Phil Kitchin at Dom Post reports:

The future of Sir Owen Glenn’s $2 million inquiry into family violence is on a knife edge after three more staff resigned, and world-leading experts it recruited expressed deep concerns about its future.

The trumpeted inquiry – set up last year with Sir Owen’s promise of $80m to fight family violence – was already reeling from the resignations of its two senior managers and three of its four chairpersons.

Yesterday, three contracted experts in the domestic violence and child abuse sector resigned.

Deborah Mackenzie, Deanne Littlejohn and Alex Port, who have more than 30 years’ collective experience, said they had lost confidence in the inquiry.

They held serious concerns for the safety of information from people interviewed so far, as the inquiry was no longer being led by experts in family violence.

They also lost confidence in its integrity when it announced it would take a “corporate” approach.

“Corporate values revolve around ideas of profit, shutting out the competition and self-interest. Those values are not aligned with social justice,” Ms Mackenzie said.

I don’t know what exactly led to the fallout, but I think we get some idea from the comment above.

If one of the experts has a view that corporate values are evil, and it is all about social justice, I can only imagine where the inquiry was heading. I suspect they had already decided child abuse is a result of capitalism and colonialism, and that all you need to do to stop child abuse is tax rich pricks more and give more money to beneficiaries.

The motivations of Mr Glenn are excellent, and the fact he is offering $80 million of his own money to help fight child abuse is hugely commendable. My hopes from the inquiry, if it continues, is it will produce something worthwhile.

Russel Norman said:

We will close the door to lobbyists and special interests. We will keep politics honest by restoring public input to law making.

This prompted a reader to make this suggestion for how the Greens could implement their pledge:

Greens to cut ties with Environmental Groups and Trade Unions

Given that the Greens like open Government then they will have to “close the door ” to all lobbyists won’t they. Forest and Bird and all the anti mining groups will be blacklisted,the cycling groups will get no entry into the Minister of Transports office and all the child poverty action groups will be shut out,along with the Trade Unions  .Climate Change Scientists,anti-frackers,safe food activists ,clean rivers scientists , opponents of deep sea drilling,animal welfare advocates,light rail supporters ,problem gambling workers ,Keep our Assets Campaigners   and  even rainbow policy activists-None of these people will be allowed access to Green Ministers under a Green Coalition Government .

I look forward to the Greens closing their doors to lobbyists and special interests!

Eric Crampton blogs:

In the futile hope that maybe, just maybe, folks’ views about welfare policy might just stand to be informed by data, here are a few testable hypotheses I’ve seen floating around. They posit things that are knowable, and I’m sure data exists to resolve things. Let’s walk through a few of them.

First, how do poor people use money? I tend to say we ought to just give money to poor people if we want to make poor people better off. Other folks think that they’ll just waste it on booze and cigarettes rather than helping their kids. I don’t discount that that’s also possible; it’s an empirical question.

Now why does this matter? If you think that parents will waste money given them, you might prefer in-kind benefits provided directly to the children of poor parents rather than cash transfers. School breakfast programmes can fall into that category, despite that they’re rather ineffective and largely go towards feeding kids who would have been fed anyway. I think that some of the support for wrecking the GST by exempting merit goods also comes from this kind of view, though I think this rather misguided: vouchers for merit goods could be a rather less ruinous way of achieving the desired end.

So, the test. Get household consumption survey data, look for some shock to benefit payments, and check the effects on different consumption categories. If extra money going to poor households disproportionately increases consumption of lotto tickets and booze, then the paternalists who want to make sure that money given to the poor is used for particular things are right in wishing for more in-kind benefits; if not, then the paternalists should back down on such assertions.

I can’t imagine that this empirical test has not been done by somebody somewhere; I just don’t know the results.

It would be interesting data. I don’t know if there would be data for NZ. There hasn’t been any real change to benefit levels since 1991, and I suspect that changes to benefit levels often occur at the same time as other changes – so overall consumption data may have multiple factors changing it.

But the next one may be testable.

Second, “can’t feed ’em, don’t breed ’em”. Twitter and the NZ blogs have a bunch of folks yelling at each other about whether the main problem in child poverty stems from poor people’s unwillingness to engage the prudential constraint or whether it’s bad luck. Those on the right note that if poor people stopped having kids they couldn’t afford, then child poverty would be less of an issue. People on the left instead remind those on the right that birth control can fail and that people in good financial circumstances can fall on hard times for reasons outside of their control and after they’ve set their family size.

So, a test. Start with DPB numbers. What is the current fertility rate of women receiving the Domestic Purposes Benefit, and how does it compare to the fertility rate of women of similar age and marital status who are not receiving government support for the raising of children? If the fertility rate among women on the Domestic Purposes Benefit is roughly what we would expect given known rates of contraception failure, then score a point for the left. If women on government support are instead choosing to have more children while in poverty, then score a point for the right. I would bet that the data shows rather more childbearing than would be expected from contraception failure alone, but less than the fertility rates among similar-aged women not on the DPB, but I’ve not seen the data.

This data should exist, and be testable. Anyone know if it has been tested anywhere? What is the fertility rate of women on the DPB and women not on the DPB?

Just like leemings, watch the media in Australia at a press conference rush off when they sight a MP they’ve been trying to interview, and then head back to the press conference they were at.

Hamish Rutherford at Stuff reports:

Active monitoring of Easter trading law breaches may be scrapped in favour of giving labour inspectors more time to investigate migrant worker exploitation.

While it is illegal for most businesses to operate on Good Friday and Easter Sunday except in certain tourist areas, many take the risk of a fine and open anyway.

Labour inspectors conduct checks on which businesses are open and also respond to complaints.

Labour Minister Simon Bridges signalled yesterday that in the future officials may rely solely on complaints because inspection staff were needed elsewhere.

“There are some very serious issues in relation to migrant workers and exploitation in this country,” he said.

“It is a question of using our resources and the labour inspectorate better.”

This could mean “not necessarily having inspectors out on every corner on Easter trading weekends, enforcing the laws”, he said.

“I don’t think, and my sense is, New Zealanders wouldn’t necessarily want us to be over-enforcing that, having inspectors out there all the time.”

Hear, hear. Acting on complaints received is one thing, but sending the holiday police proactively around shops is too zealous.

And I agree that abuse of some migrant workers is a far bigger issue.

Darien Fenton, Labour’s spokeswoman for labour issues, said migrant exploitation affected thousands of people, especially in Auckland.

The number of inspections was “far from satisfactory” with only 35 inspectors covering the entire country.

However, she was unimpressed that resources may be taken away from policing Easter trading, saying it was “tacit approval” of law breaking.

“I don’t want to see any worker exploited, and actually, requiring people to work on Easter Sunday is exploitation of the law.”

This could be out of an Orwell novel. No employer can legally force staff to work on Easter Sunday. But some employees volunteer to work because they want to earn extra money. Darien is against employees being able to earn higher wages!

Because who doesn’t need a hug from time-to-time.

Click for larger, higher res image

Explanatory note: They’re not just cuddling

Enjoyed a cool jazz show at Bats Theatre last night, called Karen and her Fellow Sinners.

Karen Anslow does a funny and talented routine of 14 songs ranging from Lover Man to Paint It Black. The show is called a musical celebration of love, lust and longing and it definitely has all three. As always, be careful of sitting in the front row if you’re a bloke!

The three band members provide a great musical backup to Anslow’s singing. She combines a sultry voice with a captivating presence.

The show only lasted an hour, and I was dissapointed when it finished. If you’re enjoy jazz and are looking for a fun night out tonight or tomorrow, worth going to.

The show is part of the Jazz Festival.

The Herald reports:

NZ First leader Winston Peters is calling on Speaker David Carter to explain why he went against standing orders in Parliament today and would boycott Parliament until he did.

Excellent. Long may it last.

NZ First MPs and Labour’s Trevor Mallard have walked out of Parliament in protest after Speaker David Carter allowed United Future MP Peter Dunne to keep the extra funding and entitlements that come with being a party leader, despite the de-registration of his party.

Mr Carter announced the decision today but both Labour and NZ First objected, saying if Mr Dunne’s party was not registered then it clearly did not meet the rules required for those resources.

Maybe Winston should pay back the $158,000 he owes taxpayers before he tries to take the moral high ground.

As for whether Dunne is eligible to retain his extra funding, the Standing Orders are not clear on this. What Carter has effectively ruled is that as Dunne was the leader of a party when elected at the beginning of this term – that applies throughout.  I think it an arguable decision either way, but Peters is wrong to say the decision is against standing orders. The standing orders are unclear on what happens if a party is deregistered. Graeme Edgeler has blogged on this at Public Address.

After objecting, Mr Peters said that if Mr Carter did not produce the legal advice he based his decision on, then his party would boycott Parliament until that happened.

But as usual, he lied. They’re back already.

Marty Sharpe at Stuff reports:

A fraudster who stole $3.4 million in benefits is suspected of forging a letter in an effort to win his freedom.

The letter, with a Carterton District Council letterhead, supposedly offered Wayne Patterson, 54, a job interview if he was freed from jail.

Patterson, who is serving a jail term of almost 9 years for New Zealand’s biggest benefit fraud, supplied the letter to the Parole Board, which heard his case at Whanganui Prison yesterday.

It was signed by a Paul Reynolds, who wrote that he was aware of Patterson’s offending and imprisonment and looked forward to interviewing him for a job in the council’s horticultural department.

But board member Glenda Hughes, a former police officer, told Patterson the board had contacted the council and had been informed no-one of that name worked for it and no staff had any recollection of writing the letter.

“It appears to be a forgery,” Ms Hughes said, adding that the typewriter used to write it “seems very similar to other letters you have typed, Mr Patterson”.

Her comments were among a series of probing questions put to Patterson by the three-member board, during which he became increasingly twitchy.

Ha I net he did. Caught out trying to con the Parole Board with forger letters. Can’t see him getting parole.

He picked up his copy of the letter and said: “I don’t think it is forged. It has letterhead and addresses and all that on it. It’s not a forged letter as far as I’m concerned.”

His opinion doesn’t count, and having a letterhead does not mean it is not a forgery.

Ms Hughes also questioned Patterson over the authenticity of letters said to be penned by his sister and nephew. Both had been in Australia for nine months, yet in their letters, written in April, they used their old address in Wellington.

Heh Glenda is a sharp one.

The board’s paramount concern was the community’s safety and, if it was shown that Patterson had written the letter, it would be “deeply concerning” given his history, Judge Callander said.

“If proved this was a forgery, that is a criminal offence that carries a substantial length of imprisonment.”

The matter will be referred to police for investigation and Patterson’s hearing was adjourned for three months.

If it is a forgery, the Police should prosecute.

Patterson’s sentence ends in July 2015. He became eligible for parole in January last year and yesterday’s was his third hearing.

He may end up being in there past July 2015. That would not be a bad thing.

Wayne Thomas Patterson was sentenced to 8 years and 9 months in prison in 2007 after pleading guilty to stealing $3.4m in multiple charges of benefit fraud. He faked 123 identities to claim up to $28,000 a week for three years before his arrest in 2006.

He has a long criminal history including burglary, theft, forgery, possession of a pistol, escaping custody and non-compliance.

He has spent much of his adult life cheating welfare systems. He served 4 years of a 6-year sentence in Australia for similar offending (where he created 43 fake identities) and 3 years of a 4-year term in the United States for fraud offences.

After last year’s parole hearing, the board said he was an arrogant, egocentric man who saw “the life of a big-league parasitic fraudster as more rewarding than the drudgery of ordinary honest toil”.

Sounds like he hasn’t changed.

If you are actually interested in policy and analysis, rather than slogans, I recommend you spend an hour or so reading the 28 page paper from Electricity Authority Chair Brent Layton. It is a mine of valuable information and analysis. I’ll do a few extracts, but it is worth reading it for yourself.

In the wholesale electricity market, prices are determined by competition between generators offering to supply and these offers being matched to demand. The values of the different generation assets are driven by market prices and not vice versa. The wholesale market is not one in which a regulator exercises price control because it is a workably competitive market with over a dozen grid-connected players on the supply-side and five reasonably large players. There are more major generators in New Zealand than there are major banks, petrol companies or telephone providers. There are, in addition, another 70 generating entities in New Zealand.

With 13 grid connected generators, the challenge is how best to foster competition between them – not haw to remove it.

Regulators are always able to transfer wealth, but if they do so it has to recognise there will be a cost. The cost will be in the willingness and terms on which parties will invest in generation capacity in the future and in other sectors of the economy. Given the size of the expropriation required to raise, say, $500 million a year would be about $7 billion, the chilling effect on investment in New Zealand is likely to be large, widespread and long lived. Either the government will be forced to build future plants (and many other assets) or shortages of electricity (and other services) will be likely.

Labour and Greens seem convinced that generators will invest in new capacity, despite their Government unilaterally setting the price they will be able to sell at. So I have a solution. Why don’t they set up a generating company, go to a bank and borrow the capital needed, and set up their one generator.  With a guaranteed rate of return, how can they lose out?

Firstly, it would require a large bureaucracy and an army of generator staff supported by consultants to determine the appropriate amounts to pay existing generators to cover their operating and capital costs. I estimate that for the approximately 110 generator-class market participants and their 300 plus plants it would take at least 300 analysts and lawyers five years to set up the system ($180 million) and after that 150 people to run it ($18 million a year). A major cost would be working out the opportunity cost value of water in each storage dam.

Maybe this is what they meant with 5,000 extra jobs! Can’t see it leading to cheaper power though!

In addition, the new arrangement would require the central contract buyer and potential investors in generation to have significant expertise and resources to conduct tenders for future capacity. I estimate 50 analysts and lawyers would be required for this at an annual cost of $6 million.

Moreover, there will be a need for extensive negotiations with retailers over their contracts with the single contract buyer and there may also be the need for monitoring of the split between retail and generation activities within the one company. I estimate a further 50 analysts and lawyers would be required for this at an annual cost of $6 million.

Time to become a lawyer!

In South Korea, the central decision maker has struggled to break even and satisfy demand. Industrial consumers were recently requested to alter their  working hours to reduce pressure on electricity capacity. In August 2012 prices for consumers were increased by 4.9% in an attempt to reduce demand and return the sole buyer to profit. In January 2013 prices were increased on average by a further 4%

But they are one of the model countries!

Secondly, in 2004 the government introduced a requirement that retailers provide a low fixed charge option to customers, such that residential consumers using less than 8,000 kWh a year pay less on this option than they would on any other corresponding option. This regulation effectively requires a cross-subsidy from all high use consumers to low use consumers receiving the low fixed charge. The data upon which the residential price trends are based relates to the cost of electricity to residential customers using 8,000 kWh a year.

As more and more low use consumers took up the low fixed charge tariff option as time went by it was almost inevitable that the reported price of electricity to residential customers consuming 8,000 kWh a year would rise as retailers set standard charges to offset the increasing level of subsidies required under the regulations.

This is a key point. Part of the reason why most people have had power prices go up, is because of the Govt mandated subsidies for some users. And Greens are proposing many more subsidies – ones that will ultimately be funded by those who are not eligible for them.

Daniel Adams at Stuff reports:

Health authorities say removing fluoride from Hamilton’s water will result in at least half a million dollars of extra dental treatment costs in the city every year.

In a major victory for the anti-fluoride lobby yesterday the city council voted by 7-1 to make Hamilton the second-largest unfluoridated city in the country.

I don’t support compulsory medication such as the requirement to have folic acid in bread. But I do support the right of the majority of a district to vote to have fluoridation in their water supply. That is not making it compulsory for people to drink flouridated water. People can do do get water from other sources, and can do so if they really don’t want fluoride in their water.

The science is absolutely clear that it is not harmful at the levels used (and in fact exists in water naturally anyway, but at lower levels).

But New Zealand Dental Association president Geoff Lingard said the “crazy” decision was one the city would rue: “Hamilton is going to regret this. It will increase poor oral health. . . It’s going to hit people in the pocket, or there’ll be more people unable to afford care. There isn’t a reputable health body in the world that doesn’t support water fluoridation as a safe and effective means of reducing tooth decay.”

Who needs science.

The decision, reached after less than an hours’ debate, followed a lengthy tribunal which heard the weight of public submissions, many from outside the city, argue for the removal of hydrofluorosilicic acid from the water supply.

It overturns the outcome of a binding referendum in 2006 which saw 38 per cent of eligible Hamilton voters, more than typically vote in council elections, overwhelmingly ask for fluoridation of the city’s water to be continued.

This is what rankles. The Councillors have voted to over-turn the decision of the people. It was a binding referendum. Any change to the result of a binding referendum, should be another referendum. Hamilton voters voted 70% in favour of keeping fluoridation, and they have been over-ruled by seven Councillors.

A Dental Association spokesperson has said:

“The World Health Organisation, the World Dental Federation, and the International Association for Dental Research have all stated that ‘universal access to fluoride for dental health is part of the basic human right to health’. In New Zealand, a central part of the universal right to fluoride is community water fluoridation. The New Zealand Ministry of Health Guidelines and Statements (2010) on fluoridation are clear: community water fluoridation is effective and safe, and community water supplies in New Zealand should be fluoridated at 0.7-1.0 parts per million (ppm) wherever feasible. The 7 Councillors who voted against this in Hamilton were either unaware of this, or disregarded it (as well as disregarding the opinion of their own citizens from a 2006 referendum).

“Those who are unwilling to drink fluoridated water should not be permitted to impose the risks, damage, and costs of failure to fluoridate on others. The ethics and science in support of fluoridation are clear, but antifluoridation arguments often present a highly misleading picture of water fluoridation.

“While the extent of tooth decay has reduced in recent decades, the disease remains more prevalent than other significant health conditions in New Zealand (such as asthma), particularly in unfluoridated areas and among disadvantaged New Zealanders. The recent New Zealand Oral Health Survey found much less tooth decay in fluoridated than non-fluoridated areas. There is generally 0.3 ppm background fluoride in New Zealand (although it varies), and adjusting that to Ministry of Health-recommended levels has a significant effect of reducing tooth decay among people of all ages.

It is nice to see a professional association advocate for the public good, over the interests of their members. More tooth decay would actually mean more income for dentists in dealing with it.

If the majority of residents in an area vote they don’t want their community water supply fluoridated, then that is their right. But to have seven Councillors remove it is wrong.

An interesting academic paper by Hilde Coffe:

This paper investigates gender differences in voting for the two major parties (Labour and National) and the two main small parties (Green and New Zealand First) at the 2011 New Zealand general election. In contrast to the gender gap found in many post-industrial societies with women being more likely to lean towards the left than men, this study reveals limited differences in party preferences among men and women in New Zealand.

The only substantial gender difference is found in relation to voting for New Zealand First, with women being substantially less supportive of the populist party than men. This gap is robust and remains substantial even when gender differences in socioeconomic characteristics and issue positions related to the role of government, the welfare state and the presence of immigrants are taken into account.

Interestingly, while no gender gap occurs at first sight in support for the mainstream right-wing party National, a gap does arise once gender differences in policy issue positions are controlled for, with women being more likely to support National than men.

As the author states, it is usual for women to vote more left than men. In NZ at the last election, this did not occur. In fact National arguably gets more support from women than men. Why? The obvious answer was the appeal of John Key, but the author included that as a variable – and there was still a difference.

Kate Shuttleworth at NZ Herald reports:

Manukau East Labour MP Ross Robertson has announced he will retire from Parliament.

He said today he will stand for the Otara/Papatoetoe local board election this year.

Mr Robertson has been in Parliament for 26 years.

“It is time to have a new MP for Manukau East. I think I can be more effective in local Government,” he said.

“It is not possible to be on a local board and be an MP, so I will retire from Parliament.

But when? Labour strongly criticised a National MP who did not resign from his city council seat once he was elected. So of course I expect Labour will demand Ross resign his seat if he is elected to the Otara/Papatoetoe seat in October.

The Press reports:

Two former Christchurch mayors are mulling a return to local politics.

Former mayors Vicki Buck and Garry Moore are both considering running for the city council at the October local elections.

Buck has been meeting regularly with possible mayoral candidate Lianne Dalziel.

Moore said it was likely Labour MP Dalziel would run for the mayoralty and he criticised the current councillors.

“I would say the probability would be reasonably high. It is up to her to announce that when she finally goes through the starting line.

“The Government has to hand over [the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority] to the local council in two and a bit years. If I were the Government, there is no way I would hand it over to the current council. It needs horsepower.

“We need to think hard about supporting excellent people on the council, not the sort of dull people that many of them are right now.”

Dalziel said she could not comment on whether she had offered Buck or Moore roles in her possible campaign.

“I haven’t formalised where I stand at the moment. People know I’m talking to a lot of people. This is the hardest decision I have ever made in my life.

Oh don’t be silly. Of course you’re standing. It’s not a hard decision. You were dumped from Labour’s shadow cabinet. You won’t be a Minister again, even if Labour wins. So of course you’re standing for Mayor. You’ve spent weeks or months putting together running mates and campaign teams. Just make the bloody announcement.

The involvement of Buck and Moore is astute. I thought Buck was a very good Mayor, and Moore wasn’t too bad either – even though I disagree with his politics. Both Buck and Moore are Labour aligned.

If one or both stand, they will be the ones who attack Parker on behalf of Dalziel, which is a smart strategy. As former Mayors they can do so with credibility, and talk about how one needs a more unified Council and the role of leadership in that. That leaves Dalziel free to run a more positive campaign, which she needs to do. She should win so long as she is not seen as overly negative.

Buck said she was considering running for councillor, but ruled out the mayoralty and the deputy role.

Under the new law, Mayors appoint the Deputy Mayor – not Council. So, candidates will be asked who their running mate is, so to speak.

Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker said Buck would make a “great councillor”, but said she should avoid political affiliations.

“It would be a shame if she tied herself to one political group.”

Moore said he would be an independent candidate if he stood.

“I am sitting on the side utterly despairing at how pathetic the leadership is. Vicki and I have been sitting weeping into our coffees for the last couple of years.

“We have looked at all our hard work and thought: ‘My God, what’s happening?’ This is not a place for show ponies, it’s a time for carefully thought through strategic thinking.”

As I said, Moore and maybe Buck will be the attack dogs for Dalziel. It is a very clever strategy.

Iona Pannett blogs:

The story on the creation of call centre jobs does seem to have the overtone of promoting a certain mayoral candidate. I hope that The DomPost will uphold the ideals of the Fourth Estate and ensure that reporting is unbiased and balanced.

WCC Watch responds:

Lambton Ward councillor, Iona Pannett has blogged that she hopes that all mayoral candidates get equal coverage following John Morrison’s front page coup announcing the 300-500 call centre jobs he brokered for Wellington.

I totally agree – in fact I would go further and say that any candidate whether they be in the mayoral race or standing for a ward seat, should get a front page story if they bring over 300 jobs to the city in a single deal. Wellington needs job growth and new business Pannett is totally right that we should celebrate that – no matter who brokers the deal.

Yep. And it is rather churlish to be seen complaining that someone who brings so many jobs to Wellington gets publicity for it.

But something tells me the Greens are actually just wanting the Dom to give Celia Wade-Brown more coverage.

In fairness to the Dom Post, Pannett does just call for equal coverage and the paper has dedicated a lot of column space to Wade-Brown this year. But naturally those have largely been about the calamities and cock ups around the out sourcing of jobs, protests against central government policies, luxury office refits and the dumping of a CEO.

Well that is equal coverage!

I think its pretty simple – Morrison did good work and got a good story. Wade-Brown didn’t know why her hands weren’t on the steering wheel and got slammed for it. Acting like there is a conspiracy is just daft.

Indeed.

Laura Walters at Stuff reports:

Trade unionists have labelled a suggestion by the Employers and Manufacturers’ Association to double the current 90-day trial period for employees as “disgraceful”.

An EMA study of all personal grievances last year showed only 15 per cent of employers successfully defended performance-related grievances in front of the Employment Relations Authority .

EMA manager of employment services David Lowe said it was hard to manage employees with fluctuating performance, and extending the 90-day trial to 180 days would allow employers to identify potential issues with workers.

It’s not a disgraceful suggestion. One can debate it without hysterics. However on the substance of the issue, I’m more inclined to the CTU view that the EMA view that it should remain at 90 days. Of course the CTU thinks there shouldn’t be one at all, but that is a different debate. I think 90 days is adequate to identify a dysfunctional employee. In fact in my experience i often becomes apparent within a few weeks. So I think 90 days is an appropriate period of time for a trial period.

Claims in favour of employers:

Redundancy grievances: 29 per cent (23 out of 80)

Misconduct: 26 per cent (48/122)

Performance: 15 per cent (6/41)

Constructive dismissal: 46 per cent (26/56)

Disadvantage: 27 per cent (18/66)

Claims for reinstatement: 50 per cent (5/10)

The 15% stat for performance claims reinforces my view that it is almost impossible to dismiss an employee legally, just for being incompetent.

The EMA analysis showed 34 claims were made in 2012 by employees whose employment finished within the first 90 days, and 91 per cent of them won.

People forget the 90 day trial provision is not mandatory. It is an option.

Stuff reports:

Gavin John Gosnell – dismissed as an “evil nobody” by the family of his victim – has been jailed for at least 18 years for the murder and dismemberment of teenager Hayden Peter Miles.

Gosnell, an unemployed 28-year-old, was convicted by a jury on April 16 of the murder of the 15-year-old at the end of a seven-day trial. …

Hayden had gone missing in August 2011 and it had been 111 days before it was known what had happened to him.

“To find out that Hayden had been murdered and then dismembered brought me to my knees,” she said. “My family is forever broken.”

She was tormented by thoughts of Gosnell laughing and mocking Hayden while the teenager cried and begged for Gosnell to stop the fatal beating.

She said she would speak for Hayden, demanding of Gosnell: “How dare you beat and torment me? How dare you dismember my body and bury me in graves? My family buried me with dignity. I am missed every single day.”

Another family member said: “I know now there is such a thing as pure evil.” …

This is what he did:

Justice Chisholm said Hayden was drinking with Gosnell and Gosnell’s partner at their flat when Gosnell flew into a rage over a comment that the teenager made.

A prolonged beating involving punching and kicking followed. It involved Gosnell trying to break Hayden’s arms and legs, and it resumed three or four times.

Hayden was screaming and crying, while Gosnell laughed.

Hayden was not breathing properly and suffered a bleeding brain injury during the night after being put to bed.

His body was cut up the next day by Gosnell. A witness described him as again laughing.

So here is my question. Why did the Crown not ask for life without parole?

The Sentencing Act states in s103(2A):

If the court that sentences an offender convicted of murder to imprisonment for life is satisfied that no minimum term of imprisonment would be sufficient to satisfy 1 or more of the purposes stated in subsection (2), the court may order that the offender serve the sentence without parole.

Surely this is a case for which life without parole was designed for?

The other hideous person to be sentenced is the man who sold his 13 month old son for sex.

A “depraved” paedophile has been sent to prison for sexual offending against his infant son.

A 27-year-old South Canterbury man was sentenced in the Oamaru District Court this afternoon to eight years 10 months imprisonment by Judge Joanna Maze for offending which will have a profound effect on his child.

The man sat motionless in the dock as he was sentenced on a raft of child exploitation charges, including two of sexual violation and indecent assault, and selling the use of his then 13-month-old son for sexual gratification for $500.

A minimum non-parole period of five years was imposed.

I’m sorry but a five year minimum is not enough in my view. I think selling your child for sexual abuse, is even worse than being an abuser yourself.

He was granted permanent name suppression to protect the identity of his victim, the charges also included eight of doing an indecent act and 15 of making, possessing and distributing objectionable material and breaching a restraining order. The child is in the care of his mother.

Wouldn’t it be good if the victim (or in this case his mother) was offered a name change, so he can be identified without it naming the victim.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

The first charter schools are expected to open in term one next year after the legislation passed its final hurdle in Parliament on Tuesday night.

Excellent. But of course they will only open, if parents choose to send their kids there. Unlike other (state) schools they have no zones. No parent will have to send their kids there because no other school will take them. Parents will only send their kids there if they think it will provide a better eductaional outcome for their children.

I welcome parents having that choice.

There have already been 35 applications to run charter schools, with successful applicants due to be announced soon.

The evidence from overseas is very clear. In some areas, charter schools have made a significant, or even more than significant, improvement in the learning results of their students. But also in some areas, they have not. A charter school is not a magic bullet.

What will determine success is the rigor of the contract with the Ministry of Education, and the quality of the successful applicants.

My hope is that once they have been established and operating, we’ll judge them on their actual results. An evidence based approach to the issue is what I seek. If a charter school does not meet the (bulk of the) targets it agrees to and students are not doing well with them – then they should face having to change or close down. But that will be decisions based on individual schools and how they go.

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said students were being “exploited and experimented on” by Banks and his “mad ACT policies”.

Mad? To give parents choice?Again, no parent is forced to send their children to a charter school, unlike the local state school.

What I am looking forward to is being able to evaluate at the end of 2014 how each individual charter school has done.

This ad has been banned in the United Kingdom! That will help it go viral.

The Herald reported:

In a 28 page paper delivered to an industry audience in Auckland, Dr Brent Layton argues current arrangements are working well but can be better, and that returning to a central planning approach will lead to higher prices and more likelihood of power shortages.

“Conclusions based on inadequate research are not a basis for sound economic policy,” said Layton, in a direct attack on Victoria University Institute of Policy Studies economist Dr Geoff Bertram, whom he accuses of producing graphs that overstate the extent of household power price increases relative to other countries.

Dr Layton is the Chairman of the Electricity Authority, which is the sector equivalent of the Commerce Commission. It is the body that helps regulate the market to try and maximise competition to benefit consumers.

Dr Layton is not a politician or lobbyist. He is not campaigning for votes. His job is to identify what sort of regulatory regime will best deliver for consumers.

Layton also says he would not implement the Labour-Greens’ NZ Power proposal because it would contravene the requirements of the regulator’s legislation “to promote competition in, reliable supply by, and the efficient operation of the electricity industry for the long term benefit of consumers.”

Asked whether he would be able to serve on the Electricity Authority if a Labour-Green government were elected, Layton said: “I personally wouldn’t.”

What he is effectively saying is that their proposal threatens reliable supply. Not surprisingly, he doesn’t want to be the fall guy, should that come to pass.

On central buyer proposals, he said similar policies had been examined four times in the last 25 years and “found wanting in terms of what would be of long term benefit to consumers.

That is not just his view. That was also the view of David Parker when he was Minister of Energy.

What is fascinating is the responses from David Parker and Russel Norman to his paper.

David Parker has done a critique of his analysis. I don’t agree with Parker’s critique, but it is policy based and respectful.

Contrast that to Russel Norman’s response:

“Dr Layton’s extraordinary foray into political debate is nothing more than a National Party-appointed civil servant who has failed to do his job and is now trying to protect his patch,” said Dr Norman.

So once again Dr Norman attacks the man, instead of the issue. Rather Muldoonist, dare I say.

It is worth recalling what the annual increase in electricity CPI have been. For the last ten years they have been:

• 2003 9.3%
• 2004 8.8%
• 2005 4.1%
• 2006 7.1%
• 2007 6.5%
• 2008 7.7%

Then since the election

• 2009 2.1%
• 2010 5.8% (of which 2.2% was GST increase, so underlying figure was 3.6%)
• 2011 2.4%
• 2012 5.2%

The increases in the last four years have been fairly modest. Excluding the GST change, it has been around 3.3% a year which is higher than desirable but much less than the previous Government.

I recently inquired as to which MPs have appeared on Backbenches, and how often. I was actually more interested in which MPs have not apeared. Anyway a few interesting stats for appearances since the 2011 election.

• Labour 33 times
• National 32 times
• Green 28 times
• NZ First 18 times
• United Future 4 times
• Mana 2 times
• Maori Party 1 time

And in terms of individual MPs who have appeared more than twice:

• 5 – Andrew Williams
• 4 – Catherine Delahunty, Peter Dunne, Tracey Martin
• 3 – Brendan Horan, Chester Borrows, David Bennett, David Parker, Gareth Hughes, Holly Walker, Jan Logie, Louise Upston, Richard Prosser

What I was really interested in was which MPs have never gone on at all since the 2011 election. I am excluding Ministers. By party they are:

• Greens – Mojo Mathers
• Labour – Nanaia Mahuta, Clare Curran, Darien Fenton, Ruth Dyson, Raymond Huo, Rajen Prasad, Ross Robertson
• National – Paul Hutchison, Eric Roy, Tau Henare, Jacqui Dean, Lindsay Tisch, Shane Ardern, Jonathan Young, Bakshi Singh, Katrina Shanks, Melissa Lee, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, Jian Yang, Simon O’Connor, Mike Sabin
• NZ First – Barbara Stewart, Asenati Lole-Taylor

Hopefully we’ll see a few of them on over the next couple of years.

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

A Mana Party candidate who kept $12,000 that had been given for his cancer treatment says he was unable to give the money back.

Unable? Not normally a hard thing to do.

Mr Nikora was diagnosed with a brain tumour three years ago and his community raised between $30,000 and $40,000 for private treatment.

When the Auckland District Health Board did the operation free of charge, he said he would give the money to charities and the community.

Maori current affairs show Native Affairs asked Mr Nikora this week whether he had returned all of the money, and he confirmed that he had kept $12,000 which had been raised for him in an art auction.

“They wouldn’t let me give that money back,” he said.

Asked whether he felt it was right to keep it, he said: “Yes. My whanau gave it to me. We have to think of this in not so much a money way but in a Maori way.”

There’s two issues here. The first is the decision not to donate all the money to charity. The second is the decision not to be upfront about it.

I have no issues with someone who was the beneficiary of fundraising keeping the funds, if they wish to – and the donors are happy with it. But one should be upfront about that, and not claim you have donated all the money to charity when you haven’t.

Mr Nikora has said in previous interviews that he redistributed all of the money given for his treatment.

And that is the issue.