John Key was on Q+A yesterday. A number of interesting aspects of the interview:

JOHN KEY – NZ Prime Minister 
 Well, I think that’s the, sort of, $64 million question or maybe the 1.35 billion question, given the number of people here.   I mean, what we know is we produce what they want to buy.  That’s the really good news part of the story.  Fundamentally, they want food, whether it’s ultimately aquaculture or dairy, meat, it doesn’t really matter.  They want that food.  They want the quality of that food.  They want the assurance that the food will be of a standard that they expect.  Secondly, they want to educate their children, and they want to come and travel.  And there are specialist areas where it can be a niche in the Chinese market, like, say, Rakon is to New Zealand, for instance.  But in this market, you know, a niche can be a very, very big order for New Zealand, so there’s lots of potential.

CORIN Tim Groser – I heard him say on this trip New Zealand’s trade to China – China could be our biggest trade partner within two years at current growth levels.  What does that mean for New Zealand longer term?

It means we may be not so fucked as the rest of the world when Europe crashes 🙂

JOHN  Well, I think the good news part of the story is, I mean, we’re here and we promote this relationship and the trade aspects of this relationship because we genuinely believe it means better jobs, it means more jobs, it means, you know, greater opportunities for New Zealanders.  I mean, the challenge always for New Zealand, I think, is a) making sure that we maintain our brand and quality, maintain margin so we make money, and the second thing is we don’t want to become solely China dependant. I mean, this is a market that could at one level buy everything New Zealand produces, but the reason we go to Latin America, as we did a few weeks ago, or we sell to other markets and focus on them is that in our history, we’ve been solely-

While China will become our largest trading partner, we must make sure it doesn’t become our only one.

JOHN Okay, but let’s put that in a bit of context.  If you take the situation where Ian Fletcher was appointed, so, you know, we had significant media coverage and, you know, a lot of very, very& highly critical claims being made personally directed at me, right? 
  
CORIN But you did not make it clear when you were asked that you had shoulder-tapped Ian Fletcher.

JOHN  I was asked a specific question in Parliament not with any warning, as a supplementary question, didn’t even know it was coming, it bore very little relation to the primary question at the end of a parliamentary question session, and, actually, the answer I gave was perfectly correct.  Now, if the test is I’ve got to give you absolutely all of the full information – it comes back to the point I was making last week – then I need to actually slow that process down so that I can be- you know, I can meet the people’s expectations-

CORIN Did that episode get to you, though?  I mean, you only a couple of times in your whole time as Prime Minister have you lashed out at the media.  Were you genuinely wounded by that?

JOHN  Well, firstly, it wasn’t at all media, and secondly, the point is that my view was that there wasn’t balance on the way that that was being reported. I mean, you had the State Services Commissioner coming out totally supporting what I was saying, and, actually, that wasn’t always fully covered in that way.  My reputation matters to me because, you know, I am honest and I am up front.  I also am way more accessible than virtually any other leader in the world, so if you want to go and ask other leaders, you have a limited number of questions, you have lots of warning what they’re going to ask them about, they have lots of time to prepare questions.  I do two or three stand-ups a day, and I’m asked questions about a huge number of issues. 

It is a fair point that Key as Prime Minister is more accessible than not just any of his foreign counterparts, but also I think more so that any of his predecessors.

Helen Clark, to her credit, did re-institute the formal weekly press conference, and was more available than her predecessors. But I’m pretty sure that she didn’t do anywhere near the number of media standups that Key does – a lot of her engagements would be photo ops only.

They collect and publish data in the US on how often the President has done press conferences, interviews and gaggles or stand-ups.

It would be fascinating if anyone collated and published the same data on NZ Prime Ministers.

On the wider GCSB issue I’m one of those who said I thought the phone call to Ian Fletcher was unwise, and I stand by that. It would have been better to have just passed the details onto the SSC.

But one has to understand how different PMs have different styles, and they come with both pros and cons – and you generally can’t just choose part of a style.

Some refer to Key’s style as CEO style. He is constantly engaging with people, including (very importantly) those outside Wellington. He talks constantly to numerous leaders in business and other areas. He is very focused on getting the job done, more than process.

What this means is that sometimes he’ll not get the process right, and make a mistake.

But you know what. If I have a choice of a Geoffrey Palmer type Prime Minister who is a stickler for proper process at all times or a John Key type Prime Minister who actually gets things done, I know what I’m happy with. Now that’s not to say it is a choice between too extremes. In no way am I saying process is not important, just that you have to accept different leaders have different strengths and weaknesses.

CORIN Do you still want to do this job?

JOHN  I do. 
  
CORIN Do you want to carry on?

JOHN Well, look, you know, the thing is I’m actually enjoying it.  As Prime Minister, what are they going to remember when they look back?  And the answer is going to be is the economy strong, does the education system work better, does health system work better, is New Zealand a stronger, more confident country?  I’ve been Prime Minister for four and a half years.  My own personal view is that we are building that sort of New Zealand.  Now, you know, is there perfection?  There will never be perfection in politics, but you can do your very best and you can see the course, and that’s what we’ve done.  I really believe passionately that- And again, I’ve read lots of stuff in the media that I’m not going to be there in 2014, I’m not going to run National in the election, that’s not true.  None of that is true.  I’ll be there.  As long as National wants me there, I’ll be there in 2014.  Why?  Because I don’t think we’ve actually finished the job yet. And, you know, there will always be some weeks that are better than others, but for the most part I’m in an incredibly privileged position.  You know, I’m the 38th prime minister of New Zealand, and I’ll always be grateful to the New Zealand public that they gave me that chance.

If anyone thinks that John Key won’t lead National into 2014, they’ve either been having too many drinking sessions with David Shearer’s office (as Mr Robins at The Standard appears to have done) or they’re deluded.

If National wins a third term, it would not be guaranteed that Key would want to lead National into a 4th election. But that falls into the category of “nice problems to have and resolve” if National gets re-elected in 2014.

Next month, National and John Key will have been in power for four and a half years – half the nine years of the last Labour Government. I’ll blog some interesting poll comparisons comparing the parties and leaders at the 4.5 year marks.

Chester Borrows announced last week:

Associate Social Development Minister Chester Borrows today congratulated Police and the Ministry of Social Development on a joint investigation which has uncovered a sizeable welfare payment fraud out of South Auckland.

As part of the government’s new interagency fraud group, the Welfare Fraud Collaborative Action Programme, MSD and Police worked together on a case involving a bogus dental practice and hundreds of thousands of welfare dollars.

Police have arrested a 48 year old man and 51 year old woman as part of ‘Operation Novocaine’ and they face deception and other charges. They are being held at the Manukau Police Station overnight and will appear in the Manukau District Court tomorrow.

“Police worked closely with the Ministry of Social Development after it uncovered a scam involving beneficiaries who falsely claimed for emergency dental treatment,” says Mr Borrows.

“Providing false documents the pair allegedly took a 25 per cent cut of each payment. In total $375,000 was paid out since December 2011. The vast majority of the payments were benefit advances and the beneficiaries in the main are repaying these out of their regular benefit payments. The small number who received grants will also now be required to repay the money.

The amount is not major, but the number of people involved was. Each person on a benefit knew they were making a false claim or loan, as they paid the fake dentist practice 25% of the money they got from the taxpayer.

So I asked how many people were involved in this fraud scam, and it totaled 280 people. That’s a shocking number – and they are lucky all they’ve had to do was repay the loan or grant.

Steven Price blogs:

I confess I’m entirely befuddled by the Dominion Post’s front-page lead on Saturday, “Prosecution for breaching paedophile’s rights”. Can someone help me out here?

Isn’t the story conflating the Commission with the Office of Human Rights Proceedings, an independent office within the HRC? But why is the Office of Human Rights Proceedings bringing a “prosecution”? Does the DomPost mean a claim before the Human Rights Review Tribunal (it seems so, since it mentions the Tribunal later on)? That’s not a prosecution, which is a criminal action.

Or is it a charge that the Sensible Sentencing Trust has breached name suppression? Now, that would be a criminal prosecution, but why isn’t it being brought by the police?

If it’s a Human Rights Proceedings Office case, it sounds like a Privacy Act claim, and not a charge for breach of name suppression at all (some of the language in the story suggests it’s about the Privacy Act, though the Act gets barely a mention in the story). That would also suggest that the Privacy Commissioner has already been involved and either refused to uphold the complaint or couldn’t reach a settlement with the Sensible Sentencing Trust. That would be interesting to know.

And the Human Rights Commission has clarified:

A story published by The Dominion Post on Saturday 6 April “Prosecution for breaching pervert’s rights” and on Stuff.co.nz requires clarification.

The statement that the Human Rights Commission plans to prosecute the Sensible Sentencing Trust needs to be clarified.

The Director of Human Rights Proceedings is instituting proceedings under the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act requires the Director, at his discretion, to make the decision as to whether to institute proceedings.

The Director of Human Rights Proceedings is acting on a referral from the Privacy Commissioner that the Sensible Sentencing Trust interfered with an individual’s privacy.

This is quite important info. As far as I can tell, this matter doesn’t involve any of the Human Rights Commissioners. The agency that appears to be behind this issue is the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

This whole issue is quite convoluted. The man’s identity was actually published in Truth in 2009, and I believe again last week.

David Shearer has said:

David Shearer is today signalling Labour’s intention to make changes to the electricity sector to stem the relentless rise in power bills and to ease future pressure on prices from foreign investors looking to boost profits at the expense of consumers.

“Over the past 15 years, the annual average household power bill has gone up by almost $770, even after inflation is taken out. Prices in New Zealand are rising faster than in our major competitor countries.

Indeed power prices have gone up a lot over 15 years. When Labour were last in office they took $3.1 billi on in dividends from state owned power companies – despite massive surpluses.

Also Labour seem to not be mentioning that their ETS policy is to double the impact on power prices of the ETS, which will push prices higher.

The history of electricity cost increases in NZ, according to Stats NZ is:

• 4th Labour Govt – 98.7% or 16.4% a year
• 4th National Govt – 47.5% or 5.3% a year
• 5th Labour Govt – 63.7% or 7.1% a year
• 5th National Govt – 16.2% or 4.1% a year

So the average increases since 2008 are historically low, and the two periods of massive increases both occurred under Labour Governments.

The Herald has been in court, and has reported on five cases where they summarise the case, tell you what sentence the person got, and ask people what sentence they would have given.

The first case is of Nathan Wynd who followed a workmate, kicked him in the head, knocked him to the ground, punched his face several times and rubbed an empty beer bottle in his face. Who knows where it may have ended if the Police had not walked by.

They cite five aggravating features – violence to the head, a bottle as a weapon, high harm to the victim, serious injuries that resulted in hospital treatment and premeditation. The only mitigating issue was the early guilty plea (tempered by the fact the Police caught him doing it).

They say that the starting point for an offence of this type is two years nine months, yet despite the five aggravating features he got just two years. He did also get a first strike which I think will be a significant deterrent.

The maximum sentence possible is seven years. You wonder what it would take to get that?

You can vote on what sentence you would have given. I went for three years. However 42% picked five or more years and only 22% picked two years or less. 34% chose three or four years.

I can’t get the other four cases to load. It would be interesting to see for those the difference between sentences given and the most common sentences chosen by the readers.

There’s some very interesting questions about the passing of the GCSB Act in 2003, and whether Labour lied to New Zealanders about what the Act would do, or if they told the truth and Helen Clark allowed the GCSB to break the law.

Grant Robertson was Clark’s second most senior advisor, so he may be able to assist!

The GCSB was created in 1977. From the beginning its role has been focused on foreign intelligence, but we have been told that for some decades it has also assisted other agencies (SIS and Police) with communications intercepts when those agencies have gained warrants authorising them to do so.

In May 2001, Helen Clark introduced the GCSB Bill to give the GCSB legislative backing. Helen Clark said:

In the absence of a legislative framework for GCSB, for example, some have wrongly inferred that the Bureau’s signals intelligence operations target the communications of New Zealand citizens; that the GCSB exists only as an extension of much larger overseas signals intelligence agencies; and that the Bureau’s operations are beyond the scope of Parliamentary scrutiny.

For the record, I reiterate again today that the GCSB does not set out to intercept the communications of New Zealand citizens or permanent residents. Furthermore, reports of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security have made it clear that any allegations to the contrary are without foundation. The Inspector-General has reported his judgement that the operations of the GCSB have no adverse or improper impact on the privacy or personal security of New Zealanders.

Now we know that after this law was passed, the GCSB continued to assist the SIS and Police with interceptions – where those agencies had gained a warrant.

This means there can be only two interpretations of what Helen Clark did.

1. She misled New Zealanders on the GCSB. She knew that the GCSB assisted the SIS with interceptions. She should have said that the GCSB doesn’t intercept communications of NZers, except when acting on behalf of an agency that has gained a warrant to do so. She made a conscious decision not to mention this, and misled Parliament on what the GCSB does, and Parliament voted on a law not aware of what the GCSB does.
2. She ignored the law. She was aware that the GCSB had traditionally assisted the SIS, and knew the law would stop them being able to do so legally when it involved a NZ resident. But then after the law was passed, she allowed the GCSB to break the law.

My belief is (1). I think Clark misled New Zealand and Parliament by not explicitly mentioning the fact that the GCSB did intercept communications of NZers, when doing so for the SIS who had gained an interception warrant.

I can understand the annoyance of people that the Government had not been explicit that the GCSB prohibition on interception communications from New Zealanders, doesn’t stop them assisting the SIS and Police if they have gained warrants.

The issue going forward is should the GCSB be able to assist the SIS. Labour’s position is, as usual, God knows. The Herald reports:

Labour would consider allowing the GCSB to spy on New Zealanders in limited circumstances but only if that was recommended by a full independent review of intelligence agencies, party leader David Shearer says.

Another clear concise and brave policy.

There are basically four options when it comes to communications interceptions. They are:

1. Neither the SIS nor GCSB should ever be allowed to intercept communications of New Zealanders. 
2. The SIS can intercept the communications of NZers if they gain a warrant to do so, but the GCSB can not assist them.
3. The SIS can intercept the communications of NZers if they gain a warrant to do so, and the GCSB can assist them.
4. Both the SIS and GCSB can intercept the communications of New Zealanders

The first option is what one might call the Keith Locke position. We would of course be the only country in the world that basically bans the intelligence agencies from being able to well, do their jobs. I doubt any party in Parliament except possibly the Greens would support this.

The fourth option is also not supported by any party or MP, as far as I know. Mind you, Labour seem to suggest they might go along with that if a review recommended it!

So really it is a decision between options (2) and (3). Do you require the SIS to spend what could be tens of millions of dollars on duplicating the GCSB systems in order to do around six interceptions a year?

You can argue, yes we should. That there should be purity of separation. That the GCSB should be like the CIA and never ever intercept domestic communications. Except that actually the CIA is authorised to do so in some circumstances so the comparison is not correct.

What I think is important is that the GCSB can’t just help the SIS with any old request. That their assistance is limited to cases where the SIS has gained a warrant due to security concerns. Let’s look at the SIS Act for the criteria. That:

the interception or seizure or electronic tracking to be authorised by the proposed warrant is necessary for the detection of activities prejudicial to security

And what does security mean:

• the protection of New Zealand from acts of espionage, sabotage, and subversion, whether or not they are directed from or intended to be committed within New Zealand:

• (b)the identification of foreign capabilities, intentions, or activities within or relating to New Zealand that impact on New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being:

• (c)the protection of New Zealand from activities within or relating to New Zealand that—
  • (i)are influenced by any foreign organisation or any foreign person; and
  • (ii)are clandestine or deceptive, or threaten the safety of any person; and
  • (iii)impact adversely on New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being:

• (d)the prevention of any terrorist act and of any activity relating to the carrying out or facilitating of any terrorist act

So it is important to recall that the 88 cases cited in the Kitteridge report, all had warrants authorised under the SIS Act because they met one or more of the criteria above. The issue is not that they should not have legally had their communications intercepted – but whether the right agency did the interception.

If you do not amend the law, then there will be no reduction in the number of NZers who have interception warrants issued against them. The only difference is the SIS will do the interception directly, rather than use the GCSB.

The Press reports:

The “overwhelming majority” of Anglican leaders are in favour of a new, modern Christ Church Cathedral with not a single person voting for restoration.

The church held its synod on Saturday, when more than 220 Anglican representatives across the diocese expressed their views on the design options for the-damaged cathedral.

Last week the church revealed three designs for the Christchurch icon – restoration, a reinterpretation of the original cathedral in modern materials, or a completely new building with a sculptural spire.

Anglican diocese spokesman Jayson Rhodes said Bishop Victoria Matthews asked for a “show of hands” from the synod about the three designs.

“No-one wanted the restoration option, about six or seven people put their hands up for the traditional option and the vast, overwhelming majority put their hands up for the contemporary design.

I’m not surprised that basically none of the Anglican leaders voted for the options that would cost $200 million and take up to 22 years to build.

An unscientific Press online poll showed the contemporary design won just under 40 per cent support, or about 4700 votes.

Restoration attracted about 29 per cent of votes and the traditional design received about 27 per cent. Five per cent of the voters wanted something else, rather than the three schemes presented. Nearly 12,000 votes were cast online.

But the public are not the people who pay for it.

I blogged on Friday a collection of the more bizarre and offensives letters against same sex marriage. I thought they were pretty bad, but we have an unparalleled winner in this one:

And what about the current discrimination of paedophiles?  It is a “natural” to them and genuine belief that it is beneficial to young children to experience sex at an early stage and certainly a condition that is definitely “not their fault”. 

First compares homosexuality to pedophilia. The idea of consenting adults seems lost on him or her.

I have met paedophiles who very genuinely love children and can be very caring people. One, whom I’ve known since childhood and who turned himself in to the police then would not visit my home because he was worried that people in the community would smash my windows or attack me for “harbouring” him.

I really don’t think I can add a comment on here.

Deviations from the “norm” are apparent in many conditions. The Dunedin man Weatherston was treated abominably as a mentally ill person. I actually looked up the Oxford dictionary at the time  and found “frenzy”means temporary insanity. Of course it was a dreadful tragedy for the victim and her family but, as matters are with psychiatric illness in N.Z. ,he could not have received medical attention anyway without having come to the attention of the police.

Now they effectively compares homosexuality as a deviation, just like Clayton Weatherston. In fact they are upset about how poor old Clayton was treated. You can’t make this up!

“Understanding” and compassion towards those in society with deviant conditions should apply to ALL conditions -not just homosexuals.”

So the problem is that homosexuals get too much understanding and compassion, and pedophiles and Clayton Weatherston don’t get enough.

I don’t think you could top this letter, if you tried.

Nick Smith has announced:

A new marine reserve in Akaroa Harbour has been approved by Conservation Minister Nick Smith.

“Akaroa is an iconic harbour that is hugely popular for recreation and tourism but its marine life is degraded. I have approved this new reserve around the spectacular Dan Rogers Bluff because it will enhance the area, assist scientific study and benefit the public,” Dr Smith said.

The Akaroa Harbour Marine Protection Society Inc. made a formal application for the marine reserve in January 1996. The formal consultation had 2334 submissions in support and 709 objections, with the principal opponents being Ngāi Tahu and recreational fishers.

“I have carefully considered the passionate and strongly felt arguments put by both supporters and opponents of this reserve. I have not upheld the objections but have decided to adjust the northern boundary by 55ha, reducing the reserve to 475ha, to take account of concerns from customary and recreational fishers.

“It is my usual preference to secure some degree of consensus about the desirability of having new areas of marine protection, as was the case with my announcement last month of five new marine reserves on the West Coast of the South Island. This has not been possible with the Akaroa proposal despite the best endeavours of six Ministers over nearly two decades. I concluded, with the support of both the applicant and principal objectors last month, that consensus in this case was not possible and that I needed to proceed to make a decision.

Incredible it has taken almost 20 years!

The SST report:

The serial paedophile at the centre of a name suppression stoush between the Human Rights Commission and the Sensible Sentencing Trust appears to have lied on oath about his job status and where he was living.

The man also lied about his identity when approached by the Sunday Star-Times last week.

The paedophile, who claims he has name suppression for sexually assaulting young girls but cannot produce a court record to prove it, denied he was the man in question when confronted at his workplace.

The man’s lie may be an attempt at damage control because it contradicts a sworn statement he made in support of a bid for interim name suppression being sought by the commission.

Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said the paedophile’s statement, sworn earlier this month, said he was living in the Wellington region and was unemployed.

But a source said the man and his partner took over the running of a central North Island motel about 14 months ago.

Company records show the man described himself as the “manager” of a company believed to be leasing the motel. Other records list his contact phone number as the same as the motel’s.

Yet the Human Rights Commission is using taxpayer money to take legal action against the Sensible Sentencing Trust for revealing he is a paedophile.

If there was some proof of a suppression order, then of course it should be obeyed. But to take action against the Sensible Sentencing Trust purely on the basis of the paedophile’s allegations that he has name supression is outraegous.

The fact that there is now evidence that the paedophile is also a liar, may cause the Human Rights Commission to reconsider the wisdom of taking him at his word.

Neither the commission nor the paedophile have been able to produce a court record to show the man was granted name suppression but documents from the commission show it is largely relying on the paedophile’s word that his name is suppressed.

The commission said a newspaper report of the man’s sentence of a year’s jail in 1995, for five counts of doing indecent acts on girls aged 10 and 14, did not name him.

The man had interim name suppression, but there is no record of it having been made permanent.

An interim name suppression application for the man, who, it is understood, has already received a payout of about $15,000 from police after his police record was anonymously sent to the trust, will be heard on Wednesday in the Auckland District Court.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust repeatedly told the commission it would not publish the man’s details if he could show he had name suppression.

A very reasonable position.

The SST has an article on allegations about a senior Defence Force commander who had a mistress. Personally I don’t care if he was rooting someone, but if he failed to disclose it during security vetting then it may be a serious issue.

But anyway what I wanted to focus on is that the SST have done a very bad job of not disclosing that the woman is their source. Look at these statements:

Sources say the woman has told investigators that Keat was happy to talk about work issues in bed, which she found unprofessional.

Sources who came forward after last weekend’s article say Keat shared personal information about staff with the woman.

Only two people can know what they talked about in bed, so it is very obvious she is the source – or it is someone acting on her behalf.

The HoS reports:

Veteran activist John Minto is asking his political party to approve a run for mayor of Auckland. The trade unionist and teacher said Mayor Len Brown had disappointed him.

“What has Len Brown done which is different to what John Banks would have done if he were in? You struggle to find many significant things.”

Sources said the Mana Party was initially keen on the idea to dispel perceptions that the party was solely about its leader, Hone Harawira. “If I did run it would be as an official Mana candidate,” Minto said ahead of this weekend’s Mana Party AGM in Tokoroa. “Mana’s considering it.”

Minto said Brown had failed Auckland’s poor. “The business community and people on high incomes in Auckland are very happy with Len Brown, so I don’t know whether they’ll bother putting up a candidate,” Minto told the Herald on Sunday.

“He is a corporate candidate, effectively.”

It will be interesting to see how many votes Minto gets, if he does run. He can’t and won’t win of course, but he may help split the vote.

In another story it is revealed that the Council under Len has spent $60 million on communications in the last two years including 143 comms and PR staff!

I’m not sure if this includes the six spin doctors directly working for Len.

The Herald reports:

A top police officer is calling for unlicensed drivers to be banned from buying vehicles after a horror motorcycle death last week.

Nazareth Joshua Taulagaua, 28, died a week ago when he smashed his motorcycle into a stone wall in the Auckland suburb of Mt Roskill.

Taulagaua owned a powerful, 800cc Honda VFR 800F.

Road policing manager for Auckland, Inspector Gavin Macdonald, said speed was a factor but it was also significant Taulagaua did not have a motorcycle licence.

Macdonald said there needed to be a change in the law which let Taulagaua buy a motorcycle 140cc more powerful than he could buy on a learner or restricted licence.

“I suspect there’d be a lot of motorcycle riders who don’t have a licence and I don’t think you should be able to buy a vehicle, car or motorcycle, if you don’t have a licence.

On the surface, seems a good idea.

Ministry of Transport spokesman Brenden Crocker said a law change had been considered.

“The main reason for not recommending legislative change has been because such a requirement could disadvantage people who want to own a car so as to maintain their mobility but may be unable to drive, for example, the elderly or infirm who may get someone else to drive for them.

“Arguably this situation is less applicable to motorcycle ownership, however it is the safety and competence of drivers and riders that is the paramount issue.”

I think you could work around the problem cited, by having some sort of exemption regime.

The Herald reports:

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has been appointed for a another term in her role at the United Nations.

Miss Clark was first appointed as the UN Development Programme Administrator in 2009.

She said it had been an “honour and a privilege” to serve in the role for the past four years.

“I thank the Member States of the United Nations General Assembly and the Secretary-General for their confidence in me to lead the organisation for another term,” she said.

Four years goes quickly.

The position has a tax free US$450,730 salary and US$240,000 housing subsidy which is a total package of US$690,000 tax free. That is NZ$803,500 net which is equal to NZ$1.19 million gross. A lot better than being PM! I suspect she’s still like her old job back though.

Her new term will expire in April 2017.

The Select Committee has reported back the Education Amendment Bill, with some changes.

The majority of us recommend inserting new section 139AAAB, in clause 28, to allow a teacher or staff member to require that a student remove their jacket or outer clothing so that it can be searched, and to require the search to comply with the safeguards detailed in new section 139AAAC. The removal of outer clothing would not be permitted if the student had no other clothing, or only underclothes, under the outer clothing. Students might be suspected of having harmful or illegal items in the pockets of their jackets or outerwear, and the new section proposed would make it clear for teachers how they would be permitted to search for such items.

There was concern, which I had previously blogged on, that the original bill made it impossible for teachers to do any sort of checking of students without their consent.

The recommended new section 139AAAB would allow a teacher or other staff member to require a student to hand over a bag or other container and allow it to be searched, if they believed the student is inpossession of a harmful item. The majority of us are con

cerned that the legislation as introduced would prohibit a teacher from requiring a student to hand over a bag containing a harmful item, leaving the teacher unable to take this step to provide a safe learning environment.

Also sensible. So who would be against teachers being able to check for weapons or drugs?

The Greens of course:

While we agree that a school must be a safe place for students and teachers we do not believe the additional powers in the bill can be justified.

Sigh.

We considered whether partnership schools should be subject to the same oversight as existing state schools, for example via the Ombudsman. On balance it is our view that the Ombudsmen Act 1975 should apply to the exercise of discipline powers relating to suspensions, expulsions, stand-downs, and exclusions, and we therefore recommend amending clause 31, new section 158X, and inserting new clause 43. This provision would have the effect of ensuring that all children and their families would have access to the Ombudsman.

That is a sensible and welcome move.

Back on top! NZ Herald quiz here.

Just Speak have produced the infographic above.

The Herald reports:

Last night, Mrs Tolley said the JustSpeak group’s research had limitations as the figures did not show the number of offenders, the number of repeat offenders, the seriousness of the offence or an offender’s criminal history.

It is an interesting infographic, but as Anne Tolley says you can’t draw conclusions from it.

What I’d be interested to see is say a comparison by ethnicity for first-time offenders of the same age for the same offence.

Simon Collins at NZ Herald reports:

A subsidy that has helped to insulate about one in every six low-income homes looks likely to be cut back in next month’s Budget to a more targeted scheme.

The Green Party, which won the subsidy in a post-election deal with the incoming National Government in 2008, is pushing for it to continue at the current level of about $70 million, reaching about 50,000 homes, a year. …

Energy Minister Simon Bridges said the Government was considering, as part of its Budget process, “whether or how the programme might be extended” beyond its scheduled expiry in September.

“Were it to continue – and I emphasise no decision has been made – consideration may be given to transitioning it to a more targeted programme towards households in need,” he said.

He said the scheme had been “a huge success”, with 204,000 homes insulated at a cost of $347 million.

A cost-benefit analysis led by Reserve Bank chairman Dr Arthur Grimes found the country gained almost $5, largely in reduced health costs, for every $1 spent on the subsidy – a net benefit of almost $1 billion.

But the study also found that the health benefits averaged $854 a year for households with community services cards, but only $336 a year for other households, and recommended that the scheme should be aimed at low income earners.

Targeting makes sense for me. Households that can afford to insulate should do so without taxpayer subsidies. Government assistance should generally be directed at the least well off, not those who have sufficient income to make their own choices.

www.frontpage.co.nz has all our video and transcripts.

1.      The GCSB affair — Do we know everything that happend — what next, how should it be fixed. Former director Sir Bruce Ferguson and Mai Chen with Rachel.
2.      What should NZ do about North Korea — Professor Xiaoming Huang (VUW), Stephen Epstein (VUW), Insoo Park (Korean Society of Auckland), Profesosr John Earnshaw (Cantebury).
3.       Tape report: Inside the Conservative Party — is there more to it than Colin Craig; could it form a Government with National.
4.       Gavin Ellis will be on the Sunday Media Panel with Brian Edwards and Bill Ralston on how the Government has spun the GCSB affair.

The Nation is produced by Front Page Ltd for TV3 and NZ on Air.

Exactly what are we  standing up for!

So when you see the reports of teachers and kids out there tomorrow, feel sorry for them – heavied into protesting on a weekend, just to keep the union hierarchy happy.

UPDATE: Eileen Joy and Julie Fairey have both commented below that they are in fact parents and not teachers or NZEI members. Fairey does do some part-time work for NZEI and said:

Eileen Joy is not a teacher. Neither am I (I work two days a week for NZEI Te Riu Roa, amongst other hats I wear). Neither of us have ever been teachers. Eileen is an old university acquaintance of mine (in fact we were on different sides politically back then) who I have recently reconnected with through FB. So you see her query actually makes quite a bit of sense – she is not someone who has previously been involved in this campaign and wanted more information, which I then provided.

As Eileen is not a teacher the children she refers to bringing along (sans apostrophe – I share the laments at the loss of a really very useful piece of punctuation, but am more relaxed about it being used incorrectly in an informal setting) are her own. No attempt whatsoever to bring along children from her class (she doesn’t have one, as she isn’t a teacher, refer previous).

As has been indicated above by other readers, it really doesn’t read as if I’m heavying anyone into attending the march. I’m pretty sure Eileen was there, as was I (unpaid, with one of my children), but there were so many people there I didn’t see her.

I note that the overall national turnout was under 20% of all NZEI members so I think apathy was the big winner on the day 🙂

Enjoy.