Lance Wiggs reviews the party websites for the five main parties. Lots of constructive criticisms for them to consider.
I’ve heard from a source that sadly the Rena is breaking in half. Note this is not confirmed. If so, then it will become a mitigation operation.
Transporting goods by shipping is generally considered more environmentally friendly than roads, but alas in this case not so much.
Derek Cheng reports:
A Labour-led Government would look into having weekly study-free afternoons in every secondary school for pupils to play sports.
Its sport and recreation policy, to be released today, includes broad initiatives such as fighting obesity, encouraging physical activity and maintaining back-country huts and tracks.
It has a focus on participation in school sport, including investigating “reintroducing midweek early finishing nationwide to facilitate midweek sport”.
Rather than trying to have the food police in school tuck-shops, an emphasis on more exercise and sport is a much better approach.
It’s a pity Labour were not a bit bolder and made it a policy, rather than merely investigate it. But still better than nothing.
The policy document also cites back-country huts and tracks as a significant asset that draws tourists.
“The existing network of back-country huts and tracks is vital as well and should remain. A bivvy in the right place, for example, can save lives,” the document says.
“Labour will promote development of new outdoor recreational opportunities, for example, walking and cycling trails on former railways land.”
I’m a big fan of huts and tracks, so welcome Labour saying they are vital. However I’m not sure what this means in policy terms. Are they going to build more? If so, how many and at what cost?
So overall the policy gets a tick from me. Not so impressed with the overseas development policy though.
National shut down NZAID as an organisation and moved the aid programme back into MFAT, with the explicit aim of aligning the aid programme with foreign policy goals. This has undermined the credibility and legitimacy of the aid programme.
Labour will re-establish NZAID as New Zealand’s international development agency, committed to the elimination of poverty, implementing a high-impact development programme, transparent and accountable, and contributing to New Zealand’s broader foreign policy goals.
First of all it is idiocy to say that our aid programme should not be compatible with our foreign policy goals. Of course it should be.
The issue of whether NZAID should be a semi-autonomous agency or a division within MFAT has arguments on both sides. I wasn’t actually convinced that it should have been merged back into the MFAT. However as it has now been merged back in, the last thing you want to do is pull it back out again. This would be massively costly and disruptive. You can’t have its status changing every few years.
Basically Labour’s policy is to just reverse everything that McCully has done. It’s not future looking in any way at all – it is just trying to turn the clock back, without realising you can’t.
Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:
Departing Tamaki MP Allan Peachey’s ambition of transforming the education sector was frustrated by his struggle with cancer and his party’s reluctance to go to war with teachers unions early in their term of government, he says.
And I think that was a strategic mistake by the Government, as it then resulted in the primary teacher unions going to war against the Government, on their terms, over a relatively minor issue.
However he indicated his National Party colleagues were reluctant to depart significantly from the direction set by Labour because that would mean the new Government buying into messy battles with teachers’ unions and sector interest groups.
“I think one of the problems with my vision was that it would have meant going back and
fighting a whole pile of battles that had been won in the 90s that had been very hurtful to a lot of people.”Mr Peachey said he had the energy and mind to fight those battles but the opportunity never arose.
The introduction of national standards is a minor yet worthy reform. The amount of hysteria generated by the NZEI and NZPF against it has been staggering. For me that represents a lesson. You’re going to have a war regardless (unless you surrender policy control to the unions) so you might as well make the war be over something worthwhile.
I’d love a second term National-led Government to introduce performance pay for teachers, full decentralised funding of school budgets, an end to zoning except as a temporary measure while popular schools expand, and of course school choice. Oh yes, and a database of school performance such as Julia Gillard introduced in Australia.
Yes the unions will go to war against the Government, but again they did this anyway with a minor issue such as national standards, so just accept there will be a war, and make sure the cost of the war is worth it.
For those interested, Radio NZ Afternoons has Facebooked on how Bradbury is not banned from anything – they have just decided not to invite him on The Panel anymore. This is no more a ban than saying I was banned from NBR when they dropped my column. They say:
Mr Bradbury has not been banned from Radio New Zealand. He was told that his invitation to appear as a future panellist on Afternoons had been withdrawn but there was no suggestion that it applied to other programmes.
Radio New Zealand received many complaints from listeners regarding Mr. Bradbury’s comments on The Panel during Afternoons with Jim Mora last Thursday.
The decision to withdraw Mr. Bradbury’s invitation to take part in future editions of The Panel was made by the programme’s Executive Producer immediately after the programme. That decision was supported by the senior manager responsible for the programme and subsequently by the Chief Executive and Editor-in-Chief.
Mr. Bradbury’s invitation to participate on The Panel was withdrawn because his personal comments about the Prime Minister were deemed to be in breach of Radio New Zealand’s editorial requirements for fairness and balance. One of his comments was regarded as being potentially defamatory. The segment in question was removed from the Radio New Zealand website for that reason. Radio New Zealand has a duty to protect the organization against defamation proceedings.
In other words don’t defame people on air, when the broadcaster is liable for what you say.
What I have found interesting is the comments by some that Bradbury is the only left wing voice on The Panel or that it is somehow dominated by voices from the right. I decided to check out the panelists from the last month or so, and have categorised them on their leanings based on my knowledge of them.
Lean Right
Lean Left
Not Known
This reinforces what I suspect is the real issue for many of those complaining. They regard Radio NZ as an institution of the left. For many years there was no diversity of opinion on Radio NZ. The only voices you would hear are the left. And to some degree this is still true in some parts of Radio NZ. Take Nine to Noon. While Kathryn Ryan is absolutely impartial, her regular guests are 10:1 from the left. And the same at weekends with Hill and Laidlaw.
On Afternoons, there is a slightly better balance. They actually have half a dozen panelists who lean to the right. And some on the left hate that. They hate that there is no a voice on Radio New Zealand that says things they can’t just quietly nod along to, safe in their unchallenged view of the world.
The Government announced:
Insured homeowners currently pay 5c per $100 of insurance cover, up to a maximum of $69 a year (including GST), as part of their insurance premiums. Under the proposed changes, homeowners will pay 15c per $100 of insurance cover, with an annual cap of $207 (including GST).
So if your insurance cover is $138,000 or more you pay the maximum. I doubt too many places are insured for less than that, so it is effectively a flat levy.
They reckon it will replenish the fund in 30 years. Hopefully it is at least that long until we have a major quake.
Bill English announced:
The Government remains committed to halving the budget deficit this year – and again next year – before returning to surplus in 2014/15, Finance Minister Bill English says.
The Crown’s accounts for the year to 30 June 2011 show net expenses of $9.1 billion for the Canterbury earthquake last year made up almost half of the Government’s $18.4 billion operating deficit before gains and losses.
“This is an unusually large deficit, but it includes the significant costs of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Fund and the updated assessment of Earthquake Commission costs,” Mr English says.
“Setting aside the earthquakes, we’ve made good progress compared to estimates five months ago in the Budget. A combination of higher than forecast revenue and lower than forecast spending has reduced the underlying deficit by about $2.8 billion.
An $18.4b deficit is roughly around $10,000 per household. It is clearly unsustainable and the focus has to be on reducing the deficit before public sector debt gets out of control. It is good that the underlying deficit has reduced, and this has to continue.
An interesting summary notes that 2,500 entities make up the Government accounts and that in total they had $82b in income and spent $100b. 63% of the income is from taxes. Overall revenue increased by $7b which was the first increase in three years.
On the expenditure side, 67% of core crown spending was on welfare, health and education to a total of $47.5b.
The asset side in the accounts is interesting – 2,481 schools, 3,100 police cars, 66,352 state houses, 4,000 km of rail lines, 25 hospitals, 11,000 km of state highways and 8,767 hectares of conservation land.
Anne Clarkson at Stuff reports:
A woman has admitted two racially motivated attacks in which police say she got her dogs to attack two people who were walking in the street.
At a Christchurch District Court session at the Nga Hau e Wha Marae today, Phillipa Ann Parker, 18, pleaded guilty to two charges of assault using the dogs as a weapon. …
A 38-year-old man from the Philippines was approached and Parker led her leashed dog to him and confronted him. She verbally encouraged her dog to attack him, but the man turned his back and lifted his jacket over his head to protect himself. The dog jumped on him and tried to bite his shoulder.
Parker unleashed the dog and both dogs chased the man as he ran away until he ran into a flat.
A short time later, an 18-year-old Japanese woman was approached and was shouted at to go home as she was not wanted here.
Parker then encouraged the dogs to attack the woman by pushing them towards her, and forcing her to back into a corner.
She was verbally abused as she huddled to protect herself from the dogs, which tried to bite her.
I don’t know how an 18 year old woman gets so full of hate to not only abuse those of a different race, but to actually set dogs on them.
Her actions are deeply repugnant. I suspect she is a very stupid individual who takes her inadequacies out on others, but that doesn’t excuse what she did.
I blog at Stuff in my “By the numbers” blog on the case for and against MMP.
The NZ Herald reports:
An oil spill from the stricken cargo ship off the coast of Tauranga has increased in size “several times over” due to a new breach in a main fuel tank.
Maritime New Zealand said between 130 and 350 tonnes of oil leaked out of the Rena this morning.
It had previously estimated a spill of between 20 and 30 tonnes.
A spokesman said the massive new spill meant oil was now spewing from a main fuel tank on the vessel.
He said oil was continuing to leak from the tank and was heading south west towards Mt Maunganui.
“One of the main tanks has been breached. It is very significant in the scheme of things.” …
Maritime New Zealand says the Rena’s orientation on the reef has changed by about 4 degrees, and that as a precautionary measure, further non-essential crew members had been taken off the ship with assistance from the Navy.
Incident Controller Rob Service says the oil’s been reported on Mt Maunganui and Papamoa beaches, but is likely to eventually extend as far south to as Maketu.
It’s highly likely that oil will enter the harbour area, and Maritime New Zealand says this can’t be prevented due to very strong currents -but it will be cleaned up.
Mt Maunganui is a stunning beach. I went there often when I was younger, and still get to enjoy it occassionaly when visiting friends in the area. I hate the thought of such a lovely beach being drenched in oil.
350 tonnes of oil is a shit load, and will take a significant period of time to disperse, and even longer to have its impact neutralised. It does pale in comparison I guess with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill which was around 610,000 tonnes or 1,750 times as big as this.
There is focus on whether Maritime NZ reacted as quickly as it could have. I don’t know enough to judge, but I would make the observation that there have been other issues with that entity which have not filled me with huge confidence. The Government could do well to ensure that after the boat is salvaged or sunk and the clean up done, that there is an independent inquiry into the response by Maritime NZ. No need for a full commission of inquiry, but it would be good to establish if we can do better in future. It is impossible of course to prevent an accident of this nature, which is why we need to focus on how to mitigate the consequences in future.
This is the third and final part of a three part series of a case study in self promotion.
Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here.
In Part 3 we look again at the video surveillance bill, and specifically Chauvel’s SOP. As I had previously blogged, his much vaunted SOP was a cut and paste from the wrong version of the Search & Surveillance Bill.
Now in Parliament Chauvel refers to the SOP “I have drafted” (at around 12 mins), and in fact told his colleagues that he had stayed up until 3 am working on it.
But when it turned out the SOP was based on the wrong version of the bill, Chauvel blogged correspondence with the Office of the Clerk, blaming them for the errors in the bill. So it is Chauvel’s SOP when it is about the credit, and the Office of the Clerk’s bill when it is about the blame. And the only sign of working at 3 am is an e-mail at 10 pm asking for the bill to be redrafted.
What surprised me is that a former partner in a major law firm didn’t even pick up the drafting errors. It is not unusual to use the OOTC to draft amendments, but you expect MPs (especially those who are lawyers) to check any SOP in their name.
Now this incident is by itself no big issue. But when you combine it with the other two issues of authoring letters to the editor praising yourself, and laying down bottom lines *after* you have been told what the Govt has agreed to, it does all fit together into a pattern of an MP who is absolutely obsessed with getting the recognition he thinks he is due.
I’ve been happy to help with getting him the recognition he is due.
This is Kenji. he is the newest member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.Follow the link and enjoy.
Hat Tip: Whale
Chris Trotter blogs:
For a while there it looked as though the Mana Party just might turn into something worthwhile – a second chance for all those who were dismayed to see the Alliance crash and burn over Afghanistan back in 2001-2002.
But, no. Mana’s announcement that Kereama Pene, a minister of the Ratana Church, is to contest the Tamaki Makaurau seat has put an end to all that.Mr Pene is a flamboyant character who has, at one time or another, been a supporter of the Mana Motuhake, Labour, Destiny and Maori parties. He is also on record as saying the Prime Minister, John Key, is “ a person who should be admired”.Not content with singing the Prime Minister’s praises, Mr Pene has also publicly declared that: “National is actually the group that have done most of the great things for Maoridom over the past 20 years.” Identifying (erroneously) the Treaty Settlements Process, the Waitangi Tribunal and the Kohanga Reo Movement as National Party achievements, Mana’s Tamaki Makaurau candidate told the NZ Herald: “You’ve got to give praise where its due.”These statements show Mr Pene to be, at best, a dangerously naive political novice, or, at worst, a ticking time-bomb, guaranteed to explode at the worst possible moment. His remarks have deeply compromised the Mana Party at a time when political journalists are already discussing its lack of momentum, and its failure to capitalise on Leader Hone Harawira’s success in retaining the Te Tai Tokerau seat. …Too late now. Mr Pene’s selection is proof positive that not only is Mana’s talent pool woefully shallow – so, too, is its political judgement.
Kate Chapman writes in the Dom Post:
LABOUR MP Charles Chauvel has accused National affiliates of hacking his email and trying to paint him as a gay “rich prick” after a Right-wing blog claimed that he asked fellow lawyers to put their names to a self-congratulatory letter he penned.
Don’t you love it how Chauvel tries to turn this into an issue where he is the poor oppressed person. I have never ever made an issue of his sexuality. In fact as most people know I have always championed civil unions, gay marriage, gay adoption and in fact have often handed out demerits to commenters who bring an MPs sexuality into the debate.
But nevertheless Chauvel tries what is known as the Chris Carter defence – they are only criticising me because I am gay.
Yesterday, Mr Chauvel refused to say whether he wrote the letter, saying he did not comment on the content of “stolen correspondence”.
It’s not stolen. I made inquiries when it was forwarded onto me, and am satisfied that it was voluntarily passed on.
He said he had no idea how Farrar got hold of the email but said it was either taken electronically or obtained through a Wellington consultancy firm that was working with the lawyers.
This is Chauvel finding excuses to avoid admitting that he sits at his taxpayer funded desk authoring letters promoting himself, and attacking journalists who do not duly recognise his brilliance.
Mr Chauvel believed Farrar had a copy of polls showing him ahead in the Ohariu electorate and the blog post was part of a smear campaign and dirty politics.
“This is what they have to resort to, try to paint me as a rich prick, or gay, or somehow devious, or all three and try to blacken my character and make me less attractive for election.”
Now this is a wonderful attempt here by Chauvel to muddy the waters by listing two things it is wrong to attack him over, and one where it is legitimate.
In my series of three posts I have not painted Chauvel as gay or a rich prick. But yes absolutely I have tried to paint him as devious – because he is!!! What else can you call his self-authored congratulatory letter to the editor?
The sad thing about Chauvel’s use of the Chris Carter defence, is it actually increases hostility against gay politicians. Rather than just admit he got caught being a self-promoter he tries to turn himself into the victim of some homophobic campaign.
Driving to Palmerston North yesterday, I saw my first NZ First billboard. It was hilarious. On the left it says “We win” and on the right it says “You win”.
It reminded me of the sort of sign you see outside a disreputable casino. And as we know with casinos, the house always wins!
THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!
RENA FAILURE: The Rena—the container ship stuck off of the coast of Tauranga threatens to become a huge environmental disaster. The oil from its tanks is floating towards shore, damaging wildlife along the way. Are we moving fast enough to fix the problem? What should be done? And with bad weather on its way—can we prevent further damage?
MMP, FPP, SM, PV, STV—WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY? WHAT TO CHOOSE?: How do you want to vote for your politicians? Mixed member? First Past the Post? Supplementary Member? Preferential Voting? Single Transferable? Do you even know what they all mean? What will provide the best governing body?
Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 12th of October. Our Panel: ACT Deputy Leader John Boscawen, Green Party MP David Clendon, Labour MP Kelvin Davis, and National MP Michael Woodhouse.
ACT have announced:
In a joint press statement, ACT Party Leader Don Brash and President Chris Simmons today confirmed that all ACT candidates would move one place up the list to fill the position vacated by the Party’s retiring Parliamentary Leader John Boscawen, and that the number two spot would be filled by former Party President Catherine Isaac.
Dr Brash said he was extremely pleased with the calibre of the list and that Ms Isaac would be a great addition to it.
“Catherine is highly respected in the Party, and in business and political circles, and I very much look forward to working with her in the next Parliament,” Dr Brash said.
Mr Simmons said Ms Isaac had the unanimous support of the Party Board, as did Leader Don Brash and all the candidates.
“We’re all very pleased Catherine will be standing at number two. She brings a lot of Party experience and has had a long and successful business career. She will make an excellent MP,” Mr Simmons said.
The ACT List is now:
The challenge for ACT is to get at least five MPs again. If they get five or more MPs they’ll have a caucus with future leaders in it, and a path forward.
I honestly don’t know what to say.
I just hope the poor bastards are being paid at least the minimum wage for that.
Perhaps Labour could use this as their televised opening address? Hell, I think National should use it as their televised opening address!
The Press editorial:
As might have been expected, the Green Party has jumped on this incident to advance its campaign against exploration for oil in deep waters off New Zealand. This is just political opportunism. There can be no comparison between a properly run deep-sea drilling operation, far offshore and subject to rigorous environmental safeguards, and an accident in which a ship has hit a well-charted reef a few hundred metres off the coast. As the Prime Minister said, the only connection is that both are at sea.
How it hit such a well charted reef is yet to be determined. Hopefully there will be some accountability for what has happened.
Well Hone’s party is certainly turning out to be a diverse one. Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:
The Mana Party’s new candidate for Tamaki Makaurau is a Ratana Church minister who once praised Prime Minister John Key as “a person who should be admired” – and still thinks Mr Key has done a good job.
Kereama Pene was confirmed as Mana’s candidate in the Tamaki Makaurau seat currently held by the Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples.
Last year, while welcoming Labour leader Phil Goff to the annual Ratana celebrations, Mr Pene praised Mr Key as “a brilliant speaker” and “a person who should be admired”.
Yesterday, Mr Pene said he stood by his comments about the PM.
“We’re in a recession right now, and I’ve got to think like the rest of the country that he has done a pretty good job.”
But it isn’t just John Key he praises.
Asked what Mana leader Hone Harawira would think of his view, given that he had walked away from the Maori Party because of his dislike of National, Mr Pene said: “National is actually the group that have done most of the great things for Maoridom over the last 20 years. You’ve got to give praise where it’s due.”
He said the Treaty settlements process, the Waitangi Tribunal and kohanga reo were all implemented under National.
All true.
Adam Bennett at the NZ Herald reports:
Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty has said she will resign if her party entered a coalition deal with the National Party – a call that undermines the credibility of the Green Party’s bid for more mainstream political appeal by leaving open the possibility of such a deal.
Ms Delahunty did not return calls, but Otago University politics lecturer Bryce Edwards confirmed she made the comment when responding to his questions during an interview on Friday.
“I clearly asked her: ‘If there was a Green Party MP that was a minister in a National-led Government, would you resign from parliament?’ She said, ‘Yes I would’.”
This undermines the Greens positioning considerably.
As I have said many times, let there be no doubt – if the Greens hold the balance of power they will always choose a Labour-led Government over a National-led Government. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Phil Goff to be Prime Minister.
But what Delahunty is saying goes beyond that. There could well be a scenario where National is the only viable Government, such as if National has over 61 seats. Both National and the Greens have not ruled out that in such a situation, they could possibly do a deal which sees the Greens taking up a portfolio or two. It could perhaps involve the Greens abstaining on supply and confidence.
However this is now effectively off the table, as Delahunty has said she would resign as an MP if this happens. I suspect her statement has pissed off her colleagues because what she has done is impose her unilateral view on the rest of the party – the exact opposite of things are meant to work in the Greens.
Of course you could argue they could just let her resign, but no party lightly does something which they know will lead to an MP resigning.
The chance of there being Green ministers in a National-led Government was always low, but Delahunty has now made it effectively zero, meaning her colleagues will have to wait until Labour gains office, which may be some elections away. Delahunty has also gone against the majority of Green voters, as a recent poll showed 60% of Green voters said the Greens should accept Ministerial positions in a National-led Government if John Key offered them.
On Friday I blogged on how Charles Chauvel sent one or more e-mails out to lawyers asking them to send in letters to the Dominion Post praising him, and insulting a press gallery reporter who didn’t praise him enough in an article.
That was Part I of a three part series on the lengths Charles will go to, to bolster his image. Part III will be tomorrow.
For today, I want to focus on the Police video surveillance bill. Now I’m one of those on the record as having said I thought Labour and Chauvel did well to insist on a select committee process and get some changes to the bill. But there are some very interesting timings with the bill.
The Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures Bill) had its first reading on Tuesday 27 September, and was referred to select committee the same day. Submissions were due by end of Wednesday 28 September and it reported back on Monday 3 October 2011.
Now first a bit of a lesson on how select committees work. They generally first hear initial advice from officials in private, and then hear submissions from the public in public. After public hearings they meet and discuss the bill in private, go through any report from officials and signal potential amendments.
Inevitably the ranking Government members on the committee will brief one or more Ministers on the deliberations. They will outline the nature and tenor of the public submissions, the views of the Government members on the select committee and the views of the opposition members. They will discuss what changes the opposition wants, what changes they think are desirable and where a deal can be struck. The Government generally has the choice of either trying to pass it without co-operation from the Opposition, or compromising aspects to get wider agreement.
Now this sort of negotiation is always done in private. You need to give MPs room to explore compromises freely and frankly. This is fundamental to the success of our select committee system. The Standing Orders actually make leaking deliberations a contempt, SO401(p):
divulging the proceedings or the report of a select committee or a subcommittee contrary to Standing Orders
And the Speaker in Speakers Ruling 187/4 has noted:
The deliberations of the members of a committee and any draft report are not available for release and any unauthorised disclosure of them is a breach of privilege. This is not a mere technical rule. It is essential, if members are to work well together on a committee, that the integrity of the process be maintained by respecting each other’s confidences. Furthermore, the House is entitled to the first advice of the conclusions of one of its committees in a report rather than individual members of the committee taking it upon themselves to communicate committee decisions to individual journalists.
That was Speaker Kidd in 1997 talking about the importance of integrity in the process. Speaker Grey in 1993 in SR 187/3 noted:
Parliamentary privilege exists to protect the integrity of the parliamentary process. In that process members of select committees deliberate amongst themselves on the evidence that they have heard, and draw up a report to the House that embodies their conclusions. This process is seriously undermined if drafts that are to be submitted to the committee for inclusion in its report can, with impunity, be released to all and sundry …
It is one thing for members to say in advance of a select committee meeting that they intend to argue for inclusion of a particular point of view in the committee’s report. That is quite acceptable. But it is another thing altogether for members to draw up a document that purports to embody the views of a minority on a select committee—views that are clearly put forward as those members’ contribution to the drafting of the committee’s report—and that are in fact subsequently laid before the committee.
Such a document is clearly one that should be conveyed to the committee first, so that it can consider it in its deliberations. To release it prior to its consideration could pre-empt deliberation and prejudice the proper functioning of the select committee process. Anything that has a tendency to prejudice the select committee process can be regarded as a contempt of the House.
Essentially this says a member of a select committee can express a public view before deliberations begin, but not during deliberations.
Now I want people to focus on two press releases by Charles Chauvel. The first was issued at 4 pm on Thu 29 September, and set out four bottom lines for tthe bill to proceed:
Having heard the evidence, Labour now sets out its position on the Bill and the amendments that National will be required to agree if it is to have Labour support to pass the House next week:
And five days later Chauvel puts out a further release:
Charles Chauvel said the Bill made the four major changes that Labour required in setting out its bottom lines last Thursday following the hearing of evidence in the select committee.
So the narrative from Charles is the brave Labour Party setting down their four bottom lines, holding fast to them, and forcing the Government to agree to them.
There are two issues here. The first is that the first press release from Chauvel was done after deliberations had started on the bill. It is a clear breach of privilege. The House has risen so it is not possible to have a complaint considered by this Parliament and anyway amazingly Chauvel is actually Chair of the Privileges Committee.
But undermining the integrity of the select committee process is only part of Chauvel’s efforts to promote himself. The actual truth is even more incredible.
I understand the press release from Chauvel setting out Labour’s four bottom lines was done around 60 minutes after Chauvel had been briefed on what changes the Government had agreed to. He already knew the Government’s position when he wrote that press release.
So you may ask yourself what sort of MP would breach standing orders just so they can put out a press release laying down bottom lines on a confidential negotiation, when they already knew what had been agreed to? One obsessed with making himself look good is the answer. There is a pattern here.
Note this blog post where Chauvel complains:
We saved the right to silence, and stopped the Government from being able to try people in absentia. We got the usual level of credit – none – from the media, and from left-wing commentators. …
If we get legislation that complies with the four points I just summarised, the Nats will have lost big time in a major attempt to interfere with our human rights. And it won’t be because MPs from a couple of minor parties stood clear of the debate and held their noses. It will be because Labour pushed the envelope as far as possible given the numbers in the House. In most democracies, that would be regarded as a pretty significant achievement given the right:left imbalance in Parliament right now. Here, expect us to get the usual level of credit. Ah well.
Now recall that when he writes about how National will have lost big time, and how it is unfair he doesn’t get enough credit for stopping them, he already knew what the Government had agreed to, and his four bottom lines were released after he had been told what had been agreed to.
It’s the sort of thing you would expect from someone who, well, writes letters to the editor praising himself and asks others to send it in, in their name.
Part III tomorrow.
The Press reports:
Schoolchildren will be asked to help fill the roles of Christchurch support staff facing job losses, a support staff worker says. …
“In one case, a librarian has lost her job, a part-time position will be created and that person will be assisted in the library by students,” she said. “Our students go to school to learn and receive a quality education, not to work in the library because there is not enough funding in the school to provide a librarian.”
Well at my secondary school, several dozen students helped out in the school library. Far from stopping us from receiving a quality education, it enhances our education. You got to learn more about how the library worked, got to read more books and also a degree of responsibility.
Being a good geek, I ended up Head Librarian in my final year. We had a gap of several months between staff librarians, so us students ran the library for an extended period of time. It was a great experience in learning adult responsibility.