John Armstrong writes in the NZ Herald:

To the list of credibility-deficient statements like “the cheque is in the mail” and “your table will be ready in a few minutes” you can now add “Murray McCully is not a micro-manager”.

In the Foreign Minister’s absence – McCully was heading for China yesterday – another minister, Chris Finlayson, drew the short straw in having to answer questions in Parliament on McCully’s behalf as the Opposition continued to press its attack over the botched restructuring of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Finlayson had been making a reasonable fist of deflecting that attack until he suddenly made his hard-to-swallow statement about McCully’s management style.

McCully has been the power behind more thrones than Robespierre and Rasputin combined. The picture painted of McCully as some political innocent oblivious to the goings-on in his ministry had the Opposition benches in stitches of genuine laughter.

I have to confess I was also laughing out loud to the statement that “Murray McCully is not a micro-manager”.

I recall this story in the Herald:

The diplomatic corps has been wildly complimentary about the forum. “Spectacular” one described it yesterday – both in terms of organisation and diplomatic opportunities.

McCully has been up to his elbows in the detail of organisation, making Helen Clarks’ micro-management style look like neglect. Yesterday he was still at it, arranging for a New Zealand rugby expert to sit next to China’s Vice-Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai at the opening World Cup game to explain the oddities of the game.

If Murray isn’t a micro-manager, then Grace Quek is a virgin.

Having said that, it is worth noting that Murray’s fine attention to detail sometimes leads to very good outcomes – the Rugby World Cup organisation being one example, and the Pacific Forum another. However it doesn’t generally win him many nominations in the “Most loved Minister by the civil service” category.

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his answers to questions in the House this year?
2. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What is the impact on the Crown’s finances of the Government’s tax changes since the 2008 election?
3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement of 5 July 2010 that “I’d hate to see New Zealanders as tenants in their own country”; if not, why not?
4. Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Associate Minister of Health: What reports has he received about the Prime Minister’s Youth Mental Health Project, announced yesterday?
5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with South Australian Treasurer Paul Snelling in relation to SkyCity that “there cannot and will not be any connection between any change to their regulatory arrangements governing the casino and their investment”, and can he assure the House that a similar standard will be upheld by this Government?
6. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Did the Government compare the costs and benefits of the Roads of National Significance against those of other transport projects before announcing them to ensure that it is getting best value for public money; if not, why not?
7. MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements have been made to improve the way the Government deals with young people who have mental health problems?
8. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What concerns, if any, have been expressed to him that proposed changes to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will damage New Zealand’s promotion of its international trade and foreign policy interests?
9. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made on the school network upgrade project?
10. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Finance: Have Treasury officials reviewed Ministry of Transport calculations including projected traffic volume growth, per capita change in volumes over the last seven years and the alignment with GDP, and if so, is he satisfied that the currently planned transport spend is good value for money?
11. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What initiatives has the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority implemented to help support Christchurch’s Recovery?
12. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Has he received advice on the economic impacts of a major oil spill off the coast of Kaikoura?

Today there are five questions from National, four questions from Labour, two from the Greensand one from NZ First.

Patsy of the day goes to Q9 – What recent announcements has the Government made on the school network upgrade project?

Labour are asking the PM the normal gotcha question, the Sky City deal, MFAT restructuring, and transport spending

Greens are on highway spending and oil spills and NZ First is on the Crafar farms.

Government Motions 3.00 pm – 4.00 pm (estimate)

Two motions to be debated before we hit Government bills. The first is to appoint Sir David Carruthers as chairperson of the Independent Police Complaints Authority.

The second is on alterations to the appropriations for the Auditor-General, Ombudsmen and Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. It is also debatable

Government Bills 4.00 pm – 6.00 pm

1. Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill – third reading
2. Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill – committee stage continued (four hour debate)
3. Building Amendment Bill (No 4) – first reading continued

There is no formal time limit on the motions preceding the bill but if they do not drag on, then the Taxation bill may pass its third reading.

The Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill was introduced in October 2010 and seeks to to reform the tax treatment of gains of New Zealand residents from income interests in overseas entities and gains of foreign residents from interests in New Zealand companies. It passed its first and second readings on a voice vote but at committee stage Labour and Greens voted against Part 3.

The Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill seeks to confirm and validate financial matters relating to the 2010/11 financial year.

The Building Amendment Bill (No 4) was introduced in November 2011 and seeks to also implement the Building Act reviews decisions, including more comprehensive consumer protection measures and clarifying exemptions from building consent requirements.

Two members’ bills had their first readings yesterday which means a ballot today for two new bills. The bills in the ballot are:

1. Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill, Melissa Lee
2. Care of Children Law Reform Bill, Jacinda Ardern
3., Children’s Commissioner (Reporting on Legislation) Amendment Bill, Dr Rajen Prasad
4. Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Amendment Bill, Eugenie Sage
5. Commerce (Code of Practice for Supermarket Grocery Suppliers) Amendment Bill, Steffan Browning
6. Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, Jacqui Dean
7. Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill, Mojo Mathers
8. Continental Shelf (Oil Exploration Safety) Amendment Bill, Moana Mackey
9. Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Break Fees Disclosure) Amendment Bill, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga
10. Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill, Hon Maryan Street
11. Defence (Overseas Deployment) Amendment Bill, Iain Lees-Galloway
12. Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Representation) Amendment Bill, Hon Parekura Horomia
13. Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Bill, Rino Tirikatene
14. Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill, Louisa Wall
15. Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill, Dr David Clark
16. Energy Efficiency and Conservation (Warm Healthy Rentals) Amendment Bill, Gareth Hughes
17. Environmental Reporting Bill, Grant Robertson
18. Equal Pay Amendment Bill, Jan Logie
19. Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill, Nicky Wagner
20. Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill, Michael Woodhouse
21. Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, Chris Auchinvole
22. Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill, Hon Lianne Dalziel
23. Immigration (Migrant Levy) Amendment Bill, Raymond Huo
24. Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill, Metiria Turei
25. International Non-Aggression and the Lawful Use of Force Bill, Dr Kennedy Graham
26. Kiwi Jobs Bill, Clare Curran
27. Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill, Scott Simpson
28. Land Transport (Give Way to Buses) Bill, Julie Anne Genter
29. Land Transport (Safer Alcohol Limits for Driving) Amendment Bill, Phil Twyford
30. Lobbying Disclosure Bill, Holly Walker
31. Local Government (Council Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill, Darien Fenton
32. Local Government (Public Libraries) Amendment Bill, Dr Megan Woods
33. Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill, Hon Annette King
34. Local Government (Salary Reform) Amendment Bill, Denis O’Rourke
35. Maritime Transport Amendment Bill, Hon Phil Goff
36. Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill, HV Ross Robertson
37. Minimum Wage Amendment Bill, Andrew Little
38. New Zealand Bill of Rights Amendment Bill, David Clendon
39. New Zealand Flag Bill, Charles Chauvel
40. New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Change of Electoral Sytem for District Health Boards) Amendment Bill, Dr Jian Yang
41. Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill, Su’a William Sio
42. Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill, Te Ururoa Flavell
43. Overseas Investment (Owning Our Own Rural Land) Amendment Bill, David Shearer
44. Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill, Dr Russel Norman
45. Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, Sue Moroney
46. Plain Language Bill, Chris Hipkins
47. Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, Todd McClay
48. Public Finance (Sustainable Development Indicators) Amendment Bill, Kevin Hague
49. Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Essential Financial Services) Amendment Bill, Denise Roche
50. Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill, Hon Ruth Dyson
51. Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill, Catherine Delahunty
52. Sentencing (Reparation) Amendment Bill, Kris Faafoi
53. Sentencing (Short-sharp Sentences) Amendment Bill, Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor
54. Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Shopping Centre Opening Hours) Amendment Bill, Hon Trevor Mallard
55. State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill, Hon Clayton Cosgrove
56. Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill, Dr Cam Calder
57. Summary Proceedings (Warrant for Detention Conditions) Amendment Bill, Jonathan Young
58. Wild Animal Control (Increased Fines and Sentence of Imprisonment) Amendment Bill, Ian McKelvie

I’ll try and blog who won if I hear before I start driving north.

Hat Tip: Red Alert

NZ Herald reports:

Questions were raised about the best use of Parliament’s time today as MPs debated whether to repeal a WWI law that has not been used in 30 years.

The Military Manoeuvres Act was enacted in 1915 to deal with mobilisation for World War I, and enabled the Governor-General to declare any land available for a period specified for military manoeuvres.

National MP Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi launched a member’s bill in 2010 to get rid of the outdated law, and tonight the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill passed its final reading, 111 votes to eight.

NZ First voted against the repeal. Why?

Stuff reports:

ACC Minister Judith Collins has promised to quit if she or her office is found to have leaked an email at the centre of a spat over an ACC claimant as the auditor-general launches an investigation into governance at the state insurer.

So will Mallard and Little resign if their allegations it was Collins are found to be untrue?

Mr Little, along with Green MP Kevin Hague, earlier asked Auditor-General Lyn Provost to look into aspects of ACC’s governance that would not be examined by the investigations already under way by the privacy commissioner and being considered by the police.

Ms Provost said yesterday she would hold an inquiry examining aspects of ACC’s governance.

“The inquiry will examine how ACC manages a range of risks at the board level of the organisation. It will also examine how any matters relating to ACC claimant Ms Pullar that came to the attention of the board or individual board members were dealt with,” she said.

As well as this inquiry, Ms Provost intended to develop an audit proposal on ACC’s general operations, with a focus on its case management.

I’m pleased the Auditor-General is investigating.

The Press reports:

Christchurch democracy is to be “discarded” with the Government poised to take control of the central city rebuild, Labour says. …

Parker said he had not been informed of any “dramatic announcements” about the council’s role in the central city rebuild. …

Cera chief executive Roger Sutton also said he was not aware of any proposal to take over planning responsibilities in the central city.

I think this is more about the 2013 Mayoral elections.

Submissions on the review of MMP close today for those wishing to appear in person, so of course I finished by submission just after midnight this morning. If you wish to do a written submission only, you have until 31 May.

My submission is below. The summary of my recommendations are:

1. That the party vote threshold be set at 4%, as originally proposed by the Royal Commission.
2. That the electorate seat threshold be abolished, subject to the party vote threshold reducing to 4%.
3. That a party which gains an electorate seat, but does not make the party vote threshold, should be included in the St Lague calculations, but not allocated any quotients in excess of their electorate seats.
4. That sitting MPs be barred from contesting a by-election.
5. That dual candidacies be banned, with the possible exception of party leaders who should symbolically be placed at the top of their party’s list even if standing in an electorate.
6. That parties be required to allow all party members to have a vote on the party’s draft list, and that the results of the membership ballot be made public.
7. That the status quo with regard to overhangs should prevail.
8. That the Electoral Act should set a minimum proportion of List MPs to be 33% of Parliament to ensure proportionality and minimize overhang, and that the total size of Parliament should automatically increase if necessary to maintain that ratio.
9. That the tolerance for electorate seats be increased to 10%
10. That a superior court be given the power to revise the allocation of List MPs, should an electoral petition affect the eligibility of a party to List MPs.

MMP Submission

1. Is it time for the Port of Auckland – Daryll Hutchison investigates the port’s future.
2. Simon Bridges – rising National star – Natasha Smith profiles the newest Minister and Rachel Smalley talks to him in the studio.
3. Colin James and Duncan Garner will be looking back at a highly political week.
4. Further interview to be advised.
5. Brian Edwards and Metro Editor, Simon Wilson (filling in for Bill Ralston who is away for Easter) look back at the way the media covered the week.

Saturday April 7  1030 – Sunday Edition 0800 – TV3

Tom Pullar-Strecker reports at Stuff:

A select committee inquiry is likely to be held into whether schools are well able to take advantage of the new teaching and learning opportunities created by ultrafast broadband.

National Party MP Nikki Kaye said she would today call on the education and science select committee to kick off an inquiry into “21st century learning environments and digital literacy”.

Ultrafast broadband could open up many more opportunities for online learning, but schools were moving at different paces to embrace the opportunities, she said.

“I hope that the overall outcome is that we are able to identify possible savings in technology and buildings, develop recommendations regarding optimal learning environments, and identify the skills required for teachers and students to achieve their full potential in the modern world.”

As the committee is comprised equally of government and opposition MPs, one opposition member would need to support the inquiry or abstain for the motion to pass.

It’s been announced that the select committee has voted to proceed with such an inquiry. I think it is a good and important issue for Parliament to be looking at.

Schools have been changing somewhat to take account of today’s technology but it has been relatively piecemeal and evolutionary. Some schools are doing absolutely amazing stuff, while others are struggling.

93% of schools will be fibre connected by the end of 2014. This can have significant ramifications for how they operate. You may be able to live-stream classes, so sick students can follow from home. Or classes could be archived on the web for them to catch up. Should every student have an Internet capable mobile device? Should tests be done over the Internet? There may be opportunities for interesting speakers to be webcast into multiple classrooms and schools. Plus you have the potential for five year olds to learn how to read and do maths through interactive applications. The possibilities are almost limitless.

This appears to be a first principles review of what do we want our fibre connected 21st century schools and classrooms to look like. The ramifications could be quite significant.

The good thing is we already have some pockets of excellence around New Zealand for some of this, so it is not about having to start with an empty slate. It is about discovering what is already happening out there, and coming up with a blueprint applicable for the whole sector.

Am on The Court Report this Thursday (TVNZ7, 9.30 pm) discussing the review of the Privacy Act, with a focus on the Internet and privacy. The show is now hosted by Linda Clark and privacy lawyer Kathryn Dalziel was my co-panelist. I thought we had an interesting discussion.

The next segment was also interesting for those interested in Internet issues, with IT lawyer Rick Shera talking about Twitter and defamation.

The Advertising Standards Authority has partially upheld a complaint against a Greenpeace television advertisement. The TV ad showing a dead penguin said:

Over 20,000 birds were killed by the ‘Rena’ oil spill

Deep sea oil drilling could be 1000 times worse

Bryan Leland complained pointing out that the  count for the Rena was around 1,300 not 20,000 and that the 20 million estimate for a deep sea oil drill is ridiculous as the Gulf of Mexico spill killed 3,800 seabirds.

Greenpeace’s response on the 20,000 was that research shows 10 times as many birds die in oil spills as carcasses found.

Their response on 1,000 times worse is based on the Gulf spill being over 1,000 times as much oil as the Rena. They say their advertisement was meant to be that the impact on the environment would be 1,000 times worse, not that 1,000 times as many birds would die.

Interestingly in their response Greenpeace say the complaint should be ignored because Bryan Leland is a member of the Climate Science Coalition. Unable to win on the facts, they now try to get complaints dismissed on the basis of membership of a group.  That is a terrible thing to do, and they should be ashamed. How would they like it if someone advocated that a complainant should not be heard, because they are a member of Greenpeace.

The ASA Complaints Board found:

The Complaints Board was of the view that the statement “20,000 birds were killed” was expressed in a manner that denoted a strong absolute statement of fact.  It said that the Advertiser had presented a best practice estimate as an absolute fact when as they had stated in their response to the complaint it had only been “reported that over 2000 birds had been identified which had died as a direct result of the accident [Rena]”.  Accordingly the Complaints Board said the statements expressed in the advertisement were not clearly distinguishable as opinion (as opposed to fact) and therefore the advertisement was in breach of Rule 11 of the Code of Ethics.

If Greenpeace had said “Some estimates are that as many as 20,000 birds died” then they may possibly have got away with it. Or they could have just kept to the facts and said 2,000 dead birds were found.

On the 1,000 times worse:

Turning to the second substantive claim identified in the complaint, that a deep sea drilling incident could be “1000 times worse” (than the Rena incident), the Complaints Board noted that the use of the word “could” presented the claim as an opinion or possibility as opposed to an absolute fact.

By using “could” they get away with it, despite the fact most people would take the ad to be credibly suggesting an oil spill could kill 20 million birds, when the Gulf of Mexico spill killed just 3,800.

Incidentally, even if the figure of 20 million was correct, it would be useful to remember that predators such as possums and stoats kill 25 million birds a a year in New Zealand.

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the Government’s financial position?
2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you go and have a look at the tax cuts, they literally were neutral” and, if so, what is the projected net cost of the first four years of the 2010 tax package?
3. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
4. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Associate Minister of Health: How will young New Zealanders receive better mental health services under the new Government package announced by the Prime Minister today?
5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Land Information: Has he or any other Minister this week sought further information on Shanghai Pengxin’s application for his approval to buy the Crafar farms, and if so, is it coincidence or purpose that this will further delay his decision on the application?
6. NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What initiatives is she introducing to help schools tackle youth mental health?
7. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Has the Government reviewed its highway building programme in light of the warning in the briefing to the incoming Minister that there will be a $4.9 billion funding shortfall if oil prices remain high and economic growth remains low; if not, why not?
8. CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all the answers she has given to questions asked of her to date?
9. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Economic Development: What action has the Government taken to contribute to the recovery of high-tech businesses in Christchurch?
10. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: When will he approve a Recovery Plan for Christchurch’s CBD in light of the Christchurch City Council’s announcement that it will commence its Annual Plan processes next week?
11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Overseas Investment Office and his Ministers, Hon Jonathan Coleman and Hon Maurice Williamson over the issue of the latest Crafar farms deal; if so, why?
12. CLARE CURRAN to the Prime Minister: What did he mean when he told the NZ Herald and other media last week that “We are comfortable with the current arrangements we have” with regards to Chinese telco Huawei’s involvement in our national broadband infrastructure, given that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard also said last week that “We’ve taken a decision in the national interest” to ban Huawei from even tendering for its broadband network?

Today there are four questions from National, five questions from Labour, two from the Greens and one from NZ First.

Patsy of the day goes to Q6 – What initiatives is she introducing to help schools tackle youth mental health?

Labour have their normal gotcha question to the PM, one on Crafar farms, a gotcha to Judith Collins, CERA and Huawei.

Greens are on tax cuts and roads.

NZ First also on the Crafar farms.

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 

A guest post by Peter Freedman:

Can Do Campbell Newman has a huge problem with his enormous victory in the Queensland State election. He now has to try and keep 78 ambitious politicians in line when many of them must know they will be one term wonders. Everyone will want a job and those who end up being about as active as the guys who are doing some sort of road works at the end of our street and have been doing whatever it is for almost two years now will be mischief makers.

The LNP will have to hire the Gabba for the caucus meetings while Labor can have theirs in a phone box.

Labor has hit rock bottom and their only way now is up.

The result is typical of the sort of outcome you get with an FPP system.. There are no winners, practically no Opposition and all Campbell’s little puppies will be pooping on the floor and weeing on the carpet.

Can Do was a major in the Army and was nicknamed Noddy because he got up to a few tricks. He is also an authoritarian who doesn’t listen to anyone and expects everybody to have their kit spick and span and their gear in pristine order.

His attempt to keep his huge team under control promises to be an interesting sight.

Campbell will indeed have no effective opposition from other parties, so the opposition will come from within his own party. I know from experience of National’s 1990 landslide win, that some of your new MPs are not that well suited to be MPs. In seats that you never expected to win, the nomination often goes to whomever wants it. So Campbell will have some difficult MPs to deal with.

The good news for him though it that short of being found to be having an incestous affair with four nuns, Campbell will get a second term. Even a third term at this stage looks likely as Labor will need a lot of time to go from seven MPs to the 45 needed to govern.

The NZ Herald reports:

A bill of about $91,000 from Hamilton Mayor Julie Hardaker’s office last year has shocked some city councillors who are questioning why ratepayers should be paying for a Koru Club membership and $1257 for a new mayoral office chair.

Okay first of all if any Councillor is really suggesting a Mayor shouldn’t have Koru Club membership, they’re just being petty and stupid. The Hamilton City Council has around $3 billion of assets and turns over over $200 million a year and they think the Mayor shouldn’t have a $361/year Koru Club card? Never mind that the reason frequent travellers have them is so they can be productive and keep working while waiting for flights.

The chair criticism is more valid. You can get very nice executive chairs for $500 to $800. $1,257 is at the higher end of the range.

But other items have attracted criticism, including $994.78 on an Air New Zealand Koru Club membership, $1958 on mayoral stationery and $2000 on print ads promoting her Mayor in the Square events.

They are quibbling about stationery and a measly $2,000 of advertising?

Councillor Ewan Wilson said it was inappropriate for ratepayers to be coughing up for a membership to an airport lounge when the mayor earned enough to pay it herself.

Oh don’t be a dick. The Mayor is travelling on work business, not personal business, hence the Council pays. As Wilson should know, it allows you to keep working while travelling.

And the mayoral chair was ordered because she could “not sit properly” in the old one because it was designed for a man. She had been unaware of the cost of the new one. “I just tried some chairs and that one looked good.”

Probably a good idea in future to ask the cost. If one chair is say an A+ fit and costs $1,500 but another is an A- fit and is $400, then you go for the latter one if the difference in quality is minimal but the price difference is significant.

Hamilton Citizens and Ratepayers Association president John Easto said the costs were “quite staggering”. “It’s a bloody expensive position. I don’t think it’s justifiable, some of those costs. A Koru Club membership is fairly normal for senior managers at corporates but the other things I have real problems with – pretty flowers and things.”

Here is the problem I have reading the story. I don’t know if $91,000 is a high level of expenditure for a Mayoral office or not. With the exception of the chair, most items cited seem routine. But what would be very useful information is what has been the expenditure for the Mayoral office over say the last few years? Has it been static, increasing, or decreasing?

The Dom Post editorial:

Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples needs to decide whose side he is on. Is it vulnerable children, many of them Maori, or is it the providers of social services, who have failed them?

His advocacy on behalf of five Maori organisations that have had lucrative Family Start contracts terminated by the Social Development Ministry suggests it is the latter.

The five – Te Roopu Awhina Family Start in Porirua, Turuki Health Care in Mangere, Papakura Marae, the Waipareira Trust and Te Ha o Te Whanau Trust in Opotiki – have been told they will not be funded to provide intensive home-based support to vulnerable families after June 30.

According to Dr Sharples the providers are the victims of “funding cuts” that will reduce the likelihood of positive change in communities with high and complex needs.

The claim does not withstand scrutiny. The providers have not had their contracts terminated because of a funding cut but because, in the words of the ministry’s head of Family and Community Services, Murray Edridge, they provided “inconsistent and, in some cases, unsafe social work practice to families”.

Good intentions are not enough. I’m mildly surprised to see the Waipareira Trust as one of those defunded as for many years it was held up as a model for integrated services.

Terminating the contracts of the five providers will not reduce the likelihood of positive change. It will increase it if the funding is picked up by any of the other 27 Family Start providers, who are delivering useful assistance to the 15 per cent of the population at greatest risk.

Yep.

Dr Sharples has also accused the ministry of failing to communicate properly with the affected organisations. “For Maori organisations, it’s about kanohi ki te kanohi (talking face to face),” he told National Radio yesterday. That claim also appears to be of questionable merit. According to Mr Edridge and Social Development Minister Paula Bennett, the ministry has bent over backwards to try to help the affected providers to come up to standard. Ms Bennett told Parliament yesterday that the Waipareira Trust alone had received 14 visits from the ministry since July last year. Mr Edridge says the failed providers could not have been in any doubt about the ministry’s concerns. All had received regular feedback that they were not meeting the standards required.

If anything, maybe the fair criticism isn’t the decision to defund, but that it has taken so long!

Rather than berating the ministry for being too tough on Maori organisations, he should be thanking it for looking out for those his party has pledged to represent – the most vulnerable members of society.

By doing so the ministry has acted not only to protect children but the reputation of the Whanau Ora scheme established at the behest of the Maori Party to promote Maori solutions to Maori problems.

Nothing will undermine public support for the scheme faster than evidence that money is being wasted or that ministers are turning a blind eye to non-performance.

Exactly. There will be providers from time to time who do not meet the standard required or are wasteful. The Government’s job is to act on those issues, not ignore them.

An interesting op ed by Zealandia Chair Catherine Isaac:

The zoo is asking for a further $59 million of ratepayers’ money over the next 10 years. Its annual grant this year is $2.8 million.

Ratepayers pay $14 per visitor to the zoo, compared with 43 cents per visitor to Zealandia. …

As the editorial notes, the proposal is also anathema to many of the 450 Zealandia volunteers who currently care for the sanctuary, whose time is worth about $900,000 a year. If, as the editorial suggests, the council takes over tending the valley, it would also bear that additional cost.

Volunteer time is but one of the huge donations made to Zealandia.

Over the last 17 years we’ve raised $16 million (not including council funding). In the past year, we’ve raised $400,000 and pared costs back to the bone. Staff and managers are all ‘hands-on’, with a strong volunteerism ethos. It is hard to imagine how a council- controlled organisation would fare running a community project of this nature.

So where are the savings to be made from the proposed ‘super’ CCO and what do these organisations really have in common? Your article suggests Zealandia could grow visitor numbers by using the “zoo’s marketing know- how and database”. In fact Zealandia and the zoo could hardly be more different, in terms of target markets, products, supporters, objectives, culture and relevance to Wellington’s reputation as an ‘eco-friendly’ city.

The Zealandia vision, once thought barely credible, is now being proposed as a national vision, as described in the final lecture of our trustee, the late Sir Paul Callaghan. It is difficult indeed to see how the council’s proposal to merge Zealandia with the zoo could either support and advance that vision or set the sanctuary on a sustainable economic footing.

I didn’t realise the zoo subsidy was so great. Catherine makes some valid points in her op ed. I was mildly supportive of the CCO proposal, but I think her argument about the probable loss of volunteer labour is quite persuasive as to why it should not happen.

I’m off to a function at 5.30 pm to launch the new thinktank, which is a merger of the New Zealand Institute and the New Zealand Business Roundtable.

It will be called the New Zealand Initiative, and will focus on raising debate on public policy and contributing ideas to achieve a more prosperous future for New Zealand.

I think the merger is a chance to get past the brands of the former organisations, and have more debates on public policy which focuses on the issues, rather than get fixated on who is saying what.

Roger Kerr was always going to be a very hard act to follow, but I’m delighted with the announcement of the inaugural executive director as Dr Oliver Hartwich. I know Oliver from his work as the Centre for Independent Studies and he not only has a first class mind and research credentials, but is also an excellent presenter and communicator. I am sure he will also manage to upset as many people here, as he has in other countries 🙂

The Business Roundtable was both a think-tank and a lobby group, while the NZ Institute was just a think-tank. By the look of it, the new New Zealand Initiative will be primarily a think-tank, rather than a hybrid. I think this is a good thing, as I believe the attributes you need from a lobby group is quite different to what you need from a think-tank. To some degree, think-tanks are the wholesalers, and lobby groups the retailers. This merger also opens up an opportunity for a new lobby group to push for good policies on behalf of taxpayers.

UPDATE: Big whoops. This was embargoed until 6 pm. I missed seeing it – totally my fault. Apologies to anyone affected – it was accidental.

As there is no existing page, I plan to set up a permanent page listing all the significant parliamentary scandals, building on the list I did for the Herald. The definition of significant in subjective but as a general guideline I would take it as a resignation occurred or there was some sort of external investigation. What I hope to do is have a table that lists:

• MP//s involved
• Alleged wrong-doing
• Date
• Outcome

Here’s the ones I have to date:

• Colin Moyle, Moyle Affair 1977
• Duncan Macintyre and one other, Marginal Loans Board Affair 1980
• Keith Allen, reported fictitious assault, 1984
• Koro Wetere, Maori Loans affair, 1989
• Denis Marshall, Cave Creek, 1990s
• Neil Kirton, conflict of interest, 1997
• Murray McCully, Tourism Board, 1999
• Tuariki Delamere, conflict of interest, 1999
• Helen Clark, paintergate
• Dover Samuels, sex allegations, 2000
• Dover Samuels, public urination, 2005
• Phillida Bunkle, Marian Hobbs, accom allowances, 2000
• David Parker, company returns 2004
• Trevor Mallard, fighting, 2007
• Darren Hughes, alleged assault, 2011
• Lianne Dalziel, lying, 2000s
• Ruth Dyson, drink driving, 2000
• John Tamihere, Waipareira Trust, 2000s
• Taito Philip Field, bribery and corruption, 2005
• Winston Peters, undeclared donations, 2008
• Richard Worth, alleged assault, 2009
• Phil Heatley, expense claim, 2009
• Bill English, accom eligibility, 2009
• Pansy Wong, business travel, 2011
• Nick Smith, ACC, 2012
• Ross Meurant, conflict of interest, 1990s
• Ian Revell, parking tickets, 1998/9
• Harry Duyhoven, became foreign citizen, 2000s
• Various parties, illegal spending, 2005
• Several Ministers and former Ministers, expense disclosures, 2009
• David Benson-Pope, treatment of former pupils, 2000s
• David Benson-Pope, Madeline Setchell affair, 2000s
• John Kirk, unpaid debts, 1984
• Donna Awatere-Huata, fraud, 2000s
• David Garrett, previous offences, 2010

So what have I missed?

Some very unhappy Sky customers last night. Thousands had paid $20 for the biggest wrestling pay per view of the year, and they cut it off with half an hour to go on the main event. As of last night they were not offering refunds on the basis there was a replay at midnight.

It seems Sky under-estimated how long it would last. Then as people complained, it is alleged they started deleting comments off Sky’s Facebook page. That is a silly thing to do, if correct.

One reader took the day off work to be able to watch it, and is very unhappy there is no refund. Watching it later is not the same as watching it live – people paid the $20 to be able to watch it live. If one was watching it on the actual channel then they may have seen the last half hour, but if like most you are watching it on the PVR with a small time delay so you can fast forward breaks etc, then you missed out on the last 30 minutes.

Idiot/Savant blogs at NRT:

National is actually doing something positive for ordinary people for once, with plans to extend flexible working hours provisions – which currently apply only to caregivers – to all workers. Its a good move. The Department of Labour’s review of the provisions found that there had been no problems with their implementation (contrary to the wailing from employers when the law was passed), and that it produced significant benefits for employers (such as reduced turnover and improved productivity).

I’m all in favour of flexible working hours. If only MUNZ were also!

Readers will be aware that the majority for asset sales is 61-60 in the House. A one seat difference means they would not proceed.

I had previously pointed out that if Labour won Te Tai Tonga, then the Maori Party would have four seats, and on asset sales the House would be tied 61-61. So that was an own goal to Labour.

But also an own goal  from Hone Harawira and Mana. If Mana had got say 0.3% rather than 1.1%, then Harawira’s seat would be an over-hang also, and again the House would be tied 61-61 as Labour would get an additional list seat.

Getting 1.1% was the worst possible result for Mana. If they had got 1.2% then they would have gained a second seat. But failing that, they would have been better to get under 0.4% and be an overhang seat.

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Has he had any recent discussions with the Prime Minister of Australia over security and intelligence concerns Australia has expressed over Huawei?
2. JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government’s plan to return to Budget surplus in 2014/15?
3. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all statements made by him and on his behalf?
4. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she received about reductions in recorded crime?
5. CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: Why has she declined to accept the Law Commission’s recommendation, supported by the Privacy Commissioner, to increase the Privacy Commissioner’s investigative powers, including by giving her the power to issue compliance notices, and to conduct information-handling audits?
6. COLIN KING to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What action is the Government taking to boost international education promotion for Christchurch?
7. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Why is the Government prioritising State highway projects with low benefit cost ratios, given that traffic volumes are back to 2004 levels and the Crown is borrowing $12 billion a year?
8. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Immigration: What changes has the Government made to make it easier for low-risk, high-value students to come to New Zealand?
9. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he take responsibility for the $9.2 million being spent on the change process in his Ministry this year and does he consider it money well spent?
10. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Justice: What is the Government doing to reduce knife crime in New Zealand?
11. Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister for Primary Industries: Will he extend the area of proposed protection for Maui’s dolphins beyond the proposed levels in the consultation document, if submissions are overwhelmingly in favour of larger protection areas?
12. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister for Social Development: What opportunity is there for providers to demonstrate that they have improved practice in order to achieve the Minister’s new “fresh look for Family Start”; and what support has the Ministry for Social Development put in place for providers to understand the ramifications of these changes announced on 24 March?

Today there are five questions from National, four questions from Labour, one from the Greens, one from the Maori Party and one from NZ First.

Patsy of the day goes to Q4 – What recent reports has she received about reductions in recorded crime?

Labour are also asking on the PM the normal gotcha question, one on the Privacy Act (which I suspect will turn into an ACC question), one of MFAT restructuring and unusually one on Maui’s dolphins.

Greens are on highway spending (they are against), Maori Party on Family Start and NZ First on Huawei which could be very interesting but I suspect few answers will be given.

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill – first reading
2. Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill – third reading
3. Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill – committee stage (four hour debate)
4. Building Amendment Bill (No 4) – first reading continued
5. Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill – third reading

If debates use their maximum time, then the House should complete the first two bills, and get 90 minutes through the Appropriation Bill.

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.

The Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill was introduced in September 2011 and seeks to amend the scheme to shorten the repayment holiday from three years to one year and require borrowers to apply for a repayment holiday, plus other changes. It was supported at first reading by National, Labour, ACT, Maori, Progressive and United and opposed by Greens and Chris Carter. It appears to continue to have broad support as there was no minority report back from the select committee. At second reading all parties but the Greens voted for it. However at committee stage, a Labour amendment to increase the repayment holiday was voted down, and they now appear to be voting against also.

The Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill seeks to confirm and validate financial matters relating to the 2010/11 financial year.

The Building Amendment Bill (No 4) was introduced in November 2011 and seeks to also implement the Building Act reviews decisions, including more comprehensive consumer protection measures and clarifying exemptions from building consent requirements.

The Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill was introduced in October 2010 and seeks to to reform the tax treatment of gains of New Zealand residents from income interests in overseas entities and gains of foreign residents from interests in New Zealand companies. It passed its first and second readings on a voice vote but at committee stage Labour and Greens voted against Part 3.