I have to say I am incredibly impressed with the report done by Cabinet Secretary Rebecca Kitteridge into the GCSB.

All too often reports of this nature can avoid being too specific and just talk in generalities about the need for more work in this area or that area.

Kitteridge has outlined in detail the long-standing problems at GCSB, including organisational and cultural – plus of course the lack of legal rigour in some of their work.

She’s also provided 80 specific recommendations that are basically a reorganisation blueprint.

It really is worth taking the time to read the full report.

The issue that much media focus has been on is that the GCSB may have been in breach of the GCSB Act when it assisted the SIS with intercepting communications of NZers. The practice was

Firstly, it was long-standing practice – going back to before the enactment of the GCSB Act in 2003 – for GCSB to provide assistance (i.e. its specialist capabilities) to the NZSIS on the basis of NZSIS warrants. The clear understanding within GCSB was that in such cases section 14 did not apply because GCSB was acting as the agent of the requesting agency and was therefore operating under the legal authority of the warrants. If the NZSIS, with the authority of an intelligence warrant, requested GCSB to provide assistance in cases involving New Zealand citizens or permanent residents, GCSB provided that assistance.

This has been the case for probably several decades. The issue is the GCSB Act passed in 2003 may have made such assistance illegal. It is basically a matter of whether they are operating under the GCSB Act when assisting the SIS.

The consequence of these developments is that the lawfulness of some of GCSB’s past assistance to domestic agencies is now called into question. In relation to NZSIS, the relevant period is between 1 April 2003, when the GCSB Act came into force, and 26 September 2012, when such assistance ceased. During that period GCSB provided 55 instances of assistance to NZSIS, which potentially involved 85 New Zealand citizens or permanent residents

Now it is important to note that the SIS were legally entitled to intercept their communications. The Commissioner of Security Warrants (a former High Court Judge) and the PM must both authorise such a warrant, based on genuine security concerns.

The issue is whether the GCSB were legally able able to assist the SIS with their interception, and if not, should they be able to?

I would suggest that there is little common sense in saying the GCSB should not be allowed to assist the SIS. If you do that, you probably require the SIS to duplicate the quite costly infrastructure of the GCSB for what is just half a dozen cases a year.

But such assistance must be beyond legal doubt. Hence why a law change is going to happen. I don’t think there was any intention that the 2003 Act would prevent the GCSB from assisting the SIS. The last thing you want is silos in the intelligence community – that was a key lesson the US learnt post 9/11.

The PM has said that none of the 88 people who *may* have had the GCSB illegally intercept their communications were arrested on the basis of the info obtained. If they had been, I’d expect court action.

Some are saying that the 88 people should get an apology and/or compensation. I’d need a lot of convincing that that is a good idea. Here’s why.

1. Their communications were legally able to be intercepted due to security concerns – just by the SIS, rather than the GCSB. It is not a case of the interception being unjustified – just that the wrong agency may have done it.
2. If the 88 people were told that they had been under surveillance, it could endanger many ongoing security operations. Some of them may have links to terrorism even. Remember these were all people who had a legal interception warrant approved by the Commissioner of Security Warrants.
3. Was there any significant harm done to them as individuals that the wrong agency did the interception? There is certainly harm to NZ as a whole that the GCSB may have broken the law, but I don’t see great harm to any individual involved.

The above in no way reduces the unacceptability of the GCSB not ensuring they were acting in a beyond doubt legally complaint manner. Kitteridge explains some of the background:

For a number of years there has been only one source of legal advice at GCSB, which was the DDME, a second tier manager. …

As at the time this review commenced, in addition to legal advice, the DDME had responsibility for governance and performance, strategy and policy, risk management, the Liaison Officers, the Compliance Advisor, strategic relationships, the Chief Financial Officer, knowledge services, the registry, the Chief Information Officer, technology infrastructure, security (physical, personnel, and IT) and mission capability (IT) development. Until fairly recently he also had responsibility for HR, finance and logistics, procurement and property services.

Doesn’t leave much!

The DDME had too many hats. His multiple roles meant that there was insufficient internal debate and challenge. He was solely responsible for policy and legislative development, providing drafting instructions, interpreting the resulting law and overseeing its implementation and operation. These were conflicting roles. It is essential in an organisation that exercises intrusive powers of the state that there be robust challenge and the ability for contesting views to be expressed and explored. As the chief architect of the legislation he spoke confidently and authoritatively about the legislation and staff were not in a position to challenge that. …

The DDME’s seniority, as a Deputy Director, contributed to reluctance on the part of staff to question his judgement. Staff were unanimous in stating to me that the DDME’s view was seen as completely authoritative.

Useful to also pick up a conclusion, especially as some MPs say we don’t need a GCSB.

My belief in the importance of the work carried out by the men and women at GCSB has only increased as this review has proceeded. The world is becoming more complex, and physical borders are less relevant. The nature of the threats to national security is shifting so rapidly that keeping up with them is a challenge – let alone getting ahead.

The PM has announced:

Prime Minister John Key today released the report of Rebecca Kitteridge into compliance at the Government Communications Security Bureau.

Ms Kitteridge was seconded to the GCSB to undertake the review in October 2012.

The review had two main areas of focus – ensuring that all the GCSB’s activities are lawful; and reviewing the agency’s compliance framework.

“I had intended to release this report to the Intelligence and Security Committee next week, however the public disclosure of the contents of the report means I have taken the decision to release it today.

“Members of the Intelligence and Security Committee have received the report a short time in advance of my releasing it publicly.

“The report makes for sobering reading. At a high level it finds long-standing, systemic problems with the GCSB’s compliance systems and aspects of its organisation and culture.

Ouch. That is quite damning.

The report Andrea Vance was leaked was a draft report it seems. It would be interesting to speculate on who had a copy of the draft. Drafts normally go to people who might be the subject of critical comment, so they can respond.

“I acknowledge this review will knock public confidence in the GCSB.

“This is why the Government has a comprehensive response underway to address the organisational problems at the GCSB.

“The steps we are taking will be outlined in detail next week and are intended to begin the process of rebuilding public confidence in GCSB.”

The GCSB Act has been in place for 10 years. Over that time, GCSB has been providing assistance to other agencies, including the New Zealand Police, New Zealand Defence Force and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service.

It has done so in the belief that it was acting within the law on all occasions.

The essential problem is legal uncertainty over whether they can assist the SIS with communications interception, when the SIS have gained a warrant to intercept such domestic communications. There is no question the SIS were legally able to intercept communications of these people – the issue it seems is whether they could use the GCSB to assist them.

There are 88 cases identified as having a question mark over them since 2003.

Police have conducted a thorough check of all their systems. Police advise that no arrest, prosecution or any other legal processes have occurred as a result of the information supplied to NZSIS by GCSB.

“I have written to the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security and asked him to look into those cases.

“I have asked him to inquire into each of these cases to determine in each case whether or not GCSB has acted in compliance with the law. I have requested that the Inspector General determine whether any individuals have been adversely affected and, if so, what action he recommends be taken.

“It is not my intention to disclose details of those cases. However, the results of the review will be made public after its completion.

The level of transparency over this is welcome. It would have been politically easy to treat the Dotcom issue as a one off mistake. Instead the PM sent in the Cabinet Secretary to do a full review, and has published the report.

“When I return from China, I will announce details of legislative proposals the Government will be bringing to Parliament to remedy the inadequacies of the GCSB Act.

“At the same time I will announce proposals to significantly strengthen the oversight regime across the intelligence community.

That will be interesting.

The report is not online yet but will be placed on the GCSB website.

No Right Turn blogs that businesses don’t want youth rates as McDonalds, Restaurant Brands, The Warehouse, Farmers, Kmart, Bunnings and Countdown have all said they won’t offer them.

This is the thing – the starting out wage is an option only. It is a minimum, not a maximum.

I employ a large number of young people at Curia. I would never dream of offering youth rates to my staff, because I deliberately pay for quality (in fact a recent industry survey showed our rates were the highest of all research companies that took part).

But what is right for some employers is not right for others. Flexibility is a good thing. For some employers being able to hire a 17 year old (or an 18 year old who has been on a benefit for six months) for a bit less, will mean they’ll offer them that job, rather than someone more experienced.  And getting people into their first job is critically important.

Stuff reports:

Huntley and Guzzardi are among 2000 same-sex couples predicted to make the journey to New Zealand to take marriage vows.

Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome said for same-sex couples with a “strong desire” to marry, New Zealand would become an obvious choice.

“The fact that it is geographically and culturally close to Australia will encourage a large number to go to New Zealand to marry,” Croome said.

The expected trans-Tasman travel plans of couples tying the knot may mean Australia’s economy loses out on millions of dollars in wedding outlays.

More than 1300 Australian same-sex couples have already travelled overseas to legally marry in other countries. Those include Spain, Argentina and the United States.

Croome believes at least that many will marry in New Zealand, where there is no residency requirement.

“We’re talking about at least a couple of thousand couples, and each of those couples is spending the average wedding spend – which in Australia is about $36,000. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars,” Croome said.

2,000 extra weddings at $36,000 is $72 million. Of course on top of that, you may have lots in airfares. Air NZ could offer special flights and rates 🙂

Len Brown and his city planners seem to think that you build a city to fit in with your transport plan, rather than build a transport system to fit in with where people want to live.

Their master plan is to force as many people as possible into apartments. But not just CBD apartments (which I am quite fond of), but massive apartments everywhere – up to 18 stories in height.

Yes Len and sidekick Penny have not just proposed 18 story suburban apartment blocks, but are demanding that the Government fast-track their plan to do so. Labour seem to be backing them.

The Herald reports:

Communities are rebelling against high-rise and in-fill housing, Aucklanders are struggling to follow the complex document and nine of 20 councillors have written to the Prime Minister urging him to slow down the process. …

Auckland-wide community meetings have sparked angry reactions to plans in a draft copy of the unitary plan for high-rise and in-fill housing in more than half of the urban area. …

Meanwhile, St Heliers residents turned out in force last night to oppose more “concrete monstrosities” destroying the character of the seaside village.

I understand there were almost 500 people at the meeting.

Len and Penny want a height limit of 18 stories not just for the CBD (which is fine) but also for:

1. Albany
2. Botany
3. Henderson
4. Manukau
5. New Lynn
6. Papakura
7. Newmarket
8. Sylvia Park
9. Takapuna
10. Westgate/Massey

In 13 other town centres they want 8 stories, or 33 metres.

There is no doubt that Auckland needs to grow both upwards and outwards. But the majority needs to be outwards, not upwards to reduce house prices and give Aucklanders more choices over where they live.

Auckland already has a higher urban density than Sydney and Melbourne.

The Herald editorial:

On Sunday at last, Food Safety Minister Nikki Kaye signed an agreed standard that will hold food manufacturers to account for more than 200 common health claims such as “rich in calcium”, “low in fat”.

The standard will take effect in a month and manufacturers will have three years to ensure their products comply with it.

I think it is a good thing to require health claims to be accurate.

It will be a task of the Ministry for Primary Industries to approve such claims for New Zealand products before they are put on sale. Manufacturers have welcomed the regulation and it is to be hoped they see it not as a restriction but as a golden marketing opportunity. Their products should boast their ability to meet the standard and let it underline the health benefits printed on the package.

It is good that the food industry has been supportive of these rules. They have an interest in being able to say their claims are verified.

All parties in politics have something positive to offer and on this subject the country owes much to the Greens, particularly their former MP Sue Kedgley. She made food standards her mission in politics and health-conscious consumers will be grateful to her.

It is a pity her party was equivocal in its support for the standard yesterday. Its new food safety spokeswoman, Mojo Mathers, said the regulations should not just check health claims, they should require warnings of unhealthy contents. They should not. People know the food that is not good for them and they indulge in it because they like it. They do not need warnings on the carton.

I agree. Factual information is good, but warnings are silly because no food is bad or unhealthy in moderation. A Big Mac every couple of months is fine – having them three times a day is not.

When they go looking for healthy food, however, they need and deserve to be able to trust the manufacturer’s claims.

Yep.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says his party wants to cut the corporate tax rate for exporters from 28 per cent to 20 per cent.

Well firstly it is a good thing that Winston recognises that a lower corporate tax rate is a good thing for the NZ economy. It is.

Commerce is more and more globally mobile. Companies can choose where to locate much easier than in the past. For Internet based businesses, even more so.

So all for lowering the company tax rate. But two big issues for Winston’s proposal.

The first is what spending will he cut, to fund a drop in the company tax rate? If NZ is in surplus, then you can cut taxes. But when we are in deficit, adding to debt is a bad idea.

Has NZ First even costed what their policy would be? That should be the first question from media – how much will this cost, and how will you pay for it?

The second issue is why exporters only? It is an arbitrary distinction. What if a manufacturer produces stuff for both domestic and international markets? Are they at 20% or 28%? Is Fonterra at 28% or 20%? My polling company has some international clients. Does that make me an exporter that can claim the 20% tax rate?

Tax systems are best kept simple. Two separate levels of company tax is a bad idea.

If Winston proposed an across the board lowering of the company tax rate to 20%, what it would cost, and how it would be funded – then people should take it seriously.

Also worth recalling that Winston, as Foreign Minister, opposed the FTA with China, launched a nationwide newspaper and billboard campaign against it. He campaigned against an FTA which increased exports by $5 billion a year. So much for his concern for exporter.s

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers

1. DAVID SHEARER (LAB) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
2. Hon TAU HENARE (NAT) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on progress in building economic growth?
3. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (LAB)  to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Have all the risks for potential investors in Mighty River Power been fully identified in the offer document; if so, does he expect the Crown will receive the best possible return for floating 49 percent of Mighty River Power?
4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (GRE) to the Prime Minister: What is the security classification of the full report by Rebecca Kitteridge into the Government Communications Security Bureau, and who in his Government had access to the full report?
5. MIKE SABIN (NAT) to the Minister for Social Development: How are the Government’s welfare changes ensuring a fairer welfare system, and tackling long-term welfare dependence?
6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZF) to the Minister for Land Information: Is it Government policy that a person or company involved in the 2008 melamine scandal would fail the good character test under section 18(1)(c) of the Overseas Investment Act 2005; if not, why not?
7. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (LAB) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: When will EQC staff be able to email documents to customers?
8. KATRINA SHANKS (NAT) to the Minister of Justice: What announcements has she recently made to address the harm caused by cyber bullying?
9. Hon MARYAN STREET (LAB) to the Minister for the Environment: How will the second round of proposed changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 as they are currently expressed, maintain the protection of the environment?
10. GARETH HUGHES (GRE) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Has he requested that the Attorney-General assess Supplementary Order Paper No 205 to the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?
11. GRANT ROBERTSON (LAB) to the Prime Minister: Why was only one candidate interviewed for the position of Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau in July 2011?
12. TIM MACINDOE (NAT) to the Minister of Education: What progress has she made against the Government’s early childhood education priorities?

Labour is asking five questions, National four, the Greens two, and NZ First one. Patsy of the day goes to Mike Sabin for question 5: How are the Government’s welfare changes ensuring a fairer welfare system, and tackling long-term welfare dependence?

Labour is asking a gotcha, on the MRP float, the EQC, RMA reform, and the GCSB Director appointment process. The Greens are asking on the Rebecca Kitteridge GSCB report and mining, and Winston Peters is asking about the Overseas Investment Act.

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Psychoactive Substances Bill (first reading)
2. Child Support Amendment Bill (third reading)
3. Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill (third reading)

The Psychoactive Substances Bill regulates psychoactive products, including party pills and other legal highs. It was introduced by Peter Dunne in February.

The Child Support Amendment Bill was introduced by Peter Dunne and amends the Child Support Act 1992 to reform the child support scheme. The main change is the introduction of a new child support formula taking into account the income of both parents, the estimated cost of raising children, and a wider recognition of shared care. Labour, the Greens, the Maori Party and Mana voted against at second reading.

The Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill amends the Social Security Act 1964 to introduce a new system of main benefits, drug testing requirements, and work and child welfare obligations for beneficiaries. Paula Bennett is in charge and it just barely passed second reading, with National, ACT and United Future the parties supporting.

The Maori Party held a hui on the 17th of March, in Huntly, to try to resolve the leadership issue between Sharples and Flavell.

It was chaired by Tuku Morgan, who declared that there was no consensus for change. What has not been reported is that there was overwhelming support for Flavell to succeed Sharples as co-leader, but after the seven electorates voted, Tuku closed the meeting and declared that anything other than unanimity did not represent consensus.

I’ve been informed by someone credible who was at the Hui, that five of the seven Maori electorates voted that Flavell should succeed Sharples at some stage before the election.

Flavell won the votes of Hauraki-Waikato, Te Tai Hauāuru, Te Tai Tokerau, Te Tai Tonga and Waiariki.

Sharples was supported by Ikaroa-Rāwhiti (his whakapapa) and Tāmaki Makaurau only.

Many of those in attendance were flabbergasted that the moment the vote was declared, Tuku closed the meeting unilaterally declaring there was no consensus. If the Hui had been allowed to discuss the ramifications of the 5-2 vote, it is possible a compromise or succession plan could have been agreed upon.

Sharples’ latest attack on Flavell from China (to do so while part of a trade mission has some journalists saying it is a very bad look), accusing him of blackmail has dismayed many who know that there is a limited window of time for the Maori Party to work out a compromise, or risk losing some of their seats at the election.

Audrey Young reports:

New Zealand’s ambassador to Beijing, Carl Worker, passed on a salient fact to Prime Minister John Key while they were waiting for President Xi to welcome them into the meeting room at the stately Bo’ao guest house.

If the southern Guangdong province (where Key arrived last night) were to break away from China – and there’s no suggestion it ever would – its economic strength is such it would immediately be in the G10, the top 10 economies of the world.

That’s quite extraordinary. That one province would make the G10.

Key recounted the fact on the balcony of his own hotel in Bo’ao before a mad dash to the airport for the next leg of his trip (to Guangdong) because the meeting with Mr Xi had gone well over time.

Mr Key was fizzing about the meeting about the state of relationship so far, the personal rapport between the leaders themselves but mainly because of the readiness of both parties to take it to a new level.

The fact that Key could raise something as serious as direct currency conversion between the Kiwi dollar and the reminbi with a senior minister at lunchtime and have it ticked off by Xi for further work in the talks a few hours later would make any former banker go giddy.

The possibility of direct currency conversion is fascinating. Not so much for what it means for China and NZ, but equally the decline of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. This is what happens when you start to print money because you are spending too much.

The scale of development is huge – Xi said yesterday within five years it is projected that China’s imports could be worth $US10 trillion.

He could see a day when 400 million Chinese a year could be outbound tourists.

I noticed in South Africa that a huge proportion of tourists were Chinese. As a Chinese middle class numbering several hundred million gets wealthier and spends more, the potential economic growth is immense.

Fran O’Sullivan also reports:

Like other leaders Key planned to acknowledge Xi’s recent ascension to the presidency. But his main game was to position New Zealand as a valuable partner to China in developing global supply chains to feed its people. “It makes sense to team up with Chinese capital and use other countries’ land masses to produce food we can’t produce in New Zealand,” Key says.

New Zealand has limited arable land left for developing new farms. If the nation’s agricultural businesses want to expand, they should take their expertise overseas and form partnerships in countries with bigger land masses.

Which is why the Landcorp partnership with Shanghai Pengxin should be seen as a great opportunity, instead of being condemned by xenophobic MPs from the left.

This graph shows annual exports to China. Readers will recall that the Greens and NZ First railed against the Free Trade Agreement with China signed in 2007.

Remember all those people complaining that new GCSB Director Ian Fletcher didn’t come from the traditional military background of former directors? I think we are seeing why a change from the status quo was needed.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

The Government’s beleaguered intelligence agency may have unlawfully spied on 85 people, a top secret review reveals.

The report, ordered after the Kim Dotcom fiasco, contains a raft of criticisms of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). …

The revelations are contained in the report, prepared by Cabinet Secretary Rebecca Kitteridge, and seen by Fairfax Media. …

The explosive revelations confirm that the illegal spying was far broader than the Dotcom case – and involves up to 85 people and cases dating back nearly a decade.

The illegal spying was conducted between April 2003 and September last year and done on behalf of the Security Intelligence Service, the domestic spy agency.

People should ask themselves if previous Prime Ministers would have sent in their top official to review the GCSB, and make her findings public.

Agency staff worked faithfully and were devastated to learn they were not acting within the law. There was no evidence they acted in bad faith or believed the end justified the means, the report says.

Culture problems at the agency could take a year to fix, Kitteridge says.

The GCSB’s organisation was overly complex, fragmented and had too many managers. Poor performing staff were tolerated, rather than fired or disciplined, because of fears that disgruntled former employees could pose a security risk.

And

It is understood new legislation will be introduced to Parliament soon after the report’s release.

Good. Once upon a time the Government wouldn’t even admit there was a GCSB. It was created my Muldoon in 1977 and not even Cabinet was told of it.

UPDATE: This is unusual. The entire paragraphs that I quoted from the story have now been removed from it. I wonder why?

Margaret Thatcher has died, aged 87.

I was fortunate enough to meet Margaret Thatcher around a decade ago. It was an incredible privilege to meet the woman who I regard as the best post-war Prime Minister we have seen.

But what I remember most about that function, was all the young Eastern European politicians who got to meet her. Words can’t describe their emotions as they met one of the people they regarded as having been crucial in helping secure them their freedom.  She was to them, what George Washington was to early Americans.

Of course her respect and popularity was far from universal. She would be disappointed if she ever traded popularity for doing the right thing. There are many who battled against her policies. But people go into politics to make a difference, and Thatcher was proof that one person with conviction and strength can make a huge difference.

People forget how crippled the United Kingdom was economically when she took over. She put the Great back into Great Britain. Her greatest legacy is that after 18 years of Conservative Governments, the new Labour Government basically retained most of her policies – and in some cases Tony Blair pushed her reform agenda further. She forced UK Labour to abandon socialism and embrace the free market. ironically she helped make Labour electable.

She wouldn’t surrender to the Soviet Empire, the IRA, Argentina or the Mining unions. If she thought her cause was just, she stood by it.

Her legacy is not just what she did as Prime Minister, but getting there. She was the daughter of a shop keeper from Grantham. To rise to the leadership of her party and country was an extraordinary achievement for the 1970s.

The Daily Telegraph has a collection of quotes and reactions. A few to highlight:

Paddy Ashdown

If politics is defined as having views, holding to them and driving them through to success, she was undoubtedly the greatest PM of our age.

Lech Walesa

She was a great person. She did a great deal for the world, along with Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Solidarity, she contributed to the demise of communism in Poland and Central Europe.

Vaclav Klaus

Thatcher was one of the greatest politicians of our time, in the Czech Republic she was our hero.

Tony Blair

Margaret Thatcher was a towering political figure. Very few leaders get to change not only the political landscape of their country but of the world. Margaret was such a leader. Her global impact was vast. And some of the changes she made in Britain were, in certain respects at least, retained by the 1997 Labour Government, and came to be implemented by governments around the world.

As a person she was kind and generous spirited and was always immensely supportive to me as Prime Minister although we came from opposite sides of politics.

Even if you disagreed with her as I did on certain issues and occasionally strongly, you could not disrespect her character or her contribution to Britain’s national life. She will be sadly missed.

Ed Milliband

She will be remembered as a unique figure. She reshaped the politics of a whole generation. She was Britain’s first woman Prime Minister. She moved the centre ground of British politics and was a huge figure on the world stage.

The Labour Party disagreed with much of what she did and she will always remain a controversial figure. But we can disagree and also greatly respect her political achievements and her personal strength.

She also defined the politics of the 1980s. David Cameron, Nick Clegg and I all grew up in a politics shaped by Lady Thatcher. We took different paths but with her as the crucial figure of that era.

She coped with her final, difficult years with dignity and courage. Critics and supporters will remember her in her prime.

David Cameron

She didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country.

I think she will come to be seen as the greatest Prime Minister our country has ever seen.

Her legacy will be the fact she served her country so well.. She showed immense courage.

People will be learning about her for decades and centuries to come.

Boris Johnson

Very sad to hear of death of Baroness Thatcher. Her memory will live long after the world has forgotten the grey suits of today’s politics.

Her final years were very tough. May she indeed now rest in peace, secure in the knowledge she will never be forgotten for what she achieved.

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

MARRIAGE EQUALITY: The 3rd reading of Louisa Wall’s marriage equality bill is a week away. Will it pass? What is the difference between Marriage and a Civil Union? Why get married? Does allowing gays to marry diminish the meaning of traditional marriage? Is marriage merely about commitment? Or is it about families? And what does it mean for our children?

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT?: Is the old adage true—we are what we eat? If so, then are we eating good healthy things? Or do we only think so? The Government is changing the way food & drink makers can label their foods. No more claiming healthy or low in fat if the company can’t back it up. But how many of us look at the labels? Do these regulations go far enough? Will it make us healthier?

There are two ways to get in on the pub political action:
First, you can join the live audience in Wellington’s iconic Backbencher Pub on Wednesday, 10th of April at 6pm. Filming begins around 6:15pm.

Or watch us that night on PRIME TV at 10:30pm!

Our Panel: United Future Leader Peter Dunne, Labour MP Trevor Mallard, New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin, and National MP Louise Upston.

When a play gets the half time interval, and you are annoyed that there is a break, its a good sign that the play has managed to grip your attention and you want to see how it ends.

Circa’s production of Tribes was excellent. A great mix of tension, humour, light and sound.  Thoroughly enjoyed it.

The set is a typical living room, with a large screen behind it. The screen is an essential part of the show, where the sign language is translated, and very amusingly sometimes the private thoughts of the cast also.

The play by Nina Raine, originated in London, and has won three major international awards.

The cast is primarily a family of five, all creative. Father Christopher is an academic critic who critiques everything from his children’s boyfriends and girlfriends to the deaf community and Northerners. His long suffering wife Beth is writing a a book that was originally about a marriage breakdown but hilariously also includes a murder mystery now.

The kids are all in their 20s. Daniel and Ruth have both moved back home, and ignore their father’s entreaties to “fuck off” and get real jobs. She is an wannabee opera singer and he is writing a thesis on language. Daniel has some psych issues (his father blames on pot) and hears accusatory voices all the time. He used to have a stutter, and it returns when his brother Billy moves out.

To a degree the show is about Billy. He was born deaf. His siblings are very protective of him. His father has been determined not to let his disability define him and he has learnt to lip read par excellence, rather than use sign language.

The family is charming and engaging in their mild dysfunctionality, and then things get interesting when Billy meets Sylvia. She can do fluent sign language as her parents are deaf. She was not born deaf, but is losing her hearing and becoming deaf.

Now don’t think this is some sort of woe are the deaf, how miserable their lives are play.  It is a play about tribes – the family tribe and the deaf community.

Father Christopher is very sceptical of Sylvia and asks her at one point about the “deaf community”. She replies that it is very hierarchical with people judging you on whether or not you were born deaf, or became deaf, if you can sign or lip or both, etc etc. She also  comments “Plus of course, we’ve all slept with each other” which rarks the family up as Billy has never had a girlfriend.

Jeffery Thomas is excellent as Christoper, Billy’s father. He provokes and frustrates, and provides much humour. Nathan Mesiter also was very good as Billy’ brother. He is both smart and suave and stammering and lacking self-confidence.

The play is 140 minutes long, with a break. As I said at the beginning I found it got me interested from the first scene, and never let go. There are so many tensions that you want to find out where it all leads. There are no saints in this play, just a mosaic of flawed but loving family.

A lot of humour keeps you engaged also. The thoughts on the screen. The asking Sylvia to sign a translation of “Fucking her was like making love to a concrete mixer” was memorable.

When a local theatre takes on an award winning international play, the worry is that they will not do justice to the original. But the production team and cast have shown this is not the case – it was a great play, and well worth seeing.

The Herald reports:

IMF managing director Christine Lagarde was full of praise last night for the direction in which the New Zealand economy was headed.

Lagarde was the first ever woman to be Finance Minister of a G8 economy, and was rated by the Financial Times in 2009 as the best Finance Minister in the Eurozone (admittedly that may be like being the skinniest kid at fat camp).

After meeting Prime Minister John Key on the fringes of the Bo’ao Forum for Asia, in China, she talked to New Zealand reporters about the general health of the economy in light of a recent assessment of fiscal and monetary policy.

“All I can tell you is the IMF is very supportive of what is being done by the Government in that respect.

“If you look at the numbers, if you look whether it is growth, whether it is employment, whether it is inflation, whether it is debt, overall it is very stable and it is also very promising.

“If you compare the potential growth rate of New Zealand and thee forecasts we have which I will not disclose because they will be disclosed in a couple of weeks time, it’s certainly a lot better than what we see in other parts of the world.

Those forecasts will be interesting.

The Herald reports Annette King:

The Ministry of Health process for handling Official Information Act requests has been called “laundering” after different ways of treating requests from the public, media and politicians were revealed. …

The Herald sought the ministry process showing warnings for officials about releasing “politically sensitive or controversial” details to the public. It has six possible checks for releasing information before it was sent to Mr Ryall’s office, where the minister and staff were given five days to review it.

When people from Parliament sought information, the number of steps increased to eight, and to nine when the OIA request came from media. …

Opposition health spokeswoman Annette King has labelled the scheme an “OIA laundering process” designed to keep information from the public.

Oh this is silly, Keeping the Minister’s office in the loop when Opposition MPs or media file OIA requests is a no brainer. There is a world of difference between an OIA request from Mrs Smith-Jones wanting to know how much something about her local hospital and from say the Opposition Spokesperson asking for a copy of a briefing paper to the Minister.

What matters is not the process,, but the outcomes. Does keeping the Minister in the loop mean the Ministry of Health is not meeting the 20 day deadline for responding?

No Right Turn compiled OIA stats in 2012, and 85% of Ryall’s OIA responses are done within 20 days, with an average of 16.5 days. Now this is for OIAs to him, not the Department, but it suggests a good compliance regime.

If Annette wants to score some points against Ryall, she needs to do far better than complaining about internal processes which are simply competent political management.

What I’d be interested in is what the compliance rate is for the Ministry of Health in terms of the 20 day deadline, and how often do they decline information and get over-ruled by the Ombudsman? That *might* help her to make a case, but this silly story just highlights how competent Tony Ryall is.

The Dom Post editorial:

Many Kiwis will question whether the engagement in a conflict 13,000 kilometres away was worth such a high cost. Others will question whether now is the right time for the PRT to pull out, given the Taliban remains strong in the northeast of Bamiyan, and Afghanistan’s future remains uncertain.

However, there is no denying that New Zealand was right to join the international efforts to confront al Qaeda and weaken it to the point where it no longer posed a grave threat to innocent people all around the world. The horrific September 11 attacks on the United States showed the terrorist organisation’s intent and capabilities. It had to be crippled. That mission, at least, has been accomplished.

It was also right to send the PRT to help sow the seeds of democracy and stability in Bamiyan. Likewise, now is the right time to come home.

The PRT has done everything that could have been reasonably expected of it given the harsh and dangerous conditions in which our troops were asked to operate. They have improved medical facilities, built roads and bridges and created the conditions for some semblance of what Kiwis would regard as a normal life to flourish.

Its presence has resulted in the opening of hundreds of schools, seen a rise in the number of girls getting an education and laid the foundations for improved infrastructure and a big improvement in health outcomes. Perhaps most importantly, the deployment has given the people of Bamiyan the confidence to believe they can be masters of their own destiny.

It is difficult to see what more could be achieved by the PRT remaining, and the reality is that the looming withdrawal of the rest of the international community in 2014 makes it impossible for it to stay in any case.

What annoys me most about Afghanistan is it was Labour who sent in the SAS (which was the right decision), and renewed their mission several times. Then the moment they are in Opposition they attack the Government for keeping the SAS there.

The Herald reports:

Radicals both right and left are sensing that France’s political tide is rising in their favour, driven by a President plumbing record unpopularity less than a year after taking office.

Francois Hollande, a Socialist already under fire for economic mismanagement, is bogged down in a scandal unleashed by his Budget Minister, Jerome Cahuzac.

Svelte and smooth-tongued, Cahuzac had been leading Hollande’s campaign to fill the state’s coffers by raising taxes, urging citizens to pay their fiscal dues as “solidarity” towards others.

Last week, Cahuzac quit after admitting he had had a secret bank account in Switzerland for decades.

David Shearer is lucky he remembered about his foreign bank account while he was Opposition Leader. Imagine the impact if he been a Minister or Prime Minister and it emerged.

Hollande romped to the presidency on May 6 on campaign promises to govern France competently, fairly and cleanly. He declared he would roll back unemployment, meet the EU’s targets on borrowing and, after decades of scandals embroiling both left and right, give France an “exemplary” government.

Today, his approval rating stands at only 27 per cent, the lowest of any president in modern French history at such an early point in his tenure.

Unemployment has risen like an express lift, affecting 3.188 million people, or nearly one in nine of the workforce – a tad short of a record set in 1997.

The budget deficit is 4.8 per cent of GDP, compared to Hollande’s pledge, since abandoned, to meet the EU’s limit of 3 per cent last year.

Public debt rose in 2012 to an astronomical 90.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 85.8 per cent in 2011 – and Hollande’s own target of 89.9 per cent.

Socialism doesn’t work. He’s hiked taxes and spending, and I think Labour’s housing plan is based on his pledge to build 500,000 homes a year.

To get some idea of how unpopular he has become, Reuters reports that National Front Leader Marine Len Pen has a higher approval rating than Hollande.

Phil Taylor at NZ Herald reports:

Teina Pora makes his 11th appearance before the Parole Board today – and this time he wants out.

Pora is serving a life sentence for a 1992 rape and murder which several police who worked on the case believe was committed solely by serial stalker rapist Malcolm Rewa.

Pora has maintained he had nothing to do with it since he was charged in March 1993 and is seeking a royal prerogative of mercy from the Governor-General.

That sentence is rather deceptive. It misses out the fact that he told the Police he held Burdett down by the arms while others raped her. This is hardly maintaining he had nothing to do with it.

Now of course there is great controversy over whether his confession is true or not. There is significant doubt over the confession, and it could well be false – and that Pora is innocent.

But what I object to is a story that doesn’t even mention his confession. That is not giving the public the full story.

I’ve read a fair bit on this case. I think there is more than reasonable doubt that Pora killed Burdett. It is a pity he may have lied to the Police in order to get a reward.

I’ve supported for some years the idea of an Innocence Commission that could investigate potential miscarriages of justice with cases such as this and Peter Ellis.

In case you needed convincing about the need for welfare reform, this story from the United States should help convince you.

It was an exclusive story for Planet Money on National Public Radio. It has had great resonance in the US, as it has exposed how great the growth in numbers on disability welfare has been.

Some key findings:

• 14 million people a month now get a disability check from the Government.
• In one county in Alabama, 25% of working adults are on a disability benefit.
• That the proportion of those claiming a disability benefit with a difficult to test problem (back pain, mental illness) has increased from 18% in 1961 to 53% in 2011.
• That some states have as many as 9% of their adults on a disability benefit.
• Fewer than 1 percent of those who were on the federal program for disabled workers at the beginning of 2011 have returned to the workforce since then.
• The disability benefit pays $13,000, just $2,000 less than the minimum wage, plus Medicare so some are better off financially not working.
• The number of children on a disability benefit has increased seven fold since 1974 to over 1.2 million.
• If these children with learning or other disabilities get a job, their parents lose the $700 a month disability check.
• Disability welfare now costs $260 billion a year, and will run out of reserve duns by 2016.

People should remember this story, when Labour and Greens constantly say there is no need for welfare reform in New Zealand. Note that the numbers receiving the Invalids Benefit in NZ has increased eight fold since 1976 from 10,000 to 84,000. Now by no means should anyone conclude this means everyone on that benefit shouldn’t be there. To the contrary I know some people on that benefit who would love to be able to work, or work longer hours than they can. So we need to be careful not to stigmatize those who are in genuine need.

However as the US story shows, the growth in the level of such benefits has been massive, and I encourage people to read the full story about what happens when the incentives to be on welfare are greater than to be in work.

Michael Laws writes in the SST:

This week, a schoolteacher at my children’s primary school decided to politicise every one of her charges. She did so without their informed consent (admittedly difficult to get from a 7 year old), or after any discussion with their parents.

In every schoolbag, she sent home NZEI propaganda inviting parents to join her teacher union colleagues in a protest against the government’s education policies. In specific, against National Standards, Novopay and the closure of schools in Christchurch.

If NZEI wants to communicate to parents, they should offer a facility on their website where parents can sign up to get their propoganda.

It is also untrue, as the NZEI claim, that New Zealand’s primary education is the best in the world. It isn’t, and it has been slipping for quite awhile. Primary teaching of mathematics is a national scandal, and has nothing to do with Novopay nor National Standards.

So too is the rampant sexism in the nation’s primary schools. That men only constitute 10% of the current teaching roll is wholly unacceptable. That an entire gender has been so alienated – over decades – is an appalling indictment upon both the education system and the teaching profession.

Little wonder that our boys are struggling when their adult counterparts have been so appallingly shunned.

There is a growing failure of boys in education.

It’s not as if primary teachers are poorly paid. With a good degree, and one year at Teacher’s College, I would start on a $55,000 salary with 12 weeks holiday a year. And just by being a year older, I get annual increments (quite apart from cost of living adjustments) that automatically progress me to $70,000 per annum.

On top of that there are $252 million of allowances, averaging $6,000 a teacher. Also 43% of teachers get units also, worth $4,000 each. You can get up to 17 units in addition to your salary.

What does this mean overall. The *average* pay for a secondary teacher is $74,000 and primary is $70,000.