Stuff reports:

New Zealand author Eleanor Catton has become the youngest person ever to win literature’s most sought-after prize.

In a glitzy event in London today, the 28-year-old was this morning named winner of the 2013 Man Booker Prize for her novel The Luminaries.

A noticeably stunned Catton took to the stage at London’s Guildhall and was presented with the award by Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall.

She gave special thanks to her UK publishers Granta and New Zealand publishers Victoria University Press, who never pushed her to produce a more-commercially-viable book.

At 832 pages The Luminaries was the longest novel to win the prize, surpassing Hilary Mantel’s 672 page 2009 prize winner Wolf Hall.

“The shape and the form of the book made certain kinds of editorial suggestions not only mathematically impossible but even more egregiously astrologically impossible,” Catton said.

Her publishers struck the “delicate balance between making art and making money”.

The Booker was widely-regarded as literature’s most prestigious prize and the win, announced at 9.30am (NZT), would catapult Victoria University-educated Catton to a massive worldwide audience.

She won for her second novel, 19th century West Coast gold rush murder story The Luminaries.

Winning the Booker at any age is a massive achievement. To win it at the age of 28 is almost unthinkable. With Lorde topping the US charts at the age of 16, and 16 year old Lydia Ko being the top ranked female amateur golfer, young Kiwi women are rocking the world at the moment.  Music, literature and golf are all what I call global areas of arena (as opposed to rugby, which has just a few countries seriously compete at it).

It is of course coincidence that all three are at the top of the world at the moment, but some nice reflected glory for New Zealanders as we can take pride in their achievements.

A Harvard University study finds:

Charter schools were developed, in part, to serve as an R&D engine for traditional public schools, resulting in a wide variety of school strategies and outcomes. In this paper, we collect data on the inner-workings of 39 charter schools and correlate these data with credible estimates of each school’s effectiveness. We find that traditionally collected input measures – class size, per pupil expenditure, the fraction of teachers with no certification, and the fraction of teachers with an advanced degree – are not correlated with school effectiveness. In stark contrast, we show that an index of five policies suggested by over forty years of qualitative research – frequent teacher feedback, the use of data to guide instruction, high-dosage tutoring, increased instructional time, and high expectations – explains approximately 45 percent of the variation in school effectiveness. 

Teacher quality and use of data are the most effective.

In our empirical analysis, we find that input measures associated with a traditional resource-based model of education – class size, per pupil expenditure, the fraction of teachers with no teaching certification, and the fraction of teachers with an advanced degree – are not correlated with school effectiveness in our sample. Indeed, our data suggest that increasing resource-based inputs may actually lower school effectiveness.

Yet this is what the educational establishment for many years have said is the answer.

Using observational estimates of school effectiveness, we find that schools with more certified teachers have annual math gains that are 0.041 (0.023) standard 2 deviations lower than other schools. Schools with more teachers with a masters degree have annual ELA gains that are 0.032 (0.020) standard deviations lower. An index of class size, per pupil expenditure, the fraction of teachers with no teaching certification, and the fraction of teachers with an advanced degree, explains about 15 percent of the variance in charter school effectiveness, but in the unexpected direction.

So the fact charter schools may have a couple of unregistered teachers is no bad thing, and may even be a good thing.

In stark contrast, an index of five policies suggested by forty years of qualitative case-studies – frequent teacher feedback, data driven instruction, high-dosage tutoring, increased instructional time, and a relentless focus on academic achievement – explains roughly half of the variation in school effectiveness.

Some argue that it is all about the socio-economic rating of the local neigbourhood. This research shows it is not. How schools teach can and does make a difference.

Bjørn Lomborg at New Scientist writes:

FOR the past half century, a fundamental debate has raged between optimists and pessimists over the state of the world. Pessimists build their case on overpopulation, starvation and depletion of resources. Optimists stand for the infallibility of the market economy.

In 1970, arch pessimist Paul Ehrlich, a population biologist at Stanford University in California, predicted that by 1999 the US population would be decimated to 22 million people living on 2400 calories a day – less than the 2560 calories the average African gets today. Economist Julian Simon, his opposite number from the optimist camp, cheerfully claimed that everything was getting better.

We know who was right.

The debate still runs deep in our collective consciousness. We all have an immediate instinct of whether we align with the pessimists or the optimists, and with an almost infinite selection of statistics available, anyone can cherry-pick evidence to confirm their position.

Wouldn’t it be nice to remove the darkened or rose-tinted spectacles for once, and try to quantify how the world really has done and will do in future? I asked some of the world’s leading economists to do just that. The result is a groundbreaking book, How Much Have Global Problems Cost The World? A scorecard from 1900 to 2050.

The basic idea was to measure the damage inflicted by various problems on a comparable scale, without the opportunity to focus on particular areas or statistics that reinforce one point of view or the other.

For each problem, contributors quantified the damage done to humanity and the planet from 1900 until today, and also that projected to happen by 2050. Take air pollution. How much death and destruction did it cause in 1900 or in 2013? And what do we project its damage to be in 2050?

Sounds a useful approach.

We were not able to evaluate all the challenges facing humanity, but I think most would agree that our list includes 10 of the most important: air pollution, climate change, conflicts, education, gender inequality, health, loss of biodiversity, malnutrition, trade barriers, and water and sanitation.

For many of these, ours is the first economic evaluation of the entirety of the problem. I hope this will inspire others to cover other areas such as resources, infrastructure and corruption.

So what does this research show? Neither the pessimists nor the optimists are entirely right. But the optimists win on points – the majority of indicators are going in the right direction.

Some of these are obvious, such as health and education – we live much longer and are much better educated. The cost of poor health in 1900 was a phenomenal 32 per cent of global GDP. Today, it is about 11 per cent and by 2050 will have halved again.

Some are not so obvious. Take air pollution. Outdoor air pollution has got worse in the developing world but better in the developed world, not least because of environmental legislation. A bigger problem, however, is indoor air pollution from using dirty fuels to cook and keep warm, mostly in the developing world. This has been decreasing rapidly, meaning that, overall, damage from air pollution has been falling. In 1900 air pollution cost 23 per cent of GDP; today it is at about 6 per cent, and will probably be reduced to 4 per cent by 2050.

So two huge gains. Sounds like a very worthwhile publication.

Stuff reports:

If Labour and the Greens imposed their proposed power policy Contact Energy would be forced into a complete restructure, chief executive Dennis Barnes says.

Speaking to The Press after the company’s annual meeting in Christchurch today, Barnes said the policy would require a structural change for Contact’s business and the electricity industry.

It would “change the face of Contact from a risk manager and a retailer to a business which has got the Government as its customer”, he said.

One customer who would unilaterally set the price. What could go wrong with that!

“The biggest change is that the Government then becomes responsible for security of supply development of the industry rather than the market; that’s a whole different dynamic.”

Blackouts is what California is on the verge on, due to similar policies.

During the meeting, a shareholder asked how likely it was that the Labour and the Greens might impose what Barnes described as a “crazy plan”.

Very crazy.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers 2.00PM – 3.00PM.

1. PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received about forecasts for the New Zealand economy and how are these being reflected in levels of business confidence?
2. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf on 25 September “The Minister was aware that the Department of Conservation was working on a submission. He was not aware of the content of the leaked draft submission until Tuesday, 17 September”?
3. COLIN KING to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has the Government made about investment in the National Science Challenges?
4. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
5. BRENDAN HORAN to the Minister of Energy and Resources:Does he stand by all of his recent statements?
6. PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Justice: What recent steps have been taken by the Government to make it easier to resolve cross-border disputes between New Zealand and Australia?
7. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received in the last month of New Zealanders receiving inadequate health services?
8. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Housing: What progress has the Government made in addressing Auckland’s housing supply issues over the past two weeks?
9. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that she is fulfilling all of her legal obligations under the Education Act 1989; if so, why?
10. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Statistics: What does the latest release of Census data show in regard to population growth in the regions?
11. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister of Conservation: How many submissions did the Department of Conservation make on regional, district or city plans or regional policy statements in 2012/13 that related to water quality issues?
12. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he now accept that his statement that Chorus “will go broke” is incorrect; if not, why not?

Today Labour are asking four questions. These questions are about the Ruataniwha dam, Health, the responsibilities of the Minister of Health, and the financial position of Chorus. Labour Leader David Cunliffe is asking two out of four questions himself. The Greens are aksing two questions, whether the Prime Minister has confidence in all his Ministers, and water quality. Independent MP Brendan Horan is asking whether Minister for Energy and Resources Simon Bridges stands by all his statements.

The patsy of the day award goes to Paul Foster-Bell for Question 6:  What recent steps have been taken by the Government to make it easier to resolve cross-border disputes between New Zealand and Australia?

General Debate 3.00PM – 4.00PM 

A lively weekly debate of twelve speeches of no more than five minutes each.

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

1.Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill

2.Insolvency Practitioners Bill

3.Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill

4.Human Rights Amendment Bill

The Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for ICT, Amy Adams.  This bill seeks to repeal and replace the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act 2004 in order to ensure that interception obligations applying to the telecommunications industry are clear, do not impose unnecessary compliance costs, and are sufficiently flexible to respond to current and future operational needs and technological developments. It also seeks to require network operators to engage with the Government on network security matters, inform the Government of certain proposed decisions, courses of action, or changes in relation to an area of “specified security interest”, and work with the Government to apply any specific risk-based and proportionate security measures. David wrote about the bill earlier here.

The Insolvency Practitioners Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Commerce, Craig Foss. This bill creates powers to restrict or prohibit individuals from providing insolvency services, and strengthens measures to automatically disqualify insolvency practitioners.

The Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Steven Joyce. The Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill makes the amendments required to implement the findings of the industry training review undertaken by the Government in 2011 and 2012.

The Human Rights Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. This bill enables the establishment of a full-time Disability Rights Commissioner within the Human Rights Commission, and makes changes to the role and structure of the Commission.

If you are trying to get official information from central or local government and they refuse, you can ask the Ombudsman to investigate. If they rule that you should get the information, then the entity must give it to you, unless they veto it.

The veto for central government is done by Cabinet and has not been used since 1987. That is because any Government that did so would pay a heavy political price for doing so.

As far as I know no elected local government entity has used the veto either. Again, because the Councillors who did so would risk losing their seats.

But No Right Turn highlights one local government entity that has used a veto. The Auckland Council Maori Statutory Board. They did a veto to prevent the release of information on the towns and districts where their board members resided.

It is appalling that an unelected body has the power to over-ride the Ombudsman. One can debate whether Councils or Cabinet should have the right, but at least as elected politicians they can be made to face consequences for doing so. The power of the Maori statutory Board to veto the Ombudsman should be removed from the law immediately.

Tui tweeted their new billboard this morning. I wonder if they’ll put one up near the Auckland Town Hall!

The Herald reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe said the coroner’s recommendation was “interesting”. Mr Cunliffe, a staunch Anglican, said he would not reveal his personal stance on legalising euthanasia, which wouldbe decided by a conscience vote if itcame before Parliament.

“I have a personal view, but given my current responsibilities I’m going to reserve that until my caucus has an opportunity to discuss it.”

I’m sorry, but the Labour caucus has already discussed it. Street would have needed the permission of caucus to lodge her bill last year.

Why can’t Cunliffe just tell us his view? Is he worried that it may upset some people.

Prime Minister John Key said he broadly supported the principle of voluntary euthanasia and would consider it if he was terminally ill.

He said the Government would not introduce it as policy because a clear party stance was required and many National MPs would not support it.

Mr Key said he would not back Ms Street’s bill because he felt it went too far.

A good contrast. Key gives his personal view, and even says how he would vote on Street’s bill. You know where you stand with him.

UPDATE: Even weirder Cunliffe has previously said he would vote for Street’s bill, so why is he now being coy?

The Taranaki Daily News reports:

Taranaki leaders are hailing new population figures that show the region is booming.

The province has 5484 more people than it did seven years ago, making it the third fastest-growing region in the North Island …

Venture Taranaki chief executive Stuart Trundle said New Plymouth district is a standout performer and one of the country’s strongest-growing areas.

New mayor Andrew Judd agreed and said the increase was largely due to the province’s booming oil and gas industry.

However, he also said New Plymouth must ready itself to be in a strong position to capitalise on the growth.

“With growth comes more pressure. We need to make sure we have enough houses for these people and our healthcare can handle the increase.

“We also need to examine these figures and find out where the gaps are and work on those,” he said.

Mr Trundle said New Plymouth’s 7.7 per cent growth was monumental, especially by comparison with the Manawatu/Whanganui, which grew by 1 per cent.

So they’re calling the growth monumental. But wasn’t there someone saying the figures would show an exodus of people from the region?

National came out firing yesterday with Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce and New Plymouth MP Jonathan Young both accusing Labour leader David Cunliffe of making up stuff.

Mr Cunliffe said the latest Census would show a widespread exodus from the regions as provincial New Zealanders flee forgotten small towns. He also said real median weekly incomes for Taranaki have dropped $24.

But Census figures showed the new Labour boss was wrong.

Statistics released yesterday show the region’s population had actually increased.

Mr Young said the figures contradicted Mr Cunliffe’s claims.

“Since the 2006 income survey, real after-tax weekly incomes in Taranaki have increased by $85.”

So Cunliffe was wrong on the population and he is trying to pull a swiftie on the income side by quoting gross incomes, not after tax incomes (ie how much actual money you have to spend).

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

The Government has ordered an independent investigation into allegations of misspending by the general manager of the commercial arm of Kohanga Reo.

After a meeting at Parliament this evening, Education Minister Hekia Parata and Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples announced the Ministry of Education had commissioned an independent audit.

Good. And kudos to Maori TV again for their story.

Maori Television’s Native Affairs programme has alleged that public funds were misused by Lynda Tawhiwhirangi, the general manager of the Kohanga’s commercial arm Te Pataka Ohanga (TPO).

TPO announced today a staff member had been suspended and credit cards issued to staff and governors of the organisation had been cancelled in the wake of the allegations.

That’s a start.

In all the boards I have been on, I’ve never had a credit card. I always claim back expenses. The one exception is provision of a taxi card for travel related to that board.

Stuff reports:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown is refusing to stand down, after confirming that he had a two-year affair with a member of a council advisory panel who is 25 years his junior.

Brown, 57, who is married with three daughters, confirmed yesterday that he had had an affair with Bevan Chuang, 32, who stood unsuccessfully for the Albert-Eden local board in last week’s elections and serves on the council’s Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel.

He said last night that he intended to remain as mayor.

He admitted he had “failed dismally” in his personal life, but insisted: “My record stands in terms of my political service.”

He said he was “very clear” in his commitment to stay as mayor, but was also “listening to the community”. He apologised to Aucklanders, but asked that they “stand by me”.

More like lay with me! 🙂

In an interview with TV3’s John Campbell, he said there was “an element of political endeavour” around the timing of the revelations. “In my view there is a clear will or determination to try and force a resignation, and in fact destroy me.”

If that was the case, wouldn’t the story have been published before the election?

Mayoral rival John Minto said a new election should be held. “Not because I’m into prying into people’s personal lives but because it will render him a lame duck mayor, just like Bill Clinton was a lame duck president after the news of his affair came out.”

Minto said there was no way Brown could go to Parliament or host council meetings without being the subject of ridicule. “He will be hopelessly compromised.”

If Brown does resign (after being sworn in) there is a by-election. I wonder if this time Minto would beat Bright?

The Herald reports:

Ms Chuang was unable to be reached for comment last night, but issued a statement through blogger Cam Slater, whose Whale Oil website broke the news of the affair yesterday, to call for Mr Brown’s resignation.

“She believed Brown had only one option left – and that was to resign. He could [no] longer command any respect among those who’d previously issued him with a mandate to lead Auckland. She said as a practising Catholic the hypocrisy of Brown’s conduct was extraordinary.”

Before Ms Chuang’s identity was revealed, Auckland mayoral candidate John Palino said he had no knowledge of the affair or the woman involved. He issued a statement in which he declined to comment and did not return phone calls.

A member of his campaign said he believed Ms Chuang was at the campaign launch.

Ms Chuang told Mr Slater that the allegations against Brown were not politically motivated and that she, and members of her family, voted at this election for Mr Brown.

“If I wanted to bring him down, do you think I’d vote for him? Unlikely. And wouldn’t I have gone public with all this when potentially it could have affected the election result?”

I think Miss Chuang’s motivations are personal, not political. Also I’m sure John Palino would have rather had the story come out before the election – not two weeks after it.

One person has got some facts very wrong, and in fact is defamatory. Chris Ford at Voxy has written:

One element, according to Martyn Bradbury on the Daily Blog, that may have led the Mayor to make such claims is the involvement of Slater’s father, former National Party President John Slater as his rival John Palino’s campaign manager. Talk of the pot calling the kettle black, this is the same John Slater who confessed to having extramarital sex with a woman on the dining table of the London High Commission back in the 1990’s!

Chris Ford has hugely defamed both John Slater and also John Collinge, the person he has confused John Slater with. I’m amazed he has not corrected his post as I am sure he must be aware by now he has the names wrong.

Not only has he defamed John Slater, he has also effectively defamed John Collinge. Collinge has never ever confessed to having sex on the London High Commission table – this has become almost an urban legend. In fact he denies it strongly.

An ex-girlfriend of Collinge’s was unhappy with his new relationship and tried to poison it. She sent his new girlfriend a long letter claiming all sorts of things she had done with Collinge. Her behaviour got so extreme the new girlfriend complained to the Police and the ex-girlfriend was prosecuted in court. The letter was read out in court as evidence for the prosecution. The ex-girlfriend never made those allegations in court (which would have some credibility if she did). She simply wrote a letter to another woman trying to distress her. She has never repeated the claims in court, and Collinge has always denied them totally.

Not relevant to this story, but I thought I might as well set the story right as Ford had referred to it. I look forward to his retraction.

[UPDATE: Chris Ford has corrected his post, and apologized for it, which is good of him]

Mr Slater’s father, John Slater – a former National Party president and president of the Citizens and Ratepayers’ council ticket – acted as Mr Palino’s campaign manager in the election. John Slater said last night he had no knowledge of the affair or the identity of the woman and had no involvement with the story on his son’s website.

People are trying to turn this into a politically motivated story, when I think it is more a “woman scored” motivated story.

Tim Watkin blogs at Pundit:

The initial story on WhaleOil said the affair was with a “council employee”, which is a bit of a stretch. As one of 12 on the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel she is a representative rather than a staff member. If she had been a staff member the issue would have been much worse for Brown, because employment law would have come down on him like a tonne of bricks.

Even as it stands, his claim that this is an “entirely” private matter is clearly nonsense. It goes to trust. It goes to character. And most of all it goes to his use of power. Or rather, his abuse of power.

Chuang is an adult who chose to have an affair with a married man and then make the details public, so any depiction of her as a victim in this only goes so far. Her own political aspirations, whatever they might have been, are now in tatters. But she’s brought that on herself. Having said that, Brown has clearly abused his power over her and failed in his duty of care as mayor.

Watkin explains:

You only have to look at the FAQs on the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel’s webpage to see why he has every reason to be worried about how voters might judge him. The page says:

“The Local Government Act required the Mayor of Auckland to appoint the Panelno later than 31 March 2011.The Panel was established and appointed by the Mayor of Auckland following a three-stage selection process…” It goes on:”The Panel operates up to 1 November 2013. However, the decision to continue or re-establish the panel in the same or modified form is within thepower of the Mayor’s authority.”

So Chuang – a perfectly pleasant woman I met earlier this year – was the mayor’s own appointee (even if the recommendations came from a selection committee). Worse, he has the power to re-appoint her – or not – in the next two to three weeks. To compromise himself, Chuang and the Auckland Council this way clearly is unacceptable. 

So her appointment and tenure is at the discretion of the Mayor. I think that makes it arguably worse than if it was a Council employee. Council employees are employed by the Chief Executive and have some protection. Chuang was a direct Mayoral appointee. How can you argue no conflict of interest?

On Campbell Live tonight Brown said he was committed to Auckland and would be staying in the job. He said he’s just won a strong mandate from the people of Auckland, but in a clear out-clause said he would be listening to the people.

There has to be a serious question over that mandate. No-one can confidently argue one way or the other whether he would have won if voters had known about the affair. It certainly would have been closer, but we can’t know what never happened. So he can’t claim any sort of mandate with confidence, leaving him severely compromised in any political endeavour he attempts in the next three years.

One option is to test the mandate. Brown could resign but seek election again which would allow Aucklanders to decide.

I voted for Brown last week, but I don’t know how I would have voted if I had known about this. Brown reasonably told Campbell that people will “judge me in the whole”. And perhaps I would have seen the work achieved and the important goals to come and voted the same way anyway. Perhaps many would have felt that. But I don’t know and Brown can’t know either. This is just one reason why trust and transparency matter so much. Voters have the right to know exactly what – and who – we’re voting for.

And:

But none of that excuses Brown’s betrayal. On Campbell Live he spoke just of the pain caused to his family. It’s understandable that they are his focus, but it was poor that he did not accept responsibility for his mistake and acknowledge that he had failed voters as well. He lied by omission. It took until his final sentence for him to even apologise to us.

I feel incredibly sorry for his wife and daughters. It must be an awful thing to go through, and so publicly. I’m surprised Brown only told then after the election.

We still don’t know about the threatening text sent to Chuang last week from an anonymous number warning her not to talk. That does not reflect well on Brown as well.

The threats are what ensured the story was published. I hope someone can discover whose phone was sending the text messages warning Chaung off talking.

NewstalkZB reports:

Cold water’s being poured on a potentially controversial way to boost voter turnout at local body elections

Labour’s Sua William Sio is suggesting they be state funded and that candidates get taxpayer support for their campaigns.

He believes it could increase voter participation and improve ethnic representation.

Local Government Minister Chris Tremain indicates it’s not on the Government’s “to do” list.

Oh my God. Imagine it. If Labour get in and introduce taxpayer funding of local body candidate’s campaigns. They generally advocate $2 a vote so Penny Bright gets $20,000 from the taxpayer for her campaign. John Minto gets a bit less. Len Brown picks up $300,000. Celia Wade-Brown pockets $50,000 or so.

Labour never stops trying to find ways for the taxpayer to fund their party and their candidates.

Liam Dann writes in the NZ Herald:

The Labour Party under David Cunliffe already looks sharper than the David Shearer version when it comes to picking up on business and economic issues and turning them into ammunition for political attack.

A lot of these issues are complex and Labour seems happy to grab headlines with half-baked ideas that don’t bear serious scrutiny.

Their policy on over-riding the Reserve Bank being a prime example.

But that doesn’t really matter in the rough and tumble world of political point-scoring. Shearer’s more considered and generally more intelligent approach was getting the party nowhere. It is a shame that one of Shearer’s biggest flaws was his tendency to think before he spoke.

Why waste time thinking – all that ever did was give the Greens a chance to get in first with a snappy soundbite? Cunliffe’s Labour Party certainly doesn’t.

Making policy up on the hoof may backfire.

Last week we saw Clayton Cosgrove taking a blunt stick to the Mighty River Power board over the timing of the now-listed company’s share buy-back.

Cosgrove was quite explicit in his accusation that the Mighty River board of directors had made the move to pump the share price so the upcoming Meridian float would go better for the Government.

There is no evidence for this and the suggestion that a highly respected director like Mighty River chairperson Joan Withers would breach the Companies Act and put the interests of a political party ahead of the best interests of shareholders seems quite defamatory. Not to mention stupid. 

Stupid and defamatory – a good description of the MP 🙂

A week or so earlier Cunliffe got good mileage by attacking the Government and the Reserve Bank over the new lending restrictions regime.

The restrictions are designed to prevent banks lending too much money on too little equity. They are primarily about preventing property market bubbles, ensuring the safety of the economy in the event of another financial crisis like – I don’t know – a US debt default or something.

That’s something even the Greens have been supportive of.

Cunliffe’s stance on loan to value ratio (LVR ) restrictions puts him in bed with the Bankers’ Association, all the big Aussie banks and most of the property and real estate industry. These are not exactly mates he’ll be shouting about at the next CTU rally.

Labour is campaigning for the right of 23 year old property investors to buy half million houses with less than 10% deposits. You can’t make this shit up.

Whale Oil has a story from Stephen Cook (ex Herald on Sunday) with allegations from an Auckland Council employee of an affair with Auckland Mayor Len Brown.

Obviously they are allegations, and there are often two sides to a story. However the woman has provided a sworn affidavit (which is a serious offence if false) backing up the allegations, and also it seems has retained some text messages.

This is an explosive story, and again we are yet to hear if the allegations are denied or not.

In terms of whether there is a public interest in the allegations, my answer would be there isn’t if she wasn’t a Council employee and any (alleged) encounters took place away from the Council. But if the allegations are correct, and they involve a Council employee on Council premises – that is harder to pass off as no public interest.

I have no first hand knowledge of the allegations beyond what has been reported, and the fact that a sworn affidavit has been provided. The allegations are incredibly detailed and specific.

UPDATE: The Herald now is running a story.

The ODT report:

The Dunedin City Council will consider switching to a single city-wide ward and giving community boards more powers after some voters complained of being disenfranchised, Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull says.

Mr Cull told the Otago Daily Times yesterday he had heard directly from up to 30 people, mainly in the Waikouaiti Coast-Chalmers ward, upset at being unable to vote for city councillors in this year’s election.

”They really resent not having a say on the whole of council, when the vast bulk of the population do.”

Wait a second. What do they mean that they didn’t get a vote? Is there some law saying that people who live in that area have to pay rates but don’t get a vote? Are the good people of Waikouaiti like the people of DC (who don’t get to vote for Congressional representation)?

Mr Cull was commenting after voters in the Waikouaiti Coast-Chalmers ward were left with no say on who would represent them for the next three years.

Incumbent Cr Andrew Noone was elected unopposed for the ward’s only seat, leaving voters in the ward able only to influence the races for the Dunedin mayoralty and Chalmers Community Board.

That’s totally different. They didn’t get a vote because no one stood. You fix that by having someone stand, not by abolishing wards.

As a result, he was ”really sympathetic” to the idea of one city-wide ward, and expected a proposal for change would be considered by the incoming council.

Such a change would allow all voters to vote for all 14 city councillors, he said.

I think that will lead to inferior decision making by voters. It is hard enough to identify three or four people worth supporting in a ward. Having to select 14 out of say 40 or so candidates will just lead to more people not voting.

I think Councils should go the other way – single Councillor wards. You vote for one Councillor for your local area, just as you vote for one MP. That way you are picking say one person out of three or four (which means you an properly research your choices) that the blind luck of 14 out of 40. or so.

The Herald reports:

Labour’s caucus meeting today will be the first MP Trevor Mallard has attended since he was demoted by new leader David Cunliffe – and Mr Mallard said fears he will go rogue are unfounded, but nor will he disappear in 2014 and he still hopes to be made the Speaker if Labour wins the next election.

He still wanted to be Speaker and and Mr Cunliffe was open to that. “Absolutely. There’s no problem in that area.”

Really? Cunliffe is open to that? Luckily the Herald didn’t take Trevor’s word for it but asked Cunliffe:

Mr Cunliffe said he had not told Mr Mallard he could still be Speaker under a future Labour Government.

Doesn’t sound good for Trevor.

“No decisions have been made about that, but I’m well aware of his strong interest in it.” Asked if it was a sign he expected Mr Mallard to step down in 2014, he said he was not yet going through the process of holding retirement conversations with MPs.

The key words are “Not yet”

My expectation is that if Labour wins, they will put Annette King up to be Speaker.

Questions for Oral Answer 2.00PM – 3.00PM

Questions to Ministers

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “One of the risks for us is that there’s heavily pronounced economic development in Auckland, but not in the rest of the country”?
2. Hon KATE WILKINSON to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government’s financial position and especially progress in meeting its target of returning to surplus by 2014/15?
3. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that Mighty River Power’s buy back of $50 million worth of shares is “highly normal”?
4. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that she is fulfilling all of her legal obligations under the Education Act 1989; if so, why?
5. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What recent reports has he received on the value of the international education industry to New Zealand?
6. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: When he carried furniture into a Housing New Zealand tenant’s house, was he consciously comparing himself to Michael Joseph Savage?
7. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Education: Does she believe that she has effectively explained National Standards to earn the trust of parents and the teaching profession; if so, why?
8. MIKE SABIN to the Associate Minister of Social Development: What new measures have recently begun to help prevent fraudulent criminal activity in our welfare system?
9. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his statement that “there may well be” a relief rig present during the drilling of Anadarko’s exploratory deep sea oil wells; if so, can he guarantee that there will be a relief rig?
10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Has he briefed the Cabinet on the progress and details of negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement; if not, why not?
11. MOANA MACKEY to the Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with all the comments made by her colleague the Minister for Energy and Resources, Hon Simon Bridges, on Campbell Live last night relating to the regulation and risk management of offshore oil and gas exploration?
12. Dr JIAN YANG to the Associate Minister of Health: What initiatives is the Government taking to address mental health?

Today Labour are asking four questions. These are about the economic development of New Zealand outside of Auckland, the responsibilities of the Minister of Education, Housing and oil drilling. The Greens are asking about the Mighty River Power share float, and oil drilling. New Zealand First is asking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

The patsy of the day award goes to Mike Sabin for Question 8: What new measures have recently begun to help prevent fraudulent criminal activity in our welfare system?

Government Bills 3.ooPM-6.00PM and 7.30PM-10.ooPM

1. Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill – Second Reading

2. Maritime Transport Amendment Bill – Third Reading

3. Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill – Third Reading

The Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for ICT, Amy Adams.  This bill seeks to repeal and replace the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act 2004 in order to ensure that interception obligations applying to the telecommunications industry are clear, do not impose unnecessary compliance costs, and are sufficiently flexible to respond to current and future operational needs and technological developments. It also seeks to require network operators to engage with the Government on network security matters, inform the Government of certain proposed decisions, courses of action, or changes in relation to an area of “specified security interest”, and work with the Government to apply any specific risk-based and proportionate security measures. David wrote about the bill earlier here.

The Maritime Transport Amendment Bill and Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill (formerly the Marine Legislation Bill) are being guided through the house by the Minister of Transport, Gerry Brownlee.  This is an omnibus bill in two parts. Part 1 seeks to amend the Maritime Transport Act 1994; part 2 seeks to amend the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. The Maritime Transport Act would be amended to provide for local regulation of maritime safety and maritime-related activities by regional councils; to regulate alcohol consumption by seafarers; to implement four international maritime conventions; to create offences and prescribe penalties for the improper operation of ships; and to make other miscellaneous changes.

Maori TV report:

Over the last 20 years, 1 billion taxpayer dollars has been directed towards Kōhanga Reo. 

For seven weeks Native Affairs has investigated allegations of financial mismanagement by some at the very top of the Kōhanga Reo movement.

For seven weeks the Kōhanga Reo National Trust has refused to answer our questions about how it’s managing taxpayer money meant for mokopuna.

Not only did it refuse to answer the questions raised by our investigation, it went to the High Court to try and stop us broadcasting our report.

On Wednesday the Trust backed down, but by taking court action, Trust officials were ordered to make sworn statements about the spending.  Those affidavits raise serious questions about the use of public funds and they’re contained in our report.

Native Affairs pursued this story because the Kōhanga Reo Movement is recognised as one of the single most powerful forces in reviving te reo Māori me ōna tikanga. 

30 years ago, the Kōhanga Reo Movement sowed its first seed at Pukeatua near Wellington.  From there language nests spread reigniting our peoples passion to regenerate our native tongue.

Not only did the language nests provide learning, Kōhanga often double as a place of refuge for our tamariki, a place where they can be fed kept warm and nourished.  

Last month Native Affairs reported how the Trust has $13mil in the bank while Kōhanga Reo around the country struggle to get by.  How the Trust extends personal loans to its staff and directors.

This special report takes us further into the personal expenditure of two people at the top of the Kōhanga Trust and its wholly-owned subsidiary,Te Pātaka Ōhanga.

They are Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi and her daughter in-law, Lynda Tawhiwhirangi.

It details spending never normally seen by anyone outside the Kōhanga elite.  The records cover only a 15-month period – it’s a snapshot of what appears to be a culture of extravagance.

Bravo to Maori TV for fine investigative journalism and not allowing legal threats to stop them.

The well financed trust has a self-perpetuating board, with effective life-time appointments. This has no doubt led to a culture of entitlement and a lack of recognition about the boundaries between trust and personal finances.

The Herald reports some details:

Two leaders of a state-funded organisation whose objective is to help children learn te reo Maori have been accused of using charity credit cards for personal spending, including on a wedding dress and gifts.

Ministers said last night they would meet the Kohanga Reo National Trust over allegations raised in a Native Affairs investigation into the spending by board member Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi and daughter-in-law Lynda Tawhiwhirangi.

The Maori Television show detailed thousands of dollars of spending, including Lynda Tawhiwhirangi’s purchase of a wedding dress for her daughter in 2011, a Trelise Cooper dress in 2012, and withdrawals that included $1000 for a hui that she did not attend.

The women defended their spending in sworn affidavits as either justified purchases or genuine mistakes.

Lynda Tawhiwhirangi, who is the general manager of the trust’s charity-status subsidiary Te Pataka Ohanga (TPO), said the $1000 koha was still in a safe, and she had repaid the money for the dresses later.

An educational trust is not a bank for personal loans.

Stats NZ have released the regional population changes. The average annual change from 2006 to 2013 for each region is:

1. Auckland 1.2%
2. Nelson 1.1%
3. Waikato 0.8%
4. Tasman 0.8%
5. Taranaki 0.7%
6. Wellington 0.7%
7. Otago 0.6%
8. Bayof Plenty 0.6%
9. Canterbury 0.5%
10. Southland 0.4%
11. West Coast 0.4%
12. Hawke’s Bay 0.3%
13. Northland 0.3%
14. Marlborough 0.3%
15. Manawatu-Wanganui 0.0%
16. Gisborne -0.3%

The Auckland growth of 1.2% just over half of the growth rate the Auckland Council are using in their plans. Unless there is some reason to think the change is temporary, their plans should incorporate the new data.

The only region to shrink is Gisborne, which is good. A shrinking regional population makes it very hard to attract jobs and investment.

Of the 68 territorial authorities, 18 shrunk and 50 grew. The Ruapehu District shrunk the most at an annual average of 1.9% a year and the Selwyn District grew the most at 4.1% a year,

Within Auckland the smallest growth was 0.6% a year in five board areas. Albert-Eden had the lowest growth. The highest growth was in Upper Harbour at 3.3% a year.

At an area unit level Burwood has had a 63% reduction in population over seven years, Middlemore 62%, Kaiapoi East 59%, Cathedral Square 54%.

The biggest growth is Mission Heights from 48 people to 2,532 which is a 5175% growth over seven years.

UPDATE: Rather embarrassing for David Cunliffe that yesterday he was saying to the Taranaki Daily News:

Taranakians are leaving the province in droves because they’re being forgotten by the National Government, Labour leader David Cunliffe says.

Mr Cunliffe said Census data released today would show a widespread exodus from the regions as provincial New Zealanders flee forgotten small towns.

He said these towns had been gutted by the hands off approach of the National Government.

That’s an epic fail. Instead Taranaki grew by 0.7% a year, which is the fifth largest in the country. Does this mean David Cunliffe will now “blame” National for the 5,484 extra people now living in Taranaki over the last seven years? That compares to just 1,266 extra people in Taranaki in the five years before that (2001 to 2006).

The lesson for the Labour leader is wait until the data is released before you spin it. Telling the local paper the figures would show an exodus when it fact shows population growth three times stronger than the previous period is again a rather epic fail.

Some fascinating details of how the alleged electoral fraud by a Labour local body candidate occurred.

Michael Field at Stuff reports:

In the High Court in Auckland today Labour Party member and Sikh leader Daljit Singh faces 20 charges of forging documents to change residential addresses showing that people from places like Timaru and Tauranga appeared to live in the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board area.

Singh was a candidate in the first super city election in 2010.

“In a sentence, he and his associates . . . carried out a fraud in the election system to try and assist Daljit Singh,” Crown prosecutor Robin McCoubrey told the jury of 10 women and two men.

Also appearing are Gurinder Atwall, Davinder Singh, Mandeep Singh, Virender Singh, Paramjit Singh, Malkeet Singh and Harmesh Singh who face fewer forgery charges. They also pleaded not guilty.

McCoubrey said that at the time the Electoral Enrolment Centre (EEC) made it “rather easy” for people to go online and change their electoral address.

He said Daljit Singh and Atwall, who he called Singh’s “right-hand man,” used the names of Sikhs to go on to the EEC’s website.

Once there they would change the address, to the local board area where Daljit Singh was standing, and then download a declaration form which they signed and submitted.

“The vast majority of those whose addresses were changed were unaware it was happening,” McCoubrey said.

If this is what occured, it would have had two effects. The first is to allow fraudalant votes to be cast on behalf of the “moved” voters for presumably Daljit Singh.

The second is that it effectively stole a vote from those “moved” voters in that they would no longer be eligible to vote in their actual local area – and worse would not be able to vote in the parliamentary elections. They’d turn up to vote and find they are not on the local electoral roll.

McCoubrey said the EEC became suspicious when they saw unusual patterns in address changes.

They noticed a large number of voters were registered to the same address. They also found that they were coming from the same Internet Provider addresses, or same computers, and these were from Daljit Singh’s home and from Atwall.

If the allegations are correct, that was a very dumb move doing it from home.

McCoubrey gave the jury an example of six people in Timaru who had their addresses changed.

The declaration form submitted for five of them was found to have come from Daljit Singh’s computer while the sixth came from his office.

They were allegedly shifting people from Timaru!

Evidence would also be produced of text and phone calls that could be linked to the submission of address-change forms.

That will be interesting.

Amy Adams has announced:

Communications and Information Technology Minister Amy Adams has today tabled a Supplementary Order Paper to make further improvements to the  Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. …

Clause 39 of the proposed Bill currently allows the responsible Minister to direct that a network operator must not resell an overseas telecommunications service in New Zealand where the interception capability, or lack of interception capability, raises a significant risk to law enforcement or national security.

It is proposed to remove Clause 39 from the Bill altogether, and, instead, matters of non-compliance could be addressed through the compliance framework.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with the partnership approach between the GCSB and network operators to protect network security.

To ensure that this interaction occurs in a timely manner, it is proposed to introduce the ability for the Minister responsible for the GCSB to make regulations that require decisions to be made under specific timeframes, in the event that decisions are not being made in a sufficiently timely way.

It is also proposed to narrow the scope of the matters that must be notified to the GCSB, reducing compliance costs for network operators.

As a last resort, where network operators and the GCSB are unable to agree on how to respond to a network security risk, Clause 54 of the Bill currently provides that the responsible Minister may issue a direction.

Before the GCSB can ask the Minister to make a direction, a further check and balance will be introduced.  The Commissioner of Security Warrants will now be required to carry out an independent review of the material that informed the GCSB’s risk assessment, and report on whether, in their opinion, the risk amounts to a significant risk to national security.

These looks like very welcome changes. The requirement for the Commissioner of Security Warrants (currently former Court of Appeal Judge Sir Bruce Robertson) to do an independent review in the very very unlikely event of the Government believing that what a network operator is planning could threaten national security, is sound.

“Although public input has resulted in significant improvements to the Bill, some of the submissions received did not reflect an accurate understanding of what the Bill does and does not do,” Ms Adams says.

“In particular, I would like to reassure people that this Bill does not change the authority of agencies to intercept telecommunications, it does not change existing privacy protections, and it does not require data to be stored or require stored data to be disclosed. The Bill only relates to real time interception.

This is a key point that many have missed – it is about real-time interception. The major users of this ability are the Police for ongoing criminal investigations.

There’s also a comparison table between the current law (TIC Act) and this proposed law (TICS Bill). I think they show that in some areas the law change actually reduces compliance costs on ISPs. There is no expansion of powers in terms of surveillance. There is an expansion in terms of the GCSB’s role in syber-security where they can (ultimately) ask for a Government order if they believe a proposed action would be a threat to national security.

Ironically that proposed power has its genesis in the opposition scaremongering over Huawei winning some contracts in New Zealand. They kept demanding the Government do something on the basis the Australian Government had excluded them from the NBN build there. The Government doesn’t believe there are any national security issues around Huawei, but it was the scaremongering that highlighted that even if there were, they actually had no power to exclude a company that did have national security issues. So a bit rich for opposition MPs to complain about a clause that their scaremongering created.

There’s still some elements of the bill which I’m not enthusiastic on. I don’t think ISPs (or network operators) should have to register with the GCSB as it sets a bad precedent. As far as I know there’s never been an issue with locating an ISP, and its directors. I’d prefer that clause to be removed. As I said, a precedent of an ISP needing to register with the Government is not healthy – even if well intentioned.

But the SOP by Amy Adams is a significant improvement to the bill, especially having the Commissioner of Security Warrants do an independent assessment if there is ever a stand off between the Government and an ISP over a proposed network build decision.

Also a useful read are these two diagrams showing how the interception and network security processes will work.

Stuff reports:

A month after he became Labour leader, David Cunliffe is yet to name his chief press secretary. Former Helen Clark spin doctor David Lewis, who worked on Auckland Mayor Len Brown’s election campaign, has ruled it out and David Shearer’s top spinner Julian Robins has moved on. So far Mr Cunliffe has appointed former EPMU spokesman Neale Jones as communications boss, while Chris Harrington, ex-British High Commission, is on contract.

I understand an offer has been made to a former Editor of the Sunday Star-Times but that negotiations with her are on-going in terms of salary.

If Cunliffe gets her, that will be a significant strengthening of his office.