As far as I can tell most of Labour’s so called job plans, is to have more inflation and have prices go up. Here’s the speech, and my comments.

Our policies will ensure our high and volatile dollar doesn’t undermine the competitiveness of our exporters.  We’ll give them the best possible opportunity to succeed.

We are a trading nation. We can only grow wealthy if we export.

That means an independent Reserve Bank that’s given a wider mandate to support exporters and jobs, not just focus on inflation.

Make no mistake – this is the deluded belief that having more inflation will lead to more jobs. I thought the 70s killed off that idea. Any gain in jobs from more inflation is temporary. It’s like a quick sugar fix. You feel good at the time, but get bloated.

We’ll pursue pro-growth tax reform that includes a capital gains tax to take pressure off house prices and ensure people invest in businesses, not the Auckland property market.

Umm, are you seriously suggesting taxing the capital gains people make from their businesses will lead to more investment into businesses? There are some sound reasons to have a comprehensive capital gains taxs – but it is snake oil to try and suggest it will lead to more investment into businesses.

And a research and development tax credit that rewards ingenuity and encourages innovation in our businesses.

Actually, they encourage people to reclassify their expenditure as R&D. National does R&D grants, Labour prefers tax credits. The difference is not going to impact jobs much.

President Obama brought in a “25% rule” for stimulus projects. Unless a foreign company is 25% cheaper making a product, the work should be contracted to a US company.

Australia has other checks for local contracting as does Singapore and many other countries.

That’s why we’ll ensure government agencies contract New Zealand businesses wherever possible. To build businesses, jobs and skills.

Note that Shearer has not said he will bring in such a rule. He has just said Obama has. He knows under CER such a rule would be illegal. He is trying to con people into thinking Labour will have such a law.

Labour will also introduce a ‘one in a million’ target for significant government contracts.

It would require companies that are awarded major contracts to take on one apprentice or trainee for every $1 million contract it receives.

Oh Good God, and they’ll sack an employee at the other end if they don’t need that many staff. The Government can’t dictate staffing levels to a business. Again this is pure snake oil – sounds good, but won’t do anything.

We’d raise the threshold so that businesses need to prove they’ve engaged with WINZ and Industry Training Organisations before they get approval.

We’d require Immigration NZ to consider the competitive impacts, particularly on wages and conditions when it considers granting an approval to bring in temporary workers.

I’d also like to see conditions about wages and working conditions attached to the employer’s approval. And, where it’s appropriate, to require the employer to offer apprenticeships to young New Zealanders.

Finally, an actual policy that may impact jobs. But there are no details. Anyone can say raise the threshold. I do not disagree that work permits should only go to people, when no NZer can be located.

Have just published my monthly newsletter summarising the polls last month. The summary is:

Curia’s Polling Newsletter – Issue 60, September 2012

 August and September saw six political polls published – four Roy Morgan polls a One News Colmar Brunton poll and a NZ Herald DigiPoll.

The average of the public polls has National 12% ahead of Labour in August and 13% in September. In July it was 16%, so the gap has narrowed. The centre-right had 57 out of 120 seats in August and 60 seats in September. In both months the Maori Party would have held the balance of power.

Australia has seen the Labor Party and Gillard rebound massively. They are now tied with the Coalition in one poll, and Gillard’s approval rating has improved by a net 14%.

In the United States things were going well for the Democrats up until the first debate. Barack Obama remains slightly ahead of Mitt Romney in the polls, and further ahead in likely electoral college votes – but the gap has narrowed. His re-election chances on the Intrade market are now 62%. On the plus side, his approval rating has gone positive for the first time, and over the last two months country direction sentiment has improved by a net 15%.

The Republicans remained favoured to keep control in the House (88%) but have plummeted to only 27% probability to gain a majority in the Senate.

In the UK the Conservatives remain 10% behind Labour.

In Canada the Conservatives have are 2% ahead of the NDP, at 33%. The Liberals remain in third place at 22%. But Justin Trudeau (son of Pierre) has just announced his bid for the Liberal leadership, and polls indicate he could boost the Liberals into first place if elected.

The normal two tables are provided comparing the country direction sentiment and head of government approval sentiment for the five countries. New Zealand continues to top both.

We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on, same sex marriage and adoption, school data, breakfasts for schools, the next King, euthanasia, plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please  go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.

This graphs is to the end of September, so excludes the polls out in October so far.

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.