For months and months I have been saying the faux outrage over TVNZ7 is misguided. I have consistently said that what matters is the programmes, not trying to make TVNZ into a hybrid part-commercial, part-public broadcaster.

NZ on Air has announced:

NZ On Air is pleased to announce funding for Media 3 (formerly Media 7).

The Top Shelf-produced programme examining local media will move to TV3 on Saturday mornings in August with an encore screening late on Sunday evenings. It will also be available on-demand at tv3.co.nz.

“We are thrilled to support this excellent programme” says NZ On Air Chief Executive Jane Wrightson. “Host Russell Brown and the team already enjoy a dedicated following and we are delighted that TV3 has chosen to extend their schedules even further by adding this series”.

“We are really pleased to be adding Media 3 to the TV3 line-up,” says MediaWorks TV Acting Director of Programming Mark Caulton. “It is an ideal addition to the thought-provoking programming we have developed for our weekend schedule, such as The Nation, Three60 and Think Tank.”

I predict Media 3 will get far larger audiences that Media 7 ever got. This is a good thing – it is a good quality show, and I enjoy watching it.

Again, this shows that the we do have funding for good public broadcasting in New Zealand.

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement regarding her newly appointed welfare board that “I’m backing the board to guide the investment approach, I’m backing Work and Income to implement it”.
2. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement that he was “not at all concerned” about signing a deal with SkyCity for a convention centre, before the Auditor-General’s inquiry into the deal is complete?
3. MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government assisting households and competitive businesses through these tough world economic times?
4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement that “the Auditor-General’s process will not impact on the Government’s negotiations with SkyCity”; if so, why?
5. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has the Government made today on employment assistance?
6. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by all his statements with regard to asset sales?
7. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Justice: What is the Government doing to protect New Zealanders from people charged with serious crime?
8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Finance: Does he have any concerns about the public statements of the Secretary to the Treasury; if not, why not?
9. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Trade: Will New Zealand follow Australia and refuse to sign up to the investor-state dispute provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; if not, why not?
10. SUE MORONEY to the Minister of Education: Do any of the thousands of reports she referred to in Oral Question No 8 yesterday support the Government’s decision to cut funding for 100 percent qualified staff in early childhood education as a means of lifting student achievement, and if so, what are the names of five of these reports she has read?
11. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What action has the Government taken to raise awareness of cyber security risks?
12. ANDREW LITTLE to the Minister for ACC: What meetings or discussions did she have with the Chair or Chief Executive of ACC between receiving the 16 March report relating to the Pullar affair and ACC laying a complaint with the Police and did she in any of these meetings or discussions either suggest, encourage or agree to ACC laying the complaint?

Patsy of the day goes to Q3 – How is the Government assisting households and competitive businesses through these tough world economic times?

Labour are asking on welfare reform, Sky City, asset sales, ECE and  ACC.

Greens are on Sky City and TPP, NZ First on the Treasury.

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm

1. Mixed Ownership Model Bill – second reading
2. Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill – first reading

The Mixed Ownership Model Bill was introduced in March 2012 and enables the Crown to  remove Genesis Power Limited, Meridian Energy Limited, Mighty River Power Limited, and Solid Energy New Zealand Limited from the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, and restricts the Crown from holding less than 51% of the voting rights in each of the companies and will restrict non-Crown individuals and entities from holding more than 10% of the voting rights in each of the companies. It passed first reading 61-60 with National, ACT, United Future in favour and all other parties against. The Finance and Expenditure reported it back with minority reports from Labour and Greens.

The Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill was introduced in March 2012 and seeks to  introduce a new regime in relation to Fonterra’s milk price setting, proposed capital restructure, and share valuation. It passed first reading 64 to 54 with Labour, Greens, NZ First and Mana against. The Primary Production Committee recommended it pass with amendments, with Labour and Greens giving minority reports.

Phil Twyford says:

The Government’s decision to  increase petrol tax and road user charges are outrageous examples of tax and spend at a time when the country is being asked to tighten its belt, says Labour’s Transport spokesperson Phil Twyford.

Phil Twyford said Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee today confirmed increases in petrol excise duty of two cents a litre and an equivalent increase in road user charges of an average of 4.1 per cent. The increases are expected to bring in an extra $90 million in 2012-13 and $100 million a year after that.

“The increases will hit motorists at a time when Kiwi families are struggling to make ends meet. Businesses are working overtime to keep afloat and the last thing they need is an increase in transport costs.

Roads should be funded on a user pays basis, and petrol tax and RUCs are the way this is done. I’d like to see us over time move to actual usage charging and congestion charging but there are some privacy issues around that.

It is worth recalling that Labour increased the petrol excise tax by 11.2c when in office – and off memory this was not all spent on transport, but some went to the consolidated fund.

Likewise Light RUC charges went up 66% under Labour, so the crocodile tears over a 4% increase are quite amusing.

I’ve said for some time that I think petrol tax and road user charges should in fact be automatically set to fund all transport projects which meet a certain minimum benefit to cost ratio.

The Press reports:

An “immediate” solution to the housing crisis that has crippled some Christchurch families and created a new “working poor” has been delivered to the Government. …

She founded the Canterbury Affordable Housing Trust to carry out her plan and hoped the Government would provide funds to help.

Working families who were not eligible for Government support had been the hardest hit in the rental drought, she said.

Obviously rental prices have gone up in Christchurch. Personally I don’t think much of landlords who have massively hiked rents. But the issue is whether or not there are affordable houses for rent in Christchurch.

Trade Me has the following rental properties listed:

• Up to $300/week – 167
• $300 – $350 – 140
• $350 – $400 – 148
• $400 – $450 – 108
• $450 – $500 – 69
• $500+ – 195

And no they are not all or even mostly one bedroom places. Around 70% are three or more bedrooms.

Stuff reports:

US authorities say a father who caught a man sexually assaulting his four-year-old daughter and beat him to death may not face charges.

The father, from Texas, punched the man repeatedly in the head, killing him, Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon said.

The girl had been left inside the family’s house during a social gathering on Saturday while other members of her family were tending to horses, Sheriff Harmon told CNN.

He said the father returned to the house and caught the man abusing his daughter before unleashing his attack. The man was pronounced dead at the scene.

I don’t condone vigilante justice, but this situation is different to many in that this was not a revenge attack at some later stage, but done in the heat of the moment. How many fathers would not assault someone they walked in on sexually assaulting their four year old daughter? Also the fact he did not use a weapon means it is arguable that he did not mean to actually kill him.

Even if the father is charged, I doubt any jury would convict him.

Stuff reports:

Police say they saved a man’s life by Tasering him before he could injure himself further during a drama in Stratford.

Senior Sergeant Darrin Haenga said police negotiated with the 36-year-old man for two hours on Tuesday night before going in after learning the man was seriously injured.

Mr Haenga said that at 7pm the man initially confronted police with a machete, but had a selection of other weapons.

“He had a number of weapons strategically placed around the house, and a number of knives in different rooms,” he said.

Detective Guy Jackson, of Hawera, said normal police procedure would have been to use firearms, but it was decided Tasering the man gave him a better chance at surviving.

“Tasering this guy saved his life,” he said.

He said the man was incoherent, screaming, and threatening.

“There was knives and blood everywhere; the scene was horrendous,” said Mr Jackson, who ended up covered in the blood himself.

It is worth recalling that the Greens both opposed tasers being available to the Police and spent years campaigning against them. I presume they stand by their position that either the man involved in this incident should have been shot, or alternatively that Police should have taken on a machete wielding man with batons.

Stuff reports:

A man found guilty by a jury of what the judge called “despicable” racial attacks on Asian people has been jailed for three years and six months.

David Alan Dooley, 26, was upset when the jury returned its verdicts at the end of his Christchurch District Court trial and still does not accept the outcome. He is seen as a high risk of reoffending.

Dooley was sentenced yesterday on two charges of assault with intent to injure, injuring with intent to injure and burglary.

Defence counsel Allister Davis said Dooley was reluctant to accept the verdicts of the jury, so showed no remorse. He accepted that Dooley was on release conditions from prison when the offending happened.

Judge Alistair Garland said that on September 24, 2010, Dooley was walking along Riccarton Rd when he yelled at three teenage Asian males and ran across the road to them.

He used his left arm to push one to the ground, and a co-offender punched him. They then punched a second man to the ground and kicked him in the head and body.

The group continued along Riccarton Rd and yelled at an Asian man riding his bicycle. Two of the group chased him and kicked him in the head and upper body.

Further along the road they followed a couple on to their property while shouting racial abuse. They cornered the man and banged his head against the door.

Thankfully such racially motivated violence is rare in New Zealand. I don’t know what is in the water in Christchurch that they are unlucky enough to breed people like Dooley.

Dooley has previously been found driving while disqualified, breaches of supervision, breach of community work, and breach of bail, theft, obscene exposure, and breach of prison release conditions.

The Guardian reports:

David Cameron moved to bolster international diplomatic support for British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands when it was announced that the islanders will hold a referendum on their political status next year.

Cameron accused the Argentinian government of trying to shout down the islanders’ voices and said the poll would be overseen by international observers. There has been no public affirmation of the Falklands’ links with Britain since an opinion poll in 1986.

This is a good idea. The people of the Falklands are the ones who should determine their future. The reality is that the UK would be quite happy for the Falklands to give up British sovereignty, if that is what the locals wanted. But for so long as the islanders wish to be a democratic territory of the UK, then they will protect and defend their right to self-determination.

The chairman of the Falkland Islands legislative assembly, Gavin Short, said the referendum had not been imposed by the British. “I have no doubt that the people of the Falklands wish for the islands to remain a self-governing overseas territory of the United Kingdom. We certainly have no desire to be ruled by the government in Buenos Aires, a fact that is immediately obvious to anyone who has visited the islands and heard our views. But we are aware that not everyone is able to come to these beautiful islands and to see this reality for themselves,” he said.

The referendum would be organised by the Falkland Islands government and take place in the first half of 2013, Short said. “We will invite independent, international observers to observe the process and verify its outcome. Exact timings, the specific wording of the question, and other details will be announced in the coming weeks.

Argentina would be well advised to stop trying to bully their way into the islands. It won’t work.

1. Prime Minister John Key will “Meet the Press” with Rachel Smalley and Alex Tarrant (Interest.co.nz) and John Hartevelt (Fairfax). This will be an extended interview.
2. Part Two of our China Special will feature the “generation 1.5” Chinese born migrants in Auckland who want to form a bridge between the Chinese and New Zealand economies.
3. Canterbury University Associate Professor Anne-Marie Brady will talk to Rachel about where we go next with China, the pressure points and the possibilities.
4. And on Sunday Bill Ralston and Brian Edwards will be back with more on the media.

Broadcast 16 June, Saturday at 9.30 am, repeated on Sunday at 8 am – TV3

PLEASE NOTE: WE HAVE A NEW LOCATION!

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

BOOZE BATTLE: The Government’s Alcohol Reform Bill will soon get its third & final reading in Parliament. At the heart of the debate is the split purchase age, minimum pricing, restricting trading hours, and eliminating alcohol advertising and sponsorship. Which of these measures will make the final bill? Will these measures change our binge drinking culture? Do the proposals go too far? Or not far enough?

SUPERANNUATION, SUPER PROMISES, SUPER TAXES?: Will we need a super-size tax in order to keep our Superannuation promises? The Financial Services Council is saying young kiwis will have to pay significantly higher taxes in order to receive superannuation. The Government has promised to keep the retirement age at 65. Is that a promise they should keep? Or should we be raising taxes instead? What about people who do manual labour or Maori & Pacific Islanders who have lower life-expectancy rates—is it unfair to raise the retirement age for them?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Shepherds Arms Hotel & Speights Ale House on Tinakori Road: Wednesday, 13th of June. Our Panel: Green MP Julie Anne Genter, Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove, New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser and National MP Paul Goldsmith.

NZ Herald reports:

But Mr Shearer said Mr Joyce was being “extraordinarily arrogant in continuing to run this process while an inquiry is going on”.

“To me it beggars belief that he can continue to do this while an inquiry is going on.”

Not only should negotiations be put on hold until the inquiry was complete, but the tender should be reopened begun again from scratch.

He said there was “obviously something dodgy” around the deal “otherwise the Auditor General wouldn’t take a look”.

Deborah Coddington just pointed out that Shearer has just effectively declared Shane Jones is “obviously dodgy”, as Jones is under investigation by the Auditor-General also.

The only thing I can’t work out is did Shearer shaft Jones on purpose, or did he just do it by accident as he didn’t consider the stupidity of his comment?

Catherine Delahunty writes:

Asset sales petition gathers momentum

Of course it has momentum. That is because the Greens are spending around $80,000 of taxpayers money to pay people to collect signatures for it. It’s an appalling use of parliamentary resources and goes against all their arguments about keeping money out of politics.

Andrew Geddis did a very good post on this issue for Pundit:

There then is a broader problem with a political party so deeply involving itself in the CIR process. When this was set up, it was designed to be a way in which broader civil society can send a message to parliamentarians on issues that it thinks important enough to mobilise around. (Actually, it was designed to be a sop to public outrage with politicians that might be enough to stop them voting to change the electoral system … but never mind that for now.)

So to now have a political party effectively bankrolling the process of forcing a CIR represents something of a distortion of its intent. (I note that Labour is somewhat implicated in this as well, albeit without apparently providing the same financial muscle.) Essentially, it is turning CIR’s from expressions of the views of a self-organising general public into yet another campaign tool deployed to advance the particular interests of organised political parties that are funded through public subsidies.

The Greens and Labour are just using the CIR as indeed a campaign tool. Then the hypocrisy:

First, it becomes pretty hard to rail against the influence of money in politics when you yourself are spending money trying to influence politics. For example, the Green Party’s policy proposal on campaign finance reform reads:

No person or entity can donate more than $35,000 to a political party in any twelve month period. This would need to include rules to make it illegal to split up large donations into lots smaller than $35,000 to avoid this cap.

So why exactly is giving more than $35,000 to a political party to spend on trying to achieve political outcomes A Bad Thing, whilst spending $50,000 (at least) on trying to achieve political outcomes is A Good Thing?

In other words it is bad thing to do, except when the Greens do it.

Anyway I am still waiting for Labour and Greens to announce they are implementing the results of the 2009 referendum, which to to change to the law so a parental smack of a child for correctional purposes is no longer a criminal offence. 87.4% of the voting public voted that it should not be.

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Is he concerned that Pub Charity Chief Executive Martin Cheer has publicly declared that Pub Charity was using gaming machine money to fight the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, and what actions has the Department of Internal Affairs taken to enforce its direction that net proceeds were not to be used for lobbying?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “superannuation is an issue, but one thing that is worth noting is that increasing the age of eligibility has much less of an impact than commentators might imagine”?
3. Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the stability of New Zealand’s financial system?
4. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Will total superannuation spending be higher than total education spending in the month of June 2016 using the same assumptions as in his latest Budget projections?
5. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received that show the Government’s work-focused approach to the benefit system is working?
6. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with the business group Pure Advantage that “countries that reduce the carbon dependency of their economies most quickly and develop carbon friendly technologies will be the most prosperous in the 21st century”?
7. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcement has he made about mineral prospectivity in Northland?
8. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Minister of Education: Does her plan to improve teacher quality include reinstating the $45 million cut from teacher professional development in Budget 2009; if not, why not?
9. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Transport: What progress has the Government made on the Vehicle Licensing Reform project?
10. ANDREW LITTLE to the Minister for ACC: What responsibility does she take for failures at ACC since the 2011 Election?
11. Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR to the Minister of Corrections: Is she confident that Serco will meet the contracted performance requirements at the new prison in Wiri, despite the fact that Serco has been failing performance targets at Mount Eden Corrections Facility by 40 percent?
12. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Corrections: What steps is the Government taking to improve the safety of staff in prisons?

Patsy of the day goes to Q9 – What progress has the Government made on the Vehicle Licensing Reform project?

Labour are asking on superannuation twice, education and ACC.

Greens are on carbon dependency, Maori Party on pokies and NZ First on private prisons.

General Debate 3 pm – 4 pm

The weekly free for all. 12 speeches of five minutes each on any topic.

Members Bills 4 pm – 6 pm and 7.30 pm – 10 pm 

1. Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill – first reading
2. Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill – first reading
3. Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill – first reading
4. Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill – third reading
5. Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill – first reading

The three local bills could take up the entire session as the debates can last six hours in total. But if each has only a few speakers, then the next two bills might be progressed.

The Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill was introduced in May 2012 by Jacqui Dean and seeks to to revoke the reservation of 2 pieces of land within the Waitaki District and to clarify the status of a third piece of land in that district.

The Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill was introduced in May 2012 by Te Ururoa Flavell and seeks to repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975.

The Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill was introduced in May 2012 by Gerry Brownlee and seeks to modernise and update the governance arrangements for the Board known as the Riccarton Bush Trustees.

The Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill was introduced in November 2009 by Amy Adams (Nat) and is now in the name of Michael Woodhouse (Nat). It seeks to increase the transparency and public accountability of third-party businesses that collect funds on behalf of registered charities, by mandating disclosure of how much money actually goes to the charity. It was supported by all parties at first reading, and after amendment by the Commerce Committee also by all parties. It also passed second reading and committee stage on a voice vote.

The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill was introduced in November 2010 by Kennedy Graham and seeks to create a register of pecuniary interests for Judges.

Stuff reports:

Cabinet minister Judith Collins should be the next scalp in the ”ACC crisis”, Labour’s Andrew Little says.

Chief executive Ralph Stewart quit this morning following a boardroom clean out which has claimed chair John Judge, deputy John McCliskie and another director Rob Campbell.

That is either silliness by Andrew Little, or him trying to get escape the consequences of the defamation suit over his earlier remarks.

The Opposition has called for the Chair and CEO to go. That is exactly what has happened. They should be thanking the Minister for actually taking action to fix ACC’s culture.

Collins has been the Minister since December 2011. The Board and CEO all pre-date her.

Andrew may not like the fact that the Minister is suing him. His call for her to resign has no basis in substance.

I think it shows that Little is more concerned about utu against the Minister for suing him, rather than genuinely wanting change at ACC.

UPDATE: Stuff reports:

However, Green party MP Kevin Hague said Collins must stay on the job.

The “sick entitlement culture” in the House was the “big picture issue.”

“The minister who presided over that, Nick Smith; the hatchet man that he appointed, John Judge; and now Ralph Stewart – [their departures] were necessary steps to begin the process of refreshing the organisation.

“Now, in terms of Collins’ culpability around that – she wasn’t the minister that required all those changes. She has actually dealt to Judge, although I would have preferred a more explicit sacking.

“She’s clearly said ACC’s privacy sackings are unacceptable and must change and that’s actually a pretty good start. She may be the minister to do all this.”

I think this shows the stark differences between Greens and Labour. Kevin Hague actually cares about the people who have had a bad experience with ACC. He want to improve things – not just to score political points. This is in stark contrast to Labour’s Little who sees ACC purely as a political issue to help Labour gain their rightful place governing the masses.

I’ve never had a problem congratulating Labour Ministers when they do something right. Little seems incapable of doing the same with Collins.

The Office of the Auditor-General has announced:

The Deputy Auditor-General, Phillippa Smith, has decided to carry out an inquiry into the expressions of interest (EOI) process for proposals to establish an international convention centre. This document sets out the terms of reference for the inquiry. …

The inquiry will examine:

• the overall process for seeking and assessing proposals for an international convention centre;
• the adequacy of the assessment of the likely costs and benefits of each proposal; and
• any other matters the Deputy Auditor-General considers it desirable to report on.

The inquiry is being carried out under sections 16 and 18(1) of the Public Audit Act 2001. We will not comment while the inquiry is under way, but will publish a report when the inquiry is completed.

The Auditor-General has a small share-holding in Sky City, so hence the Deputy is doing the inquiry.

It is good that DAG is investigating. On the basis of what is known, I don’t think there is a problem – but sunlight is the best disinfectant. We benefit from having a strong and independent Auditor-General and associated office.

It is important that the decision to in principle award the contract to Sky City was made in a sound and fair way. The inquiry will look into that and either confirm it was, or point out deficiencies – either way it will be good to have its conclusions.

Labour and Greens have called for negotiations to halt during the inquiry. The parties may decide to do this, but I don’t see it as a major issue. Even if a agreement is reached, it can only be enacted by Act of Parliament which would take six to 12 months and go through normal select committee scrutiny.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Labour and the Greens have promised not to attack Prime Minister John Key if he agrees to cross-party talks on the pension age.

Mr Key admitted yesterday that National was isolated over the issue but is standing firm, saying lifting the age is “a very simplistic way of looking at a very complex issue”.

The debate has raged over the last few days with a series of reports questioning the affordability of the current scheme.

It is bullshit that Labour and the Greens would not attack Key if broke his word on superannuation. Every second TV ad at the election would show him having said he would resign if he changed the age or level of super.

It is quite correct that future superannuation costs are not affordable without large increases in taxation. But this is not some new revelation. This has been known for over 20 years. Up until 2008 Labour and Greens never showed any interest in reducing the future cost of superannuation. Labour in fact attacked the age going from 60 to 65 and savaged Don Brash when he suggested further changes were necessary.

While Labour and Greens support for increasing the age is welcome, lets make no mistake that the primary motivation is anything except to destroy John Key’s political credibility. Does anyone honestly think that if Key had not made the pledge he made in 2008, that Labour would be pushing for cutting spending on superannuation – when every other policy they have is to increase public spending?

I have previously written in the Herald that I believe the 2008 pledge was wrong, and I regret it was made. However Key must never break his word on this issue – his pledge was too specific, where he said he would resign both as PM and as an MP.

But there does need to be a way forward. However this is a path that should not be rushed. Any changes are likely to be post 2025 or even later. Whether decisions are made in 2015 or 2017 is not going to be greatly material.

The first step that the Government should take is to entrench the current scheme for everyone born before say 1960. Pass legislation saying that nothing short of a super-majority in Parliament can change that scheme. This provides absolute certainty for current retirees and those near retirement. All parties in Parliament would hopefully vote for such legislation.

Then the Government should establish some sort of expert group on retirement savings for post 2025. We need a debate on more than just the age of entitlement. Merely changing the age does not make superannuation sustainable. It helps – but by itself is not enough. Also people may be unaware that Labour’s policy is not to simply increase the age, but to apply a means test to it for those aged 65 and 66 – this could result in minor savings only.

Merely moving the age to 67, will by 2030 make a difference of 0.7% of GDP. With Labour’s mean testing proposal, it is even less than that.  The debate must be about more than just the age.

We need a first principles review of retirement savings – not just public superannuation, but also workplace superannuation such as KiwiSaver and also private savings. Merely changing the retirement age is a knee jerk response which is more about trying to nobble John Key than making superannuation sustainable. We absolutely have to also consider the level at which it is set, the indexing, income or asset testing, fixed sum vs annuity etc. We need to define the minimum income people need in retirement and look at how much should come from public superannuation, from KiwiSaver and/or from private savings.

The current focus for the Government is the short-term fiscal outlook – getting back to surplus. Changes to superannuation after 2025 will not impact that, so I agree there is no need to be trying to resolve the issue today or this year. However as we get close to the hoped for surplus in 2014, this is when the focus should go on the longer term fiscal sustainability.

My wish is that in 2014, National does three things:

1. Introduce legislation, with cross-party support, to legislatively guarantee the current superannuation scheme for those born before 1960. This doesn’t mean any changes for those born after 1960 – just that those arrangements will not be entrenched like for those born pre 1960. This means that Grey Power can not run a scare campaign that their members could ever be impacted by a future change. Also it would stop the current scheme being made even more unsustainable.
2. Set up (preferably with cross-party support) a royal commission on retirement savings. This would be tasked with designing a sustainable savings regime for those born after 1960.
3. Announce that the essentials of the regime proposed by the Royal Commission would go to a referendum in 2017. The public would get to decide whether to stay with the status quo or adopt the new model for those who retire after 2025. No cherry picking of some aspects – it has to be a binary choice.

From a public policy point of view this would be a desirable outcome. Those currently retired and near retirement would have absolute certainty over their retirement income arrangements. A binding referendum on the post 2025 arrangements would also provide certainty and a political consensus for those of us born after 1960.

From a political point of view, I believe this would be achievable without the Prime Minister having been seen to go back on his pledge. Any change will be made by the people, not by the Government. But also by having the referendum in 2017, it is likely Key will have retired by then (hopefully winning a third term, serving the majority of a third term but not necessarily trying to win a fourth term).

National doeesn’t need to take any action today, or even in 2013. But in 2014, I think it will be desirable for it to adopt an approach along the lines outlined above – both because it would be the right thing for the country, but also good for National.

It is important that we do not allow the debate on superannuation to be just about lifting the retirement age to 67. That would provide a false sense of security, and just be kicking the problem to touch for a few more years.

Stuff reports:

A cleanout of the ACC board will continue with two more directors to be released from the top of the troubled state insurer.

Chairman John Judge was effectively shown the door yesterday after political pressure over the Bronwyn Pullar case.

The Dominion Post has learnt that his deputy, John McCliskie, and another director, Rob Campbell, will also be replaced.

ACC Minister Judith Collins confirmed last night that the terms of five board members expired in March, and three would not be renewed.

“I think what you’ll see is a change in direction. The fact is, we have board members whose terms have expired and I’m taking the opportunity to bring in people who I believe will be able to help change the direction,” Ms Collins said.

It will be interesting to see who the new Directors are. They have a challenge ahead of them.

Ms Collins said she had seen a legal opinion prepared by Hugh Rennie, QC, for Mr Judge, which backed the decision to refer Ms Pullar to police over her refusal to return private details about thousands of other ACC claimants she was accidentally sent and blackmail claims.

“I don’t know what else they could do, actually, on the information that they had. They had a situation where the claimant wasn’t giving the information back to them at that stage…

It would be useful for ACC to release this legal opinion. Most importantly so it can be assessed whether it is based on the seemingly false report of the December meeting – or was written after that recording or transcript was made available.

Also if the intent was simply to get the documents returned, then surely the correct course of action would be to have informed the Privacy Commissioner of the privacy breach and ask her office to assist in getting the information deleted by Pullar. Of course they never informed the Privacy Commissioner of the breach.

Stuff reports:

The Irish government has pardoned thousands of servicemen who deserted to fight for the Allied forces during World War Two after the Irish state decided to remain neutral in the war against Adolf Hitler’s Germany.

Ireland maintained its neutrality throughout the war, saying any other course would have threatened its independence, secured from Britain in 1921, and President Eamon DeValera signed a book of condolences on the death of Hitler in 1945.

About 60,000 people from the Irish state fought in the British Forces during the war, including some 7000 servicemen who deserted from the Irish armed forces.

The Irish government summarily dismissed all of those who deserted and disqualified them from state employment for seven years. Relatives say the deserters were stigmatised for decades.

“The government apologises for the manner in which those members of the defence forces who left to fight on the Allied side during World War Two were treated after the war by the state,” Minister for Justice and Defence Alan Shatter said in an address to parliament.

“In the almost 73 years since the outbreak of World War II, our understanding of history has matured,” he said. “It is time for understanding and forgiveness.”

This should not have taken 73 years. I’d say our understanding of the evil nature of Hitler has been known for some time.

It is not widely known that Churchil offered Ireland a united island, if they agreed to allow British use of bases and ports. Think how many lives would have been saved if they had agreed – and Ireland would be one country today.

The offering condolences to Germany on the death of Hitler was a major blunder, which especially insulted the US – as no condolences were given to them on the death of Roosevelt.

Interestingly Ireland was not allowed into the UN until 1955, due to its neutrality. The country which kept vetoing its admission was the USSR!

The Attorney-General has delivered the required report on how the Lobby Disclosure Bill by Holly Walker complies with Bill of Rights Act. The conclusion is that it would be an unjustified limitation of the right to freedom of expression. Some extracts:

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. George Washington remarked “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” …

The AG also quotes former Green MP Keith Locke:

“… All should be given the right to express a view no matter how disconcerting it should be, on even the most difficult or abhorrent of issues… Implicit in free speech is the idea that the community benefits from an untrammelled exchange of views and that every participant might have something to add to our enlightenment.”

Quoting the wisdom of Keith Locke on a bill by a Green MP, means that presumably the Greens won’t attack the opinion as one they disagree with.

The conclusion is:

Whilst a requirement to register as a lobbyist and the imposition of various obligations to disclose publicly information about lobbying activities undertaken do not prevent expression, they do limit the ability to express information freely.  Some people may be dissuaded from expressing themselves because of the implications of the Bill. 

I therefore consider that the Bill is prima facie inconsistent with s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act.

Then the question is, can the limitation be justified. The AG says that some regulation can be justified, to increase transparency but:

The limits on freedom of expression sought to be imposed by the Bill are greater than reasonably necessary to meet the objective.  This is because, primarily due to poor drafting, the Bill goes well beyond the activities of professional lobbyists to include a wide range of other activities.

An example:

The Bill will also capture people who send a one-off email to their Member of Parliament on behalf of their incorporated farm or small business regarding any government policy.  This is because the Bill does not exclude from its scope organisations who are not professional lobbyists and do not have significant involvement in lobbying.  The Bill may also capture a person from a media outlet who arranges a face-to-face interview between a journalist and a Minister.

This means:

 Individuals in the examples above may restrain themselves from making communications if they did not want to be considered a lobbyist and incur potential criminal sanctions for communicating with Ministers or Members of Parliament.  This is an unacceptable and dangerous limit on freedom of expression.

And finally:

This Bill significantly limits core democratic expression. In going well beyond what would be required to regulate the activities of lobbyists, it risks creating a chilling effect for average New Zealanders who may fear criminal sanctions for merely communicating with a Member of Parliament on behalf of their business in relation to government policy.  This would be an unacceptable limit on a core element of freedom of expression.

I favour the bill going to select committee, but it is clear that it will need to be significantly amended to proceed beyond select committee.

Judith Collins has announced:

ACC Minister Judith Collins today announced that Ms Paula Rebstock will be Acting Chair on the ACC Board until a new Board Chair is appointed.

To complete the financial year for ACC it has been agreed that Mr Judge will remain as Chair until 30 June 2012.

Mr Judge takes up the role of Chair of the ANZ National Bank on 23 June 2012.

Ms Collins says Mr Judge’s new role is a significant appointment and will require even more of his time than his current role as a director.

“I would like to thank Mr Judge for the contribution he has made during his time as Chair of the Board.

“I particularly acknowledge the role he has played in returning ACC to financial health.

“I believe privacy and information security is now the number one priority for ACC and it must refocus on rebuilding public trust and confidence.”

It is obvious that the Chair’s resignation is not just about his new job as Chair of ANZ National Bank. It is good to see the Minister not accepting the status quo as acceptable. And to be fair to John Judge, he did play a major role in restoring ACC to financial health.

ACC has a tough job at the best of times. There definitely are a number of people who try tot rort the system. We’ve seen some of them prosecuted in the courts, and their numbers are not insignificant. As an employer who pays many thousands in ACC levies, I do want ACC to be vigilant and not a soft touch.

However that doesn’t mean treating every long-term claimant as a rorter or faker, and especially not interfering with independent medical assessments, and also not using language such as we saw on 60 minutes. It is obvious there are parts of ACC that has a culture problem, and they also have serious privacy issues.

The focus on rebuilding public trust and confidence is the right one.

The 2012 Otago Foreign Policy School runs from Friday 22 June to Sunday 24 June at St Margaret’s College on the University of Otago campus, for those interested. The school is opened by Foreign Minister Murray McCully and speakers include:

• Professor Kemal Kirisci, Bogaziçi University, Turkey
• Professor Meir Litvak, Tel Aviv University, Israel
• Dr Christopher Davidson, University of Durham, United Kingdom
• Professor Ahmed Hashim, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
• Professor Marie-Joëlle Zahar, L’Université de Montréal, Canada
• Dr Sally Totman, Deakin University, Australia
• Dr Nigel Parsons, Massey University
• Gabriele Cascone, NATO headquarters
• Dr Leon Goldsmith, University of Otago
• Professor William Harris, University of Otago

Maxim has done some tax tracking scenarios, for four different people or households. They are:

• Minimum wage earner
• Median income earner
• Median income household
• High income household

The minimum wage earner pays an average 13.5% tax being $3,320. The high income household pays $33,240 tax. Some of the breakdown of what that goes on is:

• NZ Super $4,745
• Family Tax Credits $995
• DPB $857
• Invalids $622
• Accom Supp $580
• DHBs $5,611
• Primary schools $1,355
• Tertiary tuition $1,121
• Secondary schools $1,010
• ECE $653
• Student loans $330
• Tertiary allowances $289
• Defence $926
• KiwiSaver $332
• Debt $1,748