Stuff reports:

A select committee hearing has descended into acrimony after Labour MP Trevor Mallard appeared to threaten the job of a senior police officer.

Mallard abruptly left a select committee after an exchange of angry words with Police Minister Anne Tolley after he questioned the decision of Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Bush to speak at the funeral of former police officer Bruce Hutton.

Is it newsworthy anymore when Trevor Mallard storms out of the House or a select committee? He’s done it so often, it is probably more newsworthy when he doesn’t.

After Mallard attempted to question Bush on the issue Government committee members objected that his questions were out of order.

But Mallard hit back and appeared to threaten Bush’s job.

“We’re deciding whether or not to continue his salary, that’s what we’re deciding now,” he said.

Really. A select committee can approve the salary of an individual police officer?

Also of interest is this tweet from Hamish Rutherford:

David Shearer confirms he was in SkyCity corp.box after ABs test at Eden Park on Sat for “5 to 10 minutes” to say hello. No drinks or hospo.

So against Sky City making money from dirty pokies, but will pop into their corporate box.

And a great rejoinder from Steven Joyce:

I think he’s saying he didn’t inhale

Great sledge.

It is well known you can not distribute pre-filled in or pretend ballot papers. We’ve had this law for decades. But Labour’s Ikaroa-Rawhiti candidate facebooked this (now deleted):

You can see above Labour’s candidate facebooking a filled in ballot paper, and even worse promoting it for advance voting.

UPDATE: A reader says this came up in their timeline as sponsored, which means it is a paid advertisement by Labour. If so, that is even worse.

UPDATE2: Only an offence if done within 3 days of polling day, so not a law breach. I should have checked the Electoral Act rather than go off memory. Happy to state that on this occasion, Labour is not breaching electoral law, and my regrets I got it wrong. May this exception become the norm.

Arguable that with advance voting, the prohibition should be during the advance voting period.

News.com.au reports:

According to a study, men take until age 43 to finally grow up.

Damn. This means I am now grown up – just.

Research revealed that men agree with women that they stay ‘immature’ into their late 30s and 40s. Eight out of ten women even believe men ‘never stop being childish’.

I hope not!

They day I stop enjoying Southpark, involves a coffin!

Women, however, typically mature more than a decade earlier – at 32.

Growing up is very over-rated.

No Right Turn blogs:

So, United Future is apparently ready to re-register as a party, but has been held up by the Electoral Commission’s insistence on paper membership records.

As someone who has grown up in the internet age, this is simply backwards. In an age where I can get a passport, do my taxes, or submit on legislation online, the idea that I have to fill out an actual paper form to join a political party (as opposed to any other organisation) is just arcahic. But its also possibly illegal. Why? Because in 2002, Parliament passed the Electronic Transactions Act 2002, the thrust of which is basically “electronic stuff counts”. …

So basically the Electoral Commission could accept electronic membership records; they just choose not to. And that choice appears to be contrary to S 8 of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.

Administrative decisions cannot trump the law. The Electoral Commission needs to drag itself into the 21st century and start accepting electronic memberships. And who knows? Perhaps if you don’t need to use bronze-age technology to participate, people might actually start joining political parties again.

Basically I agree 100%. I don’t belong to organisations that I can’t join online. My membership of National has been done electronically for many years.

News.com.au reports:

During an appearance on the ABC’sQ&A on Monday night, Mr Latham accused Mr Rudd of sabotaging the party’s election campaign in 2010 and preparing to do it again for this year’s election.

Mr Latham said Mr Rudd’s ego is out of control and he must not be rewarded.

Despite his denials, Rudd is clearly campaigning for the leadership again. He is arranging supporters to turn up to public meetings and appear to be normal members of the public giving him a hero’s welcome. It is a cleverly crafted campaign to try and persuade people he is Labor’s only hope.

“He knows that every day he gets in the media cycle he’s knocking Gillard down a notch or two in the polls. This is a program, a jihad of revenge, the like of which we have never seen before in the history of Australian politics. And it goes beyond the normal human reaction of revenge. You are getting into the realm of evil.”

Despite polls that indicate Mr Rudd would give Labor a better chance in the election than Julia Gillard, Mr Latham said the party would better off “dying on its feet”.

Latham is a bit mad, but still to have one former ALP leader call another “evil” is extraordinary. They may be in opposition for a very long time.

Malcom Farr looks at the pros and cons of a change:

The basic contest is Ms Gillard against the man she deposed in June 2010, Kevin Rudd. But there is no official contest. Unlike other leadership bouts, no one has presented themselves as a combatant.

Mr Rudd has repeated past pledges that he will not challenge the Prime Minister and would not accept a draft. He expects Ms Gillard to take the party into the election.

That’s his talk, but Labor MPs are also watching his walk through dozens of marginal Labor electorates where he has been asked to help colleagues, and in the process has shown he can draw a happy crowd. Be mobbed by them, in fact, more like a minor celebrity than a former Prime Minister.

By contrast, Julia Gillard is seen to be so personally unpopular with voters the entire government is suffering, and in certain areas that is true. In western Sydney community and business sources have told news.com.au of their surprise at the number of times locals have, unprompted, raised their dislike of the Prime Minister.

As I say, the Labor MPs have to choose between a leader the public hates and a leader the caucus hates.

This has put the focus on Employment Minister Bill Shorten, a senior Victorian right MP who helped Ms Gillard into the job in 2010, as did the union he once led, the Australian Workers’ Union.

Mr Shorten has been conscripted by the mutterers as the man who could force or persuade Ms Gillard to step aside for Mr Rudd. It’s not a job he sought and, going by his renewed backing of the Prime Minister, not a job he wants.

He faces a grinding personal choice. He might have his CV forever marked as the Labor man who brought down two Labor Prime Ministers. Or on September 15 he might be confronted by colleagues who lost their seats and blame him for not bringing about a leadership change.

If Mr Rudd were to take over he might inherit a depleted front bench as ministers such as Treasurer Wayne Swan would find it hard to serve under him.

Rudd PM might go to an election as soon as possible, maybe August 3, the earliest date possible without breaking the link between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Go early while they still adore me, might be his reasoning.

But much would need to happen before that point, and the wait now is for the return of Parliament for its final two weeks before the election next week.

And the next Newspoll.

Bob Jones writes:

Britain’s historic aversion to Europe reached silliness proportions after Waterloo and led to its unnecessary involvement in the Crimean War and ultimately, in the even more fabricated World War I. But as the saying goes, the winners write the history books. …

Britain has been a huge loser through this belligerent nationalism but, and there is a but, for once it has served them well, in staying out of the terribly ill-considered euro. Has there ever been a dumber construct in modern times? Essentially it amounted to abandonment of economic sovereignty and, more important, a denial of the wisdom of free-floating exchange rates to cope with trade and currency flow fluctuations.

So true. UK Labour were very keen to join the Euro, but could never find the right time to do it. In hindsight, their failure to join was a huge blessing.

The motives for the euro were excellent, being to facilitate trade by avoiding currency exchange inconveniences and costs, plus prevent inflation. It’s achieved all of those objectives. But the dangers were ignored, and I’m not being wise after the event as I’ve frequently written predicting its inevitable collapse.

In creating a common currency the unavoidable effect was to give Germany, in particular, an artificially low currency advantage, and the weaker southern economies, a contrived high one. This gave those weaker economies an unearned ability to raise cheap but unsustainable loans.

Currency union will only work if you have fiscal union also. Monetary and fiscal policy have to work together.

We now see the consequences with mass unemployment and increasingly desperate people, many ominously turning to political extremists for salvation. Talk about history repeating itself! That said, there’s a lovely irony in Germany pumping billions into the suffering economies, solely to save the euro. Aside from being money they can wave goodbye to, it’s insane, for even if the euro is “saved”, a collapse would only reoccur with this flawed common currency for uncommon economies. Germans are now awake to this and complain bitterly about Chancellor Merkel’s obstinacy in persisting at their expense. She faces an election later this year and her unpopular actions may result in her political demise.

Now finally, one of the euro’s original architects, Oskar Lafontaine, the former German Finance Minister, has seen the light and called for the euro to be dismantled. This will be incredibly messy but not doing so will lead to even greater catastrophic consequences.

They should allow the PIGS to leave the Euro, so their new currencies can reflect their actual economic situation.

Meanwhile, on the sidelines, some Brits continue pushing their anti-European sentiment, reflected by the rise of UKIP (UK Independence Party) which has the primary objective of Britain leaving the European Union. As the bulk of the UKIP’s support comes from Tory voters, Prime Minister Cameron has now promised a referendum on the issue. The latest polls show 46 per cent in favour of quitting. It’s madness.

But let’s face it. At the bottom of this sentiment is an antipathy not just to annoying over-zealous Brussels regulations, but also immigration. Talking to an English friend about this I suggested the Poms should be grateful for Polish builders and Indian nurses and doctors, otherwise they’re in big trouble. “Oh we are,” he said. “It’s the trouble-making blacks and Muslims flowing in we object to but we’re no longer able to say that.” Similar strongly held views are held across Europe.

Almost every bar maid in London now appears to be Polish. I’ve yet to find a friend who is complaining about this 🙂

What Europe needs is a larger but less busy-body union and an immediate end to the euro but, even so, the disastrous consequences from the ill-fated common currency venture will linger for years. It’s strange today to recall Jack Marshall’s continual back-and-forth trips to Europe, begging for special terms for New Zealand, with the advent of the European Union. Thanks to Britain going to bat for us we were given time, a challenge our exporters rose to magnificently. Who would have though four decades ago that Europe would become almost irrelevant to us, now taking a minuscule 7 per cent of our exports? Thank goodness for that.

For many years our distance from Europe was a major disadvantage. Now it is becoming an advantage as we have built better trade ties with our Asian neighbours.

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

Solid Energy withheld financial information from Treasury when challenged on its business plans in what an independent report says was a pattern of disrespect the company showed to officials monitoring its performance.

Treasury yesterday released a review by accounting firm Deloitte of its monitoring of Solid Energy which appears likely to be broken up and sold off after overextending itself and almost failing under the weight of $390 million in debt and low coal prices.

Deloitte said it did not believe “that the failure of Solid Energy has highlighted a material failure in Treasury’s monitoring processes”.

However, the report goes on to raise questions “whether Treasury’s response was forceful enough or occurred soon enough given that the company provided cause for concern over an extended period”.

Deloitte said several Treasury staff it interviewed “identified a sense of tension from the chair and chief executive particularly when challenged on more fundamental aspects of their business and strategy”.

The problem is that the sack the Board option is a very heavy step to take.

Deloitte was also given examples of the company’s “lack of respect for commercial expertise that set the scene for difficult interactions, particularly surrounding core issues with Solid Energy’s governance”.

The first written evidence of this was in April 2011 when a Treasury analyst requested financial information underpinning Solid Energy’s evaluation of one of its projects.

Deloitte understood Mr Palmer told Treasury the request was unprofessional and Solid Energy would not provide the information.

“Following robust disagreement from Treasury, the chair instructed the Solid Energy management team to provide the analysis. It is our understanding it was never provided.”

The Deloitte report comes just a few weeks after Treasury released documents showing Mr Palmer fought against Treasury’s wish to have an independent advisor appointed to the company’s board last year as the state owned coal miner’s problems mounted.

Deloitte’s report concludes that the removal of Mr Palmer and Dr Elder “may have been warranted.”

However it noted that for Treasury to initiate such action “would have required it to effectively form the view that it lacked confidence in a board and executive with a sound track record in a technically complex industry”.

Perhaps something needed for the future is an agreement between Board and share-holder, where they agree on what sort of information will be provided to Treasury on request. While the Board can be the only governing body, it is important Treasury has enough information so it can independently advise Ministers on the company’s performance and plans.

The Privileges Committee has made some significant recommendations around the law of parliamentary privilege, the main one being that it be set out in statute. Their full report and arguing is very interesting, including where they slap down the Supreme court for their ruling in AG and Gow v Leigh.

As the Attorney-General chairs the Privileges Committee, I think it is safe to assume the Government will accept the report and act on it. The recommendations are:

1. We recommend to the House that it note that we respectfully disagree with the Supreme Court decision in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh in applying the test of necessity to ascertain the scope of Parliament’s privilege of freedom of speech.
2. We recommend to the Government that it introduce a Parliamentary Privilege Bill to clarify for the avoidance of doubt the nature of parliamentary privilege in New Zealand.
3. We recommend to the Government that the Parliamentary Privilege Bill contain a clear statement of purpose to aid in determining the extent and scope of parliamentary privilege.

4. We recommend to the Government that the Parliamentary Privilege Bill replace the 

   Legislature Act 1908, the Legislature Amendment Act 1992, and section 13 of the 

   Defamation Act 1992.

5. We recommend to the Government that it consider and where appropriate incorporate the recommendations in the Second Report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Law of Privilege and Related Matters, November 1989 (I.18B) in drafting the Parliamentary Privilege Bill.

6. We recommend to the Government that the Parliamentary Privilege Bill provide for 

   the avoidance of a doubt a definition of “proceedings in Parliament” and what is meant by 

   “impeaching and questioning” such proceedings, as set out in article 9 of the Bill of Rights 

   1688.

7. We recommend to the Government that the Parliamentary Privilege Bill provide for the power of the House to fine for contempt.

8. We recommend to the Government that the Parliamentary Privilege B

   ill provide for

   the power of the House to administer oaths or affirmations in respect of witnesses giving

   evidence.

9. We recommend to the Government that the Parliamentary Privilege Bill confirm that the House does not have the power to expel its members.

10. We recommend to the Government that the Parliamentary Privilege Bill provide that the live broadcast of Parliament’s proceedings, including select committee hearings, is protected by absolute privilege.
11. We recommend to the Government that the Parliamentary Privilege Bill provide that delayed broadcasts or rebroadcasts of Parliament’s proceedings, including select committee hearings, that are made by order or under the authority of the House of Representatives are protected by absolute privilege. 
12. We recommend to the Government that the Parliamentary Privilege Bill provide that a fair and accurate report of proceedings in the House, or summary using extracts of proceedings in the House, by any person is protected by qualified privilege. 

13. We recommend to the Government that the Parliamentary Privilege Bill provide that 

    the broadcast and other publication of extracts of Parliament’s proceedings, including 

    select committee hearings, that are not made by order or under the authority of the House 

    of Representatives are protected by qualified privilege, in a manner consistent with the 

    provisions of the Defamation Act 1992. 

14. We recommend to the Government that the Parliamentary Privilege Bill make 

    explicit that a member of Parliament, or any other person participating directly in or 

    reporting on parliamentary proceedings, who makes an oral or written statement that 

    affirms or adopts what he or she or another person has said in the House or its committees 

    will not be liable to criminal or civil proceedings unless the statement in and of itself could 

    be defamatory.

15. We recommend to the Government that once enacted the Parliamentary Privilege Bill be administered by the Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

16. We recommend to the Government that it work with the Clerk of the House of Representatives to draft the Parliamentary Privilege Bill.

The Herald editorial:

You would think everyone involved with education would be gladdened by the second year of national standards results for primary and intermediate schools released yesterday. They show a slight improvement in all three essential subjects: reading, writing and mathematics.

But …

You would think everyone in education would find the results useful, particularly as they have not been presented in a way that permits ready comparisons of different schools, which was the concern of many educationists when national standards were first mooted. But two years on, leading figures in the field still seem determined to discredit them.

Of course.

The public has grown tired of criticism of the Government’s efforts to do what the profession should have done long ago.

Professor Thrupp leads a project called “Rains”, an apt acronym perhaps, that stands for research, analysis and insight into national standards. Six schools have been studied and they showed, he says, “extreme variability in processes underlying national standards judgments. For instance, schools are on different trajectories around the national standards related to their diverse contexts and past practices …”

That is the jargon of minds looking for problems where none need exist.

Teachers and schools will never be perfectly consistent in their testing and marking but with professional guidance they can be consistent enough to provide their pupils and the paymasters with useful measures of the education system’s performance. That is what the Government was seeking. Now, with two years of figures to compare, the minister can begin to act on the results.

Exactly. The reason we have national standards is simply to allow the Government to identify areas and schools where achievement is not at the level it should be, and provide greater assistance to those schools.

Joshua Drummond writes in the Waikato Times:

Really, Hamilton City Council? Seriously? I can’t believe you’ve done this. I never expected it to happen. You’ve got me agreeing wholeheartedly with Judith Collins.

This hell-freezing-over moment happened when Collins referred to HCC’s decision to remove fluoride from Hamilton’s water supply as “bollocks,” and “absolutely gutless.”

I couldn’t agree more, although I’ve frequently used choicer words to describe the decision over the last couple of days – the most print-friendly of which are “utter cowardice” and “witless imbecility.”

A pity the full terms can’t be used in the web version!

Where to start with this one? Let’s begin at the top, with Mayor Julie Hardaker’s statement responding to Collins’ invective.

“My council and I have sat through four days of what I would regard as a very, very good process, listening to and receiving info, evidence, data, statistics, expert advice from both sides of this debate.”

Um, no. No you didn’t. You willfully set aside actual expert opinion and the weight of evidence, instead listening to a mixture of cranks, otherwise credible people with a crank bone, and crazies. It’s the equivalent of a local body deciding whether climate change or evolution exists or not. (Both do, just to annoy the cranks out there.)

When someone mentions hearing from “both sides of the debate” in this situation, it speaks volumes. There aren’t two sides to this debate – there is a weight of evidence favouring fluoridation, and mostly fringe evidence against it. Let’s say, for a given issue, evidence is 95 percent in favour and 5 percent against. You don’t then convene a tribunal where you hear submissions in a 50:50 ratio of for and against.

That is a key point. I recall a stats blog post recently where someone said that submissions are for reading, not counting.

Never mind that the scales were tipped against fluoridation from the start – a fact that was boasted about by the anti lobby. Spearheading the local effort was Pat McNair, head of the Fluoride Free Hamilton campaign.

You may know her from the letters page of every newspaper in a 500 kilometre radius. Speaking in the Waikato Times before the tribunal, she crowed that “more than 130 people from all walks of life would be speaking at the hearings” of which “only 11 people have been confirmed to speak in favour of fluoride.”

Well, you’d think that if numbers were the issue, that the 2006 referendum in which 70 percent of voters were in favour of fluoridation would have settled it. But numbers ultimately shouldn’t matter here. Evidence should.

Exactly.

Anyway, you’ll be pleased to know that now she’s won a hopefully temporary victory over the humble fluoride ion, Pat McNair shouldn’t lack for things to do. She’s a stalwart of the local effort to complain about chemtrails.

If you haven’t had the pleasure of reading up on the matter, let me enlighten you: the chemtrails conspiracy theory is basically that we’re being doped and/or geoengineered – the literature is not quite clear on which – by secret aircraft that leave tell-tale “chemtrails” behind.

I hope it’s not necessary to spell out that chemtrails are complete bollocks, with (as is usual with conspiracy theories,) a very small nugget of truth at their centre. The things the conspiracy theorists point out as chemtrails are generally contrails – which have been around about as long as there have been aircraft – or clouds.

Well, here’s Pat McNair on the matter recently, on the ever-informative Northland New Zealand Chemtrails Watch website:

“The day started out with fluffy white clouds, but they soon disappeared and were replaced by stripy, stretched-out examples of the very thing we were there to protest. Thanks everyone! It was fun!”

Congratulations, Hamilton City Council. You have kowtowed to people who protest about clouds. 

So well said.

Hekia Parata has released:

The 2012 national aggregate data shows:

• Reported achievement against the National Standard for reading increased by 1.2 per cent from 76.2 per cent in 2011 to 77.4 per cent in 2012.
• Reported achievement against the National Standard for mathematics increased by 1.4 per cent from 72.2 per cent in 2011 to 73.6 per cent in 2012.
• Reported achievement against the National Standard for writing increased by 2 per cent from 68 per cent in 2011 to 70 per cent in 2012.

For some reasons Labour, Greens and the teacher unions spent years fighting against the Government being able to know how students are doing against a national standard! Good to see some modest improvements. Well done the teachers and schools (and parents and pupils) who have contributed to that.

Pasifika children showed the greatest increase on last year, improving by around 3 per cent in all three standards.

So what is the data:

Reading

• All 77.4% (+1.2%)
• Boys 73.2% (+1.2%)
• Girls 81.9% (+1.4%)
• Maori 68.2% (+1.7%)
• Pasifika 62.6% (+3.6%)

Writing

• All 70.0% (+2.0%)
• Boys 62.6% (+1.4%)
• Girls 77.8% (+2.8%)
• Maori 60.2% (+2.7%)
• Pasifika 56.6% (+3.0%)

Maths

• All 73.6% (+1.4%)
• Boys 73.0% (+1.1%)
• Girls 74.1% (+1.4%)
• Maori 63.6% (+1.1%)
• Pasifika 56.8% (+3.0%)

While the improvements are good, the numbers for those not at the national standard is too high. You’ll never be 100%, but we should be aiming that those at the national standard are at 85% to 90% in all demographics.

The poorer performance of boys is a major concern. I note that even in a subject area where boys are traditionally seen as stronger, they lag even in maths now.

Some more detailed info here.

Had a pleasant evening last night as the guest speaker at a function by IPANZ for new public sector professionals. I talked on “How to deal with bloggers”.

Was somewhat amused that some of the staff there were ones who had just been responding to my OIA requests. Had an extended discussion with some Stats NZ staff on sampling techniques and errors. Felt sorry for anyone else listening in. Also talked tax modelling with some Treasury people. Was a full geek night!

One of the attendees there said they came along, because they attended the MPs vs media debate and wanted to hear me speak again. They expressed regret that I didn’t use either of the C words I used in that debate. I suspect I’m never going to live that down!

Russel Norman proclaimed:

“There’s no signs of clawing back any of the 40,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector since 2008.

Rob Hoksing at NBR fisks this claim:

Manufacturing has lost 40,000 jobs, Green co-leader Russel Norman proclaimed yesterday when the latest manufacturing data came out.

He might be right – if you go back to the late 1990s.

However, Dr Norman claimed the sector had lost 40,000 jobs since the current government took office at the end of 2008.

We’ll call that bogus and leave readers to use shorter or pithier epithets if they so wish.

So who is right? Russel Norman or Rob Hoksing?

The full-time equivalent employee numbers, which are included in Statistics New Zealand’s quarterly employment survey, show 18,000 fewer working in the industry over the past 17 quarters since National took office. 

The previous 17 quarters show a 16,700 drop. Remember this was also, mostly, prior to the global financial crisis, in a much more different – not to say optimistic – environment.

The filled job figures, also contained in the quarterly employment survey, show a 20,400 fall in jobs in the most recent 17 quarters, and 18,300 in the equivalent previous period.

So if you go by the QES, Norman is out by over 100%.

The official unemployment measure, the household labour force, shows a much larger difference.

 The number of people employed in manufacturing fell 9400 since the change of government. The previous 17 quarters shows a loss of more than double that number of jobs, by 19,900.

And from the HLFS stats, Norman is out by 300%.

All these figures paint the same picture with a slightly different emphasis: the sector has been employing fewer people for a long time. 

They also show Dr Norman is just making numbers up. 

Making a lot of things up lately to manufacture a crisis in manufacturing.

If you want some humour, watch this interview of Winston Peters by John Campbell. Not sure whether it is more funny or sad.

Peter George has a transcript:

Campbell: How did he breach national security?

Peters: Well he leaked information on a very important report, to do with the malfunction of the GCSB, that’s the Kitteridge report, and then there’s the matter of moral within the GCSB, a separate matter, no no no, let me finish, you want to know how I’m going to give you a snapshot, just three, not all of them, just three. And the third one was he made reference to someone he should not have made reference to on the question of the GCSB appointments.

Campbell: Ok, let’s go through these things one at a time. The Kitteridge report, it was going to be made public.

Peters: I know what you’re trying to say, and some of your colleagues are doing the same, they’re saying…

Campbell: No wait a minute, I’m not trying to say anything, it’s a statement of fact

Peters: …over the last twenty four hour, a repetitive argument he just broke the embargo…

Campbell: You’re hearing fact, you’re hearing fact…

Peters: …let me tell you why it’s not fact, and I’m sure you’re interested in that, the ah Fairfax outlet said it was a secret report, and it was, the second thing is it was described in the State Services and parliamentary record of being such a document in it’s past precedence. Then you’ve got the fact an investigator appointed by the National Party, said as well it was classified and highly sensitive…

Campbell: Mr Peters, look, I can’t sit here and let you spout nonsense to me, absolutely, I’m going to read what David Henry said, verbatim quote. 

“On the afternoon of 27th March Mr Dunne was given a numbered copy of the Kitteridge report” – which was going to be made public – “but not the classified appendices”.

In other words he didn’t have classified material. No, you know that. Why are you sitting here tonight saying that he did?

Peters: Because you haven’t asked any questions about what happened by way of conversation within five MPs, including the Prime Minister who sat on the Intelligence and Security committee, you don’t know that, and I don’t think Mr Henry bothered to ask as well which is why I raised questions about the way he was conducting this inquiry.

I’ve been on that committee, I know something about what I’m talking about and I know what international ramifications are, and I’m not going to stand by while cynical people who said from day one there was nothing in this, now repeat that he merely broke an embargo. I’m sorry, this is out number one security agency, it interrelates with international agencies and our respect and integrity is on the line, and it’s important.

He just couldn’t answer the question, so did the normal bluster.

Campbell: Ok, what evidence is that?

Peters: That’s the evidence that backs up what I’m saying, and every day it unfolds, you will find that out.

Campbell: What evidence is that?

Peters: Well it’s evidence of, ah, improperly liaison meetings with disclosure of secret, confidential, private information, not just in one area but in a number of areas.

Campbell: Do you have the emails?

Peters: I’ve told you from day one that I have the evidence sufficient to make allegations, both to you, inside parliament because you wouldn’t publish it otherwise, and outside parliament… 

Campbell: Yes or no, do you have the emails?

Peters: Well of course I’ve got information I need to back up my…

Campbell: Yes or no, do you have the emails?

Peters: No no no, you’re not going to know, what I want you to tell me is why you aren’t asking the Prime Minister, Prime Minister, why can’t we see the information that you won’t show the public.

A nice calling of Peters’ bluff.

Most parties do fundraising dinners with their senior MPs to raise money. Labour seem to have worked out that no one will pay to just have dinner with their MPs, so they’ve roped in Sir Ian McKellen to help ticket sales. For just $1,000 you can have lunch with Sir Ian and David Shearer, and get a signed photo of yourself with Sir Ian. Strangely they are not offering signed photos of the guests with David Shearer!

Sir Ian is a supporter of the British Labour Party.

Tom Pullar-Strecker at Stuff writes:

On closer inspection, the “big scoop” about US spies snooping on our emails and internet use turns out to have been teaspoon-sized.

Reports over the weekend suggested that the United States’ National Security Agency, a spy agency, had been able to tap into the servers of nine internet giants at will for the past several years using a system codenamed Prism. But they have unravelled.

The National Security Agency and the internet companies themselves have all denied the claims. The newspapers that got the supposed scoop – a PowerPoint presentation leaked by on-the-run defence contractor Edward Snowden – have significantly modified their reports.

He continues:

Had the original claims made by Britain’s Guardian newspaper and the Wall Street Journal proved well-founded, the implications for New Zealanders might have been far-reaching.

Most New Zealanders use either Google’s Gmail service or Telecom’s email service, which is outsourced to Yahoo. Google and Yahoo were both implicated in the scare.

If the NSA really had open slather to their servers, either through the acquiescence of the companies or by hacking their servers, as implied by the initial reports on Prism, then its agents would have been free since 2009 to read most New Zealanders’ emails.

Also an open book to the spy agency would be most people’s internet search histories, social networking activities and instant messages over the past several years.

However, the companies concerned have denied giving the NSA such a “back door”, and United States National Intelligence Director James Clapper has denied having one.

So what do they have?

Since 2008, the US government has been able to use Section 702 of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) to demand the co-operation of “electronic communications companies”  with a presence on US soil when snooping on named foreign nationals.

US government agencies are required to have reason to believe each individual poses a security threat and their demands are subject to approval by a special court, though since that court meets in secret there is inevitably a suspicion such requests are always “rubber-stamped”.

Those snooping powers themselves, while controversial, have never been secret however. There is a gulf between them and the implications of the original reports concerning Prism, which strongly suggested the NSA could simply help itself to whatever it wanted, whenever it liked.

Prism is simply a boring internal tool used to analyse the results of such legal searches, according to Clapper’s explanation. That ties in with the fact that Snowden, clearly a relatively junior defence contractor (and there’s some clue there surely), had access to information about the program.

Could US spooks use Fisa to spy on your emails and internet searches if they wanted to? Very likely, if they could be bothered, but they would need to first have a specific interest in you. Nothing has changed in that respect.

Have they been harvesting our emails and internet records en masse, sticking them in an NSA datacentre and then scanning them to fish for evidence of any illegal activity?

There is no evidence to suggest that. If they have, Prism doesn’t appear to be the tool they are using.

A useful differentiation.

The NZ Herald headline:

Christchurch super school set to be privately funded

Set to be privately funded? Really? So it is going to be a private school is it?

The lead para says:

The Education Ministry’s $41 million proposed year 1-13 super school for Christchurch is set to be funded by the private sector, a document reveals.

Set to be. Note the phrasing again.

The document, obtained by APNZ, outlines advice given to Education Minister Hekia Parata and shows she signed off on five of eight recommendations.

Ms Parata added in her handwriting that four Christchurch eastern suburb schools should close a year later, in December 2016, to allow for “considerations of public-private partnership procurement.”

Wait a second, how did “considerations of” become “set to be”. That is quite misleading.

The privately funded school, known as a public-private partnership (PPP) school, would be the second in New Zealand after the Hobsonville Point primary school opened this year in Auckland.

A PPP is not a privately funded school. It is a state funded school. The difference is that the capital costs of the school are paid for by a private firm, and repaid over time.

Last year the Government announced a multimillion dollar deal for the primary school at Hobsonville Point.

The ministry owns the buildings but had no responsibility for their design, construction, finance or ongoing maintenance.

It is understood the consortium behind the Hobsonville school, Learning Infrastructure Partners, would earn $100,000 over its 25-year contract.

Oh goodness, an average of $4,000 a year!

The Ministry of Education’s deputy secretary for regional operations Katrina Casey said a business case for a public-private partnership would be developed later this year.

She said the business case would analyse the PPP cost against the ministry’s standard procurement model.

“The Ministry is required to assess the requirement for PPP for all capital projects using Treasury guidelines. At this stage the ministry is not aware of any specific interest from the private sector to build the campus.”

The ministry already uses the private sector to build schools, but a PPP extends the responsibility to include design, build, finance and maintenance of the school over a long-term contract of up to 25 years.

“One of the main benefits for a school is that that the board of trustees and school leadership no longer have to worry about maintaining school property as this is the responsibility of the private partner,” Ms Casey said.

“This means the Board can focus on teaching and learning and improving educational outcomes.”

So it is clear that no decision has been made. The Ministry will looks at the costs of PPP vs standard procurement.

There are pros and cons of a PPP. No problems with a story focusing on those. But a headline announcing a school is “set to be privately funded” is misleading.

The Dom Post editorial:

Leaks are a vital safeguard against the abuse of power. In recent years they have been the means by which the public learned that New Zealand’s diplomatic efforts were being compromised by indiscriminate cuts within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and that some of the country’s richest people and companies were using offshore tax shelters to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

More recently they were the means by which the public learned that the Government Communications Security Bureau had run off the rails.

Labour leader David Shearer’s call for police to seize UnitedFuture MP Peter Dunne’s emails and question him under oath about the leaking of the GCSB review suggests he has a remarkably short memory. It is little more than a year since Labour colleague Phil Goff used leaked Mfat documents to reveal that cuts within the ministry were undermining New Zealand’s diplomatic capability. The Labour leader’s comments also show a worrying lack of understanding of important principles. Is Mr Shearer really suggesting the police should have the power to seize material from anyone suspected of embarrassing the government?

That is exactly what Shearer and Robertson have been saying. And if they become the Government, we can only assume they will be trying to get leakers arrested.

A guest post by former ACT MP David Garrett:

Why Maori grievance settlements are not “full and final” –  and how  they could be.

From  the time of  its election in 2008 this government has done one thing consistently – pay out large sums of taxpayers’ money to supposedly achieve “full and final” settlements of a plethora of Maori grievances. Almost every week the galleries of Parliament are filled by one group of Maori or another who proceed to sing beautifully as the Bill settling “their” grievance, supposedly once and for all,   is passed into law. But that won’t in fact  be the end of it, and all the players know it.

First some history.  In the 1940’s the Labour government of the day made real and genuine efforts to settle Maori grievances which had been festering for years – and they had been, despite the claims of some on the right that “grievance” is very recent  phenomenon.  To take just one example, it is quite true that since their land was confiscated after the Land Wars of the 1860’s, Tainui had been bitterly protesting what they claimed was unjust and unlawful  confiscations of land. And they were right.

Back in 1926, the government of the day set up the Sim Commission – chaired by a [then]  Supreme Court Judge –   to investigate   claims of unjust land confiscations in the Waikato, Bay of Plenty, and Taranaki. Its report was released in 1927, and recommended  compensation of about $500,000 per annum in today’s money be made. For twenty years, nothing happened, and the grievances festered through another generation.

Then came the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Claims Settlement Act of 1946, which gave force to an agreement reached personally between Prime Minister Peter Fraser and Princess Te Puea. In his biography “Te Puea”, Michael King describes the settlement negotiations, and in particular the final session, at which Fraser agreed to pay 5000 pounds (a million dollars today) per year for ever, and an additional 1000 pounds per year for 45 years, commencing in 1947. Similar Acts were passed around the same time “settling” the claims by Taranaki iwi and Ngai Tahu. All of those settling Acts were overturned less than 50 years later.

It is now claimed that: 1) the settlements were negotiated with the wrong people; and/or 2) they were for trifling sums; and/or  3) the sums were eroded by inflation. As to the first, it didn’t get any higher than the PM on one side, and the most respected Maori leader of her day on the other. As to the “trifling sums” claim, that is clearly nonsense.  It is certainly true that 6000 pounds in 1946 was not worth anything like the same amount thirty or forty  years later because of inflation. But anyone who retired on a fixed income before inflation became a phenomenon  had that problem. It simply wasn’t considered at the time.

Fast forward into the 90’s, and the Tainui  and other iwi convinced the government of the day  that the “settlements” of 50 years earlier weren’t settlements at all;  the whole issue was revisited, and millions of taxpayer dollars were paid. Again, the new settlements were given force in legislation – the laws passed in the 1940’s simply being repealed because they were no longer convenient.

But we did not learn the lessons of the 1940’s, and we still haven’t. Those prior settlements could simply be written out of existence because the laws which gave force to them were not entrenched; they could be repealed by any government able to muster a simple majority, as any government can.

Now, twenty years on from the settlements of the 90’s, were are still “settling” grievances, and still passing laws which can be repealed when the next generation decides to have a crack.  The Attorney General claimed on National Radio recently that the current settlements will not  be revisted,  yet again, in 40 years time. In making that claim, he is at best being disingenuous.

 Firstly neither he nor anyone else knows what will happen in 40 years – the more honest Maori leaders are now admitting that no generation can bind the next. Secondly, Finlayson is well aware that the legislation he  sponsors now  is no more legally durable than that passed 50 years ago – these most recent laws can also be repealed by any future  government with a simply majority.

 There is at least a possible solution – entrenching  the laws being passed with gay abandon so  they cannot be repealed without a “supermajority” of – say – 75% of MP’s in favour. Or if we really want to be serious,  unless there is a popular referendum with a similar majority.   While legal academic opinion is divided on just how effective such entrenchment attempts  would be, it would at least be a signal that this government was serious; that the settlements of the last 20 years were intended to be full and final, that this was accepted by the grievants, and that any attempt to reopen the can of worms would simply be a venal attempt to get more money.

 Why hasn’t this government entrenched its “settling” Bills? There are various answers, none of them complimentary.  Finlayson and his ilk simply cannot argue, when we go down this path again,   that everything was done at the time to finally close the books. Until that is done – as well as our constitutional arrangements allows – none  of the settlements now being made can be considered “full and final”.  And the Attorney General knows it.

I agree with David Garrett that you can not guarantee what people may try to do in 50 years.  You can’t pass a law banning people from advocating something. However there are a number of reasons why I think the current settlements will be durable, which I’ll do a separate post on at some stage.

Anne Gibson at NZ Herald reports:

Housing Minister Nick Smith wants Auckland to break out of its boundaries, saying that without change, ownership dreams are being killed.

“If you put a straitjacket around the city and say only land for residential development is in that defined line, you’re gifting a massive capital gain to those rural land owners,” he said, citing a Flat Bush property bought in 1995 for $890,000 and now on the market for $112 million – a situation he called “obscene”.

Land bankers had been encouraged to hold their parcels and strangle supply, the minister said.

“Because they have a monopoly, they are able to make those sorts of profits and the best way to stop it is to actually create a greater degree of freedom,” he said, citing the housing accord between the Government and city council intended to improve housing affordability.

“We cannot walk away from the issue that restrictive land supply policies across the world are at the heart of the housing affordability issue,” Dr Smith said.

Land supply is not the only factor, but it is the major factor. Any approach that fails to deal with land supply will be ineffectual.

“They’ve appreciated in value by approximately 20 per cent a year. The cost of capital is going to be about 8 per cent a year. People will stop land-banking when they think we’ve got our regulatory act together between local and central Government and we’re not going to allow that sort of ongoing monopoly of land supply. The land banker had no incentive to do anything,” Dr Smith said.

Exactly.

Russel Norman has facebooked:

1. The Kitteridge report was going to be released anyway, maybe a week after it was leaked. Whoever leaked it simply gave Vance an exclusive, they weren’t releasing any secret document.

2. We don’t know what Dunne may have leaked other than the K report, including from the Intelligence and Security Cttee (ISC) of the Appendix tot he K report – Henry Report says Dunne didn’t leak the classified Apprendix as he didnt have access to it. If there is a police investigation, and it seems that NZF have complained to the police, then that seems the relevant issue. I don’t think this is the central issue but clearly my comments on it have been a cause of some concern.

This looks like a hasty retreat from his position of a few days ago when Radio NZ reported:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman says the Prime Minister should ask police to determine who leaked the report, and says a police inquiry would have the power to force Mr Dunne to release his emails.

Glad to see the Greens are acting more sensibly on this now.

5. On Privileges Cttee, I’m pretty dubious about giving a bunch of MPs the right to force another MP to release their emails. If there is something criminal then it’s a matter for the police, but otherwise it is only the Kitterridge report and that isn’t sensitive. Of course if it goes to Privileges Cttee then we’ll do our duty to be fair minded about it.

It is a fair point about the undesirability of MPs voting on whether or not to force another MP to release their e-mail. That could set a nasty precedent.

6. On Dunne leaving parliament. Based on the publicly available evidence he hasnt done anything serious enough to call for him to leave parliament.

Glad to see Norman say this. This affair is a long way off the bar for an MP to resign his seat and force a by-election.

Andrew Geddis blogs at Pundit:

In other words, the first call on this issue is going to be Speaker David Carter’s. And I suspect it’s going to be a pretty tricky one to make. There is the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Peter Dunne actually lied when he said he was not the source of the leak. Because while the Henry Report said that it couldn’t rule Dunne out as the leak’s source, it didn’t say he was. So while a number of commentators have joined the dots and concluded he did it (and therefore lied in his response to Peters), there isn’t any official finding that this is the case.  

Furthermore, even if there is some evidence in the Henry Report to support a conclusion that Dunne may have lied when he said he wasn’t the leak’s source, did he “deliberately attempt[] to mislead the House or a committee” by doing so? Recall that he was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee in his role as Revenue Minister, to answer questions relevant to his responsibilities in that portfolio. Winston Peters then began badgering him with questions relating to the Kitteridge Report leak.

Geddis continues:

Given this fact, the question then becomes whether a witness before a select committee misleads it if she or he falsely answers a question that wasn’t relevant to the committee’s proceedings in the first place. Or, instead, did Peter Dunne simply deliberately attempt mislead Winston Peters … in which case, there’s no contempt of Parliament involved. Because contempt relates to the work of the House of Representatives as an institution, not to the individuals within it: it isn’t, for example, a contempt of Parliament for an MP to tell a barefaced lie to another MP during a public debate on the campaign trail … but it is for a Minister to lie to an MP who asks her or him a question in the House.

So there’s an at least tenable argument that even if you think Dunne lied, he didn’t lie to the House (or a committee of the House). I which case, there is no contempt and so no question of privilege to be considered.

I agree it i going to be a tricky call to make. No doubt if Carter declines, he will be attacked by the Opposition as Geddis notes:

Hanging over all this is another issue, however. It isn’t even a week since the Speaker, David Carter, made his decision that United Future could continue to be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes. As I noted in this post, and as others have noted elsewhere, the reasoning for that decision is  somewhat odd. Furthermore, it caused a (probably overdone) eruption of opposition anger against the Speaker. In the light of this, can David Carter really afford to find that the complaint against Peter Dunne doesn’t involve a question of privilge? What future for his role in the Speaker’s chair if he is seen to make two quick rulings in Peter Dunne’s favour?

I would hope the decision is made on its merits, not on how it will be perceived.