Bronwyn Torrie in the Dom Post reports:

The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court judge’s ruling that unborn children do not have a right to life.

It also dismissed comments made by the judge about many abortions being granted “on request”.

It’s that second paragraph which is more significant. The High Court commented that we effectively have an abortion on demand system in New Zealand (which effectively we do – the number of abortion requests declined is close to zero), while the law says abortion should be granted only when there is serious risk of physical or psychological harm from having the birth.

Now personally I don’t think women should have to prove psychological harm to be able to have an abortion, so I have no problem with the current practice. However I was not surprised the High Court pointed out the apparent mismatch between the law and the practice. My solution would be to update the law to reflect the practice.

However the Court of Appeal has disagreed, and struck out the comments of Justice Miller. This means that we are likely to continue for some time with the status quo.

The Airport Company has listened to the people, and has announced the sign will not say Wellywood.

There will be some sort of community selection process and a panel to consider alternatives. Excellent. Gives Wellingtonians a say on a sign that due to its size and prominence will be a significant brand for the city.

NewstalkZB reports:

Hone Harawira plans to appeal a decision that means he’s not eligible for any public funding for broadcasting during the election campaign.

The Electoral Commission released its funding allocations today but because the Mana Party didn’t exist when the deadline passed, it missed out any TV or radio time.

Mr Harawira says he’s disappointed because he got his party registration application in on time, but missed out on the funding allocation through no fault of his own.

“I don’t know that there are appeal options but just because we’re not sure doesn’t mean to say we won’t try. I’ll be advising our Party secretary this afternoon to lodge a formal appeal and to see how we get on. If we’re unsuccessful, we’ll move on,” he says.

The story is wrong and Hone is wrong. You can apply for an allocation, even if you are not registered, so long as you register before mid October.

And Graeme Edgeler wrote on the previous thread:

… however, the Mana Party wasn’t shut out. You don’t have to be registered to apply for an allocation, and I sent Hone a message before the applications closed to try to make sure he knew he could apply to get one.

So Hone was told before the deadline that he could apply. He missed out because he did nothing. And oh yeah there is no appeal.

The Electoral Commission has just announced the broadcasting allocations for the 2011 elections. I show below the monetary allocation for each party, and the comparison to the original 2008 allocation.

The Commission has given National and Labour the same amounts, as they did in 2008. The argument for this is that they are the two parties competing to become the major party in Government, so should get the same funding regardless of any disparity in seats and poll ratings.

I tend to agree with the Commission that the two major parties should get the same, but I note in 2005 they gave Labour $200,000 more than National. In 1999 and 2002 they got the same though. So the 2005 decision is probably an anomaly based on National receiving so few seats in 2002. However with hindsight it was arguably wrong as National was equal polling with Labour and almost won the 2005 election.

The allocations are:

• National $1,150,000 ($1,000,000)
• Labour $1,150,000 ($1,000,000)
• Greens $300,000 ($240,000)
• ACT $160,000 ($100,000)
• Maori $160,000 ($240,000)
• NZ First $100,000 ($240,000)
• United $100,000 ($100,000)
• Others $20,000 each ($17,000)

The two parties that get less than in 2008 are Maori Party and NZ First parties. Mana will have no allocation at all, and sadly the law has not been changed to allow parties to purchase their own broadcasting time. I am no fan of the Mana Party, but it is outraegous that they have been shut out of radio and television due to the law. I remain annoyed National failed to chaange the law.

In terms of opening and closing times, the allocations are:

• National 20 + 16 (12 + 6)
• Labour 20 + 16 (12 + 6)
• Greens 8 + 7 (8 + 3)
• ACT 5 + 4 (3+ 3)
• Maori 5 + 4 (8 + 3)
• NZ First 3 + 2.5 (8 + 3)
• United 3 + 2.5 (4 + 3)
• Others 1 + 1 each (1 + 0)

That is significantly more time for the two major parties, but really a reflection that in the past they have not been allocated enough time. The two major parties are polling at around 85%, yet are getting just 55% of the time. They are getting 70% of the money.

I think the allocations look pretty reasonable. I would make the point that personally I would change the law so that a greater allocation goes to parties outside Parliament, recognising they do not have the resources that parties already in Parliament have. I stick by that view, even though it would in this case benefit NZ First.

Gordon Brown reports for the Taranaki Daily News:

More than 300 people turned out to hear Prime Minister John Key talk in New Plymouth last night and just about everybody, it seemed, went home happy with what they heard.

Mr Key was on stage for two-and-a-half hours at the evening organised by the Taranaki Daily News.

Editor Roy Pilott hosted the evening, which was held in the Theatre Royal at the TSB Showplace, asking questions on behalf of readers, while those present had no hesitation in trying to pin Mr Key down on a wide variety of issues.

After a 20-minute opening address, Mr Key sat on a sofa, microphone in hand and, it has to be said, turned on the charm. It would have been no surprise if he had a cup of coffee while he chatted away. It was that sort of a night.

There were the usual questions from vested interests which had too much of a narrow focus for many in the audience, but the Prime Minister welcomed almost every inquiry by finding something positive in the question. …

Mr Key was in a buoyant mood after the meeting.

“It was great. They were a great audience, very respectful but obviously there was a range of views.

“I thought we made our own case though.”

Mr Key said New Plymouth was only the fourth place he had participated in such an evening.

“I’ve done it a couple of times in Christchurch and once in Ashburton. We’re keen to get around the rest of New Zealand and get an opportunity for a longer form of debate, because so often people see me through their TV screens in a five-second sound bite and often that doesn’t do justice to the issues.

It is a tradition that I hope continues – having the PM face up to halls around New Zealand. And I don’t mean hand picked audiences, and moderated by a fellow MP. True town hall meetings promoted to everyone, and chaired by the local newspaper editor.

The reaction of everyone the Daily News spoke to as they left the theatre was complimentary.

“That was a really good night, he answered the questions very well,” agreed Joy and Brian.

Carl thought he had “character and charisma”.

But perhaps the final word belongs to Rusty Kane, the New Plymouth man who has fought and lost more elections than any Parliamentarians in the House.

“I think he’s a real people’s Prime Minister and he’s done very well.”

Mr Kane has indeed stood for a record number of elections.

Stuff reports:

The National Distribution Union says it is outraged at proposed contract changes for staff at Whitcoulls and Borders, which were sold last week by administrators.

The contracts, given to staff on Friday to review over the weekend, scrap any previous redundancy payments and force workers to sign away any claims or grievances from their previous employer.

Employees have been given until the end of today to sign up to the new agreements. The union is calling for the contracts to be withdrawn and is seeking legal advice.

NDU general secretary Robert Reid said last week’s ”cautious optimism” about the deal has turned to outrage.

”Never in my 30 years of working as a trade unionist have I ever seen such a blatant ruse to force workers to sign out of their rights and entitlements in a business transfer situation,” Reid said.

”Whitcoulls workers are being asked to sign away any entitlement to redundancy compensation, notice of termination of employment and any claims or grievances from their previous employer. If the administrator made workers redundant today, it would have to make a lieu-of-notice payment and redundancy payment, up to a cap of $18,600 per person.”

And No Right Turn comments:

Businesses who treat their employees this way don’t deserve my money, and they don’t deserve yours. So, I suggest not shopping there if you have the option.

Let’s look at this one step at a time. First of all I saw a tweet which said that less than 5% of the staff belong to a union, and the vast majority have signed the new contract. So let’s not assume the NDU is speaking on behalf of majority of employees.

Secondly it is regretable that any employees are asked to take on a contract with less generous provisions than previously. I’ve been there in the past and it is never something you are happy about.

But thirdly you have to look at why there is a new owner for Whitcoulls – the old owners went into receivership. This means they were unable to run it profitably, and have lost some or most of their inveestment. Now bearing in mind that the stores were unable to be run profitably, it is no surprise that new owners are offering less generous conditions. If they offered the same terms and conditions, then it is highly likely they would also be unable to make a profit, and they’d fold and then there would be no jobs for anyone.

Only in Fantasy Land does the cost of labour not affect profitability and the ability to create jobs.

Fourthly, the existing staff have a choice. They could decline a job with the new owners, which would trigger the redundancy provisions in their existing contracts. Even though the old owners are in receivership they are not bankrupt, and staff entitlements are ranked near the top of the priority queue.

So for some staff, it might make sense to take the redundancy and look for a new job. For others, they would obviously have the security of carrying on.

Then we turn to Idiot/Savant’s advice to boycott Whitcoulls. This will mean that all those staff who did take up the new contract with no redundancy provisions, will then lose their jobs as Whitcoulls closes for good, and they will be left with nothing. I  love someone who hates employers so much, he’ll put 1,000 people out of work to make his point.

This was linked to by someone in the comments, and I loved it. As it happens American Pie is my favourite all time song, but the video is amazing – 10 minutes almost of non stop filming over several city blocks with a cast of thousands. It was filmed in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The Dom Post editorial:

The threat of industrial action from lawyers opposed to the expansion of the Public Defence Service is a self-interested attempt to stay hitched to a taxpayer-funded gravy train.

Despite claims to the contrary, talk of legal aid lawyers working to rule in protest at the changes is primarily motivated by the same reason behind most industrial action – money. …

It is not hard to feel some sympathy for legal aid lawyers caught by the changes. The vast majority are scrupulously honest, yet the whole profession has been punished for the greed and misdeeds of a few.

But the profession had plenty of warning that the Government was concerned about the rising cost of legal aid and should have put its house in order. The failure to do so left Mr Power with little choice but to act. The threat of protests against the PDS should be seen for what it is – a last-ditch bid to get him to change his mind, motivated by a looming loss of taxpayer-funded income. He is right to stand his ground.

It is somewhat ironic that a National Government is partially nationalising part of the justice sector, but I thinks the changes are necessary. The status quo wasn’t defensible.

I hear from my spies that restructuring has even hit Parliament, and that the Parliamentary Service General Manager has dis-established all the second level Group Manager roles which report to him. This affects some very long-serving staff, and it will be interesting to see what the new second level roles are, and who gets them.

Meanwhile the Government looks set for other state sector reforms:

The Government is proposing changes that will reduce the number of government agencies as it seeks better value for money, less duplication and improved co-ordination across the state sector, Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and State Services Minister Tony Ryall announced today.

The proposals include disestablishing five crown entities and three tribunals, merging two government agencies, establishing shared corporate services across the government’s three central agencies and consolidating the services of a number of others.

The details are:

• Set up an arms-length health promotion agency to take over the relevant functions of the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand (ALAC), the Health Sponsorship Council (HSC) and the Ministry of Health.
• Disestablish the Crown Health Financing Agency and transfer its district health board lending function to either the Ministry of Health or to the Debt Management Office
• bring forward the date the Mental Health Commission is due to cease functioning (currently 31 August 2015).
• Transfer the functions of the Charities Commission to the Department of Internal Affairs, while ensuring that registration decisions remain separate from Ministers.
• Disestablish three tribunals – the Health Act Boards of Appeal; the Maritime Appeal Authority; and the Land Valuation Tribunals – and transfer their functions to the District Court
• Consolidate audiovisual archiving. Encourage the New Zealand Film Archive, Radio New Zealand, and Television New Zealand to consolidate material into the Film Archive.
• Work with the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Advertising Standards Authority, the Press Council and the Office of Film and Literature Classification to look at opportunities for greater collaboration.
• Merge the Education Review Office and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority into a single education quality assurance agency.
• In addition, as part of their leadership role, the three central agencies, the State Services Commission, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Treasury are consulting with staff on a proposal to establish a shared services centre to integrate their back office functions.

That all looks worthwhile. Of course personally I would be rather more radical. I blogged in April how you could amalgamate agencies into 13 super-departments, which also would mean you could have a Cabinet of 12

Phil Goff was Foreign and Trade Minister for many years, and most would say he was a very good trade minister. The China FTA is a huge credit to him (and Clark).

He also knows that one rule to trade negotiations is that the parties do not publicly lay out bottom lines, or rule things out. The reason for this is simple – doing so destorys negotiations. The moment one country says publicly “we will never ever agree to this”, it means all the other countries will do the same. And then you have nothing to negotiate.

So reading the Andrea Vance story:

New Zealand’s drug-buying agency should not be sacrificed for a trade deal with the United States, Labour leader Phil Goff says. …

But Mr Goff said yesterday: “We should not be trading Pharmac off for a free trade agreement with the US.” The agency was an “absolute bottom line and we should not be trading it away”.

You need to understand Goff is saying something in Opposition, he would never ever say in Government.,

For the record as a fiscal conservative, I think Pharmac is great and keeps the cost of drugs down for the NZ taxpayer. I find it hard to imagine that the US could offer us something so good that the Government would consider major changes to Pharmac. But again to have negotiations proceed in good faith, you can’t lay down unilateral bottom lines in public.

Personally I’m sceptical that the US will offer anything greatly worthwhile in terms of trade access. Their rhetoric is much stronger than their commitment to free trade.  However there are strategic advantages to the US in concluding an agreement, so maybe they will actually offer something decent.

Katie Chapman at the Dom Post reports:

Workers sporting bright orange safety vests have appeared on the hill beside the Miramar Cutting as work to erect the controversial Wellywood sign begins.

But those opposed to the sign are not giving up, with another drive-by protest planned at the airport tomorrow.

Workers were abseiling on the hillside yesterday, as survey work to mark out positions for the 3.5-metre-high letters began.

The work comes as Wellington International Airport, which is erecting the sign to promote Wellington’s film industry, remains determined to build it, despite calls for the plan to be ditched.

If they persist with the sign as Wellywood, they will be destroying the brand and corporate reputation of the Airport.

And I would be surprised if any insurer was willing to insure the sign. Look for example at the iPredict contract on the sign:

In the event construction of a Wellywood sign commences but at no time does the complete word ‘Wellywood’ appear, for any reason including complete destruction of one or more letters, then this contract will close at $0. Defacement including graffiti will not prevent this contract closing at $1. In the event of part destruction of one or more letters, iPredict will, at its sole discretion, close the contract based on whether it considers a person not previously aware of the sign could reasonably read the word ‘Wellywood’.

When the futures market has to specify rules around possible destruction and defacement, it gives you some idea of its likely fate.

And think of the poor Police, if the sign is destroyed. They’d have around 100,000 suspects to interview.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

Proposed welfare reforms that aim to push people into work are “vile” and the punitive sanctions on beneficiaries will only put further strain on community organisations, advocates say.

Eight Cabinet ministers have been appointed to the ministerial group that will consider the Welfare Working Group’s 43 recommendations.

That advocate is of course Sue Bradford.

Prime Minister John Key said yesterday that National would campaign on any changes the ministerial group decided on.

Excellent. People will have a clear choice.

Some of the recommendations are:

Providing beneficiaries with long-term reversible contraception.

Requiring single parents to look for 20 hours work a week once their youngest child is three and 30 hours a week when the youngest turns six.

Tying the benefit to a requirement that solo parents ensure their children go to school and get regular health checks.

Requiring 16 and 17-year-olds on a benefit to be in education, training, paid work or a combination of the three.

Providing teen parent facilities so teenage mothers can continue their education.

Requiring beneficiaries aged under 18 to live with a responsible adult or under adult supervision.

Cutting benefits for people with drug and alcohol problems who refuse to attend treatment and counselling services.

Beneficiaries who do not meet work test, drug and alcohol and other requirements would have their payments cut for two weeks by 25 per cent for the first breach, 50 per cent for the second and completely for the third. A fourth failure would result in a 13-week stand-down.

Yes very vile – will no longer pay people to remain a drug or alcohol addict for the rest of their lives.

Dirt Devil-The Exorcist from MrPrice2U on Vimeo.

Photo from Stuff.

No doubt ACTish supporters will decry the PM for wasting time which could be used to slash spending, and Labour supporters will say it is all an evil Crosby Textor trick to win over the planking vote.

I think it is just kind of nice that John won’t let his office stop him from being a Dad, and doing stupid things with the kids.

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

A break-away northern iwi has asked the Government for a partial Treaty settlement that would give them the right to make more claims in future.

A new description for a bottomless hole.

The Government rejected the bid for a partial settlement, however.

”Full and final settlements are the cornerstone of the historical settlement process,” Finlayson said.

”Finality allows the Crown and iwi to draw a line under the grievances of the past and focus on developing a positive future together.”

I doubt few would disagree with the Minister that a settlement must be full and final.

I wonder if there is a page anywhere that shows all the settlements that have been agreed to as full and final, and all those which have been filed but not settled?

My blog post at Stuff on last night’s TV polls is up. It’s title is “Sixty-five seats is not bulletproof”. An extract:

However, it is worth stressing that a projected 65 seats is not bulletproof. The House is forecast to have 123 MPs, so you will need 62 to govern. On the plus side ACT and United Future look like they can deliver a further four seats. On the negative side, there is the possibility NZ First makes 5%.

It is also likely that National will see some loss of support during the election campaign proper. So while National is in a good position, no one should think the outcome of the election is settled. As former British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan once quipped “Events dear boy, events” can blow a Government off course. 

Comments can be made over at Stuff.

Stuff reports:

Newly appointed parliamentary leader of the ACT Party, John Boscawen, has found himself a new press secretary. Lindsay Perigo, a founding member and inaugural leader of the Libertarianz political party, was introduced late last week to the press gallery as Mr Boscawen’s new media man. Mr Perigo has been noted for his colourful language – he famously denounced TVNZ as “brain dead” when he quit the state broadcaster in 1993, and has variously referred to “infanto-Nazis”, “Bolshevik bulls..t” and “bludge-scum”. His latest media role was at TV channel Stratos.

I must say that I never thought Lindsay would end up as a press secretary for ACT. No doubt his decision is linked to the change of leadership – he has a very high regard for Don Brash.

His language is indeed colourful. I’m wondering whether iPredict should do a market on which press gallery member is first to be called a moron by Lindsay 🙂

Lindsay blogs about his decision at SOLO:

Perigo! followers will also have noted the empathy between Don Brash and me, even though I’m a 1000% libertarian and he’s about a 65% one. In our present crisis, 65% will do me. Quite simply, I believe his becoming Act leader has brought a glimmer of hope to New Zealand’s economic and political landscape, which otherwise was unfailingly bleak. I believe that, in these parlous, debt-ridden, Political Correctness-infested circumstances, everyone—including members of Libertarianz—concerned about stopping the rot and initiating a meaningful restart toward freedom and prosperity, should get in behind—on a suck-it-and-see basis, letting Don know that if he doesn’t really try to deliver, or becomes captive to those notorious forces within Act alien to freedom and prosperity, then we’ll all be out of there before you can say “Epsom.” I say this as someone who has fought the conservatives and compulsionists within Act tooth and nail since its inception and delivered Libz, as leader, its highest party vote (by a factor of 600%) since its inception.

Lindsay is indeed 1000% libertarian. I’m glad he doesn’t now regard anything less than 100% as a mortal crime 🙂

His comment on Epsom is interesting. It could be a barb at Rodney, or a barb at John Banks. I honestly am unsure.

Whale blogs that they have agreed terms.

Prince Philip is 90 next month. To commemorate, the Independent has his 90 best soundbites. Some wonderful extracts:

3. “Deaf? If you’re near there, no wonder you are deaf.” Said to a group of deaf children standing near a Caribbean steel drum band in 2000.

5. “You managed not to get eaten then?” To a British student who had trekked in Papua New Guinea, during an official visit in 1998.

7. “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?” Asked of a Scottish driving instructor in 1995.

17. “There’s a lot of your family in tonight.” After glancing at business chief Atul Patel’s name badge during a 2009 Buckingham Palace reception for 400 influential British Indians to meet the Royal couple.

20. “Do you know they have eating dogs for the anorexic now?” To a wheelchair-bound Susan Edwards, and her guide dog Natalie in 2002.

22. “I would like to go to Russia very much – although the bastards murdered half my family.” In 1967, asked if he would like to visit the Soviet Union.

46. “You have mosquitoes. I have the Press.” To the matron of a hospital in the Caribbean in 1966.

54. “Can you tell the difference between them?” On being told by President Obama that he’d had breakfast with the leaders of the UK, China and Russia.

75. “They’re not mating are they?” Spotting two robots bumping in to one another at the Science Museum in 2000.

He is a national treasure.

Maia at Capitalism Bad, Tree Pretty blogs:

The Labour Party’s Let’s Not game has been out for a few days.* I’m not linking to it, for reasons that will become apparent, but I do want to discuss one of the offensive parts of it.**

If someone puts their finger in someone else’s anus without their consent then that is sexual assault. This is still true if the two people involved are on a rugby field.

Ten years ago John Hopoate puts his finger in three other players anuses during a rugby league match. Apparently the people who were making this flash game thought “You know what we should do? We should animate this in an amusing way. That’ll help us win the election and be awesome.” Apparently people being violated without their consent is kind of funny if it’s men on the rugby field.

One of the basic rape-myths that help uphold a culture where sexual assault is endemic is that sometimes consent doesn’t matter. If you ever say that some people’s violation doesn’t matter – if you ever set some people up as unrapeable – then you, or in this case the Labour Party, are upholding that rape myth.

Now personally I’m someone who believes that humour will always offend someone, and I am sure Maia finds much of my humour offensive also.

But while it is rare that I might agree with Maia, on this occassion I have to agree it is inappropriate for a political party to make and promote an online game which jokes about sexual violation.

Maybe this is why Clare Curran was posting on Trade Me, telling people she didn’t like the game?