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re-visit some of the well worn tropes of Improv Comedy, featuring high-brow themes such as ‘how bad my accent is’ and ‘outdated cultural stereotypes’.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.
Charles Chauvel e-mailed his Labour colleagues today:
Dear Colleagues
If you are home in time this evening to watch it, you might like to tune in to Court Report on TVNZ7 (Freeview and Sky77) at 9.30pm.
I’ll be on the panel to discuss, in the words of the show’s publicity blurb, ‘the storm brewing between the judiciary and the Government’. This is an issue that is likely to become more significant as time passes.
The show also features commentary from electoral law specialist Hayden Wilson on the Banks scandal.
Linda Clark is the host.
If you miss it on TV tonight, it will also available online at www.tvnz.co.nz/the-court-report
Regards
Charles
Nice of Charles to try and increase the viewer ratings for TVNZ7.
One of the Labour MPs offices forwarded it onto lawyer Deborah Manning, but also accidentally forwarded it to all DIA Ministerial addresses, including the Attorney-General.
It is a Labour special tonight, as Hayden is also a fairly well known Labour activist. Not that this means his views are not worth listening to – they are.
The issue that Charles is discussing is a rumour that the number of Judges will be reduced by 20 or so as a cost cutting measure. Now you can not make Judges of the High Court (higher court judges are also High Court judges) redundant under S23 of the Constitution Act 1986:
A Judge of the High Court shall not be removed from office except by the Sovereign or the Governor-General, acting upon an address of the House of Representatives, which address may be moved only on the grounds of that Judge’s misbehaviour or of that Judge’s incapacity to discharge the functions of that Judge’s office.
No wriggle room there.
District Court Judges come under the District Court Act 1947, where s7 says:
The Governor-General may, if he thinks fit, remove a Judge for inability or misbehaviour.
Every Judge shall retire from office on attaining the age of 70 years.
Not quite the same level of protection as High Court Judges. The principle is an important one – Judges should not have to worry about job security in case they offend a Government of the day.
Now I have no idea if the Government is looking to reduce the number of Judges (but the number of cases going to court is falling), but if they are I’d be very very surprised if it was done by anything other than natural attrition.
Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm
Today there are four questions from National, five questions from Labour, one from the Greens, one from Maori Party and one from NZ First.
Patsy of the day goes to Q5 – What decisions has the Government made in relation to providing better services at Counties Manukau District Health Board?
Labour are asking on unemployment, MFAT restructuring, charter schools, John Banks and Kiwirail.
Greens are on the economy, Maori Party on Moerewa School and NZ First on the RNZAF helicopter crash.
Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm
The Immigration Amendment Bill was introduced in April 2012 and seeks to enhance New Zealand’s ability to deter people-smuggling to New Zealand.
The Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill was introduced in September 2008.
The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill was introduced in April 2011.
The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill was introduced in November 2010 and seeks to enable the Crown to recover the costs of aviation security, biosecurity, and customs traveller processing from the operators of international airports. It passed first reading on a voice vote and the same for the second reading.
The Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill was introduced in October 2010 and seeks to ensure that an offence committed against a Police officer or prison officer acting in the course of his or her duty is taken into account as an aggravating factor at sentencing. It was supported by all parties bar the Maori Party at first reading, and passed second reading on a voice vote. The Government has indicated they will support a Labour amendment to include other emergency service operators in the bill.
The Herald reports:
Act leader John Banks last night released a hotel invoice to attack claims he got a discounted deal in Kim Dotcom’s favourite Hong Kong hotel – and showed a room rate about half of the current quoted cost.
As any regular traveller will know, very few people pay the rack rate at a hotel. Suggesting that one gets a discount as a special favour is naive or mischievous.
It followed claims in Parliament that Mr Banks was given a discount for the hotel stay, which Dotcom helped to arrange.
The invoice showed Mr and Mrs Banks stayed at the Grand Hyatt Hong Kong and were charged $678 a night.
But staff at the hotel’s reservations desk last night said the rate for the room the Banks stayed in was $1303, including a 10 per cent service charge.
But, did the Herald do what I did – and check what rates you can get through different websites?
Last night, Mr Banks’ staff insisted there was no discount attached to the hotel stay. A spokeswoman said she was present when Mr Banks sought and received an assurance there was no discount attached to his bill.
She said Mr Banks asked specifically if there was any discount applied to his bill and was told by the hotel manager there was not.
Mr Banks had earlier sought a copy of the bill from the hotel showing he and his wife were billed HK$4290 ($679) a night for four nights’ accommodation. “I was absolutely pedantic about paying for everything in Hong Kong myself and the management of the Hyatt Hotel will attest to that. …
Staff on the hotel reservation desk identified the room the couple had stayed in – room 2317 – as one of the Grand Deluxe Harbour View rooms.
They said the room rate was currently HK$7500 plus a 10 per cent service charge. The total figure in New Zealand dollars was $1303 a night. …
The Hyatt website offers a discounted price of $805 for guests that pay for their stay on arrival. The invoice provided by Mr Banks showed the bill was settled on check out.
The main hotel website is often the most expensive. Let us see what rates for a grand deluxe harbour view room we can get via Trip Advisor. Now John Banks paid NZ$2,716 for 4 nights.
It is quite legitimate to criticise John Banks for downplaying the extend of his relationship with Kim Dotcom. Claiming to forget that he flew to his mansion in a helicopter is stretching credibility. But this story about a so called special hotel discount is a beat up, as far as I can tell.
News.com.au reports:
THE union boss Michael Williamson has allegedly been caught attempting to take a bag of documents out of the HSU while a police raid occurs on the premises.
Detectives from Strike Force Carnarvon moved in this morning to raid the premises as part of their investigation into alleged corruption in the Health Services Union.
The head of the fraud squad, Detective Superintendent Colin Dyson, confirmed police were considering charging someone with attempting to hinder the investigation by removing information.
The Daily Telegraph reported that the person is Mr Williamson. The documents he attempted to remove were seized by police. Mr Williamson is also a former National President of the Australian Labor Party.
The Australian Labor Party is near terminal. Gillard’s tenure could well now be weeks, not months. The delay is working out who to replace who with.
Meanwhile back in NZ, Whale reports:
As regular readers will know I have been focusing on dodgy unions and their lackadaisical financial records.
One union which I highlighted was the Meatworkers and Related Trades Union in which I found over $4 million of members funds missing.
As a result of my investigations one of the meat companies laid a complaint with the Serious Fraud Officewho declined to investigate. Perhaps they should have not been so hasty in dismissing the complaint. Perhaps Helen Kelly might like to apologise to AFFCO after labeling their complaint as “hatred”.
I have learned yesterday that the Meatworkers and Related Trades Union has been ordered by The Registrar of Incorporated Societies to comply with the law and has required the Union to re-do their latest financial statement to include the figures for the unincorporated branches.
This means that the union claims that it was all above board for them to not issue consolidated accounts and essentially hide members monies in subsidiaries was based on poor advice and they are now being required to properly file audited accounts.
If this is correct, I am glad the Registrar has ordered compliance. Incorporated Societies are obliged to have their accounts in the public domain, and unions are not exempt from that – even ones affiliated to the NZ Labour Party.
Tony Randle has analysed the proposed increased public transport fares in Wellington. He finds:
My analysis is that they are unfair because the PT cost increases are due to increased rail costs (to pay for the new trains) so why must bus users be charged more. My more detailed analysis is attached (I send you the Word version so you can more easily extract elements should you so choose).
Anyway, I think the it fairer to have rail users pay their share of the costs of improved rail services by increasing the heavily discounted rail fares that are not available to bus commuters. There is a similar issue with respect to some cities (Wellington and Lower Hutt) paying excessive rates (in the $Ms) to support other areas (Kapiti and Wairarapa) but I have not yet written up my analysis in this area.
Wellington Regional Council seems to have a weird anti-bus fetish. They even tried recently to close some bus lines down, so people would use the trains more.
You can submit on the proposed fare increases up until end of Friday. Tony’s analysis is below.
Fair Fares for Wellington – Bus Fares to Fund Increased Rail Costs
The 2011 party donation returns are now online. This is the first time that the returns have not just included details of individual donations over the disclosure limit – but also summary information on their total level of income from donations. This gives us a fuller picture of their revenues.
I’ve broken down for the major parties, their donations by size:
| $1.5 – $5k | $5 – $15k | >$15k | |
| ACT | 10% | 46% | 38% |
| NZF | 4% | 40% | 0% |
| Labour | 29% | 46% | 24% |
| Greens | 40% | 23% | 37% |
| National | 24% | 41% | 27% |
National and Labour have similar profiles (but National got 2.5 times as much). Note that these figures do not include the income from donations below $1,500 and membership fees etc. For National that can be greater than a million dollars a year.
Significant Donors are (those over $30,000 were declared last year):
ACT
Maori
Labour
Greens
National
Stuff reports:
Early this morning a small group of protesters scaled scaffolding on Wellington’s National War Memorial carillon to hang a massive “No Asset Sales” banner.
The protesters are part of a coalition of Wellington groups opposing the Government’s plan to sell up to 49 per cent of four state-owned energy companies and further reduce its shareholding in Air New Zealand.
Spokesman Richard McIntosh said the coalition was made up of People Power Ohariu, the Mana Party, the Ohariu Citizens Select Committee and others.
The usual band of dicks, who give themselves fancy names. The National War Memorial is not the appropriate place to do such a stunt. It is insulting.
Amusing how hard they are campaigning for the Government to break its word and actually drop the policy it was elected on.
Peter Dunne made a good facebook comment about them:
The so-called Ohariu people’s select committee on state asset share floats is a joke. First they said I had gone against my pre-election policy on share floats – now they concede I have not, but say they did not realise what UnitedFuture’s policy was. Then they said they had 700 submissions from local people opposing my stance; then it was 600; now they say that at least all the self-appointed committee members of grumpy old unionsts are Ohariu voters, and that just 269 of the submissions are from local people. Their first protest at Parliament attracted 9 people; their last protest at my electorate office on a day when it was closed had just 5 people attend. And they wonder why I have no interest in meeting them – based on their record so far, they would go to the wrong venue, on the wrong day!
So true.
Captions welcome below. As usual, they should be funny, not nasty.
THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!
POLITICAL ROUNDUP: This week has been full of political hot topics…the state of the parties, the state of their donations and dealings with the police. The Government is still riding high in the polls? So are the Greens. Meanwhile, Labour is trying to make a dent in their approval ratings. Do they have a problem of style vs. substance? Meanwhile, ACT’s John Banks is in hot water for campaign contributions. Do we need full disclosure over contributions to politicians and/or political parties? Is it a matter for police?
SEX OFFENDERS REGISTRY: Does New Zealand need a sex offender registry? Will a registry prevent new sex offenses? Or will a list merely stigmatise people who have served their time? In recent weeks, we’ve seen stories about convicted sex offenders—one a teacher, the other a school bus driver. Would a registry prevent that? Are we just naming and shaming? Are sex offenders different—do they ever serve their time? Does the proposed sex offenders registry go far enough? Do we need full public disclosure? How would you feel if a paedophile moved in next door?
Wednesday 9.05, and Saturday 10.05 pm
A TIME TO DIE: Should we be able to decide when it’s time to die? New poll shows more of us support voluntary euthanasia. Labour’s Maryan Street as a “End of Life Choice Bill” would allow Kiwis to say when and how they die. But opponents say allowing euthanasia would lead to abuse. The bill has failed to pass twice before—but are we now more open to change? Should there be limits on who can determine their death? Perhaps reserved for the terminally ill?
Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 2nd of May. Our Panel: Green Party MP Denise Roche, Labour MP Phil Twyford, Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell and National MP Maggie Barry
Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm
Today there are five questions from National, four questions from Labour, two from the Greens and one from NZ First.
Patsy of the day goes to Q12 – What evidence has she seen of excellent achievement in scholarship exams?
Labour are asking the on John Banks, current account deficit, MFAT restructuring and CERA
Greens are on endangered species – John Banks and Maui dolphins
NZ First on John Banks also
Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm
The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill was introduced in April 2012 and aims to extend the restrictions on the awarding of compensation for one more year from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013.
The Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill was introduced in December 2010 and aims to replace the land valuation basis for setting rents for pastoral leases with a property-earning-capacity basis for setting rents for pastoral leases. It was supported at first reading by National, Greens, ACT, Maori and United and opposed by Labour. Labour opposed the bill at select committee saying it “severely compromises the property rights of the land owner, the Crown, to negotiate a fair return on the full value of the land”. At second reading and committee stage it was supported by National, ACT and Maori Party but opposed by all other parties including (unusually) United Future.
The Trade Safeguard Measures Bill was introduced in September 2008, and seeks to repeal the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987 (which embodies New Zealand’s current safeguards regime) and to replace it with a new regime consistent with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. ’Safeguards’ are emergency measures applied at New Zealand’s border, such as a duty. It passed first reading on a voice vote and the select committee report back has no minority report. It also passed second reading on a voice vote.
The Regulatory Reform Bill was introduced in December 2010 and seeks to improve the regulatory environment by amending 13 Acts “to reduce the compliance burden on business by amending ineffective or excessively costly regulation”. It was supported at first reading by all parties except the Greens. There is no minority report from the select committee so appears to have broad support, and passed second reading 107-14 with only the Greens against.
The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill was introduced in November 2010 and seeks to enable the Crown to recover the costs of aviation security, biosecurity, and customs traveller processing from the operators of international airports. It passed first reading on a voice vote and the same for the second reading.
3 News reports:
David Shearer went for the Prime Minister’s jugular when he brought up a past quote, in an attempt to prove John Key’s hypocrisy for not sacking John Banks.
But he missed by a mile – it turns out the quote was from National-leaning blogger David Farrar.
Mr Key had never uttered the words and David Shearer had to return to the House last night to apologise.
This is first I knew of this. Looking at Hansard it seems the exchange was:
David Shearer: Does he stand by another of his statements: “The issue has never been one of legality as much as ethics. The criminal code is the bare minimum standards for society. For MPs we expect behaviour well beyond that.”, and if so, how is he applying that standard to John Banks?
That quote is indeed mine.
Then later:
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation to clarify a question that I made earlier in the day.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for the honourable Leader of the Opposition to make a statement. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.
DAVID SHEARER: During question time I attributed a quote to John Key in one of my questions. In fact, that quote was actually made by David Farrar, and I would like to apologise to them both.
I think the PM would be more offended by the mix-up than me!
Mr Mallard this morning told RadioLIVE he was to blame.
“It’s a terrible mistake and I take responsibility for that,” says Mr Mallard, who still managed to get in a dig at the Prime Minister.
“We confused David Farrar with the Prime Minister – they both say the same things all the time, and the quotes got shuffled.
Yes, it annoys me also when the PM steals my lines 🙂
I should point out that Labour happily quote me in the House when I do say things critical of the Government.
The NZ Herald rates the Auckland Council half way through their first term. In order:
The comments on Cameron Brewer are:
Brewer is leader of the opposition, and more effective than the entire C&R team combined. Some accuse Brewer of being a self-publicist, but there is no more effective councillor at getting their name in the media.
Brewer has unashamedly postioned himself as the leading opponent of Brown and provided an alternative voice. The ambitious Brewer says he has no plans to challenge Brown next year. He is probably too far to the right to lure the middle ground.
I think Cameron would be a very serious contender in 2016, if Brown is re-elected for a second term in 2013 – which is far from certain.
John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:
Teenagers aged under 18 will need the express consent of their parents through a text message or a phone call to have a drink at a party under the latest alcohol curbs planned by the Government.
Justice Minister Judith Collins said yesterday that the Alcohol Reform Bill would be back in Parliament to pass its final stages next month.
MPs are already lining up to back an amendment to the bill which would raise the purchase age to 20, and Ms Collins said she would also introduce a Government amendment in the final stages.
The bill, which passed its second reading last year, would have required adults giving liquor to minors to understand “on reasonable grounds” that there was parental consent.
Ms Collins said the Government now wanted to “tighten that up” so that “express consent” was required.
“That’s a text or a phone call or a discussion with a parent,” she said.
“Before someone supplies your 16-year-old or your 14-year-old with alcohol, they [will have to] tell you.”
I support that change, and the new restriction overall on supply of alcohol to minors. It is silly that it is absolutely legal at the moment to give a bottle of vodka to a 14 year old.
Another new measure being planned is to ban the sale from off-licences of “ready to drink” mixes with an alcohol content of more than 6 per cent.
The Government has previously suggested a 5 per cent limit, but concerns were raised that might not be possible because of international trade rules.
Ms Collins said RTDs were a legitimate alternative to badly mixed drinks, but there was growing concern about drinks with high alcohol content that were also very sweet.
“It’s better than having people drinking straight vodka, or doing their own mixes and getting it all wrong, or getting their drinks spiked.
“There’s loads of reasons to have RTDs but there is also a real reason to look at the highest level ones and where they’re being sold.”
RTDs are much better than people doing their own mixes. The average self-mix is around 13% alcohol, while the average RTD is 6.5% (around half are 5% and half are 8%).
Those who drink the 8% RTDs atend to be older drinkers and they specifically like the taste of them. If they can not get an RTD stronger than 5%, then many will substitute to spirits and self-mixes. A 6% limit will do less harm than a 5% limit, but my belief is that even a 6% limit will actually increase harm from alcohol, due to the substitution effect.
The proposed “split age” would restrict alcohol sales at off-licences such as supermarkets to 20-year-olds while leaving it at 18 for licensed premises such as bars and restaurants.
National MP Tim Macindoe has put up an amendment calling for the purchase age in all cases to go up to 20, while his National colleague Nikki Kaye has put up an amendment for it to stay at 18.
An increase in the purchase age will in fact undermine the new law restricting supply to minors. It is a bone headed move, based on emotion.
Vernon Small at Stuff reports:
Half a million Kiwis with student loans face a cut to their take-home pay in the Budget as the Government looks at ways to raise income to help balance its books.
Prime Minister John Key said yesterday the May 24 Budget would increase the current repayment rate, which is set at 10 per cent of income over $19,084, to force students to pay off their loans more quickly.
Mr Key said the change to the repayment regime would be “modest”, but it would have an impact on the 500,000-odd people who have a student loan and were earning above the threshold that required them to repay.
The savings would be reinvested in the research capabilities of universities to help raise their world rankings. The Government had reduced the writeoff on loans to 45 per cent of student borrowers and aimed to reduce it to nearer 40 per cent by continuing to chase overseas borrowers and through faster repayments.
Mr Key would not be drawn on the new rate, but said it would raise “tens of millions of dollars”.
Figures supplied by Inland Revenue show that at the 10 per cent rate that applies now, $690.6million was received in student loan repayments in the year till June 30, 2011.
That would suggest the rate will increase to just 11% or 12%.
New Zealand Union of Students Associations president Pete Hodkinson said a lift in the repayment rate was a tax increase because it was taken straight out of pay, like PAYE.
No it is a repayment. Union fees are also taken straight out of pay. That does not make them a tax.
“It’s outrageous that graduates should have to pay higher taxes to pay for a budget shortfall that has been caused by the tax cuts that the National Government gave to high-income earners.”
And how the NZUSA President lies about what has caused the budget shortfall. He also ignores that the higher repayment rate means the loan is paid off faster – the graduate does not pay off any extra money.
Labour deputy leader Grant Robertson said the change would put more financial pressure on graduates. The rate should balance the need for loans to be paid off quickly with the need for graduates to meet their costs and be able to take out a mortgage. The increase put that at risk.
Grant is right it will put some financial pressure on, and it is a balance. But if the increase is modest the impact should be modest also.
Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:
Prime Minister John Key says there is an increasing risk that boat people will make it to New Zealand’s shores and new changes to the immigration law are needed to deter people smugglers and cope with a possible mass arrival of asylum seekers.
And the changes:
A key thing to understand is the difference between genuine refugees and what might be called economic refugees.
A genuine refugee is a person who flees a country because they face persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or because they are a member of a persecuted ‘social group’.” A Jew fleeing Nazi Europe is one example. A political dissident from China could be another.
“Economic refugees” or “Economic migrants” are those who seek to move to another country because it has a higher standard of living. Their motivation is quite understandable – your family are likely to have a much better life in Australia or New Zealand than in say Indonesia.
However NZ and Australia do not have open borders. They have criteria for immigration based on education, skills, wealth, age etc. Allowing anyone who can make the journey over to stay, undermines that. Hence when “boat people” turn up, they are often detained until it is clarified that they are legitimate refugees, or “economic refugees”. It is not particularly nice to do such a thing, but the reality is that if not detained, then it may be very difficult to locate them again if they are meant to be deported.
We have been fortunate not to have had a significant issue to date, but I think it is inevitable we will have a fairly large boat or two arrive at some stage.
You just have to watch this interview with Australian Labor Party MP Bill Shorten. The Guardian summarises:
Bill Shorten, the Australian workplace relations minister, was asked by Sky News Australia whether he felt the parliamentary speaker, Peter Slipper, should be allowed to go back to his job after being accused of sexual harassment and misuse of funds.
Aware Gillard was abroad, but unaware of what she’d said on the matter, Shorten replied: “I haven’t seen what she’s said, but let me say I support what it is she said.” Pressed by an astonished presenter to confirm he backed his boss even though he didn’t know what she’d said, he nodded: “I support what she said … My view is what the prime minister’s view is.” A new record in on-message obedience?
There’s a line between loyal and sycophancy, and that well and truly crosses it.
Hat Tip: Not PC
Today’s Herald editorial is rather confused. They mix up the Local Electoral Act and Electoral Act, and also do not know how MMP works with by-elections.
Anonymous donations should not be permitted at all but they have been allowed under strict conditions because political parties say few wealthy or corporate donors would contribute if their names had to be made public.
Anonymous donations are basically not permitted under the Electoral Act, unless they are of relatively small amounts (under $1,500), or are done through the Electoral Commission with strict declarations. However the Local Electoral Act is very very different and does have any strict conditions at all. They have in fact no conditions, except a badly worded definition of an anonymous donation.
This case warrants a reconsideration of campaign finance law to require the naming of all contributors of more than $1000 to a candidate or party.
Again the Herald seems confused – are they talking the Electoral Act or the Local Electoral Act or both? The reference to parties suggest the Electoral Act.
Again the Electoral Act already bans anonymous donations of greater than $1,500. And candidates must disclose the names of all donors of over $1,500, while parties must disclose donors of over $15,000 (which is a sum which represents around 0.5% of a major party’s revenue).
The Local Electoral Act has no ban at all on anonymous donations, but requires disclosure of donations of over $1,000 already.
His departure would create a byelection in Epsom that National would need Act to win if the Government was to retain its majority.
Totally incorrect. If National won the by-election they would go from 59 to 60 seats in the House and with United Future would have a majority.
The NZ Herald reports:
The donation scandal engulfing Act leader John Banks spread last night as it emerged he lobbied personal friend and Government minister Maurice Williamson over internet tycoon and donor Kim Dotcom.
Mr Williamson, the Minister of Land Information, last night admitted Mr Banks had lobbied him over a property purchase in Coatesville, just north of Auckland, Dotcom wanted to make. …
Mr Williamson said: “John Banks did call me to advocate on behalf of Kim Dotcom with regard to the OIO [Overseas Investment Office] application on the Coatesville property. Mr Banks and I have been good friends for years. It is a matter of record that the ministers considered the application, but declined it.”
Dotcom told the Herald Mr Banks referred to being “very close” to Williamson, whose approval was necessary before he could buy the $30 million Coatesville mansion he rents.
He said the comment was made by Mr Banks in reference to his application to buy the mansion.
“He said he knows lots of people from when he was a minister. He knows Williamson … They are very close.”
Dotcom said he believed Mr Banks spoke positively to Mr Williamson about his application.
Overseas Investment Office officials left the decision on the application to ministers, and Mr Williamson approved it in April last year.
But it was eventually declined after it was rejected by Associate Finance Minister Simon Power.
Three months after approving it, Mr Williamson changed his mind and joined Mr Power in rejecting it.
I’ll come back to this issue. Also of note is:
Mr Banks yesterday continued to refuse to be interviewed, but issued a statement in which he said he was unaware Dotcom had donated to his campaign and denied ringing the internet magnate to thank him.
“I could not have, as any such contribution was anonymous.”
But he said he had spoken to Dotcom on “other matters”.
In an interview in January, Mr Banks said those other matters included advice on Dotcom’s OIO application and residency.
He said the advice was “just the process”, and their conversation was “in total of 15 minutes, maybe 20 minutes”.
It is significant that Banks is now saying he did not thank him for the donation, because in my mind that is the issue that would most undermine a defence that the donation was anonymous. I suspect any Police investigation will focus on this issue.
Let’s look at a number of related issue.
Did Banks solicit a donation from Kim Dot Com?
Yes, there seems little dispute there. It is not denied that he suggested they make it two donations of $25,000 rather than one of $50,000. The bizarre thing however is that this has no impact on disclosure.
Can you solicit a donation and then claim it is anonymous?
At parliamentary level probably not, at local government level, basically yes you can. See this post by Andrew Geddis and this post by Graeme Edgeler.
Was Banks unusual in not declaring his donors?
No. As 3 News reported, Len Brown received $499,000 of anonymous donations (Banks had $638,512). Len Brown used the legal avenue of having most donors donate to a trust and then the trust making a donation to Len Brown. This means that Len Brown could legally know who had donated to the trust (and de facto know who had donated to him), but not have to legally disclose their identity. This is also what National used to do before the law changed for parliamentary elections with the Waitemata Trust.
So the issue is not about whether a Mayoral candidate knew who donated to them. The law allows them to know, if they structure it in the right way. The law is about the identifying donations, not donors. The key issue is whether Banks broke the law. If you think Banks is unfit to be an MP because he may have a very good idea of who his likely donors are, then one would have to argue that Len Brown is unfit to be Mayor if he has a very good idea of whom may have donated to the trust which donated to his campaign.
Should the law be changed?
Yes, absolutely. The provisions of the Electoral Act around donations should basically be put into the Local Electoral Act.
Did Banks break the law?
That is for the Police to form a view on, and a court to decide. The key issue will be whether Banks knew the that Kim DotCom was the source of the two $25,000 donations. It is very hard to prove that someone knew something. However the timing of any phone call from Banks to Dot Com will be a key issue. In the Peters and Owen Glenn case, phone records showed Peters phoned his lawyer a few seconds after talking to Owen Glenn, and his lawyer then e-mailed Glenn asking for money referring to the conversation you have had with my client. That was pretty much proof beyond reasonable doubt that Peters knew of the donation.
If Banks phoned Dot Com the same day as the donations were received, or even the next day, then it makes it look more likely that the call was to thank him for the donation as Dot Com alleges. If it was some time later, then the call being for other reasons is more plausible.
Is this just like the Winston Peters and Owen Glenn case?
Yes, and no. Both involved donations, where the MP denies they knew of the donation. Both involved very wealthy donors, who seemed to be seeking “influence” rather than ideological support of a party or policy position.
The donations to the Banks campaign was before Banks was an MP, or indeed a member of the ACT Party. It relates to his local government campaign, and the disclosure requirement is the Local Electoral Act. Breaches of that are a matter for the Police, who will investigate.
The donations from Owen Glenn was made when Peters was an MP, and was to his lawyer to effectively pay for Winston’s legal expenses. This doesn’t have to be disclosed under any law, but was required to be disclosed by Parliament’s Standing Orders around disclosure of interests. The Privileges Committee was the body responsible for investigating any breaches, and did so – finding Peters did know of the donation, and had filed a false return. Labour voted in favour of Peters both at the Privileges Committee itself, and against the finding of the Privileges Committee report. They did not accept that Peters knew of the donation, despite the massive weight of evidence from phone logs and e-mails.
Should Banks be stood down while this is investigated?
I find it hard to see how this is credible. A number of MPs are under investigation by the Police for breaches of electoral laws. None of them are standing down – despite the fact these relate to breaches of the parliamentary Electoral Act not the Local Electoral Act. Helen Clark did not stand down as PM despite the referral to the Police of Labour’s $400,000 overspend.
The other factor is that the Police can take a very long time to decide on electoral law issues. Often over a year.
The appropriate threshold for a stand down in this case would be if the Police laid charges.
This is not to say that we should regard the law as the minimum ethical standard for MPs and Ministers. It is not. That is why we also have the Cabinet Manual and Standing Orders. But this allegation is about actions by Banks before he was even an MP, is not related to his duties, and the evidence is contested.
So how about the lobbying on behalf of Kim DotCom on a property purchase?
It has some parallels to the Bill Liu case
What was the case?
He was a Chinese businessman who donated to several MPs who advocated on his behalf to become a citizen. Shane Jones approved his citizenship despite strong advice from officials not to do so, as they said he had criminal convictions, and many aliases. Dover Samuels presented the citizenship to Liu in the Labour Caucus Room.
How do the cases differ?
John Banks was a private individual (neither MP, Mayor, or candidate) when he lobbied Maurice Williamson. Dover Samuels was a sitting MP.
The officials took no position on the Dot Com application, they strongly oppossed the Liu application.
Shane Jones granted Liu citizenship despite knowing of the criminal concerns. Simon Power declined consent, and Maurice Williamson after initially supporting it, also then declined it.
Should Banks have disclosed Dot Com was a donor, when he lobbied Williamson on his behalf?
Personally I think if you ever advocate on behalf of someone, you should be very upfront and transparent over your relationship and connection to them. I believe it is better to “over declare” than “under declare”. That is one reason I disclose on this blog even very minor dealings.
On the legal side, Banks as a private individual had no obligation to disclose that Dot Com had been a donor to him, even if you accept he knew Dot Com was a donor.
It will be interesting to consider whether Holly Walker’s lobbyist bill would cover situations like this one.
Again personally, I didn’t like Winston Peters lobbying to get a honorary consul position for Owen Glenn, when he knew Glenn was a donor.
I also don’t like John Banks lobbying for Kim DotCom to get a ministerial decision in his favour, when at a minimum he has good grounds to suspect that DotCom had donated to his campaign (even if he legally did not know how much, and which donations).
While disliking both sets of actions, I point out that Peters was actually the Foreign Affairs Minister when he was lobbying on behalf of Glenn, and his lawyer received the money while he was Minister. Banks was a private individual at the time he lobbied. Labour’s position was that Peters did nothing wrong with lobbying for Glenn while not disclosing he had donated $100,000 to pay Winston’s legal fees – so their outrage over Banks is totally fake.
I’ve blogged at Curiablog the NZ Herald Digipoll released this morning. A big boost for Labour, but National still above what they got at the election.
The poll gives the CR a majority as NZ First just under 5% threshold. If NZ First did make 5%, then the Maori Party would hold the balance of power.