News.com.au takes a fascinating look inside the Rudd Campaign. It seems beyond dysfunctional. Highlgights:

• Critics joke that by the end of the campaign the Rudd flying circus may consist of Hawker and Rudd literally piloting the plane, so centralised is the decision-making by the two old mates.
• To raise morale, staff at CHQ are encouraged to clap each other. In the event of a daily “win”, staff stand around applauding their colleagues.
• All policy is being made up on the road, with no one wanting to disagree with Bruce or Kevin for fear of being fired.
• “The message of the day sent out from CHQ to seat directors never matches what Kevin stands up and says.
• The Canberra press office is even worse off, not even CHQ filling them in, press secretaries there are left to wander the gallery with no information on what is happening that day, relying on watching Sky News to piece the day’s message together. It’s a complete shambles.”

I’ve been involved in some some shambolic campaigns, but nothing approaching this horror story!

Stuff reports:

Robertson was first up to speak and invoked the memory of former Labour Prime Minster Norman Kirk, by promising a government he lead would fulfil Kirk’s dream of a home and a job for everyone.

On Saturday Grant just promised jobs for everyone, plus a living wage of $18.40 for all. He’s now gone one better and is promising a house for everyone also. By Monday will it be a car for everyone also?

Cunliffe also reiterated the promise of a living wage and talked about the plight of taxi drivers living on $4.50 an hour.

So even if one accepts this is correct (I doubt it), what will Labour’s policy be to fix this? Shoot or sack every second taxi driver so the survivors have more jobs? Or set a minimum price for taxi services? Make it illegal for a taxi firm to charge less than $5 a minute?

From Q+A today:

SHANE Number one, I will not write one single cheque the Labour Party cannot cash. Get that right from me. Secondly, there are some bastions that need to be overcome. The brown shirts of the food industry are the supermarkets. Under my leadership, they will be reviewed, and if it’s necessary to regulate them to bring the cost of food down, take my word, we will do it.

So Shane says the supermarket chains are akin to Nazis, and he thinks the Government should regulate the price of food.

Sigh.

DAVID What we did last time round was 39 cents with a pretty high threshold of $150,000, so we weren’t hitting middle New Zealand. We had a top rate for the wealthiest. We’ve got to be very careful to make sure that the trust rate is at or close to the top marginal personal rate, because we don’t want to create an avoidance—

So Cunliffe says the trust rate may also increase to 39%. Will they also increase the company tax rate to 39%?

DAVID What about a new civilian conservation corps to use carbon credits to subsidise the planting of trees up and down some of those dry areas on our east coast? We could get a whole lot of young New Zealanders out there on the hills planting trees and creating the Kaingaroa of tomorrow. The economics are pretty good if you get a carbon price of around $20. I think that’s a project worth pushing.

Oh dear, this could cost hundreds of millions. You see the global carbon price is not $20. It is 4.7 Euros. And in NZ it is even lower at 41c.

GRANT I’m about maximising the Labour vote, but let’s remember there’s never been a single party government under MMP. We will have to work with somebody. We’ve got a lot in common with the Greens, and we’ve got differences with them. We’ve got a lot in common with New Zealand First, and we’ve got differences with them. The voters will decide, but I’m with Shane. There has to be a four at the start of the Labour vote.

So two of the three candidates are pledging to get Labour to 40% or higher. They will get a honeymoon boost, but let’s see where things are early next year.

The Nelson Mail reports:

Nelson mayor Aldo Miccio has been found in breach of election rules and received a ticking off from the electoral officer.

A complaint was made by Gaire Thompson about how Mr Miccio obtained email addresses and why campaign material headed Miccio4mayor was sent with its mailing address as 110 Trafalgar St which is the city council’s Civic House.

The use of the Council address as his campaign address is not that serious, but is very stupid. What was he thinking.

But the more serious issue is this:

Mr Thompson said he had never opted to receive the email sent to him by the mayor’s campaign team.

However, he had given his email address at the consultation meeting held last week at the council chambers on the council’s proposed sale of Wakatu Square land for the development of a building for a new Farmers store.

He gave it so the council could send updates on the consultation.

Mr Thompson attended as he owns the Trafalgar St property of the existing Farmers store.

His wife and several others who attended the consultation also received the Miccio4mayor email, he said. …

Council staff had collected the email addresses at the Uniquely Nelson event at the council chamber in case of any follow up, said Mr Miccio.

“That week we were doing a newsletter on the Farmers proposal, I thought because of the number of questions it would be useful to get the information to those people.”

He said he was given the list and sent the newsletter to those people.

“Would I do the same thing again? I probably would,” he said.

“I don’t see it as being a major issue.

This is outrageous.  If he was a commercial operation, he would be in breach of the spam act. As it stands I believe Miccio and the Council are in breach of the Privacy Act as they are using private information not for the purpose it was given.

What is disturbing is the Mayor says he would do it again.

It is totally inappropriate for e-mail addresses given to the Council for a Council purpose, be given to the Mayor for him to use for his private campaign. That is appalling. It is using ratepayer resources to advantage the incumbent.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

Stuff reports:

Foodstuffs Wellington and Auckland have merged today to form Foodstuffs North Island.

The merger means Foodstuffs, the 90-year-old New Zealand co-operative that owns the Pak ‘n Save, New World and Four Square brands, now operates two entities in New Zealand – Foodstuffs North Island and Foodstuffs South Island.

The combination plan was announced in February and in July member owner-operators unanimously voted in favour of the merger. Last month the High Court gave its approval.

New Foodstuffs North Island managing director Murray Jordan said the merger would lead to better customer experience, more stores and associated jobs in local communities.

Both customers and members of Foodstuffs North Island would benefit from all operations running off one IT system and the integration of back office functions, Jordan said.

As a result of the integration, Foodstuffs North Island would be able to launch online shopping for its New World brand, he said. That’s something Foodstuffs’ competitor Progressive Enterprises already offers for its Countdown brand.

That will be good. I use Countdown online shopping and they are pretty good. However competition will be a good thing, and having two competing online supermarket chains should see more discounted food, and possibly cheaper delivery fees.

Stuff has a story from the Sydney Morning Herald about the killing of six year old Kiesha Weippart by her mother.

It’s a very long story, giving all the background of the family, and the mother especially. Very very sad.

I read the story twice, and tried to think of how you would stop what happened, happening in future, short of a parenting licence.

It is easy to vilify the mother, and she deserves it. But also easy to feel sorry for her, as she has had such a wretched life herself with her mother dead at 10, constant domestic violence, and her father abandoning her.

Stuff reports:

Leading legal experts are disgusted that Arthur Allan Thomas and his family are again under scrutiny in an inquiry into the Crewe murders.

Wait. Are they saying that because Thomas was found not guilty, that his family are automatically cleared also?

And legal experts are in fact divided, not disgusted.

“The fabrication of evidence against Arthur Allan Thomas was the blackest day in the history of the New Zealand police force, and they should be full of remorse, and they should be trying to make amends,” said Peter Williams QC, Thomas’ former lawyer.

“It disgusts me if they are trying to drag his name through the mud again,” he said.

I agree on the fabrication of evidence being despicable. But how are the Police dragging his name through the mud by interviewing him and his family? It is the family that went rushing to the media that generated the publicity.

“To turn Rochelle’s application for an inquiry into a rehearing of the evidence against Thomas, if they are trying to do that, is repugnant to any citizen’s sense of justice. It is absolutely despicable,” Williams said.

Thomas is a material witness in the case, even if he is not the killer. How could the Police be doing their job if they do not talk to him?

However, the president of the Criminal Bar Association, Tony Bouchier, said police must be able to interview Arthur Thomas again to conduct the inquiry properly.

“What we have is an unsolved murder the police have undertaken to have a look at again.

“In that regard, when there are questions to be put to people, whether they are the Allan Thomas family or not, those questions need to be put.”

So that legal expert says the Police are acting perfectly properly.

But no matter what police find, Arthur Thomas can never be retried.

Law reforms in 2009 allowing defendants to be retried even if they are acquitted of murder do not apply to the Thomas case.

Personally I think it was probably Len Demler, but we will never know.

The HoS reports:

Kiwi expatriates are earning a fortune overseas, and barely one-tenth say they would be comfortable raising a family back home on New Zealand wages.

For the first time – according to an extensive annual survey released this weekend – more than half our expats are earning $100,000 a year or more.

Kiwis are hitting the jackpot in high-tech, engineering and financial sectors as the overseas experience becomes permanent in North America, Asia and Australia.

Kea, the expatriate network for New Zealanders, polled more than 30,000 people living abroad for its latest survey, Every Kiwi Counts.

Nearly half of the respondents hadn’t returned home in the last year – and only 46 per cent said they “definitely or probably” would return to live here.

New Zealand’s lifestyle and relatively clean environment have often tempered concerns about the brain drain. But while most expats agree their homeland is beautiful and safe, that isn’t nearly enough to lure them back.

No surprise many Kiwis earn more overseas. Almost everyone takes a pay drop when they return home. Of course with some on the left advocating no person should be able to earn more than three times the average wage, and calls to tax rich pricks more, that won’t help.

In 2008, Prime Minister John Key campaigned hard on stemming the brain drain but has more recently spoke of a “brain exchange” when defending his Government’s record.

His office this week said migration patterns were far more positive than detractors believed.

Statistics NZ reports the country gained 2,000 migrants in July, the highest inflow in four years. The net loss of 1,200 migrants to Australia in the same month was the smallest such loss in four years.

“The number of New Zealanders returning home is also increasing, which reflects improving opportunities as the economy picks up,” a spokeswoman for Key said.

Key’s office also said economic growth, at 2.4 per cent over the last year, was keeping pace with Australia – “and economists are forecasting growth to increase, driven by rising consumer and business confidence, and a lift in construction”.

Monthly figures can be variable. I prefer to look at the seasonally adjusted annual figures. Also best to look at just migration patterns of NZ citizens, as that excludes new migrants, which can change due to government policy.

The level of NZ citizens leaving changes a lot over time. It peaked in 2001, hit a low in 2003, and then constantly grew until 2009 when it fell to an almost new low. Over the next two years it increased again to near record levels, but in the last year has been falling away.

The level of NZers returning home varies between 20,000 and 30,000 a year. At the moment it is increasing also.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

The pork barrels have been rolled out in the Labour Party leadership battle, with Grant Robertson promising to introduce a “living wage” of more than $18 an hour for all government workers.

He told 350 party members and unionists in Levin yesterday that he would set a timeframe to phase in the living wage, which is currently set at $18.40 an hour for a family to live without suffering poverty.

He also pledged to lift the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour and repeal all of National’s industrial relations laws.

All? So there goes the 90 day trial law, which would make us almost the only country in the OECD not to have one.

With 20% of the vote, the contenders are forced to promise the unions everything they want.

Robertson later said he did not yet know the full cost of his promise, and that would determine how soon it could be introduced.

Who needs to worry about cost! Just send the bill to the taxpayers!

Robertson’s announcement gazumped rival David Cunliffe, who was expected to make similar announcements at the two meetings in Auckland today.

Cunliffe declared he, too, would repeal employment relations laws, and introduce a Government-wide living wage over time.

If one of them declared that they will nationalise the banks and ban all foreign investment in New Zealand, I suspect the other will have pledged to do the same by the end of the meeting based on how loud the cheers are.

“It will be a strong package of policies that will put unions back in the centre of the fight for equality.”

He denied it was simply an attempt to court the union vote, saying the party had always held a strong role in industrial relations.

“It has an industrial wing and a political wing. We will win when those two wings fly together.”

What this means is that Labour passes laws to benefit unions, and unions use their extra funds to help Labour stay in power so that Labour can keep passing laws to benefit them. At the last election unions represented the vast bulk of the third party spending.

The third leadership contender, Shane Jones, focused on the need to build up small-town New Zealand.

He said he would focus more on Pasifika and working-class issues at today’s South Auckland meeting and “more intellectual” issues for the audience in West Auckland.

Intellectual issues for West Auckland? And if there is a forum at Wainuiomata, he’ll talk about his arts policy there I guess 🙂

Just got back from Levin where they had the first of 12 meetings for Labour members and affiliates to hear the leadership contenders and ask questions.

Media were invited to the speeches part, hence why I went along. They initially said I could not report on it, as they get to decide who is and is not media. But then a compromise was done where I could report on it from just outside the building. I was more than happy with the compromise, as it was in fact nicer in the sun than in a crowded room.

Labour had around 300 people there, which is pretty impressive for a meeting in Levin. They’ll be pretty happy with that.

There are stories up on NZ Herald and Stuff on the speeches.

Shane Jones was first up. He used a couple of his previous lines, including taking on the $50 million gorilla which went down well. The key thrust of his speech was that he is the only candidate who can reclaim or recover the territory Labour used to have, which National now has. He spoke on the need for more regional development and said that does involve mining and drilling (not those exact words though). Called himself the embodiment of both old and new NZ, and related his mixed heritage.

He finished with saying that the real enemy was apathy (I thought it was the gorilla!), and had a classic line about how he wants Labour to get over 40% so that it doesn’t need a Green urologist to lift them up!

A good speech from Shane, which played to his strengths. I would be surprised if he got a lot of votes though. A reasonable level of applause at times, and at the end.

Second up was David Cunliffe. He started a bit subdued, but this may have been deliberate to avoid going over the top like at his campaign launch.  He spent most of the first half attacking the Government and saying that for 250,000 kids in poverty the Kiwi Dream is a nightmare. Lots of applause. He said the current kids may be the first generation to end up worse off than their parents and said Labour is the best hope for restoring the dreams.

He also borrowed from Helen, and called the Key Government corrosive. Then he showed he had done his homework by quoting regional unemployment stats and finally pledged to abolish the Kapiti Expressway if elected PM (not quite sure how that will help create local jobs!).

He also played to his strength by saying Labour managed economy well when last in Govt, and would do so again with him. said National focuses too much on welfare fraud and not enough on tax evasion, which was very popular. Tried to deal with the JAFA issue by saying he was born in the Waikato. He concluded by saying the red tide is rising and will take NZ forward. I almost expected them to start singing the international socialist song!

Overall a very good speech, that went down very well with the members there. One member tweeted that while he liked the speech, Cunliffe mainly repeated Labour policy and didn’t make the case for why he, not the others, should be leader.

Finally they/we heard from Grant Robertson. He started low key but got people warmed up with a joke about how John Key had said the leadership contest is a reality TV show. he pointed out reality TV shows are popular and that John Key has his own show, called You Are The Weakest Link – which of course they loved.

Grant obviously decided there is no way he was going to let Cunliffe be seen as the candidate of the left, so he pledged in quick order full employment, a living wage for all and a 50% female quota for caucus. They cheered and cheered.

The living wage commitment was specific – he will give a date by which every state agency must pay every employee at least a living wage (over $18 an hour) and also every contracted company to them must do the same. This is basically a 40% pay increase for every cleaner. By no coincidence, the room was full of Service and Food Worker members, many of whom are no doubt cleaners.

Grant also pledged to repeal National’s employment law changes, which again went down well. Then he had another line on how Steven Joyce thinks economic development is a night out at Sky City.

Grant’s use of humour to attack Key and Joyce is, for my money, an effective strategy. Just calling them evil uncaring people won’t convince anyone but the base. Humour used effectively though can undermine.

Then at the end Grant spoke on the need to win the next election at all costs, and how Labour needs to be unified to do that, and he is the person who can lead and unify the party.

I thought at the end of it, that Grant clearly was best on the day. Cunliffe was very good, but Robertson excelled. he got the mix of policy, rhetoric, humour and “why me” just right. Cunliffe did a great attack speech, but didn’t make the case so effectively for why it should be him.

The danger for Robertson is that if Cunliffe clearly outclassed him at the first debate, or two, then the uncommitted MPs and unions would swing behind Cunliffe as the likely victor. I think he did more than enough to keep the contest very finely balanced.

After the speeches, they went into committee for the Q+A. Amusingly they kept the doors open so one could hear everything said outside if you tried to listen to it (I didn’t).

Chatted to a few people afterwards, and the consensus seemed to be that Robertson performed the best. However 11 more meetings to go.

What really struck me was how far left Grant was prepared to go to head off Cunliffe. This is in fact quite good for National. If Grant wins, he is on record at pledging to effectively increase the minimum wage to over $18, and to have a gender quota for caucus, plus full employment. I love how he pledges 40% pay increases plus full employment! What will be interesting is if Cunliffe tries to match these pledges. He did unilaterally announce the scrapping of the Kapiti Expressway so by the end of their campaign, I hate to think what they will be promising – all motorways closed down, rail for all, jobs for all, and $29 an hour minimum wage!

The Herald interviews the contenders. Some extracts:

Q: What is the first thing you would do as Labour’s leader?

• Shane Jones: Upgrade the Leader’s Office, get some smart people in there and get a professional office manager so that the Leader’s Office is a permanent man-o’-war.

Harsh. Jones has just implied the current office has no smart people in there.

Q: Is the Green Party making too many gains at Labour’s expense? If so, what will you do about it?

• Shane Jones: I am going to harvest and find my votes in Middle Earth – not flat earth.

A great line!

Q: Why is Labour not connecting with voters?

• David Cunliffe: The first task is to ensure our own party base is enthusiastically behind the leadership and policies. We also need to give the 800,000 who didn’t vote last time a reason to believe. And we need to restore the confidence of many people who used to vote Labour, but drifted to the Green Party or voted Labour under Helen Clark but have gone to National under John Key.

• Shane Jones: There is an unfortunate perception that Labour is dominated by middle-class intellectuals who no longer know how to relate to the bloke lugging meat at 4 in the morning into the supermarket or the woman putting her kids off to school before they go and work two jobs in a day. A lot of politics is about emotionally connecting with people. One way of connecting is for them to see a bit of themselves in the personality putting his hand up to do the work.

• Grant Robertson: We’ve struggled to get a clear direct message that speaks to people’s everyday lives and to connect our values with the policies we are putting forward. I do believe we’ve got a good mix of policies, with more to come. The challenge is articulating them in a way New Zealanders say “my life will be better under a Labour Government”. I think I can do that.

Effectively Cunliffe is saying he will energise the base, Jones is saying he will expand the base and Robertson is saying he’ll change little and just communicate better than Shearer.

I thought Shane Jones was the most economically sensible Labour leadership contender but maybe not. Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

If he becomes Prime Minister, one of Shane Jones’ first moves will be to deliver a one-fingered salute to Australia by extending Labour’s policy restricting overseas-based foreigners from buying property in New Zealand to include Australians.

That would be a breach of CER, and imagine if Australia responded by banning Kiwis from being able to buy property in Australia? Shows how bad economic literacy is in Labour, when even Shane Jones is coming out with such idiocy.

Labour’s policy, which is aimed at preventing foreign speculators from pushing up house prices, currently excludes Australians, partly because of the Closer Economic Relations agreement and because Canberra’s similar restriction on foreign buyers does not include New Zealanders.

We want fewer barriers between Australia and NZ, not more.

Mr Robertson said National’s changes to the law were particularly hard on vulnerable people, such as those in the cleaning and catering areas, and he would repeal them swiftly. He said that in his first months in office, he would also bring together a “summit” of business, community, Maori and other leaders to work on a manifesto. His government would agree to be held accountable for the results of that summit.

Is Grant saying he would implement what ever comes out of that summit? I thought Labour were against out-sourcing, but now they want to outsource their manifesto!

Stuff reports:

The long quest to build a Lord of the Rings museum in Wellington appears close to an end, with city councillor John Morrison confirming plans for a site in the city centre.

Mr Morrison, a mayoral candidate and leader of the council’s events portfolio, said Sir Peter Jackson’s team was investigating two possible sites, which he understood to be Shed 1 on the waterfront and the old CitiOps building at the southern end of Tory St.

Planning was still in the early stages, but it was an exciting prospect, he said.

“From a Wellington point of view, we’re very thrilled about it being in Wellington. We’re not involved directly, but we’ve had a very interested eye on this process. …

A film museum would be a big draw for Wellington tourism. A Lord of the Rings exhibition at Te Papa in 2002, returning in 2006, drew 325,000 people and remains its most popular exhibit.

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy gave New Zealand visitor numbers a big boost, from 1.8 million in 2000 to 2.4 million in 2006.

Positively Wellington Tourism chief executive David Perks said it would present a great opportunity.

The Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit had become a big part of the Wellington story.

“A permanent attraction around film would give us a way of telling those stories every day of the year.

An LOTR museum would be hugely popular. I recall the Te Papa exhibition, which was excellent.

Stuff reports:

A Vietnamese air passenger is facing prosecution by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) after trying to smuggle live tropical fish into New Zealand in his trouser pockets.

New Zealand Customs officials noticed the man’s cargo pants had bulging pockets with water dripping through the fabric when he arrived at Auckland airport this week from Australia.

The passenger said he was carrying water from the plane because he was thirsty.

When asked to show what was in his pockets, the passenger revealed two plastic bags containing water and seven live fish.

I’m almost impressed that he flew 10 hours with two bags of fish in water in his pockets! If only they had not leaked!

Grant Duncan wrote in the Herald:

Leadership does matter in politics. So does the underlying strategy. And it’s fairly clear what Labour’s chosen political direction is, regardless of which leadership contestant wins.

Labour has been torn between two strategic options. The all-important centre of New Zealand politics is the battleground for swing-votes. If a Labour-Green duo is to get the numbers to form a government, one option is for Labour to capture a greater share of those voters. …

Labour’s other option is to go for those who may not vote at all. That sounds funny perhaps, but in 2011 the non-voters were about one third of those eligible. That’s enough to win an election, if only you can mobilise them. These people tend to be young, lower-income, and/or Maori or Pasifika.

They are broadly the two strategic options.

Of all three candidates, David Cunliffe is best placed to appeal to voters in the centre. He has good experience as a Cabinet minister, and can tackle Key in the House. His background in business and economics is solid, and he enjoys a comfortable middle-class lifestyle.

But Cunliffe has made it clear that the centre is not his target audience. His speech announcing his bid for the leadership emphasised the young and the vulnerable, and schools, hospitals and homes. This is solid Labour social democratic territory, and calls for strong state organisation and taxation. And he hinted that he’d lift the minimum wage.

But while Cunliffe has made a pitch to the left, his waspish look and policy-wonkish tone may not inspire the low-income constituency that Labour seeks to mobilise.

Grant Robertson is undoubtedly a strong performer too. He is capable of taking on Key in the House and he comes across extremely well in the media. He’s electable, but relatively young and lacks ministerial experience. His appeal is more to the urban liberal-left – or those who probably vote Labour anyway.

Whichever leader it goes for, Labour is now pitching for the “unclaimed” disfranchised left. This leaves it open to Mr Key’s barb that the election “will be a centre-right government of six years of proven quality, versus a kind of far-left opposition”.

National must be happy Labour isn’t contesting the centre this time around.

Labour, Greens and Mana scrapping over the left vote is excellent.

Labour’s nightmares could return at the next election if, despite its best efforts, those low-income neighbourhoods just don’t turn out to vote for Labour. They may not hear or believe the message about hope and equality, and they may not see Labour’s leader as representing anything new or hopeful or relevant. Heavy rain on election day could be enough to tip the balance.

John Key has not yet reached that unhappy threshold where the factors that led middle New Zealanders to support him turn into reasons for no longer liking him.

So chances are we will see a National-NZ First government after the next election

It is hard to see Winston voting to make the Greens Ministers. Also hard to see Winston voting to keep John Key in the job. Who knows what he will do, if he makes it back. Also of course National may rule out Winston again – we’ll find out next year.

Nigel Stirling writes at Farmers Weekly:

NewstalkZB reports:

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by the Child Poverty Action Group which challenged the Government’s in-work tax credit, saying it discriminated against beneficiaries.

The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) had said the credit, which is worth at least $60 a week and applies only to working parents, not those on a benefit, was unjustified discrimination.

The challenge was the subject of a court hearing in the Court of Appeal in May.

CPAG alleged the “off-benefit rule” that the in-work tax credit was available only to those in full-time employment who were not receiving an income-tested benefit breached the Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of employment status.

CPAG took the case to the Court of Appeal after both The Human Rights Review Tribunal and the High Court ruled against it.

The Court of Appeal said while it disagreed with the High Court on one aspect of the appeal, it did not affect the final outcome.

The Court of Appeal found that the off-benefit rule, on its face, subjected beneficiaries to different treatment that amounted to a material disadvantage but the rule ultimately did not breach the Bill of Rights.

“This is because the in-work tax credit deliberately created an earnings gap between people on a benefit and people who are working. The objective was to incentivise people into work and improve incomes for families with children,” the Court of Appeal judges said in their decision released today.

Thank goodness for that. It would have been ridiculous to have had the courts say that the Government can not pay a working family (who have costs such as travel to work) more than a family on the benefit.

However Labour and Greens last election both campaigned to change the policy, so that beneficiary families can get the In-Work Tax Credit. I guess they’d have to rename it!

Mr Gall is a neutral public servant, employed by the Department of Conservation.

Whale reports Mr Gall is being investigated for his comments.

Putting aside the nastiness of what Mr Gall has said, he is also wrong. John Key has done nothing to Megaupload. The US Government took action, not NZ. After criminal charges were laid, the NZ authorities were asked to assist in his arrest and extradition – as they are required to do under our extradition treaty. The PM had no part at all in any decision by the US Government or any decision by the NZ Police or assisting agencies.

The Guardian reports that the House of Commons has voted down by 285 to 272 a resolution authorising use of force in Syria. This is a huge embarrassment to David Cameron and his Government.  Cameron has said he will respect the decision. Around 30 Conservative MPs voted against.

I’m not totally surprised. I listen to the UK Today in Parliament on podcast almost every day, and in the past few months there have been many speeches from Conservative MPs expressing concern at the UK doing anything to help the rebels in Syria.

This will also be a big blow to Obama, who will have to act without their traditional ally. Of course he does have strong backing from most of the Arab League for action.

Jami-Lee Ross writes on Facebook:

Wonders never cease – a letter to the editor in today’s local paper seems to take aim at every working mother.

The writer complains that a local board member seeking reelection has had a baby while in office. He wonders how this is “humanly possible” while also working, then asks to see time sheets for “domestic chores”. 

Yes, the target of the letter is my wife, but I can still hear the 1950s calling for their grumpy old man back.

Hilarious. Sad, yet hilarious.

News.com.au reports:

In a dramatic and highly unusual move, the heads of Treasury and Finance issued a statement to distance themselves from claims the Coalition had a major financial hole in their election costings.

The intervention, just over a week from polling day, was welcomed by the Opposition, which has been under pressure to provide full details of its election costings, amid Labor claims of a major black hole.

Treasury head Martin Parkinson and Finance chief David Tune, in a joint statement, forced the Government on the defensive just hours after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had publicly accused the Coalition of a $10 billion “fraud”. …

Dr Parkinson and Mr Tune, both of whom were at a secretaries’ retreat in Canberra when the PM made the attack on the Coalition, undermined the Government’s central claims.

“These costings were not prepared under the election costings commitments’ process outlined in the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998,” they said.

“At no stage prior to the caretaker period has either department costed Opposition policies.”

This is highly unusual, to have the Treasury Secretary contradict the Prime Minister. But good on them for protecting the neutrality of the public service.