Michael Daly at Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s reputation for clean government continues to sparkle, as the country again comes out best in Transparency International’s global corruption perceptions index.

It is the seventh year in a row that New Zealand, either on its own or tied with Nordic countries or Singapore, has topped the index for having the lowest perceived levels of public sector corruption.

In the 2012 report, released today, New Zealand is first-equal with Denmark and Finland.

The winners were helped by strong access to information systems and rules governing the behaviour of people in public positions, Transparency International said.

This year’s index used an updated methodology that provided greater clarity on how it was constructed, making it easier to trace how data was rescaled for inclusion.

For the future, local chapter Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) recently launched a so-called national integrity system assessment to provide a more nuanced and detailed report on the country’s vulnerability to corruption.

The assessment would provide the most detailed information yet about factors that caused New Zealand to consistently rank at the top, TINZ chairwoman Suzanne Snively said.

It would measure how well various state and non-state institutions contributed to preventing or mitigating corrupt activities, looking at institutions such as the media, parliament, political parties, the judiciary, the public service, and the private sector.

“The results will show where the integrity of New Zealand society and government is strongest and weakest,” Snively said. 

We had the odd corrupt official, but as far as I know we have never had institutional corruption where there is a wide-spread cover up. Basically we have a very healthy culture.

Denmark, Finland and Sweden all got 90 out of 100. At the bottom on 8 was Somalia, North Korea and Afghanistan.

The Press reported:

Christchurch MPs hand-delivered a letter to Prime Minister John Key today, voicing concerns about the lack of democracy in Canterbury.

Green MP Eugenie Sage, Labour’s Lianne Dalziel, and NZ First MP Denis O’Rourke wrote the letter on behalf of signatories including Save Our Schools, Historic Places Canterbury, Christchurch Civic Trust and the Wizard of New Zealand.

The letter requested the reinstatement of democratic elections for the regional council, Environment Canterbury, in 2013.

It also protested the demolition of heritage buildings, school closures, Government acquisition of land in the CBD, and asked for a reassessment of the April 30 deadline for red-zoned homeowners to move out of the red zone.

Did they also complain about the Easter Bunny not turning up?

There is a legitimate issue around ECan. I don’t think the Govt made the right decision there, and people have every right to protest that decision. Well, they have the right to protest any decision, but the others are really just calls for Christchurch to remain a ruined city. Let’s take them one by one.

demolition of heritage buildings

I’m sorry, but there was a fucking earthquake. People died. They got squashed by unsafe buildings. These heritage buildings are generally now death traps.  The Govt hasn’t decided to demolish them because they hate heritage buildings. They are being demolished because they are unsafe. I have zero sympathy for people who put heritage ahead of safety. I love heritage buildings. I wish we had more of them, like they do in the US and Europe. But there was a fucking earthquake.

school closures

Yes the Govt stuffed up with the initial proposals. But these MPs are calling for indefinite delays. They say they don’t like the consultation deadline of this week, but are not proposing an alternate one. Basically they just want no change from the status quo. That is the luxury of opposition – do nothing but oppose, oppose, oppose.

Government acquisition of land in the CBD

This one is just nuts. They demanded that people have their say on a new city centre. They did have their say. The blueprint released had widespread support – it had the green spaces people wanted, it had buildings not too tall etc. Now of course in any remodelling of the CBD after a disaster, there will have to be some compulsory acquisitions. Sure you can argue against that from a libertarian perspective and say the Govt should have no power of acquisition. But how the hell can you argue for a new city centre, and then whine about the fact the Govt will actually make it happen. Are those MPs really suggesting that the new city centre have to be built only on bits and pieces of land that is already Council or Govt owned?

Put it like this, if Labour and Greens were the Govt and the earthquake happened on their watch, do you possibly think they would not be using compulsory acquisition powers to rebuild the CBD due to their libertarian beliefs?

a reassessment of the April 30 deadline for red-zoned homeowners to move out of the red zone

Again, they just want nothing to happen  it seems. I think most people in Christchurch want progress. Of course they are not happy with every decision the Govt has made. Who is? But almost everything they are calling for is to slow or stop the rebuild – basically they just oppose anything that has anyone upset.

April 2013 will be 30 months after the first earthquake. The Govt could in fact have made no offers. It could have said this is between you and your insurance agency. Instead we’ve had the largest ever expenditure on a natural disaster (as a % of GDP) in the world for decades.

UPDATE: I see the NZEI has voted to go on strike the day after the final decisions are announced about Canterbury schools. Wouldn’t it have been slightly less knee jerk to wait to see what is decided, before voting to strike about it? Basically they are indicating that they are going to strike regardless. They want no change at all. I understand change is upsetting. but schools exist for the benefits of pupils, not teachers. If there are not enough pupils to justify a school not merging, then change is inevitable.

In Parliament today Phil Goff asked:

When he appointed Peter Kiely as director of the Pacific Forum Line in July 2009 was he aware that Mr Kiely was, from November 2008, listed under the Companies Register as a shareholder in a competing shipping company, Sofrana, and that he held those shares right through until 10 August 2012?

Was it appropriate for Mr Kiely to have been a shareholder in Sofrana and not disclose that information to his Minister or to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade when Mr Kiely was involved in giving advice to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the sale of the Pacific Forum Line and when the preferred bidder was in fact the Sofrana shipping line?

But Kiely is not a shareholder. McCully says:

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully has called allegations made by Phil Goff MP against former Pacific Forum Line director Peter Kiely “reckless, cowardly and wrong”.

“By attacking Mr Kiely without checking the facts Mr Goff has impugned the reputation of a highly professional individual without any justification.

“Central to Mr Goff’s allegation is that Mr Kiely held shares in shipping company Sofrana at the time PFL, of which he was a director, was considering an offer from Sofrana.

“Mr Kiely has never owned shares in Sofrana. The shares referred to by Mr Goff were held by Mr Kiely as a non-beneficial trustee for a Sofrana employee. Practising lawyers like Mr Kiely commonly hold shares for clients as non-beneficial trustee. If Mr Goff had asked he could have been told this.

Bill talks on the Green Party photocopier!

The Press editorial:

The report has not been made public but it has been widely reported that retired Canadian judge Justice Ian Binnie found Bain was innocent, on the balance of probabilities, of the murders and that he should receive compensation. Supporters of Bain have suggested that Collins dislikes this result and is shopping around for an opinion she agrees with.

That is unfair. The decision on compensation will be a highly contentious and political one, whichever way it goes. If she has misgivings about the report she has been given, it is entirely proper that Collins should seek further advice before she makes any recommendation to her Cabinet colleagues.

Some people have suggested that the second report is because there is some damning criticism of govt agencies in the first report that the Govt wants to hide. But as far as I know, there is no question that the Binnie report will be released. Just, that the Fisher report will also be released.

The task of assessing this was, surprisingly, outsourced by an earlier Minister of Justice, Simon Power, to Canada’s Justice Binnie. The aim was to get an opinion from someone entirely outside the New Zealand justice system but it was odd, particularly in light of the fact that New Zealand had not long before ended one of the last vestiges of colonial practice by abolishing final appeals to the Privy Council in London. There are few people who would dissent from the view that it was right to establish the Supreme Court and make the entire justice system a domestic one.

To seek a foreign opinion in one of the most celebrated cases of the century looks like a strange and unjustified loss of confidence in the integrity of those who serve in that system. It is difficult to believe that it was impossible to find a retired judge within the country with the intellect and the integrity to be able to deliver a sound decision. That is, in fact, what Collins will be seeking from the man to whom she has now referred the matter, Robert Fisher QC, a former judge of the High Court and widely recognised as one of New Zealand’s pre-eminent legal minds.

The 73 year old Binnie did serve on the Canadian Supreme Court, but it is worth noting he didn’t serve on any lower court before that appointment. That means he would probably never have presided over a criminal trial, and his background is business and corporate law – not criminal law. That doesn’t mean his report is not credible or thorough or sound – but it is worth noting that not all retired judges are equally experienced in all areas.

My default position is that the Govt should go with Binnie’s recommendation. But that is contingent on the quality of his report. By that, I don’t mean his conclusion – but whether all the evidence was considered, that the report complied with the terms of reference, that natural justice was followed etc. I can’t wait to read both the Binnie and Fisher reports.

I forgot to do this in 2011, but it is a good tradition to continue. The Kiwiblog Awards.

Please nomination in comments people for the categories below over the next couple of days. I’ll then run a poll of the most popular nominees over several days for people to vote in. The categories are:

• 2012 MP of the Year
• 2012 Labour MP of the Year
• 2012 National MP of the Year
• 2012 Minor Party MP of the Year
• 2012 Press Gallery Journalist of the Year
• 2012 Public Servant of the Year

Lisa Beech from Caritas writes in the Herald:

Parliament will this week debate whether working children aged 16 or younger should be regarded as employees rather than contractors, when Te Tai Tonga MP Rino Tirikatene’s private member’s bill is introduced on Wednesday.

The bill is here. It states:

The purpose of this Act is to amend the Employment Relations Act 2000 to provide that all persons aged 16 and under who perform labour for remuneration in New Zealand are to be regarded as employees, with all the rights that such status confers.

Oh good god. That means babysitters and paper boys would now become employees. Even Scouts doing bob a job might end up as employees.

The minimum wage act would probably then apply, so 10 year olds can’t be hired for less than $10 an hour!

Nice to see Labour focused on the big issues such as giving 16 year olds the vote and 10 year olds the right to go to the Employment Relations Authority!

Of concern to us was that many of the children working as contractors were in turn sub-contracting younger siblings to do their work – over half of those children in our study involved younger brothers and sisters in their work.

Disgraceful.

While some worked under parental supervision, others did not. One 12-year-old had sole supervision of his 8-year-old brother and 6-year-old sister while undertaking delivery work on the road.

By contrast, the directly employed children were expected to do their rounds themselves, or had sick leave cover provided from the wider pool of employed children.

This must be stopped. You can’t have younger siblings helping their older siblings out.

We learned subsequently that the year after the release of our 2007 Delivering the Goods report, a 6-year-old girl died on the roads while accompanying her 12-year-old brother on his delivery round.

Very sad, but kids die in accidents. Some fall down drains. Others get hit by cars. Each loss is a tragedy. But that doesn’t mean turning kids from contractors into employees will mean no such accidents happen. And note in this case the six year old was not substituting for her brother – she was accompanying him. This is what kids do – like to hang around with their siblings and help them (or annoy them).

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Treasury’s spending on consultants is set to log a 1000 per cent increase over five years, figures reveal.

The Government’s economic adviser is meant to play a leading role in delivering cost savings as part of the Government’s Better Public Services policy.

But figures uncovered by Labour MP Chris Hipkins reveal its spending on contractors has soared since National took office.

Treasury shelled out $1.968 million on consultants in the 2007-08 year. It is expected to spend $21.927m in 2012-13 – up $19.959m, or 1014 per cent, which Mr Hipkins says is “gob-smacking”.

Sounds appalling, but wait there is a catch.

In this financial year $17m will be paid to consultants on the state-owned assets sale programme.

In other words a non business as normal expense. An expense related to a $5b sales programme. Comparing that to other years is classic apples and oranges.

What I focus on is the overall cost of Treasury. I’m not too fussed about how they split their spending between staff and consultants. You inevitably need both. What is more important is their overall level of “business as normal” expenditure. The Vote Finance Analysis says:

Baselines decrease by nearly $15 million in 2012/13 in comparison to the previous year due to:
• lower forecasted expenditure for the implementation of the mixed ownership model by $15 million
• removal of one off 2011/12 funded initiatives including Better Services for Less – Pipeline Funding of $3 million and and for work associated with accountability and funding arrangements to implement an
investment approach to the benefit system of $1 million
• reduction in funding of $2 million for the management and administration of Crown Guarantee Schemes, and
• a $2 million reduction for efficiency savings and the removal the Government subsidy for KiwiSaver and SSRSS employer contributions.

These baseline decreases are offset by:
• an increase of $5 million, attributable to the shared services for finance, human resources, information management and information technology being supplied to the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet (DPMC) and the State Services Commission (SSC), and
• a transfer of efficiency savings of $1.500 million from 2011/12 to 2012/13 for banking tender and business improvements projects.

So not quite the out of control monster portrayed by Chippie.

Jono Galuszka at Stuff reports:

A former Palmerston North Girls’ High School pupil has poured her passion for law into a website for people seeking free legal advice.

Maya Shino, who is now a solicitor for Russell McVeagh in Wellington, won an AMP scholarship earlier this year to launch LawSpot.org.nz.

The non-profit website allows New Zealanders to post legal questions and receive free answers from volunteer lawyers.

A database of answers is then listed on the website, under certain law categories, so people can look at it and save time instead of waiting for a reply.

Ms Shino said the idea for the website came about after she volunteered at the Wellington Community Law Centre, and saw how technology could help it and other law centres handle clients better.

“A lot of the questions [volunteers] get are the same or very similar questions, with quite a lot around employment law to tenancy disputes.

“Instead of spending half an hour answering the same questions, people can have a look in a second.”

A web model also gave flexibility to fulltime lawyers who still wanted to volunteer, she said.

“They can answer these from home, or sometimes [at law centres] there isn’t a line out the door, so they can answer online questions then.”

This is a great initiative. I’ve had a look at the website and already some good Q+A there.  Some examples:

• Can I terminate a fixed term contract with a gym that has been sold?
• What is the liability of a petrol station when one of its attendants damages the engine of a car?
• Can I remove someone else’s property from my house after they have failed to remove it themselves?
• Can employers discriminate against you based on having tattoos?
• A tree on my neighbour’s property is stopping the sun coming onto my property during the day. Can I make him cut it down, or do it myself?
• Can a prospective employer ask me if I have ever laid a personal grievance against an employer?

Over time this could become a hugely valuable resource. I also like how it makes it easy for lawyers to provide answers. You could get senior partners down to law clerks providing advice. Of course it is generic advice, and you may need to get specific advice on a specific situation. But for many people, just the generic advice will be very useful.

Tracey Chatterton at Stuff reports:

A partner in a Napier legal firm is boycotting the annual Law Society Christmas party because it is being held in a club that will not allow women as members.

Alison McEwan, of Langley Twigg Law, recently tweeted: “The Law Society is having their annual Xmas do at Hawke’s Bay Club which does not allow female members – so I won’t go.”

Ms McEwan was reluctant to talk to The Dominion Post because two of her senior partners were “stalwarts” of the club, but she did say: “Women had to fight to get the vote. I’m not prepared to let that part of our history go, I’m not prepared to take that for granted.”

President Alan Cooper confirmed that the Hawke’s Bay Club, established in 1863, had never had a female member.

“It’s been this way for 150 years,” he said. “Why would a woman want to be a member?”

He said it was not deliberate discrimination. “There’s areas of the club where you can entertain women.”

What the bedrooms?

Now don’t get me wrong. I support the right of the club to be exclusionary in its membership. They are a private club.

But what I don’t get is why would anyone want to belong to a club that bans women?

I couldn’t think of anything worse to belong to (well maybe Grey Power).

James Henderson at The Standard blogs who he thinks would be the best Labour-Green Cabinet, based on portfolios. They are:

• PM – Shearer
• Finance – Norman
• Social Dev – Turei
• Econ Dev – Parker
• Health – Hague
• Education – Robertson G
• CERA – Dalziel
• Housing – Ardern
• Transport – Genter
• Justice – Chauvel
• Energy – Hughes
• Labour – Little
• Environment – Twyford
• Attorney-General – Chauvel
• Foreign Affairs – Goff
• Maori/Treaty – Mahuta
• Climate Change – Graham
• Police – Little
• Internal Affairs – Dyson
• Commerce – Cosgrove

I thought I’d blog a possible Cabinet also, but not base it on my preferences but on current rankings. It is based on if there are 60 Govt MPs, being 36 Labour, 17 Greens and 7 NZ First. I applied the St Lague formula to get a proportional allocation (that Shearer and Norman say would be their rough guide) and then allocated MPs from their current caucus ratings. They would be:

1. David Shearer
2. Russel Norman
3. Grant Robertson
4. David Parker
5. Winston Peters
6. Metiria Turei
7. Jacinda Ardern
8. Clayton Cosgrove
9. Kevin Hague
10. Nanaia Mahuta
11. Maryan Street
12. Catherine Delahunty
13. William Su’a Sio
14. Tracey Martin
15. Phil Twyford
16. Trevor Mallard
17. Kennedy Graham
18. Charles Chauvel
19. Lianne Dalziel
20. Eugenie Sage

At this stage I’m assuming Hone wouldn’t be a Minister, unless they needed his vote. Note this is not a prediction of 2014, just looking at what a left Government may look like.

There are some interesting issues about Horan’s future. There are four aspects in regard to his future role.

1. His membership of the NZ First Caucus
2. His membership of the NZ First Party
3. His affiliation in Parliament
4. His membership of Parliament

With regard to the 1st, the NZ First caucus is the master of its own destiny. They can make their own decisions and rules, subject to any rules laid down by the party itself. But the party does have some rules. Rule 60(a) states:

The Parliamentary Division consists of the members of the Party elected to the House of Representatives.

Rule 60(b) states:

If a member of the Parliamentary Division ceases to be a member of the Party that person ceases to be a member of the Parliamentary Division.

But Horan is still a member of the party. Now you can argue that these rues don’t stop the caucus suspending an MP, or even expelling him. But it seems the caucus has not made any such decision on Horan. It is unclear if they have even had a discussion on the issue. Also Horan claims no allegations have even been put to him directly:

A defiant Mr Horan, speaking through his lawyer, said he would stay on as an independent MP.

“His question was, ‘Why should I quit, what have I done wrong? Just because Mr Peters has expelled me, and I have been convicted in the court of Mr Peters’,” Mr Horan’s lawyer, Paul Mabey, told Radio Live.

“Mr Horan is the subject of unproven allegations which he completely denies. None of the allegations have ever been put to him directly nor has he been shown any evidence to support them.”

It is very unclear that Peters has the power to unilaterally declare Horan has been expelled from caucus, or even that he will be expelled from caucus. However the only people with standing to challenge this are other members of the caucus.

Possibly Peters can argue he has authority under 59(b):

The Leader shall exercise all authority necessary for the effective organization of the Party’s activities in Parliament.

Amusingly the party leader is also the only MP exempt from paying a 10% tithe to the party!

But there is an important point here. Leaders should not have the power to unilaterally expel MPs from caucus. I think it is good that Winston has acted swiftly against Horan, but I assumed he had at least put the issues in writing to Horan, given him a chance to rebut them, and then make a recommendation to caucus. That might take a couple of extra days, but as Peters had known about the allegations for three months, then a couple of extra days wasn’t significant.

The next issue is whether Horan is still a member of the NZ First party. Under the NZ First constitution he clearly is. Rule 10 sets out the process to terminate membership. It is:

• Board receives complaint that a member has had conduct that is offensive, undesirable, or inconsistent with the welfare and interest of the Party.
• Board decides to hold a hearing
• The member is notified, by registered mail, within 14 days of the nature of the complaint, the date, time and place of the hearing, and that the member can be held
• The Board can then after the hearing expel the member.

Now Peters has said Horan’s expulsion from the party will be “automatic”. This is deeply hypocritical and cuts across Horan’s rights under the rules. I’d say it means Peters can’t be part of the Board’s deliberation and opens their decision up to judicial review.

Why it is hypocritical, is Peters himself took National to court in the 1990s over their decision not to approve him for selection, effectively kicking him out of the party.  It is a classic case of do what I say, not what I do.

We now have the third scenario, of Horan’s affiliation in Parliament. Standing Order 35(1)(c) states:

A party must inform the Speaker … of its parliamentary membership

All that is needed here is a letter from the party leader. His or her word is treated as authoritative. At this stage it does not appear Peters has written to the Speaker declaring Horan is no longer part of the parliamentary caucus.

Finally we have whether Horan can remain as an MP. The answer is yes, unless he is convicted of a crime with a maximum sentence of two years or more, or resigns.

Some have argued for a return of the electoral legislation that expels an MP from Parliament if they are no longer a member of that party. But what we have seen with this case is exactly why we should not have such a law. A party leader could then expel MPs at whim, without even bothering to have a caucus vote. Muldoon would have loved such a power.

I do believe Peters has done the right thing in acting against Horan if there is substantive proof of wrong-doing that Horan can’t credibly rebut. But the process he has followed has been seriously flawed and dictatorial and for Peters especially very hypocritical.

The final piece of hypocrisy:

He declined to comment further outside the House, saying he had made his statement under parliamentary privilege to avoid possible legal action. “I am not going to be subject to people spraying defamation writs.”

This is the same person who threatens people on a regular basis with defamation writs and has sprayed a few around himself, including against David Carter.

Summer Sunrise & Lupins – Lake Tekapo, Mackenzie Country New Zealand. Landscape Photography by Todd Sisson

No lupin(e)s next Wednesday I promise!

I made this one last Saturday morning while teaching a workshop – I usually don’t take photos for myself while in teacher mode, but this scene was just to juicy to ignore 😉

I’m off photographing dairy cows today – a week full of contrasts….

Free Wallpaper Download

You may download the large version of today’s image from this link:  Password = freewallpaper

Of course it is also available as a premium Canvas Print on our website (please note that Friday is the Christmas cutoff for canvas prints)

See you next week!

Cheers – Todd

[www.sisson.co.nz] 

Steven Joyce announced:

The latest Student Loan Scheme annual report shows an 11 per cent increase in repayments and a decrease in the overall cost of the scheme, Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment Minister Steven Joyce says. …

“The write-down on student loan lending reached 47 cents for each dollar lent in 2008/2009. We have now reduced that to 39 cents in the dollar, and are working to reduce the cost further.

• The cost of lending has fallen 17.5% over the last three years. The cost fell from 47 cents per dollar in the 2009 valuation, to 39 cents per dollar in the current year.
• Repayments increased by 11% to $767 million in 2011/2012
• The median repayment time is 6.7 years and it reduces to 5.5 years for those who remain in New Zealand until repayment

That’s a pretty useful improvement in the loans scheme. In an ideal world we’d scrap interest free loans but that would be political suicide, and just be reversed at the next election. The changes Joyce has made though are sustainable and worthwhile.

The annual report for the scheme is here. Some facts:

• Average amount borrowed $7,633 and median $6,709
• Average loan balance $18,507 and median $12,849
• 29% of the adult population have taken out a student loan at some stage
• 24% of loan balances are under $6,000, 41% under $10,000 and 56% under $15,000. One third are over $20,000
• 0.2% of loan balance are over $100,000

If any readers in London have any jobs going (anything from service industry to retail to policy to anything at all), a friend of mine is over there at the end of a round the world OE and looking for work. She used to work for me, so can handle difficult bosses no trouble 🙂

If you have any work available, or know someone who does, let me know and I can pass your contact details on.

She’s a great worker, and used to help run most of Curia for me so I’d have time to blog and not have to worry about stuff such as staff, rosters, admin, finance, HR etc. (I am a good delegator!) Has a degree, and very personable. Only weakness is she is from Hamilton , but her degree is from Victoria so it’s a real degree 🙂

Winston Peters announced today to the House:

In recent weeks, a number of allegations had been made against Mr Horan, most of which arise from a family matter. The allegations are of a nature that requires that they should be treated seriously. Accordingly, I requested from the original complainant and those associated with him evidence to support their allegations. I also instructed Mr Horan to give every priority to resolving this family matter, so that I could be assured that those allegations were without foundation. Until a few days ago, we had not been furnished with any evidentiary material from any of the parties in this dispute. However, substantive material has now come into my possession, some as recent as 2.15 p.m. this afternoon. The information we have received leaves me in a position where I have no confidence in Mr Horan’s ability to continue as a member of Parliament, and he will be expelled from the New Zealand First caucus forthwith. Mr Horan has a duty, I believe, to resign as a member of Parliament. Lastly, this is a bitterly regrettable situation, but we had to place our decision on the public record as soon as we were in a position to make it.

It is good to see Winston holding his MPs to a higher standard than he held himself to. I understand that when the allegations were put to Horan, he simply sat in a room and held up a no sign to Winstons’s questions 🙂

Okay, being more serious I do give credit to Winston for his handling of this. As ACT did with Donna Awatere-Huata, he investigated serious allegations and as no satisfactory answers could be given, moved to expel the MP from the party.

It stands in stark contrast to the shameful behaviour of Labour over Taito Philip Field, where they not only refused to take action, but actively defended him.

Of course Winston did hand pick Horan to be his successor in Tauranga, and the episode overall is not positive for NZ First. And Peters did know about the allegations for a couple of months, before acting on them. However again overall I say Peters has handled this issue pretty well.

Credit also goes to Tony Wall and the Sunday Star-Times who broke the story. On the basis of what was published I thought the story was premature and should have waited for the forensic accounant report . But they obviously had confidence that the allegations were substantive, and it appears they are at least substantive enough for Peters to expel Horan.  They made the call, and got it right.

On the basis of what has been reported, the behaviour is allegedly criminal. Hence why Peters spoke under parliamentary privilege. And in terms of the law Horan is innocent until proven guilty. But the fact he has been unable to provide evidence to convince Peters does suggest he has real problems in the future.

Horan is now an Independent List MP. Unless he is charged and convicted of an offence that has a maximum penalty of over two years jail, he will remain an MP until he resigns. He says he is staying for now, but I suspect he will find Parliament a very lonely and unfriendly place if he does.

Of course if he can clear his name, and prove he has done nothing wrong, then he may have a future. But for NZ First to expel him suggests they are convinced of serious wrong doing.

Saw Cinderella on Sunday afternoon at Circa. I’ve been to Circa’s annual pantomime for a few years, but this was the first time on a Sunday afternoon so the ratio of kids to adults was around 1:1. In previous years it has been an evening session with only a couple of dozen kids. This meant the audience noise level was extremely high – but in a good way.

The Rutherfords steal the show with their comic abilities. Lyndee-Jane narrates as the fairy godmother (and occasional queen) while Gavin plays Bertha, one of Cindererella’s evil step sisters. But not so much evil, as just desperate and needy 🙂

Lyndee-Jane was superb at making both adults and kids laugh, and had many great one-liners. It’s nice to see they revise the play a bit almost daily, because they even got the All Blacks loss that morning into the dialogue. I also loved her “i-wand” which would sometimes need charging to work!

As usual, a fair number of political jokes, and King John, was King John Key and Mayor Celia and her bike got a few mentions also. The fun thing with pantos is they have jokes for the adults, and fun for the kids.

Panto regular John Wraight plays the elderly eccentric father, and also doubles as the King. Jon Pheloung plays Grace, the other step-sister.

A crowd favourite were the odd couple of Dagma (Emma Kinane) and Swedish Schwen (Paul Jenden). They performed all sorts of odd jobs, and had their own love story. Their costumes, like all of them, were wonderfully well done (by Jenden himself).

Every show needs a villain and Sean Allan performed the role admirably. He was booed by the kids everytime he appeared. Also his costume of tight tight leather pants can’t pass without comment. P Girl commented (not sure if it was admiration or revulsion!) that they left nothing to the imagination! They could almost need to be classified by the Censor’s Office!

Richard Dey played Price James and was suitably dashing.

Cinderella was played by Chelsea Bognuda. She has an incredibly polished singing voice, and her vocal pieces were some of the highlights of the show.

It was a great fun show for adults and kids. The kids get to yell and cheer and boo and even go on stage for a bit. The adults get left alone in the main, but one or two unlucky patrons do get targeted for extra fun.

Circa has a very stable panto team now. Roger Hall writes them, Susan Wilson directs them, Michael Nicholas Williams does the music, and many actors return each year. A very successful winning formula.

The play lasted two hours, with a 15 minute interval. It runs until 23 December and is a good Christmas treat for the family.

John Smythe at Theatreview also reviews it.

Stuff reports:

Highlighting a rift between the rich countries and emerging economies like China, New Zealand’s climate change minister has staunchly defended his government’s decision to drop out of the emissions pact for developed nations, saying it’s an outdated and insufficient response to global warming.

First of all, we are not dropping out. The commitment period was for 2008 to 2012. That ends in 27 days. Our commitment was to have net greenhouse gas emissions during those five years less than our emissions in 1990. We will achieve that target (due to foresty offsets).

Some (not all) Kyoto signatories are voluntarily making a binding post 2012 commitment. These countries represent 15% of greenhouse gas emissions. The NZ position is we will agree to a further binding commitment – but it needs to include the major emitters.

Any deal which does not include China, US and India is near worthless in an environmental sense.

Now there is an argument that those countries responsible for 15% of the emissions should show moral leadership and agree to further binding commitments, as this will cause the rest of the emitting countries to be shamed or encouraged or forced into making their own reduction commitments.

That is a reasonable argument. Except for one thing. It has been tried and failed. That is what the first commitment period was about. The arguments for Kyoto were not that it would make an impact on global emissions and temperatures (the impact is minor and almost non-existent) but that it would lead to more comprehensive deal with all countries.

It didn’t. China and India and others refused any sort of binding commitment. So I just do not accept that a Kyoto 2 will lead to China and India (and the US) agreeing to GGE reductions. In fact I think it will achieve the opposite.

Countries should hold out for a comprehensive all (bar the most minor) countries agreement. Anything less will be ineffectual.

Terry at The Conservative is upset with Harvard. Why?

First with their approval of a bondage club, and the second with a flyer sent by one of their single-sex social groups inviting people to their club which included the following statement: ‘Jews need not apply.’ ‘Seriously, no f*****g Jews.’

I think a bondage club is an excellent campus club. Much more useful than a debating club where all they do is talk and argue. All the Vic DebSoc members would be far better employed to get their kink on, than spend an hour arguing for and against paid parental leave!

But what about this Jew hating club? Well here is the pamphlet for it:

Terry comments:

You will notice these liberals—when exposed to media attention—try to pass off the Jew hate as satirical.

Umm, I don’t think anyone could read the above flyer and not think it is satirical.

I’m reasonably sensitive to anti-semitism but I actually think the flyer is hilarious – it is satirising anti-semitism like Southpark does.

Barry Soper at ZB reports:

The political future of New Zealand First MP Brendon Horan is expected to be decided some time today.

NZ First leader Winston Peters has been examining documents relating to Mr Horan’s late mother’s bank account, and is expected to decide whether the MP will stay with his party.

Mr Horan has been accused by his brother of dipping into his mother’s bank account to fund a gambling habit.

This might be trying to read tea-leaves, but the fact they are announcing something so quickly may mean it is bad for Horan. It tends to be quicker to establish wrong-doing than it is to be certain there is no wrong-doing. I have no inside knowledge at all on this, so am just speculating.

Mr Peters last week told him to stay away from Parliament to sort the matter out and he is not expected back at Parliament today.

That also implies maybe not so good for Horan. We’ll find out shortly.

Of course Horan is an MP and can’t be sacked by Peters or his party – even if they decided there were grounds to do so. At most they can remove him from NZ First.

But of course it may be that Horan is cleared entirely. As I have blogged previously many families have disputes over wills and it does not mean there has been wrong-doing.

Martin van Beynen writes at The Press:

Recently due to health hiccups I have started working from home a couple of days a week and it has been a bit of a revelation.

The first great advantage is not needing to get ready for work and be presentable. You can slob around unshaven and unwashed in your dressing gown all day and no-one is the wiser.

You can bet most home workers will be resisting getting caller video on their cellphones.

The ability to go from bed and straight to work is a huge time saver. No mucking about with ablutions and ironing that shirt or polishing the shoes.

No complicated transport arrangements and no time wasted commuting and getting stuck in traffic jams. No worries about whether it will be flat white or a latte today. I reckon I save two hours a day at least thanks to the simplicities of working from home.

Choosing your own hours is also a blessing. The work can be done in bursts over the 16 hours of waking time unless you sleep in, which someone as disciplined as me would, of course, never do.

I work from home primarily and it is great, for the reasons above. However I am now in the habit of always showering, shaving and changing before 7 am, as I found if you don’t do it when you first get up – then it is all too easy to just keep putting it off.

As more and more people work partially or fully from home, the economic impact could be significant. The productivity gains from not having to commute to work are significant. Also in some cases, you also save on reduced office rent.

Oral Question 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers.

1. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the competiveness of New Zealand’s business sector?
2. ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Trade: Does he stand by his statement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership that “It’s going to be big. It’s going to be significant and it’s going to help New Zealanders find well-paid jobs”; if so, on what evidence does he base this claim?
3. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “…You can trust us. If we say we’re going to do something we do it. If we don’t, we don’t … that’s why I’ve stuck to my guns and I haven’t campaigned on one thing and done something different.”?
4. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding investor state disputes procedures proposed in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that “An exclusion solely for Australia and not for everybody else is unlikely to be something we would support”; if so, why?
5. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress has the Government made to improve the viability of the Student Loan Scheme?
6. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: How many times, if any, has the Transition to Work Grant, or similar funds, been used by Work and Income New Zealand to purchase tickets to Australia for job seekers who have found work there?
7. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What announcements has he recently made on boosting innovation in the New Zealand primary sector?
8. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding migration to Australia “What’s the point of standing in the airport crying about it?”; if so, how many people have left permanently for Australia since he took office in November 2008?
9. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made on the Expert Advisory Group on Information Security, who will oversee the development of the initiatives in the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children?
10. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with all of the statements the Prime Minister has made regarding food in schools?
11. MOJO MATHERS to the Associate Minister of Health: Other than the LD50 test, will he rule out other animal tests for the pending psychoactive substances testing regime?
12. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What progress is the Government making with rebuilding and repairing residential homes in Christchurch?

Today National is asking five questions, Labour four, Greens two and New Zealand First one. Labour is asking about trust, the  Transition to Work grant, people moving to Australia and food in schools. The Greens are asking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and animal testing.  New Zealand First is also asking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.

Patsy of the day goes to Shane Ardern for Question 7: What announcements has he recently made on boosting innovation in the New Zealand primary sector?

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

1. Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) -First reading

2. Callaghan Innovation Bill – Third reading

3. Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill – First reading

4. Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill – First reading

5. Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill – First reading

The  Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill was introduced by Bill English in November 2012. The purpose of this bill is to confirm and validate financial matters relating to the 2011/12 financial year.

The Callaghan Innovation Bill (formerly the  Advanced Technology Institute Bill) was introduced by Steven Joyce in September 2012. The aim of this bill is to establish a new statutory Crown entity, the Advanced Technology Institute (ATI), with the purpose of supporting businesses, primarily in the manufacturing sector and services sector, to improve their competitiveness and growth through science and technology-based innovation and its commercialisation.

The Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill was introduced by Judith Collins in November 2012. This bill implements the Government’s decisions resulting from a review of the Family Court conducted by the Ministry of Justice.

The Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill was introduced by Bill English in August 2012.  The aim of this Bill is to amend the “fiscal responsibility provisions” of the Public Finance Act 1989 (the Act) to “ensure” that they “continue to be a sound guide for fiscal policy”.

The Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill was introduced by Chester Borrows in October 2012. This Bill contains technical amendments required to ensure that the legislative intent of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the 2011 Act), and related legislation arising from the dividing of the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill, is made clear and can be applied as intended by the judiciary, prosecutors, and defence counsel. Additionally, without the greater specificity and clarity provided by the proposed amendments, the full and effective implementation of the 2011 Act and the benefits sought to be achieved may not be fully realised.