In my Herald column, I write on why constitutional reform is important, even if most find it boring. I conclude:

Personally I believe the time has come when we should have a written constitution which has a bill of rights entrenched as supreme law. Our rights to free speech should not be at the whim of politicians.

You can comment at the Herald site, as well as here.

Idiot/Savant by his own words hates the SIS and hate Whale Oil. So when he concludes the SIS have acted entirely appropriately, it is worth quoting:

There’s a lot of shit going round the blogosphere this morning about the SIS’s release of a document which made Phil Goff look bad to a sewerblogger “in preference” to the media. … But it turns out that its nothing of the sort, and there is a very good reason for the difference in timeframes. From Stuff today:

Mr Slater was given the documents five working days after he made the request. Fairfax Media, who made a similar request, received the document last night along with a letter from Dr Tucker which said: “Your request differs from Mr Slater’s in that you have also requested reports prepared for the prime minister”.

Which seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation.

If you want to see some hysterical rants, check out John Pagani who has blogged six times in a row on the same issue, each time claiming the SIS have committed treason, by obeying the Official Information Act. How desperate can you get to distract people from the substantive issue, that Goff lied.

Matthew Hooton blogs:

I find it difficult to believe he is not lying about the meeting with SIS Director Warren Tucker on Monday 14 March.  If he is not lying then his memory faculties and/or his ability to multitask must be seriously in doubt. …

Mr Goff would have it that these documents are fakes.  Mr Tucker wrote things down, and prepared agendas and minutes, that were untrue. He then gave these false documents to the Prime Minister’s Office and to Whaleoil in order to discredit Mr Goff. 

This is an extraordinary allegation for Mr Goff to be making, even implicitly.  How credible is it that Mr Tucker would behave that way?  My intelligence sources tell me he has always been the ultimate straight-shooter and has done more than any of his predecessors to bring openness and transparency to the intelligence community.  Any personal political views he may have are, I’m told, completely unreadable and, as outlined above, he has maintained the confidence of every New Zealand prime minister from Muldoon, to Lange, to Bolger, to Clark to Key. It is impossible to believe he has now risked his reputation to take a cheap shot at Mr Goff, who he served loyally when he was Foreign Minister, Defence Minister and Trade Minister through the 2000s.

Isn’t it far more likely that Mr Goff, having previously said the matter had not even been mentioned to him at all, has been caught lying and is now forced, Nixon-like, to maintain the lie – even if it requires implicitly attacking Mr Tucker’s integrity to the extent of suggesting he has behaved illegally?

The sad thing for Goff is this is totally self-inflicted. It was of little political consequence whether or not he had been briefed or not. But because Goff was so stupid as to attack the SIS, rather than check with them, he has now been forced into a position when he is seen as dishonest rather than merely forgetful.

Idiot/Savant again notes:

As for the actual issue, Ministers and MPs receive a lot of information, and I would not be surprised at all if they forgot something mentioned in passing. And I’d expect them to be aware of that problem, rather than arrogantly assuming they have total recall of every document which has ever passed their desk

Unless you believe the paranoid conspiracy theory that the SIS has fabricated the briefing notes from March, it is obvious that Goff was briefed, and at a minimum had a quick read of the report.

He was distracted by the Darren Hughes scandal, and it is not a big thing that he doesn’t recall the briefing. but his arrogance is proving his downfall. In a measure of his credibility vs Warren Tucker, he doesn’t come out of it at all well.

This week on Q+A, the price of milk, the high dollar and the future of emissions trading.

As milk price rises and calls for action grow louder, Guyon Espiner speaks with the two decision-makers at the heart of the issue – Fonterra Chief executive Andrew Ferrier and the Agriculture Minister David Carter. Why has the price leapt so high in the past three years? Who has the power to act? And what can be done for Kiwi families? Also, with the dollar around post-float highs, how tenuous is life for our exporters and what should the government do to help, if anything? And with Fonterra this week questioning agriculture’s planned inclusion in the Emissions Trading Scheme, is a government u-turn imminent?

And later, millionaire businessman Colin Craig has formed a new party to challenge ACT and National for the right wing vote. What are his ambitions? What does he stand for? And who’s standing with him? He’ll speak with Paul Holmes live in the studio.

Joining Dr Jon Johansson on the panel are NZ Food & Grocery Council CEO and former National MP Katherine Rich and former Labour and Progressive party strategist and columnist John Pagani.

Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE.  Repeats at 9.10pm Sundays, 10.10am and 2.10pm Mondays on TVNZ 7       

Statement from Hon Phil Goff:

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky

Well, I don’t usually do photos that have motivation based on politics, but I thought of Goff’s performance over the SIS when I looked at this Jacana tripping.

Walking on water isn’t such an easy act to sustain

Click for larger, higher res image

Hoping everyone has a good Friday,  replete with high quality coffee or other caffeinated beverages 🙂

iPredict says:

SIS-OIA

Embedded above is the OIA response from the SIS. The documents:

1. notes the Investigation into Israeli Nationals in Christchurch was an issue to be discussed with Goff on 14 March
2. says that Goff asked “What do we know?”
3. notes it was “discussed at length”
4. again notes the briefing on 14 March on the agenda for 6 April
5. has a copy of the actual investigation paper dated 8 March
6. notes it was discussed with Goff
7. also notes that Goff read the investigation paper

And look at all that, and then be reminded by Whale that Goff time and time again claimed in different media he had never been briefed – that in fact the first he heard of the Israelis was when the Southland Times ran their story

Logan Edgar, the President of the (compulsory) Otago University Students’ Association left this message at 8.42 pm last night on the Facebook wall of Sir Roger Douglas:

Get fucked you dinosaur…just trying to give yourself a legacy because you know you’re getting too old. You should actually debate the Bill with Pete or Grant… you’d get torn to shreds. Cunt

He has since deleted it, but a copy was automatically e-mailed to the page admin.

What better example can you find of why student associations should be voluntary. Every student at Otago is forced to fund Mr Edgar’s salary. This is what Labour are fighting so hard to preserve. I bet you no President of a voluntary society would ever act like that – they’d lose all their members in minutes.

Meanwhile Otago students may want to consider whether they wish Mr Edgar to continue to represent them.

Have a look at this clip from the House today, starting around 7 minutes in.

Chris Tremain points out a Labour MP was yelling “liar” out at Paula Bennett. The Speaker asks if that happened and no one takes responsibility for it. Tremain then says it was Carmel Sepuloni.

Lockwood then asks Sepuloni to stand, withdraw and apologise unless she is saying she didn’t say it. She remains seated and the Speaker has to ask her directly did she say it.

She then admits she said it, but doesn’t do withdraw and apologise properly for it. Lockwood instructs here again to do so, and threatens to name her. She then gets up and says she does so “reluctantly”. Lockwood has to again threaten to name her, and finally she apologises looking like a petulant 10 year old.

I think Paula’s majority in Waitakere just got a bit larger!

Grant Robertson blogs:

For me student associations are like local government. Enrolling as a student makes you part of a community, and the student association is the organisation that helps govern that community.

I am amused by how the justifications for compulsory membership of these incorporated societies has changed over the years. Initially the compulsion supporters said that they are student unions, which are like trade unions, and should be compulsory as trade unions were.

Then trade unions lost their compulsion. So the next argument was that student associations are like the Medical Association or Federated Farmers. But over the last 20 years almost every professional industry has separated out its advocacy side from its regulatory side. Hence the Medical Council regulates doctors, while the NZ Medical Association is voluntary. The comparison was of course never valid anyway, as student associations are the exact opposite of a professional association.

Then their next false comparison was to local government. Grant would have you believe that VUWSA is just like the Wellington City Council. I’ll return to this argument later, but for now quote Graeme Edgeler from the Red Alert comments:

I’ve never liked this analogy.

If a university student is like a resident of a community then the local council is the University Administration, and the Students’ Association is a local residents’ association.

If you want to live in an area then you have to pay (directly or indirectly) rates to the local council.

If you want to attend university, you have to pay fees for tuition and services to the university.

In either case you can, you can choose to belong to an association that will fight for your rights with the local government/institution, and may, if the issue is important enough, even address the government(/government).

As I said I will return to the weaknesses in Grant’s arguments shortly. First the most recent false comparison that compulsion defenders are making. They are saying that as KiwiSaver is opt out, so should student associations be. So now they are comparing an incorporated society to retirement investment funds. The analogy is pitiful enough as it is, but also consider that you have a choice of 30+ KiwiSaver funds, while at a campus you get no choice of compulsory student association.

Anyway Grant’s comparison to local government is complete nonsense, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say we accept that student associations are like local Councils, and should have the power to take money off people against their will.

Let us look at the safeguards the Government and Parliament has put around local Councils. They include:

1. A Local Electoral Act to ensure Councils are democratically elected. There is no requirement for a students association to be democratic.
2. A Local Government Commission to set wards, maximum pay rates etc.
3. Statutory requirements for Councils to regularly consult their ratepayers on annual plans etc
4. Over-view from the Office of the Auditor-General
5. Subject to the Official Information Act
6. Ability for the Minister to sack a dysfunctional Council and appoint Commissioners

Student Associations have none of these safeguards. Parliament has terribly let students down by granting student associations the powers of compulsory fees, but not putting any safeguards in place.

I said to the select committee, and have said for over a decade that if you wish to keep compulsory student associations, then as a minimum Parliament should act to put in place some safeguards for students. Grant and Labour never ever did anything about this during their last nine years in office. If they had, then some of the pressure for VSM would have subsided. They only have themselves to blame – they gave their mates a legislative power to have compulsory fees, and refused to put in lace any safeguards for students, as we have for ratepayers and their Councils.

If Grant was sincere about his analogy, then he would agree to some or all of the safeguards above. But never once has Labour shown any concern for those students who have been forced to fund incompetent and even corrupt student associations, against their will. VSM is one answer to the problem, but there were others. I’m not saying I’d prefer the other options to VSM, but Labour has refused to meaningfully engage with Student Choice on any of their concerns.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

A fresh political row has broken out over Israeli spy allegations after Labour leader Phil Goff accused  SIS head Warren Tucker of misleading the public over what he knew about an investigation into the death of an Israeli citizen in the February 22 Christchurch earthquake.

Goff today disputed a notation by Tucker on a briefing note – released under the Official Information Act – which suggested the opposition leader had seen the briefing of the Israeli “spy” investigation.

Goff disputed the notation and accused Tucker of calling his credibility into question.

“In future, I will only meet with Warren Tucker or representatives of the SIS if there is someone independent in the room to keep a true and accurate record of what is discussed.”

Warren Tucker incidentally was appointed Director of the SIS by Helen Clark in 2006.

The notation he made on the briefing note that Goff has seen the briefing paper would have been made in March, when he met Goff. Back then there would have been no thought that this could become a public issue.

Tucker is a long serving intelligence professional. He would have done hundreds or thousands of briefings, and I doubt would be in the habit of being careless about his notations, or would forget to hand over a paper he had with him.

We now have an Opposition Leader who is so arrogant, and so unable to simply say “I stuffed up” (unlike the Prime Minister) he is now claiming the SIS Director is a liar, and incredibly has said he no longer trusts the SIS and will never meet with them again without witnesses. And this is the man who wants to become their Minister.

This fiasco was entirely avoidable by Goff. When it was first reported that Goff had been briefed, he could have checked quietly with the SIS before shooting his mouth off in public. but once he had publicly stated he had never been briefed and knew nothing of the Israeli issue, he has refused to concede he was wrong, and simply didn’t recall the briefing as he was in the midst of the Hughes scandal.

The public forgive MPs who say they made a mistake. Goff though has dig himself a hole and keeps digging.

Bill English and Pita Sharples have announced the membership of the Constitutional Advisory Panel:

The Panel will be co-chaired by Emeritus Professor John Burrows and Sir Tipene O’Regan, of Ngāi Tahu.  The other members are:

• Peter Chin
• Deborah Coddington
• Hon Dr Michael Cullen
• Hon John Luxton
• Bernice Mene
• Dr Leonie Pihama
• Hinurewa Poutu
• Professor Linda Smith
• Peter Tennent
• Emeritus Professor Ranginui Walker

This will surprise some people but I think including Dr Cullen is a brilliant move. Not because I necessarily will agree with his views. But panels like these has a habit of producing worthy but useless reports which try to lay down principles for the perfect constitution, and they become door stops.

Dr Cullen’s presence (and others) should help ensure that the panel will actually come up with some proposed reforms which are actually achievable, if the public support them.

I hated Cullen’s appointment to NZ Post – partly because of the timing, but partly because National had fought several elections railing against his economic management, so giving him the chair of our biggest SEO was a slap in the face for many National supporters.

But a role like this one, I think is much more appropriate, and Dr Cullen will I think play a very useful role in it. The issues they are looking at include:

the size of Parliament, the length of the electoral term, Māori representation, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and whether New Zealand needs a written constitution.

Also pleased to see Deborah Coddington and John Luxton there. Again, a panel with nothing but academics would be less likely to succeed.

But academics are not bad per se, and Professor Burrows as a co-chair is also an inspired choice. He is widely respected, and has done some excellent work at the Law Commission. He has a lot of experience at taking complex issues, and turning them into specific proposed law changes.

Likewise Sir Tipene has a good track record of making things happen, and a necessary degree of pragmatism.

Peter Chin seems a solid choice and a former Mayor will have some good perspectives, as will Peter Tennent.

I don’t really know much about Bernice Mene (except that she was a great netballer) or Dr Pihama, Ms Poutu or Professor Smith. Dr Walker is more well known, and his inclusion is no surprise.

As a constitutional geek, I’m really pleased to see some important issues will be debated and discussed. I doubt I will like everything they recommend, or even most of it. But I definitely plan to be involved in the process, and will next year cover the issuees extensively on Kiwiblog.

Labour have spent all year blocking every single private members bill in an attempt to stop students from gaining freedom of association.

Last night they were dumbfounded (check the video out here) when Heather Roy put an end to it by using the procedural motion that the Committee report progress to the House on the Royal Society bill which had been fillibustered to prevent the VSM bill from being debated.

The House voted to report progress, which meant that they automatically proceed to the next item of business – the VSM bill.

Trevor Mallard looked even more manic than normal, while Grant Robertson was so distraught, he looked like someone who had just been told their beloved pet cat had been run over by a car. This gives you some idea of how desperate they are to stop students being able to decide to stop funding their political mates. It is the last vestige of compulsory unionism.

Labour continued with an extended temper tantrum for an hour or so. Probably because they had been boasting to NZUSA and the student associations that they were so clever they had guaranteed the bill would not pass before the election.

It still is not guaranteed of course, but only one clause remains for the committee stage of the VSM bill, and then the third reading. That will require two more members days, but there are three scheduled before the House rises so I rate the chances as pretty reasonable.

If so, it means from 1 January 2012 finally students will have the ability to decide whether or not they personally wish to belong to a students association, and as importantly no longer be forced to fund partisan political advocacy which they disagree with.

NZ Herald reports:

Tenants at nearly 400 state houses have been kicked out in the past three years for lying about their circumstances.

Housing Minister Phil Heatley said investigations had uncovered 397 cases in which tenants failed to advise Housing New Zealand (HNZ) about income from employment, business interests, assets, that they lived with a partner, or they sublet their tenancy.

From that number, 241 tenancies were ended in the past year.

“The state housing system is designed to help people in their time of need. It’s unfair and unacceptable for people to abuse the system and commit fraud to get benefits they are not entitled to,” Mr Heatley said.

“People who deliberately rip-off the system deprive families in real need.”

It is good to see efforts being made to help those most in need, rather than those who lie about their income.

What I would be interested in, is how many tenancies were terminated for fraud each year for the last decade.

Isaac Davison at NZ Herald reports:

Prominent climate sceptic Christopher Monckton has arrived in New Zealand for a series of public talks, but his hosts are struggling to find a platform for his views.

Scientists approached to challenge the hereditary peer say debating well-established facts about climate change is a backward step which is bound to mislead the public.

Belief in man-made global warming has plummeted in recent years for a number of reasons. One of them is the arrogance of the scientists who say things like debating the science is a backward step, and refuse to do so.

Green Party MP and climate change spokesman Kennedy Graham, who was invited to challenge the Englishman, said there was no longer a debate about greenhouse gases.

Yes there is.

I actually accept the science that the more greenhouse gas emissions you have, the warmer it will get. I also think a price on carbon is a sensible thing to do. But my God I despair of the likes of Dr Graham who declare there is no longer a debate, when a massive proportion of the population do not accept the linkages.

You win people over by debating. If Monckton uses cherry picked facts, then you point that out. Why should anyone listen to people unwilling to debate?

Rachel Browne at Stuff writes:

A survey by Relationships Australia has revealed that people’s sex lives improve along with their income – and that the magic number for satisfaction starts at about A$80,000.

Only 44 per cent of people with a household income under A$60,000 a year are sexually active, compared with 81 per cent of people with a household income of more than A$80,000 a year.

Maybe this is why Labour is determined to tax higher earners more? 🙂

Felix Marwick at NewstalkZB reports:

It seems cash as well as pride will be on the line in a cycle race between Labour MP Trevor Mallard and right wing blogger Cameron Slater.

The two will go head to head in Auckland later this month with both antagonists already talking up their chances online.

It has now got to the stage where money is involved.

Blogger and potential ACT candidate Cathy Odgers is offering to put $1,000 on Mr Slater to win.

Trevor Mallard’s asking if she’s prepared to take the bet to $2,000, and is confident he and his colleagues will be able to match it.

Readers may recall I also pledged $1,000 to charity based on the race outcome. The Crippled Children’s Society (CCS) if Trevor wins and the Mental health Foundation if Cameron wins.

The race looks to be on Sunday 21 August in Auckland.

Sadly our stupid nanny state gambling laws means it is illegal for anyone but the TAB to run a book on the outcome of the race. It is even illegal for iPredict to do a futures market on the race. It would be fascinating to see what the market prediction would be.

I’d have to say that Trevor would be considered the favourite and Cameron the underdog.

Trevor is basically a professional full-time cyclist, an amateur part-time blogger and an occasional MP. He did the 160 km Taupo cycle race in under 5 hours in 2009. Off memory he was in the top 5% of cyclists for his age group.

Cameron got on a bicycle around three months ago for the first time in 10+ years. Now Cameron has been training pretty hard, doing 20 km rides most days. But Trevor used to be able to do 20 kms in around half an hour. Whale does have a slight advantage with the course being local to him.

Now of course the big factor is Trevor’s bike crash and broken bones. If Trevor had not had his injury, it wouldn’t even be a contest. What we don’t know is to what extent Trevor is still injured. The crash was just over four and a half months ago which normally would be enough time to rebuild some of the leg muscles etc. And I suspect his overall level of fitness is still pretty good.

So in two and a half weeks we’ll find out whether Trevor remains king of the road, of if the underdog manages to beat the man he calls the cripple. The only thing certain is that the winner will gloat!

Can you name this future MP? A hint – the photo is only a few years old!

Colin Craig has announced the formation of a new party, the Conservative Party. Craig is a conservative, so the party is well named.

There is room in the political spectrum for a conservative party. The closest we have at the moment is New Zealand First, but of course Winston makes that party unable to be trusted. I have said in the past that if Winston was not the leader, there would be a place for NZ First.

Looking at their implicit policies, through their conservative test, the Conservative Party looks to have similar policies to NZ First – morally conservative, and economically wet.

There is an opportunity for Craig to fashion a true conservative party, which gains representation in Parliament. But there is also the possibility that it may just be a vehicle for his personal ambitions, as the parties of Peters and Anderton were. Will the Conservative Party be democratic? Will party members be able to elect a board, and select candidates? Or will Craig make all major decisions as he is the funder?

From what I can see, I don’t think I will agree with most of their policies. But there may be a segment of New Zealanders who will. It will be interesting to see how they do.

Clare Curran blogs:

The  public relations firm paid $10,000 to broker John Key’s appearance on the Letterman Show was Hill & Knowlton, the PR firm that became notorious for its involvement in the Kuwaiti embassy’s lobbying of congress to provoke a military response to the Iraq invasion back in 1991.

This involved creating an artificial scandal over Iraq troops murdering Kuwaiti babies in incubators, using the Kuwaiti ambassador’s family as stooges claiming to have witnessed these atrocities.

Congress bought it, and Hill & Knowlton was rewarded handsomely for their assistance in facilitating a military response.

Even Crosby Textor looks tame compared with these guys.

Boy that John Key is a real evil bastard. As Tourism NZ engaged Hill & Knowlton to work for them in the US, John Key is complicit in falsely claiming the murder of Kuwaiti babies in incubators.

This strategy is only slightly more subtle than Labour MP Stuart Nash, who tweeted yesterday:

Key is such a smug prick

It looks like Labour are planning a repeat of their 2008 campaign.