David Shearer has resigned as Leader of the Labour Party. He will remain an MP. At this stage it looks like Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe will both contest the leadership which means a full membership ballot with the caucus getting 40%, the members 405 and the unions 20%.

Looks like he got killed by his own snapper stunt, with that being the last straw. Which staffer’s idea was that I wonder?

The gallery reported he had until Spring (1 September) to perform or go, and it has come true.

Hamish Fletcher at NZ Herald reports:

Lawyer blames bankruptcy on legal aid move

A high-profile defence lawyer who was declared bankrupt yesterday owing about $550,000 to Inland Revenue said his business dwindled and client numbers dropped because of changes to the legal aid system.

Really? I am sure it is possible the changes affected his business but are they why he went bankrupt?

Jeremy Newland Bioletti, who represented disgraced lawyer Barry Hart and Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara during the “Urewera 4” trial, was adjudicated bankrupt yesterday by Justice Graham Lang in the High Court at Auckland. The application to bankrupt the 52-year-old barrister and solicitor was brought by the IRD, to which he owes about $550,000 in tax, interest and penalties.

The court heard that Mr Bioletti’s tax arrears dated back to 2006 and that his problems during this period were partly caused by some clients not paying their bills.

I also detest clients who don’t pay their bills. But I would also note that if someone is a bad debt, you no longer have to pay tax on the bill they didn’t pay. Of course it can affect profitability, but I am very suspicious that one ends up owing $550,000 in tax and penalties just because of bad debts. One can of course also sue your clients for their bad debts.

Mr Bioletti said outside court that a number of years ago he entered into arrangements with Inland Revenue to pay his tax bill. But when he entered into this deal people accused of complex fraud on legal aid could still pick the lawyer they wanted to represent them, he said.

Mr Bioletti said fraud was one of his specialties and that changes in 2010 meant people on legal aid accused of this sort of crime could no longer nominate the lawyer they wanted to represent them. Instead, lawyers for these cases were selected by legal services.

I’d be interested in how much debt was owing prior to the legal aid changes in 2010, and how much has been incurred since. My suspicion is the vast bulk was incurred prior to 2011 (when the changes were implemented), and may have already been at a level that could not be serviced.

Mr Bioletti said the bankruptcy would have a “pretty bad” effect on his family and that he would appeal against the adjudication.

The non payment of tax also has a pretty bad effect on all those who do pay their tax.

It’s sad to see anyone end up bankrupt, but I think blaming everyone else for what has happened is not the best strategy. Hopefully Mr Bioletti can get through the bankruptcy and carry on his legal career. In some ways bankruptcy can be preferable than having your debts remain a millstone for years to come. On the negative side, it obviously affects credit rating, ability to do certain jobs and run companies etc.

NewstalkZB reports:

The Auckland Council is today voting on a bylaw which could see beggars, illegal windscreen washers and buskers banned from the streets.

Auckland City Mission’s Diane Robertson says the bylaw is welcome, providing it is not misused.

She says the bylaw is about ensuring everyone feels safe.

“Everybody has the right to walk down the street and feel safe.

“I think on the same part, homeless people, people who are begging (and) people who are different are a part of our community, and so they have a right to do what they’re doing.”

Robertson hopes the bylaw is applied fairly.

“If people are causing a nuisance or are affecting public safety, then they can be moved on.

“But if they are just begging quietly, then this bylaw should not apply to them.”

The Onehunga Business Association’s Amanda Kinzett agrees, saying the law will only apply to those being disruptive.

“If someone’s just sitting down with their hat out, that’s different from someone that’s going straight up and being aggressive.”

I’d say the windscreen washers are the greatest menance!

The bylaw looks reasonable so long as it is only used against those actually being disruptive or threatening.

Stuff reports:

An employment case that could effectively raise the minimum wage for workers enrolled in KiwiSaver is being “watched closely” by employers, a lawyer says.

The case, which was heard in the Court of Appeal yesterday and could mean an extra $450 a year for those on the minimum wage, was described as of “considerable public interest” by one of three judges assigned to make a final ruling.

Lower Hutt caregivers Vasivasi Faitala and Dalrene Goff took employer TerraNova Homes & Care to court last year, arguing it was unfair that they had to pay their own and TerraNova’s KiwiSaver contributions under their employment agreement.

At the time, the women earned the minimum wage of $13.50 an hour, made up of $13.24 plus 26c for TerraNova’s KiwiSaver contributions.

Most employers pay the contributions on top of an employee’s salary, but some favour a “total remuneration” approach that includes their contribution, on the grounds that it treats all staff equally.

Although that approach was legal, Ms Faitala and Ms Goff argued it was a breach of the Minimum Wage Act, and the Employment Court agreed, ordering TerraNova to pay any compulsory contributions in addition to the workers’ gross salaries.

TerraNova’s lawyer, Elizabeth Coats, told the court yesterday that although the KiwiSaver Act said compensation should be paid on top of a salary, there was a provisional clause that allowed it to be included if both parties agreed.

It will be interesting to see how the Court of Appeal rules. For my 2c I think the employees are in the right, and likely to win.

While you can agree for KiwiSaver to be based on total remuneration, and hence deducted from what would be your gross salary, I don’t think such an agreement can over-ride the minimum wage requirement.

News.com.au reports:

The Syrian government adamantly denied using chemical weapons in an artillery barrage targeting suburbs east of Damascus, calling the allegations “absolutely baseless.”

The US, Britain and France demanded that a team of UN experts already in the country be granted immediate access to investigate the claims.

Videos and photographs showed row upon row of bodies wrapped in white shrouds lying on a tile floor, including many children. There was little evidence of blood or conventional injuries and most appeared to have suffocated.

Survivors of the purported attack, some twitching uncontrollably, lay on gurneys with oxygen masks covering their faces.

If the claims are correct, this could represent a major turning point in Syria. It would be very difficult for Russia to continue to back Assad if his regime has used chemical weapons on such a scale.

However the Middle East is notorious for its use of faked scenes to garner sympathy for one side of a conflict, and one can’t take the claims at face value. However the scale of what is claimed seems difficult to fake.

The only acceptable outcome is both sides allow full access to UN investigators. If one side blocks such access that will give us a pretty good idea of where the truth may lie.

WCC Watch blogs:

Freshly minted Northern Ward candidate Jacob Toner wants to foster resilient communities to make sure Wellington is ready for many risks it faces by introducing Hutt Valley inspired ‘Hitching Posts’ around the city. 

What is a hitching post. Toner is quoted:

Following the evacuation of most inner-city buildings there was a large congestion of people keen to get back to their homes. I was working in the CBD when the quake struck and witnessed firsthand the chaos at the train station. With commuter trains stopped for track inspections thousands of Wellingtonians were left without a way to get home.

Thoughtful motorists pulled into the station and offered others lifts, filling up empty seats in cars. This was Wellington at its finest – people banding together to support each other.

An easy way to support people helping each other in these times is to make it easy to co-ordinate with others going the same way. ‘Hitching Posts’ have been used in the Hutt Valley since 2006 to provide a marking point for people looking for a lift, and would work well at the train station too.

‘Hitching Posts’ would display a popular destination such as Johnsonville or Tawa, and people queue at the sign. Someone with space in their car can easily identify who they can carpool with. This would have significantly eased the chaos at the train station, and had the added benefit of helping to build connections between neighbours.

That’s a great idea. Having a location for each destination makes it so much easier for hitcher and driver.

WCC Watch concludes:

This isn’t the biggest or particularly revolutionary idea out there, but it’s good to see candidates bringing them forward. 

That’s what we want – people with some fresh ideas.

Stuff reports:

One of Hamilton’s mayoral candidates is campaigning while on bail. Arshad Chatha is awaiting trial for allegedly punching a bailiff in 2010.

It’s not the first time Mr Chatha has multitasked with campaigns and courtrooms.

While running for the Palmerston North mayoralty in 2007, he was found guilty on a cluster of fraud charges, which led to a two-year jail sentence.

Two years earlier, following another mayoral bid, he was jailed for two months after failing to complete 200 hours’ community work for two theft convictions.

At his Hamilton East home last night, Mr Chatha said he had a “clear conscience” and his convictions were in the past.

“What has happened in the past, I was innocent. I didn’t do anything wrong against New Zealand or against the people of New Zealand.”

He said he was a victim of “abuses of power”.

I think Mr Chatha’s lack of remorse speaks for itself.

Poor Hamilton has two ex-cons standing for Mayor. They also have Ewan Wilson standing. Wilson of course was convicted of four charges of fraud in the late 1990s, and banned as a company director for five years.

How many Councils have to convicted criminals standing for Mayor?

Stuff reports:

When Chris Lane jogged past three boys on Country Club Road in Duncan, southern Oklahoma, the boys did not see a young man, local police chief Danny Ford says, they saw a target.

“They saw him go by and they said, ‘that’s our target’ and they followed him and they shot him, that’s what he told me,” Chief Ford told Fairfax Media of the conversation police had with the oldest suspect, a 17-year-old boy.

They allegedly shot Lane, Ford said, because they wanted to see someone die.

The 17-year-old was unemotional when he told the story of what had reportedly happened. “The other two were, well I don’t want to use their language but they were basically ‘up yours’; they wanted an attorney.

We all have a fear to some degree of violent, let alone lethal, crime. We try to minimise it by making sensible decisions around not getting involved in crime, where we live, who we associate with, how we engage with people etc etc.

It is cases like the above that are so chilling. It was a pure random and motiveless killing, done (allegedly) by three sociopaths.

Thank goodness such acts are relatively rare.

Have just done a belated issue of the monthly polling newsletter for July. The graph of projected seats is interesting.

The executive summary is:

July saw four political polls published in New Zealand – a Colmar Brunton, a reid Research and two Roy Morgan polls.

The average of the public polls has National 17% ahead of Labour – 2% more than in June. The seat projection is centre-right 63 seats, centre-left 55.

Kevin Rudd’s honeymoon in Australia has been short-lived and his approval rating has declined 20% in a month, and the Coalition lead by 4% in most polls indicating a possible 20 seat majority.

In the United States President Obama’s approval rating continues to decline, and his personal favourability is negative for the first time.

In the UK Labour’ leads over the Conservatives is shrinking and Labour leader Ed Miliband has very high disapproval ratings.

In Canada the opposition’s lead over the government has also shrunk, and the Conservatives are now forecast to win more seats than the Liberals.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.

By coincidence July was a good month for the centre-right in all five countries!

Since July there has been a Roy Morgan which keeps up its normal volatility, and this morning a Fairfax Ispso poll. Fairfax found that 75% of NZers say they are worried about the GCSB law, yet National remains high on 48%.

To my mind, this shows the difference between opinion and intensity of opinion. Sure 75% say in response to a question they are concerned – but not enough to change how they vote.

The analogy I would use is free range eggs. Around 85% of Kiwis say they do not like battery hen farming and around 75% say they will happily pay more for eggs that are free range, not battery. However free range eggs make up around only 9% of sales! The lesson being people say they are concerned – but not enough to do anything about it.

I thought the stunt with he snapper in the House yesterday looked awful for David Shearer. I’m not against stunts per se, but you need to think about timing. You can pull off a stunt like that if you have been campaigning on an issue relentlessly and have driven the issue from the beginning. But with the exception of David Cunliffe, Labour MPs have been almost missing from the campaign and only jumped on board in the last few days. So doing a snapper stunt in Parliament looks like opportunism, not a cunning stunt. Such a stunt would work if it was an issue the Government was refusing to back down on, and had under-estimated the impact of. But to the contrary the PM has already made it clear there will be no major change, and he has been going up and down the country saying this is the issue I hear most about, not the GCSB. In fact the timing of the stunt was atrocious. It was on the day of the final debate on the details or committee stage of the GCSB Bill. By making the snapper stunt the focus of question time, you implicitly are endorsing the PMs view that this is the bigger issue. Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

A fishy stunt in Parliament by Labour leader David Shearer appeared to backfire after it spawned a round of dead fish jokes. … Mr Key said parading dead fish in Parliament showed Mr Shearer’s PR team was also “dead” before demanding that he table the larger snapper so he could eat it for dinner. As Mr Shearer held up the two fish, Justice Minister Judith Collins shot back on Twitter: “Which of the 3 is likely to last longest?” while Act leader John Banks claimed he was “floundering over snapper

Heh.

Mr Shearer’s fish, which he had brought down from Auckland in his carry-on luggage, were placed back in a bag and ushered out of the debating chamber by deputy leader Grant Robertson.

Gone by lunchtime? The fish that is! On the substance of the issue I must point Labour are wrong when they say the Government has ruled out cuts to commercial quota. Another story quotes the energetic David Cunliffe:

MPI has been criticised for focusing on recreational sector cuts while ignoring commercial quota and wastage. Under Labour’s plan the burden for restoring fish stocks would be shared fairly between all sectors, Mr Cunliffe said. “Would we rule out cuts to commercial quota? No, we absolutely wouldn’t.”

But has MPI ignored commercial quota. Let’s look at Option 3 from the same story:

Option 3 * Reduces the recreational catch to 2370 tonnes and reduces the commercial quota to 4180 tonnes.

So how is that ignoring the commercial quota? I agree the MPI document doesn’t focus enough on it, but neither does it ignore it.

UPDATE: Jane Clifton also thinks the stunt backfired. She writes:

Ever since Don Brash, visiting a boatyard during an election campaign, was filmed “walking the plank”, politicians have been extra careful about avoiding unfortunate symbolism.

Unaccountably, the Opposition leader’s office forgot this wise precaution yesterday.

Either that, or no-one could manage to dissuade David Shearer, seeking to illustrate a point about snapper quota, from producing two of the fish in Parliament yesterday.

It would be interesting to know whose idea it was!

Prime Minister John Key sought leave for Mr Shearer to table the fish so he could get them cooked for his dinner. He had already made a meal of Mr Shearer. In an earlier own-goal, Mr Key had been gifted the opportunity to portray National-Labour discussions about a consensus on the new spying legislation as being akin to Monty Python’s fish-slapping dance.

Mr Shearer had asked Mr Key to confirm whether he or his office had held any meetings with Labour in the run-up to the bill. “I can’t believe he is asking that question,” Mr Key boggled, indicating that he would answer it, but it would not be fun for Mr Shearer if he did.

Mr Shearer said to bring it on – so falling into another question time heffalump pit. 

A heffalump pit – I love it!

The Herald editorial:

The structural drawbacks have largely been remedied for Meridian’s part-float, as needed to be the case given that it is easily the largest of the three power companies on the Government’s privatisation list. The sale will involve instalment receipts that allow investors to pay for the shares in two bites while receiving the full dividend. The first instalment will be for 60 per cent of the share price, payable on application, with the balance to be paid in 18 months. This greater affordability is enhanced further by a minimum application of $1000 for the first instalment. There will also be a share cap for New Zealand retail investors, so they will know the top price they will pay in both instalments.

This approach is not unique. It was used for the float of Australia’s Telstra and, locally, by Ameritech when it exited its Telecom shares. In both cases, it answered a particular need to create a heightened attraction to potential investors. It is understandable that it should also be used for Meridian.

David Shearer was comparing this on TV to doing layby at Harvey Norman. Not sure why Labour would want to use such a positive analogy!! Many Kiwis do shop at Harvey Norman and love using layby to make big purchases more manageable.

It is important that many choose to become Meridian shareholders. On the broadest of fronts, a shareholding democracy is about reducing this country’s unhealthy emphasis on housing investment. 

The companies benefit also from the discipline and transparency of a market listing.

The Herald reports:

Convicted murderer Teina Pora has formally begun his Privy Council appeal process.

Pora’s lawyers Jonathan Krebs, Ingrid Squire and Tim McKinnel this afternoon filed Pora’s application for leave to further appeal against his convictions for the rape and murder of Susan Burdett and for aggravated burglary in 1992.

The London-based council’s judicial committee will now consider whether Pora should be permitted to argue his appeal.

If leave is granted, his lawyers are hopeful an appeal can be heard early next year. …

Pora’s could be the last appeal from New Zealand to be heard at the Privy Council, Britain’s highest court. His application has gone there because he started the appeal process before the establishment of the Supreme Court in 2004 – now the final court of appeal for New Zealanders.

I think that is the right decision – one should exhaust appeal rights before you look at other avenues.

I suspect the law lords will grant leave, as they probably miss hearing cases from the old colonies 🙂

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00-3.00PM.

1. Hon KATE WILKINSON to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making with its share offer programme to help New Zealanders diversify their savings away from property and bank deposits?
2. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
3. CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has the Government made relating to the improvement of planning frameworks under the Resource Management Act 1991?
4. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: What cost/benefit analysis was done to justify the $30 million subsidy payment to Rio Tinto, and what would the effect have been on electricity prices had the payment not been made?
5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Did officials provide the Government with an estimate of the cost to the Crown in foregone interest of allowing retail buyers of Meridian Energy shares to pay for their shares in instalments; if so, what was that estimate?
6. Hon PETER DUNNE to the Minister of Justice: Why were the Electoral Act 1993 and the Electoral Regulations 1996 excluded from the provisions of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002?
7. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Finance: Why did the Government through its memorandum of understanding agree the Reserve Bank could introduce loan-to-value ratios without an exemption for first home buyers?
8. PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Local Government: What changes will the Government make to the Local Government Act 2002 to improve housing affordability?
9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Is he confident that his Minister of Trade’s actions in regards to the Trans-Pacific Partnership are in the interests of New Zealand?
10. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by his public statement yesterday that the Snapper 1 Policy proposals are not “too controversial”?
11. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: When she said, “… I think we can point to any number of ways that we are making our environmental safeguards more effective and more stringent” was she referring to her proposed changes to the Resource Management Act 1991?
12. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does he believe that collective bargaining will increase or decrease as a result of his employment law changes in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill?

Today Labour are asking five questions. They are asking whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, the Tiwai Point subsidy, and the new Reserve Bank housing loan restrictions. Labour are also asking about Snapper quota changes and employment law changes. The Greens are asking two questions. One about the purchasing of shares in Meridian and the other on proposes changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA).  New Zealand First is asking one question about Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.

Patsy of the Day goes to Paul Goldsmith for Question 8: What changes will the Government make to the Local Government Act 2002 to improve housing affordability?

General Debate 3.00 PM – 4.00 PM

A debate on any of the political issues of the day, usually very interesting to watch. Twelve speeches of no more than five minutes each.

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

The GCSB Bill has now been split into three bills.

1 (A)  Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill– Thrid Reading

1(B) Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill– Third Reading

1(C) Intelligence and Security Committee Amendment Bill – Third Reading

2  Inquiries Bill – Committee Stage

3 Resource Management Reform Bill – Committee Stage

The Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill has now been split into three bills and is still being guided through the house by the Minister Responsible for the GCSB, The Prime Minister John Key. This is an omnibus bill that proposes amendments to the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996, and the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996. The purposes of the bill are to make clear the statutory framework governing the activities of the Bureau and to enhance the external mechanisms for the oversight of the New Zealand’s intelligence agencies.

The Inquiries Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Internal Affairs, Chris Tremain. The purpose of this bill is to reform and modernise the law relating to inquiries, including Royal commissions and commissions of inquiry.

The Resource Management Reform Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams. It is s an omnibus bill that proposes amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991, the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, and to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. The bill aims to make improvements to the consenting regime, provide for the delivery of the first combined plan for Auckland, provide further powers to make regulations, and to make technical and operational changes.

The Herald reports:

Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler said banks will be subject to restrictions on high loan-to-value ratio (LVR) housing mortgage loans from October 1.

He said banks would be required to restrict new residential mortgage lending at LVRs of over 80 per cent to no more than 10 percent of the dollar value of their new housing lending flows.

He said the LVR restrictions were designed to help slow the rate of housing-related credit growth and house price inflation, thereby reducing the risk of a substantial downward correction in house prices that would damage the financial sector and the broader economy.

In a speech today at Otago University, Wheeler said housing played a critical role in the economy but was also a major source of “value and risk” to the household sector and the banking system.

“The Reserve Bank is concerned about the rate at which house prices are increasing and the potential risks this poses to the financial system and the broader economy,” he said.

“Rapidly increasing house prices increase the likelihood and the potential impact of a significant fall in house prices at some point in the future,” he said.

So this move is not about lowering house prices, more about reducing the risk of a boom and bust cycle.

ASB’s chief economist Nick Tuffley said the Reserve Bank was continuing to highlight the need for fundamental issues such as the shortage of land and housing to be addressed in the long-term.

Freeing up land will do more for house prices than any other action. Almost every piece of independent research has confirmed the artificial scarcity of land for housing is the largest factor.

I’m not a huge fan of LVRs. They may be a necessary evil, but I think making it harder for people to get a mortgage is not the best way to take the heat out of the housing market.

There has been much reporting on how the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald was held by authorities at the airport for nine hours. It seemed outrageous that he would be detained just on the basis of who his partner was. It seemed extreme harassment.

But Unfashionista gives the other side of the story, which has been passed over by most media reports:

Glenn Greenwald admitted to the New York Times that David Miranda had been carrying, as a mule, stolen, encrypted thumb drives actually containing intelligence data that Snowden stole from the CIA – and those encrypted drives were confiscated.

 

Remember, Greenwald knew this all along. He knew his husband was not only a journalist but much more to the point, he was carrying top secret, encrypted drives with stolen intelligence information on them – information not just about the NSA but about UK and US intelligence action against foreign powers. Yet he was so quick to lie and viciously slander our security services, saying they targeted his husband only to intimidate him, Greenwald. He always knew Miranda was transporting top secret encrypted files Snowden stole.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html

 

Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

The Herald reports:

A company hoping to build a US$350 million submarine internet cable out of New Zealand has lined up a listed Australian telco as a customer in a multi-million dollar deal.

TPG Telecom, an ASX-listed IT and internet company, has issued a letter of intent saying it plans to acquire fibre capacity on the Australia-United States leg of Hawaiki’s proposed cable system.

A statement issued by both parties last night, which called the agreement a “multi-million deal”, said TPG also intended to acquire capacity on the Sydney-New Zealand section of the international internet link.

Auckland-based Hawaiki Cable is planning to build a 14-000km cable system between New Zealand, Australia, Hawaii and the US west coast and said last month that the project could be operating within two years.

According to plans aired last year, the main cable would also have branches running to Norfolk Island, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Fiji, Wallis, Samoa and American Samoa.

It will be great if their plans come off, and New Zealand gains a second cable to the US. I really like the plan to also link many Pacific countries into it as a fibre-optic cable would be hugely beneficial to their communications infrastructure.

There is also a cable planned between NZ and Australia by some of our large telcos, so in a few years we may have three major international cables. The hope is that the greater competition will lead to cheaper prices for data, and larger (or preferably no) data caps.

The GCSB law has completed its committee stage, and will pass its third reading today.

Some people would have you believe that this law is a massive change from the current GCSB law passed by Helen Clark. Well, they are partially right. It is significantly different. I’ve detailed below my analysis of some of the major differences between the 2003 Helen Clark law and the 2013 John Key law.

This is not a complete analysis. I was hoping the Government may have such a document themselves, but it seems they don’t. So I put it together last night by comparing the 2003 Act and the latest SOP from the Government. I am sure I have missed out a couple of things, and over-simplified in a couple.

The point is to point out that the 2013 law is including a huge number of protections that the 2003 law is silent or, or missing. Those demanding the law not pass would have you implicitly think the status quo is superior. They are quite wrong, and mischievously so. Recall the current law does not ban the GCSB from assisting the Police and SIS. It has merely been said by lawyers to be unclear, and in fact the Inspector-General has said the assistance has been legal.

I think the Government has bent over backwards to put protections into the law, partly as a result of their coalition partners. Have a read of the existing law, and decide for yourself.

So my question to all the people demanding National MPs cross the floor and vote against the bill, is where were you in 2003? Where were the protests against the 2003 law? Where were the demands Labour MPs in 2003 voted down Helen Clark’s law?

Also I ask how many media stories have focused on an actual side by side analysis of the old and laws, detailing all the changes? Or have they just live-streamed protest meetings?

Now this is not to say I think the law being passed today is perfect. If I was Prime Minister I’d actually make the GCSB responsible for interceptions only, and give their cybersecurity role to another agency such as DIA. It would probably mean some loss of expertise, but it would reassure people that when GCSB are assisting agencies with cybersecurity they are not accessing personal communications. Worth remembering though that it is the 2003 law again which gave the GCSB this role. The 2013 law just clarifies the powers that can be used in that role.

I also think the focus on the GCSB law has been mis-placed. Far more focus should be on the companion TICS bill which I do have greater concerns about – such as requiring approval of network architecture, ISPs having to register with GCSB and the like. My hope is the select committee make some changes to that bill, which is due to be reported back on 20 September.

The Dom Post reports:

Two High Court appeals opposing the Kapiti Expressway have been lost.

Save Kapiti and the Alliance for a Sustainable Kapiti lodged appeals opposing a board of inquiry’s consent for the McKays Crossing to Peka Peka stretch of the planned road, but the High Court has dismissed the appeals on all grounds.

The alliance argued the board of inquiry’s consent made two errors of law: not including the Western Link Road as part of the baseline, and failing to consider the transport minister’s reasons for directing the matter to the board.

Save Kapiti argued the Western Link Road should have been included in considerations about the environment. The link road was a two-lane route planned for many years along roughly the same route as the expressway.

Kapiti Mayor Jenny Rowan applauded the court’s decisions. “Bring it on. It will bring a $500 million injection into this community.

“It has been a long conversation for the whole community – opponents and people who supported the road.

“The decision brings certainty. We need to get on with this road now, respectfully acknowledging those who had concerns and saw it through the process.”

It was due to local input, that the Government ended up doing the Western Link Road. Originally what was proposed was basically four-laning the current State Highway 1, but many locals were opposed to that, and hence the long sought after Western Link Road was then changed in design from two to four lanes to become the new SH1, and the existing section will become a local road.

Some locals are against any four lane road at all, which is their right. But they had to lose. The strategy is to have four lanes from the airport to Levin, and if just one short section has less than four lanes it destroys the flow of traffic on the rest of the network.

Labour’s Mana MP Kris Faafoi and transport spokesman Iain Lees-Galloway said the High Court decision did not change the fact the project was the wrong fit for the region.

“The Kapiti Expressway is emblematic of the way [this] government operates – running roughshod over the views of locals, ignoring the environmental consequences of transport projects, and throwing robust economic analysis out the window,” Mr Lees-Galloway said.

So Labour is for single lane congestion where the slowest vehicle on the road that day will set the speed for all traffic.

Eight schools in the Central North Island are competing in the Super 8 voice of change where they create music videos to promote a change in the binge drinking culture that some students have. A very good initiative as having your peers get creative to send a message is probably far more effective than having adults lecture on alcohol.

Here’s one of the entries from Napier Boys High. I may blog some of the others also. You can vote on Facebook for who you think should win.

This particular video has 2,280 likes and 398 shares so is obviously reaching a large audience. Again, a smart little initiative.

The CTU have brought over Sharan Burrow, the General Secretary of the International Trade Union Congress, to try and whip up opposition to the very modest and minor employment law changes being made by the Government.

They obviously wrote a press release for Burrow, and I can only assume Burrow didn’t read it. The release claims:

“The New Zealand Government has binding obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the ILO Constitution, the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms at Work; and ILO Convention No. 98 on Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining. All of these instruments say the same: New Zealand must uphold and promote the rights of workers to bargain collectively and to take strike action in support of these rights.”

I guess they are hoping no one actually reads those covenants and conventions. Take the ICESCR:

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 8 (1) – “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure: ….(d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country…”

So the right to strike is clearly not unlimited.

All the law changes do is say the employers can not be forced into a multi-employer contract – they have to agree to it.

The other semi-significant change is merely returning the law to where it was when Labour introduced the ERA in 2000. This “states the duty of good faith does not require the parties to conclude a collective agreement. Instead, the Employment Relations Authority may declare whether collective bargaining has concluded.”

I suspect what the real opposition is about, is the law change that doesn’t force new employees to fund a union unless they opt out.

The Mirror reports:

Heathrow Airport is on high terror alert amid fears women suicide bombers are ready to strike with ­explosives concealed in breast implants.

Security checks have been beefed up after “credible” intelligence that al-Qaeda is plotting attacks on airlines flying out of London.

One staff member said: “There are genuine fears over this.

“We have been told to pay particular attention to females who may have concealed hidden explosives in their breasts.

I predict an upsurge in applications for people to work in airport security! 🙂

Stuff has a list of the ten worst behaved tourists. They are:

1. Americans
2. Brits
3. Russians
4. Chinese
5. Aussies
6. Germans
7. Indians
8. French
9. Italians
10. Brazilians

I can’t say I have come across that many badly behaved tourists to judge, but do make a point of always claiming I’m Australian if I’m overseas and misbehaving. It seems to give you a exemption from disapproval 🙂