Claire Trevett at NZ Herald writes:

When Shearer first revealed on 3 News last week that his sources within GCSB reported that Key had made a comment about Dotcom in the staff room after a February briefing, and there was possibly a video of it, a little thrill ran up the spines of onlookers.

It was the type of thrill that precedes a monumental shift in the parliamentary landscape.

Alas, poor Shearer. When he pulled the trigger, all that came out was a little cartoon-style flag with “bang” on it.

A bit like Wile E Coyote!

Lesson 2: If the gun is unloaded, send out a deputy rather than the sheriff. Now, rather than having some unfortunate lesser caucus mortal come unstuck, it is Shearer’s barrel that has twisted dangerously and is pointing back at him while Key gleefully tamps in the gunpowder.

Shearer’s predecessor, Phil Goff, left that lonely place known as the leadership with Key’s taunts of “show me the money” echoing in his ears – the salute to that moment in the 2011 election when the PM truly asserted his dominance and from which Goff never recovered.

There is a rising suspicion that “show me the tape” will be the equivalent for Shearer.

It is unusual that with no proof at all, the Leader was the one making the wild allegations. Normally that is what your Mallards and Hodgsons have been for.

The annual Vic Uni Debating Society Vice-Chancellor’s debate is:

Thu 25 October 2012
Rutherford House LT 1
Starts 6.30 pm
Refreshments after the debate

The topic is:

That passing a test of political literacy should be a condition of voting

The Government team will negate the motion, consisting of:

Alfred Ngaro, List MP for National
Stephen Whittington. Named 3rd best speaker in the world at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championships.
Third member to be confirmed

The Opposition team will support the motion:

Jacinda Ardern, List MP for Labour
Gareth Hughes, List MP for Green Party
Sebastian Templeton, lawyer for Chapman Tripp. Winner of the World Universities Peace invitational Debate in 2011 and ranked 15th best speaker in the world at 2012 World Universities Debating Championships.

I won’t be here for it, but if you want to attend just RSVP to [email protected] with ‘VC Debate’ in the subject line.

For this topic I’d love to be in the opposition team, speaking for it.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers.

Labour MPs are asking five of today’s questions, National four, the Greens two and New Zealand First one. Patsy of the day goes to Tau Henare’s Question 10 – How successful has SmartGate technology been at processing passengers at the border?

There are three questions relating to education, all from opposition MPs, whilst the remaining questions cover a range of topics. Eugenie Sage follows up a recent New Zealand Herald story regarding water quality in New Zealand’s rivers, whilst the GCSB, Christchurch rebuild, starting out wage and Ministry of Social Development also feature. Winston Peters’ will presumambly be placing pressure on John Key over the correction the Prime Minister gave at the opening of the House on Tuesday. 

Government Bills 3 pm – 6 pm

1. Education Amendment Bill – First Reading

2. Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill – First Reading

3. Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill – Third Reading

The Education Amendment Bill will be introduced by Hekia Parata. The Bill sets out the necessary legal framework for the introduction of charter or “Partnership” schools into the schooling network, alongside state schools and private schools. The Bill also allows the Ministry of Education to assign a National Student Number to children at a much younger age, the aim of which is to foster childhood education at a younger age.

The Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill amends the Minimum Wage Act 1983 through changes to the Order-in-Council provisions. These include introducing the ability to set 1 or more starting-out rates of wages (payable at not less than 80% of the minimum adult rate of wages) for eligible young people aged 16, 17, 18, or 19 years who are not supervising or training other workers, repealing the ability to set the current new entrant rate, and changing the criteria for setting the current training rate. If passed, the changes proposed by the Bill will come into effect on 1 April 2013. This Bill is being introduced by Kate Wilkinson.

Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill, introduced by Peter Dunne, makes amendments to various Acts, including the Income Tax Act 2007, the Tax Administration Act 1994, the Goods and Services Act 1985 and the KiwiSaver Act 2006. The Bill proposes to remove the requirement for the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to issue personal tax summary (PTS) forms to certain taxpayers; instead, these taxpayers would be required to file tax. Individuals filing a tax return will also have previous years taken into account, to prevent, “cherry picking” whereby individuals only file a return when they are owed a refund. The Bill proposes that tax returns have tax obligations reconciled for each of the previous four tax years.

David Shearer said on the starting out youth rate:

Labour Party leader David Shearer criticised the move, saying “it’s not going to create jobs by driving down wages”.

“These people are going to leave and go to Australia,” said Shearer.

Peter George has blogged the rates in Australia:

• Under 16 years of age  $5.87
• At 16 years of age   $7.55
• At 17 years of age   $9.22
• At 18 years of age   $10.90
• At 19 years of age   $13.17
• At 20 years of age   $15.59

The NZ rate is $10.80 and only for 16 to 19 year olds in some circumstances for a limited six months. Can’t really see those 16 year olds going to Aussie for the higher minimum wage.

Of course what matters is not the minimum wage, but the actual wage paid. So many people seem to think a minimum wage is a maximum wage.

A guest post by Nikki Pender:

New Queen’s Counsel Law: Taking Us Back to the Dark Ages?

In 2006, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act replaced the title Queen’s Counsel (QC) with Senior Counsel (SC).  This followed Australia’s republicanising example, where only the Northern Territory has yet to change from QC to SC.  The 2006 change also made lawyers in firms eligible and purported to make the selection process more transparent. 

SCs are appointed for being “learned in the law”.  They are leaders in the legal profession and set standards of excellence for junior lawyers to meet.  Consumers (and other lawyers) rely on the SC “brand” as a sign of excellence and will pay a premium to use their services.  No one is legally obliged to use SCs so we can assume that this premium measures the economic value of the quality assurance function that the SC brand serves.

The Lawyers and Conveyancers (Amendment) Bill (now in Committee stage), would restore the title of QC and again confine eligibility to barristers sole (not practising in firms) 

Like knighthoods, reinstating QC is a deliberate positioning away from the pro-republican Clark Government.  Constricting the pool of eligible candidates is less understandable and diminishes the value of the branding process to users. 

Well over 100 years ago, the legal profession was freed from the UK segregation of solicitors and their work from barristers and their work.  Late last century, the UK finally caught up.  Any lawyer can now appear in court and be appointed QC. 

With our fused profession though some lawyers choose to be barristers sole, all practising lawyers can appear in all the courts and lead cases, large and small.  Some of our top civil litigators work in law firms.  Crown solicitors – who typically prosecute the largest and most complex criminal cases – are all partners in law firms.  Many busy regional courts are serviced primarily by lawyers in law firms.  Yet, regardless of their skills, experience, judgement, integrity and leadership and never mind the respect in which they are held by judges and the profession, the law change will deem these litigators as unsuitable for the QC rank. 

So why does the Government support such a protectionist measure?  Apparently, because it is “the best way of protecting the traditionally independent status of the rank”.  However, one of the fundamental obligations of all lawyers, not just barristers, is to be independent and free from compromising influences or loyalties when providing services to clients.  The Lawyers’ Code of Conduct devotes an entire chapter to this ethical requirement.  If lawyers practising as barristers and solicitors were inherently less independent than barristers sole, then the courts should restrict the rights of audience.  But they don’t – because there is simply no evidence that lawyers with work colleagues are less suitable for court work than those who choose to work alone. 

Labour has vowed to repeal the changes when next in Government.  But that alone is not a reason for the Government to stand its ground.  The debate over who can be appointed to the rank is not a right/left split nor does it follow traditional party lines. 

This measure is anti-competitive and anachronistic.  It will recreate an artificial divide amongst litigators without any relationship to the quality of legal services.  It flies in the face of the consumer-protection purpose of the LC Act.  Let’s hope that the Government reconsiders the wisdom of such a retrograde law change before the Bill’s next reading.

I’m all fine with going back to QCs, as no one knew what an SC was. We can change the term when we no longer have a Queen. But like Nikki I am puzzled a to why we would restrict the office to sole barristers. If it is meant to be a mark of experience and quality, then why discriminate against partners in law firms that qualify?

The Herald reports:

Chinese company Shanghai Pengxin’s bid to buy the Crafar dairy farms passed its final legal hurdle today after an attempt to block the deal in the Supreme Court was dismissed.

King Country iwi Ngati Rereahu last month initiated a Supreme Court challenge against the approval for the purchase of the sixteen farms granted by the Overseas Investment Office, associate Finance Minister Jonathan Coleman and Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson.

However the court refused to hear the case saying the claim relied on an examination of the Overseas Investment Act’s provisions around the buyers’ required business acumen and experience.

The ministers’ decision to approve the deal the involved “matters of fact and degree rather than the true meaning of the statute” the judges who considered the application said in their decision.

In other words, you can’t appeal just because you didn’t like the decision as you were trying to pick the farms  up cheap.

I hope the partnership between Landcorp and Shanghai Pengxin leads to more opportunities for Landcorp to expand.

I’m also glad it has sent a signal out that investment decisions will be based on the law and the national interest test in the law – not on xenophobic scaremongering.

On Tuesday evening I was walking past Mac’s Brew Bar and sitting outside having a beer were Winston Peters and Shane Jones.

It got me thinking.

This is purely speculation, but it would solve issues for both men.

It is no secret Shane is not happy in Labour. He was furious with Shearer for calling in the Auditor-General. A number of women MPs there want him gone. He just clashed with Clare Curran on copyright parody exceptions. The grapevine suggests the Auditor-General’s report on his immigration decision may not be good for him. He will have a sense of grievance as I suspect he was told to let Liu become a citizen, as it will be good for Labour – and he now sees himself as the fall guy.

So with probably no future in Labour (does anyone think Shearer will make him front bench again?), but having undoubted political talent and smarts, could he prosper elsewhere? And NZ First is hardly likely to have objections over his ethical behaviour with citizenships, considering the Owen Glenn affair.

So what is in it for Winston (he is effectively the sole decision maker here)?

Well to give Winston credit he has defied the odds and survived multiple sackings and even being thrown out of Parliament in 2008, to come back in 2011. He has shown he is the great survivor. So what is the challenge for him now?

Well it is all about legacy, and his ultimate legacy would be a political party that can carry on without him, leaving him as revered founder. He is closer to 70 than 60, and can’t be keen on more than a couple more terms.

Now with all respect to his current caucus, none of them are up to taking over as leader. Some of them are competent and doing okay such as Tracey Martin and even Andrew Williams. But none of them could get 5% of the party vote.

However Shane Jones possibly could. He appeals to the same demographics as Winston, and are not that far apart on some policies – especially hating political correctness etc.

Could Jones defect to NZ First and become Deputy Leader (a job still vacant a year later), and heir apparent? He would add a couple of percent to the NZ First vote, and position them well to appeal to voters. If they hold the balance of power in 2014, then he is a senior Minister, and if Peters retires in 2017, leads NZ First into the next election. Fishing companies would be lining up to donate, and a fair few Iwi also I suspect.

Now this is all speculation, and there would be challenges, But it would give Jones a future, and would give Peters what he most needs – a party that can survive without him.

What do you think?

The Herald reports:

Victim advocates are calling for changes to the three-strikes law to ensure offenders receive a warning for each crime they commit that is eligible under the law.

They say a “loophole” in the legislation means those who offend while on bail are avoiding strike warnings, and have asked Justice Minister Judith Collins to consider making changes.

I have blogged on this in the past and think a law change is very sensible, and in keeping with the intentions of the legislation.

Under the law, violent and sexual offenders receive a normal sentence and a warning for strike one, a sentence without parole for strike two, and the maximum sentence for that offence, without parole, for strike three.

A warning can be given only when someone is convicted. If they go on to commit further strike offences, they will receive further warnings.

But if they commit other strike offences between their arrest and sentencing, they do not receive a warning for it.

And there are already perverse incentives to commit further crimes on bail, as they may not lead to a longer sentence. If someone is charged with say rape, they should be told when given bail that if convicted of rape it will be a (say) first strike, and if they commite any other strikes offences while on bail, that will get them a second strike if also convicted.

If the charge does not result in a conviction, the provisional warning would be wiped.

As it should be.

By August, 1892 people had been given first strike warnings after being convicted for qualifying offending such as sexual or violent crime. Eleven offenders have been given a second strike.

We should get some fascinating data over time about the re-offending rates of those who get strikes, as compared to before the regime.

Morning fog shrouds golden poplar trees near Lake Wanaka New Zealand. Landscape photography by Todd Sisson

OK, This nocturnal posting is getting a little ‘old’ – time to change some notifications in my calendar 🙂

This is the view from the very nuggety Mt Iron in Wanaka – captured after a pre-dawn mission to photograph a sunrise that never happened.  I love the layers and visual depth that receding fog imparts upon a landscape and I felt especially privileged to witness this scene unfolding before me.  Better than a red sunrise sky any day in my book.

You may download the large version from this link:  [free iPad wallpaper] Password = freewallpaper

Also available on our website as a canvas print.

See you next week!

Cheers – Todd

[www.sisson.co.nz] [blog]

Waikato history student Ryan Wood writes in the Herald:

This is where the maximum wage comes in. If the top salary is legally fixed at, say, $200,000 a year, these economic miracle-workers running companies will have no choice but to start their own businesses where, as shareholders, they can indulge in the dividends they deserve. The creation of new companies will in turn lead to more jobs, thus negating the need for any “starting-out” wage.

A maximum wage also has a trickle-down effect. The millions of dollars that would have been paid to CEOs could instead be paid as bonuses to workers, or used to lift the average wage of employees at the company. These people could then spend their extra income, further supporting the economy.

Critics are likely to label the concept of a maximum wage as “socialist”. In fact, wage reduction is a neo-liberal idea. The National Government has already espoused it, although their focus was on workers rather than their bosses.

A maximum wage is indeed not socialist, but full out communist.

You see it has been tried. In several countries. In the USSR they had maximum salaries. They had the exact view that Ryan had. They though no one should earn over a certain amount as a salary.

It failed. It was a disaster.

Ryan seems to think we live in isolation from the world. I’d love to see him find a surgeon to operate on him, should he need it, with a $200,000 salary cap. They’d all be in Australia.

Bill English and Chris Finlayson have announced:

Iwi groups yet to complete their Treaty settlements will be offered the opportunity to participate in the Government share offer programme, Finance Minister Bill English and Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson say.

“This is a result of our constructive engagement with Iwi leaders and their technical advisers,” the ministers say. “It is another example of how direct engagement with the Crown can produce pragmatic solutions that provide an opportunity for more New Zealanders to participate in the share floats and support Iwi and the Crown to settle historic Treaty claims.” …

As a result of today’s announcement, Iwi yet to settle their claims can choose to receive a percentage of their forecast settlement package “on account” in the form of shares in the Government share offer companies. Mr Finlayson says “on-account” arrangements were not new for Iwi in negotiations with the Crown. The facility has been used by many Iwi in the past.  They must pay the full issue price and any amount drawn down will be deducted from the final settlement.

This is the key point. All shares will be purchased at the same price as other New Zealand buyers.

Effectively what the Government has done is say some Iwi already have negotiated a settlement, while some have not concluded their negotiations – so we’ll allow those not yet concluded to purchase shares in advance of their final settlement.

They are limiting the amount they can purchase to around 10% of their likely settlement, so there is no danger of any share purchase being greater than the actual settlement.

“It does not change the total amount of Treaty settlements. It simply allows Iwi more flexibility about how their settlement money is invested, and we believe it will enhance the share offer programme,” Mr Finlayson says.

A key point also. There will be no extra money for share purchases. It is just basically a credit facility.

Mr English says the actual amount to be advanced as on-account payments for shares will depend on the level of take-up by Iwi. The Treasury estimates that if all Iwi take up their full entitlement, this will amount to $145 million over the entire Government share offer programme.

“Even if all Iwi take up their full entitlement and allocate all of it to the Mighty River Power share offer alone, it would still represent less than 5 per cent of the shares of Mighty River Power,” Mr English says.

I hope many Iwi do purchase shares. As a permanent part of NZ, Iwi owning shares will help keep more of them in NZ ownership.

Jeremy Connell writes at Stuff:

We should only count the votes of people who paid a positive amount of tax (less any cash benefits), and preferably weight them by that amount. This would skew the decision making in favour of productive, intelligent people, leading to much better outcomes for the nation as a whole.

I don’t support this, but the issues Connell touches on does go to the heart of politics. There are systemic problem when such a huge proportion of the voting population are dependent on the state.

In a very broad sense, the parties of the left that advocate higher taxes aim to get 51% of the country dependent on the state – either through welfare, state jobs, Working for Families, taxpayer funded NGOs, student support etc.  That is because it creates a voting constituency in favour of higher taxes, and hence them staying in power.

Likewise parties of the right try to reduce the number of people dependent on the state. They do stuff like promote asset sales, as the more voters who are private investors and the like, the more who support lower taxes etc.

The solution isn’t to restrict voting rights, but to be aware of the dangers of getting a majority of the population dependent on taxpayer funding, because that is how you end up with say 55% receiving most of the taxes, demanding the 45% pay more and more.

Oral Questions 2pm – 3pm

Questions to Ministers

1. PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to support new jobs and build a productive and competitive economy?

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: Specifically, have there been staff issues associated with the Government Communications Security Bureau and Dotcom affair brought to his attention by the Government Communications Security Bureau or members of the New Zealand Police, in which such staff members no longer work in their previous capacity for the Government Communications Security Bureau or any government agency; if so, what were the circumstances?

3. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Further to his answers to the first supplementary question to Oral Question No 1 on 26 September and the first supplementary question to Oral Question No 1 yesterday, does he now know on what date the Government Communications Security Bureau was first told that its surveillance of Kim Dotcom was illegal?

4. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made regarding providing extra financial assistance to grandparents raising grandchildren and other kin-carers?

5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: When he said yesterday that with a “relatively high” exchange rate, our exporters “have been sufficiently resilient to be able to grow export volumes and value” did he mean that all export sectors have been growing, and according to Statistics New Zealand, in 2008 dollars what is the percentage change in exports of simply and elaborately transformed manufactured goods from the 2008 to 2012 financial years?

6. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, in response to a question about whether he will support my Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill that “she wants to give the same millionaires yet more money to raise their kids”?

7. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What progress can he report on the Primary Growth Partnership Initiative?

8. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: What vulnerabilities were identified in the report prepared by Dimension Data on the security of the Work and Income kiosks?

9. Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on improving the quality and efficiency of health services?

10. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Broadcasting: How does he ensure that the legislative requirement for TVNZ to provide high-quality content that reflects Māori perspectives is reflected in the programming strategy for TV1 and TV2?

11. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she confident that the information she relied upon in deciding on proposals for school closures and mergers in Christchurch was robust and reliable; if so, why?

12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What reports has he received on the availability of insurance cover to support the rebuilding of Canterbury following the seismic events?

Questions to Members

1. ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill: Is the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill a “snake oil solution that would achieve nothing”?

2. ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill: What are the flaws in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill seeks to address?

3. ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill: What other functions will the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill seek to include in section 8 of the principal Act?

Today there are four questions to Ministers from Labour, five from National, one from the Greens and the Maori Party and 1 from NZ First. In addition, Andrew Williams is asking three questions to Rt Hon Winston Peters on his Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill.

Labour are asking about the GCSB, Exchange Rate/ Export Growth, Christchurch School Closures and the MSD Kiosk security breach.

The Greens are asking about Metiria Turei’s Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill which plans to extend the In Work Tax credit to non workers. Expect a answer along the lines of “On Planet Key/Labour …………………”

NZ First will be asking about the GCSB security case involving Kim Dot Com and most likely about the tape that suggests John Key talking about Kim Dot Com to GCSB Staff. Expect fireworks between the Speaker and Winston today on this issue.

Finally, The Maori Party will be asking about broadcasting and how the law ensures Maori perspectives are shown on TVNZ stations.

General Debate 3pm – 4pm

12 x 5 Min speeches on anything.

Private and Local Bills 4pm – 6pm & 7.30-8.00pm

1. Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill – Second reading

This Bill is on it’s 2nd reading after returning from the Local Government and Environment Select Committee on 19th September. The bill seeks to repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975 which allowed for the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board the ability to transfer parts of the Seabed in Tauranga Harbour. Since the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act 1991, this act has  no legal effect and seeks to remove it.

2. Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill – Second reading

This bill is designed to reform the governance arrangements for The Riccarton Bush Trustees board and to give it more ability in the modern times to be able to manage the Riccarton House and Bush in Christchurch. This bill is expected to pass without too much trouble.

* Expect both of these bills to be used as filibusters today *

Members Bills – 8pm to 10pm

1. Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill – Interrupted debate on first reading

This bill seeks to add Port companies eg Ports of Auckland which are currently excluded in the Local Government Act 2002 to the list of companies and Council- Controlled Organisations which are able to be subjected to requests for information under the Official Information Act and Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

2. Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill – First reading

This Bill is intended to amend the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 to change the primary function of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand to focus on things other than inflation to determine the official interest Rate. This can include things such as the exchange rate, employment, value of the dollar and other factors.

Expect this bill to fail at first reading, if they get to it..

The BOP Times reports:

An attempt at breaking a world-record for skinny dipping planned for Mount Maunganui is being labelled unacceptable and indecent.

The idea was raised by The Edge radio station after listeners voted the nudie run at the Bay of Plenty beach would be the best way to herald the start of summer.

Marketing manager Emily Hancox said the skinny dip world record attempt would, hopefully, be held on December 1 “as a bit of fun”.

“It’s not for people to be shy or embarrassed. If people can see the fun in it and try to get New Zealand on the map for that [world record], it will be great,” she said.

What a great idea.

However, national director of Family First NZ Bob McCoskrie said holding the event in such a public place would be “completely unacceptable”.

Very smart idea of The Edge to get Bob to condemn it, as that should help them get more publicity for it 🙂

The world record for a collective skinny dip was set by 413 people in the United Kingdom last year.

Hell, easy to beat.

Stuff reports:

Taliban insurgents have said that the Pakistani schoolgirl its gunmen shot in the head deserved to die because she had spoken out against the group and praised US President Barack Obama.

Malala Yousufzai, 14, was flown to Britain on Monday, where doctors said she has every chance of making a “good recovery”.

Pakistani surgeons removed a bullet from near her spinal cord during a three-hour operation the day after the attack last week, but she now needs intensive specialist follow-up care.

Authorities have said they have made several arrests in connection with the case but have given no details.

Pakistan’s Taliban described Yousufzai as a “spy of the West”.

“For this espionage, infidels gave her awards and rewards. And Islam orders killing of those who are spying for enemies,” the group said in a statement.

“She used to propagate against mujahideen (holy warriors) to defame (the) Taliban. The Koran says that people propagating against Islam and Islamic forces would be killed.

“We targeted her because she would speak against the Taliban while sitting with shameless strangers and idealised the biggest enemy of Islam, Barack Obama.”

Yousufzai, a cheerful schoolgirl who had wanted to become a doctor before agreeing to her father’s wishes that she strive to be a politician, has become a potent symbol of resistance against the Taliban’s efforts to deprive girls of an education.

Pakistanis have held some protests and candlelight vigils but most government officials have refrained from publicly criticising the Taliban by name over the attack, in what critics say is a lack of resolve against extremism.

“We did not attack her for raising voice for education. We targeted her for opposing mujahideen and their war,” said the Taliban. “Shariah (Islamic law) says that even a child can be killed if he is propagating against Islam.”

Oh they didn’t shoot the 14 year old girl because she advocates for girls bring educated. They shot her because she criticised the Taliban.

Sick motherfuckers.

John Armstrong writes in NZ Herald:

“Mr Speaker, why should God defend New Zealand?” shouted a man from the front row of the public gallery yesterday after Lockwood Smith’s recital of the parliamentary prayer.

He was quickly bundled away by security staff. But the visitor’s mention of the Almighty left a more pertinent question hanging in the air: “Will God defend David Shearer?”

Ouch.

Shearer’s mention of a supposedly incriminating videotape of John Key addressing GCSB staff has resulted in the Opposition leader turning wine into water.

His failure to produce any such tape has allowed Key to get off the hook and shift questions about credibility on to the Labour leader instead.

During a press conference, Shearer tried to sound forceful and decisive, saying it was the Opposition’s job to ask Key the hard questions.

But he was skewered by equally hard and persistent questioning about the tape.

Absolutely the opposition should hold the Government to account. But that does not mean you make wild allegations with no proof, and then make even wilder accusations about the tape may have been deleted.

Sam Sachdeva at The Press reports:

NZ First has been embroiled in infighting after a blog slammed the performance of some of its MPs, leaked party emails show.

Internal emails, passed on to The Press, have revealed discord within the party, with Christchurch MP Denis O’Rourke among those attacking their Whip and the party’s board.

The emails relate to a post by website Kiwiblog that used a range of statistics to rank Opposition MPs.

The rankings placed Canterbury NZ First MPs O’Rourke and Richard Prosser in the bottom five for the third quarter of 2012, along with colleague Asenati Taylor.

I wouldn’t say the blog slammed any of the NZ First MPs. In the post I did, I mainly just report the data. Rajen Prasad is the only MP I really gave much of a swipe to.

As I said in the post, the data is quantitative, not qualitative. However I think it has some value as it does at least show if MPs are being active asking PQs and doing press releases.

To be fair to NZ First MPs, many will always struggle as Winston hogs most of the media stories, and front on almost any high profile issue. But that is no reason you can’t still be churning out some releases and gathering data through PQs.

NZ First Whip Barbara Stewart emailed the rankings to the caucus on October 4.

She said they showed “how others are judging you”.

O’Rourke and former North Shore mayor Andrew Williams hit back, criticising the rankings and Stewart’s decision to email them out.

What is fascinating is not that MPs disagree, but that one of the MPs has leaked the e-mails to the media. Not a good sign.

O’Rourke said the rankings were “not even remotely interesting or relevant” and were “utter nonsense”.

“I find it hard to believe that anyone with any brains would actually take any notice of a stupid Right-wing blog site,” he said.

Hey, I resent the “stupid” comment! And yes my blog is from the right and I am known to be a critic of Winston, but the MP stats are not designed to be pro or anti any party or MP. They are designed to both reveal how much work MPs are doing in certain areas, and how effective they are at gaining media attention. I do them for Government Ministers also.

Williams said Stewart’s decision to place importance on the rankings was “a sad inditement [sic] on you as Whip and of this party”.

“[Q]uite frankly I do not want to receive these ‘nanny’ type sermons from you. Have better things to do than be preached at.”

It is interesting that Winston promised soon after the election that the caucus would elect a Deputy Leader by the end of March 2012. They still haven’t elected one. Is it because they can’t agree?

In response, Stewart warned the MPs that their performance had been noticed by the NZ First board.

“The number of contributions or lack of – that you make . . . is also being noticed. A picture is being created about you!”

I’m biased, but I think the data in the ratings can be of some use to a party. Certainly only of some limited value, but it allows a party to say why has Brendan Horan does 16 press releases and Denis O’Rourke only one? Now there may be a simple answer such as Horan has a portfolio that has been more high profile. So the data is not the answer, but at least allows questions to be asked.  Likewise why has Andrew Williams asked 22 PQs and Asenati Taylor just three?

So even I wouldn’t place huge reliance on the data, but that isn’t to say it can’t be of some value.

Stuff reports:

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says security of computer systems is an operational matter despite giving earlier assurances she would monitor it.

Few people who are not partisan would expect the Minister to somehow be over the details of computer systems in a massive ministry. The job of the Minister, like a Director, is to ask questions such as have you had a firm test your security etc. Bennett did not say (as no Minister would) that she would monitor computer security. She said:

“Whilst the ministry has a strong focus on reducing its national office numbers there are also substantial plans to automate frontline services for clients through the use of online and other IT solutions,” she wrote.

However there is no doubt the Govt gets damaged when ministries fail, and they are held ultimately accountable if they are not seen to respond strongly enough and give reassurance it won’t happen again.

Consultancy firm Deloitte has been appointed to conduct an independent investigation after blogger Keith Ng revealed he was able to access Ministry of Social Development servers through public kiosks in a Work and Income office.

MSD chief executive Brendan Boyle yesterday admitted they had not have acted on earlier warnings about the system.

That is hugely concerning, and someone should be held accountable for that. Also as I had previously blogged, the investigation should not just be into the security breach, but also into why the kiosks were even connected to the main corporate network.

Katie Chapman at Stuff reports:

A year out  from the next local body election, it’s already a hot political talking point: who will face off in the race to be Wellington’s mayor?

Incumbent Celia Wade-Brown is definitely standing again, and the names doing the rounds of those likely to oppose her include Fran Wilde, Annette King, and councillors Paul Eagle, Jo Coughlan and Justin Lester.

Annette and Fran are the two heavyweight contenders, both with significant profile, and both being former Labour MPs. I suspect one of them will stand, but probably not both.

Paul Eagle is more likely to seek Annette’s Rongotai seat in a by-election, if she stands – despite what he says. He will not stand against Annette if she stands.

Jo Coughlan has been an excellent Councillor, with her main focus being on economic growth and jobs. Lester is too new to rate, but seems sound so far.

The Truth Game was a fun drama based in a newspaper newsroom. The playwright and author, Simon Cunliffe is a former deputy editor of the ODT and this shows in the perspicacity of the play, which is on at Circa until 10 November.

The play starts with a corporate businesswoman lecturing a room full of newspaper people on how media need to deliver what consumers want etc. She us using all the annoying jargon (such as synergies) you can think of, and it is a credit to Janine Burchett that she made Belinda such a detestable figure. You almost wanted to throw things at her, and cheered when an audience member (later revealed to be lead actor Frank Stone) calls out bullshit, and then storms out calling her a wanker.

Photo by Stephen A’Court

The curtains then part to reveal a massive set. A newsroom office stretches out, looking just as you imagine a newsroom would look. And they do an impressive split screen with an editor’s office upstairs. Alan Lovell plays Frank Stone. He’s the 30 year veteran who is at war with his corporate bosses, and is the Acting Editor, and likely permanent Editor.

The adroit Jessica Robinson plays news editor Sam Hunter, and  somewhat estranged romantic interest of Frank. The star of the show for me was Brian Sergent who played the loveable old duffer Ralph (pronounced Rafe). Ralph is the walking thesarus sub-editor, editorial writer and 40 year veteran. Paul McLaughlin plays General Manager Paul, who tries to act as a buffer between Frank and the owners. He has told Frank that to become editor he has to sack Ralph, to keep costs down.

Finally there was the young Acushla-Tara Sutton who literally rollerbladed onto the set as the young cub reporter. She gets off to a bad start with Frank, as she talks about Facebook and the like. As she reveals her mother worked on the paper over 20 years ago, you wonder about whether she may have a connection to either Ralph or Frank. Ski Bunny Girl and I both guessed, but got it wrong.

At the heart of the show, was the much debated proposition about whether media should be about hard hitting important news that matters, or providing what customers wants. Frank represented one extreme, and Belinda the other. Cunliffe and director Danny Mulheron have done a good job at dramatically portraying the dilemma. Personally I think they are both right. Media should focus on important quality news, but they also can’t ignore what their readers want. No use being purist and having no readers.  Sam’s character probably best represented the pragmatic middle option.

The best scene for me was when a major development happens in the Middle East, and you suddenly see a newsroom at its best. Focused and multi-tasking to tell history as it happens. Four extras from Whitireia’s Stage and Screen complement the main six characters as they rush to make their deadline. There is nothing quite like a newspaper office near deadline.

We both enjoyed the play. It had plenty of laughs and the central focus on the role of the media is a topical one. Rafe and Belinda were especially good characters that you loved and detested in equal amounts. The part that didn’t work so well for me was the relationships. The Frank and Sam relationship was almost a distraction, and the mystery around Jo’s mother was also not a critical part of the plot. I think the script would have been better to really focus on the main tension of the battle for what news should be, and the work relationships. More could have been done there.

As I said, overall an enjoyable play which will appeal especially to those interested in the media.

Helen Sims at Theatreview has also reviewed the play.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers

1. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to Kim Dotcom and the inquiry into the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau?
2. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have confidence that the Ministry of Social Development can keep private information it holds confidential?
3. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Finance: What are the main features of the Government’s plan to build a more competitive economy based on more savings, higher exports and less debt?
4. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Has the Ministry of Social Development competently managed the private information in its charge?
5. Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister for Social Development: What children will the White Paper for Vulnerable Children be targeting?
6. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: What specific criteria were used to determine whether a school in Christchurch was identified for restoration, consolidation or rejuvenation?
7. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: What were the dates of the three cases that the Government Communications Security Bureau audit highlighted, because they could not assure him “that the legal position is totally clear”, as referred to in his statement of 3 October 2012?
8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to my Question for Written Answer 3326 (2012)?
9. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister of Civil Defence: Why did he reject the independent Civil Defence Emergency Management earthquake review’s recommendation, which was made in response to the finding that duplication of control was “not only inefficient but put people and property at risk”, and that “the same situation could arise in a number of different parts of New Zealand”?
10. MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: What is the Government doing to improve the support and recognition given to veterans?
11. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in Hon John Banks; if so, why?
12. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What is the objective of the Government review of the EQC?

Questions to Members

1. HOLLY WALKER to the Member in charge of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill: What is the purpose of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill?
2. HOLLY WALKER to the Member in charge of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill: Does the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill attempt to fix discrimination in the current Working for Families tax credit scheme?
3. HOLLY WALKER to the Member in charge of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill: What reports has she seen relating to reform of the In-work Tax Credit through the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill as a measure to address child poverty?
4. HOLLY WALKER to the Member in charge of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill: Has she received any advice on other parties’ support for the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill?Bottom of Form

Today there are five questions to Ministers from Labour, four from National, two from the Greens and 1 from NZ First. In addition, Holly Walker is asking four questions to Metiria Turei on the Universal In-work Tax Credit Bill.

Patsy of the day goes to Q3 – What are the main features of the Government’s plan to build a more competitive economy based on more savings, higher exports and less debt?

Labour are asking about the GCSB, MSD security breach, Christchurch, and John Banks.

Greens are also asking about the GCSB and MD security breach, while NZ First is asking the PM to stand by his response to an earlier question about meetings with Maurice Williamson and Simon Power in 2011. Presumably Winston has something planned and this is a “gotcha” question.

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

1. Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products – Budget Measures) Amendment Bill – third reading
2. Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill – third reading
3. Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill – committee stage
4. Legislation Bill – committee stage

The first two bills have both been divided at committee stage – the former into seven separate Bills and the latter into four. Both groups of Bills will still be considered at third reading together. The first has a full two hours allocated for their third reading. The second was interrupted 27 September, and 80 minutes of allocated time remain. Following that, the committee of the House will resume consideration of the Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill. Depending on how long this takes, they may begin the committee stage of the Legislation Bill.

The Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill was introduced by Tariana Turia in May, and seeks to amend the Customs and Excise Act 1996 to make 4 cumulative 10% increases to the duties on all tobacco products. It was split into seven separate Bills at the committee stage with Labour’s support, but they indicated an intention to vote against six of the seven resulting Bills at third reading. The seven Bills have been allocated two hours total for their third reading.

The Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill deals with the operation of the Commerce Commission. The primary objective is to facilitate co-operation between the Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. It was divided into four bills at committee stage.

Introduced by Peter Dunne last year, the Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill makes various amendments to the requirements for filing and storing of tax returns and amends other acts and regulations such as the KiwiSaver Act 2006. At second reading it was opposed by the Greens and Mana.

The Legislation Bill was introduced by Chris Finlayson in 2010 to modernise and improve the law relating to the publication, availability, reprinting, revision, and official versions of legislation and to bring this law together in a single piece of legislation. It passed its second reading with unanimous support.

The Herald reports:

Tradable inflation, which covers items open to foreign competition, was unchanged in the quarter, due to falling prices for second-hand cars, petrol and dairy products. On an annual basis, tradable inflation shrank 1.2 per cent.

Non-tradable inflation rose 0.5 per cent in the quarter at an annual pace of 2.3 per cent, mainly due to higher local authority rates.

Rates can not keep increasing as an unsustainable rate.

Transport prices fell 1.1 per cent in the quarter, with the price of petrol down 1 per cent, second-hand car prices down 2.8 per cent and domestic air fares falling 7.8 per cent. Fresh milk prices fell 3.8 per cent in the quarter, while telecommunication services prices declined 1.8 per cent.

Food prices rose 1.1 per cent in the September quarter, led by more expensive produce, while grocery food prices fell 1.6 per cent.

Dwelling insurance prices surged 17 per cent in the quarter, and are up 43 per cent on an annual basis as insurers pass on rising reinsurance costs in the wake of a series of earthquakes that levelled Christchurch, the country’s second-biggest city.

Yeah my building insurance costs have doubled, and our building is well above code.

What I find most interesting is the household energy costs. Do you recall earlier this year stories proclaiming massive increases in electricity prices, and the like. I was somewhat critical of those stories as they never gave any hard data as to what the actual increases were.

Well for the quarter, household energy costs increased a mere 0.3%. For the year a 3.9% increase. This compares to annual near 8% increases from 2002 to 2008.