.

1. Yes – the PPTA does represent many secondary teachers within NZ but not all. Given their claim of being democratic (and support of referendum: https://www.facebook.com/NZPPTA/posts/295024260594180) – have they had a members’ referendum on their opposition to Partnership Schools? Maybe the question could be:

Do PPTA members want their subscriptions spent opposing 5 schools and a model designed at improving outcomes for children who are struggling in the current system?

or 

Would members prefer their money was spent investigating methods to help these children?

or 

Would members prefer the money was used to improve their pay and conditions?

 2. Re consultation. The PPTA presented to the Select Committee. One in 18 of their members also felt strongly enough to fill in a PPTA written pro-forma and send it in. We have tried repeatedly to talk to the PPTA. The only response back was to from a previous exec member who said:

“Thank you for your invitation to visit your school which I will need to pass on to the incoming president, Angela Roberts.  I have to be honest and say I am not sure what would be achieved by this visit. I do not doubt that you are doing the best you can for the students in your school so I don’t need to visit to confirm that reality.”

We have never heard from Ms Roberts except when they sent a letter to us which we published here – http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/08/union-bullying-target-responds/#axzz2kvgmWrbz

One of the exec, Hazel McIntosh even conceded on the Larry William’s show – http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Knsf0ZwyEG4 that she had not even read the Stanford research – or was remotely interested in it.

3. In Northland the Partnership School operators are clearly willing to co-operate with local schools. How can this be a bad thing? They see the clear good in some areas and then also see how they can make a difference in others. They are clearly passionate people who will not be bullied http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/regional/northland-ppta-members-deny-support-charter-schools and will overcome all manner of hurdles to see the young people there have greater success in their lives.

4. Choice for families is important. At South Auckland Middle School we have only been open for enrollment for 6 weeks and already have 85 children/families applied for places. Education is a massive choice for these parents and if they are not happy with the current pathway their child is on they have every right to look for other options. I am astounded that the PPTA would state that “there was about the right balance prior to charters”. Seriously? Have they researched the comparative results for Maori and Pasifika children in many areas? They are pretty easy to find here: http://schoolreport.stuff.co.nz/2013/index.php How on earth are the current discrepancies between groups “a good balance”? How do you claim to be against poverty, etc, and advocate for the status quo in education – a major determinant of outcomes? The PPTA, and affiliated organisations, want parents of children to accept this level of failure because it is their role as being a part of the greater good; “efficient use of resources, fairness and other good things too”? Was that post really written by someone involved in education? 

Previously some have commented that there was already the opportunity (integrated and special character schools) to set up new schools. Our experience, and that of others, is that both of these were near impossible options and not likely to yield a differentiated opportunity for families. The Partnership Schools option is new and provides an opportunity that most definitely did not exist previously. It is also new funding – the budgets for state education were also increased.

5. We have no necessary problem with our teachers being union members. It is the PPTA constitution that forces those we are employing to resign their membership. Given that our teacher student ratio is 15:1 we will employ a good proportion of teaching staff (and yes – they are all registered). Fail to see anything but benefit here.

All registered teachers!

6. Please note. We are happy to share anything we learn and many of our resources with PPTA members and other teachers. In our case we have, so far, had absolutely nothing but support for families and organisations we have spoken to. We are more than happy for the PPTA to visit either of our schools and talk. In fact we would welcome it – which is why we had sent invitations.

7. Please note airlines do share resources around the world.

For our part: We have permission to begin a Y7-10 school for 120 children and have a location in Mahia Rd, Manurewa. We have employed a staff and are very quickly filling the spaces available for students. The stories these children and their parents are bringing would already make a book worth reading. They are making it massively clear there is a NEED and I would think it is one that will generate a lot more interest than just 5 schools.

We will have a class size of 15:1, teach the NZ Curriculum in formal classes, have opportunity for project based learning and the skills development that goes with it, employ qualified and registered teachers, have a split day with an academic morning and activity based afternoon (including good provision of sport, art, and music). Our teachers will have little admin and will be do what they have been trained to do – prepare, teach, assess and feedback to parents and the children. Our clear focus is on the academic improvement of every child that comes to us. 

Sounds pretty good to me. 

We are very open to visitors and interested people. We are also open to supporters who want to get along side what we are doing.

Alwyn Poole
Villa Education Trust
www.mthobson.school.nz
www.southauckland.school.nz
www.villaeducation.org.nz

Further guest posts on this issue are welcome.

The NZ Herald editorial:

According to the Labour Party leader, David Cunliffe, the timing of the Government’s selldown of shares in Air New Zealand is arrogant. Describing it as astute would have been far closer to the mark. Shares in the airline have been trading at a five-year high and investment advisers have voiced their enthusiasm for them. What better time could there be for the Government to reduce its holding in the national carrier from 73 per cent to 53 per cent?

That is a good question. Unless you believe that 73% is the exact right amount of shares for the Government to hold. Which is like believing in astrology.

One can make a principled case for 100% or for 51% (or for 0%) but to insist it must be 73% is daft.

The selldown has been criticised because it is being done just before a referendum on the part-sale of state assets. That complaint is misplaced. The focus of the Government’s mixed-ownership model strategy and, therefore, the referendum has always been the part-sale of the state’s three power companies, not an airline that the government acquired essentially by accident. Air New Zealand is very much an ancillary part of that strategy.

The referendum question also includes Solid Energy. It is a very badly worded question. Because if you think the Government should sell off the power companies and Air NZ, but should not sell off Solid Energy (because we won’t get 10 cents for it) then you should vote no I guess. Likewise if you think the Govt should sell more than 49% of any of the five companies, then again you arguably should vote no.

Green co-leader Russel Norman has gone so far as to suggest the selldown could lead to reduced regional services or higher fares.

I wish there was a competition for the most financially illiterate comment of the year, so I could nominate it.

The Herald reports:

An Auckland Council review of any use of council resources by Mayor Len Brown in his affair with Bevan Chuang is taking longer than expected.

After the council said the review by Ernst & Young would be reported back to chief executive Doug McKay as “quickly as possible” and in no more than four weeks, the deadline passed yesterday with word it is still several weeks away.

A council spokesman said work on the review was ongoing and thorough and the findings were expected to be published “within weeks”. The original deadline of four calendar weeks was a best guess at the time, the spokesman said.

I think it is better the review is thorough than rushing to meet an artificial deadline.

Last night, Ms Chuang – a member of the council’s Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel – said she had been interviewed for the review.

Mr Brown has admitted providing a reference for Ms Chuang for a job at the council-owned Auckland Art Gallery at the start of their two-year affair, saying it was a fairly typical reference done at a time when he had not known her for long.

The inquiry will I hope test those claims. How many references has he provided in the last three years, and how many were for jobs at Auckland Council or a CCO? And how many of them involved not just a written reference but a verbal reference also.

It is not clear if the inquiry will canvass her claims that some of the hotel rooms he booked for the pair were offered free by hotel managers. Mr Brown has said any expenses he incurred were paid out of his own pocket.

Some people, including activist and mayoral candidate Penny Bright and Herald columnist Fran O’Sullivan, have called for the inquiry to probe the hotel claims.

According to O’Sullivan, undeclared freebies leave any politician open to the suggestion, fair or unfair, by opponents that they have been bought and because of the potential for unconscious bias.

In Mr Brown’s case, Ms Chuang said she was taken to the Langham, Hilton and SkyCity Grand hotels.

The mayor has been a vocal supporter of the SkyCity pokies for convention centre deal.

Chuang was quite certain that they had received freebies, but Brown says they did not. The only way to clear the matter up is for the inquiry to ask the hotels. An alternative could be for Brown to show his bank or credit card statements for the nights they were together.

Considering that his wife could well see any charges for hotel rooms, I would not be surprised if he did accept any freebies.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00PM – 3.00PM

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Why has he announced that the Government plans to end its asset sales programme given that he claims it has been a success?
2. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Attorney-General: Has he been advised whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement that “the Government believes there is no cause of action” to help contribute to the compensation for the Pike River families?
3. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in building a more competitive and productive economy that supports more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders?
4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Immigration: What concerns, if any, does he have regarding the operation of Immigration New Zealand?
6. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made on the single largest investment in education infrastructure in Christchurch?
7. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Was he advised prior to signing the Reserve Bank Memorandum of Understanding that LVR restrictions would disproportionally affect first-home buyers and that regional exemptions would not apply?
8. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement that, “the reality is that there’s been 50,000 wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico since the 1960s and they’ve had a problem with one of them.”?
9. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: How many patients in the year to June 2013, who have been assessed as needing an operation, but are unable to receive it within 5 months, have been told they will not be receiving an operation at this time?
10. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has she made to protect wild and scenic New Zealand rivers?
11. MOANA MACKEY to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by all her statements?
12. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: What progress has been made in planning for Anzac Day at Gallipoli in 2015?

Today Labour are asking five questions. These are about Pike River compensation, whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, LVR restrictions, surgery waiting lists and whether the Minister for the Environment stands by all her statements. The Greens are asking two questions about asset sales, and oil drilling. New Zealand First is asking one question about immigration.

Patsy question of the day goes to Jacqui Dean for Question 10: What recent announcements has she made to protect wild and scenic New Zealand rivers?

Government Bills 3.00PM – 6.00PM and 7.30PM – 10.00PM.

1. Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill – Committee Stage

2. Game Animal Council Bill – Second Reading

3. Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill – Second Reading

4. Building Amendment Bill (No 4) – Committee Stage

The Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Housing, Dr Nick Smith. This bill provides a framework for the future provision of social housing.

The Game Animal Council Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Conservation, Dr Nick Smith. This bill establishes the Game Hunting Council as part of a national wild game management strategy.

The Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Maori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples. This bill amends the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act 2003 following the report of a review panel comprising the Minister of Maori Affairs, the Minister of Finance, and the chairperson of Te Putahi Paoho.

The Building Amendment Bill (No 4) is being guided through the house by the Minister for Building and Construction, Maurice Williamson. This bill implements policy decisions of the Building Act Review to provide incentives for building professionals and trades people to take responsibility for their work and to stand behind it.

The Herald reports:

Newly-listed Meridian Energy said the average price it received for its power generation in the September quarter was 22 per cent lower than the same quarter last year, mostly reflecting higher-than-average lake levels, while demand was flat.

Catchment inflows were 139 per cent of the historical average in the quarter and 21 per cent higher than the same quarter last year, Meridian said in a statement to the NZX.

The quarter’s inflows were dominated by very high inflows in early July and mid-September, which resulted in comparatively high storage levels by the end of the quarter.

By the end of September, Meridian’s Waitaki catchment storage was at 1,465 gigawatt hours – 155 per cent of the historical average and 27 per cent higher than the same quarter last year.

With above average inflows and strong wind conditions, Meridian’s New Zealand generation was 143 per cent higher than the same period last year. Meridian’s weekly market share was well above 30 per cent.

This sort of regular transparent data is one of the significant advantages of having former SOEs listed on the NZX.

Most people probably think that an SOE is more transparent than a company with private shareholders because if you are 100% Government owned you must be transparent.

The opposite is true.

NZX requirements require a company to disclose pretty much immediately any important information around how the company is doing and its value.

Solid Energy would never have had its problems come as such a surprise, if it had private shareholders.