Labour Maiden Speeches

The draft transcripts of the four Labour maiden speeches is here. I used to e-mail MPs asking for a copy of their maiden speeches but now the draft transcripts are out in 150 minutes, I just wait for them.

First some extracts from Dunedin North MP David Clark:

Politicians do not exist to rubber-stamp what the electorate has already decided, but to articulate and share a vision of a better society. I will describe the better society to which I aspire. It has similarities with what founding members of the Labour Party described as an “applied Christianity”. It is a society where accident of birth does not dictate one’s station and prospects. It is a society where every citizen can get ahead by dint of hard work that builds on their natural endowment. It is one where all have free and equal access to high-quality education, a society where all have the ability to develop their talents sufficiently to ensure fulfilling and enriching lives. It is one in which choices are not driven by fear, but are afforded by opportunity, in which everyone has access to legal representation, regardless of their means. 

I agree with those sentiments, even though I suspect we disagree on how to achieve them.

I would describe how we might consider financial transactions taxes, gift and estate duties, and a capital gains tax in order to broaden our tax base.

Broadening the tax base is good, if it leads to lower rates. Not good if it leads to the state growing in size and crushing the private sector.

And I don’t support taxing people for dying, or gift duty which cost three times more to administer than revenue it took in.

A third reason that greater equality makes pragmatic sense relates to public investment. Infrastructure is an example—witness growth in China’s high-speed rail network. It is 12 times bigger than it was in 2008, four times larger than in any other country, and still growing at an astonishing rate. It is hard to imagine this happening in the USA today. Where a critical mass of the truly wealthy exert undue influence on the political process, investment in infrastructure, education, research, healthcare, and other matters related to the common good dwindles …

Oh nonsense. China is growing its rail network because it has 10% economic growth and the cost of labour is so low. To suggest that the USA is not growing its rail network at the same pace because of the wealthy is batty.

Andrew Little:

This year marks the centenary of one of the most bitter and violent industrial disputes in New Zealand’s history: the Waihī miners strike. It is an important part of the Labour story. A young Scottish union organiser was witness to that dispute and saw how workers who wanted nothing more than decent pay and a fair go were intimidated, divided, and—after a striking miner was beaten to death by those opposed to the strike—run out of town. Those dark events led to that organiser and many others realising that justice would be achieved only when working people reached beyond the workplace for influence and had a direct say on the laws and policies they were subject to. The union organiser was Peter Fraser, who later became a Labour Prime Minister.

I found the Waihi link to Peter Fraser quite interesting. Fraser is my favourite Labour PM.

New Plymouth is a great city with, I might add, a great mayor and I enjoyed campaigning there last year, although I remain intrigued by a question I was asked at one of the first meetings I held: what my position was on the merger of Air New Zealand and NAC. I said that Labour was taking a “wait-and-see” approach.

Heh.

Megan Woods:

In my previous role at Plant and Food Research, I observed firsthand the real difference science and innovation can make. We need more businesses to access and utilise the exceptional knowledge that is being created in our Crown research institutes and universities. And we need a proper commitment to the fundamental research that underpins this. To improve this we must commit to adequately fund science and innovation to create jobs and lift wages. …

 I am a New Zealand historian by training who has worked in science and innovation. I am a former community board member who believes in the power of communities and the grassroots. I am a Christchurch native who grew up in the ravages of a user-pays world, who, despite being glued to the royal wedding in 1981 believes in the desirability and inevitability of our country becoming a republic in my lifetime, who celebrates the diversity of modern New Zealand. I am here because I have a strong belief in social justice. I am here because I believe that there are always real alternatives in working to ensure that hope, opportunity, and being all you can be, is not an accident of birth for the privileged few but the birthright of all New Zealanders.

And finally Rino Tirikatene:

Eighty years ago, in this room, maybe even in this chair, my grandfather Sir Eruera Tirikātene stood before this House as the member of Parliament for Southern Maori. Forty-five years ago, in this room, maybe even in this chair, my aunt Whetū Tirikātene-Sullivan stood before this House as the member of Parliament for Southern Maori. Today, I stand before the House as the member of Parliament for Te Tai Tonga. At the time my grandfather rose to address the House for the first time, the Māori population numbered a mere 82,000. We were at that time a rural people, still recovering from the ravages of land sales and the scourge of introduced diseases. We existed at the very margin of the country’s economy. What income we were able to earn as unskilled labourers in the agriculture and forestry industries was supplemented by gardening and foraging. The land development assistance programme introduced by Sir Apirana Ngāta in the 1920s, which eventually gave rise to the Māori incorporations and trusts of today, was in its infancy and poverty was all pervasive, especially among those communities that had been left landless by confiscation and land sales. Statutory recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi, the claims of Ngāi Tahu, Waikato, and Taranaki, and poverty were my grandfather’s main concerns.

We have made some progress since then.

[Today] more than 1 in every 2 Māori was living in a household with a combined income of more than $50,000, and well over 1 in every 3 in a household with a total income of $70,000 or more. What we are witnessing is the steady growth of a Māori middle class. On the collective front, we are witnessing the rise of the Māori economic authorities, Māori land trusts and incorporations, and iwi authorities.

And:

Life and prospects for Māori are so much better than they were 80 years ago, but Māori know better than anyone that much remains to be done. We are still overrepresented at the bottom of the wealth pyramid. We will, on average, die sooner than our Pākehā mates. We will, more so than our Pacific cousins, end up in prison, and, unlike any other group in Aotearoa – New Zealand, we now receive more in transfer payments than we pay in tax. Too many of use remain locked into a cycle of dependency and poverty.

I am glad he mentioned dependency as well as poverty. The two are linked.

Crafar deal ordered to reconsideration

Stuff reports:

The High Court has ordered Government ministers who agreed to a Chinese company buying the Crafar farms to reconsider the application.

The judgement of Justice Miller follows a successful application by a group of New Zealand farmers and iwi, led by Sir Michael Fay, to block the sale of the 16 in-receivership farms.

The group had sought a judicial review of the Overseas Investment recommendation for approval for the $210 million purchase by Shanghai Pengxin and the Government’s support for that recommendation.

Justice Miller said the application for review was granted and the decision by Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson and Associate Finance Minister Jonathan Coleman was set aside.

The judge directed that the ministers reconsider the application by Shanghai Pengxin subsidiary Milk New Zealand.

It will be interesting to see the full decision, but it suggests that the OIO and Ministers did not consider one or more of the criteria properly. This will not be helpful for the Government as it keeps the issue alive longer, and suggests that there may have been grounds to turn the application down. It doesn’t mean that there were grounds – just that there might have been,

I will be surprised if Sir Michael and associates ends up with the farms at the end of this, but it is possible if a different decision is arrived at.

The Herald has the judgement here. I found this part interesting:

CFIPG (Fay etc) came late to the sale process and has still to commit itself to a formal offer … it has nominated a price, albeit one that the receivers  claim to find unworthy of acknowledgement.

So Fay has yet to even make a formal offer. If he can knock Pengxin out, then he can lower his bid even further, so his gain may be greater than even the $40m between the so called bids.

In terms of the judgement, the claim that Pengxin were not experienced enough was not upheld. Where the court has ruled that the OIO and Ministers erred was in assessing benefits vs a counter-factual.

The OIO used a counter-factual of the status quo (farms run down), and the argument was that the counter-factual should be a NZ company buying the farms and also investing in them.

The OIO argued against this on the grounds that this would require a hugely complex analysis of not just every application, but to model what a rival bidder may do. However they lost the argument.

My 2c is that it would be better for an analysis to be against a counter-factual which is based on a rival bidder – but that this may well be hugely impractical in many cases.

Gillard’s decision

Greg Ansley at NZ Herald reports:

Gillard has always maintained that she decided to contest the leadership only on the day she confronted Rudd with her demand for a ballot, and her repeated protestations to ABC’s Four Corners programme on Monday night – and to reporters since – have not been convincing. …

Gillard, both on Four Corners and to reporters since, has denied any preparation for a coup. But she has sidestepped detailed replies, pleaded memory lapses and has looked consistently uncomfortable.

It is best to be upfront about coup planning. No one believes it was a spur of the moment decision. I recall the Shipley coup against Bolger – they actually had a committee with a cover name (Te Puke bypass) which met for some months, and were upfront about this after the coup.

The decision boomeranged disastrously. Gillard was faced with allegations that, despite repeated statements to the contrary, she and senior staff had prepared for a leadership challenge weeks before the event.

Four Corners said this had been supported by internal party polling indicating Gillard was more popular than Rudd, and that her senior staff had begun writing the first speech she delivered as Prime Minister at least two weeks before Rudd’s ousting.

Former senator and Labor powerbroker Graham Richardson told the programme he knew a week in advance that a challenge was to be mounted.

Four Corners also said United States Embassy cables released by WikiLeaks showed the US State Department knew, even before some Labor MPs, of a challenge.

When the state department knows, everyone knows.

Gillard described suggestions that she had been driven by polling as “wholly untrue”, but admitted she might have known a speech was being written. “This was a tense few days for me and the Government, so I can’t specifically say to you when I came to know about the speech,” she told ABC radio yesterday.

But she said she did not commission the speech.

Ministerial staff are often pro-active, but I don’t think this extends to writing a speech for your boss in case they become Prime Minister.

I think it is unlikely Gillard will survive to fight the next election. More difficult to pick is who will replace her.

Parliament 15 February 2011

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

  1. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
  2. TODD McCLAY to the Minister for Economic Development:What evidence has he seen of businesses having the confidence to invest in large capital projects in New Zealand?
  3. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the answers he gave to Oral Question No 6 yesterday?
  4. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister for Social Development:E pēhea te Minita e mōhio ai kei te piki te ora o ngā tamariki i roto i ngā ringaringa o Child, Youth and Family?
    • Translation: How will she ensure that children are not made more vulnerable than when they went into the care of Child, Youth and Family?
  5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: What is Treasury’s projection for New Zealand’s current account balance for the next four years?
  6. NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received about early childhood education enrolments in 2011?
  7. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will he give an assurance that New Zealand’s armed forces will not be used in any possible military intervention in Syria in violation of the United Nations Charter?
  8. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Local Government: What reports, if any, has he received on labour costs in the local government sector as compared to central government and the private sector?
  9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Corrections: Does she have confidence in her Chief Executive and his staff?
  10. Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Minister for Courts: What initiatives are underway to assist court staff to improve the collection of outstanding fines?
  11. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: What advice and reports, if any, has he received about the Rt Hon John Key’s electorate chair Stephen McElrea’s potential conflict of interest in his role as a board member of New Zealand On Air?
  12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What announcements has she made regarding the igovt scheme, and making it easier for people to verify their identities to government agencies?

Today there are five patsies from National, four questions from Labour, one from the Greens, one from the Maori Party and one from NZ First. The  prize for most grovelling patsy question of the day goes  to Q11 – What announcements has she made regarding the igovt scheme, and making it easier for people to verify their identities to government agencies?

Labour are trying on a generic Does PM have confidence in all Ministers question which could mean a scandal unearthed, or well anything. Robertson continues on the Radio Live issue, Parker focuses on the current account deficit and Curran continues at NZ on Air.

The Greens are asking their sole question on Syria. Sigh.

The Maori Party are asking about CYF and Winston has left Whanau Ora and is askign about Corrections.

Address in Reply Debate 3 pm – 6 pm 

Maiden speeches for new Green MPs are from 4.15 pm to 6 pm, being List MPs Mojo Mathers, Denise Roche, Julie Anne Genter, Jan Logie, Ste an Browning, Eugenie Sage and Holly Walker.

7.5 hours remaining of the debate.

Government Bills 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

  1. National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill – third reading
  2. Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill – committee stage
  3. Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill – committee stage
  4. Medicines Amendment Bill – first reading
  5. Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill – committee stage

The National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill was introduced in December 2010 and seeks to to establish a National Animal Identification and Tracing system in New Zealand. It was passed by a voice vote on first reading, and on second reading was supported by all parties except ACT.

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

The Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill was introduced in September 2010 and seeks to enable border agencies to share information, change the thresholds and processes for administrative and petty offence provisions of the Customs and Excise Act. It passed its first and second reading on voice votes.

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

The Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill was introduced in October 2010 and seeks to ensure that an offence  committed against a Police officer or prison officer acting in the course of his or her duty is taken into account as an aggravating factor at sentencing. It was supported by all parties bar the Maori Party at first reading, and passed second reading on a voice vote. The Government has indicated they will support a Labour amendment to include other emergency service operators in the bill.

Appalling

Deidre Mussen at The Press reports:

Pike River’s mine manager job-hunted in the minutes after its fatal November 2010 explosion despite knowing power and communications had been lost, the inquiry into the deaths of 29 men has heard.

His revelation prompted one of the dead men’s mothers to call out: “This is while my boy was dying, Jesus Christ,” before she fled in tears from the royal commission into the tragedy.

Former general manager Doug White began giving evidence in Greymouth District Court yesterday, his second time in the inquiry’s witness stand.

Commission lawyer Simon Mount said White emailed two people at 4.02pm and 4.03pm on November 19, 2010, less than 15 minutes after being told communication and power had been lost to the underground West Coast mine. It exploded at 3.45pm that day.

He was the mine general manager and he had been told the mine had lost power and communications, and he carried on with his e-mail!

I would have thought the general manager would immediately drop everything else, and personally co-ordinate the efforts to establish what has happened in the mine. A loss of power and communications is no minor incident.

Defining a relationship

Stuff reports:

A Christchurch pair who described themselves as “friends with benefits” were forced to describe their sex lives in court over charges they falsely claimed $173,000 in welfare payments.

A jury found the pair not guilty of all charges after treatment from Housing New Zealand (HNZ) that a welfare advocate described as “cavalier and cruel”.

Margaret Campbell and Bill Seconi, who were evicted from their homes, said the charges and trial caused “unbearable stress” and were “demeaning”.

The pair lived near each other in HNZ homes from about 2003 to late 2009.

They described their relationship as a friendship with occasional sex.

“We were friends with benefits,” Campbell said.

But the Ministry of Social Development and HNZ claimed the pair were concealing a “marriage-type relationship” and falsely claiming benefits. The pair were then evicted from their HNZ homes and had to defend the charges in court.

Things are more complicated than they used to be. It is relevant to welfare entitlements whether or not someone is married or has a partner who supports them.

Once upon a time a sexual relationship would be pretty conclusive proof of a “marriage-type” relationship, but today it may just be friends with benefits. Trying to define when FBs becomes a relationship can be difficult.

Hours for Mathers

Stuff reports:

Parliamentary Service was working hard to provide technology and he had asked officials to explore voice recognition software. “That technology is something we are working on right now. That doesn’t have to wait for a Parliamentary Service Commission,” he said.

Smith also accused Mathers and Green party whip Gareth Hughes of politicising the matter and making public the details of a private meeting.

So it is not a dispute over technology to help her do her job, as it appeared yesterday. That is being provided. It is a dispute over hours.

Each MP gets funding to cover 80 hours of staff time, or two full-time equivalent workers, a week.

Mojo Mathers estimates she needs 1000 hours a year for electronic note-taking required for her to participate in Parliament through a laptop on her debating chamber desk.

The Speaker has suggested the other 13 Green MPs pool their support budgets to give some of their unused support hours to Mathers.

Now I do support Mathers being given extra hours, but this can’t be done at the whim of the Speaker. All Electorate MPs gets 120 hours a week and all List MPs 80 hours a week. To give Mathers extra hours you need to set up a third category of MP, and publish a formal determination specifying the criteria to qualify, and what the extra support hours or funding will be.

It is worth noting that the Green caucus as a whole gets 56,000 hours of support staff a year, plus $1.88 million of funding. The 1,000 hours is less than 2% of their overall hours and a party that consists entirely of List MPs rarely uses all its allocated hours up.

Again, I support a change to the funding rules to cater for a situation like Mathers. But the Greens could have chosen to work with the Speaker to establish a time-table for changing the determinations, rather than do a hatchet job on him.

Nice spin

In the Stuff report on the Urewera trial:

Christopher Stevenson, for Signer, said his client was out of New Zealand during about a third of the time that the training camps were allegedly held.

He asked if they were really a cohesive group and were they really ”training camps”, or were they wanangas, devoted to teaching and learning?

Oh yes, it was a wananga. Hell, I’m surprised they didn’t get TEC funding.

A gentle fisking

Danyl at Dim-Post blogs:

Last time I looked, smart-phone penetration in New Zealand was around about the 5% mark. But I guess Key’s kids and all his staffers have them, so that’s everyone in the world of the Sun King.

This was in response to this comment from the PM:

“It really doesn’t matter if there is a street frontage there … We are living in an age where kids have iPads and smartphones. That’s the modern generation … and they actually don’t want to walk in, for the most part, and be in a very long queue and be waiting for a long time.”

So is Danyl right that only 5% of Kiwis have a smart phone, basically John Key’s kids and staffers?

The World Internet Project New Zealand disagrees, and hey as they actually surveyed 1,255 random New Zealanders, I tend to go with their numbers, being:

Usage of smartphones and other handheld wireless devices has grown apace, from 7% of Internet users in the 2007 sample, to 18% in 2009 and 27% in 2011. This is clearly a strong trend that will continue into the future.

So not really 5% and just some staffers and kids then, and hasn’t been for the last five years. Note that WIPNZ found 86% of NZers aged 12 or older are Internet users, so the smart phone penetration rate for all over 12s would be 23%. Also note the survey was six months ago.

Who pays

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Speaker Lockwood Smith has told deaf MP Mojo Mathers she must pay for the $30,000 technology to speak in Parliament out of her own budget.

Green MP Mathers made history when she became New Zealand’s first profoundly deaf MP in November.

She will give her maiden speech in the House tomorrow, which will be translated by sign-language interpreters.

But Smith has told the Green Party that Parliamentary Services will not pay for the electronic note-taking equipment which Mathers needs to take part in debates.

This has already caused outrage on Twitter. My stance is that I think Parliamentary Service should fund the note-taking equipment if it is essential to allow Mathers to participate in the House.

However I note that so far only one side of the issue has been reported. We do not know what the reasoning is behind this decision – just what the Greens have said is the reason. It would be helpful for the Parliamentary Service to explain the decision.

Finally i would also point out that there is no question of Mathers personally paying for the note-taking equipment. In fact the taxpayers, through Parliamentary Service, will be paying either way. The Greens receive a total of $5.64m funding over this parliamentary term to support their MPs, so this represents around 0.5% of their funding over the next three years.

However if the equipment is funded from the Greens allocation, then they can’t spend that money on other things such as staff, research, advertising. And they have a quite legitimate view that having an MP with a disability shouldn’t cost them a portion of their budget.

UPDATE: The Herald reports further info:

However, the Speaker’s office said Dr Smith and Parliamentary Services did not have the authority to approve the extra funding.

“He would have to go to the Parliamentary Service Commission, he’d have to go to the Government and ask for additional funding to do what she wants because its not part of the appropriation,” a spokeswoman said.

Dr Smith would raise the issue at next month’s Parliamentary Service Commission meeting.

The Speaker is holding a press conference at 3.30 pm also on this issue.

Hansard online quicker

Parliament has announced:

  • A draft version of speeches made by members of Parliament, called the Draft Transcript, is now published to the Parliament website within 2½ hours of members’ speeches being delivered in the House.
  • The final version (subject to minor correction), called the Daily Debates, is now published to the Parliament website debate by debate—you no longer have to wait for the whole of the day’s proceedings to be ready for publishing. When the Daily Debate is published, the Draft Transcript is removed.

This is a great step forward. To be able to see a transcript of speeches within 150 minutes will be very helpful for scrutinizing what MPs say. Combined with the In The House service which gets videos onto You Tube within an hour or so, and we have excellent transparency.

The next step is select committees – eventually I’d like them to be reported to the same detail as the House is. But a first step would be to broadcast the public sessions of select committees and make them available by webcast and on digital TV.

Parliament 14 February 2011

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

  1. JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Finance: What progress is being made in rebalancing New Zealand’s economy towards paying our way in the world?
  2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement made with regard to the revenue from asset sales “I don’t know the exact number that they have in their books today”?
  3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for Land Information: Did New Zealand’s Free Trade Agreement with China influence his decision to approve the sale of the Crafar farms to the Shanghai Pengxin Group?
  4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister responsible for Whānau Ora in fulfilling the objectives set out in the Relationship Accord and Confidence and Supply Agreement between his party and the Māori Party dated 11 December 2011?
  5. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received about proposed welfare reform in other jurisdictions?
  6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “the PM’s Hour” on Radio Live on 30 September 2011 was an “election free zone”; if so, why?
  7. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Justice: What are her priorities in regard to bail laws over the coming three years?
  8. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he have confidence in The Treasury?
  9. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Health: What is the total cost of legal action spent to date by his Ministry to oppose the claim that family members have the right to be paid to care for adult disabled children?
  10. CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: Do fire-fighters, ambulance officers, and the small number of other types of first responders legally required to attend and assist in accident and emergency situations deserve the same level of legal protection from assault as police and prison officers when they are carrying out their duties; if not, why not?
  11. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for Racing: What announcements has he made relating to safety on racecourses?
  12. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he believe that appointing the Rt Hon John Key’s electorate chair Stephen McElrea to the board of NZ On Air was appropriate?

So today there are four patsies from National, five questions from Labour, two from the Greens and one from NZ First. The  prize for most grovelling patsy question of the day goes  to Q11 – What announcements has he made relating to safety on racecourses?

Labour are focusing on asset sales, Radio Live, and NZ on Air. All issues from last week, they are trying to keep alive.

The Greens are asking about the Crafar farms and disabled care giving. The one of the Crafar farms could be interesting as they are trying to tie it into the China FTA, in which case Labour will be the target of their attack, not National.

Winston is on Whanau Ora again, but with a more detailed question to the PM, so he may make better progress today.

Address in Reply Debate 3 pm – 6 pm 

Maiden speeches for Labour MPs are from 5 pm to 6 pm, being Dunedin North MP Dr David Clark, List MP Andrew Little, Wigram MP Dr Megan Woods, and Te Tai Tonga MP Rino Tirikatene

10.5 hours remaining of the debate.

Government Bills 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

  1. Road User Charges Bill – third reading (continued)
  2. National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill – third reading
  3. Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill – committee stage
  4. Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill – committee stage
  5. Medicines Amendment Bill – first reading

The Road User Charges Bill was introduced in November 2010 and seeks to reform the road user charge system for users of diesel vehicles. It was opposed by Labour at first reading but supported at second reading, after select committee hearings.

The National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill was introduced in December 2010 and seeks to to establish a National Animal Identification and Tracing system in New Zealand. It was passed by a voice vote on first reading, and on second reading was supported by all parties except ACT.

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

The Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill was introduced in September 2010 and seeks to enable border agencies to share information, change the thresholds and processes for administrative and petty offence provisions of the Customs and Excise Act. It passed its first and second reading on voice votes.

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

Caption Contest

What should the MMP threshold be?

In my By the numbers blog at Stuff I look at the issue of what the party vote threshold should be for MMP. I note:

One of the most important issues is what percentage of the vote should a political party need to get, to gain list MPs in Parliament. Currently the threshold is 5 per cent. You can also qualify through winning an electorate seat, but I plan to discuss that issue in a seperate post.

There are basically four options for the threshold. They are to:

  • (A) – Increase it
  • (B) – Keep it at 5%
  • (C) – Reduce it
  • (D) – Abolish it
In general terms, the higher the threshold, the fewer parties will be in Parliament, and fewer parties will be needed to form a government. The lower the threshold, the more parties there will be in Parliament, and more parties will be need to agree to form a government. Also the higher the threshold, the more wasted votes you get.
Over at Stuff I look at what would have been the impact on the last six elections, based on the scenarios of a 7% threshold, a 4% threshold and no threshold.

Should we have professional jurors?

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

The Law Commission has proposed ditching trials by a full jury of 12 in favour of trials by a judge and two semi-professional jurors to allow more evidence, such as previous convictions, to be used.

In a consultation paper on alternative trial systems, the commission sets out a range of proposals for change, especially in sexual offending cases.

They include replacing a full jury with a judge alone or a judge with two full-time jurors who would be trained in criminal procedure.

The paper said trials heard by either a judge alone or a judge with two trained jurors would allow many of the rules of evidence to be dispensed with, because a smaller pool of fixed-term jurors could be trained in criminal trial procedures in a way normal jurors could not.

Research showed jurors had “an array of myths and prejudices” that resulted in laws restricting the use of evidence which could be prejudicial, but professional jurors could be taught to put their own prejudices aside.

An example of the evidence that could be included under such a system was previous convictions of defendants. In August 2007, a law change allowed previous convictions to be used in some cases, but only when the strength of the evidence outweighed any risk of prejudice.

I think previous convictions should be known (partly because in today’s world, such information is difficult to hide, so better to provide it in context).

The idea of semi-professional jurors is worth considering. With so many people avoiding jury service, jurors are no longer representative of the population anyway. Training jurors up in criminal trial procedures has some merit.

I’ve not read the full paper, but will add it to my backlog of stuff to read.

You can read the paper and respond to it at this site.

A hi tech public service

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Technology will replace face-to-face contact as the Government continues its squeeze on the public service.

Prime Minister John Key has met executives from internet giant Google as plans to shake up the public sector gather steam.

Virtual jobs will replace staff as the sector moves away from frontline services to call centres and online interaction.

Mr Key said yesterday that people wanted to use their smartphones to apply for passports and other tasks, rather than wait in line in offices.

“It really doesn’t matter if there is a street frontage there … We are living in an age where kids have iPads and smartphones. That’s the modern generation … and they actually don’t want to walk in, for the most part, and be in a very long queue and be waiting for a long time.”

Bring it on. I find it very frustrating if I can’t access something over the Internet.

The MMP Review

The Electoral Commission has launched a website for the review of MMP. You can make a submission to the review online.

The review is not binding on Parliament, but will provide a set of recommendations. The timetable is:

  1. Written submissions can be made up to Thu 31 May 2012, but if you wish to also make an oral submission then the deadline is Thu 5 April 2012
  2. Oral submissions can be made from Tue 24 April to Fri 18 May 2012
  3. A proposal paper released on Mon 13 August 2012
  4. Submissions close on proposal paper Fri 7 Sep 2012
  5. Report presented to Minister of Justice on Wed 31 Oct 2012

So I encourage people to have their say. If you remain silent, then you will be leaving it to unions and lobby groups to dominate the debate.

The issues the review will cover are:

  • the thresholds for the allocation of list seats,
  • list members contesting by-elections,
  • the rules allowing candidates to both contest an electorate and be on a party list,
  • the rules for ordering candidates on party lists,
  • the effect of a party winning more electorate seats than its party vote share entitles it to,
  • the effects of the ratio of electorate seats to list seats on proportionality in certain circumstances, and
  • other matters referred to the Commission by the Minister of Justice or Parliament.

Two issues can not be considered, under the law which set up the review. They are the total no of MPs in Parliament, and Maori representation.

It is my intention to blog on each issue individually, and discuss the pros and cons of potential changes.

What I would also like to do is arrange some public forums in major centres, where a range of speakers can advocate for and against some of the significant possible changes. I think hearing a contest of ideas is one of the more effective ways to get people interested in the issues, and to come to a conclusion on them.

I don’t have the resources to do arrange the public forums myself, but am happy to work with some others to do so.

The lesbian pay gap

Eric Crampton quotes Big Think:

The wage premium paid to lesbian workers is a bit of a mystery. Sure, lesbian women are better-educated on average, are more likely to be white, live predominantly in cities, have fewer children, and are significantly more likely to be a professional. But even when you control for these differences, the wage premium is still on the order of 6%. …

Eric offers some theories on why this might be:

First, and most importantly, maternity risk. If an employer expects a lesbian employee to be less likely to take maternity leave, and if maternity leave imposes costs on an employer, then the employer will be more likely to hire and to promote the lesbian over the straight woman. What evidence do we have? Petit’s field experimentshowing that maternity risk is responsible for a fair bit of women’s lower average salaries.

How could this be tested in the data presumably available in the original study? Test whether the wage gap between lesbian and straight women is larger for younger women than for post-menopausal women. That will confound with age cohort effects, but there may be a way around it: use state insurance mandates on assisted reproduction, or state policies with respect to same-sex adoption. If some states require that insurers cover fertility treatments as part of an employer’s insurance package and others don’t, or if some states make it easier for lesbians to adopt kids, then we’d expect the wage gap between lesbians and straights to be smallest in those states that make it easiest for lesbians to have kids.

Second, testosterone and negotiation strategies. Women, on average, are less aggressive in wage negotiations. If testosterone correlates with aggressiveness in salary negotiations, and some evidence suggests higher than average testosterone levels among lesbians as compared to heterosexual women (though that evidence iscontested), then we’ve another candidate explanation.

I’d put money on the maternity risk variable. I’d only put money on the negotiations one at decent odds.

I go the other way to Eric. I think the theory of more assertiveness in salary negotiations is most likely to explain the gap.

 

Updates on NZ90 health scare

Len’s Auckland taxes

After having failed to get the residents of Oamaru, Christchurch, Wellington and Napier to pay for Auckland’s CBD rail loop, Len Brown has proposed half a dozen new taxes as possible ways to pay for the loop.

The proposed taxes include:

  • Regional income tax – new income tax paid only by Aucklanders.
  • Regional payroll tax – new income tax paid by Auckland employers.
  • Regional GST – raising GST in Auckland.
  • Regional fuel tax – raising petrol and diesel taxes across Auckland.
  • Visitor taxes – nightly charge for hotel and motel rooms.
How novel to have a Mayor who is a member of the Labour Party propose to increase GST (in Auckland). I don’t recall that one being in the manifesto in 2010.

Urewewa trial starts finally

Ian Steward at Stuff reports:

After four years and four months, numerous pre-trial arguments, appeals and alterations, the remaining members of the group arrested in the Urewera police raids will finally face trial in Auckland today.

Of the 17 arrested across the country on October 15 2007, only four remain after a landmark Supreme Court judgment ruled out evidence that led to the dropping of charges against 13 co-accused.

The four remaining defendants – Tame Iti, Emily Bailey, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara and Urs Signer – face charges of participating in a criminal group and illegal possession of firearms relating to camps held in the Urewera Ranges in 2006 and 2007.

I look forward to hearing the evidence.

The High Court at Auckland has been set aside for a three-month jury trial, though all involved hope it will not take that long for the mammoth case to be prosecuted and defended.

The Crown will call 75 to 80 witnesses and it is not yet known if the defence will call their own witnesses.

Iti’s lawyer Russell Fairbrother scotched rumours that the proceedings would be slowed through being translated into Maori, saying his client wanted the case prosecuted ”as efficiently as possible” and translation for Iti would not be necessary.

How unusual to be defended by someone who was a Government MP at the time of the arrests.

Caption Contest