Fran O’Sullivan writes:

New Zealand notched another historic world “first” this week in its relationship with Greater China with the signing of the Taiwan free trade deal. Have you heard about it yet?

Forging the deal with the politically isolated island will enable our dairy, beef, kiwifruit and apple exporters to gain greater access to what is already New Zealand’s 12th- largest trading partner. John Key also launched the Asean strategy, which was well overdue given the ink on that particular deal is long dried. …

For political reasons – China’s sensitivity over “One China” – the Taiwanese deal goes by the humungous title of “Agreement between New Zealand and the separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu on Economic Co-operation (Anztec)”.

It’s an extraordinary mouthful.

But New Zealand can’t simply sign a straight-out free trade agreement with Taiwan, because mainland China already has one with us and while New Zealand has a closer economic partnership with the special administrative region of Hong Kong, in China’s eyes Taiwan is a mere province.

Key is correct to say the deal is “momentous on a number of fronts”.

Not only is New Zealand the only country in the world to have a free trade agreement with all parts of China – Hong Kong, Taiwan and the mainland; it is also a good opportunity for our exporters as bilateral deals with South Korea and India are still way down the pipeline.

It is a coup to be able to get an FTA with both China and Taiwan.

The drum out of Wellington is that the deal was signed at a low-key ceremony at the local university to avoid upsetting Beijing. But who (seriously) believes that the ink would ever have been applied without Beijing’s tacit approval.

New Zealand’s trade negotiators, led by former diplomat Charles Finny, deserve congratulations.

Pity our politicians couldn’t break out the champagne in public – but they have secured another deal where some of New Zealand’s competitors can’t.

The benefits to NZ of FTAs has been huge. As a remote trading nation, they are our lifeblood. Very sad that two parties in Parliament consistently oppose them.

The Independent reports:

A new survey for the Royal Statistical Society and King’s College London shows public opinion is repeatedly off the mark on issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration. …

– Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent – so the public conception is out by a factor of 34.

– Immigration: some 31 per cent of the population is thought to consist of recent immigrants, when the figure is actually 13 per cent. Even including illegal immigrants, the figure is only about 15 per cent. On the issue of ethnicity, black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent.

–  Crime: some 58 per cent of people do not believe crime is falling, when the Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that incidents of crime were 19 per cent lower in 2012 than in 2006/07 and 53 per cent lower than in 1995. Some 51 per cent think violent crime is rising, when it has fallen from almost 2.5 million incidents in 2006/07 to under 2 million in 2012.

– Teen pregnancy is thought to be 25 times higher than the official estimates: 15 per cent of of girls under 16 are thought to become pregnant every year, when official figures say the amount is closer to 0.6 per cent.

Among the other surprising figures are that 26 per cent of people think foreign aid is in the top three items the Government spends money on (it actually makes up just 1.1 per cent of expenditure)

One of the challenges of politics is that perception often trumps reality.

Unite Union has said:

Unite union will be holding a protest outside Lunn Avenue McDonald’s at 1pm today Friday, exposing racist and discriminatory hiring policies, that harm both migrant workers and local people desperate for jobs say Unite Union organiser Joe Carolan.

“There is huge unemployment of Maori, PI, Pakeha and other groups in Glen Innes, yet seven new hires this week in McDonald’s Lunn Avenue all come from only one ethnic group, the same ethnic group as the anti union store manager. …

“Our local delegates are Fijian Indian and Maori and they are furious that there is not even one other worker from another ethnic background. They will be joining supporters from the local community at a picket outside the store today at 1pm.”

So the union is complaining that McDonalds has hired Fijian Indians. Personally I think employers should be colour blind and hire the best people for the job, regardless of their ethnicity.

Maryke Penman at Stuff writes:

A woman who couldn’t afford a sperm donor advertised for a man to father her child – and is now raising her daughter on the DPB.

The father, who visits three time a week, does not have to pay child support.

Sperm donors, even through a private arrangement, were not liable, Inland Revenue said.

I agree sperm donors should not be liable, but to my mind a sperm donor is someone who is not involved with the child at all, and is simply just a donor. Why should the taxpayer be funding his child for him? He should be paying child support.

She couldn’t afford the expense of a professional sperm agency and says arranging it herself was the last resort.

“My first choice would have been to do it the traditional way, get married, the white picket fence and the whole shebang.

“But I had been single for about 12 years and my biological clock was ticking.”

So she laid out the terms of her request online and awaited a response.

She compiled a shortlist of eight candidates who had the attributes she wanted, including eye colour, height, health background and a good IQ.

“I met with them all one by one in a very public Starbucks. Most were just ordinary, decent guys just wanting to share the love of having a child,” she says.

“I told myself if there was a mutual attraction then we would do it the old-fashioned way.

“I was single so what the hey but if not then it would be the old turkey baster or syringe.”

It was the last candidate who ticked all the boxes, she says.

The woman fell pregnant six months later.

Which sounds like they did it the old fashioned way. So again, that doesn’t sound like a sperm donor to me. It sounds like a father. I don’t think you should be able to contract out of your paternal duties.

If you want no liability for a child, then you shouldn’t know whom the mother or child is. It should be arms length. Otherwise you’re just a deadbeat dad.

An Inland Revenue spokesperson says sperm donors are not generally defined as parents under the Status of Children Act 1969 and are therefore not liable to pay childcare support.

But in this case he is clearly a parent. He visits three times a week.

David Shearer has said:

“Kiwi families have been hit with a triple dose of bad news in the last 24 hours, with petrol prices, power prices and food prices all jumping sharply,” says Labour Leader, David Shearer.

“Just in time for the school holidays, petrol prices went up four cents a litre to $2.26.9 for 91-octane.  That’s on top of the July 1 three cent increase courtesy of the Government hiking up petrol tax

Yes petrol prices have gone up – because the dollar has dropped 10% in the last couple of months. Now which party has been saying that the dollar is still far too high and the Govt should intervene to bring it even lower (and hence make petrol more expensive)? You’ve got it – Labour (and Greens and NZ First).

“The latest power price data shows domestic power prices rose by 2.2% in the last three months, which means the average household will pay an extra $50 a year. 

No it doesn’t. The electricity CPI was 1366 in Dec 2012 and 1368 in March 2013. That’s an increase of 0.1%, not 2.2%.

“And the cost of food rose by 2.1 per cent in June – 50 per cent faster than in June 2012 and June 2011.  In fact, it was the biggest single monthly food price increase since National pushed up GST in October 2010. 

Food prices vary greatly month to month. The sound comparison is food prices compared to a year ago as that takes account of seasonal variations. And food prices up just 0.6% higher than a year ago, which is historically a very small increase.

Interest writes:

Banks wouldn’t want to be involved in attempting to collect GST on goods bought overseas for less than $400 because doing so would be “incredibly complex”, Kirk Hope the CEO of bank lobby group the New Zealand Bankers’ Association (NZBA) says.

Hope told interest.co.nz that although he had some sympathy with the New Zealand Retailers’ Association argument about a level playing field, banks weren’t keen on being involved. His comments come after it emerged that three government departments have set up a joint working party to see whether GST could be levied on overseas purchases worth less than $400.

“We wouldn’t want to be involved in the collection of it because it’s very complex both to implement and administratively,” Hope said.

“And I think (Customs Minister Maurice) Williamson has pointed out that in fact no other jurisdictions have figured out how to collect GST on online transactions because it’s not as easy as the Retailers’ Association would have you believe.”

Yep the Retailers need to harden up.

I don’t know anyone who decides to purchase online because of the GST difference. They buy online because it is convenient and/or available.

If the concern is the 15% GST provides an incentive for people to buy online, then the solution should be to lower GST!

Hope also said a problem for banks would be not actually knowing where their customers were.

“A customer may be in a foreign jurisdiction on holiday. We don’t know where they physically are so if the transaction is booked on their credit card in a foreign jurisdiction, are they there physically? Are they holidaying or have they just brought something from that jurisdiction?”

If my credit card company charged me 15% GST on a purchase and got it wrong, I’d want their blood.

Former Press political editor Colin Espiner blogs:

If you are ever of a mind to stage a coup against your party leader – or your boss, or even your mother – there are two golden rules you must follow. 

1: Deny you’re planning a coup

2: See rule one

So true.

I thought it might be useful for readers who have had less experience with covering coups than Garner – or myself – to set out again a few basic rules of coup plotting. 

The idea is to destablise the leader first, to soften him or her up for the bloodletting to follow. This is normally done by having a word in the ear of a journalist you can trust not to dob you in. 

You do this for a number of reasons. Going public makes the leader’s job more difficult. It probably leads to a further decline in the leader’s popularity with the public. And it sends a signal to your colleagues that a plot to roll the leader is under way. 

What we don’t know is which of the many factions was behind it?

The third point is, as I emphasised above, that those involved will absolutely lie about it. Indeed, their dishonesty is expected and accepted by press gallery journalists. One of the first things I was told when I started in the gallery was that coup plots were the one time when MPs were expected to lie to journalists – and when it was considered acceptable for them to do so. 

The counterfactual – anti-politician Don Brash notwithstanding – is laughable. “Yes Mr Journalist, you’ve got me bang to rights. You’ve rumbled me. I am planning to overthrow my leader. I admit it. Righto, I’ll just go and give the party my resignation.”

So when all MPs deny it, it means nothing.

I am absolutely sure Labour MPs are plotting against Shearer. Why wouldn’t they be? It’s sheer self-preservation. Shearer’s personal popularity with the public is woeful. Most people have no idea who he is, and those who do know think he’s a shambolic, equivocal, spineless ditherer with the political nous of a first-term MP. 

Shearer is a lovely man. I’d let him babysit my kids without hesitation. But to date he has revealed neither the fortitude nor the authority to lead a political party – let alone be a prime minister. 

I doubt anyone would have ever said they’d let Rob Muldoon babysit their kids 🙂

What sealed it for me was when Shearer was asked why he didn’t put a stop to the “man ban” proposal when he first heard about it. He replied Labour was a democratic party, “and I can’t just bang my fist and get what I want”. 

Excuse me? Why ever not? Does Shearer honestly believe Clark ran Labour as a democracy? Flat hierarchies may work fine in NGOs like the UN but party politics is feral. The leader of the pack needs to be, at best, a benevolent dictator. 

Labour’s MPs know this. They are wringing their hands in despair. The window for rolling Shearer is open, but not for much longer. But when to leap, and into whose arms? 

Those are the only questions keeping Shearer in his job. 

I still think Shearer may hang in, because the large ABC faction can not risk Cunliffe winning a membership vote and becoming Leader. It would mean several long serving MPs would have to retire from Parliament – and they don’t want to.

If the caucus still elected the leader, the Shearer would probably be toast. But unless the factions can agree on a suitable alternative, and deputy, he may hang on.

Danyl McLauchlan blogs:

Wouldn’t it be weird if Shearer’s MPs weren’t plotting to replace him?

That’s a fair point!

Incidentally the Listener has a nice profile of Danyl and his new blog.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Speaker David Carter has asked the Privileges Committee to draw up rules setting out the circumstances under which information such as security access details can be released, after concerns were raised that such details were used without permission to track the movements of United Future’s Peter Dunne and Fairfax reporter Andrea Vance. …

Mr Carter dismissed a complaint by Green Party co-leader Russel Norman against the Prime Minister over the issue, but said Dr Norman’s complaint did raise serious issues that the Privileges Committee was best-placed to look into.

“The exercise of intrusive powers against members threatens members’ freedom to carry out their functions as elected representatives and the House’s powers to control its own proceedings and precincts without outside interference.”

He said the release of information relating to journalists working in Parliament also raised concerns.

“While the media do not necessarily participate directly in Parliamentary proceedings, they are critical to informing the public about what Parliament is doing and public confidence in Parliament. Actions which may put at risk journalists’ ability to report freely are a significant concern.”

However, Mr Carter said Parliament was also a workplace for Parliamentary and Government department staff, so access to such data also had to pay regard to the rights of employers and employees.

“I believe some common understanding is required to ensure that on the one hand, the functioning of the House and discharge of members’ duties is not obstructed or impeded, but on the other hand the maintenance of law and order and the ability to investigate and prosecute offences committed within the Parliamentary precincts is preserved.”

This is a good decision. Some clarity on this issue would be welcome. As I previously said, I thought the decision to access and release the swipe card details of a journalist was the wrong call.

A fairly rare private bill has been introduced to Parliament, the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill.

There are four sorts of bills. They are:

• a Government bill—a bill dealing with a matter of public policy introduced by a Minister
• a Member’s bill—a bill dealing with a matter of public policy introduced by a member who is not a Minister
• a local bill—a bill promoted by a local authority, which affects a particular locality only
• a private bill—a bill promoted by a person or body of persons (whether incorporated or not) for the particular interest or benefit of that person or body of persons

The particular bill is to amend the birth certificate of Rowen Sullivan to reinsert Diane Sullivan as her mother. Diane died when Rowen was 17, and her mother’s partner Doreen Shields became her guardian. When Rowen turned 18 she would have no legal relationship with Doreen (despite a lifetime of caring for her) so Doreen adopted Rowen. However this mean that Diane had to be removed from her birth certificate as her mother. This private bill seeks to put Diane’s name back on the birth certificate.

Most private bills are for organisations such as the Royal Society, Christ’s College, Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind etc. It is rare to have a bill for a natural person. In 1989 there was a private bill dealing with the estate of Ellen Eames, and closer to this in 1985 Parliament passed a law making lawful a marriage between Thomas Stockman and Rosalina Howe despite him being the half brother of her mother.

Also in 1985 we had the Longley Adoption Act and in 1982 the Papa Adoption Discharge Act.

The Dom Post editorial:

There are two inescapable facts when it comes to clearing traffic jams at the Basin Reserve. The first is that separating vehicles heading east and west from those going north and south is essential. The second is that all the evidence shows the best option to achieve that is a flyover.

What will it take for those Wellington city councillors who remain implacably opposed to the project to accept they have lost the argument?

It seems no amount of fact or reality can sway their blind opposition.

Yet, despite the council’s own findings, a majority of councillors – albeit a wafer thin one – remain determined to try and stop a project that will bring enormous benefits to the capital. Their latest bid to have it delayed is to request that Environment Minister Amy Adams ask the Environment Court to determine whether it should be given resource consents rather than have the applications referred to the faster board of inquiry process.

Councillor Iona Pannett, one of the most vocal opponents of the flyover, says she does not trust a board to give proper weight to arguments against a flyover and there is a real risk the project will be given the green light.

What she and like-minded councillors, including Mayor Celia Wade-Brown, seem unable to grasp is that whichever body considers the consent applications, it will not be deciding between a flyover or a tunnel because NZTA has made it perfectly clear an underground solution is neither workable nor affordable. It is, then, a flyover or nothing, and doing nothing is simply not an option.

Rather than seeking to delay the flyover’s construction, the council should invest its time and energy in ensuring NZTA implement all the measures needed to mitigate its impact on the environment. The time for dithering has ended. It’s time for action.

That is the key. A sensible Council would be putting all its energy into how to mitigate the impact of the flyover, not running a jihad against it.

Former Senator Phil Gramm writes on his principles for tax reform.

First, under no circumstances should Republicans agree to make the tax system even more progressive than it already is, or to increase the number of people who do not pay income taxes. In 1980, the top 1% and 5% of income earners in America paid 19.1% and 36.9% of total federal income taxes. Today, the top 1% and 5% pay 37.4% and 59.1%. Meanwhile, 41.6% of American earners now pay no federal income taxes.

Sounds like NZ.

Second, government should collect the minimum revenues needed to support and protect a free society and do so in a way that is, as far as possible, neutral in its effect on individual behavior. In its purest form, this means no individual deductions, credits or tax expenditures. No matter how committed Americans may be individually to charitable giving or home ownership, the government should not promote those values through special provisions in the tax code.

Agreed.

Third, Republicans should require all similarly structured firms be treated the same. If sweat equity is taxed as a capital gain for a mechanic who opens a garage with a financial partner, it should be treated the same for a hedge fund or private-equity manager who shares in the gains of his investors.

Likewise a capital gains tax should have no exemptions.

Fourth, business subsidies and credits should be eliminated. Ending subsidies to fund lower tax rates improves the efficiency of capital allocation. The sine qua non of tax reform is a more efficient allocation of investment capital. If the tax breaks that create crony capitalism are allowed to survive, then tax reform failed.

Lower tax rates, not special tax rates.

Stuff reports:

The price tag for a “living wage” for Wellington council workers is looking increasingly steep, with the prediction ratepayers could stump up an extra $1 million a year.

A Wellington City Council report shows the estimated internal cost of adopting a living wage will be $900,000 a year.

The figure included $575,000 for 502 council staff, and $325,000 for 257 staff across council controlled organisations.

The news comes after Hamilton City Council last week dropped plans for a living wage for its staff, when it was faced with an estimated cost blowout of $643,000 over two years.

The cost of a living wage for all Auckland Council employees has been put at more than $17 million a year.

Last month, the Wellington City Council voted to back the principle of becoming a living wage capital and the council committed $250,000 to implementing the policy by January 1, 2014.

So Councillors are sending ratepayers a bill for $1 million a year, so they feel good.

The BBC reports:

Some civil servants are “lazy” and need to be moved from their jobs, Britain’s top civil servant has said.

Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood was defending a scheme in which the bottom 10% of staff are targeted for improvement or moved out.

He also backed allowing ministers to “hand-pick” staff in their private office and limit permanent secretaries to five-year terms.

The last two things are already the case in NZ.

Sir Jeremy said suggestions top civil servants were opposed to a major revamp of the way the civil service operates, launched last year, were “wide of the mark”.

Under the scheme, the top 25% performers in each government department are rewarded – some with cash bonuses – and the bottom 10% identified for action to improve their performance or be moved out. 

No figures were available for the numbers who left their posts, but Sir Jeremy said there had been a willingness to implement the scheme, as “nothing annoys good civil servants more than seeing lazy civil servants going year after year without addressing that performance problem”.

Bonuses for the top performers, and assistance or moving on for the worst – sounds good to me.

I blogged yesterday on Labour’s silly claims about how the recent payment of a dividend from Transpower to the Government means that Kiwi households are paying hundreds of dollars too much in power bills.

A reader has e-mailed in with some facts that show how Labour’s claims are detached entirely from reality. The scary thing is that Parker must know what Labour is saying s not true, but they hope people will fall for it.

1. Transpower’s “Maximum Allowable Revenue” (MAR) for its monopoly line services (ie almost all its activities) is regulated under Part 4 of the Commerce Act 1986 by the Commerce Commission.
2. When the Commerce Commission sets Transpower’s MAR it does not take into consideration Transpower’s dividends or any interest it pays on debt. This is in line with standard regulatory practice as the dividends and interest payments are distributions and do not reflect the economic costs of production. Charges are related to efficient costs, including costs of capital (whether funded by debt or provided as equity).
3. This means that Transpower’s dividends have no bearing whatsoever on its charges for its monopoly line services; ie they have no impact at all on the parts of the price of power relating to transmission lines.
4. It is also the case that, given how the Commission sets Transpower’s MAR, Transpower’s charges do not depend materially on whether or not it finances its investments from retained earnings (ie foregone dividends) or by raising debt. 

It’s great to get feedback from people who know what they are talking about.

The BBC reports:

France has halted an anti-piracy policy that threatened persistent offenders with internet bans.

A law passed by the previous government had let local courts suspend copyright infringers’ connectivity for up to a month if they were caught three times.

It was supported by the entertainment industry, but France’s current culture minister had said that she thought the penalty was “disproportionate”.

File-sharers still face fines of up to 1,500 euros ($1,923; £1,292).

The government added that it would now focus its efforts on sites that made money from offering illegally copied content rather than individual users.

Suspension is disproportionate. Good to see France call a halt to it.

Chacha has the top 15:

1. I weigh this much
2. I have had this many sexual partners
3. I’ll be ready in a minute
4. That sex was great
5. I’m not mad at you
6. I’ve got a headache
7. It was on sale
8. This is just what I wanted
9. I don’t mind if you look at other women
10. I’m fine
11. You’re the best I’ve ever had
12. I’m focusing on my career right now
13. Fake phone number
14. I have a boyfriend
15. It’s not you, it’s me

I am sure there is an equivalent list for men somewhere!

Kudos to Auckland Transport Blog which has published an alternate transport vision for Auckland from 2015 to 2030. Their main post is here and their costings here.

It’s a great example of being pro-active and putting up a well researched proposal for debate. Doesn’t mean I agree with their proposal, but their contribution is valuable and welcome.

It would be good for an appropriate agency to independently cost their proposals, and estimate what impact on congestion their proposals would have.

Stuff reported:

Labour leader David Shearer quickly went on the offensive over power prices after announcing the demise of the ‘‘man-ban’’ selection policy, starting with an attack on John Key’s ‘‘desire to suck dividends out of national grid operator Transpower’’. He said it meant Kiwi households had hundreds of dollars added to their power bills. Transpower has paid more than $600m in dividends in the past two years and will pay out another $151m this year.

It means no such things, and shows some financial illiteracy. Dividends are simply the payment of surplus funds. The key figure is what has been the actual profit made each year. In other words, has Transpower in recent years been making far greater profits than in the past?

Here’s the average annual profit for the last 13 years:

• 2000 – 2002: $115m
• 2003 – 2005: $74m
• 2006 – 2008: $147m
• 2009 – 2011: $78m
• 2012: $85m

So if there has been a surplus of funds built up, then we know when it occured!

The level of profits by Transpower do not seem that large. At a minimum they need to generate a return on current capital, plus enough of a profit to allow for investment in new infrastructure.

Questions to Ministers

1. JACQUI DEAN (NAT) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the long-term benefits of strong fiscal management?
2. GRANT ROBERTSON (LAB) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
3. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZF) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Has he received any reports of substandard buildings being built as part of the Christchurch rebuild; if so, how many buildings are known to be substandard?
4. CLAUDETTE HAUITI (NAT) to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has the Government made to improve New Zealand’s freshwater management?
5. METIRIA TUREI (GRE) to the Minister for Economic Development: When will he release all of the advice he has received on the social harms from the SkyCity deal, given his statement yesterday that it is his “understanding” that only “most” of the advice has been released?
6. Hon DAVID PARKER (LAB) to the Minister of Finance: Does he take responsibility for the composition of Budget 2013?
7. COLIN KING (NAT) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What support is the Government giving to businesses to increase innovation and speed up the commercialisation of new products and services?
8. JACINDA ARDERN (LAB) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by the statement made on her behalf in the House yesterday that “there will always be times when resources are stretched, but I believe we do have sufficient resources to care for the needs of vulnerable children”?
9. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (GRE) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: How did he meet his obligations under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to maintain the proper functioning of the ETS when he directed the issuing of 30 million additional New Zealand Units?
10. PHIL TWYFORD (LAB) to the Minister of Housing: How many homes does he believe will be built as a result of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill, and what percentage of those homes will be affordable?
11. SCOTT SIMPSON (NAT) to the Associate Minister of Health: Has she received any recent reports regarding district health board performance in taking steps to improve patient safety in hospitals?
12. DARIEN FENTON (LAB) to the Minister of Labour: How many workplace deaths have there been in the last four years?

Today there are five questions from Labour, four from National, two from the Greens and one from NZ First. Labour is asking the PM a gotcha, on Budget 2013, vulnerable children, affordable housing, and workplace deaths. The Greens are asking on the SkyCity deal and the ETS, and NZ First is asking on the Christchurch rebuild.

Patsy of the day goes to Colin King for question 7: What support is the Government giving to businesses to increase innovation and speed up the commercialisation of new products and services?

Government Bills

1. New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill – first reading
2. Psychoactive Substances Bill – third reading
3. Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill – third reading

The New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill was introduced by Steven Joyce and gives effect to the controversial SkyCity pokies for convention centre deal. The Speaker has indicated this first reading will be a conscience vote.

The Psychoactive Substances Bill regulates psychoactive substances including party pills and other legal highs. It was introduced by Peter Dunne and is now being guided by new Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay.

The Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill amend the principal Act 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 to fund its functions. It is being guided through the House by Maurice Williamson.

Transparency International has done a global survey on perceptions of corruption. The results for NZ are here. The percentages thinking each type of institution are corrupt were (with result for Australia in brackets):

1. Political Parties 46% (58%)
2. Media 43% (58%)
3. Business 36% (47%)
4. Religions 35% (44%)
5. Parliament 33% (36%)
6. Public service 25% (35%)
7. Police 24% (33%)
8. Judiciary 20% (28%)
9. NGOs 19% (23%)
10. Health services 17% (20%)
11. Education systems 16% (19%)
12. Military 11% (25%)

A pity they can’t break the score for political parties down by party!

Australians perceive corruption more often in every category. Interesting that the media features so highly.

John Hartevelt at Ninth&10 reports:

Ed Miliband today achieved what might previously have seemed impossible. His Labour Party/union reform speech had Tony Blair gushing before it was even delivered – and it had the approval of Unite Union leader Len McCluskey immediately afterwards. …

But whatever the long-term impact of Miliband’s ideas, he achieved a tidy political set-piece today. This mattered for Ed because he is often written up as a man not ready for the job. In the middle of last week, some of his front-bench was briefing that he needed to “get a grip” on the union influence stories spilling forth from the initial problem in Falkirk. In a few days of practiced political management, Miliband does seem to have tightened – if not quite sewn up – this troublesome narrative, for the time being, at least.

You can look back on the past week and see a plan that was quickly put together and decisively executed. There was a resignation, suspensions and police referrals last week. A grim-faced Angela Eagle was deployed to tell a “get tough” story on Falkirk. This week, the lobby was briefed in advance of Miliband’s speech on some meaty reform details. Blair obliged with his warm endorsement on Sky News right ahead of the speech and Miliband sprung a genuine surprise with a voter-friendly proposal to restrict the amount MPs can earn outside of their day jobs. The analysts were so impressed by this last point that they said Miliband had hurled the ball cleverly in to the Tory half of the court for a response.

And this is how competent political management should look.

The contrast with David Shearer’s Labour leadership in New Zealand is incredibly stark. MPs in NZ are again whispering to journalists about Shearer’s leadership and playing dumb with their bosses when asked for an explanation (this is what I took to have happened with the Duncan Garner tweet drama last night, NZ time, for those who were following it). Whatever his colleagues say, it’s clear that Shearer does not have enough of the confidence of his own caucus. …

He seems too far gone as leader now.

The diverging prospects of the two Labour leaders over the past week are instructive. Neither man is as politically gifted as his centre-right adversary, but at least one of them is making some of his own luck.

To be fair to Shearer, he is not solely responsible. The Deputy Leader is meant to play a key role in party management, as are the staff.