I’ve criticised some of Logan Edgar’s antics as OUSA President, but I have to give hum full marks for his re-election video. It is hilarious, and his range of endorsements are impressive, covering the political spectrum. He deserves a second term.

Hat Tip: Education Directions

Over at Stuff in my By the numbers blog, I look at some of the questions on the election and rugby, including the fascinating fact that 30% of New Zealanders said that the outcome of the Rugby World Cup matters to them more than the outcome of the general election. Amongst under 25s this rises to 55%!

Stuff reports:

Disgraced former MP Taito Phillip Field has been granted parole.

He will be released from jail later this month after serving one-third of his six-year sentence.

This was Field’s first parole hearing.

Field was found guilty of 11 of 12 charges of bribery and corruption as an MP after having Thai nationals carry-out work on his properties in return for immigration assistance between November 2002 and October 2005.

He was also found guilty of 15 of 23 charges of wilfully attempting to obstruct or pervert the course of justice, alleging he tried to derail investigations into the work on his homes.

I don’t have a huge issue with this. Field is not a threat to the community and unlikely to reoffend. Cases like him are appropriate for early parole. Having said that, I wonder if he accepts he did wrong doing, and has any remorse. he might still hold to the official Labour position that the only thing he was guilty of is trying too hard to help his constituents.

I’ve enjoyed listening to all the valedictories (with one exception, which I will blog on later), but the one which most resonated with me was Simon Power’s which was simply superb. You can view it on You Tube, but here’s some extracts which struck a chord with me.

I have been surprised by some of the reaction I have  had to my decision to retire. All sorts of motivations have been ascribed to my decision

One of my cabinet colleagues – who is always concerned about how these sorts of things look for the Government – was keen to spread the rumour that the real reason could be traced to the existence of a series of incriminating photographs.

I was alarmed at the speed at which Murray McCully was able to invent such a scenario.

Heh.

As recently as last month, a constituent wrote to me angrily demanding my resignation. He may get pretty excited when he catches up with the news.

He may think he caused it!

I believe that politics is 90% preparation and 10% execution. At a day-to-day level, politics, particularly at a ministerial level, can quickly deteriorate to the daily management of tasks – dealing with papers, the media, OIA requests, Question Time, Written Questions, expectations from colleagues and your Party; tasks that become all consuming, and tasks that in the end do not improve the lives of New Zealanders at all.

That’s not why we run for Parliament. We run to lead agendas, improve the lot of our countrymen, to push change, and to execute ideas. People don’t spend years getting elected, more years waiting to get into Cabinet, to then say “Well, I managed that week well, I minimised risk, had no view, took no decisions, stayed out of trouble: well done me.”

Once in office, you’ve got to do something. That is why having a plan matters. Ideas also matter. In politics, ideas matter more than the political players themselves, because those people will come and go, but ideas endure.

Politicians should manage less and lead more.

Absolutely. We have Chief Executives to manage departments. Ministers should be about leadership. Sadly though in any Government it is usually a minority of Ministers who actually lead rather than manage.

I love the quote from influential Republican media adviser Roger Ailes, who was moved to quip: “When I die, I want to come back with real power. I want to come back as a member of a focus group.”

As a market researcher I shouldn’t laugh, but it can be so true!

So much of Parliament’s time is spent attacking each other, trying to out-manoeuvre each other, and just plain loathing each other. It’s an incredible waste of energy and time.

I was always reminded in cross-party discussions, or in the House during a particularly rough debate, of Michael Corleone’s edict: “Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.”

Very true.

To the day I die, I will never forget sitting in the lounge of Gil and Lesley Elliott in Dunedin, listening to them describe their experiences of the justice system. It had a profound effect on me and the way I viewed our legal system. Good, decent, kind people, whose lives were destroyed by tragedy deserve our help, not a slow-motion replay of the horror they went through.

And Simon’s mandate will be that things should be better for future victims and their families.

What the hell is it about the psyche of this country that we feel the need to go home and hit someone, be it a partner, a child, or another family member? This is totally unjustifiable, wrong, and an indictment on us as a society. Our legal system needs to protect these people and I hope I have made a small contribution to remedying these despicable acts of injustice and cowardice.

The entire House applauded this part.

Although the Peter Ellis matter was straightforward in the end – because appeal rights had not yet been exhausted (a basic requirement of the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy) – the wider case worried me and continues to worry me.

This is one area where I do think Simon made a bad call.  Even if he could not grant mercy, I hoped he would set up a commission of inquiry into the case. I am glad to see he acknowledges the  case continues to worry him – it should worry us all.

The PM, whose confidence I have enjoyed and who gave me plenty of rope, some of which I have used. But of the 462 papers I have taken to Cabinet as a Minister, on only one did he phone to say “I can’t support this one.” Thanks for everything, John, you have been great to work with.

I wonder which one that was? Regardless a good record.

Nothing sums up Gerry more acutely than the time we got fish and chips for the caucus during urgency in the early hours of the morning in 2000. He stormed into the fish and chip shop at 4am, with me trailing behind, and said to the owner: “42 pieces of fish, 40 scoops of chips and 31 hotdogs.” Then he looked at me and said: “And what do you want?”

That one cracked the House up.

So, Mr Speaker, I bid you farewell, and leave you with one thought: We all know that it is a privilege being a Member of Parliament. But the most satisfaction should come from doing rather than being.

I hope that final quote features in some future MPs maiden speeches. It is not enough to just be a Member of Parliament, it should be what you do with that privilege.

Sarah Palin has just announced she is not standing for President of the United States.

I’ve just made a fairly good amount of money in iPredict 🙂

I doubt she could have won the nomination, let alone the election, so it is a good choice by Palin. As a non-candidate she’ll continue to be influential, and in fact may become the endorser-in-chief. If she throws her support behind a GOP candidate, that will give them tens of thousands of activists and volunteers.

Stuff reports:

Decisions over MPs’ and ministers’ entitlements will be handed over to the independent Remuneration Authority, the Government has announced.

Prime Minister John Key said he had introduced legislation repealing the Civil List Act 1979 and bringing together more of the powers to decide MPs and ministers’ travel, accommodation and communications entitlements under one Act.

Under the new Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) bill:

* Most travel and accommodation entitlements for MPs and ministers would be set by the authority rather than Parliament’s Speaker or the minister responsible for Ministerial Services.

*MPs would be required by law to disclose their travel and accommodation expenses – they do so voluntarily at the moment.

* MPs will be docked 0.2 per cent of their salary – currently $270 a day – for non-attendance.

Over the last three years there has been a huge increase in transparency and accountability over MPs expenses. This continues that trend.

I still advocate that a further logical step is to change the timing of MPs salary years from annually in arrears to setting them once every three years just before the election. Then that pay rate applies for the term of Parliament, and MPs don’t have t put up with all the crap when the Remuneration Authority gives them a backdated payrise.

Rainbow Wellington asked all the parties their views on various issues. For some reason they asked not just about gay issues but also weird stuff like prisoners having the vote. Anyway I thought the responses from the parties on gay adoption and marriage (both of which I support) was interesting.

Gay Adoption

ACT – ACT supports ending the discrimination same sex couples face when trying to adopt a child. The Adoption Act 1955 is out-dated and the criteria for adoption should focus on how fit a person or people are to be parents, not their sexual orientation.

A very clear statement that states they support ending discrimination and that sexual orientation should not be a criteria, rather how fit people will be as parents.

Labour – Labour believes that the current adoption laws are antiquated and discriminatory, which need to be modernised and updated. The current Act fails to take into account the number of legislative changes introduced over the past decade areas such as assisted reproduction technology, surrogacy and the legal status of de facto relationships and civil unions. A Labour-led government will enact legislation that will require the Law Commission to review and update adoption law to better reflect modern New Zealand. Labour has already drafted and tabled a Bill to give effect to this.

What I find interesting is that Labour’s answer doesn’t in fact answer the question. They say the Act is discriminatory but don’t specifically say they will allow same sex adoptions. They just say it should be modernised and adopted.

Maori Party – If there is a need for children to be cared for we believe strongly that whānau, regardless of sexual orientation, must be encouraged to care for these children within the family.

Again very clear. The Greens to no surprise are also explicit.

Greens – The Green Party’s policy on this is that parenting skills are distinct from sexual orientation or gender identity. We support equal criteria for both ‘rainbow’ and heterosexual couples in their assessment for suitability and eligibility for parenting. Spokesperson Kevin Hague has formed and convenes a cross party group to reform adoption law.

National won’t commit either way:

We are aware of issue with the Adoption Act. It’s an old piece of legislation and has been identified as an area for potential review. We are currently running a very full justice agenda focused on making New Zealand safer, putting more police on our streets, and reducing crime. In the context of the current economic environment reform of adoption laws is not a priority for the Government.

Gay Marriage

Labour – Our initial focus has been to ensure that existing rights under marriage should also extend to civil unions, and we will complete that work. But Labour believes in formal equality before the law for people in any relationship status, including marriage.

Again, no specific commitment at all. Both times they avoid the question.

Greens – The Green Party strongly supports full equality and believes that this will eventually be achieved either through the amendment of the Marriage Act to include us, or through the repeal of the Marriage Act (which would leave civil unions as the method by which the state formally recognises relationships, and marriage as a purely religious institution).

I actually quite like the Green position of having the state registering relationships only, and leaving marriages to the different religions who could adopt their own rules.

ACT – To be clear now, I should have voted in favour of the Bill in all its stages. I admit I don’t understand why, having legalised civil unions between two people, irrespective of their gender, there is still pressure to provide for same sex ‘marriage’. In the English language I have always understood ‘marriage’ to be between a man and a woman.

Interesting to see Don say he should have voted for civil unions. I was disappointed when he didn’t vote for them at the final reading.

National – In the context of the current economic environment and our strong focus on providing stability, reducing debt, and returning to surplus by 2014 the government currently has no plans to amend the Marriage Act.

Of course on an issue such as this, most MPs will have a conscience vote regardless of party.

A reader has pointed out this quote from UK PM David Cameron:

“I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.”

Would be great to hear that from an MP here.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

Sosefina Masoe spends her nights in one of the most powerful offices in the country; from the top of the Beehive she can see the lights of the Wellington skyline and the moon reflecting on the harbour.

When the 49-year-old solo mum isn’t cleaning Prime Minister John Key’s office, she’s at home in her Porirua state house with her four teenage children and four grandchildren.

Masoe joined Parliament’s other cleaners in Labour’s caucus room today to push for a $15 an hour minimum wage and to remind politicians that poverty does exist in this country.

First of all good on Ms Masoe for being in work, despite having eight kids and grand kids to care for. That’s excellent.

And from my time at Parliament, my memory of the cleaners are they were very hard working and professional. I am sure Ms Masoe is the same. And she is quite entitled to her view that she should be paid $15/hour. Personally I think that it is better to achieve that through negotiation than increasing the minimum wage. You can not create a more prosperous country by simply passing a law demanding everyone gets paid more. If only it was that easy.

She earns the current minimum wage, $13.50, and says that’s about $453.34 in the hand a week.

By the time she pays $250 in rent, $90 for power and $70 for petrol to get to and from work, Masoe has about $43 left to pay for groceries.

That usually consists of budget canned spaghetti and baked beans, cheap bread, oats, noodles and margarine.

“This is what our low wages can afford. It’s budget food, it’s not healthy,” she told MPs and fellow Service and Food Union representatives this afternoon.

Parliament’s cleaners worked hard for the health of those in the complex, they were “the most important people in your life” and deserved more, Masoe said.

“The cost of everything is going up, we can’t afford to feed our families with $13.50 an hour any more.”

Except that the family doesn’t just get $13.50 an hour.

Whale does some maths:

Her take home is $453 per week. Her WFF Credits are worth at least $677 per week if the article claims of eight children (four teens) are correct.  That equates to a salary of about $70,000 per annum.

Whale is correct except I actually make it that she gets $712 of WFF, which makes her gross income equivalent around $77,000. Also on top of that the taxpayer subsidises a state house so that it is only 25% of income maximum.

So when Labour plant a story about how someone has only $43 a week to pay for groceries for their family, it would be nice if the media thought to ask about total household income, because to be frank it is dishonest to ignore the other $700 a week of income.

Up until 23 October, if you are in Auckland near the Wynyard Quarter you might see a new temporary structure – the HP Winter Garden.

It has a cafe with Kokako, a local Fairtrade Organic Coffee Roaster plus a range of cold drinks sourced from artisan beverage companies across New Zealand and a selection of pizza by the slice from Il Buco in Ponsonby.

Plus it has free wifi for anyone to use, as well as lots of tech stuff you can try out and play with.

I’m blogging it because I always have problems getting Internet connectivity in Auckland. Ponsonby and St Marys Bay are really bad for Vodafone data coverage. Drives me crazy. Usually I head to Queen Street and position myself in a Starbucks. But I have to say I like the look of this much more!

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

A row has erupted over comments the Prime Minister made as a man tried to throw himself over a railing in Parliament today.

There were gasps from MPs as the man, heard muttering about injustices, tried to launch himself from the public gallery into the debating chamber below.

As security guards, a solicitor and diplomatic protection squad officers tried to drag the man back over the bannister, Labour says John Key cried across the house “shame on Labour”.

As the speaker shouted for silence, Labour MPs, including deputy leader Annette King, were spitting, calling out “scumbag” repeatedly towards the National benches. …

Wading into the war of words, senior Labour MP David Cunliffe said Key had tried to turn the incident into a political event.

“He said ‘you should be ashamed of yourself, that’s down to you guys’, meaning Labour.”

Cunliffe said the comment was inappropriate because the man might have been attempting to commit suicide.

“To turn that into a political event shows a personality trait that most people don’t often see of the prime minister and it brought the House into disrepute.

“It’s a very low point in the House.”

But a spokeswoman for Key said Labour had the wrong end of the stick.

In a short email, they said: “The Prime Minister’s comments following the incident were a reflection on the Labour Party’s continued criticism of his DPS security detail – which included criticism of his being accompanied inside the parliamentary complex.  It should be noted a DPS member was involved in restraining the member of the public.”

I’ve got three thoughts on this.

My first is that it was a pretty horrific incident for all MPs. You could see how stunned many MPs were. The madman could have killed himself if he landed badly. He also could have seriously injured anyone he landed on, and finally he could also have posed a threat to the subjects of his ire. It would be a shame if NZ had to end up with barriers from the gallery, as in other countries.

The second is that no party or MP is responsible for the actions of a demented protester. Anyone who suggests an MP or party is to blame, is wrong.

The third point is around security. Phil Goff was unwise to attack the level of protection the PM has, as he did in May. Even more unwise to have claimed he would not have the DPS in Parliament, as it was a DPS officer who helped restrain the demented one. Likewise we have had Trevor Mallard claim Key has the DPS in Parliament just to carry his water bottle to the gym. Sure in this case the protester was more likely to hurt a Labour MP as he was on their side of the House, he could just as easily have gone to the other side. And his grudge seemed to clearly be with Government Ministers, as he mentioned both Bennett and Key by name it seems.

No one can know, except the PM, what he meant by his comments. I suspect those on the left will interpret them in the worst light, and those on the right in the most charitable. Labour may wish to reflect that regardless of what the motivation was, if they hadn’t made such idiots of themselves over the issue of security for the PM, then he wouldn’t have that as an “excuse”.

And it was not just once or twice. By my account Labour have criticised the PMs use of the DPS on a dozen or so occasions. Mallard and Hipkins have blogged on it, Goff has commented on it, Cosgrove has asked oral questions on it and Pete Hodgson has asked written questions about it.  They’ve had a co-ordinated campaign suggesting the PM doesn’t really have any threats, and trying to portray his protection detail as being about his ego. With that in mind, one can understand his reaction if a guy yelling his name tries to jump into the debating chamber.

It’s a bit unfortunate that the House will end tomorrow on a bit of a sour note. Because despite everything I think there has been less rancour in the House than previous Parliaments.

Labour is spending another day talking about the PM’s radio show, rather than oh you know say the credit downgrade. Yes I know they are talking about that also but if you talk about two issues in a day, then your chances of the media highlighting the one you want is diminished.

But anyway as they are still going on about it, has anyone else been amused by Labour’s position on the show. Their position is this:

1. The show is an illegal election broadcast which should be prosecuted under the Broadcasting Act
2. Radioworks should offer an identical one hour show to Phil Goff
3. Phil Goff would accept the show if it was offered

You don’t need to be a member of MENSA to work out the flaw in their arguments.

For what it is worth, I think Radioworks should offer Goff an hour show also. Sure it will rate as well as a one hour discussion on agalmatophilia, but the revenue loss is probably less than the lawyer’s fees.

This transcript is from Marae Investigates after they reveal that 47% of Maori said Shane Jones should replace Phil Goff as Labour Leader, with only 31% disagreeing:

Shane Taurima: Shane Jones, do you like that question?

Shane Jones: I’m reminded of what they used to say about J.T and Winston so every time you talk about leadership ambitions you can rest assured there’s a chain saw behind you cutting you as you speak, so I’ll just Taihoa.

Not exactly the normal “I am loyal to our leader and he is doing a good job” line.

Shane T: OK Tariana Turia, outgoing MP Miti Ririnui said this week that Phil Goff couldn’t relate to Maori and our polls have shown that and Labour needed a new leader.

Tariana: First of all I think they need a remarkable leader that can bind them together in their caucus because that is not happening so they need to consider that.  Whether it should be before the election or preparing for the next election and going for the long Term I think that would be their best bet, 7 weeks out from an election not a good idea to replace the leader, it’s happened in the past with them, they had Palmer, then Moore, then Helen in a short space of time. It’s not a good time for them to be imploding so they do need a remarkable leader (Shane – is that Shane Jones?) I think Shane Jones would make a remarkable leader, he’s intelligent, he’s got all the ability that a Labour caucus would need, he’d do far better if he was in a maori Party (Shane – is that an open invitation … much laughter all round)

Shane J

Thank you Tari but I’m in my waka and it’s called Te Roopu Labour.

High praise for Jones from Tariana.

Shane T: Hone, could you work in a Labour Party led by Shane Jones?

Hone: First of all in respect of Shane, I think he’s the most capable politician there in both Maori and in English, sadly I don’t think that they will want to make him the leader because I know a lot of the gays don’t like him, the women are pissed off with him because of the incident that he got involved with not so long ago and also because I suspect that Labour is still inherently racist and don’t particularly want to have a maori as a leader, however when the day comes, in about 2097, I’d be more than happy to work alongside him. 

And high praise from Hone also.

This is so very well done by Danyl and Joe.

Dene Mackenzie in the ODT reports:

Prime Minister John Key’s visage will be smiling at voters throughout the country now that election hoardings have started to appear in the lead-up to the November 26 election.

But if voters want to see Phil Goff’s face on a hoarding, they will probably have to visit Mt Roskill, his home electorate.

I wasn’t sure if Goff’s photos were even on his own hoardings but dispatched a spy to Mt Roskill who confirmed it is the one electorate in the country where a Labour sign mentions him, or shows him.

Being seen with Mr Key is regarded as a major campaign asset by National candidates.

Being with Mr Goff is a liability for Labour candidates.

It’s a bit like the 2008 US elections when Republican candidates did not want to be seen with George W Bush as he was so unpopular.

I do wonder here though whether the stated view is that of the reporter, or is based on what people in Labour have said.

Labour MPs … are distancing themselves deliberately from Mr Goff.

The party signs will show the candidate’s photo, a silver fern and a tick to vote Labour.

The MPs believe Mr Goff will hamper their campaigning and want to put as much distance as possible between him and themselves during the campaign.

Well that answers that question. That means one or more Labour MPs have confirmed that it is a deliberate policy to distance themselves from Goff.

Some of the MPs believe Mr Goff will announce his resignation on election night, leading to the real election for Labour taking place on Sunday, when a new leader will need to be identified.

I suspect some MPs are more focused on the Tuesday 29 November election than the Saturday 26 November election.

Got invited by a local business to be at their table for a lunch with the PM today. Was a very good event, and the PM as usual talked comprehensively on the economic situation locally and globally.

Have to share, as it was so unlikely, the text exchange I had with an MP sitting at the table next to us.

DPF: Who is the goddess sitting next to Roger?

MP: My sister

I responded that I looked forward to being his brother-in-law. His response is best not to be printed 🙂

Lincoln Tan in the Herald reports:

An escort has resorted to selling her underwear online after an attack which will keep her out of work for at least six months.

Lisa Lewis, 30, had her teeth knocked out last month during a house-warming party at her Cambridge home last month.

Yesterday she found out that it would be months before her mouth could be fixed or she would be able to speak normally again.

Goodness knows why, but it seems there is a market for women’s used underwear. But that is not all they are selling.

Her boyfriend, Drew Cocker, is also auctioning his underwear online.

You know, I’ve never heard of much demand for used men’s underwear. In fact quite the opposite of demand.

Maybe they are selling them as a 2:1 special?

Adam Bennett in the NZ Herald reports:

Tamaki MP Allan Peachey is understood to be considering standing aside in November as fresh concerns emerge about his health.

Mr Peachey was elected to the safe National seat in 2005 but was diagnosed with cancer shortly afterwards.

He recovered after a 12cm tumour and his right kidney were removed but had to take a break of several weeks last year after a lung collapsed.

This year he contracted septicaemia which affected his appearance, but more recently appeared in Parliament bald.

Allan has had a tough time health-wise, and if his decision is not to re-stand that will be very understandable.

If he does stand down, National will have to have an expedited selection process to find a new candidate. I imagine some of those who missed out in Botany and Epsom could also seek the Tamaki nomination.

UPDATE: And the news is now out that Allan has indeed decided to retire.

Stuff reports:

Decisions over MPs’ and ministers’ entitlements will be handed over to the independent Remuneration Authority, the Government has announced. …

* Most travel and accommodation entitlements for MPs and ministers would be set by the authority rather than Parliament’s Speaker or the minister responsible for Ministerial Services.

*MPs would be required by law to disclose their travel and accommodation expenses – they do so voluntarily at the moment.

* MPs will be docked 0.2 per cent of their salary – currently $270 a day – for non-attendance.

We’ve seen a massive change in transparency and accountability over MPs expenses in the last three years. This is another step in the right direction.

I still think that it would be very sensible to change the salary reviews from annually to tri-annually, so that the salary for an MP and Minister is set just before an election and remains in place for the three year term.

On the outside of the Academy of Fine Arts building on the Wellington waterfront, I noticed a few weeks ago a memorial to a dog, called Paddy the Wanderer. I was taken by the story, and felt it worth blogging about.

Paddy was the pet of a young girl whose father was a seaman and she would often take him to the wharves to meet her father returning. She died in 1928 of pneumonia and Paddy took to wandering the wharves, possibly looking for his mistress.

He became the adopted pet of the watersiders, the harbour board workers. the seamen and the taxi drivers. They fed him and paid his registration fees.

He got to travel around Wellington, the country and even overseas. Taxi drivers would drive him around Wellington and he travelled on boats to most ports around NZ, and even on occasion to Australia. He even got to fly in a gipsy moth.

The Wellington Harbour Board appointed Paddy Assistant Night Watchman, with responsibility for pirates, smugglers and rodents. They say he was a very intelligent dog who for example would not cross a street until the light turned green.

Paddy died in 1939 and had a fleet of black taxis with a Police escort carry his coffin, bringing Wellington to a standstill. During the dark days of the Great Depression, Paddy became loved by many Wellingtonians and many who were alive them have a story about him.

You can see a photo of him in this old Evening Post.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Treasury failed to stem the flow of millions of dollars into risky finance companies, including failed South Canterbury Finance, after the Government guaranteed their deposits, a report highly critical of the management of the scheme reveals.

The report, by Auditor-General Lyn Provost, reveals deposits in South Canterbury Finance jumped 25 per cent and another finance company saw more than $7million flow into its coffers as investors chased higher returns once they realised the Government was there to pick up the tab when riskier finance companies fell over.

Ms Provost says Treasury knew from the start that depositors would chase the guarantee and that that carried significant risk, but did not take sufficient steps to minimise that risk.

“We saw one example where a finance company’s deposits grew from $800,000 to $8.3 million after its deposits were guaranteed. At South Canterbury Finance Limited, the deposits grew by 25 per cent after the guarantee was put in place,” the report found.

“Once deposits with these companies were guaranteed, depositors could safely move investments to where they would get the highest return, irrespective of the risk of company failure. The finance companies also had less reason to minimise risk in their investment activity. The Crown was carrying much of this risk.”

From mid-2009, Treasury was closely monitoring these changes and the companies that were identified as being at risk.

“However, it was largely doing so to prepare for potential payouts. It did not see itself as able to interact with a finance company to attempt to moderate that behaviour, even when it could see the Crown’s potential liability increasing markedly. The view appeared to be that it was better to recover what funds it could after an institution failed, than try to influence events before a failure.”

So the criticism is that having guaranteed the deposits, Treasury should have told some finance companies to pull their heads in, presumably with an implicit threat to revoke the guarantee if they don’t.

Treasury Secretary Gabriel Makhlouf said yesterday that Treasury disagreed with the assertion that more intervention in finance companies might have reduced the fiscal risks that were an inevitable consequence of the scheme.

I suspect it would have reduced the fiscal risks. However it may have increased other risks such as reputational risks. If Treasury was acting as a sort of implicit director of a finance company and it then crashed, the company might blame Treasury for interfering and say that without the interference they would have been fine.

The Greens say their policy is:

Create long-term enforceable targets for renewable energy production to deliver a 100% renewable electricity generation system by 2030

Under Labour renewable generation dropped from 70.6% in 1999 to 65.4% in 2008.

Since 2008 it has increased 79% in March 2011.

Note this is electricity generation, not all energy generation.

National’s target is to be 90% renewable by 2025, and looks like well on the way.

But there is a big difference between 90% renewable and 100%. It’s like the difference between sanity and insanity.

If you have 100% renewable, then you have real issues with the security of supply. Basically if you have a period with little rain, wind and sun, then you run out of electricity. You don’t need a huge amount of non-renewable such as gas, but you want to have some so you have security of supply.