Stuff reported:

In practice, an employment agreement containing a trial period must be given to a prospective employee at the same time as, and as part of, making a job offer. An employee is entitled to know that his or her employment will be subject to a trial period before accepting the job offer.

The cases have also shown that trial period clauses, which do not state that an employer can dismiss an employee during the trial period and that an employee cannot bring a personal grievance in respect of the dismissal, will be unenforceable.

A common misconception is that trial periods effectively extinguish all of an employee’s legal rights for the first 90 days of employment. When it appears the employee’s performance or attitude is not meeting requirements, there is still an obligation to address this during the trial period. An employer who takes no steps to deal with performance shortcomings during a trial period and dismisses an employee on the 89th day of the trial period may well face claims of unjustified disadvantage and breach of the duty of good faith.

As part of this duty of good faith, the Court has also said that an employer should, if asked, provide an explanation or reasons for the dismissal to the employee. This is because an employee should not be deprived of the ability to learn from an unsuccessful trial period even though the employee has a limited ability to challenge that.

So all the claims that an employer can sack you on day 89 for no reason, and refuse to tell you why has proven false.

Will Labour retain their promise to repeal the law, and be the only OECD country without a trial period?

The Herald reports:

Bert Potter, the leader and founder of controversial spiritual commune Centrepoint has died, aged 86.

Potter’s daughter-in-law, Felicity Goodyear-Smith, confirmed Potter died early today.

He had a fall yesterday at a private hospital and was taken to Middlemore Hospital where he continued to deteriorate, became unconscious and died early about 1am.

Centrepoint was opened by Potter in 1977 and at its peak had a permit for 244 fulltime residents. It was shut down in 2000 after some leaders, including Potter, were convicted on sexual abuse and drugs crimes.

Potter was convicted and sentenced in 1990 to 3-1/2 years in jail on drug charges, and in 1992 to 7-1/2 years for indecent assaults on five children, some as young as three and a half.

Five other men were also convicted on charges of indecently assaulting minors, sexually assaulting minors and attempted rape of a minor.

They say if you can’t say something nice about someone who has died, don’t say anything at all so . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

John Kleinsman writes in the SST:

But so, I would argue, is every other personal view. Whether or not people are personally in favour of, or opposed to euthanasia, is ultimately beside the point. To ask this question, as a recent Sunday Star-Times’ poll did, is to ask the wrong question. The crucial question is whether euthanasia can be safely implemented in the current context. Maryan Street, MP, glibly asserts that it can, while ignoring overseas evidence that says otherwise. I and many other New Zealanders of no religious persuasion believe differently. Our argument centres on safety and protection of those who are vulnerable.

If the debate is about how do we make euthanasia safe, rather than does a person have a right to end their own life, then that is a step forward.

We should firstly recognise that we already have unregulated passive euthanasia in New Zealand, where people are allowed to die, even though they could be kept alive. I think there is far greater risk in the status quo, than in legislating the circumstances under which someone’s wishes to die can be implemented with assistance.

The Northern Territory law mandated:

• A patient had to be over 18 and be mentally and physically competent
• The request had to be supported by three doctors, including a specialist who confirmed that the patient was terminally ill and a psychiatrist who certified that the patient was not suffering from treatable depression
• A nine day cooling off period

That seems like good safeguards to me. In the Netherlands the safeguards are:

• the patient’s suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
• the patient’s request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time
• the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
• there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
• the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present
• the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)
• A regional review committee assesses whether a case of termination of life on request or assisted suicide complies with the due care criteria

I think 12 is far too young, and would take the restrictions from the Northern Territory as being stronger.

The reality is that that it is not that difficult to come up with restrictions and safeguards to restrict it to cases where the patient is in immense pain and suffering, and will die anyway. Having a euthanasia law will in fact allow many patients to live longer as as present some kill themselves while they are still able. A euthanasia law would mean they would not have to do so, if they knew later on they could ask for euthanasia. Those who have Huntington’s Disease especially would benefit.

That the dangers of euthanasia are real is readily acknowledged by those wanting to legalise it. It explains why a lot of emphasis is placed on building in so-called safeguards. It has also been admitted by Maryan Street, in a public debate, that no amount of safeguards can stop the law being abused. So the argument about dangers cannot be dismissed as the rantings of “meddling god-botherers”.

Any law can be abused. We have a law against murder, but that doesn’t stop it. We have euthanasia happening at the moment, despite no law. The fact a law can be ignored is not a reason to not rationally consider the benefits of such a law.

I recently met Sean Davison, who was convicted of assisting in the suicide of his mother. He strikes me as a genuine, warm person, who had the courage to follow his beliefs. It is apparent he did not make his decision lightly, and that he thought long and hard about his action. But there will no longer be any need for the same degree of soul-searching if euthanasia was to become legal.

What John Kleinsman glosses over is Sean Davison faced a criminal trial and could have neded up in jail for many years, as the result of his love and compassion. I do not believe making euthanasia legal will mean there is no soul-searching. But it will transfer the decision from Sean to his mother – she is the person who should have got to decide, rather than have her son tormented by agreeing to her wishes.

In addition, in a society that is increasingly characterised by the isolation of the elderly, growing pressure on health care resources, and growing numbers of elderly people requiring expensive care, legalising euthanasia will contribute to those who are at the end of life, and those who are disabled, increasingly feeling they are a burden. They will feel as if they have to justify their existence to the rest of us.

I do not accept that argument, and regardless I would propose that it be available only to those in considerable pain and suffering – not just those who are old.

It is what one commentator has called “the distant and off-handed dismissal of the quality of life of certain people”. No law can offer safeguards against this. The right to die will quickly become the duty to die.

It hasn’t where it has been legal. This is just scare-mongering.

We should not underestimate, even for a moment, the subtle ways, conscious and unconscious, families have of putting pressure on their own to relieve their burden of care – both emotional and financial. Those working with the dying know this only too well. The very act of making euthanasia legal will remove the most effective barrier we currently have against such abuses.

Simple – you do not allow it, unless they are in pain and suffering. Merely dying of old age will not qualify.

Ian Steward in the SST reports:

Rates of serious violent crime double within 900m of a liquor outlet, a new study has found.

And the nationwide study has confirmed that the more liquor stores an area has, the more likely it is to have a higher rate of serious violent crime, regardless of poverty and other factors.

Now I think there is an obvious linkage, as alcohol is a factor in some violent crime.

Study lead author Peter Day said the study ranked the country’s 286 police station areas into five groups (quintiles) according to their rate of serious violent crime.

“The number of alcohol outlets consistently increased with increasing quintiles of serious violent offence rates,” the study said.

A more detailed analysis was performed using census “mesh blocks” where the country was divided into 41,393 small blocks representing about 100 people in each.

Using mapping software researchers were able to work out the median travel distance to a liquor outlet. Areas with the lowest rates of serious violence had to travel a median distance of 4.5km to the nearest off-licence. For the highest rates of serious violence, the median distance to an off-licence was just 1.1km.

Using the mesh block analysis, crime rates were calculated for distances from liquor outlets. On average nationwide the incidence of serious violent crime doubled once you got within 900m of a liquor outlet.

I do wonder though how much of this effect, is just because people are in more dense urban areas. As a comparison, what if you compared violent crime incidence to the distance to the nearest hairdresser? Would you also find there is more violence crime close to hairdressers?

Alac chief executive Gerard Vaughan said the current law did not take into account how many outlets were in an area when granting licences.

“If you want to set up a pub or a restaurant you need to get resource consent and demonstrate you’re a person of good character. There’s no consideration around `does this community need another licence?’,” he said.

The Alcohol Reform Bill will give local authorities the ability to set a local alcohol policy. I can understand the desire not to have a bottle store at every corner. However I hope that restaurants would not be declined on the basis of pre-existing restaurants.

The three spikes with the highest numbers of liquor outlets were Auckland central (447 alcohol licences), Wellington central (423) and Christchurch central (394), all of which had high crime rates.

Again, how much is this due to urban density?

The Herald on Sunday reports:

Banks, copping heavy criticism over donations from Kim Dotcom and SkyCity listed as being anonymous from his 2010 mayoralty bid, has lost a great deal of support, according to the Herald on Sunday-Key Research survey.

Only 10 per cent of electors would vote for him now – down from 44.1 per cent at the election last November – and a National candidate would romp home. 

The poll results are no surprise, and reflect my gut feeling that Epsom voters will vote for a National candidate, no matter what.

I would point out though one historical fact. No poll ever done in Epsom has shown an ACT candidate winning the seat – and they did win in 2005, 2008 and 2011. Epsom voters understand the tactical advantage of doing so.

However that tactical advantage disappears when there is little possibility of getting 1.2% of the party vote and one or more List MPs.

I’ve become quite addicted to Today I ate a baguette blog – a travel blog by a former ministerial staffer.

Her post on ANZAC day at Gallipoli I thought was worth blogging about. The photos and commentary capture the essence of ANZAC Day so well.

I’m seriously considering going over there for the 2015 ANZAC Day. Yes I know it will be insanely crowded, but it will be an incredible experience.

An interesting discussion on The Nation with Colin Craig of the CCCP. Some extracts:

Duncan        Well is does, it means 5% probably, but economically you don’t line up with those on the right do you, because you don’t believe in those taxcuts that John Key did.  You don’t believe in asset sales.

Colin            Be a matter of timing only…

Duncan        We’ll get to that, but you don’t believe in the foreign investment around Crafer Farms, do you?

Colin            No I don’t, I think the Crafer Farms is a bad deal for New Zealand.

I see little to distinguish the CCCP economic policy from NZ First. I guess one difference is the leadership – Colin Craig better a slightly more palatable option than Winston.

Duncan        What would be a deal breaker around policy for a Conservative Party, what is so important to you?

Colin            I think issues for us very much fiscal and budget issues.  We can’t support continued increase in government expending.  Now National made a clear promise they would cut the spending, but did not.  Now for us we’ve got to bring the budget back under control.

Duncan        So you’re saying they’re not doing enough?

Colin            No, they’re not.  I don’t think they’ve made the brave or the hard decisions they should have made.

Duncan        Well you’ve had two zero budgets, with the second one of course coming up in two weeks’ time.  What would you have done differently.  Are you saying you would have gone much further than that.  Conservative Party in a future government would be pushing for much tougher cuts?

Colin            Yeah, in our current situation absolutely.

Duncan        What would you get rid of?

Colin            I would look at any spending that’s not delivering results and say well no results no money.

Duncan        But can you give me examples of what you would get rid of?

Colin            One example would be say the Family Court where we spend heading towards 200 million.  Now the model that’s used overseas that works very well is not one where we arm you know disputing partners with lawyers and put them in a court.  It’s a mediation model, it has a much higher success rate, and it costs less money to run.  So that’s just one example where we’d say gotta be far more innovative around our spending.

Here though they have some appeal. Winston demands extra spending/bribes regardless of the fiscal situation. Craig wants to cut spending. Not sure I agree on the Family Court (and the cost is $137m, not $200m) but all for a party supporting cutting wasteful spending.

Duncan        Colin Craig do you think that you could be a long term partner for a National Party?

Colin            Oh I think we could be obviously.  We’re a small party, we’re only six months in, so we’re very young, but we’re growing, we’re still growing.

Duncan        But you’d put aside some of your disagreements around those central economic…?

Colin            Inevitably in politics you can’t get everything you want.  That’s just how politics is.

This is a significant change from the election. Maybe Colin Craig is listening to some good advice now. He went into the campaign declaring he could support National or Labour, so why would centre-right voters vote for him? He also declared certain policies non negotiable, which is unwise at 2%.

I would prefer a classical liberal partner for National. But I’d take a Conservative Party partner over having no partner at all – so long as their policies are not worse than the alternative of a Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana Government.

The Herald editorial:

Not many professions are held in such high regard as teaching. People, by and large, recognise that few jobs are so demanding and offer so relatively little in financial reward. All the more surprise, therefore, that a Herald-Digipoll survey this week revealed that a clear majority are now happy to disregard the adamant view of the teachers’ unions and support performance pay for the profession.

Making it the rare combination of both right and popular.

Fortunately, MPs on Britain’s education select committee are less timid. In a report released this week, they said teachers’ pay should be more closely tied to the value they add to pupils’ performance, so the best were rewarded while the weakest were discouraged from staying in the profession. They urged the Cameron Government to develop proposals for a pay system that rewarded teachers who added the “greatest value” to pupil performance. Whatever the practical and political difficulties in this, they said, the value of an outstanding teacher was so great that these must be overcome.

Exactly. Of course there are practical challenges. But that is no reason not to try. The evidence is clear that the ability of a teacher to connect with their students has more influence on educational outcomes than any other factor such as class size, school, poverty etc.

There is no doubt that agreement on measures of excellence presents an obstacle to pay on merit, probably an insuperable one for national negotiations. But it would provide little difficulty if left to school principals and their boards. The boards become well acquainted with the work of individual teachers, while principals must know which of their teachers are doing the most to improve the achievements of their pupils.

This is absolutely right, and why the teacher unions are so against. To make performance pay work, you need to decentralise salaries.

Throughout its first term, the Government showed little interest in challenging teachers’ national pay negotiating system. The new minister’s statement offers little hope of change, and little encouragement to excellent teachers who continue to feel undervalued. Paradoxically, Labour Party leader David Shearer may have given a stronger signal when he talked earlier this year of acting against the “bad teachers in our classrooms”. The findings of the Herald-Digipoll survey should provide the requisite backbone for politicians of all shades. As should the way in which education will suffer until excellence in teaching is recognised.

It is a battle worth fighting.

Phil Taylor in the NZ Herald has a lengthy article about criticisms of the Supreme Court.

I blogged a few months ago on this topic, after the Court Report did an episode on it.

Farmer is another who says expert commercial judges are needed and the Law Commission has noted, as part of its review of the law underpinning the courts, that such concerns exist “in the commercial community”. It suggests expert panels be set up, while Attorney-General Chris Finlayson recently said “there is much to be said for some specialisation in the High Court”.

The Law Commission, however, has indicated many judges are against it and senior barristers have told the Herald that Chief Justice Sian Elias is opposed to formal specialisation and expects every judge to have broad competence.

Specialisation seems a very sensible idea to me. It won’t solve all the issues about the Supreme Court, but it will be beneficial at lower courts, and over time may flow through to the Supreme Court.

The Herald reports:

In a draft determination, the Commerce Commission indicated it wants to reduce the geographically averaged unbundled copper local loop (UCLL) service to $19.75 a month from its current price of $24.46 over two years.

UCLL lets Chorus’s competitors use the copper network between an exchange and an end-customer’s premise to offer their own voice and broadband services. The current urban price only has to come down $19.81, and the biggest access gains would be in non-urban areas, which are sitting at $36.63. …

Wholesale prices for access to the copper lines were averaged as a result of legislation enabling Telecom to carve out its Chorus unit last year, something that rankled with rival telecommunications companies who claimed it would lift their costs. The de-averaged urban and non-urban prices are $15.82 and $29.19 respectively, the regulator said.

It is a pity the Government decided to require an averaged price, as it means urban users are subsidising rural users. Instead of urban users getting a wholesale price drop of $3.99 and rural of $7.44 the drops are $0.06 for urban and $16.88 for rural.

But still good to see overall wholesale prices heading in the right direction.

Yay. Boris Johnson has been re-elected Mayor of London, beating the loathsome Ken Livingstone. This is despite a big backlash against the Conservatives and Lib Dems. Labour picked up almost 800 Council seats in a good night for them. The UK Independence Party also polled well.

The first round saw Boris get 44.9% and Livingstone 41.1%. After preferences were re-allocated it was 51.5% to 48.5%.

Ken Livingstone in his concession speech said that this result settles the next leadership contest for the Conservative Party, and I think he is right. When Cameron’s time is up, Boris will have huge support to take the top job.

Fran O’Sullivan backs David Shearer:

But unlike Cunliffe and Robertson he is not hostage to Labour’s past policy positions. He wasn’t an active player in policy formation for the 2011 general election. This has proved to be a strength – not a weakness – as he quickly jettisoned one of Labour’s more wacky election policies, wiping GST on fruit and vegetables. He followed through yesterday by abandoning another ill-considered Labour policy to support Government borrowing offshore to top up the Super Fund.

Shearer’s moves display political courage. He is not afraid to upset grassroot Labour Party members. By adopting a classically rational approach he will increase Labour’s appeal to centrist voters from across the voting spectrum.

I agree, so long as he can carry his party with him. Trevor Mallard was attacking National’s suspensions of contributions to the NZ Super Fund just two days before Shearer announced he is adopting National’s policy.

Also John Roughan writes:

Shearer seemed a normal guy who is not a natural at the arts of politics. For that reason I’d like to see him succeed.

Not too soon, of course. John Key is doing good things and if he continues the way he is going he will deserve the three terms New Zealand voters usually give a government. But Labour’s turn will come and when it does I hope Shearer is still there.

I think that is being optimistics. If Shearer doesn’t win in 2014, I find it hard to imagine he will be there in 2017.

Stuff reports:

Wellington’s Transmission Gully has been given draft approval, almost a century after it was first mooted.

In a draft decision released today an independent board of inquiry, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency said it would approve resource consent for the $1 billion, 27km inland highway from Linden to north of Paekakariki.

It will release its final decision in mid-June after feedback. That decision is binding and can be appealed against only on a point of law.

Today’s draft decision marks the latest hurdle in a project which – if and when completed – will be over a century from inception to realisation.

An inland alternative route out of Wellington was first mooted in 1919 and has been under serious investigation since the 1980s.

If only it had been built a generation ago. But better late than never.  Four lanes from the airport to Levin will make a huge difference to transport in the region.

An article in The Press from a few days ago about ECan two years after the dysfunctional Councillors were sacked. First the past:

As the regional level authority, it had become paralysed by an internal conflict between largely green-minded metropolitan councillors and development- minded country councillors.

And it was a double failure because while none of the sensible big projects – the dam and canal networks to trap the annual snow melt – could get off the ground, ECan had also proved incapable of stopping farmers from drilling wells into the aquifers under their own land, or gaining consents to extract from local rivers.

There was still a water goldrush going on, but of the least sustainable kind.

And now:

Some say the earthquakes have naturally over-ridden all other public concerns. Or that the commissioners have cleverly stayed out of sight – people have forgotten they are even there.

And yet a surprising number have also remarked that the commissioners seem to be working out rather well. And furthermore, now the right people are in charge, the idea of a regional council is not looking so bad after all.

Sacking the Councillors may have saved ECan. Otherwise it was perhaps inevitable local authorities would go unitary.

The old ECan took an adversarial approach. Its role was framed negatively – the guardian of the natural landscape usually telling people what not to do.

“In these sorts of work environments, people are very conscious of the rules. You’ve got to operate within the frameworks,” says Bazley.

And making it worse was the political friction – the fact the council table was split 50-50 between the rural and urban factions.

For staff, it was like being the children caught in the middle of a messy divorce. Bazley says they had become even more risk averse because any action was liable to set off one or other side.

“I’ve seen many of these organisations where staff work to the rules to protect themselves, as opposed to where staff are confident they will be backed and so are prepared to stand up.”

She could sense this atmosphere immediately she arrived. “Staff scuttled by with their heads down.” So the biggest difference the commissioners could make was just to free officers to use their initiative, Bazley says.

Each of the commissioners was put in charge of a portfolio. For example, Caygill manages water, while Bedford handles air quality and Williams deals with transport issues. Bazley says this gave staff a clear boss. No-one was stepping on anyone else’s toes.

She says as a result her commission meetings are a breeze. “Usually there’s only one right decision and we quickly get agreement on it. We don’t even have uproars to report on in private.”

Is this just Bazley’s views?

Speaking from the staff point of view, Bazley’s claims of a change in culture are supported by Christina Robb, ECan’s programme manager for water and land. Caught on the hop at a public meeting on the water plan’s progress, Robb happily confirmed the difference.

She says staff used to spend much of their time in meetings with councillors. What mattered was what was being said inside the council chamber. There was a natural inward focus to the organisation.

But now those discussions take place out in the community with the commissioners at places like zone committee meetings. “I’m just out so much more. I’m not all day in some council workshop.”

And as Bazley says, the shift is from thinking regulation to thinking problem solving.

So ECan is actually serving voters and the community better, but having removed the politicians who had paralysed it. There is nothing wrong with politicians in charge, so long as they put the welfare of the body they sit on ahead of their own welfare. But it seems obvious that this was not the case at ECan.

Far from the commissioners taking away from the democracy of water decisions, Robb says their “benign dictatorship” seems in fact better aligned to a community- based consultation process.

The Government probably was not smart enough to have seen that in advance, Robb laughs, but the commissioners have ended up more directly accountable for ECan’s decisions.

“These commissioners take their need to be out in the community and to be doing what the community wants very, very seriously.”

This is not a reason to keep the Commissioners on beyond the 2013 elections, but it is a reminder that local government is the creation of Parliament, and Parliament has the ability to intervene if they fail.

However, Caygill denies any dark motives. It really is about allowing Cantabrians themselves to form the policies around appropriate agricultural development, he says.

Caygill says those who are going to be investing in the big irrigation projects – the energy companies, bankers and farmer collectives – just want certainty about the ground rules.

“I was at a public meeting last night and the irrigation representative said farmers need and welcome the idea of limits. I thought that was a really good statement to hear.”

Caygill says it is going to take decades for them to see the return on their investments, so they need a stable consensus as much as anyone.

A politically imposed solution, one against the wishes of the people, will fall apart pretty fast. But a water plan with a buy-in starting at the grassroots level will be very difficult to unmake.

And that consensus has been emerging, says Caygill.

Excellent.

My Herald column is online here. It is written in quite a different style to my normal columns. An extract:

The Association of Consumers and Taxpayers was born in 1993 to Roger Douglas and Derek Quigley, in one of the nation’s first “queer” marriages. Prior to 1993, a National and Labour politician had never had a child together.

The new born infant was precocious, abbreviating its name to ACT before it even attended primary school. At three years old it got elected to Parliament despite having no current MPs there – something not achieved since 1978.

ACT’s parliamentary childhood was reasonably healthy, from 1996 to 2004. It reached 11 years of age looking forward to adolescence. However the pre-teen years saw the start of its trouble years.

Stepdad Richard Prebble moved out, and Father Roger disapproved of Rodney, the new stepdad. They started to argue in front of the kids. Even worse, suave Don stole away ACT’s first girlfriend, so at age 12 ACT got reduced to two MPs in 2005.

And the penultimate paragraph:

ACT’s friends are very sad at this prognosis. They recall the good times they had with ACT. They remember the good things ACT achieved. They don’t want to see ACT dead and buried, but they know that true friends don’t let mates suffer in agony. They know it is time to turn off the life support, and let ACT die.

This is not a call for anything to be done now. It is simply a recognition of reality.

John Drinnan at NZ Herald writes:

Labour leader David Shearer attended a dinner party with his wife at the home of long-time Sky TV lobbyist Tony O’Brien on April 27.

Shearer insists they did not talk about Labour’s broadcasting policy.

However, a private dinner with a lobbyist linked with News Corporation is strange logic while Sky TV is fighting off a regulatory push and amid a global furore as Rupert Murdoch and News Corp are accused of undue influence on British politicians.

It has sparked a debate about political lobbying in this country.

Some would say Shearer’s lack of caution is an example of New Zealand’s easy-going democracy and we should not over-egg such contact.

But Sky TV is ultimately 44 per cent owned by News Corporation, and News Ltd representatives on the Sky TV board report to Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Ltd.

The dinner party was alluded to by the right-wing blogger Whale Oil.

O’Brien is one of New Zealand’s most assiduous and effective lobbyists, and there are no other allegations here of anything inappropriate.

Famously he has his own parliamentary access card so he can move backwards and forwards into security areas at will.

You cannot fault O’Brien’s skills getting close to politicians on all sides of the house – and key journalists – but what was Shearer thinking going to a dinner party with a senior lobbyist held without government officials?

The Opposition leader said broadcasting policy was not talked about.

It was “mostly football, US politics, the role of the Citizens Advice Bureau and what my wife and I had done while working overseas for the UN and other humanitarian organisations”, he said.

Asked if it was appropriate to meet with a lobbyist in this way, Shearer said it was normal for MPs to meet and eat meals with people from all walks of life.

This is bordering on the ridiculous. The clear implication is that a politician should not socialise with a lobbyist, as if they are some sort of criminal.

But actually it is only about some lobbyists. Richard Griffin used to be a lobbyist for TVNZ. Would there have ever been a story about a politician having dinner with Griffin. Of course not.

Would we see a story about Russel Norman having dinner with say a Greenpeace executive, saying it is unwise. Again, of course not.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Labour is scrapping its plans to resume contributions to the Super Fund, saying New Zealanders told the party they were uncomfortable with borrowing to invest and it now understands the need to be thrifty.

Leader David Shearer this morning told the Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce Labour had listened.

“We’ve decided that until we are back in surplus, any new spending will have to be paid for out of existing Budget provisions, new revenue, or by re-prioritising.”

Labour’s insistence that you should borrow to save was idiotic. It also went against what NZSF founder Michael Cullen stated when he created the NZSF. Contributions from the Government were to come out of surpluses, not out of borrowing.

Of course it is quite another issue, as to whether we would ever get back into surplus under Labour. Their opposition to every single spending freeze or cut suggests they lack the fiscal discipline to do so.

But still it is good to see them adopting more sensible economic policies.

Stuff reports:

A new era in mobile phone payments has dawned and smartphones look set to become an even more familiar sight on public transport after 2degrees began selling a $299 Android phone that has Snapper’s contactless payment technology built in.

The LG Optimus Net smartphone can be used as an alternative to Snapper and Hop cards, to tag on and off 1000 buses in Wellington and Auckland as well as in the 3000 taxis and 500 shops that accept Snapper.

Owners hold the phone – which does not need to be turned on – up to a reader or payment terminal just as they would a Snapper card. However, the “Touch2Pay” application offers some extra conveniences. Snapper balances are shown on the phone and can be topped up by credit card.

Owners can also transfer money from the Snapper account on the smartphone to any Snapper card issued within the past 18 months, by holding the card against their phone and keying in the transfer. Snapper chief executive Miki Szikszai expected that to be a convenience for families with multiple cards.

Being able to use a smartphone to tag on and off public transport is a great idea. I hope over time it expands to other phones.

Something a little closer to home today: Matuka-moana or white-faced heron.
Like many of our coastal birds, the challenge is to get close enough.  There’s not a lot of cover around beaches and estuaries.

Click for larger, higher res image

Stalker Girl reviews History Never Repeats at Circa:

Last night David actually agreed to meet up with me, which is a damn sight easier than my usual game of figuring out his exact location from blog posts and social media snooping.

Dave had invited me to attend The Improvisers performance of their new show “History Never Repeats” at Circa, a family friendly improvised comedy show with a loose focus on the what-could-have-beens of an alternate world history.

In the typical improv comedy fashion audience members were invited to set the scene for portions of the performance, not only proving that, indeed, they were making it up as they went along, but providing for plenty of opportunity for the audience to really feel invested in the show.

Dave’s (slightly) larger than life personality saw him easily slip a few of his “oddly specific” interests  in to the mix, resulting in scenes depicting the late Roman republic. I proffered “Crying Robots”, a theme which I felt the improvisers handled well, giving it all the gravitas and aplomb deserved of a futuristic depiction of sad automatons.

The show did tend to re-visit some of the well worn tropes of Improv Comedy, featuring high-brow themes such as ‘how bad my accent is’ and ‘outdated cultural stereotypes’.

I have to say It was an excellent night.

It was indeed a very enjoyable performance by The Improvisers. The theme of doing different stages in history worked well, as it allowed much mocking of different countries and eras. On our night the eras chosen were Roman (which when they asked what part, I did get specific to general amusement), 801 AD (did Vikings), around 1500s in Japan and late 1800s in Ireland, the present day in Liverpool plus the Flying and Crying Robots of the future.

I always wonder if they used some general routines that they fit into each era, but reading other reviews, it seems it is totally original each night. As well as setting the eras, the audience also sets some other aspects for each era. For the present dat setting, it was “group sex” which was amusing (and done in a cleanish way).

I don’t know the names of the different performers, and annoyingly they are not online either. But the one with the moustache who looks a bit like Lord Petyr Baelish in Game of Thrones was especially good. They all have different strengths, which blend in well together.

In the first half of the show they improvise the various scenes starting from oldest going through to the future. Then during the brief interval, they quickly discuss how to not just finish each scene, but actually link them all together so what happened in the past, affects the future. Then you see each scene from the present back to the past. A simple concept that worked well.

The show is on until Saturday, and is a fun night’s entertainment. Well worth going to.

I spoke to the Northern Region of the National Party on Monday night on the MMP review. Was a very good discussion. Somewhat amused that on almost every issue I had to say “This is the National Party view, and this is my view” as they differ a fair bit. However it led to some good questions and discussion.

But wanted to share the funniest part of the evening, which is when I was being introduced. The speaker said I had become well known through Kiwiblog, and how this had spawned off Whale Oil and Cactus Kate.

I immediately quipped that I didn’t think Cameron would be too happy being described as my spawn, which got a fair bit of laughter. I then added that I wasn’t sure I was too happy with it either – which got even more laughter.

Of course (according to Open Parachute) Whale is the most read blog in New Zealand, and Cactus Kate has a dedicated following also, so my “spawn” are doing very nicely.

Technically Kiwiblog is the spawn of NZ Pundit, a blog I still miss. Gordon, Craig and Grant were a good team.