Back on 6 May, Darien Fenton announced:

Staff for Members of Parliament will now face the 90 day no rights trial period, unless they are employed to work for Labour, says Darien Fenton, Labour’s spokesperson for Labour Issues.

“Labour does not believe that 90 day trial period is fair, justified or needed and our caucus has unanimously resolved that no Labour MP or manager will accept a 90 day trial period as part of the employment of any new staff member,” Darien Fenton said.

I replied:

This is hilarious hypocrisy, because Darien has forgotten to mention one key thing.

All parliamentary staff who work for an MP or a parliamentary party (even if they have worked there for 20 years) are effectively on a permament probation period where they can be dismissed at any time, regardless of performance.

In every employment contract there is a clause called “irreconciable differences”, which states that if your MP or Leader declares they have irreconciable differences, you lose you job in return for a payout.

So Labour trumpeting that their staff are protected from the 90 day probation period is meaningless, as Labour MPs can (and have) sack their staff at any time without any need to prove it is a justified dismissal.

The question that should be asked of Labour is why do they campaign to deny other employers the same rights they have as MPs to dismiss their staff purely because they no longer have confidence in them.

Now this exchange motivated me to find out how many staff have been sacked by Labour MPs under the parliamentary permanent probation period where you can be sacked at any time if your MP decides they no longer like you. The employment records for the Parliamentary Service are exempt from the OIA, but those from Ministerial Services are not, so I asked how many staff were dismissed from 1999 to 2008 under the irreconcilable differences clause.

They only had records from 2003 to 2008, but in those six years, 10 staff were sacked under that clause. So the hilarity of Labour saying we won’t use a 90 day probation period when they on 10 occasions used the parliamentary permanent probation period.

The mean duration of employment of those 10 staff was two years and one month and the longest serving staffer had been there six years and seven months. So a Labour Minister used the irreconcilable differences clause to sack someone who had worked there for almost seven years, rather than do what every other employer has to do which is to prove a dismissal is justified on the grounds of performance and risk litigation.

Labour is against all employers having for 90 days, what all their MPs (and all MPs) have permanently – a grievance free dismissal process.

Sustainable Coastlines have only had two years of operation and in that time have motivated more than 12,500 volunteers and school students to remove over 95 tonnes of rubbish from coastlines and this event will play a big part in making this work continue.

It is hosted at the Hilton Auckland Hotel’s stunning waterfront location on Saturday 23 July, tickets include a three-course seated dinner, full beverage package and entertainment from top artists who support the cause.

Performances from:
• World-renowned concert pianist Michael Houstoun on the grand piano.
• Barnaby Weir – the incredibly talented lead singer of The Black Seeds and Fly My Pretties fame – with his critically acclaimed acoustic set.
• Aotearoa’s top jazz ensemble Nairobi Trio.
• Popular local jazz and funk legends Grand Central Band.

The all-inclusive tickets are $150, while discounted tables of ten are also on offer at $1300 – perfect for getting friends and clients together for an epic night out which supports a great cause.

Click here to buy tickets.

All proceeds will support coastal clean-up, riparian tree planting and educational projects with schools and volunteers around the country.

The evening was a huge success last year and with a limited capacity they are expecting to sell out, so get in quick.

Fred Tulett in the Southland Times reports:

Prime Minister John Key has confirmed one of three Israelis killed in the Christchurch earthquake was carrying multiple passports but is refusing to go into further detail because it is not in the national interest.

The police national computer has been under scrutiny in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake in February because of fears Israeli agents loaded software into the system that would allow backdoor access to highly sensitive intelligence files. …

The Security Intelligence Service ordered the checks as part of an urgent investigation of what one SIS officer described as the suspicious activities of several groups of Israelis during and immediately after the earthquake.

Three Israelis were among the 181 people who died when the earthquake destroyed most of Christchurch’s central business district on February 22. One was found to be carrying at least five passports.

On Sunday, February 26, Mizrahi’s body was recovered from the van and taken to the morgue where, during routine identity checks, he was found to be carrying at least five passports.

Meanwhile, the search and rescue squad dispatched from Israel had arrived in Christchurch but the offer of help was rejected by New Zealand authorities because the squad did not have accreditation from the United Nations.

According to Israeli newspaper reports, the squad was being funded by the parents of two other Israelis killed in the earthquake, Ofer Levy and Gabi Ingel, both 22, who were said to be in New Zealand on a backpacking holiday. The parents made repeated public appeals for the Israeli team to join the rescue, appeals that were dismissed by the New Zealand authorities until squad members were discovered in the sealed off “red zone” of the central city.

Readers may recall I had some minor involvement at the time. I blogged on 4 March:

As a disclosure, one of the dead Israelis is a close friend of one of my good Israeli friends – in fact the person who hosted me in Israel in November 2009. He approached me for assistance in getting a favourable decision made on getting the Israeli team admitted, and I put them in touch with the appropriate MFAT officials. I have no criticism of the MFAT officials who were very responsive and helpful, my criticism is of the ultimate decision maker, which I presume is someone in Civil Defence.

The family I was trying to help is the Ingel family. Their son, who was killed, is not under any suspicion at all of Mossad involvement. I have absolutely no doubt that the parents just genuinely wanted to maximise the chances of finding their son alive.

In terms of the other dead Israeli, with the alleged five passports, I have no first hand knowledge or involvement. The number of passports he had is not confirmed, and many Israelis do have multiple passports due to travel restrictions. I’m not aware of a suggestion that any of the passports were under a fake name, which would suggest something different.

I did become aware some months ago that there were suspicions over the Israeli who was killed in the van. But the evidence is very circumstantial – multiple passports, only a few tributes on a Facebook page etc. At the end of the day, I don’t know anything beyond what is in the paper, and that isn’t enough to make a conclusion on.

The PM is saying it is not in the national interest for him to comment. That to me suggests that the Government does think there may have been improper behaviour, but can’t prove it. And you don’t generally have Governments speculate on these issues unless they have proof.

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

National and Act are working on a deal under which Act would not stand candidates in marginal seats, including New Plymouth and Waimakariri, to increase National’s chances of winning them.

This is sensible and not unusual. Off memory most elections there have been some seats where ACT doesn’t stand a candidate to avoid splitting the centre-right electorate vote. One of the nice things about MMP is that you can still contest the party vote, without needing to stand in an electorate.

Act’s new candidate in Epsom – John Banks – said while he was not privy to such discussions, “Waimakariri would have been held by a National Party member of Parliament today if it wasn’t for the Act Party candidate last election”.

“I don’t make those decisions. I’m not on the campaign committee and I’m not on the Act board so I can’t speak with any authority but would it make sense, for instance, to lose the seat of New Plymouth to Andrew Little, a future leader of the Labour party, likely to be the leader of the Labour Party post the election, to lose that seat held by Jonathan Young because we put up an Act candidate?”

Mr Banks indicated Act would consider a more general policy of not standing in marginal seats. “I would not want to dislodge any high-quality National Party MPs from their marginal seats by way of putting up an Act candidate.”

Very sensible stuff from Banskie.

Talking of electorates a source within Labour informs me that nominations for Epsom have not closed yet, but will next week. If someone stands against Parker it will go to a selection meeting. I suspect Epsom Labour Party has few members and few union affiliates in the seat, so my guess is the Head Office wishes would prevail easily. Of course yet to have it confirmed Parker is seeking Epsom.

A couple live together in their family home. they think they don’t have to worry about CGT as it appreciates in value.

Sadly after a few years they split up, and both move into smaller apartments. They sell their old house.

Do they pay CGT on the difference between what they paid for it, and what they sold it for?

I’m looking forward to this debate, and not just because I am one of the guest judges.

You can signify attendance on Facebook, or just turn up.

Readers will have probably seen Labour’s advertisements for their campaign website on different online media. The actual advertisements are taxpayer funded and authorised by Chief Whip Rick Barker.

The site they take you to is a party funded site authorised by Chris Flatt. Both the advertisements and the site are clearly election advertisements.

The advertisements are legal under parliamentary rules, but as usual with Labour they push the rules to the absolute boundary. They have combined parliamentary and party ads and sites so they have the same look, slogans and feel. It is as close as you can come to have the taxpayer actually fund advertisements saying “Vote for Labour”. They’re doing it in an slightly indirect way.

All parties fund material from their parliamentary budget which is “political”. You can’t easily draw a line between political and parliamentary. But this current campaign is around 1% parliamentary and 99% political campaigning. As I said before Labour have a long history of pushing the rules to their limit, or as they did in 2005 beyond the limit.

I look forward to 26 August when the taxpayer funding tap gets turned off for parliamentary parties’ advertisements.

I asked on Twitter whether Labour were likely to use their “Ax the tax” bus in the election campaign. Lots of humourous feedback, but the best retort came within a few seconds from Revenue Minister Peter Dunne who said they were going to rename the bus to “Max the Tax”.

Whale has provided this new graphic. Thanks to Peter for the slogan, which I suspect we have not have heard the last of.

The Herald’s Sideswipe put together a few days ago this video comparing a Close Up story to a story on ABC News in the US.

It is quite common to base stories on overseas stories. But I’ve never heard of a story using basically the same script and words. Close Up have now apologised after an initial “No problems” response. Good to see they have backed down, and kudos to Sideswipe for the story.

A spy e-mails:

Labour’s leadership & council have selected David Parker for Epsom & told other prospectives to butt out.

Parker was the MP for Otago from 2002 to 2005 but lot it to Jacqui Dean. His new partner works for an Auckland Labour List MP, so a move to Auckland is certainly plausible.

Interesting to be in a party where the leadership decide selections. Epsom’s selection for National was determined entirely by 60+ local grassroots members.

With last night’s Epsom selection, National has now completed selections in all 63 general electorates.

Labour started their candidate selection much earlier and ranked their party list a couple of months ago. But they have yet to select candidate for ten or so seats. Now this is unusual with just 20 weeks to go. I suspect in some seats they are finding it hard to get a candidate as they have no chance of winning, and as the list is already ranked they can’t even offer a place as a consolation.

As far as I know (let me know if wrong), Labour are yet to select for:

1. Epsom
2. Hunua
3. Ikaroa-Rawhiti
4. Kaikoura
5. Selwyn
6. Tamaki
7. Taupo
8. Tauranga
9. Waikato

Who will they be?

Abby Walker is a Chch born, Ohio State PhD student in linguistics, and her current study is looking at a particular aspect of NZ English, and so involves doing experiments on NZers. She was actually back in NZ end of last year / start of this year, but earthquakes hindered data collection, and, now back in Ohio, she’s trying to collect data online.

http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~ajwalker/OnlineSpeakerRatings

The instructions are:

You are invited to participate in an online linguistics study entitled “Online Speaker Ratings”.  The study involves listening to 10 speakers and answering questions about them. We expect that it will take about 10 minutes to complete this study.

To participate in this study you need to have lived in NZ since you were 6 or younger, and you need to have not lived in a country other than NZ for more than 6 years. You will also need to be at a computer that can play .mp3 sounds at a comfortable listening level.

At the end of the study you will have the option of including your email address in a draw for a USD$50 Amazon.com gift voucher.

Readers are encouraged to help Abby out and complete her study.

Vote for Change is offering $10,000 for the best user generated ads.  $5,000 for the best ad (as judged by vfc) and $2,500 for each of two categories (video and non video) as voted by member of their facebook page.

Entries can be submitted to www.facebook.com/voteforchangenz (that is where entries can be submitted and voted on).  Deadline for entry is 7pm Sunday 24 July.

T&C are at http://www.voteforchange.org.nz/competitions/.

This is one of the entries so far. If you think you can do better, then submit away. And remember you can vote and get your friends to vote on which entries they like the most.

And this is another entry.

Phil Goff was interviewed on Larry Williams yesterday on whether his CGT would effectively also be an estate tax.

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Another thing can you clarify.  If somebody inherits a property and they sell a property, you pay capital gains tax on that based on the original cost of the property?

PHIL GOFF: Yeah if they sell it.  They don’t pay tax on the inheritance.

LARRY WILLIAMS:         So we’ve got an effective estate tax there?

PHIL GOFF: No, no we haven’t.  You – if I inherit my father’s house and I keep my father’s house rented out, I don’t pay capital gains tax…

LARRY WILLIAMS:         But if you sell it you do which is…

PHIL GOFF: If I sell it because it’s an investment property, yes I’ll pay tax on it like I will on any other investment property.  You can’t have it any other way without creating a massive loophole…

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Which is really…

PHIL GOFF: No there is no inheritance tax.  You pay no tax…

LARRY WILLIAMS:         That’s right.

PHIL GOFF: … on a property that you inherit…

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Until you sell it.

PHIL GOFF: … unless you sell it.

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Yeah, until you sell it which makes it in effect an estate tax…

PHIL GOFF: The same way of any other investment property Larry, why would you differentiate?

LARRY WILLIAMS:         No I’m just asking you the question because I spoke to Jo Dylan from Ernst & Young and she said it’s an effective estate tax.

PHIL GOFF: No well she’s wrong.

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Is she?  She’s an expert in taxes, well.

This is an interesting situation. The family home is not subject to CGT, but it is effectively when you die as far as I can tell.

Let’s say you own your own home and your parents own their home. And let’s say when they die their home is worth $300,000 more than what they paid for it say 15 years ago or at V Day.

Now it is highly likely you will not keep your parents home as an investment property. Partly for emotional reasons, it would be bloody difficult renting out to strangers the home your parents lived in, and you associate with them. But also if there is more than one child, the home generally has to be sold to allow the estate to be divided up.

So in the example above, you would end up with a $45,000 tax bill on your parent’s family home.

Unless I have something wrong, then the family home exemption is only while you live, and it will get taxed as part of your estate unless your children decide to turn the family home into an investment property (which I suspect happens very rarely).

Simon Collins at the NZ Herald reports:

A leading think tank has slammed New Zealand’s education system for producing disadvantaged youth who are worse off than in any other developed country.

On average our students do well. But our “tail” is known to perform worse than almost all other OECD countries.

The business-backed New Zealand Institute, which has focused until now on economic policy, says the education system has lost sight of the need to keep young people engaged in school and transition successfully into work.

It recommends radical reforms including widespread use of computer-based e-learning, putting students on to pathways to work from the first year of intermediate school (Year 7), giving employers more input into what schools teach and giving all students career advice through school years and support after leaving school.

I hope the Government take the report and recommendations seriously.

The institute believes e-learning can reduce boredom by giving students personal links with teachers and global audiences for their work. At Auckland’s decile 1 Pt England School, with 93 per cent Maori and Pacific students, Mubasshira Mehter’s blog has been viewed by 17,452 people in 125 countries.

“People can see our work and what we’ve been doing around our school,” said Mubasshira, who is 12.

Five local primary schools have joined Tamaki Intermediate and Tamaki College in the Manaiakalani (“Hook from Heaven”) Trust, which carries the credit risk for parents to buy $400 notebook computers for their children at $15 a month for three years, including an internet connection and technical support.

Pt England principal Russell Burt said the schools used new media as “the hook of engaging students”.

And that is very much the future. Every three year old should have an iPad as a learning and development tool.

The NZI report is here.

A reader writes from Dunedin about how he received an unsolicited e-mail from Labour’s Dunedin North candidate, David Clark. He asked Labour how he got to be on their mailing list and their response was:

The list I have has come to me from a wide variety of sources from people who have agreed to further contact. I’m afraid only you can answer that question.

The reader responds to Mr Clark:

I just can’t imagine where I would have – if I were intentionally signing up to a newsletter (which I’m particularly unlikely to do, and even more so for a Labour candidate) I would have used my “proper” email address. Your assistance to try and figure this out would be greatly appreciated.

Now, you announced your candidacy just under a year ago. Obviously if you’re following the anti-spam legislation (which I understand you’re arguably exempt from as this isn’t strictly for commercial gain, but surely you’d stick to anyway under the premise of not wanting to be a spammer) then I would have had to specifically opt in for this mailing list sometime since then.

We can discount November and December last year as I was out of the country for this time, taking us down to a 10 month window.

I definitely wouldn’t have signed up to this through your web page (I would’ve followed you on Twitter first – which I’ve just done now), so we can discount that avenue too. I haven’t signed any petitions or anything in that time period, so if that’s a possible avenue we can ignore that too. I haven’t been to any Labour events, and have never met you so that must remove some more possibilities.

So we’re down to a 10 month window during which time I’ve never met you or been to any events you’ve been at in an official capacity, never been to your web site, and never put my name on anything Labour, yet in this time I’ve specifically opted in to your mailing list using an email address I wouldn’t actually use for this kind of thing.

Now that I’ve clarified my position, do you have any ideas of where it may have come from?

The reader just can not work out hos that e-mail address could have opted in to their list. Then another response:

Given the the list of possibilities you’ve ruled out, my best guess is that you may have been on a local Labour supporters list (in error?) that has been around for a while.

Which is unusual as he has not received e-mails before.

I have some idea of the challenges in this area as I used to handle the e-mails for National. I was always concerned about how we answer the question “How did you get my e-mail address” as the methods of collection did vary from area to area. What we settled on was to add a field to the database where we could denote the source of the e-mail address, and the date they signed up. So it might say “website” or “xx MP newsletter” etc.

Just offering to unsubscribe someone isn’t enough. If you are not sure if you have consent from someone, then send them a one off e-mail asking them if they want to be added to your database, rather than assume.

With the NZEI petition e-mail addresses, and the Sevens petition in Wellington, and other incidents Labour have shown a very lax attitude around ensuring consent for those they e-mail. There is no legal remedy for this, but there is a political one.

Trevor Mallard blogs:

Turns out it was my cockup that resulted in an email intended for supporters getting out into the blogs and then the MSM.

I added a few friends and acquaintances who are interested in politics to a list to get the package stopping asset sales and doing a tax switch to my normal supporters list. They got that on Thursday as the embargo came off.

Unfortunately for me I used that list again instead of my normal supporters list on Friday evening when I described the positive response to the package.

On it inter alia was David Farrar.

My bad. I’m sorry.

It is true I received Trevor’s e-mail. But I did not pass it onto Whale. I glanced at the first sentence and deleted it unread as was too busy to read Trevor’s propaganda in detail. I did not see all the juicy stuff about Trevor saying the public don’t care about the details, and suggesting lines for supporters and MPs to use on Twitter (which many of his faithful colleagues then used).

If I had seen that, I would have blogged it myself – not given it to Whale!

Whale got the e-mail from someone else, not me. And good on him for taking the time to read it!

If in future Trevor sends me secret supporter e-mails, I’d appreciate it if he puts the juicy stuff up the top, so I actually see it!

Am amazing video showing Catherine Destivelle climbing cliff faces with no ropes or safety gear. Incredible strength and agility.

In a final ballot run-off, Paul Goldsmith pipped Aaron Bhatnagar. Congrats to Paul, and commiserations to Aaron and the other candidates.

On Wednesday Night I went to see An Oak Tree at Circa. It runs until Sat 30 July.

The concept of the show is fascinating. There are two characters only. One, a hypnotist is played by Tim Spite. He was also the driver of a car which killed the daughter of the other actor.

The other character is played by a different person each night. For the next week, the guest actors are:

• Tue 19 July – Miranda Harcourt
• Wed 20 July – Paul McLaughlin
• Thu 21 July – Martyn Wood
• Fri 22 July – Jason Whyte
• Sat 23 July – Heather O’Carroll
• Sun 24 July – Phil Grieve

Now here is why they use a different actor each night. The actor does not know the script in advance. All they know is the broad concept.

This is not a improvised show. The guest actor does not have to make their script up. They just get it delivered a few words at a time. Sometimes Spite, as the hyponotist, will tell them what to say. Sometimes they’ll be handed a piece of paper with the next few lines on it.

On Wednesday the guest actor was Jessica Robinson. It was great observing her, as she had to act out scenes with just seconds to think. While she gets given the words, you have to come up with the facial expressions and body language to match. It must be one of the more challenging things you can do as an actor, and Robinson did it very well. Spite, as always, was masterful.

The show only runs for 70 minutes, and the time seems to run by, which is always the sign of a good show. You spend half the time just enjoying the challenge of the guest actor repeating their lines, and half the time soaking up the emotions as the two characters confront each other.

I enjoyed it greatly, and almost want to go back for a second night, to see how a different guest actor would go. I’d especially love to see Miranda Harcourt play the part.

NZPA report:

An Otago student is to spend two nights locked in a cage in freezing Dunedin to protest a proposed law that would make student union membership voluntary.

The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, which is sponsored by ACT’s Heather Roy, is currently awaiting its final reading before Parliament,

Supporters say student unions are the only ones left that have compulsory membership, and end up being controlled by political activists who run partisan campaigns that do not represent members.

Opponents argue the bill will destroy valuable associations that provide services at universities and polytechs because most students are hard up and would not voluntarily pay fees.

Otago University Students’ Association student president Logan Edgar is today preparing to lock himself in a cage, on the university’s Union Lawn from 7pm, to protest the bill.

Sadly all Otago students are forced to pay Mr Edgar’s salary. Yep, they get no choice about it Hopefully in the not too distant future they will have the choice of saying you embarrass us with your idiot stunts, and we are not going to pay you to be a idiot any more.

Remember that Labour have made their top parliamentary priority stopping students from being able to stop funding dickheads. They want it to remain compulsory.