Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

The head of the Parliamentary Service, Geoff Thorn, has resigned in the wake of revelations the service handed over Fairfax reporter Andrea Vance’s access card and phone records to a ministerial inquiry.

Speaker David Carter said the general manager of Parliamentary Service tendered his resignation this morning.

“I have accepted his resignation with some regret, as during his tenure as general manager, Mr Thorn has overseen a significant improvement to the operation of Parliamentary Service,” he said.

“However, both he and I acknowledge that the confidence in Parliamentary Service has been undermined by events in recent weeks, and as general manager he accepts responsibility for this.”

That’s the honourable thing to do. I suspect the catalyst wasn’t so much the error by Datacom in handing over Vance’s phone records, but the fact Parliamentary Service denied it had happened and gave false information to the Speaker. That is incredibly serious. You’re not responsible for a contractor making a mistake, but you are responsible for making sure that any information given to your “Minister” is absolutely correct.

Winona D’Costa reported last week:

Going into youth parliament not a single Youth MP could have predicted that there would be a walk-out during a fellow Youth MP’s speech.

Speaking on the recent passing of the Definition of Marriage Amendment Bill , Kura Waller Youth MP for Te Ururoa Flavell chose to take a stand against the bill.

In protest the majority of the Youth MPs walked out during Kura’s speech. This goes to show that Youth MPs really did receive the whole experience of being a real MP walk-out included. Like any regular politician she bravely carried on voicing her opinion despite staring at a now almost empty debating chamber.

I think those Youth MPs who walked out made a bad mistake, and undermine exactly what Parliament is for – to debate issues and views. Unless someone is up there advocating genocide or the like, you should listen to what they say, and if you disagree with it – respond to it.

Walking out is a sign of intolerance.  I thought the speech by Kura Waller was pretty ridiculous as she claimed the Lion King said gay people can’t reproduce (it didn’t, and they can) and she also said she was never told by her kuia and koroua that being gay was OK – which is more hostile to gays than what the Pope recently said. So I thought her speech was pretty bad, but again the far far far better response would have been a Youth MP responding to the speech than an intolerant walkout.

Stuff reports:

 Charities which were “all sizzle and no sausage” should miss out on official recognition and the accompanying tax breaks, the Supreme Court has been told.

The court is hearing argument today about what limits should be placed on the advocacy work of charities before they go beyond what is allowable for a charity.

Environmental and peace organisation Greenpeace is arguing its political advocacy should not disqualify it from having charitable status.

They are a lobby group, not a charity. If Greenpeace can qualify to be a charity, then so can almost every lobby group in New Zealand.

At the moment this “charity” is running a billboard campaign personally attacking a Government Minister and calling him a liar.

The lawyer for the Charities Registration Board Peter Gunn, said the law permitted charities to be advocates but you could not have a charity that was only an advocate.

“You can’t have just sizzle and no sausage,” he said.

That’s a good point.  Does Greenpeace actually do anything practical to help the environment? Or do they just do campaigns?

To compare them to Forest & Bird, F&B do actually do a lot of actual conservation work – and they advocate on conservation issues also. Greenpeace seem to do nothing but run political campaigns.

Earlier Greenpeace’s lawyer, Davey Salmon, said Greenpeace and many other charities “engaged” with parliament and government.

They were asked to make submissions to select committees and they lobbied to change government policy.

They liaised with government often at government’s request, Mr Salmon said.

Okay here’s a challenge. Name one occassion since 2008 when the Government has requested Greenpeace to liaise with it? I don’t mean the standard “Here is a bill or policy which we seek feedback on which goes to everyone on a department mailing list”. I mean something significant.

A new report from the Office of Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee is on climate change. The forward has an extract worth noting:

An inherent feature of climate change science is its complexity and it must deal with many unknowns. Considerable research into the effects of greenhouse gases has been undertaken globally and, despite inevitable uncertainty, there is a very high scientific consensus regarding the likely magnitude, approximate timing of and the nature of the challenges ahead. It would be highly imprudent to ignore such projected scenarios just because they must be expressed in terms of probabilities rather than certainties. It is important to apply an understanding of uncertainty and of risk and their management to address this challenge and this means using the available and accumulating evidence appropriately. Just because there is an inherent level of uncertainty does not obviate the probability of impactful climate change and the need to be proactive in addressing it through mitigation and adaptive strategies.

The key policy issues are around how much focus one puts on mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation is preferable in theory, but in practice you need to get buy in from all the major emitters to make any significant difference. Adaptation however can be done nationally, and even locally. The report notes:

New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions represent but a minute fraction of global emissions (less than 0.2%). Any action from New Zealand to mitigate emissions would have negligible direct global impact in real terms. Therefore, New Zealand’s contribution to the global effort to reduce greenhouse emissions is more of a geopolitical issue than a scientific one. Irrespective of what happens globally to emissions, the New Zealand challenge will involve adaptation to climate change.

The key projected changes for NZ are:

• Ocean acidification: pH changes are greater in cooler waters
• Temperature: The midrange of projections is an average temperature increase of 0.9°C by 2040, 2.1°C by 2090
• Wind: Increase in strongest winter winds by 2100
• Precipitation: Little change for the overall mean, but large geographical variation
• Extreme weather: Heavier and more frequent extreme rainfalls, but also more droughts. On average, 2 or more extra weeks of drought annually by mid-century for much of North Island and eastern South Island.

In terms of the recent temperature trends, the report notes:

• Over short time periods, natural variability has a significant impact on the global warming trend
• Short periods of no change or even slight cooling are to be expected, despite a continued long-term warming trend; 
• At times natural variability may even amplify warming;
• Global surface temperatures are only part of the picture, the ocean is a much larger heat sink than the atmosphere;
• The reported recent ‘hiatus’ in the rate of rise of temperature does not signal that climate change has ‘stopped’ or is no longer a concern

The report is around 20 pages long, and for my 2c is very well done. I suggest people actually read it, rather than jump to conclusions about what it does and does not say.

Rebecca Rosen writes:

Last year I wrote about some very interesting research being done by Paul J. Heald at the University of Illinois, based on software that crawled Amazon for a random selection of books. At the time, his results were only preliminary, but they were nevertheless startling: There were as many books available from the 1910s as there were from the 2000s. The number of books from the 1850s was double the number available from the 1950s. Why? Copyright protections (which cover titles published in 1923 and after) had squashed the market for books from the middle of the 20th century, keeping those titles off shelves and out of the hands of the reading public.

Heald has now finalized his research and the picture, though more detailed, is largely the same: “Copyright correlates significantly with the disappearance of works rather than with their availability,” Heald writes. “Shortly after works are created and proprietized, they tend to disappear from public view only to reappear in significantly increased numbers when they fall into the public domain and lose their owners.”

This shows the importance of getting the balance right with copyright. Imagine if books never ever entered the public domain?

Absolutely books should be subject to copyright for a significant period of time, to allow the author to benefit from them.

But the current lengths of copyright are life plus 50 years in NZ and life plus 70 years in the United States. Both are far too long.

I’m tempted to say that copyright should expire upon the death of the author. However people might start shooting authors in order to get their books for free 🙂

I think it is fair to say the the family of an author shouldn’t suddenly have their income disappear, the moment the author dies. But ridiculous to have to wait 50 to 70 years for a book to go public domain. I would think 20 years is about right – long enough for any young children to be supported as they become adults, if say their author parent died suddenly.

What do readers think should be the term of copyright? Comment below and/or vote in the sidebar poll.

Robert Wilson at The Guardian writes:

Do many environmentalists hold anti-scientific positions? This idea, put forward by environmental journalist Fred Pearce and others, may have received some pushback (eg Anne Chapman earlier in this series) but for me, it is merely a statement of the obvious.

Consider that great scientific battleground of the early 21st century:embryonic stem cell research. Here is an issue where too many greens hold views indistinguishable from those of the Vatican. Greenpeace brought and won a lawsuit against the German scientist Oliver Brüstlewho wanted to patent a method of turning human embryonic stem cells into neurons. In a debate with writer and neuroscientist Kenan MalikGreenpeace claimed they were not opposed to embryonic stem cell research. Yet their own press release at the time made it clear that they were opposed to it.

Until 2010, the UK’s Green Party had rather unambiguous views on the issue too: they wanted an EU wide ban on embryonic stem cell research. Parts of a statement from Caroline Lucas were reminiscent of the religious right.

And what were the UK Greens against?

Exactly what did Lucas think the associated health risks are in attempting to cure debilitating diseases? To me, this is not merely anti-scientific, it is morally repugnant.

And on GE they ignore all the science, as they also do on fracking:

And let’s not forget the fondness of some environmental groups for destroying trials of genetically modified crops. Whether it is Monsanto or government scientists doing the research there always seems to be an environmentalist or two thinking of doing some uprooting. And we are not talking about fringe lunatics here. Last year’s failed attempt to destroy a trial of GM wheat in Rothamsted was supported by both the Green Party’s candidate for the London mayoral election and their current leader Natalie Bennett.

Greenpeace has a much richer history of ripping up GM crops. For some the defining image of Greenpeace campaigning may be brave activists climbing Europe’s tallest building, for me it is grown adults wearing hazmat suits to destroy crops they have no reason to be afraid of.

That Greenpeace takes a dogmatic, not a scientific, approach was made clear when Lord Melchett, then director of Greenpeace UK, made thefollowing statement on opposition to GM crops whilst appearing in front of the House of Lords:

“It is a permanent and definite and complete opposition based on a view that there will always be major uncertainties. It is the nature of the technology, indeed it is the nature of science, that there will not be any absolute proof.”

Such statements would make even religious dogmatists blush. The UK’s main organic farming group, the Soil Association, naturally did not mind such dogmatism: they made Melchett their policy director.

A permanent, definite and complete opposition. They should work for the Spanish Inquisition.

Our choices about the future of energy supply need to be based on solid evidence, yet let’s consider the UK Green Party’s attitude to the evidence about nuclear power. In 2003 they published a report, enthusiastically endorsed by Caroline Lucas, that claimed “radioactive releases up to 1989 have caused, or will eventually cause, the death of 65 million people worldwide.” The research into this report was written by the rather absurd figure of Chris Busby, who apparently for many years was the Green Party’s main “expert” source on nuclear issues. I put scare-quotes round expert here for in late 2011 he was exposed for attempting to sell ineffective “anti-radiation” pills to people in the Fukushima region. For years the Green Party grounded their opposition to nuclear power in junk science, and it appears it still does.

If all of this leaves you unconvinced of the marriage of irrational, unscientific, and unethical attitudes by many green organisations then you should read about the history of opposition to golden rice, an innovation that has the potential to greatly reduce human suffering.

Golden rice provides Vitamin A, which boost the immune systems of children in developing countries and helps prevent blindness.

Am I not playing into the hands of the climate change sceptics by saying environmentalists are not consistent on science? No, I am not. Environmentalists who say we should accept the scientific consensus on climate change while telling us to ignore it on other issues are the people who are playing into the hands of those who oppose action on climate change. Because if we are to win the fight against climate change we will need to replace ideology, wishful thinking and spin with sober analysis. As the great physicist Richard Feynman said, reality must take precedence over public relations.

This is the great hypocrisy. They say you must accept the science around climate change (which I do), but they fight tooth and nail against the science around GE, fracking, fluoridation and nuclear. The reality is the extreme environmental movement is more akin to a religious organisation. They have a view of the world which is minimal human activity or interference with “nature”.  Hence why they see science as the enemy so often.

Radio NZ reports in their headline:

Govt not concerned that Australian jobs moving to NZ

Is there anyone out there who thinks the Government should be concerned that we are having jobs move from Australia to New Zealand?

Darien Fenton MP said the trend is deeply worrying.

Oh dear.

Better someone is unemployed than on a job earning $28,000 a year I guess.

I grab a Washington Post in a bar last night, and the front page has a story about the huge improvements in educational outcomes in DC schools since 2007.

The District, which initiated major school reforms in 2007, has served as a test case for often controversial policies — such as expanding school choice, eliminating teacher tenure and tying evaluations to test scores — which have since been adopted by a growing number of states.

The city has had persistently low test scores and lags behind most of the rest of the country on many academic measures. But between 2007 and 2013, proficiency rates in math and reading increased 18 percentage points on the D.C. tests, including a four point gain in the past year, to 51 percent.

In just six years the number of students who gain proficiency in maths and reading has gone up 18%. That is huge. NZ has around 750,000 students at school. An 18% increase would mean around 140,000 students would gain proficiency in maths and reading. Think of the huge benefits that would bring to them, their families, their futures – let alone the country as a whole.

The great thing about the DC reforms, of which charter schools are a massive part, is they have improved student outcomes in public schools also. The “competition” from charter schools has benefited public schools.

The District’s push to identify and remove poor teachers, and to reward effective ones, is paying off, Henderson said. She also cited as successful a series of new initiatives, including experiments with longer school days and home visits by teachers.

What we need to do in NZ. I can’t recall the last time a teacher was sacked for incompetence.

Here’s some data from the 2013 report:

• Overall proficiency up 18% since 2007
• Maths proficiency up 22%
• Reading proficiency up 13%
• Charter school overall proficiency is 56%, up 15%
• Public school overall proficiency is 48%, up 17%
• The percentage of black students who are proficient in maths has gone from around 22% to 40%.

The Washington Post (a left leaning newspaper) has an editorial that should be read by Labour in NZ. Sadly David Shearer has vowed that the first thing a Labour/Green Govt will do is to abolish charter schools – regardless of how successful they are. It is an awful policy that puts placating unions ahead of helping struggling students.

It was a reaffirmation of the reform of public education launched in 2007, a rebuke to the naysayers who want us to believe reform has failed and a warning to those who would interfere with policies that are clearly gaining traction.

Labour wants to kill of charter schools before they can gain traction. It seems their worst fear is that they will be both popular and successful – and then unable to be killed off.

D.C. Public Schools students improved their proficiency in math and reading by 3.6 percentage points and 3.9 percent percentage points respectively over the previous year, bringing proficiency rates (49.5 percent for math and 47.4 percent for reading) to the highest level in memory. All subgroups — black, Hispanic, white, special education and others — improved in math and most improved in reading; students in every ward and students in every grade improved their performance over 2012, and rates of advanced proficiency were up while rates for below proficiency were down in both subjects.

It doesn’t get much better than that in terms of improvements.

Charter schools, which enroll 43 percent of public school students, had even more impressive results, posting slightly higher average scores than their traditional counterparts and showing a 58.6 percent proficiency rate in math and 53 percent proficiency rate in reading. Particularly noteworthy were the gains made by English- language learners and economically disadvantaged students attending charter schools.

Labour should be the champion of charter schools, if they really cared about income inequality.

Public education in D.C. is on a healthy trajectory, thanks to the growth of quality charters and reforms that are taking root in the traditional system. These include weeding out ineffective teachers, overhauling teacher evaluations and pay, putting new curricula in place, supporting good teachers and measuring results.

As I said the Washington Post is a left-leaning newspaper. It used to be called “Pravda on the Potomac”. The editorial shows that you can’t dispute facts – well unless you are captured by the unions.

Here’s a challenge for Labour. Why don’t they amend their policy to say charter schools will be scrapped if within five years they haven’t shown at least a 5% gain in student proficiency? Instead, they are saying we will scrap charter schools even if they are as successful as in DC where 18% more students can now read and do maths.

Tuesday (US time) saw us head up from South Carolina through North Carolina into Virginia, where we decided to visit Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson is a hero of mine. He wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a powerful advocate for the state not being involved in religion, and was an incredible intellectual and thinker. Oh yeah he was also the first Secretary of State for America, the second Vice-President and the third President.

What you discovered on touring his home, is also how eccentric he was, but in the very good sense. He spent 40 years designing and improving his home. He made it as efficient as possible, so he would be as productive as possible. This ranged from beds in alcoves to save space, to a rotating wall for food to be served through to a device that had two pens linked together to generate a copy of all his correspondence.

John F Kennedy in 1962 said to a dinner of nobel prize winners:

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. Someone once said that Thomas Jefferson was a gentleman of 32 who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, and dance the minuet.

He could also speak seven languages and was learning German in his 80s. He had a strong belief that education was vital for a strong country and society. He founded the University of Virginia.

The drive to Monticello.

A statue of Jefferson by the Visitor’s Centre.

There is a short 15 minute walk from the visitor’s centre to the Jefferson family graveyard.

Jefferson wrote the wording for his own memorial. Nowhere does it mention he was President. he was more proud of his achievements than his offices.

The graveyard is owned by the descendants of Jefferson and is still used today, with new graves added every few  years.

The house had and has a huge vegetable garden.

The front of the house. He was a self-taught architect and it is a mixture of various styles. No photos from within sadly, as not allowed.

The view from the back.

Some large beautiful butterflies on the back lawn.

And another.

The smoking room for meat, which was underneath the house.

And he had his own wine cellar and a separate beer cellar!

The estate was high up in the hill was a great view stretching miles out.

The estate is around two hours from Washington DC, and a great visit. There is a 15 minute video about Jefferson, and lots of information on his legacy. Also of course some information on his six children he had with the slave Sally Hemmings.

As well as a tour of the house, you can do a slavery tour and a garden tour. Allow lots of time.

Frank Wolak from Stanford University has been held up by Labour and Greens as the reason for their nationalisation policy for electricity. They always cite a report he did in 2009 that said the energy generators were making “super profits”. So bear in mind this is a professor whose work stands at the heart of their case for change.

So with interest I read an article in Energy News (not online) which states:

Moving to a single-buyer market for power generation would do nothing to improve competition, while a cost-based approach to pricing output also runs the risk of under-valuing water resources, a visiting US academic says.

Stanford University’s Professor Frank Wolak says he can’t see why New Zealand would want to turn its back on the electricity market structure it has now.

Markets are always improving and evolving, but he says he can’t see any benefit from moving to a single-buyer model. Cost-based hydro systems, like those in Chile and Brazil, also have their challenges and are not well-suited to a market like New Zealand where generation and retailing is integrated.

“It’s like rebooting your computer and starting out with all the same problems again,” Wolak said at a seminar in Wellington last night. “Why do it? If you’re this close to the finish line in terms of the actual market, and you’re this far away from the cost-based market, why would you want to do that?”

This is a devastating blow to Labour and Greens. Wolak’s research has been held up as their rationale for their policy. And he has said their proposals will do nothing for competition, and he sees no benefit from them.

The reality is that since Wolak’s report in 2009 (which is controversial), there have been significant changes to how the market operates, and price increases in the last few years have been much lower than under Labour previously.

Wolak says cost-based systems like those in Chile and Brazil have been successful in sustaining investment in new generation. But he says they don’t naturally encourage long-term contracting, which helps to put downward pressure on short-term prices. Nor are they well-suited to integrated generator-retailer markets like New Zealand.

In cost-based markets, governments or regulators have to set minimum hedging requirements, which also requires them to put a price on the cost of shortages. Given that is a political decision, those have tended to be set too low – about $300/MWh in the case of Chile – which has in turn kept prices low, encouraged the use of water for generation, and resulted in power shortages.

Now again – this is the view of the man whose research is constantly cited as reasons for the Labour/Greens policy.

Also note that Labour and Greens always say that his research showed generators made billions of dollars of excessive “super-profits”. Well again he is quoted as saying:

Wolak told the audience he never said New Zealand generators were making excessive profits. Such a calculation is “extremely difficult” without knowing the cost of capital of the businesses involved.

Will Labour and Greens now attack Wolak, after citing his work religiously? Or will they drop their dumb destructive policy?

Stuff reports:

The widower of a victim of RSA killer William Bell has won a $60,000 payout from the Corrections Department.

Tai Hobson, whose wife Mary was one of three people slaughtered by Bell 12 years ago, relaunched his claim for compensation last year after Corrections made a $300,000 damages settlement with sole survivor Susan Couch. Couch was left for dead and partially paralysed in the attack by Bell.

The violent offender was on probation for aggravated robbery when he went on a rampage, killing club president William Absolum, 63, member Wayne Johnson, 56, and Mrs Hobson, a cleaner.

Yesterday, chief executive Ray Smith said his department had a moral obligation and confirmed Mr Hobson had accepted an “ex gratia payment”.

“Mary lost her life at the hands of a very dangerous and violent man who also killed two of her colleagues and left Susan Couch with horrific injuries,” he said.

That reminds me. Winston claimed he donated most of the $158,000 his party owed the taxpayer to a Susan Couch trust. Two of the three trustees were his lawyers. Someone should check up if Susan Couch has actually received a cent from the trust that bears her name.

UPDATE: A commenter has done some research and found that the trust has $86,000 in the bank and has paid Susan Couch $900 a year for two years.

Stuff reports:

Move over The Hobbit, Avatar and King Kong – New Zealand wants to get its hands on some big TV hits.

Changes announced yesterday to government funding for screen productions are expected to open the door to more television productions, in the wake of previous big money-spinners such as Hercules, Spartacus and Xena: Warrior Princess.

“We are very keen to encourage television. It’s the economic bread and butter,” New Zealand Film Commission chief executive Graeme Mason said yesterday. “You have a couple of movies come out a week, compared to hundreds of hours of television.”

Hit shows such as Game of Thrones have been big winners for countries where they were filmed, with its first three seasons generating £65 million (about NZ$124m) for the Northern Ireland economy.

I would die of happiness if Game of Thrones was filmed here!

Other changes to government grants are likely to attract more post-production, digital and visual effects work, which was welcomed yesterday by Park Road Post general manager Cameron Harland.

“When it was announced I got straight on the phone to a company in New York who’d been umming and ahhing over whether to do post-production here,” he said. “It’s opened up a discussion now.”

The changes have brought down the thresholds at which various productions can attract government grants.

The Large Budget Screen Production Grant was previously open only to those valued at $15m or above, which excluded most TV shows. The threshold has now been reduced to $4m.

Seems a sensible threshold change. Having such series filmed here bring in far more in tax revenue and spending than the amount of the grant, and that is before you even consider tourism benefits.

The Herald editorial:

The Prime Minister sounds genuinely surprised that somebody in a company operating Parliament’s telephone system would give the records of a journalist’s calls to an inquiry the Prime Minister had commissioned. John Key must not know his own power. …

The Prime Minister ought to have been alert to the risk that something like this would happen when he started a witch-hunt over the early release of the Kitteridge report into the GCSB. When he reflects on the continuing saga of embarrassments he might come to the conclusion that the root of it all is his own impulse to launch inquiries into things that do not warrant them.

This is a significant rewriting of history. In fact the Greens, and other opposition parties, were demanding there be an inquiry into the leak of the Kitteridge Report. This is Russel Norman on 9 April 2013:

Dr Russel Norman: In light of the fact that the cover note on the report says that the appendices are legally privileged and highly classified, does he believe that the leaking of the full Kitteridge report is a serious offence?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That may be possible, but we have yet to see what aspects of the report have been leaked.

Dr Russel Norman: If it does turn out that the full report has been leaked by someone in his Government, what consequences should face the person who leaked this information, which the Government Communications Security Bureau describes as legally privileged and highly classified? What consequences should that person face?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If appendices that have been given a security classification have been leaked, then there would be significant consequences for the person who leaked them.

Dr Russel Norman: Why does the Prime Minister seem confident that the appendices have not been leaked?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a matter of whether they appear in the public arena. The Prime Minister does not have the capacity to guess whether someone has them sitting in a shoebox under their bed, but I assume that if they think there is some political effect from leaking those appendices that is worth the risk, then we will eventually see them. They are not in the newspaper today.

Dr Russel Norman: Given that so far the only member of his Government who, he has told us, has had access to this report is the office of the Prime Minister, did he or a member of his staff leak the report?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is not what I said, actually. What I said to the member was that the report has been circulated fairly broadly across Government agencies in the last couple of weeks.

Dr Russel Norman: If he does not know who leaked the report, will he launch an inquiry to get to the bottom of it, given his previous support for an inquiry into a leak at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade over documents that were probably quite considerably less sensitive?

The opposition were demanding an inquiry into the leak. They thought (wrongly) that the PMs Office had leaked it as a distraction (a moronic thing to think, but they thought it). If the Government had not held an inquiry into the leak, it would have been pilloried by the opposition with accusations of a cover up.

For the Herald to suggest that there was no need for an inquiry, and it was some impulse from the PM, is simply wrong. This is an inquiry that the opposition demanded.

Here’s Russel again suggesting the PM or his office leaked it:

Dr Russel Norman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Was the timing of the leak part of a communication strategy to divert attention from his inappropriate involvement in the appointment of Ian Fletcher, and to have other Ministers front questions in Parliament?

So the Herald editorial is rather silly. I think they are still sulking over the teapot saga.

Andrea Vance writes of her anger on having her phone records released:

 In other circumstances, I could probably find something to laugh about in revelations that the journalist who broke a story about illegal spying was snooped on by Parliament’s bureaucrats.

Let alone, the irony that the reporter in question previously worked for the News of the World, the tabloid at a centre of a privacy violation scandal.

But I am that journalist and I’m mad as hell. Anyone who has had their confidential details hacked and shared around has the right to be angry.

My visit to Speaker David Carter’s office on Tuesday left me reeling. My jaw gaped open when he sheepishly confessed that a log of all calls I placed to people around Parliament over three months was released to an inquiry focused on the leak of the Kitteridge report on the GCSB.

On Tuesday, an IT staffer showed me pages of “metadata” – a record of hundreds of calls I made between February and May.

The conversations, of course, aren’t disclosed. But you can glean a lot from matching numbers, time and the dates of published stories.

After the news broke, I fully expected my line to fall silent as sources shied away from being burned. Thankfully, it hasn’t.

That is the very chilling impact from having those records released. If those phone records showed (for example) which Labour MPs had been called the day before a story regarding rumblings about Shearer – then those MPs would effectively be outed.  Journalists work very hard to protect their sources, and they don’t expect their phone records to be handed over to anyone – unless there is a court order or a warrant for them.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy has signalled he will dump a plan to exempt firms holding Maori fishing quota from a law change which outlaws the use of foreign flagged fishing vessels in New Zealand.

The exemption for Maori quota holders until 2020 was included in a bill to require all fishing vessels to re-flag and register in New Zealand by 2016 after Maori fisheries interests claimed it would be uneconomical to fish the quota if they could not continue to use foreign vessels.

However, Mr Guy has indicated he will pull the Maori quota amendment from the bill.

“It is important for our trading partners to know that we have unequivocally stamped out bad behaviour on our waters. I don’t think the amended bill, as it stands, meets this objective.”

That’s an excellent decision. The priority has to be stamping out the near slavery conditions.

I was quite critical of the select committee changes that would have given some quota holders a further four years before needing NZ flagged ships.

I’ve blogged at Curiablog details of the latest Roy Morgan poll. There seem to be two distinctive trends over the last two months.

Have also updated the rolling average of all the public polls.

On Monday, we had our biggest driving day, doing over 700 miles from West Florida up to Florence, South Carolina. To break up the day we thought we would detour to Charleston and have dinner there.  A great decision as Charleston is absolutely lovely. Next time I’m in that region, definitely want to spend more time there.

A typical side road, with paving and trees.

Almost every house near the waterfront is like this – all two and three story buildings in that old style.

They all have shutters.

Down at the waterfront.

The waterside boardwalk.

Houses like this are not the exception, but the norm. Hate to think what they cost.

The statue is of Colonel William Moultie who defended the city against the British during the American Revolution. He later became a General and Governor of South Carolina

The civil war also saw much fighting here.

Note many of the houses have gas fired lanterns hanging outside. They give the entire neighbourhood a feel of living 200 years ago.

A pineapple fountain at the waterfront.

After dinner and a walk, we went to the roof top bar. It’s great, and a must do. The bar takes up the entire roof of an office building, and has great views of the city.

Questions for Oral Answer. 2.00- 3.00 PM

Questions to Ministers.

1. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on trends in the cost of living for New Zealand families?

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration?

3. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “when my Chief of Staff speaks to someone, they speak for me”?

4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he take responsibility for the actions of the David Henry inquiry?

5. MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Housing: How many findings and recommendations did the Productivity Commission make after its 12 month inquiry into housing affordability and what conclusions did it draw?

6. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement on restricting non-residents from buying residential homes “I think the policy is a gimmick, I don’t think it will work”?

7. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What changes has the Government made to the welfare system?

8. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

9. STEFFAN BROWNING to the Minister for Primary Industries:Does he still support the key feature of the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill that required all foreign-owned vessels operating in New Zealand waters to carry the New Zealand flag from 1 May 2016, and operate under full New Zealand legal jurisdiction; if not, why not?

10. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement with regard to the teaching profession that “being unregistered is not the same as being unqualified”?

11. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Economic Development:What support is the Government giving to attract major events to New Zealand?

12. BRENDAN HORAN to the Minister for Primary Industries:What scientific studies, if any, were considered by his ministry about the effect of the Rena disaster on the spawning, reproductive and growth cycles of snapper in the coastal waters of Tauranga Moana and the eastern Bay of Plenty prior to the release of his MPI Discussion Paper 2013/31 Review of sustainability and other management controls for snapper 1 (SNA1)?

Today Labour has four questions. The first question is about the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson. The other questions are about housing, whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements and teacher registration. The Greens are asking about Foreign Charter Vessels and the Henry Inquiry. New Zealand First is asking about whether the Prime Minister has confidence in the Minister of Immigration.  Independent MP Brendan Horan is asking about the new snapper catch restrictions, which is sure to put the government on notice.

Patsy of the Day goes to Alfred Ngaro for Question 7: What changes has the Government made to the welfare system?

General Debate 3.00 – 4.00 PM

A wide ranging debate with twelve speeches of no more than five minutes each. Usually the highlight of the political week for regular parliamentary spectators.

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

1. Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill – Committee Stage

2. Resource Management Reform Bill–  Committee Stage

3. Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill – Third Reading

4. Airports  (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill – Committee Stage

The Appropriation (2013/2014 Estimates) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Finance, Bill English. This bill relates to the Budget, and seeks parliamentary authorisation for the individual appropriations contained in The Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2014 

The Resource Management Reform Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams. This is 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 Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Building and Construction, Maurice Williamson. The bill proposes amendments to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006 to validate a disciplinary levy and an offences fee prescribed by the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board. The bill also seeks to extend the Board’s power to impose levies so that it has funding for all of its functions, including the prosecution of non-registered persons.

The Statutes Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Courts, Chester Borrows. This is an omnibus bill. It is designed to provide a legislative vehicle for minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments to thirty existing acts of legislation.

The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy. This bill provides for cost recovery arising from processing of travellers in the aviation security, biosecurity, and customs areas.

The Herald reports:

The world’s most perilous peak will be the final resting place for a New Zealand father and son who were attempting to scale it.

The point Marty and Denali Schmidt reached on K2’s Pakistan side is too treacherous for a recovery, so the climbers will remain there, buried beneath the snow.

Marty, 53, and Denali, 25, had hoped to be the first father and son team to reach the peak, but they were killed in an avalanche at the weekend. They were about to make the final push for the summit.

Very sad for family and friends. My thoughts are with them.

Mountain climbing is obviously a dangerous sport. The danger is part of the challenge.

Maybe mountain deaths are just higher profile, but it does seem to have a fairly high mortality rate. I wonder if there is any data on which sports have the highest mortality rates? Considering how few extreme mountain climbers there are, a fair few end up dead.

The Herald reports:

Today Mr Carter apologised to Miss Vance and Fairfax group executive editor Paul Thompson in a statement.

He said the release of the phone records was “completely unacceptable”.

“This private information should not have been released and could be seen to attack the freedom of the press which is critical to informing the public about what Parliament is doing and ensuring public confidence in Parliament. I view any actions that may put at risk journalists’ ability to report very seriously,” Mr Carter said.

His statement today was in contradiction to answers to written questions provided to the Green Party last week, saying Mr Henry had requested the records and they had been declined.

In his statement today, Mr Carter said they were not requested by Mr Henry, but he had received them by accident.

He said Mr Henry immediately returned the records without viewing them and made it clear he had neither sought, nor wanted them.

Mr Key said he was disappointed in Parliamentary Service.

“Quite frankly in releasing that information to the Henry inquiry they got it wrong, they made a mistake and they should have never released that information.”

Even if the information had been requested, it should have never been supplied – except under a statutory legal authority.

Parliamentary Service run the parliamentary complex on behalf of several organisations and users – Ministers, MPs, Office of the Clerk, press gallery etc. Their mistake seems to be in not distinguishing between them. As a priority they need to have a clear information policy that does distinguish.

If the PM orders an inquiry into a leak, it is very appropriate that (for example) details of communications by Ministerial staff are made available. But not opposition MPs, and not journalists.

This is major breach of trust, and they will have to work hard to recover that. Also as bad is giving the Speaker incorrect information.

The Herald reports:

U.S. soldier Bradley Manning has been acquitted of aiding the enemy for sending more than 700,000 classified documents to WikiLeaks.

It was the most serious charge the 25-year-old faced and was punishable by life in prison without parole.

However he was found guilty of all but two of the 21 counts he was contesting, including five theft counts and five espionage counts.

That seems a good outcome. There seemed little proof that what Manning did actually “aided the enemy”.

However it is appropriate he was found guilty of the other charges, and will face consequences for it. It is not up to individual soldiers and clerks to decide which classified material gets released publicly. The actions of those who do so are in fact anti-democratic.

Barack Obama got elected President of the United States. He ultimately decides what gets released and what doesn’t, within the laws passed by Congress. No one elected Manning.

The Herald reports:

Former Cabinet minister David Benson-Pope is planning a political comeback.

Mr Benson-Pope, 63, a five-term Dunedin city councillor before entering national politics, yesterday said he would stand again in October’s local body elections for a council seat.

He is the fifth candidate confirmed as standing in the council’s 11-seat central ward.

Mr Benson-Pope left national politics in 2008, after becoming embroiled in scandal over allegations he mistreated pupils while a teacher in the 1980s.

He was eventually sacked as a Cabinet minister following separate claims he misled the public, and later lost the Labour Party nomination for the Dunedin South electorate to Clare Curran.

Mr Benson-Pope said he hoped his critics had moved on.

Will Mayor be the next step after Council?