Northland MP John Carter gave his valedictory speech to Parliament on Tuesday. John is one of the funniest guys you will ever meet, but also one of the most hard working MPs around. His advocacy for his constituents is legendary, and this is why he has such huge majorities in an area which is economically quite poor.

Parliament won’t quite be the same without John there. But as he said in his valedictory speech:

Here I am, giving my valedictory. If I had known it would be this good I would have done it years ago! I must say people have been kind enough to say they are sad to see me going. I am sorry they are sad; I am as happy as all hell.

It’s great to see an MP leave with no regrets or rancour.

I cannot help but mention the “Hone” affair. This is the real “Hone” from the far north, by the way, folks. The only thing I want to say in that regard is that it made things rather difficult for me, because the Prime Minister, who had been waiting 10 years to meet the President of the United States, happened to be in the United States meeting the President at the time the “Hone” affair occurred. I think otherwise I might have got away with just a good boot in the proverbial. Unfortunately, what happened was the Prime Minister, who had had his photo taken shaking hands with the President, appeared on page 8 of the New York Times andI appeared on page 1. It seriously pissed him off, I can tell you.

Oh it did indeed. He was absolutely ropable.

So I got stuck into the Labour Party in Opposition and talked about all the cunning things those members were doing. I said we were not going to put up with these cunning things and we would not have cunning stunts like this happening. It went on and on. I kept saying it, and I know that Gerry, who was sitting there, was waiting for me to bugger it up, and so was everyone else, funnily enough, even people in the gallery. I carried on about cunning stunts until I slipped up. Eric Roy was in the chair. He fell over in collapse. Ailsa Salt, who was a dear, dear lady and a very prim and proper lady, just about fell out of her chair. Gerry Brownlee collapsed in his seat. Trevor Mallard, who was sitting on the other side, got redder and redder and sort of fell back; I saw tears flooding down. Annette King, who was sitting there, said “I resemble that remark.” and slid under the chair. The worst part was that I had to keep talking while the whole place around me was bloody hosing themselves laughing.

I was watching Parliament when that happened. It was even worse than John described. The entire house was in tears of laughter and I’d say it took at least two minutes until people stopped laughing.

The thing that disappointed me was that I had thought I would be the first person ever to have that word recorded in Hansard—the Speaker could not pull me up, because he was laughing—but when I got it I saw it had been written as “cunning tricks”.

I checked that myself also. Sadly the c word is not to be found in the hallowed pages of Hansard.

I raise that story for a reason. There is a serious issue that we all need to consider, and it is this: we need to have humour. We need to be serious. Obviously, we need to debate issues—this place is important to the country—but we also need to be able to share humour. I have to say that I am more and more concerned—indeed, I am pleased I am retiring—that the scrutiny we are coming under, particularly from the media, who are trying to sanitise us and turn us into saints, is ridiculous. We need to have members who are real, who can laugh at themselves, share things about themselves, and be real people. If we do not, how else can we represent the people in this country who are real? I ask the people who are prone to criticise us to let us have some space and let us be real people. Occasionally, we will make mistakes, but let us be real, because that is what New Zealand is.

I could not agree more. The last thing we need is 120 plastic fantastics who never say anything in case they offend someone.

I will start with racing, which has been seriously frustrating, to say the least. I just want to say that the people in the racing fraternity are a wonderful group of people, but, sadly, until they realise that the changes that need to be made to the racing industry have to come from within, it will not succeed. We need to get more focus from within. Craig, I say to you good luck my friend. Every racing Minister—with one exception—has not been well liked. I also thank Michael Stiassny, who has done the best job he can in trying circumstances to get the changes that are needed. But if the racing industry does not change, in my view it is doomed.

That is a shot across the bows.

I also want to comment on local government. I am particularly proud of the part I played in the Auckland reforms. We made an amazing change, working with the likes of Mark Ford and Brendan Boyle and so many others from the Department of Internal Affairs and local government offices. What a wonderful team we had. But, in particular, I commend Rodney Hide for the leadership he gave and for the way in which he brought together that team to put together the Auckland reforms, which are now such a success. I know there may be one or two who do not agree, but in the main it was an outstanding achievement. Rodney, thank you for your friendship and thank you for your leadership. It is a real credit to you and to those who were able to work with you in that role. Thank you very much.

Very classy.

Finally, there was the civil defence portfolio. I have to say that of all the portfolios it became rather challenging, given that I was told by John Hamilton when I started that the portfolio would not take too much time and that I would not have to put too much focus on it.

Heh.

I am proud to have been the longest-serving member of Parliament for the Northland electorate. Mr Speaker, I am conscious of the fact that you have served in this Parliament longer than I have, but as far as the electorate goes, I have been the longest-serving member. One of the things I am proud of is that, with the exception of 1993, with every election the majority has increased. I am really proud of that fact. It is something I am very proud of.

John won Bay of Islands in 1987 and 1990.Then the Far North in 1993, and Northland since. His majorities were:

• 1996 – 5,961
• 1999 – 5,454
• 2002 – 7,558
• 2005 – 9,275
• 2008 – 10,054

Growing the majority in 2002 was especially impressive.

I will finish with this little ditty that someone sent to me. I thought it was worth reading it out, and it goes like this:

He walks, his head beneath the clouds
He strides across the North
He helps the people far and wide
He is the people’s man.

Goodbye.

There was a nice function afterwards also, with great speeches from Maurice Williamson and others. My highlight was having the PM note that John was the first Minister who had resigned who wrote his own resignation letter!

I won’t say that I hope John enjoys the Cook Islands, because I know he will. Farewell for now, mate.

I call the latest Roy Morgan poll a boost for Labour in my By the Numbers column at Stuff.

A good column at the NZ Computer Society by Brenda Leeuwenberg on being a digital native:

We’re a privileged generation, those of us in the 30-50 or so age range.

While we were alert and ready to learn, we got relatively easy access to personal computers, the internet emerged and invaded our lives, and a whole new suite of skills and job opportunities appeared almost overnight.

We have been riding that wave, developing our skills and exploring the opportunities of technology with open and flexible minds. We have been alert to the need to know a bit about how things work, to accept that things are sometimes not quite perfect, and that sites/phones/computers do crash.

We are sufficiently in the zone to remember rotary dial phones, records and record-players, typewriters and hand-writing essays for school. We remember schools, universities and workplaces without computers. Accordingly we appreciate so much the opportunities afforded to us by the technological advances of the last 25 years or so.

This is so true. I learnt to type on a typewriter. I recall working in Parliament when parties did not have websites (in fact I created National’s first website). I remember when parliamentary researchers subscribed to dozens of overseas journals and magazines to eep on top of their portfolios. And I remember how fax machines were the main joke distribution mechanism.

But I’d like to challenge the concept of the ‘digital natives’ – those children of our generation who have grown up with computers, internet, iPhones, and all the technological advances we have seen happen. We hear that they are shaping the future (and no doubt they are), we hear that they are so lucky they just ‘get’ technology. But actually I don’t think they do.

I think they ‘have’ technology but they don’t necessarily ‘get’ it. They don’t know how it works, they don’t appreciate where it’s come from, they don’t get why it’s amazing – for them it’s just there and theirs to use.

And actually that is a problem, because these ‘digital natives’ don’t follow instructions, read manuals or use navigational tools. They favour the technology for short bursts of activity, instant gratification and no-understanding-required interfaces. They have the attention span of a flea and the sense of entitlement and inherent ‘rightness’ that comes with being a teenager.

They can create entire worlds or slaughter armies on the Playstation, but frequently can’t file or find documents on the hard-drive. They can draw elaborate pictures on the screen or with a mouse, but they can’t type. They get frustrated with the iPhone because it makes them spell words properly (true story!) so they look naff in the face of their badly spelled txt spk peers.

Again I agree that those of us who grew up without the Internet and associated technologies, appreciate it the more for that.

Michael Field at Stuff reports:

Horotiu, the taniwha potentially blocking the tracks of Auckland’s multi-billion dollar rail dream, is the latest celebrity to open a Twitter account.

The taniwha has also gone global, with London’s Daily Telegraph headlining: “‘Swamp monster’ threatens Auckland railway project”.

Drawing on a Stuff story, the Telegraph quotes Glenn Wilcox, a member of the Auckland City Council’s Maori Statutory Board, demanding protection for Horotiu.

“As kaitiaki, or guardians, they protect people, but they also get up and bite you if they do not like what you are doing,” Mr Wilcox said.

On Twitter the debate has sparked two new accounts – TaniwhaHorotiu and HorotiuTaniwha.

The first carries an early complaint that taniwha do not make an international list of mythical creatures.

The two twitter accounts have even been chatting to each other Some of the tweets have been:

• @TaniwhaHorotiu Yur a dirty faker, I’m the real Taniwha, go find your own drain bro
• @LIVENewsDesk What about hate crimes against taniwha? Lots of haters out there dissing Horotiu
• @AKcitymission Can i join youse fellas?…i’m about to be made homeless by Len Brown
• Steven Joyce has been bad mouthing my bros the Fiscal Taniwha http://bit.ly/jZcjWG

Steven Joyce’s quote was superb:

Transport Minister Steven Joyce said the project appeared to be plagued by taniwha.

“It does not massively surprise me,” he said. “Treasury found a few fiscal taniwhas as well, so it doesn’t surprise me that another one has turned up.”

I think the term “fiscal taniwha” should be adopted by Treasury for use in all future business case evaluations.

And today, we have the return of a pied shag

Click to open larger, higher res image

Had a bit of a family emergency last Friday hence the absence of a pic. Hope everyone has had a good week and are looking forward to the weekend.

Now…need to find me some coffee

Wayne Thompson at the Herald reports:

Plans for an Auckland city rail link tunnel could be spiked by a taniwha – a spiritual creature that Maori say is in the way of the project.

The Auckland Council’s Maori Statutory Board has warned transport planners of the taniwha, who lived in an ancient creek running past the Town Hall and down Queen St.

Board member Glen Wilcox has asked Auckland’s transport committee to give consideration to the taniwha – which the Ngati Whatua iwi call Horotiu – as it plans the $2.6 billion tunnel project.

“What’s being done about the taniwha Horotiu who lives just outside here, and that tunnel will be going through his rohe [area]?” asked Mr Wilcox.

Poor Horotiu. I imagine that the only thing which could make him feel better is a huge amount of koha. Maybe once the tunnel is built, they could do a side tunnel for him, so he can play safely away from the trains.

This does remind me of the last time a Taniwha held up a project. Someone wrote a letter to the editor saying they had solved the problem, as they shot the Taniwha at the weekend!

TVNZ reports:

The MP voted second sexiest man in Parliament has slammed the fashion sense of some of his colleagues.

National’s Simon Bridges told TV ONE’s Breakfast that some politicians are not adhering to the dress code when in the debating chamber.

“I’m talking track pants, sweat shirts you name it I’ve seen them,” he said. …

“I’ve actually thought about this for a while and I’ve seen women on all sides of the house wearing things I don’t think they should get away with,” he said.

“I’m just saying, the rules are the rules, I say suits for men and business attire for women.”

He said he had kept quiet about it in the past, but is considering taking a more pro-active approach to his fashion criticism.

Simon is a brave man. Maybe he should be invited to the next meeting of the National Women’s Caucus to elaborate in more detaul on which MPs have been wearing things that they shouldn’t get away with.

Belinda mcCammon writes:

The National Party will open nominations this weekend for the Auckland blue-ribbon seat of Epsom, anticipated to be one of the most-watched contests of the general election.
 
National Party Northern Region chairman Alan Towers told Fairfax nominations would open on Saturday and close on June 24.

”We would expect at least five candidates to put their name forward for Epsom which is a safe blue seat, bearing in mind the party vote is what counts.”
 
While there has been considerable interest in Epsom, only one person – National Party office holder Aaron Bhatnagar – has publicly announced he will seek the nomination so far.

And Aaron would be a very good candidate. It will be interesting to see who else stands.

John Banks has been saying very constructive things about how he is not returning to Parliament to bag people in National, and how he just wants to push National to do more. It’s a message that will go down very well in Epsom, and will make it fairly easy for National voters to vote for him.

It is, in my opinion, a better message that claiming John Key is a traitor who has sold out to Labour and the Greens.

1. If as Darren says, he did nothing wrong, why doesn’t Labour add him to the party list for the 2011 election?
2. Will media now apply to lift the injunction prohibiting the publication of the complainant’s name?
3. If they do, will this mean that the complainant will then go public with his version of events?
4. How many Labour MPs agree with Tracy Watkins that it was “Goff’s shambolic handling of the affair” not the police investigation that killed Darren’s political career?
5. Which Sunday newspaper will have the more interesting story this weekend – the Sunday Star-Times or the Herald on Sunday?

News just out that the Police have said there is not enough evidence to lay charges against Darren Hughes.

As someone who likes Darren, I am pleased he is not going to face a trial and possible prison over the complaint, just as I was pleased Richard Worth did not have to either.

I am aware though that there was a complainant who it seems had a nasty enough experience that he felt a complaint was warranted. He will not be having such a good day today.

It is a sad that this encounter resulted in Darren being forced out of Parliament. I regarded him as a good MP. If Phil Goff had suspended Darren straight away, then it is quite possible that Darren would have been able to now continue on as an MP, even if not necessarily in the same roles of chief whip and education spokesperson.

Trans-tasman announces:

Departing Ministry of Social Development boss Peter Hughes has been named top Government Department CEO of the year by a panel of 22 high profile opinion shapers.* The accolade comes in Trans Tasman’s  2011 New Zealand Government Department’s Briefing Report released this week.

 Hughes, who has just been named as the new head of Victoria University’s School of Government, also picked up the top honour in the inaugural report last year. The panelists were again impressed with the work Hughes has done as head of the ministry and comment he will be sorely missed. …

One of his characteristics is like his political masters he hates bad news and surprises, and does everything possible in planning and management to avoid them. It’s this sort of attention to detail while keeping an eye on the big picture which has led Hughes to win the top CEO accolade.

 Alistair Morrison of the Department Of Conservation gets the second highest score, a result which surprised even the panelists, who worked independently of each other and who didn’t know the result until this week. Morrison came nowhere in last year’s rankings, but it is a measure of his abilities that he was able to make such an impression this year.

 This is perhaps a reflection Morrison’s attempts to find a meaningful role for the department, whittling out costs and better engagement with those outside the department has not always been matched with equal relish from within.

 In the scoring Hughes was well ahead of Morrison, with Maarten Wevers of the Department Of Prime Minister And Cabinet in third place, followed by John Whitehead of Treasury and Wayne McNee of The Ministry Of Agriculture And Forestry.

 There were 37 agencies rated, so just being in the top five is pretty good for a CEO.

The panelists voted The Ministry Of Social Development as the Government Department of The Year. The Treasury, which last year took the top accolade, came in second, with the Department Of Prime Minister And Cabinet third. The Inland Revenue Department was voted fourth best. …

All four top ranking departments will be getting new leadership over the next 12 months. The new CEOs will start with good platforms to work from, but are likely to face more pressure on budgets and policy work than their predecessors ever did.

That’s interesting that all four top agencies will have new CEOs over the next year. Will make next year’s results interesting to compare.

NB – I was one of the 22 panelists.

Readers may recall how the weekend before last I was labelled a member of a sinister cabal trying to overthrow MMP – in fact I was its strategic advisor I found out to my great surprise.

This was on the basis that I had had three or four conversations over six months with the campaign organiser, totalling around 30 minutes. It seems answering my phone is now a bad thing to do.

Ironically last year I also had drinks with the Campaign for MMP head, and we chatted about the referendum. Does that make me their strategic advisor also?

What I found interesting from the non-story in the SST was the reaction from certain people. There was no debate about the pros and cons of MMP. There was just attacks that if one was involved in promoting an alternative to MMP, then you were an enemy of the state and an evil bad person. We saw this with some hysteria from Metiria Turei:

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei has criticised the motives of the men behind a soon-to-be-announced anti-MMP campaign. …

Ms Turei told 3 News Mr Shirtcliffe had admitted to her he regretted being too negative in the early nineties, leading her to believe the ‘anti’ campaign may have some more positive surprises up their sleeve this time round.

However, she was adamant that the ‘anti’ campaign was a negative campaign by definition.

“It’s anti-community, it’s anti-representation, it’s anti-women, it’s anti-Maori, it’s anti-ethnic representation,” she said.

Again motives are attacked, ironically from someone who personally benefits massively from the current electoral system.

Supporters of MMP, such as Turei, are often zealots. They are incapable of rationally arguing the pros and cons of different electoral systems. They proclaim that MMP is the only acceptable electoral system for New Zealand, and demonise anyone who might suggest a preference for another system.

The reality is all five electoral systems on offer are acceptable electoral systems. All of them are in use in various countries that are universally recognised as democratic. The moment someone tells you that only one system is acceptable, is the moment when you should stop listening to them.

Now this is very different from saying certain systems are preferable to other systems. This is in fact the exact debate we should have – what are the pros and cons of each system, and which one is preferable. And this is an individual decision, which depends on what criteria you regard as being the most important.

If the criteria that matters the most to you is having the lowest possible score on the Gallagher Index (which measures disproportionality) then MMP is likely to be your preferred system. If what matters most to you is having no List MPs at all, then FPP, PV or STV will be more attractive.

There is no one sole criteria that you must judge an electoral system off. Some of the criteria that people may use include:

• Proportionality
• Size of Electorates
• Ability to sack an unpopular Government
• Diversity of Parliament
• Stopping one party rule
• No need for policy compromises
• Minor party representation in Parliament
• No of Maori Seats
• No pork barrel politics for marginal seats
• No wasted votes
• Ability for a Government to manage fiscally
• Concerns over extremists having power

These are just a few off the top of my head. Others will their own issues also. And different people will place different importance on each issue. What some see as a positive, others may see as a negative.

As I said earlier, I regard all five electoral systems as acceptable, and don’t let anyone tell you they are not. All five systems have pros and cons. And one criticism I do have of those supporting MMP is their inability to sometimes accept the flaws of MMP. It is one thing to say the pros outweigh the cons and it is the best alternative. It is another thing to reject that it has any flaws.

I am not going to be part of any campaign for or against a particular electoral system. What I do hope to do is help engender debate and discussion on the pros and cons of the various systems on this blog.

As people know I also run a polling company. At present it is not contracted to any group involved in the debate, and it accepts clients on a first in first served basis – so if the pro MMP campaign wanted to hire Curia to poll, they could do so, and have an exclusive relationship (once you have a client contracted, you can’t do work for direct competitors). Regardless of whether Curia does any work for a group promoting a particular system, it won’t affect what I blog.

So over the next six months, I will blog a fair amount on the referendum and the options. I have a long-standing interest in electoral law, and as I said I regard all five options as valid electoral systems. I’ve not decided exactly the format I will use, but what I might do is do a blog post on each potential criteria, and evaluate the five systems against that criteria.

Now you might be wondering, yeah sure – but where do you stand on the options. Well the truth is I’ve not decided how I’ll vote at the referendum. With regards to MMP, I’m actually pretty happy with it. I certainly think it is a major improvement over FPP, and if MMP is retained I’ve got no problems with that.

I would not vote to go back to FPP. I’ll explain why in some detail in future posts.

I would not vote to go to PV or Preferential Voting. It has all the defects of MMP, but just has a slightly fairer way of determining the winner in an electorate. However I would support PV being used for the electorate vote in an MMP or SM two vote system.

If there was an option of a 70/50 (electorate/list) Supplementary Member option, I’d regard that as having more pros than cons. Unfortunately the version of SM on offer is 90/30 and I have some significant reservations about SM configured that way. On the plus side it would mean smaller electorates – but I’ll go into details later.

I’m quite attracted to STV also. Under STV you would have multi-member electorates, say with five MPs each. So Wellington City might be one electorate, and you’d probably have two Labour MPs, two National MPs and one Green MP representing it. Another electorate might be North Auckland which might have three National MPs, one Labour MP and one ACT MP.  I regard STV as having more pros than cons.

So my thinking at the moment is between MMP, SM and STV.

Claire Trevett at the NZ Herald reports:

One of the senior Labour politicians who abolished knighthoods in 2000 now says the party moved too soon to do so and was not supported by many New Zealanders.

I agree. I’m a republican, but I also support titular honours. They can exist whether the Queen is Head of State or not.

Mr Mallard said yesterday he did not believe New Zealand should have titular honours but Labour moved to abolish them too early.

“In time, like the monarchy, they will go. But I’ve got a personal view most Kiwis aren’t ready for that yet. I thought there was a trend in public opinion away from the monarchy and overseas-based honours systems – especially titular – but the feedback I had both at that time and since is that there is still a lot of public support for them.”

He said many also found the Order of Merit system Labour created to be too hard to understand.

The Order of Merit system isn’t particularly complex – it is basically the old MBE to GBE system. And in fact National created it in the late 1990s.

Labour changed the top two ranks from Knight/Dame Companion to Distinguished Companion and Knight/Dame Grand Companion to Principal Companion.

Of the 13 NZers who have the highest level of the Order of Merit, 11 have the GNZM and just two the PCNZM. Those two however have an earlier titular honour, so all 13 are Sir or Dame.

For the next level down, 106 have gone with the titular KNZM or DNZM and 11 with the non titular DCNZM.

Kate Chapman at Stuff writes on the rugby jersey issue, and lists her top ten best dressed:

Parliament’s top 10 best dressed

1. JACINDA ARDERN This rising Labour star is consistently the best turned out, with her glossy mane, flawless makeup and designer frocks.

2. SIMON BRIDGES National’s golden boy is a standout for his geek-chic specs and sharp suits.

3. METIRIA TUREI Known as a fan of Wellington designer Starfish, the Greens co-leader has her own funky style.

4. TONY RYALL The health minister leaves the Opposition benches dazzled by his interesting tie and shirt combinations.

5. HEKIA PARATA The well-groomed acting energy minister is a fan of Jackie O sunglasses and has been known to dab on the lip-gloss.

6. ANNETTE KING The polished Labour co-leader loves New Zealand designers and we covet her quirky earrings.

7. JOHN KEY Yesterday’s blancmange-pink tie aside, the prime minister is usually immaculately turned out. A Rugby World Cup lapel pin is de rigueur.

8. SIMON POWER Oozes sophistication in his well-cut suits and carefully matched ties.

9. PAULA BENNETT The Westie social development minister accessorises with outrageous shoes and a leopard print car.

10. DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION SERVICE With their matching dark suits and shades, it’s no wonder Mr Key’s well-turned out team doesn’t come cheap.

I wonder who would be on a worst dressed list?

I’m a huge fan of SportsCafe, so great to see they are returning for the Rugby World Cup. Their PR says:

BackingBlack and SportsCafe have joined forces to return the show to your screens – but not as you know it. The show will be broadcast as three live streamed episodes on Facebook where viewers can log in and participate in the show.

We thought we’d try something new,” says Ric Salizzo. “We’re interested in seeing what people think about us online, it certainly gives us a bit more license to be creative” he says.

Ric, Lana and Marc are all confirmed to reappear in what will be a special rugby edition where All Blacks will make guest appearances across each episode, however when questioned on content Ric said, “I’ve got no idea.”

So how will it work:

Facebook members that “like” the BackingBlack facebook page have the chance to make comments and submit questions during the live shows.

Episode 1: 8.30pm, 8 June.
Episode 2: 8.30pm, 15 June.
Episode 3: 8.30pm, 22 June.

http://facebook.com/backingblack

And as a special treat, I have permission to show this out takes video from SportsCafe. Enjoy.

Stuff reports:

Labour MP Clare Curran has been kicked out of Parliament for wearing a Highlanders Super Rugby jersey.

Curran appeared at Parliamentary questions this afternoon wearing the team’s old blue, gold and maroon kit in protest at the new lime green colour.

Speaker Lockwood Smith declared the jersey violated Parliament’s strict dress codes and ordered Curran to leave.

Labour colleague Trevor Mallard protested the decision.

I would have thought a rugby jersey was a pretty obvious “no” in terms of meeting the House dress code.

Personally I think the dress code should be relaxed so men do not have to have a tie and jacket, but even I would hestitate to suggest that rugby jersies should be acceptable in the House.

Her ejection from Parliament highlighted the lack of rules around what women should wear in the House, she said.

“I certainly never expected to be thrown out of the House for being a woman wearing a football shirt. I think it was an over reaction.”

She said she was surprised and would consider whether she would change and return to Parliament this afternoon.

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei left the House with Curran.

Turei later tweeted saying it was an example of sexism in Parliament continuing. “Has Ross Robertson ever been scolded for his sports team scarves let alone kicked out? No”

I hate it when people cry sexism mindlessly.  And this is mindless.

I have absolutely no doubt that a male MP would be kicked out by Lockwood for wearing a rugby jersey in the House.

If anything, the rules are sexist against men. The dress code for men is far more proscriptive than for women MPs.

Over at Stuff, I blog on two interesting questions from the Colmar Brunton poll last week. They asked people how much racism do people personally believe exists in New Zealand, and whether Maori have more, the same, or less rights than other New Zealanders.

One interesting aspect:

Now one should be cautious of making conclusions based on small demographic subsets, but it is interesting that Maori are more likely to say there is a great deal of racism and Pacific Islanders more likely to say there is only a little racism.

Feedback and comments can be left at Stuff.

Congrats to Craig Foss, who has been appointed Minister of civil defence, racing and senior citizens plus associate minister of local government and commerce.

Craig replaces John Carter who will be resigning in the next few weeks from Parliament to become High Commissioner to the Cook Islands.

Bevan Hurley in the Herald on Sunday reports:

Friends and former colleagues of Darren Hughes have put pressure on police to decide whether to charge him over sex allegations.

Labour Party figures risked accusations of political interference by calling on police to “give the guy a break”.

And close friend Paul Henry said it was “extraordinary” the case was dragging on, more than three months after an 18-year-old student alleged Hughes sexually assaulted him.

Wellington police defended the length of the investigation, saying it had to be “thorough”.

Labour figures expressed support for Hughes as pictures emerged of the 33-year-old former Otaki representative on a Hawke’s Bay beach at Easter. He was pictured with Henry, his girlfriend Linzi Dryburgh and Auckland list MP Jacinda Ardern.

In his new memoir, Henry described Hughes as his second closest friend.

 I think it is a good thing that Darren’s friends are sticking hy him, and supporting him. That is what friends should do.

Labour list MP Stuart Nash said the lengthy investigation was unfair on Hughes and the 18-year-old complainant. He called on police to “give the guy a break”.

“If there is something there then charge him, but if there’s not then let him get on with his life. You can’t leave him hanging.” …

Former Labour Party president Andrew Little joined calls for a swift resolution.

“It wasn’t as if there were people to hunt down, anyone who had anything to say about it would have been interviewed.”

Having MPs and senior political figures call on the Police to do something, however well intentioned, is a bad judgement call.

It goes without saying that it would be better for both the complainant and Darren for a decision to be made earlier, rather than later. The Police will know this. They will not be delaying a decision just because they can. They will be working with Crown Law to make sure that their decision will hold up to scrutiny – no matter what it is.

Having MPs call for the Police to take a particular action, because it involves one of their friends, is not a good look. But worse, it makes the job of the Police even harder. If the Police decide not to charge, then some people may feel it was because of the pressure put on them.

Let me hasten to say I do not think the Police will be influenced in their decision, by the comments by Nash and Little. But it would have been better if they had not spoken publicly at all.

The Dom Post editorial:

If any more evidence was needed that New Zealand’s creaking welfare system requires major reform, it was the news that gospel singer Alipate Liava’a drew the sickness benefit while training for a boxing match.

Mr Liava’a apparently has a form of tennis elbow that prevents him working yet, miraculously, it did not stop him going toe-to-toe with All Black giant Sonny Bill Williams.

The elbow was the latest in a run of poor health for Mr Liava’a, who was previously on the sickness benefit because of a problem with his voice. He says he would have told Work and Income about his fight with Williams, but he was too busy with his music and training I thto find the time.

Those who work for a living and whose taxes fund the $7.6 billion a year welfare bill will rightly be flabbergasted. It is difficult to decide which is worse – that Mr Liava’a saw nothing wrong with claiming a benefit intended for those too ill to work while preparing to take on a heavy-set professional athlete, or that his doctor honestly believed a dodgy elbow made him too infirm to get a job.

The doctor has some questions to answer also.

Unfortunately, it will give ammunition to those who hold the erroneous view that all beneficiaries are hopeless bludgers. That is not true. Many are genuinely too ill to work, and the mark of a civilised and compassionate society is how well they are supported.

It would be nice to do more for those who are genuinely not able to do any work at all.

Other recommendations are well worth considering, however. They include increasing the proportion of beneficiaries required to seek work from about a third now to more than three-quarters and cutting benefits for those who refuse to comply. Requiring solo parents to ensure their children attend school and have regular health checks, ensuring beneficiaries under 18 years old have a degree of adult supervision, and tying benefits for those with drug and alcohol problems to attendance at treatment programmes also have obvious merit.

Merit, apart from for those who gain politically from having as high a proportion as possible reliant on state support.

I was amused that the TV news last night seem to spend more time on the death of Shrek, than they did on profiling the new knights and dames.