The Dom Post editorial:

Those pioneers of the welfare state would never have envisaged the benefit system New Zealand has today.

They would have been appalled by the thought of thousands of perfectly healthy adults spending more than a decade on the dole and thousands more 16- and 17-year-olds being paid to sit around and do nothing.

To them, figures showing one out of every seven people of working age is on a benefit, with 220,000 children living in welfare-dependent homes, would not have been a sign of the success of the system they championed, but of its abject failure.

National’s welfare reforms, due from the middle of this year, aim to address this sorry state of affairs by placing new requirements on all beneficiaries who are fit to work. The requirement on them to make honest efforts to find work is a welcome move to restore the balance in the social contract that underpins the welfare state. 

Yet sadly Labour are opposing the reforms.

Critics who have branded the reforms “nasty” or claimed they spell the end of the welfare state as we know it have either not studied the detail or are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. The reality is that the Government is not threatening to cut or stop payments for beneficiaries who fail to get work, but simply requiring them to make honest attempts to look for jobs and accept reasonable offers that come their way.

Exactly.

A useful article in Stuff:

Oil drill ship Noble Discoverer is heading from New Plymouth for the Arctic, north of Alaska, to explore for what could be a super-field for oil giant Shell.

The Chukchi Sea off Alaska could hold the equivalent of 4 billion to 77 billion barrels of oil, but it is likely to be gas and light oil condensate. …

Shell plans to drill up to six wells in the Chukchi Sea during the next two northern summers. Noble Discoverer will drill within the Burger Prospect, which is about 90kms off the North Alaskan coast in shallow water of just 42 metres. …

Earlier this month the US Government approved Shell’s oil spill response plan for the Chukchi Sea, which was seen as a milestone on the way to offshore drilling this northern summer. The plan includes a new Arctic capping and containment system to be trialled before drilling starts.

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Shell was required to prepare for a “worst case” oil spill nearly five times that of their previous plan. It also needs access to a rig capable of drilling a relief well that could kill the well if needed.

In a major government caveat, Shell must also stop drilling in any hydrocarbon bearing zone 38 days before November 1, so if there was an accident, all capping, response and well-killing work could be finished in open sea before ice forms in Chukchi waters. That government move reduced the drilling window by about a third.

US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said this month that Alaskan energy resources held great promise and economic opportunity, but exploration had to be cautious and “under the strongest oversight, safety requirements and emergency response plans ever established”.

So the drilling has been signed off by the Obama administration, with extensive safety and response requirements.

The reality is Greenpeace is against any drilling for oil pretty much anywhere. They want it left on the ground, and for us to abandon travel which involves oil. Now that is a legitimate view, but I’d be more impressed when Lucy Lawless starts taking diesel ships to travel overseas for her Hollywood career, rather than jet planes.

Stuff reports:

All Black great Chris Laidlaw believes the crisis in Otago rugby highlights the need for provincial rugby to return to its amateur roots. …

That would be about as successful as King Canute was (and he was making a point on purpose).

Stuff reports:

Provincial Argentine authorities stopped a cruise liner flying the Bermudan flag from docking in one of the country’s ports on Monday, upping the ante in the country’s spat with Britain over the Falklands.

Britain and Argentina fought a 10-week war over the Falkland Islands in 1982 after Argentina invaded the South Atlantic archipelago, which the Argentines call Las Malvinas. The conflict claimed 900 lives.

Tensions have risen before the 30th anniversary of the Falklands conflict this year and oil exploration by British companies off the islands has raised the stakes.

Bermuda is an overseas territory of Britain, which is why the liner was prohibited from docking in the southern port of Ushuaia, capital of Tierra del Fuego province, state news agency Telam said on Monday.

Stopping a Bermudan flagged cruise liner from docking at Ushuaia sure will punish the UK and teach the Brits a lesson.  I expect they will hand over the Falklands this week under that sort of pressure.

Keith Lynch at The Press reports:

A Christchurch woman was conned out of more than $23,000 in an elaborate online scheme.

The 50-year-old woman, who does not want to be named, met a man through Facebook, spoke to him for about three months online and over the phone, and paid him more than $23,000 after being taken in last month by a hoax story.

The internet conman asked her for the money to get a package out of Australian Customs.

He even sent her a tracking number and the address of a website where she could track the “package” which she was told contained gold nuggets and jewellery.

The woman spoke out to warn others of the dangers online.

“I thought he was reasonably decent person but you can’t really tell,” she said.

“He gained my trust and we even talked about people on Facebook who scam people.”

Before asking for money, the man told her he was travelling to New Zealand and wanted her to accept a package on his behalf.

He sent her a link to a website with a tracking number to monitor the package. But when the package got to Australia it got held up “because they wanted a money laundering certificate”, she said.

“He pleaded, he actually cried on the phone. He got me sucked in. I felt really bad for him.

“He told me he’d pay me back and it would be fine.”

She then sent him about $17,500.

After the man said he needed more help, she sent him another $6000.

This was not an elaborate scam. With no disrespect to the unfortunate victim, but it was a very simple scam. If you have never met the person in real life, then don’t send them thousands of dollars. Don’t even send them hundreds of dollars.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

A convicted sex offender has been working in schools as a teacher, Education Minister Hekia Parata has announced.

Parata said the schools affected had been notified.

A ministerial inquiry, led by former ombudsman Mel Smith, would be held into how the sex offender was employed. The person had been registered as a teacher since 2000.

“At this stage I cannot discuss the details of this individual case as the matter is now before the courts [in Auckland],” Parata said.

She was “extremely concerned” and was told late last week that the person had been arrested for breaching a condition of their release. The person was in custody.

The Ministry of Education was working with the schools and their communities but it was possible others had been affected, Parata said.

“Parents should be able to send their children to school confident that an individual of this type is not part of that school environment,” she said.

The ministry had asked the courts to vary suppression orders so other schools and parents could be informed.

The ministerial inquiry into the matter would report back by April 30, Parata said.

How appalling. Obviously something has seriously gone wrong for him to have been working as a teacher for 12 years. At this stage the reports don’t state that he has necessarily abused any students, and hopefully he has not. But there will be a huge number of concerned families.

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on Government debt?
2. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Government’s welfare reforms announced yesterday that “…there are plenty of jobs out there for people if they look really hard”; if so, why?
3. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
4. MIKE SABIN to the Minister for Social Development: What changes has the Government recently announced for those on welfare?
5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Is it his normal practice to “guess” when determining the business case for selling billions of dollars’ worth of assets?
6. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Health: What improvements have there been in the National Health Targets?
7. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement “There are jobs”?
8. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Justice: What progress has been made on the MMP review triggered by the referendum at last year’s election?
9. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: How much funding for district health boards in the 2011-12 Budget was new money for additional services and cost of living adjustments, and how much was the result of reprioritisation of funding which had been maintained from previous budgets?
10. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What progress has recently been made towards the completion of historical Treaty of Waitangi settlements?
11. BARBARA STEWART to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the proposal by Pharmac to limit diabetic New Zealanders’ access to subsidised glucose-testing equipment?
12. JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Social Development: Does she agree with the statement in her Cabinet paper that “Evidence shows that support for beneficiaries to undertake study, such as the Training Incentive Allowance, can be effective in increasing the time participants spend off benefits.”?

Today there are five questions from National, four questions from Labour, two from the Greens, and one from NZ First. Amazingly the NZ First question is not from Winston, but from Barbara Stewart – a first for this Parliament.

Patsy of the day goes to Q10 – What progress has recently been made towards the completion of historical Treaty of Waitangi settlements?

David Shearer is doing the standard Does PM have confidence in all Ministers question, which could go anywhere. Might be about the paedophile teacher inquiry though. Labour also on asset sales, jobs, and health funding.

Greens are on welfare for both questions. NZ First is on Pharmac.

Address in Reply Debate 3 pm – 4.30 pm 

This should conclude today with around 1.5 hours remaining of the debate.

Government Bills 4.30 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 9.00 pm)

1. Medicines Amendment Bill – first reading
2. Corrections Amendment Bill – first reading
3. Building Amendment Bill (No 3) – second reading
4. Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill – second reading
5. Search and Surveillance Bill – second reading

The Medicines Amendment Bill was introduced in October 2011 and aims to modernise Medicines Act 1981.

The Corrections Amendment Bill was introduced in October 2011 and  to remove “barriers” to managing prisoners in a manner that is safe, secure, humane, effective, and efficient. It deals with drug testing, strip searching, prison health care, delegation of powers, and prison work.

The Building Amendment Bill (No 3) was introduced in October 2010 and aims to implement policy decisions from the 2009 Building Act review. It was passed on a voice vote at first reading but the select committee reports that Labour and Greens will now oppose the bill as they see the building reforms as being done piecemeal.

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”.

The Search and Surveillance Bill was introduced in July 2009 and aims to implement the Government’s decisions on the legislative reform of search and surveillance powers”, based on the Law Commission’s report, “Search and Surveillance Powers”. It amends 69 different Acts and was supported at first reading by all parties except the Green Party.

The select committee did an interim report in August 2010 and a final report in November 2010. There was considerable opposition to the bill as originally drafted, such as by Tech Liberty.  Significant changes were made by the select committee with the Greens noting “They generally restrict search and surveillance powers more than the original bill, and improve accountability provisions”.  However they still oppose the bill, especially the provisions for Examination and Production Orders. Labour also opposes those two provisions.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Labour will begin a series of nationwide meetings next week as part of an organisational review into the party’s election trouncing.

The party will hold 18 meetings for members and the wider public to have their say on how Labour can enhance its campaigning, communications, policy process and fundraising.

It has also established an advisory group containing what it calls “critical friends” such as technology entrepreneur and party donor Selwyn Pellet, who last year called for former leader Phil Goff to stand down, political scientist Rob Salmond, and former Waikato University vice-chancellor and United Kingdom Labour MP Bryan Gould.

An advisory group is a good idea. Those who were inside the tent don’t always see the failings the way others do.

Coatsworth said Labour expected there would be calls for party members to have a say on who led the party and there was likely to be some opinions on how Labour set its list.

Labour’s list at the election was criticised for placing fresh talent too low and returning the same old faces when its MPs where slashed from 43 to 34.

It is understood Labour is not overly concerned about its finances because donations last year were similar to those in recent elections and there has been no major dent in its 55,000-strong membership.

Ha the vast majority being union affiliates, where the union pays a small fee on their behalf. The actual number of people who have positiviely said “Yes I wish to be a member of the Labour Party”  and paid a membership fee is understood to be well below 10,000.

The Goverment has announced they will legislate the following this year:

1. Ensuring sole parents with children five and older are available for and supported into part-time work.
2. Ensuring sole parents with children 14 and older are available for and supported into full-time work.
3. Extending these work expectations to women receiving the Widow’s and Women Alone benefits and to partners of beneficiaries with children.
4. Enabling Work and Income to direct people to prepare for work early.
5. Requiring sole parents who have another child while on a benefit to be available for work after one year, in line with parental leave.
6. A managed system of payments with essential costs like rent and power paid directly, with an allowance and a payment card for living costs.
7. Youth Service Providers incentivised to help young people into work, education or training. Young people encouraged to undertake budgeting and parenting courses.
8. Guaranteed Childcare Assistance Payment, so childcare costs do not stop young parents from studying.
9. Sharing information between ministries to target school leavers most at risk of coming onto a benefit from age 18.

The Criminal Bar Association has filed a lawsuit against the Government over new rules for legal aid. Will be an interesting legal tussle.

David Shearer says Labour is not taking sides the in Ports of Auckland dispute, but here are two of his MPs on the picket line.

I guess they have no choice as the Maritime Union is actually an affiliate member of the Labour Party, and one of their donors. Not even the documented examples of union hostility to female and non European workers is enough to shake their support of the union.

Peninsula grabbed my interest from the opening scene, and never lost it. The production at Circa was brilliant, and excelled in every way.

Peninsula is the story of 10 year old Michael, growing up in Duvauchelle in Banks Peninsula in 1963. The play captures both the magic of childhood, but also the feel of growing up in rural New Zealand in the 1960s. There were many parts of the play which I could relate to, and brought back memories of childhood.

There are five actors. The opening scene has them as four kids and their new teacher. Michael (Paul McLaughlin) and Ngaire (Laura Hill) are brother and sister, and capture the sibling dynamic so well.  Alex (Phil Vaughan) is Michael’s best friend and Lynette is the class know it all (Michele Amas). Their new teacher is Mr MacIntosh (Jason Whyte) who manages to get the kids, especially Michael, interested in science.

However each actor plays two roles, and the way they seamlessly go from one character to another is part of what makes the play so great. The director has done a magnificent job with making the transitions work.

Vaughan and Amas also play the parents of Michael and Ngaire, and McLaughin and Hill play the parents of Alex. Whyte’s second role is that of Pug the dog, and he really is comic genius in that role.

The set is simple but effective. Four school chairs, and two telephones on poles. Unheard but important is the post office operator who listens in to some of the calls and gossips about them. A screen is used a couple of times to show a pinhole camera in operation (again, brings back memories) and sound effects are deployed occassionally to good impact.

The major plot is about Michael wanting to investigate and map everywhere he goes, and how Mr MacIntosh has fuelled his love for science. The Christchurch science affair awaits.

I won’t give the plot away, but sadly it is not all plain sailing. Without being preachy, the play manages to touch on issues of bullying, of infidelity, of domestic violence and also of historic small town attitudes and prejudice. It doesn’t do this in a preachy way at all, but as part of a well told tale.  The play is lots of laughs, but there are also moments of real sadness, and even a bit of uncomfortableness.

All five actors did a great job bringing their dual characters to life. Michelle Amas was a very convincing know it all kid, but equally good as the satay at home mother who gossips and worries over her kid.   Laura Hill was superb as the bratty sister, and captured the mannerisms as if she really was a school kid. Hill also showed emotional depth with her adult character, as you could almost see the restrained sadness in her eyes.

Phil Vaughan’s child and adult characters were somewhat similar – both very cheeky and relaxed. Paul McLaughlin had the difficult role of Michael, portraying the nice wanting to learn kid who then changes as events transpire. And as previously mentioned Jason Whyte was comically funny as Pug and also excellent as the quiet, dignified teacher.

One of the best plays I’ve been to. It was a very New Zealand play, and all aspects of it clicked so well together to make it a brilliant experience.

Christopher Snowdon from the Adam Smith Institute blogs on the push for plain packaging the the UK:

The coalition of state-funded anti-smoking groups have started revving up their trusty public relations machine for yet another legislative campaign. While their temperance counterparts concentrate on minimum pricing, the anti-tobacco lobby has its heart set on ‘plain packaging’.  …

It is one thing to force a manufacturer to label a product with a warning, but quite another to confiscate the packaging in its entirety to create public propaganda from private property. Rather than helping people make informed decisions, it seems that the overriding goal of plain packaging is to annoy the tobacco industry, inconvenience retailers and stigmatise consumers. Few of us will feel especially sympathetic towards the cigarette companies, but hard cases make bad law and the senseless trampling on property rights, along with the likelihood that the temperance lobby and diet police will emulate the anti-smoking trailblazers (as ever), has implications that go far beyond tobacco.

That is my concern. Already some in the temperance lobby are pushing for all beer and wine to have nothing on its label except required factual information. So if they get plain packaging for cigarettes, then the push will be for beer and wine also to follow suit, and then of course food that is disapproved of.

Secondly, there are sound consequentialist grounds to oppose the policy. There is no evidence whatsoever that the sight of a cigarette pack encourages nonsmokers to take up a notoriously unhealthy habit, and even ASH do not claim that it will have any effect on existing smokers. Numerous focus groups, including ASH’s own “citizen’s jury”, have expressed profound scepticism about the prospects of plain packaging lowering the smoking rate. 

There are a number of initiatives that could well reduce smoking rates, but I tend to agree that plain packaging is not one of them. I doubt it would stop a single person from smoking.

Gillard has won 71 votes to 31. I think this is the highest margin in any contested leadership ballot for the ALP leadership.

Kevin Rudd will never be leader again, and I suspect never be a Minister again.

However I don’t think Gillard is entirely safe. If her poll ratings do not improve, then one or more other challengers will arise. Towards the end of this year is a key time for possible change.

A headline in the HoS:

Housing New Zealand closes offices in favour of call centre

So this makes it sound like Housing NZ is closing offices.

People in desperate need of housing will soon have to call a national call centre rather than visit a Housing New Zealand office, a change that has angered voluntary services.

And this also makes it sound like Housing NZ is going to a phone only model.

People in need wanting to meet Housing New Zealand staff will have to pre-arrange an appointment through an 0800 number or via their website.

Later on you find that in fact the only thing changing is that people need to make an appointment in advance. There will still be dozens of offices with hundreds of staff meeting and helping people.

So a very misleading headline. Note the article writer does not write the headline – they are made up by sub-editors.

The Dom Post editorial:

“Turkeys,” Richard Prebble once observed, “don’t vote for an early Christmas.” The former Labour Cabinet minister and ACT leader was commenting on the improbability of politicians voting to reduce the size of Parliament, but his words hold just as true for local body politicians contemplating a potential shakeup of local government.

Why would the plethora of mayors and councillors in the Wellington region act to do themselves out of jobs? The answer is they won’t.

Just as many Mayors in Auckland were against the Auckland reforms.

If the region is to follow Auckland’s example and amalgamate its nine councils into a single body, it will be in spite of local government politicians not because of them. With a handful of notable exceptions, Greater Wellington regional council chairwoman Fran Wilde prominent among them, the region’s local body politicians have determinedly stonewalled all attempts to initiate change.

The issue goes beyond Wellington also. I am gravitating to the view that two levels of local government is too much for a country our size.  I think unitary authorities are the way of the future, so you don’t have millions wasted in lawsuits, liaison and consultations between regional councils and territorial authorities.

Whether the region would be better served by a single council covering the whole region, or whether it would be better served by two or three unitary councils, is an open question. So is the balance of responsibilities between regionally elected councillors and local community representatives. However, the need for reform is not.

The debate should be about the nature of reform. The status quo is simply ridiculous.

Stuff reports:

David Tamihere, one of New Zealand’s most notorious convicted killers, still maintains he did not murder two Swedish backpackers and wants a retrial. …

Tamihere denied meeting the tourists or any involvement in their disappearance, although he did admit stealing their car.

Yes, it was someone else who killed them. Wait, I’ve got it – it was Robin Bain!

He tells Metro magazine that he is living a quiet life, spending time with his partner, Kristine, and his adult sons, but wants a new trial and compensation.

“It’s about the principle.

About the principle? And compensation!

Having said that the Police did botch up parts of the case. But I would be very surprised if David Tamihere was not responsible for the killings. His criminal record is appalling with the killing in 1972 of 23 year old Mary Barcham, plus various assaults and sexual assaults. There is some speculation he did not act alone though.

Paul Easton at Stuff reports:

Actress Lucy Lawless told Fairfax at 11.30pm last night, from aboard the ship, that Shell was “going Guantanamo on us”.

“They’ve upped the ante. Shell are getting pretty pissed off, what one could expect.”

The protesters were being “bombarded” with the persistent booming sounds from loud speakers, including screams and feedback sounds, she said.

Oh how awful. Those nasty Shell people.

But a spokeswoman for Shell said the sounds were not being made in response to the protesters, but were just standard procedure.

Normal operations involve work throughout the day and night, she said.

“As part of routine work standard procedure requires the crane’s horn to be sounded when the crane moves over the vessel. There was no loud music or other extraneous noise.”

So these terrible Guantanamo type sounds are in fact the normal sounds of a working ship. I guess this tells you a lot about the protesters.

Watch this video from a non union employee at Ports of Auckland, about how the union employees treat him. Also recall that the Maritime Union is affiliated to the NZ Labour Party, which advocates on their behalf.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

The Herald on Sunday editorial:

In the big grey building on the hill in Wellington are 121 MPs – one for every 36,600 New Zealanders.

That’s almost a record (they had to redo the seating plan to fit in such numbers) and it’s a big increase on the 99 MPs who represented us in 1996, before the introduction of MMP.

The last Parliament had 122 MPs, so in fact it has dropped. And worth mentioning that the population growth since 1996 means that even without MMP, we would be up to 109 MPs. In another decade or so Parliament under MMP will be smaller than what it would have been if we had continued with FPP.

Do we need so many MPs? Well, Australia’s House of Representatives contains 150 MPS – one for every 152,300 Ockers.

The HoS is not comparing apples with apples. With no second chamber our backbench MPs on select committees do the work which upper houses often do. Also with no state governments, the national parliament and government is responsible for all laws and policies. So what is the total number of legislators in Australia.

• Federal – 150 + 76 = 226
• NSW = 93 + 42 = 135
• Victoria = 88 + 40 = 128
• Queensland = 89
• WA = 59 + 36 = 95
• SA = 47 + 22 = 69
• Tasmania = 25 + 15 = 40
• ACT = 17
• NT = 25

The total number of legislators in Australia is 824. That is one for every 27,700 Australians – a considerably higher ratio than in New Zealand.

The truth may be unpopular but for a country of its size, New Zealand has one of the smaller Parliaments in the world. I researched around 50 different countries for a submission on this a few years back.

Does MMP need so many politicians? No, it would work perfectly well if we went back to 99 MPs – 63 in general electorates, seven in Maori electorates, and 29 list MPs to bring specialist expertise and proportionality.

Another incorrect statement. In 1999 Labour would have had an overhang under a 70/29 Parliament creating a disproportional result. Again in 2002 Labour would have had an overhang.  And such overhangs would be inevitable in the future. A 70/29 split doesn’t produce proportional results when the winning party wins a lot of the electorate seats.

Kate Shuttleworth at the HoS reports:

Minister of Education Hekia Parata’s sister Apryll Parata has been given one of the ministry’s top jobs. …

Labour spokesperson for education Nanaia Mahuta said there was a concern Apryll Parata’s promotion came so quickly after her sister was appointed minister.

“There is a perceived conflict of interest. People will draw all sorts of conclusions given the proximity of the appointment.”

They hounded Madeleine Setchell out of the public service because of her boyfriend’s new job, and now they target Ms Parata because of her sister.

Many top public servants have had siblings in politics. Mark Prebble had roles in DPMC, SSC and Treasury and his brother was Richard Prebble. Should he have not been promoted because of Richard?

Apryll Parata is one of seven Deputy Secretaries and has been a Deputy Secretary since February 2007. Her recent promotion is not of title, but of responsibilities. Parata was also the youngest ever female principal of a state secondary school. One bio states:

Apryll Parata arrived at Ngata Memorial College after the school’s roll had dropped to 72 students. Truancy was rampant, and the professional standards of teaching and management had been neglected for years. In the five years that she was principal, the roll more than trebled, truancy was nonexistent, and academic qualifications were lifted  significantly. The college moved from an academic achievement rating in the bottom five percent of the country’s secondary schools to the top of schools of its type in three years.

Yet Labour attack her having the wrong sister.

Green spokesperson for education Catherine Delahunty said Apryll Parata had been involved in education for a long time.

“It’s not someone who is coming in from the outside with no knowledge. It does become interesting when it’s two sisters running the Ministry of Education because it does sound to the public like it puts power in the hands of one family.”

She said her main concern was about the direction the ministry was taking, not the personnel.

Bravo the Greens. Delahunty resists the cheap shot.