Trevor’s Lusk fixation

Radio NZ reports:

Judith Collins says she did not leak it either, while the chairman of the Accident Compensation Corporation board says it did not come from ACC.

Labour MP Trevor Mallard says National Party supporter Simon Lusk acted as a conduit between Judith Collins and one of her blogger friends with the information.

But Ms Collins says Mr Lusk is not someone she or her staff have dealings with.

You note the total lack of evidence put up by Trevor. It is his normal just invent a story, which for somebizarre reasons the media think has some credibility.

The exchange in the House yesterday was pretty clear cut:

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she or any of her staff discuss the contents of the Boag email with Simon Lusk?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she or any of her staff discuss the systemic privacy issues that Boag and Pullar raised with her with Simon Lusk?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.

Trevor has a fascination with Simon, but the fascination doesn’t extend to accuracy. He stated on numerous occasions last year that Simon Lusk worked for Steven Joyce and on his orders orchestrated the ACT coup.

It is hard to describe how off the planet this is.  All I can say is if you do not believe me, just go up to any National MP and ask them “Does Simon Lusk work for Steven Joyce” and around five minutes later you’ll get a response once they have picked themselves up from the floor, and stopped laughing.

Trevor Mallard is to accuracy what Charlie Sheen is to celibacy.

Fracking inquiry

Stuff reports:

Both sides of the fracking debate are welcoming news of an official and independent investigation.

Dr Jan Wright, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, announced the investigation yesterday.

Preliminary work on hydraulic fracturing, the process of pumping water and chemicals into wells to release oil and gas, had indicated there was a need for an examination, she said.

“Over the next few months my staff and I will conduct this investigation and produce a report to Parliament,” she said.

The report would be presented before the end of the year, she said.

But while the move is what Taranaki’s strongest opponents of hydraulic fracturing have long called for, they say a moratorium is still needed in this region while the investigation is under way.

The PCE inquiry is not a bad thing. The PCE tends to generally take a robust science based approach to issues.

The sad reality is though that opponents of fracking will remain implacably opposed to it regardless of what the PCE says. Their call for a moratorium is in fact a call for a permanent ban. I bet you there will never ever be a day when they say the moratorium should be lifted.

I also predict that the PCE will probably say there is no proof that fracking causes harm, but they can not prove it doesn’t do bad stuff, and opponents will seize on the inability to prove a negative as a reason for it to be banned.

Te Ahumairangi Hill Lookout

Even though I go up Te Ahumairangi Hill (was Tinakori Hill) a lot, I was actually blissfully unaware that in 2010 an official lookout was opened. I tend to be around the Thorndon end, more than the Northland end.

This is the lookout itself. You can get to it from Orangi Kaupapa Road. Either a steep but short walk up from the road, or if really lazy you can drive up to it. Alternatively you can walk along the Ridgeline track and then head down to it. And you can climb up to it from Tinakori Road or Glenmore Street.

A nice view of the city from over the bush.

This is from Stellin Memorial Park, which is a bit below and to the south of the lookout. A nice grass area for a picnic, and a great view.

A close up of the city and harbour.

As I was in Northland, I drove over the back route to Brooklyn and checked out the war memorial which I had been meaning to look at for ages.

Not too bad a view from Brooklyn either.

Now a defendant

Stuff reports:

The man who privately prosecuted former Cabinet Minister Trevor Mallard has been charged with blackmail.

Graham McCready, 67, is charged with threatening to expose a defamatory libellous document with intent to cause a man to act in accordance with his will on July 5 in 2010.

He was remanded on bail by Wellington District Court judge Bruce Davidson for three weeks. One of his bail conditions is that he is not allowed to contact the man named in the charge.

He has not entered a plea.

Can’t comment in detail as this is before the courts, but fair to say Trevor will be smiling.

I’m not actually a huge fan of private prosecutions due to the potential to be abusive, but they are a safety valve against the state in the case of inaction.

Why we should keep a no exemptions GST

The Telegraph reports:

George Osborne has been mocked by MPs over his “pasty tax” after it emerged people could avoid paying VAT on hot baked goods if they wait for them to cool in the shop.

These are the sort of stupidities you get when you don’t have a clean GST like we have in NZ. Labour’s pledge to exempt fresh fruit and vegetables was bad public policy, and will lead to situations like the above. For exampel frozen peas might have GST on them, but if you waited to thaw them, then would they be exempt?

Queensland’s new Premier

This is new Queensland Premier Campbell Newman on election night. Now recall that Labor Premier Anna Bligh launched a massive smear campaign against Newman and his wife’s family. She even said that Newman would end up in jail.

At 5:20 see what he says about Bligh. It is:

I want to acknowledge and thank the Premier for her service to Queensland and particularly I think it is appropriate this evening that we all thank her and particularly acknowledge her inspirational leadership during the 2011 floods and Cyclone Yasi

A very good start to his new job. He would have had every reason to be bitter about her smear campaign against him, but he rose above it.

Hat Tip: Andrew Bolt

Parliament 28 March 2012

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

  1. SIMON BRIDGES to the Minister of Finance: What measures is the Government taking to responsibly manage its finances and reduce the build-up in debt?
  2. CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Attorney-General: Were theProsecution Guidelines dated 1 January 2010 applied to the decision not to prosecute Mr Ambrose over the Tea Tape complaint?
  3. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for Social Development: How will the Government’s proposed welfare changes give greater flexibility to support beneficiaries back into work?
  4. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister for ACC: Does she stand by her answers to all supplementary questions to Oral Questions No. 2 and No. 9 yesterday?
  5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Has the Treasury underestimated the forecast lost profits to the Crown from the sale of State-owned energy companies in light of Mighty River Power’s enhanced earnings and dividend announcement?
  6. MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has she received about the amount of drug use in prisons?
  7. RICHARD PROSSER to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he have confidence in New Zealand’s current biosecurity arrangements?
  8. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Transport: What is the Government doing to reduce compliance costs for motorists?
  9. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Conservation: How many adult Maui’s dolphins are estimated to be alive today and can she guarantee that on her watch no more Maui’s dolphins will die of human-induced causes?
  10. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What is the cost budgeted for this financial year of the 30 or more positions in the Change Programme Office within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the consultants engaged by the Ministry on the change process?
  11. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Statistics: What information has he received on preparations for the 2013 Census?
  12. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: Is the Government considering legislative or regulatory concessions with respect to SkyCity Casino in order to build an international convention centre; if so, why?

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 Q11 – What information has he received on preparations for the 2013 Census?

Labour are asking on teapotgate, ACC, MFAT and Sky City.  Interesting that Mallard not Little (the ACC spokesperson) is asking the ACC questions.

Greens are on asset sales and dolphins. NZ First on biosecurity.

General Debate 3.00 pm – 4.00 pm

Government Bills 4.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm (and Thu 9am to 1 pm)

  1. Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill – first reading
  2. Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill – committee stage
  3. Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill – second reading continued
  4. Building Amendment Bill (No 4) – first reading
  5. Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill – third reading

The Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill was introduced in October 2011. It implements most of the 2010 Law Commission report, including handing over entitlements of MPs to travel and accommodation services will be determined by an independent body. It also allows an MPs salary to have a 0.2% deduction for every day they are absent without leave, which effectively increases it from $50/day to $270/day.

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.

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.

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 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.

An example of why local government reform is needed

A reader has pointed out to me this example of why local government needs to be reined in. The Horowhenua District Council said:

The seats are in, wallpaper up, kitchen equipped and Levin’s new Focal Point cinema is on track for the opening on 4 November 2010.

The former Cinema 3 building has been completely refurbished in a joint venture between Horowhenua District Council and Focal Point Cinema of Feilding to bring movies back to Levin. Cinema 3 closed in March 2010.

So the HDC thinks it role is to subsidise a movie theatre. I understand the cost may have been as much as $500,000. Then look at this notice:

The Precautionary Boil Water Notice is still in place for Shannon and Tokomaru.

This means that the Horowhenua District Council advises boiling cooking and drinking water before use.

This is because Shannon has no treatment plant and the source water is contaminated. the HDC should be spending money on making sure its residents have safe drinkable water, rather than investing in movie theatres.

This is why the proposed new focus on infrastructure and public services is needed.

Privacy Act review

Stuff reports:

The Government plans to overhaul 20-year-old privacy laws following ”huge changes to technology”.

Justice Minister Judith Collins today announced the Government would repeal and re-enact the Privacy Act 1993 following a Law Commission report released last year, which made more than 100 recommendations.

“Our current privacy law has been in place for almost 20 years and predates the creation of the internet,” Collins said.

“Huge changes to technology and information flows have occurred during that time and they have overtaken our privacy laws.”

Collins said people were expecting more information to be available quickly and were more likely to share “private information”.

“The foundations of the Act are sound, but it needs to be updated to reflect our changing attitudes and the way people, business and government use information in the 21st century.”

The Justice Ministry was reviewing the Law Commission’s recommendations and would report back to the Government in September.

Further announcements about specific policy proposals would be made later this year, Collins said.

It is good that the act will be updated, as it is out of date. However I’d encourage people to take a keen interest in the law changes once they are known. Privacy is very important to people, but so is freedom of information and speech and sometimes the two may conflict. Getting that balance right is crucial.

Greens and Waihi

The Herald reports:

The Green Party is being accused of politicking and hijacking compensation negotiations between Newmont Waihi Gold and the local community.

But local MP Catherine Delahunty says there is widespread disapproval of the multinational company prospecting throughout the Coromandel Peninsula and people see Waihi as “an object-lesson”.

There may be disapproval from some people in the wider Coromandel, but how much from Waihi locals? I seem to recall a story a while back about how many people there are dependent on mining for their jobs, and in fact would like more jobs.

Placard-waving protesters who had arrived from Tauranga to Colville marched on Newmont Waihi Gold’s office yesterday to raise concerns about the company’s expansion plans for its operations on the peninsula.

So these protesters came from cities such as Tauranga, to speak on behalf of the people of Waihi?

Ms Delahunty said there were concerns that Newmont had permits to explore for gold in over 40,000ha of land in the Coromandel – including in areas of Schedule 4 conservation land.

You can’t apply for a mine, unless you have done some initial exploration. The impact from exploration is quite minor, as I understand it.

Ms Delahunty said mining was an unsustainable “finite industry” and would affect the peninsula’s $360 million-a-year tourism industry.

Nonsense. Sure there are some places you would not stick a gold mine, but I doubt a single tourist would choose not to come to the Coromandel because of some mining. Hell, on the West Coast the mines are actual tourist attractions.

And yes it is a finite industry, but probably will be around for the next 100+ years and during that time it will feed a lot of families who need jobs. Mining jobs tend to be higher paid jobs too.

Anonymous blogging

Whale blogs:

When I first started the Blog I did so under a pseudonym…I did it for a number of reasons. The main one though was that I knew that no matter what I said or did people would say it was my father speaking or that I was doing his bidding. Likewise I used the pseudonym so no one would hold him accountable for what I had to say or did. So when I started blogging it was under the pseudonym Whaleoil.

Eventually I registered a domain name and people then found out who I was and as I predicted the accusations started. To this day whenever there is something that I ahve said that upset the more sensitive types they suggest that my father put me up to it or that he somehow can control a 43 year old man who lives his own life with a family of his own. It actually says a great deal about their sad little life that they believe the father is the man or the man is the father.

Whale quotes from elsewhere:

There’s something freeing, to be sure, about being able to say anything you want. You can engage in unfounded name-calling, or intentionally hurt someone’s feelings, or just generally behave like a twelve year old. And no one will know it’s you. And that’s why I don’t read many blogs that are written by people who prefer to remain anonymous or who write under pseudonyms when there isn’t really any reason for them to do so. In fact, I don’t think there are any blogs I read on a daily basis whose authors are anonymous. The anonymous or pseudonymous blogs are often just filled with cruelty, name-calling, and bad arguments. Indeed, there are a great many people who choose to write under an assumed name because they want to harrass or offend others.

He concludes that if more bloggers came out, there would be a better more honest, reasoned, political discourse in the NZ blogosphere.

My views are similiar, but not identical.

I do read some blogs where the author is effectively anonymous, such as No Right Turn. I don’t think for his blog it matters hugely whether he is publicly known or not, because while I disagree with much of what he says, generally he is debating policies and issues, and not denigrating people. Occasionally he does, but for that matter so do I sometimes, despite my best efforts. But overall an (pseudo) anonymous blogger such as No Right Turn I have no real issue with.

My issue is with those who cower behind anonymity and use that to slander and abuse those they disagree with. They do it to journalists, they do it to other bloggers, they do it to anyone. And the hypocrisy is that they are prepared to have the reputations of others be pilloried for comments they make under their name, but won’t take accountability for their own words. They say things which (if someone took them at face value) can actually damage careers of other people, yet refuse to let their words affect them.

The irony is that blogging under your own name does force you to be a better blogger. Every post you make, you think “Am I comfortable with this being associated with my name”.

 

Treaty relativity clauses

The ODT reports:

After years of speculation, the Government and Ngai Tahu have confirmed a Treaty of Waitangi top-up clause is set to trigger, potentially pumping millions into the beleaguered South Island economy.

Both Ngai Tahu and Waikato-Tainui negotiated “insurance clauses” as part of their original settlements, entitling each iwi to a percentage of all future Treaty settlements once they exceeded $1 billion in 1994 dollar terms.

For the first time, the Government has acknowledged that amount could be reached this year, which would entitle Ngai Tahu to 16.1% and Waikato-Tainui 17% of all future Treaty settlements.

Morgan Godfrey blogs:

If one or more of the larger iwi settle this year, think Tuhoe and Ngati Tuwharetoa, the relativity clause will almost certainly be triggered. The relativity clause ensures Ngai Tahu and Tainui maintain their position relative to other iwi. It’s, as termed above, an insurance clause. 

Under the principles of the Treaty, the Crown is obligated to preserve tribal relations. In practice this means the Crown should not give an unfair advantage to one or more iwi, hence the relativity clause. The clause ensures Ngai Tahu and Tainui remain at the top of the pecking order – at least until Tuhoe and Nga Puhi settle. 

I’m surprised this story’s failed to gain more traction. When the clause is invoked, the consequences will be considerable. Many New Zealanders will resent the fact that some iwi can double dip, some tribes may resent this as well and the National government won’t want to this to stick to them. After all, it was the previous National government that negotiated the clause. 

I don’t think you can fairly call this double dipping, which I see more as coming back twice for the same claim. Any additional payment due to the relativity clauses is part of the settlement agreement.

The ODT continues:

University of Otago politics department associate professor Janine Hayward said the mechanism was “simply an insurance clause” for Ngai Tahu and Waikato-Tainui, which were among the first to negotiate settlements.

“It was a good deal for both to make sure the settlement happened, and Ngai Tahu were pretty brave getting off the blocks first,” she said.

The iwi were the only ones to have negotiated top-up clauses, which came about after the then National government signalled a $1 billion fiscal cap on total settlements.

I doubt one could have got the initial settlements without those clauses, as this was uncharted territory.  It looks like the total cost of settlements will be over $1b in 1994 terms, but even if it reaches $2b, that is not a huge amount of expenditure over a 25 year period – around $80m a year.

This Government is making rapid progress on settling the remaining historical grievances. I don’t think they will all be settled by 2014, but think they probably will be by 2017. It will be a great day when we can put them into the past. That doesn’t mean there may not be ongoing contemporary issues, but the hope is that the focus is more on the future than the past.

Hawkins Hill

A couple of weekends ago did one of my favourite walks from the wind turbine to the Hawkins Hill radar station, along with a couple of friends, a baby and a dog! It was a brilliant day weather wise, which I have to say has been pretty good the last few weeks.

A friendly Emu following us along the fence line.

Posing for a photo with said baby and dog. Was very funny as at one point a person passing by commented what a fit family we were. This caused us much merriment as we were not sure what sort of family he thought we were with two women, one man and a baby. We concluded that he probably thought the two girls were lesbian lovers and I was their “donor”.

The views of the south coast and suburbs are just stunning.

The Wellington Castle, from above. Had a brief exchange of pleasantries with the owner as he was driving out his front gate. I didn’t tell him that I wanted to purchase the castle one day as a headquarters for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

And the radar station itself. Next o the radar station are some foundations from a destroyed building. Anyone know what it used to be?

Meurant v McCully

Stuff reports:

Controversial Kiwi businessman and former cop Ross Meurant has come out swinging at proposals by Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully to make it easier for New Zealand to ignore the United Nations when imposing trade sanctions on other countries.

Meurant, a polarising figure since his days as head of the notorious police “Red Squad” during the 1981 Springbok Tour, says McCully is seeking to “demonstrate his subservience to America’s blueprint of who should rule the world”, and if New Zealand gains the right to impose autonomous sanctions, it will be used to stifle trade with countries the US does not approve of, such as Syria.

McCully told the Sunday Star-Times his proposal, if approved by his cabinet colleagues, wouldn’t come to pass for at least a year and is not yet aimed at any particular country. He said if passed, his proposal would follow the lead of legislation passed in Australia last year (which has allowed them to impose autonomous sanctions against Iran, Myanmar, Fiji, North Korea and Zimbabwe).

I thought the proposal was fairly unremarkable. I suspect in the vast majority of cases we will only impose sanctions when the UN does, but there may be occasions when one wants to impose sanctions for sound reasons, without giving Russia and China a veto.

Meurant has a particular interest in Syria because since 2007 he has been involved in an abalone aquaculture project there. Six months ago he began setting up a business exporting phosphate from Syria to New Zealand for agricultural use, but the deteriorating political and security situation halted those plans.

While New Zealand currently has no restrictions on trade with Syria, Meurant says US restrictions on financial transactions with Syria make things complicated.

“I was thwarted by the US financial transactions blockade in making payment in US dollars to Syria for a sample container of phosphate.”

Oh I was wondering why Meurant was interested in this. He doesn’t want any sanctions against Syria, no matter how much they butcher their citizens, because of his business dealings. Typical.

 

In defence of Finland

Stuff reports:

Gerry Brownlee’s comments that Finnish people are uneducated and disrespectful to women have sparked outrage and made headlines in the European nation.

“The story is flaming in the Finnish media,” Juha Parikka, counsellor to the Embassy of Finland said.

Auckland lecturer Merja Myllylahti has even started a Facebook group, calling for Brownlee to visit Finland “to learn some facts”. …

Brownlee’s spokesman said the  comments were made in humour, were based on OECD figures and were part of a general debate.

One Finnish blogger responded:

Just you New Zealanders stop raping sheep, children and your Maori slaves, which is a satirical comment with a shadow of fact in it so no hard feelings, and we’re okay.

People are getting a wee bit sensitive over this. But just in case Finland declares war on New Zealand, I’d better try and make peace, especially as we have no combat airforce left.

Personally I’m very fond of Finns, having spent a few days in Vegas with four young Finnish politicians. Thankfully what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, but let’s just sat everyone had a great time.

Now I’m also very fond of New Zealand, and Gerry is right that in several areas New Zealand is the better performing country.

But in one key area, I’m prepared to concede that Finland is the superior country. They clearly have a more impressive armed forces.

Clinging onto compulsion

I guess it was too much to hope for that most student politicians would see VSM as an opportunity to refocus their organisations into student-focused bodies which actually provide goods and services that students value.

The vast majority of student associations have done deals with their universities, where the university will fund them, so they can have a zero membership fee. This means that effectively taxpayers and students are being forced to fund everything a student association does.

There is a case for a university to agree to fund certain discrete services such as a class rep system. But the universities it seem have so much surplus cash, that they are funding the student associations to do everything they used to do. In fact some like OUSA are boasting they will have more income than in the past.  If I was advising Steven Joyce, I’d be pointing out that the universities have just made his job a lot easier. If they have so much surplus money, that they can afford to fund social activities, clubs, political advocacy, student politician salaries, student media etc etc, then they obviously do not need any extra funding.

The rorting doesn’t stop there though. Never mind that Parliament passed a law saying no student should be forced to join a student association. by having the university take over their funding, some student associations such as OUSA have put a clause in their constitution declaring every single student at Otago is automatically a member of OUSA, unless they explicitly opt out. This I suspect is illegal, and would not survive a legal challenge. They do it to maintain the myth that they somehow have a mandate to speak on behalf of all students.

It is disappointing that so many student politicians have sold out for the money. By agreeing to be reliant on the universities for their funding, they have become like the trade unions in the former USSR. Those unions did not represent their members, but were in fact there to further the roles of the Government. By choosing to have the university fund them, instead of students, they will naturally over time put the interests of the university over the students they claim to represent.

A brave association would have said we’ll have a (for example) $40 membership fee, and we are confident we can persuade at least half the student on campus that we provide benefits worth more than $1 a week.

Parliament 27 March 2012

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

  1. KEVIN HAGUE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by the answers given on his behalf to all my questions in the House on Thursday, 22 March?
  2. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for ACC: Does she have confidence in the Board of ACC?
  3. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Economic Development: What actions is the Government taking to increase employer confidence to hire new workers?
  4. DENIS O’ROURKE to the Prime Minister: Has he received any recent reports or briefings from the Police?
  5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Attorney-General: How often has the Solictor-General appeared in Court representing the Crown in cases involving the interests of a Prime Minister during an election campaign?
  6. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for Social Development: Why is the Government reforming New Zealand’s welfare system?
  7. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister of Finance: What did he mean regarding public sector CEO pay increases when he said “There’s a couple of bigger pay increases, I think three with the energy companies, which will be probably related to the share float that’s coming”?
  8. NIKKI KAYE to the Associate Minister of Education: What announcements have been made about the first school property public private partnership in New Zealand?
  9. ANDREW LITTLE to the Minister for ACC: Which of the investigations now underway in ACC – the Malcolm Crompton–led investigation into privacy issues or the Police investigation into alleged blackmail – will deal with the disclosure of former ACC Minister Nick Smith’s letter regarding Bronwyn Pullar to the media?
  10. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What progress has the Government made to combat the trade of objectionable images of children?
  11. DAVID CLENDON to the Minister of Corrections: Does she agree with the United Kingdom Ministry of Justice report that states “there is no evidence that, on average, prison is more cost-effective at preventing reoffending than community sentences.”?
  12. CLARE CURRAN to the Prime Minister: Why has the New Zealand Government taken a different decision to the Australian Government with regard to security matters relating to Huawei’s involvement in broadband projects?

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 – Why is the Government reforming New Zealand’s welfare system?

Labour are so many topics to choose from, its is interesting to see whatthey went with – ACC twice , then Teapotgate and asset sales.

Greens are on ACC and prisons. NZ First on teapotgate.

Government Bills 4.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

  1. Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill – second reading (no debate)
  2. Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill – first reading
  3. Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill – second reading
  4. Regulatory Reform Bill – second reading continued
  5. Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill – second reading continued

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

The Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill was introduced in March 2012 and seeks to introduce a new system of income support for young people and introduce a stronger work focus to some benefit categories.

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.

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.

The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill was introduced in November 2010 and seeks to repeal “31 Acts that have been identified as spent, meaning they no longer have any actual effect, or have very limited effect, and are out of date”.  It was passed on a voice vote at first reading, and considered in tandem with the Regulatory Reform Bill by the Commerce Select Committee. There was also no minority report so appears to be non-controversial.

Measuring GDP

Damien Grant in the HoS, wrote about a recent paper by Reserve Bank Governor Allan Bollard on measuring GDP. I hunted down the paper, which is here. Basically it details the differences between how NZ and Australia measure GDP, and that if we measure GDP like Australia does, then the gap would be only 20%, not 30%. This is roughly what the purchasing power difference is.

This doesn’t mean we actually get any richer by changing how we measure GDP, but that how we place on the global league tables would be a fairer reflection.

Bollard states some key differences are:

  1. According to the report and a survey of country practices, of the 45 countries surveyed, New Zealand and Japan were the only countries that made no explicit estimates of unobserved activities (such as cash jobs, growing your own vegetables, illegal activities) in the estimation of GDP. Taking Australia as a benchmark, where explicit estimates are not made for illegal activity, but are made for the underground economy and household backyard production, we believe GDP in New Zealand could be underestimated by 2 percent.
  2. Most countries treat Financial Intermediation Services Indirectly Measured in a way that increases GDP by allocating the service to the sector that uses or consumes it. In New Zealand all financial services are assumed to be used by businesses in the production of other goods and services.We estimate the impact of this at approximately 2 percent of GDP.
  3. The lack of quality adjustment of residential buildings leads to an understatement of GDP. If we assume a similar growth path to Australia for New Zealand, we estimate the approximate ballpark for GDP could be 1.5 percent higher.
  4. Statistics NZ plan to introduce SNA 2008 in 2013-14. This is similar timing to other countries around the world. It is difficult to estimate the impact that new international standards will have on New Zealand’s national accounts and GDP. We estimate approximately a 3 percent increase in GDP.
  5. A country’s GDP can be estimated three ways, using the production method, the income method, or the expenditure method. In Australia, all three GDP measures are available on a quarterly basis, and instead of elevating one measure over another, the quarterly GDP movement is calculated by averaging the movements of the three measures.

Bollard concludes that our actual position on the OECD league table would jump us over Korea, Spain, Italy to around Japan’s place, if we measured GDP like Australia does. He argues that reducing measurement differences is important because:

  • Households may not make optimal decisions regarding employment, training, migration, saving and investment if they believe that our GDP per capita is significantly lower than it actually is, and that they might be better off elsewhere.
  • Financial markets need accurate measures of New Zealand’s ability to borrow and repay debt. This impacts our financial institutions and our sovereign borrowing. Measuring New Zealand’s GDP properly is a key concern of credit rating agencies.
  • We need well-focused informed economic and social policy. Clearly it is more difficult to know whether these are working if there are doubts about the level of GDP per capita, and whether our measure is truly comparable with that of other countries, including that of our large trans-Tasman neighbour.

And he concludes:

New Zealanders rightly worry about the extent to which New Zealand incomes have drifted below the world’s highest in the last 40 years, but how large is that drift, and how have the gaps changed in more recent times? For helping answer those questions, good and economically comparable data are vital. This paper does not answer the question “are we closing the trans-Tasman gap”? However it does argue that the gap is not as wide as most people think.

At the 2012 annual leader’s meeting, the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand agreed that, to promote further reform and economic integration, the Productivity Commissions of each country would conduct a joint study on the options for further reforms that would enhance increased economic integration and improve economic outcomes. Given this aim, a useful contribution could be to improve harmonisation of statistical measurement in Australia and New Zealand, where appropriate, to improve data comparability.

I had no idea that the measurement differences between countries were so great that they could make a difference of 10% of GDP.

MPs Social Media Details

I’ve compiled a table of Internet and social media contact details for the 121 New Zealand Members of Parliament. This list is intended as a public resource. MPs are welcome, and indeed encouraged, to let me know of any corrections or change, via e-mail.

The table is a permanent page on Kiwiblog.

In terms of the data:

  • The e-mail addresses come from the official parliamentary contact list.
  • The websites come from searching on Google, and my 2011 candidates list.
  • The twitter details come from the @nzparliament twitter list of MPs. Incidentially the @nzparliament account has me blocked for some reason, which is strange. So does Charles Chauvel, but I presume that is because he sulked over something I wrote.
  • The Facebook details come from searching on Facebook. Sometimes there has been more than one page to choose from. Happy to change pages linked to upon request
It great we have so many MPs who make themselves accessible via the Internet. The purpose of the page is to allow people to follow, friend, e-mail and read about MPs they have an interest in.
I considered adding in extra columns for other social media such as Foursquare and Linked In, but don’t think many MPs use them. If there is demand, I could look at adding them in future.
A screenshot of the page is below, but note the actual page with hyperlinks is here.
I don’t have the capability to add on features such as how many followers an MP has on Twitter or friends on Facebook, but someone else might be able to do that, as a few people have said that would be useful.

The Atlantic on New Zealand

An article in The Atlantic Magazine talks about why NZ is better than the US:

THE PULITZER PRIZE–WINNING scholar David Hackett Fischer—whose books include Historians’ Fallacies and one of the most creative and innovative books on American history in the past quarter century, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America—declares that his new work is the first historical examination of the idea of fairness, and of its social and political ramifications. I haven’t been able to pin that down. Nevertheless, this comparison of the United States with New Zealand is a pioneering, illuminating, and at times startling book, which you’d think those given to diagnosing and expatiating about the nature and future direction of American society would jump to read. But because it’s lengthy (656 pages) and complex, and delves into such recondite matters as settlement patterns in colonial America, the history of New Zealand’s feminist movements, and the evolution of the Lib-Lab coalition, this book won’t be column fodder for the punditocracy.

Ambitious and observant, widely (if at times sloppily) researched, Fairness and Freedom is a work of frequently profound historical and social analysis. Its purpose is neither programmatic nor polemical. Still, its main value for American readers may be its unintentional skewering of our self-congratulatory tendencies. Our democratic values, rule of law, and tolerance are a model to the world—or so Democratic and Republican politicians’ rhetoric and even our political scientists’ pronouncements would have it. But those who speak today of America as “the last best hope of Earth” or as “the indispensable nation” seem narcissistically unaware that Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand developed and fought for those same civic virtues independently of, and in some ways in opposition to, America.

New Zealand—where during the Second World War the Austrian emigré Karl Popper wrote his enormously influential The Open Society and Its Enemies, an excoriation of historicist totalitarianism and a defense of liberal democracy—is a particularly successful polity and society. In some ways its achievements seem all the greater when compared with those of the United States. In 2010, its unemployment rate was nearly half of ours. Our economic inequality is the highest of any developed country’s; New Zealand’s hovers much lower on the list. New Zealand ranks first in Transparency International’s global survey of government honesty; the United States ranks 22nd—just ahead of Uruguay! And comparable divergences, Fischer shows, are found “in trends and measures of political partisanship, legislative stalemate, judicial dysfunction, infrastructure decay, home foreclosures, family distress, drug consumption, and social violence.” Fischer’s rich cultural analysis leaves little doubt that New Zealand’s achievements are largely rooted in its “highly developed vernacular ideas of fairness,” a complex set of values that Kiwis prize and pursue earnestly. The result: by virtually every measure, New Zealand has a more just and decent society than ours—while resorting far less readily to legalistic and legislative remedies.

Americans tend to disdain, say, effete northern-European countries, with their generous social-welfare provisions and histories of neutrality and defeatism. But Fischer’s astute examination of Kiwis’ esteemed tradition of skill and courage on the battlefield—epitomized by their beloved Second World War heroes Bernard Freyburg, Howard Kippenberger, Humphrey Dyer, and Charles Upham (“combat officers who led from the front, brave beyond imagining, loyal to a fault … close to their men and very careful with their lives”)—won’t allow the scoffers to dismiss New Zealand. (Surprisingly, Fischer doesn’t discuss the New Zealander Keith Park, the RAF’s brilliant key operational commander during the Battle of Britain. As “the only man who could have lost the war in a day, or even an afternoon,” in the words of Air Vice Marshall Johnnie Johnson, Park is a military figure of nothing less than world-historical importance.) Characterized by initiative and aggressiveness combined with a chivalric ethos, a respect for the intellect, and an impatience with rank and hierarchy, New Zealand’s martial virtues have imbued Kiwis’ sense of fairness and decency with muscularity—a quiet courage and a puckish, manly large-spiritedness.

Fischer’s purpose in writing what is almost certainly the most detailed and sophisticated dissection of New Zealand society ever aimed at an American readership is decidedly not, however, to fashion a paean to Kiwis. That society appealingly (at least from my perspective) marries two complementary traits that Americans wrongly believe to be antithetical: it is both deeply conservative and fiercely egalitarian. The result, as the American journalist John Gunther (not quoted by Fischer) observed in 1972, is a cooperative society of “wholesome lives” in which “democracy is carried to the ultimate”—but a society marked by a somewhat “low-burning ambition.” For better and worse, Americans will never emulate New Zealanders. But as we enter the Pacific Century, New Zealand and its more energetic antipodean cousin will be playing an ever more vital economic, cultural, and political role. Rather than continue pontificating about “America’s larger purpose in the world” (to quote our president’s messianic invocation), we’d perhaps be better off shutting up and trying to learn something from other peoples. This book is an excellent place to start.

I quoted the whole article, because the writing is so good, I didn’t want to paraphrase it.

The satisfaction of throwing out a despised Government

I have said many times that overall MMP is significantly superior to FPP. But the recent slaughter in Queensland reminds us of something that you don’t get under MMP – the satisfaction of seeing a despised Government crushed at an election.

Australian Labor won only 7 out of 89 seats, despite winning 27% of the vote. Now this is certainly unfair in terms of proportinality. But in terms of teaching a Government a lesson (being don’t lie and don’t run dirty smear campaigns), MMP reduces the impact of losing the public favour. You can’t actually throw out the top Ministers, as they did in Queensland, as they would all remain safe on the party list.

In fact under MMP it is possible Labor could have retained power in Queensland if they did a deal with Bob Katter.

Again don’t get me wrong, MMP is better than FPP overall. But I do miss losing the ability to really punish a Government as they have just done in Queensland.

Caption Contest

Back Benches 28 March 2012

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

PAY PERFORMANCE: Is pay for performance the best way to get the most from our teachers? How do we insure our teachers are the best they can be? Who determines what makes a good teacher? Should it good performance be based on test scores? And will charter schools be the way to lift achievement?

SPEAKING OF HIGH PAY…CEO’s: Speaking of high pay—CEO’s in the public sector are earning the big bucks. The average wage of bosses in the public sector is $340,000 while those running our state-owned energy companies are in the million dollar range. Are they getting paid too much? Should there be a limit how much those in the Public Sector can get paid? Or are high wages the only way to entice the best? Should CEO’s earn more than the Prime Minister of our country?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 28th of March. Our Panel: Green Party Co-Leader Dr. Russel Norman, Labour MP Dr. Megan Woods, and National MP Scott Simpson.

Wednesday at 9.05pm and Saturday at 10.05pm | TVNZ 7