I regard this as a serious crime. Chloe Johnson at HoS reports:

An embittered mother deliberately took the wrong man for DNA testing to get her ex-partner’s name removed from a birth certificate.

The 33-year-old woman, who now lives in Masterton, pleaded guilty in the Waitakere District Court last week to perverting the course of justice. …

Ryan, 37, told the Herald on Sunday he had been living a nightmare without his son.

“He hasn’t had his father. Boys need their dad, they need their mum too, they need both parents … it has broken my heart,” Ryan said.

He said his former partner became pregnant within three weeks of their getting together and the relationship turned sour because “I didn’t love her”.

He claimed his ex-partner falsely accused him of being a rapist, a drug addict, a gang member and a stalker following the break-up.

“The hell she has put me through – I wasn’t asking for much, I wasn’t asking for custody. I just wanted to see him and let him know me. It is his right to know his father. My life has been on hold.”

Ryan, who has two children from a previous marriage, said the last time he saw his son was almost two years ago.

“It was raining so we were locked inside, just playing with his toys, piggy-back rides, it was such a good day.

“I think about [him] every day. I just hope he forgives me,” Ryan said.

It is not Ryan who needs forgiveness. I think it is a heinous crime to not just lie about paternity but to actually falsify records.

The Fijian Government has announced a timetable for a new constitution. This is well overdue, but better late than never. First the principles that will make up the constitution:

• A common and equal citizenry;
• A secular state;
• The removal of systemic corruption;
• An independent judiciary;
• Elimination of discrimination;
• Good and transparent governance;
• Social justice;
• One person, one vote, one value;
• The elimination of ethnic voting;
• Proportional representation; and
• A voting age of 18.

The commitment to a secular state, an independent judiciary and the elimination of ethnic voting is especially welcome. Hell, maybe one day we’ll do the same in New Zealand and our Head of State won’t have to be a particular religion, and we won’t have race based seats.

Some of the issues to be discussed are:

• Do we want economic and social rights to be included in the Bill of Rights? In other words, should there be a right to basic housing, to clean drinking water, to basic health services, to electricity?

• What should be the size of Parliament? Should it be reduced from previous numbers?

• How do we attract better quality candidates to Parliament?

• Should we have a Senate? If so, should Senators be elected or selected?

• How should the judiciary be selected?

• Should political parties and their office holders disclose their assets and liabilities?

The Chairperson of the Constitutional Commission will be Professor Yash Ghai, who is an  internationally renowned constitution and human rights expert.

The timetable is:

• July 12 – Sep 12 – Public consultation
• Oct 12 – Dec 12 – Commission writes a draft constitution
• Jan 13 – Feb 13 – Constitution considered by a Constituent Assembly

The one area for concern at this stage, is that an unelected Constituent Assembly approves the constitution. It would be better to have the Assembly amend the draft and finalise it, but have a public referendum on approving it.

But overall it looks a positive step forward.

The Herald reports:

The Mana Party is investigating the case of a former regional branch chairman who admitted to having sex with a teenage boy in return for cash, cigarettes, clothing and a mobile phone top-up.

Nicholas Kayne Nitro appeared in the Christchurch District Court last month on a charge of receiving commercial sexual services from a person aged 16.

Party sources last night confirmed that Nicholas Nitro was the same person as Nikora Nitro, who is still listed on the Mana Party website as Christchurch branch chairman.

Contacted by the Weekend Herald last night, a spokesman said the party had been unaware of Nitro’s offending and would start an investigation immediately.

He said Nitro had not been an office holder in the party since the end of last year’s election campaign.

All parties have activists who get in trouble with the law from time to time. Little one can do to stop that. However once it is known they are facing charges, it is usual to have them stand down. As Mr Nitro is still listed on the Mana website, it is hard to know whether or not he was stood down.

Stuff reports:

Ms Bennett said formal early childcare education was not always the best way for children to be looked after.

“I agree that we need more childcare centres in the right place so that we are particularly giving access to those that don’t have it now.” In some smaller communities, centres were not viable, she said.

“We just constantly have this, that only fully qualified people can look after children and it’s not the reality of what happens for families on a day-to-day basis.

“Parents aren’t always fully qualified, neither are grandparents.”

The Government was still grappling with how it could help fund more informal childcare, Ms Bennett said.

Labour social development spokeswoman Jacinda Ardern said unqualified, unvetted babysitters were not the answer and not in the best interests of the children.

This insistence that all early childhood care must be done by qualified practitioners makes me wonder how previous generations coped.

On the first Q+A of 2012 this Sunday (9am, TV ONE), new Labour leader David Shearer gives his first extended television interview as he starts re-positioning his party for a new era. What does he – and his Labour party – stand for? What’s his vision for New Zealand? And does he have the chops to take on and defeat John Key’s National-led government? David Shearer is live with new Q+A interviewer Shane Taurima.

Then, the Ports of Auckland dispute – is it over or has it just begun? And what roles does Auckland City have in this destructive industrial battle? Paul Holmes talks to Maritime Union boss Gary Parsloe, Ports of Auckland Chair Richard Pearson and Auckland mayor Len Brown. What’s behind this dispute and what’s next?

Our new political analyst Raymond Miller is joined on the panel by former major party presidents Mike Williams and Michelle Boag

Stuff reports:

 Pike River Coal has been sold to state-owned enterprise Solid Energy under a conditional agreement, receivers for the mine said today.

The receivers said they have reached agreement with Solid Energy New Zealand for the sale of the assets of Pike River Coal. …

”We, as the receivers, are pleased with this agreement as we consider it the best way forward for all parties. As part of the agreement, negotiations will continue with the Crown to establish a trust that will help oversee efforts to enter the main area of the mine and facilitate body recovery – if it is safe and technically feasible.

”In the meantime, work on the tunnel reclamation is continuing. We will provide further updates as appropriate,” Fisk added.

I suspect the families of the dead miners will be pleased with this sale, as Solid Energy has publicly committed to doing what it can to recover the bodies. The Government had said it would make recovery of the bodies a condition of transferring the mining licence, so this may be why other parties did not bid for the mine in the end.

Earlier this week I was reading one of the many excellent publications put out by the Centre for Independent Studies, a booklet called “You Can’t Say That!“. It is a collection of four essay about how there is an invisible self-imposed muzzle which is threatening freedom of speech. They struck a real chord with me, and I asked CIS if I could share them on my blog. They kindly agreed.

The first essay is by Thilo Sarrazin. Sarrazin is a German politician, who is a member of the (centre-left) SPD. He wrote a book called “Deutschland schafft sich ab” which in English is Germany Does Away With Itself. The book saw the SPD try to expel him, and he was also forced off the board of the central bank. Incidentally the book is  the highest selling book on politics by a German-language author in a decade.

The Language of Denial: Freedom of Speech in an Age of Political Correctness

Thilo Sarrazin

 

Until 2008, I did not concern myself very much with political correctness. In my career as a civil servant, board member, and later on, as a politician, I had a reputation for being outspoken. But that reputation was mostly limited to my professional field and generally accepted.

Everything changed with an interview I gave in September 2009 about the socioeconomic problems of Berlin and their roots, and with a book I published in August 2010 under the title Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany Abolishes Itself).

Its main conclusions are:

• Germany as a nation is doomed by its demography. The low and stable birth rate means that every generation is 35 percent smaller than the one before.
• The brightest people have the fewest children. And for this reason, intellectual capacities and educational achievements in Germany will shrink even faster than the population. This is not a danger in the far future; the process is already in full swing.
• The kind of immigration we have in Germany, mostly from Islamic countries in Africa and the Middle East, does not solve the problems. It aggravates them. Reasons for this are the Islamic cultural background and the poor average educational performance of these groups, which is far below the European average, even in the second and third generation.

These conclusions are of course controversial—as they were intended to be. In matters of society, there is no such thing as an absolute truth. And I am the first to admit this.

I had expected a controversial discussion. But nothing had prepared me for the public storm that broke loose upon the publication of my book. I was accused of advocating biological determinism and labelled a social Darwinist, a racist, and an enemy of the people and of social justice.

I survived morally and politically because of the enthusiastic support from large parts of the general public and the new online media. Because of this, the traditional print and broadcast media lost their monopoly of interpretation, and it was plain for everybody to see. Realising this, many politicians started a tactical withdrawal from the debate.

Subsequently, I stepped down as a board member of the Deutsche Bundesbank—but not before I had been formally cleared of all allegations of misconduct.

In the following months, I thought a lot about the controversial reactions to my book. My theory is as follows:

The code of conduct in a society, which is not laid down by law, changes over time. It is to a large degree implicit and not subject to formal—or even openly discussed—rules. But those members who do not observe the code run the risk of being excluded from ‘the good society.’

Having and expressing the ‘right’ set of opinions about certain scientific, social and political questions is an important part of this code of conduct. Most people want to observe the prevailing code of conduct, but being busy with jobs and families they have no informed opinion of their own on most matters. So they think and believe what the media say they should think and believe. Politicians, on the other hand, read public opinion solely based on media opinions. Most politicians sincerely believe that voters think what the media write or say.

Media are made by people, and media people recruit themselves in a process of self-selection, much as lawyers, doctors or engineers do. Polls show that media people mainly listen to other media people. Endorsed by this self-selection, media people on the whole have a set of opinions that tend to be on the left of mainstream society. I don’t say this is a bad thing, but it partly explains the mindset of political correctness.

Most people shy away from saying or even thinking anything that is perceived to be politically incorrect. So the mechanics of political correctness prevent the expression of dissenting opinions, notwithstanding the formal freedom of speech. It even stops the generation of incorrect thoughts.

The prevailing themes of political correctness are deeply ingrained in the (to some degree unconscious) mindset of the political class and the media. Reflecting on the reaction to my book, I identified 13 themes that constitute the main body of political correctness in Germany.

My book violated every single one of them.

Here is the list of political correctness in Germany. I think it describes the truth, but it takes some irony or humour to fully appreciate the list. The problem lies not in any single item on this list but in their combination and rigid application to political thinking:

1.     Inequality is bad, equality is good.

2.     Secondary virtues like industriousness, precision and punctuality are of no particular value. Competition is morally questionable (except in sports) because it promotes inequality.

3.     The rich should feel guilty. Exception: Rich people who have earned their money as athletes or pop stars.

4.     Different conditions of life have nothing to do with people’s choices but with the circumstances they are in.

5.     All cultures are of equal rank and value. Especially, the values and ways of life of the Christian occident and Western industrialised nations should not enjoy any preference. Those who think differently are provincial and xenophobic.

6.     Islam is a religion of peace. Those who see any problems with immigration from Islamic countries are guilty of Islamophobia. This is nearly as bad as anti-Semitism.

7.     Western industrialised nations carry the main responsibility for poverty and backwardness in other parts of the world.

8.     Men and women have no natural differences, except for the physical signs of their sex.

9.     Human abilities depend mainly on training and education; inherited differences hardly play any role.

10.   There are no differences between peoples and races, except for their physical appearance.

11.   The nation-state is an outdated model. National identities and peculiarities have no particular value. The national element as such is rather bad; it is at any rate not worth preserving. The future belongs to the global society.

12.   All people in the world not only have equal rights, they are in fact equal. They should at least all be eligible for the benefits of the German welfare state.

13.   Children are an entirely private affair. Immigration takes care of the labour market and of any other demographic problems.

That’s the list. In this condensed form, it sounds like a joke. But it’s not a joke. These are the hidden axioms of political correctness in Germany (and probably elsewhere) as I see them.

Every item on the list has a high emotional value for those who believe in it.

The core of the problem is that partly moral und partly ideological attitudes are taken at face value and mixed with reality.

It is a permanent task, I am afraid, to sort that out.

It makes me faintly optimistic though, that after all the turmoil, I am still morally alive and not, as a person and an author, ignominiously buried and forgotten. That had certainly been the intention of the vast majority of the political and the media class. But, for once, the general public publicly disagreed.

This, in itself, is a matter of satisfaction not only for me but for many people in Germany.

I’ll blog the second article next week.

I defend Len Brown in my Herald column today:

Len Brown campaigned to be the first Mayor of the Auckland super-city with the slogan, that he would be the Mayor for all of Auckland.

Mayor Brown has come under huge pressure from his party, his donors and his activist supporters to abandon his campaign pledge, and to intervene in the Ports of Auckland dispute. It is to his credit that he has resisted putting the interests of the Labour Party above the interests of Auckland.

I conclude:

Len Brown got elected on a slogan of being the Mayor for all of Auckland. The Labour Party shouldn’t complain that he is taking that slogan seriously and putting the interests of Auckland ahead of the interests of the Labour Party affiliated Maritime Union. He should be congratulated for his stance.

In my full column I articulate why I think this has helped Brown get re-elected.

Adam Bennett in the NZ Herald reports:

Speaker of the House Lockwood Smith had been criticised over his decision not to grant funding for a note-taker for Ms Mathers.

He did not decide not to grant funding. He was not able to do so without going through a formal process, which he has now done.

However this morning he announced permanent funding had been approved by the Parliamentary Service.

The matter was discussed earlier this week by the Parliamentary Service Commission – made up of senior MPs from all parties.

Dr Smith said “having complied with all legal requirements” a final decision regarding funding support for Ms Mathers had been made.

“I am issuing a direction to the Parliamentary Service which will provide the lawful authority to provide equipment and personnel services to Ms Mathers while she is a member of Parliament.

“Specifically, Ms Mathers will continue to have access to electronic note takers while she is an MP. This support will be in addition to that to which she is already entitled, to ensure she may fulfill her role as a member of Parliament. ”

Dr Smith said the cost of the services would be met from the Parliamentary Service’s baseline and was additional to the funding provided to support all members.

This is the correct decision.

Dr Smith went to say he planned to develop a captioning service to make proceedings of the House more accessible to the hearing impaired.

“Services for the business of the House are not subject to the advice of the Parliamentary Service Commission. Consequently, I intend working with the Office of the Clerk to develop this service and will raise this with the Standing Orders Committee which deals with such matters.” 

This is also a good thing.

A guest post by Peter Freedman:

When I told them I was moving to Queensland, all my Bananaland mates, includung the conservatuves, had one piece of advice: Watch out for the Queensland Police.

“They’re aggressive, unpleasant, corrupt and a pack of bastards” one wrote me. And he is a policeman!

Since then I have had three meetings with the Maroons in blue.

No1: Shortly after we arrived in Brisbane, my teenage granddaughter and two of her mates asked me to take them to Subway for lunch. The carpark was tight and slightly uphill. Backing out, my towbar accidentally touched the bumper of the car behind.

I got out, spoke to the other driver who inspected his car and declared there was no damage done. We shook hands and were both about to leave when some scruffy character in jeans and a sweat shirt demanded to see my licence. He was a plainclothes policeman, he claimed, flashing a gun and a warrant card.

And so he was. He breathalysed me and warned that, technically, I was an unlicensed driver (a NZ licence is valid in Australia for only four months).

The other driver intervened, saying that no damage had been done, and was warned he would be arrested. Finally, unable to catch me for anything, the officer stalked away.

No 2: My wife and I drove north of Brisbane to Gympie, a pleasant little town a couple of hours away. We found a restaurant and settled in for lunch (I was then thrown out for not wearing shoes, but that’s another story). We settled in at a second eating place where the staff didn’t care whether I was barefoot or not.

We had a Leisurely meal, with a cocktail to start and shared a bottle of wine. Then started to drive back into town.

On a four lane motorway. most of it very straight, my wife was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit. Speed limits in Queensland are crazy, one moment the limit can be 120kph, then 100, then 110, then back to 120 again.

The cop declared my wife was just under the limit, but still required her to travel with him to the cop shop for a blood test. I was left to follow them in our car. Interestingly Mr Plod never asked ME if I had been drinking or even if I had a licence.

I gave up trying to keep in touch with his police car, which weaved among the traffic, sometimes excdeeding 140kph.When I finally found the police station this prick was waiting for me, demanding to know why I took so long. When I told him, he shouted: “Nonsense, you don’t know you’re talking about.” He then demanded I not come on to police property!

As soon as he had disappeared inside I went hunting for a superior officer and found a very friendly acting Senior Sergeant who took my complaint.

Leaving the station, I bumped into the Senior Constable again.

“Your wife was very lucky,” he snarled, “She was just under the limit.”

“Well, you’re not so lucky,” I replied, “I have just laid a complaint about you.”

“Won’t do you any good. We’re bulletproof,” he boasted back. He then refused to show me his warrant card and when I tried to shake hands with him asked me: “Why should I shake hands with the likes of you?”

It took several weeks for my complaint to be acknowledged. Then I received a curt letter saying it had been investigated, no further action would be taken, and the matter was closed.

I wrote back, stating it was far from closed. I asked how the investigation was conducted, who was interviewed and why I was not spoken to by the investigators. I received back a second copy of the first letter.

Weeks later, someone apparently decided this was not quite good enough and wrote to me again. This time I was told the constable had been interviewed, my wife questioned (she was sitting in the back of the car and had no idea how fast it was going). The letter then said the constable could not possibly have been speeding if you compared the distance he travelled with the time he had taken.

This evidence, of course demonstrates only the average speed, part of the journey was through a built up area!

No 3: I was stopped by a cop, a good one this time, for having expired registration (“rego” , of course in Australia). He approached me armed with a large screwdriver…..

Having yet to become used to police carrying guns, I had this vision of being stabbed to death, rather than shot down. But no, all he wanted to do was to remove the number plates. It cost me $750 in fines, another $350 to reregister the car, plus $70 for the Australian equivalent of a WOF.

The policeman also mentioned I was an unlicensed driver and to “get that fixed some time”.

Cripes, this is a crazy country!

I must say that I often think we don’t realise how lucky we are with our Police.

Eric Crampton blogs:

New Zealand, population 15 million. That’s the target for 2060 in a new NZIER working paper making the case for substantial New Zealand population growth.

The paper says:

A population target of 15 million by 2060 (2.5 times that now projected) is not only “feasible”, it is also likely to be sufficient to achieve the benefits from scale. It would allow four main cities with a population of three million or more each. This would foster competition within New Zealand to create conditions amenable to building local firms that can foot it internationally. It would bring New Zealand’s population into close proximity of the Netherlands (but still nowhere near the population density of that country).

Eric proposes:

Potential policy moves that encourage immigration, and especially higher-skilled immigration? First on my list would be immediate permanent residence for any foreign student completing a Bachelor’s degree at one of the New Zealand universities. This will not only boost foreign student enrolments (helping to cross-subsidize domestic students) but also provide a nice selection mechanism for those who are most likely to really make a contribution. We could also draw in high skilled American migrants by not losing our comparative advantage in civil liberties and sane copyright legislation.

Complementary to increased immigration would be fixing local land use policy that forces up housing prices, but that’s also well worth doing for its own sake.

I broadly agree. I’m not sure about 15 million, but think 10 million is a reasonable target.

In my blog at Stuff, I look at parliamentary privilege:

One of the privileges members of Parliament have is they they can’t be sued for defamation for statements they make in Parliament. This privilege has existed for hundreds of years and is generally regarded as desirable as it allows MPs to expose wrongdoing without being silenced by injunctions and lawsuits.

However, there is a great responsibility on MPs to get their facts right, and to apologise when they get it wrong. They can defame people under the protection of parliamentary privilege, and their victims have no legal recourse.

Winston Peters has a long history of making allegations under parliamentary privilege, and having the vast bulk of the allegations turn out to be without substance. I had hoped that these days were behind us, but this week we have seen two serious allegations made by Peters under parliamentary privilege.

I conclude:

Perhaps one of Mr Peters’ caucus colleagues could ask their leader whether or not he has any proof of his allegation that Mr McKenzie received free overseas travel from Deloitte. And if he is unable to provide them with the proof, implore him not to turn the House of Representatives into a Star Chamber.

Maybe iPredict could do a stock on whether Mr Peters will provide said proof of his allegation, and whether he would apologise for his allegation. I suspect both stocks would sell for under 5c.

Stuff reports:

Windflow Technology’s boss is batting away any unease about his company’s hook up with a United States giant which makes nuclear submarines, saying it is like turning military weapons to peacetime products.

This week the small, struggling Christchurch turbine manufacturer disclosed a 10-year licensing agreement with General Dynamics SATCOM, a subsidiary of General Dynamics, which manufactures weapons, military vehicles and military communications systems.

Windflow is strapped for cash and needs new customers if it is to survive. …

Henderson said he had not received any criticisms from shareholders about the deal, and had actually received  some congratulations.

This is hilarious. Windflow has been held up as the darling of the Green Party for years. Jeanette was a shareholder, as were other Green MPs. I think their superannuation scheme is also an investor.

Now Russel Norman gets up on regular occasions and demands the NZ Super Fund doesn’t invest in certain companies because one of their subsidiaries in in partnership with some company that does something they don’t like.

I look forward to the Greens extending the same criteria to Windflow and denouncing it. Or maybe it is only the NZ Super Fund they say shouldn’t invest in companies linked to technologies they disapprove of, and it is fine for their own super fund to do so?

The return of John Stringer. Update – Answers 12/3/2012 at 7 am

A good column in the NBR by Matthew Hooton:

Murray McCully may be positioning himself as a fiscal enforcer but he’s really a bit of a wuss.

Proposed $25 million cuts to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade ( Mfat), making 305 mostly Wellington-based bureaucrats redundant, simply bring it back to where it was in 2007/8 before Winston Peters announced his massive $600-million five-year spend-up.

Which was in fact more money than MFAT even wanted. He told them to triple the size of their budget bid around 24 hours before the deadline.

After all, Mfat, under its existing budgets, had successfully negotiated CER, the Uruguay Round agreement, the free-trade agreement with China and phase one of the Trans Pacific Partnership. It had won election to the UN Security Council, hosted Apec and CHOGM, installed Mike Moore and Don McKinnon to head the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Commonwealth, and broadly restored relations with the US.

It wasn’t obvious it needed vastly more money than previous foreign minister Phil Goff had provided for six years.

Goff now seems more passionate about defending every last MFAT job, that anything he did as Opposition Leader.

Mr McCully’s more important changes involve not the number of personnel but their deployment.

Mfat has long been the most conservative of departments.

The only way in was its graduate programme. Time served drove promotion. No one was ever fired. Its employment agreements insist that older people have first entitlement to new positions over younger staff. Consequently, it struggles to retain talented 30-somethings.

To the fury of ageing baby boomers, Mr McCully has aggressively promoted top Gen X talent.

Vangelis Vitalis, 43, has been appointed ambassador to the EU and Nato; Taha Macpherson, 40, to Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority; Reuben Levermore, 36, to the Philippines; and Justin Fepuleai, 38, to Afghanistan. Ben King, 39, is John Key’s new chief foreign policy advisor in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

While a late baby boomer, Patrick Rata has been appointed ambassador to South Korea after Mr McCully discovered him in a back-office role having committed the ultimate Mfat sin – taking a couple of years off mid-career, to be Mr Moore’s right-hand man at the World Trade Organisation.

Surprisingly, given Mr McCully’s ultra-partisan reputation, there has been no hint of political favouritism.

As a student leader, Mr Vitalis led protests against the National government in the early 1990s. Mr Macpherson spent three years as Mr Goff’s top aide. Mr King worked for trade minister Lockwood Smith, whom Mr McCully has fought in bitter intra-party warfare, and Mr Rata for Mr Moore. Dr Fepuleai’s PhD is in political science, surely something deserving Mr McCully’s scorn. Arguably only Mr Levermore fits the McCully stereotype, having played professional rugby in France.

With these and future appointments, Mr McCully has decided that talented Gen Xers shouldn’t have to wait until their late 40s or early 50s to reach the top tier. Nor should older talent be punished for working temporarily outside Mfat’s hallowed halls.

Not everyone at MFAT is unhappy with the changes. They are providing opportunities also.

As many as 166 kiwi diplomats are still stationed in the UK, continental Europe and the US, even excluding the delegations to the UN, WTO and Russia.

In comparison, just 23 diplomats are stationed in Australia, 41 in India and 44 in mainland China.

Mfat still has 11 diplomatic posts in Europe (excluding Geneva and Russia) but just two in Australia, two in China and one in India.

There is a full-scale embassy in Stockholm, which Helen Clark opened in 2008 and Mr McCully plans to close, and in Vienna, despite New Zealand’s exports to Sweden being just $72 million in 2010/11 and to Austria just $18 million.

In contrast, New Zealand has no presence in Chongqing, with its 30 million people and surging economy, nor is New Zealand represented in India’s boomtown of Bangalore.

Mr McCully is on the right track but he still has a long way to go to build a foreign service that properly reflects New Zealand’s place in the 21st century.

Matthew defends the changes so well, he could apply to be a ministerial press secretary 🙂

Iain Lees-Galloway blogs:

Tariana Turia has accused Fonterra of dumping milk into the Manawatu River.

I was concerned when I read her press release so I contacted Fonterra to see what was going on. The odd thing is, the idea of calling Fonterra hadn’t occurred to Tariana. Nor does it seem she had spoken to Horizons Regional Council. In fact, as best as I can tell, she hadn’t done a thing to substantiate her claims before she issued her press release.

This is totally irresponsible from a Government Minister. …

If the claims are true, Fonterra absolutely should be held to account. But where are the facts and why on earth was her first action to issue a press release?

Iain is quite correct. No MP should make an unsubstantiated allegation such as this, let alone a Minister.

At least though Mrs Turia didn’t do it in the House, cowering under the protection of parliamentary privilege.

An interesting profile of Labour Deputy Leader Grant Robertson in the Listener:

Look at Robertson and you see a big guy with glasses, a slightly sloppy student politician. Talk with him and you find a highly professional MP with a disciplined and meticulous mind. Call him cautious, though, and you make him angry. He doesn’t want to believe that the hesitation that allows him to avoid political pratfalls could also sap his courage to make change. At times his courage trumps his caution. To advance the equality agenda he believes gays should be able to marry and also to adopt children.

“I can’t see any reason why a gay couple who are good functioning human beings can’t provide that environment. It’s about the best interests of the children.” He also wants Labour to adopt a policy of allowing gay marriage. “I am really proud of what we did with civil unions, but I get that for people it is not absolute equality,” he says.

I agree with Grant on gay marriage. However I do think the cautious tag is an accurate one for him. Grant is very cautious in his press releases, in his statements etc. It’s the caution of someone who expects to be a party leader one day, and doesn’t want to have words from the past comeback to haunt him.

“There are gay bus drivers. There are people in all walks of life. It is important that people understand that. That’s one of the issues we have to get past: believing that there is a particular type of gay person.” He knows his sexuality would be more of an issue if he were Labour’s leader and considered that when deciding whether to challenge for the top job. “I thought about, is New Zealand ready for there to be a gay Prime Minister, or a gay leader, and I actually think we are.

I agree. If the good citizens of Wairarapa don’t blink at electing a transsexual as their MP, I can’t imagine the majority of New Zealanders will have a great issue over the sexuality of the Prime Minister. The challenge for Grant, once he ascends to the leadership, will be that his sexuality doesn’t define him (there is a difference between being an MP who is gay, and a gay MP), but I don’t think he is at any risk of that.

The next question was, am I ready? Is this where I should be?”

His answer was no. “I’m 40 and I think I’ve still got a bit more to learn.”

A bit more? As in a year or two?

Labour will also review its policy of extending Working for Families tax credits to beneficiaries. He says there may be other policies to ensure income is “redistributed” to help those children.

Or one could redistribute their parents from welfare to work?

Robertson has little experience in the private sector, but doesn’t see that limiting his understanding of businesses. “You can be the Minister of Health and not be a heart surgeon.”

True. But not have any practical knowledge of how the private sector works is not the same as not being a specialist in an area. Far too many MPs do not have any background at all in the private sector.

I once went from doing the finances for a charity to doing the finances for a small advertising agency. The difference was huge. In just a few weeks I discovered the huge difference between being profitable on paper, and  cashflow and the challenges of paying bills on time. No textbook really teaches that. My two years with that small business taught me a huge deal about the realities of business.

Key started the recent trend of “non-political” leaders and Shearer was chosen to match him. Clark was a politician, Robertson muses. Jim Bolger was, too. And they both led long-term governments. He knows that this is not yet his time, but he senses it may come. “I want to take it as far as I can take it and we’ll see how long that takes.”

Is Grant talking weeks, months or years?

In the House yesterday:

Simon Bridges: You’d be complaining.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The perma-tanned member opposite argues that this is a legitimate power of Government, but he flies in the face of the fact that 90 percent of New Zealanders would say that when only one in five burglaries is being closed by our boys and girls in blue—

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not think it is appropriate for a member of this Committee to refer to a member who happens to be Māori as “perma-tanned”, and frankly I think it is offensive.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I nearly pulled the member up. It is out of order, and I would ask him to desist from using that kind of referencing to another member.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I withdraw and apologise, and it was absolutely nothing to do with the member’s ethnicity, of which I was henceforth unaware. 

Simon may live in Tauranga, but no that is not a tan – it is his skin colour.

Imagine if a National MP had said that of a Labour MP? I’m sure it would be with the Human Rights Commission by now.

Incidentially for those wondering Simon’s father was Ngati Maniapoto, and Simon is related to former Labour Minister Koro Wetere.

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?
2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Is he satisfied with the financial management of the Whānau Integration, Innovation and Engagement Fund, administered by Te Puni Kōkiri?
3. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: What is the projected growth, if any, of New Zealand’s international liabilities under this Government’s policies, and what are the components of those liabilities?
4. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: Is water quality in New Zealand being negatively affected by livestock in rivers and lakes?
5. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made on the proposal to build a public-private prison at Wiri?
6. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will proposed changes to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade undermine its ability to carry out its role in promoting New Zealand’s trade, security and consular interests?
7. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister of Women’s Affairs: What commitment is the Government willing to make to increase the number of women on State sector boards?
8. DENIS O’ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied with the rate of progress of the Christchurch earthquake recovery?
9. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Did New Zealand meet the 28 February deadline for its submission to the United Nations on increasing the level of ambition in global greenhouse gas mitigation, as agreed by parties in the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action; if not, why not?
10. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her answer to Written Question No 00916 (2012) that “the Government is focused on building a more competitive economy, which will lead to more jobs and higher wages”?
11. JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Defence: What updates can he give on new Defence Force capability?
12. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: Is he confident that current Government broadcasting policy upholds the standards of an independent and free press; if so, why?

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

Patsy of the day goes to Q11 – What updates can he give on new Defence Force capability?

Labour are asking about projected liabilities or debt, MFAT changes, jobs and (presumably) NZ on Air.

Greens are on water quality and climate change.

NZ First is back on Whanua Ora and Chch recovery.

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm (and Friday 9 am to 1 pm)

1. Mixed Ownership Model Bill – first reading
2. Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill – committee stage
3. Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill – committee stage
4. Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill – committee stage
5. Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill – committee stage
6. Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill – first reading
7. Maraeroa A and B Blocks Incorporation Bill – first reading
8. Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill – first reading
9. Ngati Whatua Orakei Claims Settlement Bill – first reading
10. Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill – first reading

The Mixed Ownership Model Bill was introduced in March 2012 and enables the Crown to  remove Genesis Power Limited, Meridian Energy Limited, Mighty River Power Limited, and Solid Energy New Zealand Limited from the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, and restricts the Crown from holding less than 51% of the voting rights in each of the companies and will restrict non-Crown individuals and entities from holding more than 10% of the voting rights in each of the companies.

It is expected to pass first reading 61 – 60 with National, ACT and United voting in favour, and Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori and Mana against.

The other nine bills give effect to Treaty settlements are are unlikely to be hugely controversial, however it is possible NZ First may oppose some.

Bernard Orsman at the NZ Herald reports:

Auckland Council finance chief Andrew McKenzie has denied allegations by New Zealand First leader Winston Peters that he received an all-expenses-paid trip to the United States from the international consultancy firm Deloitte.

“I have never had any travel paid for me by Deloitte,” Mr McKenzie said last night.

In Parliament yesterday and last week, Mr Peters made allegations about Mr McKenzie and the council’s relationship with Deloitte.

He accused council chief executive Doug McKay of allowing Mr McKenzie to receive an expenses-paid trip to the US from Deloitte …

Rather than continue a lifetime of defaming people using parliamentary privilege, Peters should repeat his claims outside the House and allow a court to determine their veracity.

Hamish Fletcher at NZ Herald reports:

Orcon has beaten its competitors with the announcement of ultra-fast broadband prices, but there is still no word on what content packages will be available to entice consumers to sign up.

Chief executive Scott Bartlett revealed Orcon’s fibre plans yesterday and said the entry-level option of $75 per month for residential customers was on par with what the company charges now.

This plan, which includes phone services, comes with download speeds of 30 megabits per second, upload speeds of 10 megabits per second and a data allowance of 30 gigabytes per month.

That’s not a bad price for a fibre connection. But the data cap limit is laughable. I have twice that with my copper connection.

30 Mb/s is 3.75 MB/s. That is 225 MB per minute. That is 13.5 GB per hour. So the monthly data cap of 30 GB will last two hours and 13 minutes at 30 MB/s.

Data caps should be in TB, not GB.