Stuff reports:

At 35 weeks pregnant, Sarah Clear was feeling noticeable enough already. The last thing she wanted was to be escorted off a plane in front of 150 passengers.

Mrs Clear, 33, of Wellington, had flown to Auckland with Jetstar last month to visit a friend in hospital.

Unbeknown to her, she was in breach of Jetstar’s policy on pregnant passengers because she had not obtained a clearance letter from a doctor or midwife.

But no staff member raised any concerns with her, and she had no reason to believe there was any reason she could not fly back to Wellington four days later. …

After the flight left, she managed to reach her midwife, who told the Jetstar manager she was fine to fly, but the airline told her a verbal confirmation was not acceptable.

So instead she caught an Air New Zealand flight home without any difficulty.

Mrs Clear was upset that the airline had not enforced its policy on her first flight.

“I have argued black and blue with them that if they’re going to stick to a policy, they must stick with it both ends. You can’t strand me in Auckland.”

If Jetstar had told her about the need for a letter from her midwife when she arrived for her flight in Wellington, it could have been arranged, she said.

Jetstar’s policy requires passengers who are more than 28 weeks pregnant to carry a letter from a doctor or midwife confirming the estimated delivery date, whether it is a single or multiple birth, and details of any complications.

It forbids travel after 40 weeks for uncomplicated single pregnancies, or after 36 weeks for multiple pregnancies.

Air NZ allows passengers to fly up to the 38th week for single pregnancies, or 32 weeks for multiple ones.

Friends don’t let friends fly Jetstar!

Dr Zain Ali writes in the NZ Herald:

Sam Becile’s recent “movie” depicts Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, as a buffoon, a womaniser and a child molester. The movie is far from a genuine attempt at social or theological criticism; rather, it comes across as a work created by a group of misinformed and bored misanthropes. Unfortunately, many in the Muslim world have taken the bait, and have responded with acts of brutal violence. The saddest moment in this outpouring of rage was the death of US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens (all this on the anniversary of 9/11).

The violent protests involve a cruel, and perhaps bitter, irony. The protesters believe Becile’s movie besmirches the honour of Muhammad, and this is because the movie depicts Muhammad as being a violent, bloodthirsty, womaniser. The irony is that the protesters have responded to this movie with acts of violence, all the while believing that Muhammad was a peace loving and virtuous person. 

It is sad and ironic.

I believe the tradition of Islam represents a spectrum of views, and there is a centre made up of those who welcome intellectual honesty, equality, secularism and pluralism. The problem is not that Islam lacks a centre, but that mainstream Muslims are being out-manoeuvred by the violent and irrational fringe. This fringe dominates the headlines and shapes the public view of Islam and Muslims.

The person of Muhammad is dear to the heart of Muslims, and the reason for this is that Muhammad represents an important, and challenging, ideal. Prior to Islam, there existed tribes, some of whom had hated each other for generations. Muhammad was able to transform hate and distrust into genuine love and trust. Muslims love Muhammad because he showed it was possible to love each other while being at peace with ourselves.

Given what Muhammad represents, we can argue it is the perpetrators of violence who are the ones who have besmirched and dishonoured Muhammad. After all, Muhammad is reported to have said that, “the strong are not the ones who overcome others by force, but the strong are the ones who control themselves while in anger”.

Most Muslims are “moderate”, tolerant and respectful. New Zealand’s Muslim community for one is a good example of that.

All religions have extremists, and violent fanatics. However it is fair to say that a far greater proportion of Islamic adherents are extremists than with other religions. I believe this is partly because the religion has no central authority that can unambiguously condemn violence in the name of religion – and also because Islam has no ability to modernise its beliefs (due to the lack of central authority).

Judith Collins has announced:

Justice Minister Judith Collins introduced legislation to Parliament today that creates special orders to better protect the public from serious sexual or violent offenders. 

The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill will allow the High Court to order offenders who pose a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent offending after they are released from jail, to be detained.

Public Protection Orders (PPOs) would see offenders held in a secure facility until the High Court is convinced they are safe for release.

“This Government is committed to delivering on our election promise to introduce a civil detention regime for the most high-risk offenders,” Ms Collins says.

“The safety of New Zealanders is paramount and it should not be jeopardised by a small number of offenders who continue to be a serious threat after they are released from prison.

“PPOs are a new tool to deal with society’s worst offenders in a way that current sentencing and release provisions, such as extended supervision orders and preventative detention, don’t allow.” …

Offenders subject to a PPO will be able to seek a court review of their detention at any time. If they no longer meet the criteria, they will be released and placed on a protective supervision order.

PPOs are not being designed to target a specific individual and are expected to apply to between five to 12 offenders over the next decade. Many are expected to be child sex offenders. 

A pity we didn’t have this law a few months ago.

It’s one of those laws that we shouldn’t need, but sadly we do.

Audrey Young reports:

Prime Minister John Key said Maori had more positions on water than Lady Gaga had outfits.

On his way into caucus at Parliament this morning he was asked about the unity around the water issue at the national hui last week called by King Tuheitia.

He suggested that from the media reports he had seen there wasn’t unity.

“There are kind of more positions than Lady Gaga’s got outfits.”

No race, gender, or generally any group of human beings has a common view on a political issue.

This year I have been doing a post on house sitting days detailing what is likely to occur in Parliament that day, with links to the bills, and some analysis of the questions and bills.

The main reason I started doing it, is I was a bit frustrated that there is nowhere else you can get this. Don’t get me wrong – the Parliamentary website has all the information on it, but the order paper is a pdf, and the questions are on a separate page etc. The idea is a one stop shop, making it easier for people to see what the “action” is on a sitting day – and get an idea of whether the debates will be on laws that parties disagree on, or on ones that are controversial.

I’ve been too busy to do this on a regular basis, as I am not always able to get online between 1130 and 1400 on sitting days.

So what I thought I would advertise for is if there are one or more people out there (probably political science students, but can be anyone) who would like to become a Kiwiblog parliamentary analyst.  The position is unpaid, but could be good on the CV, and bound to help you pick up guys or girls in bars and clubs. 🙂

At this stage, just looking for a comittment to do the sitting day posts. If I get two or three volunteers, could assign a day each. If people are keen, could expand over time to other stuff such as covering debates on controversial bills, scoring question time etc.

For the sitting day posts, what is required is:

1. Copy and paste oral questions over at or after 1130 when made public
2. Summarise number of questions for each party, and what topics party are asking on
3. Award “pasty of the day” to the most sycophantic question from a Government backbencher
4. List the first five orders or bills on the order paper, and link them to their parliamentary page
5. Estimate which bills will be dealt with that day. Don’t worry if you get it wrong – I often do.
6. Provide a summary of each bill, which includes date of introduction, its “owner”, its purpose (take from the very useful library digest), and which parties voted for or against it at previous readings or stages.

It normally takes me half an hour or so, so isn’t a huge time commitment – but the challenge is being able to do it between 1130 and 1400, when Parliament generally starts for the day.

If you are interested in becoming a parliamentary analyst for Kiwiblog, just e-mail me. No pay, not even at minimum wage, but the occasional beer or wine – and the chance to show your skills off to the world.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

Welfare reforms are expected to save up to $1.6 billion over four years.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett yesterday introduced the second round of reform legislation.

The Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill replaces the current benefits with three new categories: Jobseeker Support, Sole Parent Support and the Supported Living Payment.

I see the savings as a bonus, but not why this should be done. I think the major beneficiaries of these reforms will be the families of those who move into work.

What is described as an investment approach – based on an insurance model – is expected to save between $900 million and $1.6 billion by June 2017, with 44,000 people expected to come off benefits and up to 6000 working part-time.

I presume this figure doesn’t just include the reduction in benefit expenditure, but the increase in tax receipts as more people work.

Marty Sharpe at Stuff reports:

The number of families of suicide victims granted support from ACC has declined since changes to legislation in 2010.

A woman whose daughter took her own life after suffering an abusive relationship said the changes meant surviving family were not considered victims.

The woman said her 21-year-old daughter took her life in Christchurch in November 2010. She left behind a young son.

The woman, now a sickness beneficiary and living in Wellington, had been struggling to pay the $7000 for her daughter’s funeral.

She sought help from ACC but was told the corporation no longer provided cover for families of suicide victims, unless the suicide was due to a mental injury caused by physical injury, sexual abuse or a work-related mental injury.

“I’ve got it [the funeral bill] down to about $4500 . . . It’s just been devastating. It really has. I don’t think people know what it’s like. Anyone in that situation needs all the help they can get,” the woman said.

Losing a loved one to suicide must be one of the most devastating things that can happen.

However it is not the role of ACC to fund funeral costs for those who kill themselves. The original intent of ACC is that if people get injured in an accident, they kept receiving their work income, and had medical costs covered.

If low income families are unable to pay for the funeral costs of a family member who has died, then the appropriate support should be via WINZ – and as I understand it there are such grants.

But we must change ACC from being a universal funder of everything bad that happens to someone, to what it was set up for.

Stuff reports:

Google rejected a request by the White House on Friday to reconsider its decision to keep online a controversial YouTube movie clip that has ignited anti-American protests in the Middle East.

The Internet company said it was censoring the video in India and Indonesia after blocking it on Wednesday in Egypt and Libya, where US embassies have been stormed by protesters enraged over depiction of the Prophet Mohammad as a fraud and philanderer.

Well done Google. Blocking it in countries where there is a legal order from the Government can be appropriate, but removing it entirely would be an act of censorship and deplorable appeasement.

Stuff reports:

Sir Ngatata Love offered to sell Wellington railway station to a would-be casino developer as his partner Lorraine Skiffington sought a $35 million consultancy deal on the same development.

Ms Skiffington offered to provide “strategic project management services . . . to ensure the successful progress of this development”, and also sought a “good faith” payment of $2.5m from Loizos Michaels, who was fronting the development group.

Michaels will face a fraud trial next month, on charges brought by the Serious Fraud Office.

Ms Skiffington proposed that, for her role in the development of a “major landmark hotel, convention and entertainment centre” at the railway station, she be paid:

A $4m signing fee.

$7m to secure ownership of the railway station, social hall and adjoining land on Waterloo Quay.

A two-year “operational budget” of $9m, including $1.125m on signing.

$7m to be paid directly to her for the “transfer of intellectual property”.

$8m for securing air rights above the station, including $2m up front.

I’m not going to comment on the legality of this, because the sheer greed and audacity is enough in itself. She wanted $8 million for “air rights” above Wellington Railway Station. I’m surprised she didn’t also ask $10 million for mineral rights beneath the building.

I see Barry Hart got struck off for over-charging his clients by a few thousand. He obviously did not think big enough.

The Herald reports:

Kylee Guy is working with private investigators to find out who killed her husband and is asking anyone with new information to come forward.

Ewen Macdonald was acquitted of Scott Guy’s murder after a High Court trial, and Mrs Guy has now begun her own investigation.

I’d say the chances of them finding the “real” killer are at around the same level as OJ finding out who really killed Nicole.

Stuff reports:

Parliament will be filled with southern drawls and plenty of maroon on Friday when the Southland Party is brought back to life.

The yearly get-together for Southlanders transplanted to Wellington has been absent from the calendar for the past nine years, but a crew of expats, including MP Eric Roy and Newstalk ZB political editor Barry Soper, have brought it back.

The party will feature the best of Southland cuisine, from oysters to beef to that essential southern drop Speight’s.

In its heyday, the evening attracted about 400 Southlanders to the banquet hall at Parliament to reminisce about everything southern.

These parties were legendary. When I worked at Parliament, I helped organise the  music for a couple of them. One of our colleagues was the daughter of the Mayor of Gore or Balclutha (we called her the first daughter of Gore 🙂 ), so we would go along with her.

The best of the parties wasn’t in the banquet hall, but in the ground floor dockway of the Beehive. It was ideal location for a party as hay bales were put around, it was on tarmac so easy to clean up, and could spill outdoors.

The parties were funded by the ticket sales and I think Speights contributed some beer. Off memory they would raise money for some good Southland cause.

“But it was such a popular event that the most frequent question I get asked is ‘why we aren’t doing them any more?’

“So here we are giving it another go.” The Gore-born journalist brought together a team of hardcore southern folk to get the party up and running again, and the evening at Parliament is gaining steam once again.

A great revival plan. I just need to find a lass from Southland to date, so I can attend on her coattails 🙂

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Maori unity over water may already be splintering.

Forty-five of Maoridom’s most powerful leaders yesterday gathered at Ngaruawahia in the wake of a hui convened by King Tuheitia – and later made it clear they were not going to be rolled by a new pan-Maori body in any discussions with the Crown over Maori rights and interests in water.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister John Key flatly rejected the claim by King Tuheitia that Maori had always owned the water.

“In law he’s just plain wrong; all the advice we’ve had is that the common law position is the correct position, which is that no-one owns water.”

Mr Key also rejected meeting a pan-Maori body ahead of individual iwi with water claims – and reiterated that there would be no national settlement on water.

Good. The view of King Tuheitia that all water is owned by Maori and should be controlled solely by Maori must not be accepted.

There also appeared to be overwhelming support for the establishment of a pan-Maori body representing broad Maori interests, including the Maori Women’s Welfare League, the kohanga reo movement, the Maori Council and others appointed by an eminent group, including Tuwharetoa head Sir Tumu te Heuheu.

But the Iwi Leaders Group yesterday issued a statement confirming a resolution had been passed unanimously endorsing the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group and its continued engagement with the Crown.

Meanwhile, Sir Tumu said he was not even in the room when the vote was taken – and had nothing to do with his name being put forward. He confirmed that he would not be nominating anyone for such a body.

So the proposed chair wasn’t even in favour of the resolution. It looks like people were just being polite.

What annoyed me over King Tuheitia’s views is the damage it does to the generally tolerant New Zealand we have. There are genuinely divergent views on issues around the Treaty and Maori in New Zealand. That is inevitable, and will always be the case.

However many, even most, people place greater value of having relative harmony in race relations than insisting that the law must reflect their personal views. Take the Maori seats as one issue.

I personally believe it is incredibly wrong to have seats in Parliament where voters of only one race can enrol in that seat.  They were set up at a time when only property owners had votes, and was a way to allow Maori who tended to communally own property to vote. They were a well intentioned device, that should have never lasted more than a few years.

Ironically they then became a method of disenfranchisement for Maori, as they were forced to remain on the Maori roll until the 1970s.

But regardless of their history, I quite strongly feel that a country should not have electoral seats reserved for people based on who their parents were.

However I do not advocate scrapping the Maori seats unilaterally. Why? Because I respect that for many Maori, even the majority of Maori, they have become something highly valued and prized. That if Pakeha New Zealanders voted in a referendum to abolish the Maori seats, despite the desire of most Maori New Zealanders to retain them, then it would damage race relations. So I, and many others, do not advocate an abolition in the interests of a harmonious New Zealand. I would like to see the day where the majority of Maori agree to their abolition – something very different to being out-voted on abolishing them.

Now this tolerance and desire for harmony should go both ways in my view. As someone born in New Zealand, who has no other country they call home, I get upset when the Maori King advocates that I have no rights to water in New Zealand – that Maori should control, manage and allocate water. And a hui is held to seemingly advance this view.

And I am not alone in getting upset, when such claims are asserted. The vast majority of New Zealanders find such a claim repugnant, and the impact of such posturing is to diminish the pool of goodwill that exists. It will create a climate where support for settling historical grievances will evaporate, where tolerance of the Maori seats will diminish.

Tolerance is a two-way street.

Rodney Hide writes in HoS:

I later worked as a fitter’s mate in British construction. My workmates would lie, cheat, steal and engage in industrial sabotage. The crew I was part of stole an entire Landrover. That was no mean feat: we were on an island in the North Sea.

We were building a gas stripping plant at Sullom Voe in the Shetland Islands.

I regularly saw metal scraps tossed into one-metre gas pipes as they were welded up. That was to ensure maintenance work once construction was finished.

Both Lyttelton Port and Sullom Voe were union-controlled. The control was maintained through bullying and violence. I was threatened that a spanner could fall on my head; an English welder had both legs and both arms broken for not following union dictates.

The way I saw it, the bosses got us to do what they wanted by paying us. That suited me. But union bosses got us to do what they wanted through thuggery and violence. I didn’t like it. And I didn’t like them.

This is referred to as the “good old days” amongst the union leaders.

Auckland has a beating heart. It’s the port. And it’s in trouble.

It lost Maersk’s Southern Star services to the Port of Tauranga last December. Fonterra followed in January. That’s $25 million in revenue gone. That’s 15 per cent of the port’s total revenue.

Ten years ago, Auckland handled double the containers that Tauranga did. Now they’re on par. Tauranga is set to pass Auckland.

Tauranga has the flexibility and efficiency that Auckland lacks.

Auckland Port’s dividend to Auckland Council is $20 million. A proper roster would double it. That’s equivalent to a 1.5 per cent rate cut. But the real gain would be to Auckland businesses, jobs and wages. …

The Maritime Union have proved the port bosses’ point through the negotiations several times over. They have gone on strike 12 times. And the port says productivity went up. Every time.

Tauranga is a shining example of a mixed ownership model. The staff are shareholders and are happy. They take pride in completing jobs efficiently.

The HoS reports:

The Government has blood on its hands for refusing to lower the drink-drive limit, a departing senior road policing boss says.

Superintendent John Kelly, who set up national highway patrols, retired on Thursday after six years overseeing the roads of Auckland’s sprawling Waitemata district and 35 years on the force.

He told the Herald on Sunday that John Key’s National Party ignoring calls for the drink-drive limit to be slashed two years ago was his biggest career frustration. He believed it had potentially contributed to more than 60 road deaths since.

“Between 250 and 300 people are still dying annually on the roads but if we had lowered the drink-drive limit when we could have, there might have been 30 or so of those people still alive every year,” said Kelly.

I’ll note the road toll has in fact been at record lows. I also note that “might have been” is hardly robust evidence. The Government is actually collecting data on the prevalence of people driving at between 80 and 100 blood alcohol level, and what their accident rate is. That way a decision can be made on rational analysis, not hysterical bullshit.

As it happens what we do know from the limited data we have, is that the number of adults who were drivers in fatal crashes with a BAC between 80 and 100 has been around 1 or 2 a year.

Of course lowering the BAC can reduce crashes. If you lower it to zero, that would reduce crashes. If you reduce the maximum speed limit to 30 km/hr that would reduce crashes. But road safety is about getting the balance right – and decisions should be based on hard data, not emotional blackmail.

Elle Hunt at Stuff reports:

It costs a lot to look cheap, and even more to look expensive – if you’re a woman.

Items such as deodorant, disposable razors and haircuts routinely cost more for women than they do for men.

When California banned “gender pricing” in 1994, it found women paid more than $1200 in extra costs and fees each year. But what is banned there is accepted in New Zealand.

Consumer NZ chief executive Sue Chetwin says it is “without doubt” discrimination.

“The price is based on whether you’re a man or a woman. There’s no excuse . . . but what can you do?”

At a Wellington drycleaners a man’s business shirt costs $7 to launder, while women pay $13 for a similar garment. Aucklanders are better off, with the service costing men $6.90 and women $9.50.

The businesses spoken to said women’s blouses could not be processed by their machines, and required more hand-pressing – standard industry practice.

Hairdressing salons in Wellington charge women about $20 more for a haircut than men, regardless of style and length, or the time taken.

“These days, men do many of the things women do with their hair, so why is there that discrimination?” Chetwin asked.

One salon charged women from $75 to $107 for a cut and blowdry, and men from $59 to $79. Another charged women from $85 to $130 for a cut and style, but men only $75 to $90, and a third $62 for a woman and $44 for a man.

One hairdresser said an hour was allocated for women’s appointments, but only 30 minutes for men, although that did not meet all their clients’ needs.

“We have ladies who take us only half an hour because they’ve got short hair, so we just charge them for a guy’s cut. But in other cases, if we’ve booked out the full hour, there’s nothing we can do with that extra time, so we charge them $85. It is a bit of an issue.”

She had never considered unisex prices for short, medium and long cuts. “It’s not about how much you take off, it takes as much time to do a short cut as a long one.”

But some consumers object to prices determined by their gender. Julia Hollingsworth, 22, said she was charged women’s prices even when she asked for her hair to be cut like a boy’s, coughing up $80 for trims to maintain her pixie cut when she was a university student.

“I’d get charged the same as if I had really long hair, but it was being cut to the length of the average man’s.”

I mentioned this article to the girls on the ski trip, and they all instantly said how much gender pricing pissed them off. They said that hair salons should charge on time, not gender. Have to say they have a point.

Could be a market opportunity for some salons to market themselves as the “fair” pricing place to go.

Mind you I’m amused by the fact that I pay $25 sometimes for a 10 minute No 1, which is a higher hourly rate than I sometimes charge in my business!

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Work and Income is using “chequebook doctors” to move sick claimants off welfare, advocates say.

State insurer ACC has been criticised for paying medical assessors to examine long-term clients, and lawyers and claimant groups have questioned the assessors’ independence, calling them “hatchet men and women”.

Now those charges are being levelled at Winz. Critics say it is operating a similar system by employing almost 300 “designated doctors” to assess beneficiaries.

Advocates will of course have a negative view of anyone who disagrees with their clients getting the benefit they want. They often have a philosophical view that anyone should be able to get welfare, with no work testing.

A key difference with ACC is there is legitimate criticism that some of the ACC designated doctors do nothing but ACC cases, and are dependent on ACC for most of their income. WINZ has 300 designated doctors who reviews 3,000 cases a year so the average doctor does one case a month.

About to head up Mt Ruapehu, so unlikely to blog more today, unless the mountain closes early.

John Armstrong writes in the NZ Herald:

Here is a blunt message for a couple of old-school Aro Valley-style socialists:

Get off our backs. Stop behaving like a pair of tut-tutting old dowagers gossiping in the salons. In short, stop making blinkered, cheap-shot accusations of the kind you made this week – that the media who went with John Key to Vladivostok and Tokyo concentrated on trivia, interviewed their laptops and parroted Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet press releases. …

Do the likes of former Listener columnist and Greens propagandist Gordon Campbell and former Alliance staffer and now Otago University politics lecturer Bryce Edwards have the faintest idea of the difficulties, obstacles and logistics of reporting an overseas trip by a prime minister, especially one which incorporates a major international forum like Apec?

Does it occur to them to actually pick up the phone and try to talk to those journalists about what is happening and why things are being reported in a certain way?

Of course not. That would risk the facts getting in the way of, well … interviewing their laptops and having yet another ritual poke at the parliamentary press gallery.

To read their drivel while stuck in a Tokyo traffic jam with your deadline approaching faster than a Japanese bullet-train makes your heart sink. …

But never mind. The rules that apply to journalists in terms of accuracy do not apply to Campbell and his echo chamber Dr Edwards – who is not be confused with Dr Brian Edwards, another blogger, but a far more original one when it comes to ideas and analysis.

Bloggers can blog when they like at what length they wish. Admittedly, they are normally not being paid for the privilege. Journalists are. But on a trip like last week’s one, the hourly rate slumps drastically by virtue of the hours worked.

Few media representatives travelling with John Key would have got more than four or five hours’ sleep each night – probably less – because of the Prime Minister’s schedule, which ran from 6am (earlier if a flight was involved) until well into the evening.

Days were spent clambering on and off buses in 35C heat and 100 per cent humidity.

Time has to be found within that schedule to write news stories and other articles – but not just for the following day’s newspaper. News organisation’s websites have to fed – especially if there is “breaking” news.

Deadlines in Asia are punishing, as countries such as Japan are three hours behind New Zealand, meaning deadlines are effectively even tighter.

Then there is the no small matter of filing stories back home. Equipment breaks down, mobile phones that are supposed to be in harmony with Japan’s system turn out not to be.

To Campbell’s credit, he does do his own digging. He is also a regular attendee at the Prime Minister’s weekly press conference. His blog is one of the more valuable. But he does have a blind spot with regards to the press gallery.

The rapidly growing influence of Edwards’ blog was initially down to its being an exhaustive wrap-up of all of the day’s political news. It is now starting to develop a much more political dynamic that is unlikely to please National.

Edwards’ blog is the extreme example of the fact that most blogsites rely on the mainstream media for their information and then use that information to criticise the media for not stressing something enough or deliberately hiding it.

Unlike the mainstream media, the blogs are not subject to accuracy or taste – and sometimes even the law.

It is the ultimate parasitical relationship. And it will not change until the media start charging for use of their material.

Monday’s media summary by Bryce will be an interesting read.

For my 2c I think John makes a very fair point about the reality of being a working journalist on on overseas trip, and the coverage of issues.

To be fair to Edwards, what he does everyday is not so much about blogging. His summary was originally circualated by e-mail, and it was his collection of links that people most valued. I know, as I sponsored it.

Since then his narrative around the day’s stories has become more prominent, and that is what most now read. Few actually read it I suspect on Bryce’s blog. Most I’d say read it off the NZ Herald and NBR websites, who as I understand it pay Bryce for his work – so not quite an unpaid blogger!

Been reading through some of the responses to the MMP changes proposed by the Electoral Commission. National in its submission has said:

Our position is evidenced by the impacts of the proposals if projected against four of the last six MMP elections. After each of the 1996, 2005, 2008, and 2011 elections, these three proposed changes project significant adverse impacts on the ability of both major parties to form and maintain stable Governments.

This is a point the Herald editorial responds to:

National has applied the three proposals to the results of past elections and calculates that they would have reduced the ability of both main parties to form and maintain a stable government after the elections of 1996, 2005, 2008 and 2011.

In 1996 a lower threshold (4 per cent) would have brought an additional party, Christian Heritage, into Parliament with five seats. But more importantly, it would have reduced both National and Labour’s allocation by two seats.

National says “neither would have been in a position to form stable government”. But National’s coalition with New Zealand First after that election was not exactly stable and it’s hard to imagine a third conservative partner would have made things worse.

Oh it would have. NZ First placed great importance on the fact they could negotiate an agreement with just one party, without a smaller party able to veto it. Also it is by no mean certain NZ First would have gone with National, if they could not govern by themselves. It could have been a Labour/Alliance/NZ First Government.

The Electoral Commission has proposed changes which would arguably have seen National not able to form a Government in any of the six MMP elections to date. You’d have to be the most incredible optimist to think this would lead to change.

In 2008 Act wouldn’t have got four extra seats by winning Epsom, National would have got two fewer list seats and the Maori Party would have held the balance of power. That outcome would have been repeated at last year’s election. By implication, National regards the Maori Party as a less reliable partner than Act or United Future.

Of course they are less reliable. They have never ever chosen to go with National. ACT and United Future made it clear they will support National if elected. The Maori Party have never been in a position to choose between National and Labour. They have made clear they can go either way.

National also made this point:

After every MMP election, Governments have included strong minor party representation. Since the inception of MMP, there have never been less than six parties represented in our Parliament. At the last election, eight parties gained representation.

Research by the New Zealand Electoral Study also indicates an absence of almost any public support for more parties in Parliament. Just 2.2 per cent of those surveyed in 2011 believed there were not enough parties in Parliament. This compares to 47.1 per cent who believed there were too many.

I do support lowering the threshold to 4%. Those who argue it should go even lower, or be abolished are a miniscule minority of New Zealanders.

Also an interesting point from Stephen Glaister:

I want to draw the Commission’s attention to the fact that the allegedly fiendish 2008 Status Quo saw Act get 5 MPs for its 85K party votes while NZ First got 0 MPs for its 95K party vote. But under the Commission’s policy nearly exactly the reverse happens: Act gets 1 MP for its 85K party votes and NZ First gets 5 MPs for its 95K party votes. That looks almost as whine-worthy surely! And in both cases the Maori party cheerily gets 5 MPs on 56K party votes. Some progress!

A fair point.

I think the argument to change the vote thresholds are around reducing tactical voting, not around perceived unfairness of results – any threshold always will have winners and losers.