Rodney Hide writes in the HoS:

The frightening part for Labour leader David Shearer forgetting to declare his $50,000-plus offshore bank account is National’s response: next to nothing. The Prime Minister said simply that Shearer’s memory lapse was “unfortunate”.

Unfortunate? That’s scary.

The usual political playbook is straightforward: 1. Make the account suspicious; 2. Keep the story alive; 3. Ensure a public inquiry; 4. Bust Shearer.

The political play is best run by an up-and-coming backbencher. Ministers must be seen as too busy running the country to be bothered.

The backbencher doesn’t allege any wrongdoing. That requires evidence. The only concern is perception.

The backbencher kicks off by asking why an MP and party leader would ever need an offshore bank account. “The political leaders who have secret offshore accounts aren’t the sort we usually have in New Zealand.”

The story is kept alive by pressing hard through the media with new questions every day. Day Two: “Mr Shearer must come clean with just how much he has in his secret account.” Of course, Shearer will refuse. Good.

Day Three: Allege it’s over a million dollars.

Journalists do the rest. They put the million-dollar figure to Shearer. If he doesn’t deny it, then a million dollars it is. If he denies it’s a million, the journalists won’t let go until he declares how much it’s below a million. The account’s dollar value is secured easily enough.

A new day, a new question. When did he last use the account? Who put the money in? When and why? Why hasn’t he closed the account? On and on it goes.

The public inquiry is achieved by making a Breach of Privilege complaint. It’s impossible for Parliament’s Speaker to refuse. If failing to declare $50,000-plus in a foreign bank account is not a breach then MPs are free to declare Mickey Mouse or whatever on their register of interests.

The resulting Privileges Committee is media gold. Shearer must front to a committee of senior MPs, most of whom are on the Government’s side. The questioning is in public, on camera. Week after week he must explain to incredulous MPs how he forgot about having tens of thousands of dollars in an offshore bank account but somehow remembered every year when he completed his tax return.

The whys and wherefores of his overseas banking would be dragged out of him. The committee would want his banking records. He would have little choice but to supply them.

I have absolutely no doubt that what Rodney describes is what would have happened if it was a National Party Leader who failed to disclose for four years in a row a foreign bank account.

Rodney has a theory about why:

But National has done none of this. That means only one thing. National want Shearer right where he is: leading the Labour Party into the next election.

Heh. I think that is reading too much into it. I think it is rather not wanting to appear to be too sanctimonious.

Damien Grant writes in the HoS:

Chorus has 1.8 million connections and 550 staff. It is privately owned, made $400 million profit in the past seven months and charges $300 for a new phone connection.

Watercare has 1.4 million connections with 645 staff.

It is owned by the Auckland Council and charges $8000 to connect a property to water.

Watercare claims the fee is an infrastructure growth charge.

It isn’t.

It is a tax imposed on developers because it is easier than running an efficient business.

$8,000 seems well over the top I have to say. Does anyone know what it is in other areas?

Ben Gracewood does a dummies guide to the Novopay Technical Review:

1. In some areas system functionality does not adequately support the business processes.

The system, as built, does not do what it was meant to do. This could be because the requirements were poorly documented from the outset (probably), but also because the system is an “off the shelf” system that has been “customised” to meet the requirements.

At some point, a decision would have been made that the “off the shelf” software was an 80% (or 70% or 90%) fit for requirements, and the rest could be built as customisations. Hold that thought and read on.

The moment I read that, I understood where all the subsequent problems probably came from.

A custom built system would, in my opinion, be far more flexible and what is needed. It will be very interesting to see in the full review on what basis the decision was made to go with an off the shelf solution.

2. Usability issues and lack of data input validations contribute to processing errors.

To me, this is the most egregious finding. As I understand it, the entire purpose (or at least a key selling point) of Novopay was to reduce costs by moving from Datacom’s human-intensive workflow to a system whereby schools do all the data entry, and the “system” just needs to calculate pay.

For a system like this to work, a massive amount of time and focus has to go into usability of the front-end system. Later on in the review there are comments about tab keys not working properly, and links between pages of the same input form not working. This is fundamental stuff, and points to Talent2 and ALESCO not giving a flying shit about end-users.

This, while fairly typical of an “enterprise” system build on Oracle Forms, is completely unacceptable if it’s so utterly important that data is entered correctly and quickly. It is an absolute core failure of a system intended to be user-driven.

Yep. It all started to go wrong when schools would not enter in casual staff details and had to fax them off for manual processing.

6. A high degree of customisation in high-impact areas has made on-going development more difficult.

This is another one that really sets my alarm bells ringing. Talent 2 sold Novopay to the government as an ALESCO system with some customisation (see point 1). This is the dirty not-so-secret of any “out of box” enterprise software installation: the base system is next to useless without massive amount of customisation.

More often than not, when you add up the cost of an “out of box” solution PLUS the required “customisation”, a greenfield development fine-tuned to your own requirements becomes a much more comparable solution.

I agree.

Like I said on Twitter: Novopay appears to be the wrong solution sold by people with a poor understanding of the problem, implemented with the typically lax approach of enterprise software development.

In other words, pretty much business as usual for Enterprise IT.

If you think this thing has run its course, you’re kidding yourself. I’ve seen Oracle systems quoted as costing $6m run up $30m of cost before being completely scrapped – as in yes, uninstalled and reverted to the system they were meant to be replacing, completely wiped away.

It will be interesting to see if they deem Novopay fixable.

UMR polled people in January on if they think nuclear powered ships are safe.

The answer should of course be yes, unless you regard every human activity known as unsafe.

A 1996 report found there had been no nuclear events from Western nuclear ships:

However, when it comes to  nuclear events the west has so far had a unique safety record  with no nuclear accidents.

They estimate a serious (but not nuclear) accident involving a nuclear powered ship every 50 years on average.

A more recent report says:

U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have safely operated for more than 50 years without experiencing any reactor accident or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health or had an adverse effect on marine life. Naval reactors have an outstanding record of over 134 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power, and they have amassed over 5700 reactor-years of safe operation.

So the science is pretty clear on this one. But the poll result was:

• 38% think they are safe
• 48% not safe
• 14% unsure

That shows how ill-informed so many people are. But what I was most interested in was this:

59% of men now believe that nuclear powered vessels are safe, compared with only 18% of women.

That is a massive difference by gender. I can’t recall another issue on which there is such a difference.

If I had to guess, I’d say it is the fear of women that a nuclear accident could interfere with any pregnancies, as in lead to deformed babies. The maternal instinct over-riding risk analysis?

What other reasons do people think might explain the difference? More men study science?

Rodney Hide in NBR writes:

We have 50,000 people on the unemployment benefit and plenty of work that needs doing. The 50,000 represent 1000 years of work that doesn’t get done each and every week. The waste is horrific.

The waste follows from the failure to match the unemployed to the jobs that need doing at a price potential employers are willing to pay.

The matching part of the problem is a perfect job for the internet. And, sure enough, US techno whizz Morgan Warstler has the fix: match the jobs and the unemployed on eBay and pay them through Paypal.

In New Zealand our equivalent, Trade Me, is the perfect set-up linking Kiwis wanting to sell with those wanting to buy. It’s similarly perfect for matching those looking for work with those with jobs that need doing. Trade Me should be used to match jobseekers to jobs.

Under the Warstler scheme the unemployed would register on Trade Me to receive their benefit payment each Friday night.  At present, an unemployed 20-year-old receives a benefit payment of $190.84 gross a week.  Let’s make that $200.

Once an unemployed person is registered on Trade Me anyone wanting work done can bid for them to do it.  It’s the perfect way to match the jobs that need doing to those who can do them. 

So how would it work?

The unit of work on offer is a 40-hour week. And the bids start at $40 a week. That appears impossibly low but the government still pays the $200, so the least anyone gets paid for a week’s work is $240. 

The low starting bid ensures the market clears every week. Local retirement villages and community groups would be actively bidding to help the unemployed into work and to get work done.  Specialist contractors would move in to bid for the unemployed and to offer their work to the marketplace.

It’s hard to see the price staying at $40 a week. Especially for good workers.

The bids increase in $20 increments, with the government getting back $10 of each $20 hike. The worker gets to keep the other $10. For example, if the bid goes to $200 the worker keeps $320 and the government contributes $120 of his or her pay.

So basically the benefit abates.

Trade Me enables feedback possible both ways. Anyone familiar with the site knows how that works.

The good workers and the good employers would soon be identified. There would be no better CV than a string of positive comments on Trade Me. Those workers would get their wages bid up and would soon have a permanent job.

The impossibly lazy would also be identified. They could be followed up by government agents.

Likewise, the bad employers would be weeded out. They would be dealt to just as bad dealers are dealt to on Trade Me. The Warstler scheme provides total transparency.

You could trial this with the long-term unemployed – those who have been on the unemployment benefit for over six months.

The appointment of Dame Susan Devoy as Race Relations Commissioner is surprising, as she has no background in the arena of race relations. I presume that was a deliberate decision of the Government to have someone whom they see as “mainstream” and thinks the country will also.

But the lack of background does mean she will be closely scrutinised in how she does in the role, and if she doesn’t perform well, the Government will be blamed. However there will be considerable differences of opinion on what “performing well” means.

Bryce Edwards has written a summary of opinions on Dame Susan’s appointment. He’s also collected a collection of mainly humourous tweets about it, the best of which I include below:

Danyl Mclauchlan ‏@danylmc 

‘Susan Devoy Race-Relations Commissioner’ makes me wonder how close we came to ‘Richie McCaw, RBNZ Governor’ before someone talked Key down.

Danyl Mclauchlan ‏@danylmc

At least Susan Devoy is more qualified than Anna Guy, who will probably have to settle for PMs Science Advisor

Phil Quin ‏@philquin

The great thing about New Zealand is how anyone — anyone — can grow up to become Race Relations Commissioner one day.

Marcus Cook ‏@MarcusDCook

Revealed; Devoy appointed after “rock, paper, scissors” match with Paul Henry. Won 2/3.

Martyn Bradbury ‏@CitizenBomber

After Devoy, Paul Henry will be appointed to the Broadcasting Standards Authority & Cameron Slater will be the new Surgeon General

Heh.

The Herald reports:

Apple’s New Zealand division made sales of $571 million last year but paid only 0.4 per cent of that in tax.

Labour’s Revenue spokesman David Cunliffe said that’s akin to paying nothing at all, and letting a corporation get off “scott free” is something New Zealand taxpayers shouldn’t have to stomach.

That’s because you pay tax on profits not turnover.

Is Labour saying that they think companies should be taxed on turnovers, not profits? I hope they spell this out well in advance of the election!

Should be about as popular as saying it is a no brainer to tax purchases from overseas websites.

Stuff reports:

Telecom yesterday declined to scotch claims by Labour communications spokeswoman Clare Curran that as many as 1500 of its 7600 staff could lose their jobs as a result of a restructure first announced by Telecom chief executive Simon Moutter last month.

Telecom spokesman Andrew Pirie said that while job reductions would occur across the board at Telecom, many of the cuts would be to middle management functions in administrative areas such as finance and human resources. …

Even Telecom had been through bigger changes before, he said. That included a plan to shed 5200 staff over four years that was announced in 1993 when Telecom employed about 12,500 people. Prior to its demerger from the Post Office it employed 26,000. Businesses such as the railways had also been through more dramatic changes, he said.

A Telecom manager once joked to me that Telecom wasn’t so much a telecommunications company as a law firm that specialised in telecommunications.

This was in recognition of the fact that much of the actual technical aspects are done by contractors such as Alcatel-Lucent and Yahoo.

Telecom for many years made money through its grip on the monopoly copper lines. We were not well served by that regime.

David Cunliffe and Steven Joyce broke up that monopoly, first by operational separation and then structural separation. Chorus, the monopoly element, is now a separate company.

It has been inevitable that the Telecom of the future would be a different beast. it needs to be a nimble, efficient risk taking competitive company as it now fairly competes against Vodafone and 2 Degrees, plus many minnows.

They have been moving towards this. Their flat rate data roaming rates were a bold move that should win them market share. Their XT network provides so much better coverage than Vodafone, that I swapped over. They are in an environment where you have to work hard to both gain and retain customers.

Such a regime serves us consumers well.

It also means that Telecom’s historic over-staffing (have a look at their rival’s staff numbers) will be dramatically pruned. And for the staff affected, and their families, it is traumatic and awful.  Losing a job, even when you are performing well, is gutting. So on an individual level, those affected have my sympathy.

But at a macro level, these changes are not a bad thing. Our country and economy prospers when companies becomes more efficient, and consumers have choice and competition.

An interesting article by John Armstrong on why he thinks National was at 49% in their last poll. A summary of his 10 reasons is:

1. Key’s sky-high rating as most preferred Prime Minister
   
2.  Key’s moderate conservatism
3. Key is unashamedly pragmatic
4. Neutralising of troublesome issues rather than allowing them to linger and fester
5. A majority of voters view National as the better manager of the economy
6. Good at maintaining momentum
7. National is still largely defining what the arguments are about in most policy areas
8. Opposition parties are instead still devoting considerable time and effort to fighting battles they have lost
9. Public getting acclimatised to the rather chaotic nature of minority government
10. Few, if any, issues that are seriously divisive and on which National finds itself stranded on the wrong side of the argument for ideological reasons

I would also add on that the alternative looks chaotic and unconvincing.

In another article, three Herald staffers look at Key’s personal popularity. First Armstrong again:

Why is John Key still riding high in the polls? Put it down to several factors. First, an understanding of and empathy with the New Zealand character and what is acceptable and not acceptable. His moderate conservatism is straight out of Sir Keith Holyoake’s textbook.

Key’s second priceless asset is his finely-honed political instinct in which he has the sense to trust – even when receiving advice to the contrary. Few leaders who have spent six years in the job would have their feet still firmly planted on the ground. He is never aloof. Nor arrogant. He does not talk down to people. He can laugh at himself. …

Key’s affable nature is not a false front to be worn solely for public consumption.

Claire Trevett touches on that last point:

His show of a good-natured, even-tempered, self-deprecating personality is one of his most potent weapons. It makes him seem approachable, and that helps explain why his personal ranking is so high above his party’s popularity. It also blurs the fact that he is wealthier and more powerful than most voters. If his Government is having a hard time, the next time he gives a speech he’ll get in a self-mocking joke about it, a tactic that simultaneously acknowledges the headache it is causing him while getting across the message that it is not as major an issue as is being made out. …

His sense of humour is his most underestimated asset. Voters get bored of leaders – it is one of the most corrosive factors on their popularity. Only tyrants and comedians can slow the process of that boredom. Labour cannot abide it, and that alone shows how powerful Key’s persona is.

While Liam Dann says:

As the Bill Clinton campaign slogan said: it’s the economy, stupid.

People vote with their pockets even when they are complaining about myriad other issues.

And I don’t think voters think the economy will do better with a Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana Government.

NZ Herald quiz here.

Jill Lawless at NZ Herald reports:

Margaret Thatcher felt betrayed by close ally President Ronald Reagan over the Falkland Islands, according to newly released papers that reveal how isolated Britain’s Prime Minister was in her determination to repel the Argentine invasion by force.

When Argentina seized the British territory off the South American coast in April 1982, Thatcher’s Government presented a united front in public.

But private papers released yesterday by the Thatcher archive at Cambridge University show that the British leader’s closest advisers urged her to negotiate over the islands’ future rather than go to war.

And the Reagan Administration backed a peace plan that called for Britain to drop its insistence on self-determination for the islanders – a stance that led Thatcher to say Anglo-American friendship had brought her “into conflict with fundamental democratic principles”.

I think it is simple. If any other person had been Prime Minister, the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands would have been successful, and they would still be in possession of the islands today.

It reminds me of that great quote along the lines that if you think one person can’t make a difference, the history of the world is quite the opposite.

The Dom Post editorial:

Months of procrastinating, three and a-half hours of shambolic hand-wringing, $40,000 down the drain. All for nothing.

The stubborn, illogical and wasteful refusal of seven Wellington City councillors to accept their own officials’ finding that a flyover is the best solution for easing congestion around the Basin Reserve should be an eye-opener for ratepayers.

It is also something voters should bear in mind when they go to the polls to elect a new council in six months’ time.

Worth recalling that the seven Councillors were urged to do so by Grant Robertson and Annette King. They also are pro-congestion.

Councillors who oppose the flyover should have accepted that as the only possible outcome, no matter how unpalatable it might be for them. After all, the $40,000 report the council ordered at the end of last year to weigh the different options found that the bridge was the best solution. It also found that the underground “Option X” proposal the flyover’s opponents favour would in fact bring more urban development impacts that might not be possible to mitigate.

Yet having backed the spending of a five-figure sum at a time of great financial restraint to have a last look at the alternatives, Mayor Celia Wade-Brown and councillors Stephanie Cook, Paul Eagle, Justin Lester, Iona Pannett, Bryan Pepperell and Helene Ritchie backed a motion that the council ignore its findings by not endorsing the flyover.

They wasted $40,000 of our money on an un-necessary report. But having paid the money for it, you think they at least would not ignore it.

Ratepayers will rightly be asking why they shelled out $40,000 for a report on the Basin Reserve options if councillors who voted for that spending intended to accept its findings only if they accorded with their existing view.

That is the key. The report was commissioned in bad faith. Those seven Councillors are saying that we don’t care what the facts are, what the evidence is, we will not suppoty the flyover.

They have the right to have that view. But they should be upfront on it, and not waste $40,000 pretending to be open-minded on it.

 In case some councillors have not noticed, buses run on roads. The less congested those roads are, the quicker and more reliable buses will be and the more likely commuters will be to use them.

Wellington needs councillors who are determined to get the city moving. Instead, it has got an elected body that has a significant faction of councillors who refuse to accept reality, even when they are confronted with evidence that they are wrong.

We can correct that problem in October.

The Press reports:

Accidentally releasing the private information of almost 10,000 claimants is a “very embarrassing” mistake for the Earthquake Commission, Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker says.

How sensitive or private was this information?

EQC said in their release:

This morning information about 9700 claims, including claim numbers and street addresses, was inadvertently sent to one person outside EQC who was not the intended recipient.

The information sent did not include customer names. Most of the information would require knowledge of EQC’s internal workings in order to interpret it.

EQC chief executive Ian Simpson says EQC staff contacted the recipient as soon as the breach was identified. The recipient has agreed to destroy all the information.

I have to say it sounds at the lesser end of the scale. No names, just addresses and claim numbers.

Canterbury Community Earthquake Recovery Network spokeswoman Leanne Curtis said the breach was “unfortunate”.

“It’s unfortunate for the people involved, [EQC] staff included, but I think it’s not unknown to most of us to have sent email to the wrong person at some stage in our life,” she said.

“I think this is a really good lesson for them and I hope they learn from it,” she said.

I understand the problem was the e-mail client did an auto-complete, and it was the wrong name. One can turn auto-complete off but mistakes will happen. Maybe you can put in some system rules where any e-mail with an attachment sent t an external address generates a warning?

Christchurch city councillor Glenn Livingstone said the breach was a “great betrayal of trust”.

Oh, don’t be hysterical.

Livingstone said Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee should also take responsibility for the mistake.

It takes a special kind of politician to turn an accident from a staff member (that was immediately realised and notified, involved no names of people, and was immediately retrieved) into an issue of ministerial responsibility.

Narelle Henson at Stuff reports:

Frustrated bosses say they can’t find suitable workers for even the most basic of labouring jobs despite the high unemployment rate, as they deal with people who turn up drunk if they come to work at all. …

But despite the many jobless, employers say continual absenteeism, substance abuse and poor work ethic appear to be making a lot of them unemployable.

Dave Connell, vice-president of the New Zealand Contractors Federation and managing director of Connell Construction, who is juggling operations in the Waikato and for the Christchurch rebuild, said 100 people responded to a Trade Me job advertisement for a junior construction role, but not one was suitable to hire.

“We are letting seven people go for every one we keep,” he said.

“I have had some people last half a day and walk off the job with $800 worth of [work] gear on them; one guy had six sick days in two weeks, and we have had issues with physicality too.”

Mr Connell said he was desperate to fill positions, but could not find anyone with the right attitude.

It will take many years to fix these problems.

The first is we need to stop people leaving school with inadequate literacy and numeracy skills.

The second is we need to install a work ethic in people from their teenage years. That is why I don’t support a minimum wage for under 18s, and why I support welfare reform.

1. Graham “Richo” Richardson on the Australian Labor Party leadership debacle.
2. Torben Akel investigates how the Govenrment’s radical new plan to manage freshwater is going down in the heartland.
3. Green MP, Eugenie Sage; Federated Farmers Environment spokesman, Ian MacKenzie; Ecologic Executive Director, Guy Salmon debate the proposal.
4. And we talk to the TV star who has burst the Novopay bubble.
5. On the Media Panel on Sunday Brian Edwards and Bill Ralston will have David Hastings author of “Extra Extra”, a new book on the raucous world of 19th century Auckland newspapers as their guest. And we will have details of how you can win a copy of the book

UPCOMING THIS WEEKEND 0930 SATURDAY – 0800 SUNDAY TV3

On Q+A this Sunday, NZ’s in the midst of a drought so how will it affect you and me and our pockets? We speak to the Finance Minister Bill English, and a climate scientist who says we have to no option but to adapt.

Also on the programme, is New Zealand set to become a world leader in energy? We speak to visiting economic geologist Dr Scott Tinker.

And the Catholic Church has a new Pope, we hear the view of a Kiwi Catholic.

On the panel this week is political scientist Dr Raymond Miller, former Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, and Tower Investments’ CEO Sam Stubbs.

Join host Susan Wood and political editor Corin Dann on Q+A at 9am this Sunday on TV One.

Katie Chapman reports:

After months re-reviewing the options, $40,000 spent, and another three-hour debate, Wellington city councillors still can’t decide where they stand on the Basin Flyover.

Of course not. It’s not as if it is even a complex decision. The opponents don’t even have a viable alternative. They are doing the worse kind of negative politicking. Fine to put up alternatives, but they have failed to come up with anything sensible.

In a committee debate yesterday that saw cries about congestion woes clash with descriptions of a ‘‘monstrosity’’ in the city centre, councillors continued to tie themselves in knots over the controversial roading project.

I was walking through Victoria Park in Auckland on Wednesday and you know that has a motorway actually go over part of the park, and guess what – still pretty popular. And unless you move the Basin Reserve to Miramar, it is inevitable that you will need improved traffic flows at this major congestion point.

Finally, after 3 1/2 hours of debating what position to take, they voted not to take a position.

Sigh.

Jo Coughlan labelled opposition ‘‘anti-car’’ and ‘‘anti-family’’.

Yep. You can’t send the kids off to weekend sport on the bus or train. You drive them there, and watch their games etc.

Ray Ahipene-Mercer said it was time for councillors to accept officers’ advice, rather than reviewing the options repeatedly because they didn’t like the outcome.

Again, if there was a viable alternative, then fine. But they don’t have one.

Porirua Mayor Nick Leggett said having the largest local authority in the region unable  to fully back a project of regional significance was a bad look.

I wonder if we could get Nick to stand for Mayor of Wellington. He may be a leftie, but at least he is a sane leftie – like Ray Ahipene-Mercer.

Wellington City Council’s refusal to fully support the flyover was frustrating for the rest of the region, which recognised the economic importance of a speedy corridor between Wellington Airport and Levin, he said.

‘‘It’s regional traffic that will be using the road. People in Porirua want to be able to get to the airport and to the hospital.’’

And you can’t have a transport corridor that is four lanes for 99% and two lanes for 1%. Because that 1% sets the flow for the whole corridor.

HOW THEY VOTED

For the motion to “not support the flyover”: Mayor Celia Wade-Brown, Stephanie Cook, Paul Eagle, Justin Lester, Iona Pannett, Bryan Pepperell, Helene Ritchie

Print that out for local body elections as a list of people not to vote for, if you want to reduce congestion.

These advertisements have been banned by Auckland Transport from their bus shelters. The Herald reports:

The ad, for online electricity store Powershop, shows the Chinese former dictator surrounded by Chinese people and soldiers with guns, and carries the slogan ‘Same Power Different Attitude’.

It has been banned from bus shelters by Auckland Council-owned Auckland Transport over fears it could offend some members of the Chinese community.

Oh for fuck’s sake. It’s not even a denigrating portrayal, but a humourous one.  I hate this sort of self-censorship.

And while we are at it, Mao managed to kill tens of millions of Chinese through his policies. Would Auckland Transport refuse an ad with Stalin in it, in case some Russians were offended?

We live in New Zealand, not China. Local Government officials should not be censoring ads because they may offend some people. On that basis every advertisement could be banned.

Pleased to see Wellington transport officials are not so politically correct.

Commodore Bainimarama has released his draft constitution for Fiji. I can’t find it online anywhere but the Government kindly sent me a copy so I have embedded it below.

The proposed constitution is actually very good in the main, and a huge improvement over the former constitution. I’ll go through what I see as the major good and not so good points of it.

Concern remains over the process. The independent constitutional panel’s report was basically sidelined and the pledge to have the draft considered by a Constituent Assembly has now been dropped also. The ends do not justify the means.

The draft constitution proposes it can only be amended by referendum. If so, then the constitution itself must be adopted by referendum, not by decree. It also should require the same vote in favour as will be needed to amend it.

The Commodore’s summary is:

• it gives sovereign control to a single house in Parliament, which is represented by members elected by you;
• the size of parliament shall be 45 with a four year term. The idea is to attract good quality and honest parliamentarians who will be paid accordingly and who won’t be corrupt;
• it provides for not only civil and political rights, but also, for the first time in our constitutional history, it provides for a wide range of socio-economic rights. As seen through the constitutional submissions, many Fijians are concerned about their day to day living and access to better facilities and utilities. The draft Constitution has rights to housing and sanitation, reasonable access to transportation, adequate food and water and social security schemes. It also for the first time gives specific rights to persons with disabilities and to children;
• it creates a secular state which will allow all Fijians to practice their own faiths;
• it has proportional representation through a multi member constituency which will give enhanced opportunities for women and the youth to be in Parliament;
• it gives more independence to the Judiciary,  to control their own budget and finances as approved by Parliament. FICAC and the DPP’s office shall control their own affairs;
• it creates a Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission to give protection to all citizens irrespective of their backgrounds or socio-economic status;
• it creates a truly independent electoral commission  with appropriate powers; and
• for the first time in our history, it gives you the right to change the constitution once implemented via a referendum;

As I said, overall it looks to be be very good, and worth adopting. But there area areas of potential improvement. My key take from it is:

• Explicitly rules unconstitutional any future coups, or immunities for future illegal actions. A valiant attempt to stop the coup culture. Of course those with guns can ignore laws, as we have seen, unless soldiers are trained to arrest any commanding officer who gives an illegal order.
• Clearly defines Fiji as a secular state with freedom of religion, and that religious beliefs are subservient the the constitution and laws. Excellent.
• All citizens are equal, regardless of racial background.
• A comprehensive bill of rights. Of course having the Commodore back state officials who torture prisoners makes you wonder about the will to enforce this.
• The freedom of speech section has a long list of limitations which could in fact lead to fairly restricted speech. Will depend on how independent the Judiciary is.
• A 45 MP proportional representation Parliament, with four multi-member electorates.
• No hereditary upper house
• A four year fixed term unless two thirds of Parliament vote for an early election.
• There is an Independent Electoral Commission but four members are appointed by PM and one by the Opposition Leader. Would be far better for all to be consensual appointments.
• A neutral President appointed by Parliament. Ceremonial powers only. Would be better to require President to have a super-majority so backed by Govt and Oppn.
• PM, not President, is Commander-in-Chief of Military.
• An independent Judiciary
• The PM appoints the Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces.
• The role of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces is “to ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all its residents”. I think that is far too wide a role, and can be used to justify the military doing almost anything they want, so long as they believe it is necessary to the “well-being” of Fiji. It is not their job to decide. Their job should be to protect Fiji from external threats.
• Grants immunity to all those involved in past coups etc, and this section can never be amended or repealed.
• Constitution can only be amended by a bill in Parliament that is then ratified by a three quarters majority in a referendum. Happy with that, but the adoption of the constitution MUST also be subject to a three quarters majority referendum to be morally valid.

Overall, as I said, it looks to be a sound document.

2013 – Fiji Draft Constitution

Jody O’Callaghan at Stuff reports:

Secrecy surrounding disciplining teachers is under scrutiny by MPs, with a lawyer asking that teachers face as much transparency as doctors and lawyers.

Not unreasonable.

Wellington barrister Graeme Edgeler’s complaint about the Teachers Council’s blanket suppression on disciplinary decisions was heard by a parliamentary select committee yesterday.

Teachers Council rules state that no-one, media or otherwise, can publish details of a decision on a teacher’s bad conduct. The council argues that that avoids deterring victims, particularly children, from coming forward to give evidence.

But Mr Edgeler said the presumption should always be openness.

“These rules are wrong. It’s the Teachers Council taking upon itself something that Parliament should be doing and has done in other situations.”

The Regulations Review Committee can effectively rescind the regulation made by the Teachers Council. Hopefully the Council will amend its own rules but …

Teachers Council director Peter Lind said: “Changing the rules . . . could have the unintended consequence of people, particularly children, not coming forward to give evidence.”

Oh nonsense. You really think that the 12 year old lid won’t tell their parents about something bad a teacher did because they’re aware of the rules around name suppression that the Teachers Council has?

PPTA president Angela Roberts said the suppression of disciplinary details was to protect vulnerable victims, particularly in small communities.

Oh, yes of course it is. To protect the victims. How about you don’t name the victims, but do name the teachers.

The point Edgeler is making is that a blanket rule is wrong. Sure if the teacher is the sole teacher in a small school of 10 pupils, then you might consider name suppression is necessary to protect the victims. But you don’t need a blanket rule, such as the Council has. Suppression should be the exception – not the rule.

The Herald reports:

The Ministry of Education is bloated, inefficient and making the jobs of principals more difficult by “stealing their precious time” making them fill out paperwork, says the outgoing president of the Secondary Principals’ Association.

In his final comment to members this week, Patrick Walsh wrote that he had met many hardworking and highly skilled Ministry employees.

“It has, however, struck me as odd that in an era of self-managing schools we have a ministry that is so large and yet not able to perform in an effective and efficient manner. …

Mr Walsh, who steps down after three years as Spanz president on Tuesday, told the Herald that despite having about 3000 employees, the Ministry had underperformed for more than a decade.

I agree with Mr Walsh. i think significant structural change is needed for the Ministry.

Sent in by a reader, in response to my blog post yesterday on David Cunliffe saying it was a no brainer to reduce the threshold on which GST is applied to online purchases from overseas.