Andrew Little has said he will give up in election year two of his three hats – EPMU National Secretary and Labour Party President, to focus on becoming Leader an MP.

Now we are in election year, the question is when will this happen? Labour supported legislation saying all of election year counts as part of an election campaign, so presumably they’ll apply this to themselves.

A guest post from National MP Katrina Shanks:

Backyard Cricket for All!

I’m sitting at my desk, staring at the jandal tan lines on my feet reminiscing about the great summer holiday the kids and I just had. Beach, sunshine, BBQ, and a whole lot of backyard cricket. I love living in New Zealand.

For most Kiwis summer is about relaxing and enjoying life – but when you read a story of a nine-year-old girl hiding in a cupboard starving, dehydrated and anaemic from internal bleeding, you know that not every child can be so lucky.

Minister of Social Welfare, Hon Paula Bennett has launched an independent inquiry into this horrific case of abuse and neglect. These are the stories we hear about – but what about the child who lives at the end of the road who is forgotten?

More than 125,000 reports were made to authorities from people concerned about the safety or wellbeing of a child last year. The United Nations is concerned about children’s rights in New Zealand and our “staggering” child an infant mortality rate.

Last year Paula Bennett described a neglected child as a silent time bomb – “left alone, unwashed and unloved these children may not be physically bruised or injured but they will be deeply affected”.

These children don’t get a summer holiday. They don’t get to play backyard cricket or go to the beach. Some live in fear, some go hungry and worse still, some are forgotten about.

My friend, who’s a dietician, sees this every day. Parents bring their children in severely malnourished, listless, and glassy eyed. Their brains have not developed properly because they have not been fed, they have not been nurtured, and they have not been loved. These children will fall behind at school. They will find it difficult to get a job or to fit into society. This will be their life.

To me this is inexcusable. We live in New Zealand. We have an extensive social welfare system. We have benefits, accommodation supplements, food grants, temporary additional support and the list goes on. We have NGOs like the Salvation Army and the Red Cross who are always willing to help out. We have food banks. We have communities. We have neighbours.

Neglect of a child is identified in legislation as serious but it’s not actually defined by New Zealand law. The Law Commissions review of the Crimes Act (2009) proposes that the term neglect is replaced by a gross negligence test; in effect this will provide a definition of neglect. This is a recommendation that I strongly believe the Government should consider.

The National-led Government is working on solutions. The Never Shake a Baby campaign, First Response pilot, introducing social workers into hospitals to help identify children at risk of abuse, improved monitoring systems, Home for Life, supported housing, and help for teenage mum and dads.

But all New Zealanders need to step up and look around. We must not turn a blind eye to child abuse. We must look out for neglect in our communities and in our schools. We must place the protection and safety of the child first.

I have a vision of a New Zealand where all Kiwi kids have the best opportunities in life: Education, food, the freedom to go to the beach or play backyard cricket, love. I have a vision where Kiwi kids don’t just have a right to life, but where they have the right to live.

I don’t think there is any issue that upsets me as much as child abuse. It just goes so against normal human nature. I think most of us get upset seeing any child in distress – even those which are total strangers. So I will never understand how people can bash and torture their own kids. I don’t like to acknowledge they are even part of the same species as me.

The sad thing is that the abusers were often abused themselves. That is not an excuse, but it is a reality.  If one can break the cycle of abuse, it probably saves future generations also.

Kate Chapman reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff is set to unveil his party’s new lineup as he defends his election-year policies. …

Initial hints that it could be a major reshuffle were being hosed down yesterday, amid suggestions there was strong resistance from Left-leaning MPs facing demotion.

The reshuffle will be an interesting test of how strong Goff can be. His frontbench is comprised entirely of former Ministers from the Clark Government and he is 20%+ behind in the polls. It is obvious he needs to make significant changes.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR TO THE
INQUIRY INTO THE 2010 LOCAL AUTHORITY ELECTIONS
BY THE JUSTICE & ELECTORAL SELECT COMMITTEE 

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.

   Management of Elections
   

2. With the establishment of an Electoral Commission that manages all aspects of our national elections (including enrolments in the future), I believe it is timely to consider whether the Electoral Commission should be given authority over our local authority elections.
3. Purely on a cost basis, I imagine there would be considerable savings as 70 odd TLAs all have their own systems, or pay an external provider for them.
4. More importantly, the Electoral Commission would add extra integrity to the elections. By this, I do not mean there are serious problems at the moment, but current returning officers are often staff of local authorities whom naturally form working relationships with current Mayors and Councillors etc.
5. I do not ask the Select Committee to agree immediately to place the Electoral Commission in charge of local authority elections, but to request the Government to seek advice about the pros and cons of doing so.

   Making an informed decision
   

6. It is of concern that turnout for local body elections is very low. Even worse, of those who do vote – few cast what most would consider to be highly informed votes.
7. In making such a statement, I offer myself up as an example. I follow news and politics more than probably 99% of the population. But even I struggle with knowing who to vote for on my local District Health Board, or how to rank all the candidates in my local ward
8. Many people get elected to office based either on their ability to write a nice 200 word blurb, or based on the spelling of their surname.

   Recommended Solutions
   

9. That ballot papers be required to be in random order.
10. Recognising that trying to select or rank dozens of candidates for multiple vacancies is difficult and off-putting, that the Local Government Commission be encouraged to move towards smaller wards – even one person wards. I think more people would vote, and have confidence in their choices, if they had to just pick one Councillor from their local neighbourhood (as well as a Mayor).
11. The principle of smaller wards should also apply to Regional Councils and DHBs. Having their wards as TLAs, means that you ask voters to do the near impossible – intelligently rank 30 – 40 candidates, or even select 7+ persons.
12. Having both STV and FPP in use at local body level is somewhat confusing. STV is excellent for single vacancy elections such as Mayoralties, but I find it very offputting for multiple vacancy elections due to the high number of candidates. If there was a move towards more single vacancy elections, then STV would be more widely supported I believe.
13. That e-voting be trialled in the 2013 local body elections in a few areas. I believe e-voting could lift voter turnout, and also help with more informed voting as the online ballot could have links to (longer) blurbs on each candidate, or even candidate websites.

NZPA report:

Labour is pledging to restore $400 million the Government has cut from early childhood education (ECE)

You really do have to wonder what sort of fiscal fairyland Labour are living in.

It gets even worse when you realise that the so called cuts, are in fact due to their miscalculation of costs. To quote the Minister:

Education Minister Anne Tolley says the Government’s investment in early childhood education (ECE) in the coming year will be $100 million above the original Budget 2010 allocation, bringing the total spend to $1.4 billion.

“This is the most ever spent by any Government on early childhood education, reflecting the importance we place on the future of our young children,” says Mrs Tolley.

$1.4b on ECE is not an insignificant amount of money.

“We are now at the stage where the taxpayer is subsidising ECE centres at an average of $7600 per child per year.

“This compares to an average of $5528 for a primary school student, and $6733 for a student at secondary school.

I understand it is possible for some children to cost the taxpayer almost $60,000 in ECE costs befiore they reach primary school.

“It makes no sense that ECE funding has trebled over the last five years, while the number of children starting school with some form of ECE has increased by only around one per cent.

Remember that figure – funding has trebled in five years. We are borrowing $300 million a week and Labour still says it is not enough and we must spend an extra $400 million. Goffynomics will lead to a credit downgrade very quickly.

These posters have gone up in parts of the North Shore. How charming. One can only guess at the politics of the “people not profit collective”

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

An article in the Herald proclaims “Labour move to save public holidays gains wide support”

Now as it so happens, I support Grant Robertson’s bill, and think it probably does have wide support. But what I want to focus on is this segment of the story:

A Facebook page – dubbed Mondayise NZ – has called on the Government to make the move.

One post reads: “Crazy. Currently if our NZ national day Waitangi Day falls on a weekend, we don’t get the day off! What’s that about?”

Another said: “Let’s tell the New Zealand Government through a Facebook community [that] we want our public holidays Mondayised!”

If one is going to cite a Facebook group as evidence of wide support, one should cite how many members belong to or “like” the page. In this case, it is 47 people.

The weekly iPredict update is out. they find:

This week’s snapshot from New Zealand’s prediction market, iPredict, suggests the National and Green parties both gained from their leaders’ “state of the nation” speeches last week, while the Labour Party went backwards.  National’s forecast share of the party vote has risen to 45.9% (from 45.6% last week), the Greens are up to 8.0% (from 7.5% last week) while Labour is down to 30.5% (from 32.0% last week).  John Key would be able to continue as Prime Minister with the support of one of the Act, UnitedFuture or the Maori Party.

Interesting that no one has been willing to put money on National getting a lower vote share despite the assets part-sale announcement.

At the time the snapshot was taken, the probability of a new left-wing party around at least two of former Alliance President and current Unite National Secretary Matt McCarten, former Green MP Sue Bradford and current Maori Party Mr Harawira was 37%, up from 28% last week. 

And I suspect wull rise further after Waitangi Day.

Dave Burgess in the Dom Post reports:

There are too many taxis in Wellington and it is time to put a limit on them, the mayor says.

The taxi industry agrees and has called on the Government to introduce legislation to cap or reduce numbers in the city.

It is no surprise the taxi industry wants a cap – because that would protect incumbents and lead to higher earnings for current drivers.

It does not mean it will be a better service for those who want to hire taxis.

There are 1237 taxis licensed for Wellington City. About 400 were on the road before deregulation. This tripling of taxis in the past 20 years has led to overcrowded taxi stands and dubious parking practices as drivers clamour for business, especially in the late-night Courtenay Place party zone.

I regard it as a good thing that when you want to go home from Courtenay Place at 2 am, you can easily find a taxi.

I’d support tougher tests for becoming a taxi driver – both in English skills and location knowledge. But I don’t support an arbitrary cap on cab numbers.

You know what would be useful though – a website showing each taxi firm, and what their fares are.

Gordon Campbell writes at Scoop on the Government’s response to the jailing of Iranian film-maker Jafar Panahi. He quotes the letter from Chris Finlayson which says:

We also raise the human rights situation in Iran in statements at the United Nations, including cosponsoring the UNGA 3rd Committee Resolution on Iran’s Human Rights. We will continue to express our concern at restrictions on the right to freedom of opinion and expression in Iran, including the imprisonment of journalists, bloggers, and filmmakers such as Mr Panahi.

Now Gordon may be quite right to criticise the Government for relying on statements at the UN to improve human rights in Iran. But here’s what Gordon says in his critique of the Govt’s response:

Finlayson apparently believes Panahi’s case is not exceptional, nor his treatment particularly egregious. In fact, we appear to have an Arts Minister unable to tell the difference between an artist of Panahi’s stature, and journalists and bloggers.

Oh goodness – what an insight into the Wellington cultural mindset. Governments shouldn’t do anything beyond the normal statements at the UN to protest against jailing of journalists and bloggers, but when the detainee is an “artist of stature”, then they must move mountains.

Is this attitude linked to the leave Roman Polanski alone movement, because he is also an “artist”.

Personally as a blogger, I’m rather glad Chris doesn’t see bloggers and journalists as less deserving of freedom from detention, than artists of stature.

A guest post from Rex Widerstrom, carrying on the three strikes debate:

Thanks to David Garrett’s “three strikes” law, New Zealand now has a razor-wire enclosure waiting at the bottom of the cliff for anyone who commits three serious offences. The concept is sold as being based on deterrence; not only will the offender on their first or second strike stop and think before offending again but other would-be criminals will not escalate from the minor to the major leagues.

The problem is, deterrence isn’t effective. If it was, then the ultimate deterrent – the death penalty – would see those US states which practice it free of those crimes for which make an offender eligible to be executed. Or at the very least, ensure that the prevalence of those offences was less than in jurisdictions where a lethal injection didn’t await the offender. But statistics tell us it doesn’t.

Anyone who’s spent any time working with offenders – particularly those who commit “nuisance” offences such as vandalism and stealing and those prone to violence – knows that they generally lack a certain capacity to reason. For anyone to claim that such a person stands, spray can or baseball bat in hand, and considers the potential consequences of their offending is either naive, deceived, or lying.

Such a person isn’t considering the effect of their offending on their mother, father, siblings, girl or boyfriend, wife, husband, sometimes children. If they don’t care about the people who should be most precious in their lives only the most deluded theorist would posit that they will care about society’s response, even if that is in the form of a very long prison sentence.

The Three Strikes law will be “successful” in its aim of locking away for lengthy periods those guilty of the worst sort of crimes (it’ll also trap a few who really shouldn’t face such a penalty, though NZ’s law is far better at avoid this than, say, California’s). But implicit in its functioning is the acceptance that at least three – and, in reality, many more – victims will first have to suffer.

We didn’t – we don’t – need that razor wire enclosure beneath a cliff littered with vandalised and stolen property and broken and traumatised victims. We need a cattle race at the top, directing someone who’s shown the propensity to embark on a cycle of offending into a life that offers them an alternative.

While I’m uneasy at the thought of privately run “boot camps” – with their inherent potential for various forms of abuse if the operator is unsuitable – I have no such reservations about the NZ Army’s Limited Service Volunteers program.

The latest group of graduates have described how the program turned their lives around, with one saying:

I was smoking a lot of P, drinking every day and doing heaps of burglaries and hanging out with the wrong people. Getting money to pay for drugs was my life.

“Before I didn’t care about anything, I didn’t listen to anyone, but I was a follower, not a leader…

“[The course] changed my life heaps. I’m a lot more self-motivated, I’ve dumped my old friends and I don’t even put my hands in my pockets any more because I’m not used to it.”

Sound familiar? It does to anyone working in the youth justice field. The young man quoted is described in the article as having been “put on the LSV course by Work and Income as an alternative to a jail sentence”. Presumably – unless the judiciary have abdicated their responsibility – a court was involved at some point.

The LSV program takes young people aged 17 to 25. What’s desperately needed is something for even younger offenders; the current legislatively enshrined inability of the courts to deal “harshly” with child offenders in turn ensures a ready cohort of 17 year old candidates who would benefit from LSV. We have Sea Scouts and Cadet Corps and the ATC – expand them to provide a “junior LSV”, perhaps non-residential, for offenders under 17. And while we’re at it, create an army program for those over 25 as well.

Of course the army approach isn’t the optimum for every offender. We also need to get creative and give our courts more sentencing options like this one, not less as “three strikes” does. I know of one Magistrate in WA who’s not averse to sentencing offenders to Buddhist meditation; and for the few he picks, it actually works.

There are those who work with me in civil rights and criminal justice who’ll be horrified by my advocacy of a spell in the army for many offenders. But I’m tired of debating theoretical perspectives and other people’s prejudices: I’m interested in what works to decrease the number of victims and stops the greatest number of young offenders going on to become what used to be called “old lags”, and LSV does – of the 114 people from the Lower North Island who took part in October, only 29 didn’t successfully complete it (mainly due to injury) and those that did are now all on courses or employed.

While some people already inured to a life of crime will undoubtedly go on causing harm till they reach their third strike, wouldn’t it be great if this election a political party came out with a justice policy that aimed to prevent the creation of new offenders and new victims, rather than futilely boasting how harshly they’ll punish the people on whom they’ve given up?

For my 2c, I support both rehabilitation and early intervention as Rex advocates plus three strikes. We should do whatever we can (within reason) to turn people away from crime. But only some criminals are suspectible to “going straight”, and for those who will not give up on a life of violence, I want the three strikes law in place to stop their victim count from getting even larger.

Stuff reports:

Talk of a new Left-wing party is gathering steam, with veteran activist Sue Bradford confirming behind-the-scenes discussions and revealing she would consider leading it if asked.

Expectations are growing in Left-wing circles that renegade Te Tai Tokerau MP Hone Harawira could be the lightning rod for a new movement if the rift between him and the Maori Party hierarchy ends in divorce.

This poses a challenge for both National and Labour. An extra ally for Labour isn’t good for National.

But on the other hand can you imagine Phil Goff trying to lead a Government where he could only pass laws if he can get Metiria Turie, Sue Bradford, Hone Harawira and Winston Peters to all agree.

Brian Gaynor writes:

The Government has to convince the public that these companies will remain majority Crown and New Zealand controlled. This should be easy to achieve because under the Takeovers Code, which wasn’t introduced until 2001, a shareholder must go from 19.99 per cent to 50.01 per cent in one step and this will be impossible to achieve if the Government has at least 50 per cent ownership.

So if I understand this correctly, even if NZers sell shares they buy to an overseas company (presumably for a higher price which means those Kiwi Mums and Dads have made a profit), no company could gain a 20% or greater stake.

Combine this with the liklihood that the NZ Super Fund will also buy significant stakes in the SOEs, and it will be harder for xenophobic opposition to be whipped up.

This won’t stop Labour trying though. Look at this blog post by Labour MP Damien O’Connor which demands the Government stop Asians from buying a private listed company – Wrightsons:

A recent announcement that Agria, an Asian company is applying to raise it’s stake in PGWrightsons from 19% to 51% is one more such move.

So Labour is now against Asians even being able to buy shares in a listed private company. At this rate, they will be able to merge with Winston First.

People must realize that the land is important but only part of our rural economy. The businesses that operate on and associated with it need also to be owned by us unless we are prepared to be servants to our future, not the owners of it.

The translation is that it is not enough that we keep our land out of Asian hands, but also our businesses.

I like how Damien talks about Wrightsons as if it is owned by the state. It is not. It is owned by private shareholders. And no one is forced to do business with it. If people don’t like its shareholders, they don’t have to deal with it.

The Southland Times reports:

A Southland woman has been swindled out of $32,000 after falling prey to an India-based scam.

The woman, who did not want to be named, said she had been left embarrassed, furious and felt betrayed after finally realising what she believed was a tax refund was nothing more than trickery.

It began early this month with a phone call telling her she had overpaid tax, but to get it she needed to transfer money to an account through the Western Credit Union.

The man who called sounded convincing and said he was from the Justice Department, she said. “I had no reason to be suspicious.”

One should be suspicious on four fronts –

1. You would never to have to make a payment to get a tax refund
2. IRD, not Justice do tax
3. Any tax refund would be notified in writing
4. Any involvement with Western Union means the funds are going offshore

The first payment was for $290, gradually increasing, with the pot at the end of the rainbow also increasing to a $71,000 refund.

Twenty payments were made to the scammers with all the money going overseas to India, the woman said.

I can sympathise with maybe a one off payment of $290 as being a normal level of gullibility. But for God’s sake what is wrong that you don’t twig on after 20 payments totalling $32,000.

Three different people had called her saying they were from the Reserve Bank and a “government department”.

That would get me more suspicious, not less.

It took the woman’s children to rouse suspicion which led to the end of the scam.

Her daughter overheard her on the phone to one of the scammers and asked what she was making the payments for.

They contacted the Reserve Bank which said it was a scam and to stop the payments.

It even got to the point that one of her daughters invoked power of attorney, cancelling her mother’s credit cards and withdrawing funds leaving just enough so she could buy groceries.

“Which was a horribly difficult thing to do. I’ve had sleepless nights over this whole thing,” the daughter said.

One can only feel sorry for the woman concerned, and thank goodness for her family who stopped it getting worse. But really, all one has to do is ask a family member of friend for advice in situations like these.

It’s been wonderful seeing the unrelenting protests for democracry in Egypt, following on from Tunisia. No country should have one party rule.

If the regime of the National Democratic Party is toppled, this may cause pangs of regret for Labour. The NZ Labour Party is a sister party of the NDP, through their membership of Socialist International.

Hat Tip: Guido Fawkes

If I was running NZUSA, I’d be focused on what changes are needed for student associations (and NZUSA) need to make, to prosper under VSM – rather than still fighting a battle which has been lost.

NZUSA has just had their January conference, and a number of people have been kind enough to send me their documents. Act on Campus have already blogged on these, including the $77,000 lost NZUSA made in 2009.

New Zealand has eight universities and 20 polytechnics/technology institutes.

Currently 14 of those 28 institutions have a student association that is a member of NZUSA, of which only 12 are full members. Those 12 full members represent only 84,000 EFTS. But even that low level, may get smaller.

No fewer than nine student associations have gien notice of withdrawal – they are OPSA, AS@U, SAWIT, WITSA, WSA, OUSA, ASA, EXMSS and MUSA. They represent almost 50,000 ETS, which would leave NZUSA representing – well basically Victoria, Lincoln and Waikato only (plus a couple of minors).

I hope NZUSA do survive, but if they do not, then it would create an opportunity for alternate representation to emerge nationally.

It occurs to me that a professionally run organisation that focused purely on lobbying the Government on behalf of students on core education and welfare issues, and communicated directly with students about its advocacy on their behalf could well get say 30% of students willing to tick a box at enrolment to join it for $5. That should be enough to have a budget of $300,000 or so. Rather than have the lobbying done by a succession of Labour student politicians, you’d actually have a professional executive director who could work with all Governments, and over time could build up a very high regard.

Sent in by a reader.

Whale has been leaked the proposed new look for Phil, to visualise his ambition and his locks.

The Herald on Sunday editorial:

Putting the merits of the sale plan aside for a moment, Key’s transparency is to be applauded. He said he would not sell off assets without the voters having their say, and they will get it, likely in November.

It is also heartening to see the Government doing something to put the brakes on its borrowing and to stimulate the moribund economy. Apart from the long overdue reining in of state sector costs, National has until now appeared to be indecisive and lacking ideas on how to help spark a recovery.

Of course, the moves are not a panacea, but they are a start. Upwards of $8 billion is expected to be raised in the sales and that money will go towards reducing our debt and into other infrastructure. They will prove a major boon for the sharemarket, with new listings just what the Capital Markets Development Taskforce says was needed to fire up the NZX.

As commentators have said repeatedly in the days since the announcement, the opportunity for mums and dads to invest in solid businesses that we know will continue to generate sizeable profits is likely to appeal to those burned by finance company collapses that have flushed away billions of dollars of savings.

With the Government guaranteeing to keep majority ownership, the biggest obstacle to sell-offs has been removed and there are more reasons to welcome the moves than to oppose them.

So the HoS supports the policy, what about the politics?

Key’s personal rating, however, should have been enhanced by the moves this week. He has been a populist leader so far in his first term and has been reluctant to rock the boat.

We have now seen strong, decisive leadership. That, more than the sales themselves, should be the most comforting aspect of the political week.

I agree.

The Herald on Sunday has discovered that Len Brown has taken the train to work only once since becoming Mayor – the day he invited the media to come along and see him on the train, where he promised he would “start taking the train to work on a regular basis as part of his commitment to public transport”.

It reminds me of something Maurice Williamson has often pointed out – that many of the noisiest advocates for public transport never use it themselves. They just think everyone should be forced to. I recall the Wellington Green MP who didn’t even have a Snapper card, which all regular bus users have.

Rather unfortunate that a story about how new teachers plan to inspire their kids, has a spelling mistake in the headline.

We all make typos (esp me), but this isn’t a typo but an actual lack of knowledge as to how role model should be spelt. I hasten to add that the mistake would not be Megan Reed’s (the author), but almost certainly a sub-editor. Ms Reed actually spells role model correctly in the body of the article.

I wonder if the headline is wrong in the print edition also?

Former Labour MP John Tamihere writes:

I support the partial sale of these assets regardless.

Majority ownership will be held by the New Zealand Government. New Zealand money, which is flooding offshore to invest in foreign economies, will have blue chip assets to invest in at home, whether they are Kiwi Saver or New Zealand superannuation dollars or dollars that would normally have flowed  to the failed finance sector. All require a safe investment haven and this policy provides that.

Further, it lessens our need to borrow and this will also lessen the amount of interest we need to pay.

No surprise that John Tamihere supports part-sales – he can say what he thinks now he is out of Parliament. I’d say it is almost a certainity that Phil Goff deep down supports it also, considering he was such an enthusiastic supporter of full sales previously. Of course he could never say so publicly.