3 News reported:

“I never like appointing all-male boards if I can help it,” says Environment Minister Amy Adams.

In choosing a board of inquiry to decide whether the controversial Ruataniwha Dam should go ahead, emails show Ms Adams “was underwhelmed with the potential line-up”.

“It’s always my preference to have a good balance of gender,” she says.

Labour leader David Cunliffe says it’s double-speak on the Government’s part.

“The National Party has done exactly what they criticised Labour for doing,” he says.

“Even though we didn’t do a man ban and now they’re doing it themselves; I guess people call that hypocrisy.”

A silly story, and I love seeing Labour attack the Government for not appointing an all male board.

As I have said all along, one can say it is healthy to have diversity on a board (or caucus) but you don’t do that by way of quotas which make gender the only criteria.

Labour proposed being able to ban men from even seeking the nomination in an electorate. That is a word of difference to a Minister saying they don’t think a board should be 100% male.

The Governor-General made some interesting points in a speech this week:

It is worth remembering that a party or grouping of parties may be able to secure a majority even if it does not hold more than half of the seats in the House.  This is because a confidence vote, like all questions put to the House, is decided by a simple majority of votes cast.  To illustrate the point: a party may state publicly and unambiguously that it will not provide support on matters of confidence to any other party or grouping of parties, and that it will instead abstain on confidence votes and vote on legislation case by case.  Whatever that party’s motives, its abstention is constitutionally significant, because it reduces the number of votes another party or grouping of parties will need to win confidence votes and command the confidence of the House.

This is not an impossible scenario. A centrist party could take that stance. They would effectively hold the balance of power on votes on individual legislation, but abstain on confidence and supply votes. This would mean that the party or bloc with the largest number of seats (even if not a majority) could form Government.

Since MMP was introduced, it has been the practice of the parties forming the government to commit to working together for the duration of the parliamentary term.  This is not a formal requirement, and there can never be a guarantee that any agreement reached will hold in practice.  My experience of New Zealanders, though, is that they place a high value on stable government, and will expect parties to make best endeavours to agree on commitments for the full term of Parliament.

This is also a key point. Parties don’t need to commit for the full term, and as the GG says, they can change their mind anyway.

It is possible for a Government to be formed without formal confidence and supply agreements. Just on the basis of a statement from a party that for now they will vote for confidence. Basically it is minority government. This is the case in Canada where minority Governments often are the case, but never have formal confidence and supply agreements.

Managed to read An Officer and A Spy on Wednesday while flying to and from Auckland. It’s a novel by Robert Harris, based on the Dreyfus Affair.

Harris is an excellent novelist. Fatherland is the novel he is probably most well-known for. He has also written some very good historical fiction books around Pompeii and Cicero.

I had been generally aware of the Dreyfus Affair, but not to any great detail. Harris brings it to life, with his novel written from the point of view of Georges Picquart.

Two things struck me while reading the novel.

The first was how horrendous the gross miscarriage of justice was that saw Dreyfus convicted on next to no evidence, but even worse how the Army used forgeries and worse to persist in trying to prove he was a traitor, and the malice against those who produced evidence to the contrary. Even worse was that they then moved to protect the real traitor, just so they would not have to admit they were wrong.

The second is the extent of antisemitism in France 100 years ago. The Holocaust perpetuated by the Nazis did not come about in a vacuum. Antisemitic sentiments were strong in many parts of Europe, and people were quite happy to see an innocent patriotic solider rot in an island prison just because he was a Jew.

Anyway if you’re a student of history, I can recommend the book as an excellent read.

Audrey Young at NZ Herald reports:

Executives who are fired from their companies would be less likely to get excessive golden handshakes under a private member’s bill being promoted by National list MP Paul Goldsmith.

And employers would be less willing to put up with high-paid staff not doing their jobs properly.

But it appears that Mr Goldsmith would have more chance of his bill being passed under a Labour-led Government than the National-led one.

Mr Goldsmith is proposing that employees with salary packages worth more than $150,000 not have the automatic right to a personal grievance, which they have under present employment law.

This is a very commendable bill. It doesn’t mean that employees over $150,000 will not have access to employment law. It means that they can contract out of it. And it is hard to argue that someone earning $150,000 is a vulnerable worker who needs protection.

They will still have access to general contract law, and can sue for breach of contract.

Under the current law, even if an employee is paid out under the terms of his or her contract, they can still take a personal grievance case to try to get a higher payout.

Mr Goldsmith says that means that employers are more likely to put up with someone who is not doing the job well or “make a more generous golden handshake to make the problem go away”.

He said he had been approached by business, and small business in particular, who saw it as a problem.

His bill did not go as far as Australian law which automatically exempts a high-paid employee (earning over A$129,000) from being able to take a personal grievance.

The Goldsmith bill just allows a high earning employee and an employer to sign a contract that limits personal grievances. So it might just say that in the event of an inability to work together, the employee will get paid x weeks salary.

The bill has been put into the private member’s ballot. Labour Minister Simon Bridges said while National supported the proposed bill, the Government would prefer to get officials’ advice.

But Labour’s labour spokesman, Andrew Little, said last night that it was the sort of thing a Labour-led Government would be keen to look at, especially for chief executives.

He had a concern with the $150,000 threshold because it could include highly skilled engineers, for example, working for companies such as Fonterra, who were well down the chain of command and control over the company.

Subject to a discussion about the threshold, he agreed with the bill in principle and thought Labour would support it to select committee.

The threshold seems right to me. It isn’t about the job title. Andrew seems concerned that it might impact some EPMU members, but if an engineer is earning over $150,000 they seem pretty capable of negotiating a good contract.

The Northern Advocate reports:

Northland teachers have been banned by their union from any interaction with charter school staff, in a move a Whangarei charter school chief executive has described as “bully tactics”.

I love how the union dictates to the teachers!

The Post-Primary Teachers Association has instructed members to deny charter school staff and management professional, sporting or cultural interactions or support.

Maybe they could issue yellow stars to the charter school staff so other teachers can cross the road if they see one of them coming?

Raewyn Tipene, the chief executive of the trust establishing Te Kura Hourua ki Whangarei Te Renga Paraoa and the director of the Leadership Academy, said she feared the PPTA’s stance would result in vulnerable Northland children being left behind.

It’s not about the kids! It’s about control.

There are 38 boys in the Leadership Academy and enrolled at schools in Whangarei.

If the boys and their whanau choose to enroll in the kura hourua, the kura has plans for some senior students to take certain classes, such as economics or trade studies at external schools such as Whangarei Boys’ High School and NorthTec.

The ban on interaction between PPTA members and charter schools means this couldn’t happen and students would miss out on opportunities.

“The principals [in Whangarei] are rattled. They are being stood over by the PPTA and they have no room to move,” Ms Tipene said.

If a school defies the PPTA, then they’ll face a boycott also no doubt.

The president of the PPTA, Angela Roberts, told the Advocate communities thinking the charter schools would raise Maori achievement were mistaken.

Listen up dumb parents, we know what is best for you. You do not get a say in this. We do not think you should have a choice of where to send your children and we will use our might to crush anyone who co-operates with these schools.

She said the kura would mean roll declines for other schools in Northland and fewer resources for the schools and, ultimately, the threat of lost jobs for PPTA members.

Now we understand the real concern. Nothing to do with helping under-achieving students.

Natasha Sadler, curriculum director for Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru, took the opportunity to dispel some myths at a series of community hui in Northland recently.

“A common myth is that the kura will have unregistered teachers – we have hired four registered teachers and hope to hire more,” she said.

She also said the kura would be teaching from New Zealand curriculum.

Both kura hourua directors said registered teachers and staff had been vetted by the police.

Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru will have 71 students next year and Te Kura Hourua ki Whangarei Te Renga Paraoa will have 50 students.

Boycotts are reminiscent of the apartheid era. However in this case the boycott is against Maori schools and students. So what does that make the PPTA comparable to? Maybe the Broederbond?

The Herald reports:

Drivers who refuse to pay speeding fines will have their licence confiscated – sometimes on the side of the road – and possibly lose their car under changes due in months.

From February, the Justice Ministry will ramp up efforts to recoup more than $200 million in outstanding traffic fines, most for speeding.

It will issue Driver Licence Stop Orders as a last resort to people who repeatedly ignore warning notices or court orders.

Any person found driving in breach of one of the orders will have their car impounded for 28 days.

Associate Justice Minister Chester Borrows said in some cases people would have to surrender their licence on the side of the road if police detected an order was in place.

He said the measure would apply only to people who ignored repeated 28-day deadlines for fines.

“You’ve got about four months from the time you’ve been stopped and given a ticket to pay. That’s not bad, and that’s interest-free credit.”

I don’t think that is unreasonable.

The Local Government Commission has announced:

The need for a single voice for Northland and for local communities to keep their special identities is reflected in a new model of local government proposed for the region.

The Local Government Commission has released its draft proposal for reorganisation in Northland, following applications by local authorities and extensive consultation since February. The highlights are:

• One council and one mayor to speak with a region-wide voice for Northland.

• A second tier of boards to represent diverse local communities.

• The name of the new local authority to be Northland Council.

• It replaces the Far North District Council, Whangarei District Council, Kaipara District Council and Northland Regional Council. The new council would be a unitary authority, combining the functions of the district councils and the regional council.

• Northland Council would have nine councillors elected from seven wards. The mayor would be elected by all Northland voters.

• Northland Council would have seven community boards with 42 elected members. The seven council wards and seven community boards would share the same boundaries.

• The proposed names of the wards and community boards are: Te Hiku (far north), Hokianga-Kaikohe (north-west), Coastal North (north-east), Coastal Central (east), Whangarei (south-east), Coastal South (south-east), and Kaipara (south-west). These names are open to public submission.

Many of the current Northland local authorities have had serious problems. The amalgamation proposal looks a pretty sensible way forward.

The full proposal is here.

Today’s pic is a bit of an experiment in slowing the shutter down. Often with wildlife, a fast shutter speed is used to freeze action and eliminate any motion blur. This time I wanted to get a bit of that motion blur going to get a sense of action.

“Headbanger” – Sparrow

Click for larger, higher res image

Other than that, it’s a beautiful day in Auckland, I have fresh coffee…and some chilled IPA waiting for me at home. Hope your plans are turning out just as well 🙂

Stuff reports:

A bill that would lower the threshold for minor parties to enter Parliament and “put an end to tea party-style stitch-ups” has been drawn from the ballot.

 

Labour MP Iain Lees-Galloway said the bill lowered the party-vote threshold from 5 per cent to 4 per cent and removed the coat-tail provision that allowed major parties to do deals with minor ones to help them into Parliament.

 

The Palmerston North MP’s Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill was pulled from Parliament’s ballot today and seeks to implement the recommendations of the Electoral Commission review held after the MMP referendum.

Personally I support changing the thresholds, and my submission said so. But these sort of significant changes should only occur if there is consensus between the more significant political parties. The Electoral Act should not be some sort of grand prize which winning parties use to screw over losing parties, to try and stay in power longer – which is what Labour did last time. National has deliberately refrained from making significant changes to electoral law, if Labour doesn’t agree with them. The idea is to maintain that consensus, but it looks like Labour are ditching the need for consensus:

Lees-Galloway acknowledged he would probably struggle to get support for the bill.

“There’s no need for consensus here. Political parties just need to vote according to what they think is right,” he said

So who knows what changes to electoral law we’ll see if Labour wins.

It is worth noting that this bill does not implement the recommendations of the Electoral Commission in full. It cherry picks the recommendations they agree with, but doesn’t implement the recommendation to get rid of overhang seats or setting a ratio of electorate to list seats.

By not getting rid of over-hangs, Labour’s bill would have seen the size of Parliament in the last three elections as 127 MPs, 128 MPs and 126 MPs.

The Atlantic reports:

One of the policies you advocate for is “smaller schools.” Why are smaller schools key but smaller classrooms aren’t?

It’s a fascinating answer. The small classroom size thing, you could write a book just on that, how we got to this confusion about that. First of all, it’s an intuitive one. If there’s less students, it’s better because one-on-one tutoring is so good. The closer we can get to one-on-one tutoring, that must be the answer. It’s a thing we believe in. So no matter what the data shows, the public opinion is heavily in that camp.

Everybody, the great majority of references to classroom size evidence is from this one study,  which hasn’t been duplicated with that kind of effect, ever. [The Tennessee STAR study] appears to be been the best study because it had randomized control trials, all that stuff, but ultimately it’s never been duplicated in that capacity and there were so many things that they couldn’t account for.

[Smaller classrooms] are not part of the equation for closing the achievement gap. In fact, I don’t think any of the schools that are closing the achievement gap are using small classrooms as part of their criterion. It’s because it costs so much, it puts so much tax on the rest of all the other stuff that needs to be done. It doesn’t have the kind of impact that the [quality of the] teacher does and the other stuff does.

This is a key point. For years money has gone into smaller class sizes, and it has almost no impact. That is money that could have been spent on things that do make a real difference such as teacher quality.

So why are smaller schools one of your “five keys”?

Small schools is a catalyzer, it’s like a turbocharger for all the other tenets. So let’s take one [tenet, school leadership,] for example: The research supports that a principal needs to be teaching teachers. This sounds so obvious: A coach needs to be coaching the players. … If that principal is in charge of 40 classrooms, 40 teachers, he can do [closely oversee the teachers]. But if he is in charge of 400, he can’t do that. There is just a limit to doing it. So that’s just one example.

I wonder if that applies in NZ. Is there data on school size vs achievement?

3 News reports:

A bill that would have allowed employers to hire temporary workers during a strike has been defeated on its first reading in Parliament.

The member’s bill was drafted by National’s Jami-Lee Ross to repeal a section of the Employment Relations Act that has been in force since 2000.

It was not a government bill.

Mr Ross said that under current law unions held an unfair advantage.

“It allows them to hold employers to ransom,” he said.

“Firms can’t hire casual or temporary workers during a strike and millions of dollars worth of productivity are lost every day.”

Labour fiercely opposed the bill.

“We’ve just heard the voice of the fascist National Party,” said Andrew Little.

Oh yes a law change that would not allow a union to cripple an employer is fascism. Pretty fucking insulting to all those people who died actually fighting fascism.

“This bill doesn’t just cover strikes, it covers lock-outs as well,” he said.

“An employer would be able to lock out its employees and hire casual workers in their place – it would cause very serious harm.”

I believe the bill should cover strikes only, but not lock-outs. Basically I think both strikes and lock-outs should be a last resort. Hence allowing temporary labour for strikes but not lockouts would discourage both employers and unions from resorting to them. Once you do, it is very hard to ever have good faith relations going forward.

Although all 59 National MPs and ACT leader John Banks voted for the bill, government ally Peter Dunne didn’t.

The vote was tied at 60-60, which meant the bill didn’t pass its first reading.

A pity, as I think it would have been good to have it go to select committee, so people could submit on it, and it could be amended. But under MMP the major party in Government doesn’t win all the votes.

Gerry Brownlee has announced:

The outcome of a study into the commercial viability of a ferry terminal at Clifford Bay in Marlborough has concluded Picton should remain as the southern terminal for the inter-island ferries, Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee announced today.

Over the past year a Ministry of Transport-led expert team has been testing whether Clifford Bay could be delivered as a fully privately funded project. 

“We have been delivered a thorough and robust report which clearly shows Clifford Bay is not commercially viable as a fully privately funded project, and the level of investment required at Picton over the next decade to extend its life would be substantially less than previously estimated,” Mr Brownlee says.

The project team estimated a ferry terminal at Clifford Bay could be delivered by 2022, at a cost of $525 million.  This left a gap the Government would have been required to fill to induce private sector investment in the construction and operation of the terminal.

Good for Picton, good for taxpayers but bad for travellers and freight.

It would have been great if the business case stacked up, as Clifford Bay would both significantly shorten both the time at sea (no having to slow down for Marlborough Sounds) and the time between docking and reaching Christchurch. The time saved would have been between 80 and 110 minutes which is huge.

But the amount of money needed was too great it seems, plus the costs of remaining at Picton turned out to be lower than previously expected (which is good)

MPs have the absolute protection of parliamentary privilege for what they say in the House. Some years ago a standing order was adopted which allowed those who feel they were effectively defamed by an MP, to submit a response to the Speaker, which is tabled in Parliament if accepted by the Speaker.

Paoro Maxwell has done this, and his response is below:

On Wednesday, 4 September and Thursday, 5 September 2013, Clare Curran, MP for Dunedin South, referred to me by name or by implication during questions for oral answer. Ms Curran’s statements infer that there was something to hide about my leaving my previous position at Television New Zealand; she stated that I “left without a reference and under a cloud of financial and staff mismanagement”. She also stated that I was only shortlisted for the position of Chief Executive of Māori Television as a result of improper influence by the Māori Television Board Chairperson. Ms Curran also alleged that my
production company, Aratai Film and Television Productions Limited, owes money to the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency, Te Māngai Pāho.

Ms Curran’s comments about both my production company and me are untrue and have damaged my professional reputation both presently and in the future. The statements made in the House could well have adversely affected both my application for the Chief Executive position at Māori Television, and also if I choose to apply for any job in the public sector in the future. For the record, my primary reason for leaving Television New Zealand was that I was satisfied with what I had achieved during my tenure as the General Manager of Māori and Pacific Programmes, and I was also confident that the Māori and Pacific department would be retained in the future and remain under the auspices of Television New Zealand. I left with a reference from the Head of News and Current Affairs at Television New Zealand. Additionally, I reject the suggestion that the Chairperson of Māori Television would have acted inappropriately in dealing with the shortlisting process. More likely the reason for my shortlisting was that I have twenty-six years of experience in the television industry, having served in various senior roles, and am one of a handful of people with the senior management experience to fill the role of Chief  Executive of Māori Television. Ms Curran’s statement in relation to Te Māngai Pāho is also untrue as Te Māngai Pāho has confirmed that I have no current debt to it.

Will we see an apology?

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00 – 3.00 PM.

1. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s Better Public Services programme contributing to a stronger economy?
2. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Can he rule out the partial sale of Air New Zealand proceeding prior to 30 November 2013?
3. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on repairing, rebuilding and renewing schools in Christchurch?
4. MOANA MACKEY to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements?
5. PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Housing: What initiatives has the Government recently taken to assist first home buyers and ensure more lower cost homes are being built?
6. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
7. Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he agree with IPENZ Chief Executive, Andrew Cleland, that the Government needs to give the Institute greater powers to hold their own to account?
8. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Revenue: Why is the Government seeking feedback on the financial reporting requirements that apply to most New Zealand companies?
9. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: What advice, if any, has he received on public support for measures designed to reduce demand in the housing market?
10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Trade: Why is he not prepared to release the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement?
11. MIKE SABIN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What announcements has he made on boosting growth in the Northland region?
12. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement that “I think climate change is something that has happened always, so to simply come up and say it’s man-made is an interesting prospect”; and how does that view affect his decisions on transport investment?

Today Labour are asking four questions. These are about the potential for a partial sale of Air New Zealand, whether the Minsiter of Transport stands by all his statements, holding Engineers to account, and measures to reduce demand in the housing market. The Greens are asking whether the Prime Minister has confidence in all his ministers and climate change. New Zealand First is asking about the text of the proposed TPP.

Patsy question of the day goes to Paul Foster-Bell for Question 5: What initiatives has the Government recently taken to assist first home buyers and ensure more lower cost homes are being built?

Government Bills 3.00PM – 6.00PM.

1. Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill – Third Reading

2. Pike River Implementation Bill (Now in three parts, 1, 2, 3) –

This bill is being guided through the house by the Prime Minister, John Key. This bill seeks to establish a new framework for setting entitlements for members of Parliament and the Executive.

This bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Labour, Simon Bridges. This bill seeks to implement the findings of the Royal Commission on the Pike River tragedy.

The Herald reports:

Secret details of the United States-Pacific trade agreement have been leaked showing New Zealand in serious dispute with US negotiators on many issues.

These include internet freedom, access to affordable medicines, protection of New Zealand industrial innovation and ownership of native plants and animals.

After 3 years of intense negotiation and with political calls for an agreement by Christmas, New Zealand and the US are still far apart in key areas.

The UK-based WikiLeaks organisation has obtained the crucial “intellectual property” chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and released it exclusively to the Herald and Mexican, Chilean, US and Australian media.

Ha, not sure how exclusive it is. The text is on the Wikileaks website here.

The 95-page draft includes some of the agreement’s most contentious issues, such as copyright, patent and pharmaceutical rules.

It contains more than 250 references to New Zealand supporting or opposing particular clauses. In about 60 cases, New Zealand supports the US position. But in most cases the US and New Zealand are opposed to each other’s proposals, usually with several other countries agreeing with New Zealand.

It’s good to see NZ negotiators sticking to the NZ position of not agreeing to any changes that would require a change in NZ intellectual property laws. That may change of course as ultimately an agreement involves compromise, but who has to compromise often comes down to where the majority of countries are, and the fact several other countries back the NZ position is good.

The Creative Freedom Foundation met the NZ Chief Negotiator last week, and have a good blog post on some of the issues. The issue NZ may be weakest on is opposing an extension of term of copyright from Life+50 to Life+70. Personally I think it should be no more than Life+20.

Angela Strahl, who is handling the IP chapter, stated that NZ’s Parallel Importing abilities are likely to stay unchanged, as is the ability to set our own limitations and exceptions to our domestic Copyright law. However, it was strongly hinted at that an extension of our Copyright Term is inevitable.

As Walker put it: only three of the twelve countries involved in the negotiations currently have a Life + 50 copyright term (NZ, Canada, and Japan); no-one has signed a trade agreement with the US that hasn’t included at least a Life + 70 year copyright term; and if you were to place a bet on what way NZ was going to go, those are some pretty big odds.

The term of copyright is less important to me than maintaining parallel importing and being able to set our own limits and exceptions to copyright. If we have to compromise on something in the IP chapter, I guess that is the least bad option arguably. But I hope enough other countries support the NZ position and we can hold firm. The idea of copyright is to encourage innovation. Life + 70 in no ways encourages innovation more than Life + 50. And as the CFF say, has detrimental effects.

Back to the Herald story:

A large section reveals the battle between the US pharmaceutical lobby and countries such as New Zealand that want to continue to buy cheaper generic medicines. The US negotiators have inserted several pages of measures to help maintain and extend the dominant position of big pharmaceutical companies. Only the US supported these proposals while Australia, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei opposed them in full.

Good.

The NZ negotiators are doing good work according to the leaked text. May they keep it up.

And I just have to respond to this piece of nonsense from Phil Goff:

The debate over the TPP negotiations should have been revealed by the Government and not left to be exposed by Wikileaks says Labour’s Trade spokesperson, Phil Goff.

Goff is being malicious here. Goff is a former Trade Minister. He of all people knows that the NZ Government would be kicked out of the TPP and never allowed into any trade negotiation again if it unilaterally released the text. I can accept this sort of hysteria from Jane Kelsey, but again Goff knows what he is saying is bullshit. Never in 10,000 years would he as Trade Minister do what he is now calling on this Government to do.

Now don’t get me wrong. I think there should be more transparency, and that at suitable intervals draft texts should be released. But this is not a decision NZ can make by itself. It’s like declaring that the one member of the UN Security Council can make decisions on behalf of the other 15.

It is good and noble to call for more transparency. It is an act of partisan fuckwittery to demand that the Government unilaterally release the text. Goff knows this. I do agree with him in one area though:

“In all trade negotiations parties make demands that they don’t expect to be accepted. All negotiations inevitably involve compromises. But New Zealand negotiators should remain staunch in their opposition to demands in the intellectual property area which appear to favour vested interest groups in one country to the disadvantage of others,” Phil Goff said.

That I agree with.

Darien Fenton has said:

Conditions for cabbies working Auckland Airport have become so dire they have been driven to protest, Labour’s Transport spokesperson Darien Fenton says.

Around 300 drivers have pulled out of working on the Auckland Airport taxi ranks today in protest at the way they have been treated.

“These drivers have to hand over $190 a week for the privilege of sitting on a rank for hours, without food and drink, and facing the impossibility of making a day’s living.

I didn’t realise that it was compulsory for taxi drivers to service Auckland Airport. I was under the mistaken belief that they were not rounded up from their homes at dawn and made to go to the airport, to wait for fares. I presumed that they choose to cover the airport because the average fare back into Auckland is $70 or more.

I also didn’t realise that Auckland Airport searched their cars every morning and confiscated water bottles, sandwiches etc from their cars.

Presumably Auckland Airport also round up and detain anyone who tries to purchase a bottle of coke or a coffee or behalf of a taxi driver.

“Many work 72 hours a week yet earn as little as $60 a day. On top of that the airport charges another $2 every time they enter the rank.

“The taxi industry was deregulated to bring better service to customers and to ensure there were competitive practices.

“That hasn’t happened. Airport companies are encouraging anti-competitive practices that make life even tougher for drivers.

“Cut throat practices like these mean that take home pay is further squeezed and drivers can’t feed their families.

“The Government needs to take a good look at what is happening for contractors like our cabbies and consider whether there needs to be some minimum protections.”

Presumably Darien means that taxi fares are too low and must be increased. Or is Labour campaigning to sack half the taxi drivers in Auckland so each driver gets more jobs?

Stuff reports:

Statistics New Zealand also measures the cost of a standard supermarket trolley full of grub over time – called “food price inflation”.

That index has jumped by one third over the last 10 years, and led to a 25 per cent drop in our purchasing power.

Food prices have indeed gone up 33% in the last ten years, but I’m not sure about that figure for a drop in purchasing power as after tax incomes have gone up more than that.

It is useful to break the 33% down by year. For each year to October, food inflation was:

• 2004 – 1.1%
• 2005 – 1.1%
• 2006 – 4.0%
• 2007 – 3.6%
• 2008 – 9.9%
• 2009 – 2.0%
• 2010 – 5.1%
• 2011 – 1.1%
• 2012 – 0.3%
• 2013 – 0.8%

So from Oct 05 to Oct 08, food prices increased a massive 17.5% approx. In the last 36 months they’ve gone up 2.2% only.

Stuff reports:

Ex-Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd has announced he is quitting  parliament.

He said there came a time in every politician’s life when their  family said “enough is enough”.

The former prime minister and foreign minister said he would not  be continuing beyond this week.

He said the slings and arrows of parliament “hit home to our  families as well”.

“For our family, recent statements since the September election  have been particularly hurtful,” Rudd said in a speech to the House of Representatives tonight.

Having your colleagues tell the truth about you must be very hard.

Rudd had such great potential as Prime Minister, but his personal style made him a disaster.

Rudd said it was a privilege to be asked to return to the  prime ministership this year, and that they’d been able to “save  the furniture” in the election.

Asked to return! As if he was unwilling. It was his third coup attempt!

The Herald reports:

China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia on Tuesday won three-year seats on the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, the United Nations’ top rights body, despite concerns about abuses and restrictions on freedoms in all four nations.

Some aspects of the UN are very worthwhile, but the Human Rights Council is not one of them.

According to U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based advocacy group that monitors the United Nations, only four of the 16 candidates for the 14 open seats were qualified to be members of the council on the basis of their human rights records. They were Britain, France, Macedonia and Mexico.

I have always liked the idea of a new UN – one open to democratic and non-repressive countries only.

Iran and Syria had been planning to run for the Human Rights Council but pulled out amid criticism of their rights records.

A small mercy.

Stuff reports:

A young Wellington woman raped by a bouncer in an alleyway could have “closed her legs” if she didn’t want sex, the man’s lawyer told a jury. …

He claimed the woman made a false complaint to police six days later because she regretted the sex. There was no struggle or any threats, nor was there violence, Jefferies said in his closing arguments yesterday.

“All she would have had to do was to close her legs . . . it’s as simple as that,” he told the jury. “Why didn’t she do that? . . . The reason she didn’t do that was because the sex was consensual, as easy as that.” …

Jefferies said after the verdict that his comments were made as part of the defence, and were not his personal view.

“This is the defence of a criminal charge. The Crown and the judge didn’t complain about it.”

The case revolved around whether sex was consensual, which made the complainant’s position important, he said.

“The accused was of the view there was an element of willingness from the accuser, and that she was a willing partner. What I say to the jury doesn’t represent my personal view. It merely represents the defence.”

He is just doing his job, but personally speaking I don’t think I could do a job where I have to advocate that a woman consented to sex just because she didn’t close her legs.

Stuff reports:

Tensions have boiled over between residents and prostitutes in a central Christchurch street, with a homeowner accused of assaulting a prostitute she found having sex in her yard.

The north Manchester St resident, in her 50s, said she had just arrived home from work when she discovered the pair “flagrantly in the act” in the early hours. She was having a drink on her back step when she saw movement and heard “associated noises”.

She phoned police, then went to detain the prostitute until officers arrived.

The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, admitted she hit the prostitute during the ensuing altercation, but said that was only after the woman scratched her in the face.

“She’s just unfortunate I have a couple of years martial arts behind me.”

Very very rude of anyone to have sex in someone else’s backyard.

Rather than confront them though, I’d do what you would do if a couple of cats were rutting in your backyard. Go grab a powerful hose and douse their ardour. I suspect they wouldn’t return!

The alternative is to demand rent for use of the yard!

The Herald reports:

An “outrageous” mistake with yesterday’s NCEA Level 1 German exam has alarmed the Qualifications Authority and sparked an inquiry.

The entire exam paper – apart from the instructions – was printed in German, even though the specifications given to the 450 students and their teachers months ago said the questions would be in English too.

Level 1 students had to learn about 1000 German words throughout their course. But due to the lack of English-language questions, they were left to decipher some German words they had never been taught and were not expected to know.

Mt Albert Grammar German teacher Warwick Gibbs, who has taught the subject for 41 years, said the mistake was “quite outrageous”.

“It means that the question hasn’t even been checked by someone who’s competent to act as a moderator,” said Mr Gibbs.

How can this happen. If the entire school system has been told the questions will be in English, how on earth could the exam be prepared and approved in conflict with that. I can understand that checking may not pick up an error in an isolated question, but to not pick up an error of this magnitude suggests a fundamentally flawed process.

He said the marking process would make sure that no student was disadvantaged by the mistake.

How? Unless you give every one a pass mark automatically.