News has just broken of a second explosion at the mine.

It is now inevitable that there were no survivors of the Pike River explosion. It had already become quite clear none of the 29 survived the initial blast – this will eventually be confirmed by pathologists.

For now we mourn New Zealand’s worst disaster since Erebus 31 years ago.

Rest in peace:

1. Conrad John Adams, 43, Greymouth
2. Malcolm Campbell, 25, Greymouth (Scottish)
3. Glen Peter Cruse, 35, Cobden
4. Allan John Dixon, 59, Runanga
5. Zen Wodin Drew, 21, Greymouth
6. Christopher Peter Duggan, 31, Greymouth
7. Joseph Ray Dunbar, 17, Greymouth
8. John Leonard Hale, 45, Ruatapu
9. Daniel Thomas Herk, 36, Runanga
10. David Mark Hoggart, 33, Greymouth
11. Richard Bennett Holling, 41, Blackball
12. Andrew David Hurren, 32, Hokitika
13. Jacobus (Koos) Albertus Jonker, 47, Cobden (South Africa)
14. William John Joynson, 49, Dunollie Australia
15. Riki Steve Keane, 28, Greymouth.
16. Terry David Kitchin, 41, Runanga
17. Samuel Peter Mackie, 26, Greymouth
18. Francis Skiddy Marden, 41, Runanga
19. Michael Nolan Hanmer Monk, 23, Greymouth
20. Stuart Gilbert Mudge, 31, Runanga.
21. Kane Barry Nieper, 33, Greymouth
22. Peter O’Neill, 55, Runanga
23. Milton John Osborne, 54, Ngahere
24. Brendan John Palmer, 27, Cobden
25. Benjamin David Rockhouse, 21, Greymouth
26. Peter James Rodger, 40, Greymouth (British)
27. Blair David Sims, 28, Greymouth
28. Joshua Adam Ufer, 25, Australia
29. Keith Thomas Valli, 62, Winton.

The graphic is from the NZ Herald site. if you go there, you can click on each photo to read details of each of the deceased.

All my thoughts are with families and friends of the dead, and the entire West Coast community. Those of us from outside can only try and imagine what this must be like.

Incidentally the second explosion should be a lesson to the self appointed experts demanding people rush in. If they had been in charge, there could be many more dead.

A commenter on Red Alert on Monday commented:

As for John Key in the state house; no, his getting out doesn’t prove that everyone can do it. It does prove that it’s possible, not impossible as socialists argue, to do it without the government giving you a hand out. No, not everyone can do it, some people are stupid, uneducated and lazy, and (again) that’s life. Why should I give my hard earned money to those people? They don’t deserve it, they didn’t earn it. Left wingers are very generous with other people’s money, and if statistics on who donates the most to charity, lefties or righties, are anything to go by…not very generous with their own.

Colonial Viper responded:

Its not your money. When you go to work and earn an income don’t make the mistake of thinking that you are doing that for yourself either, you are doing it on behalf of your communities and your country.

I hope that is clear to everyone. Your money, is not your money. You don’t work 40+ hours a week in a job to earn money for yourself and your family – you do it for your country.

The Welfare Working Group has released an options paper. This is an excellent way to do policy development – getting experts involved, and having them release issues papers and options papers so people can have their say.

Before we look at the options, some facts the WWG have highlighted:

1. There are 356,000 working age (18-64 years) adults on a benefit in New Zealand (as at 30 April 2010). This represents one in eight people of working age.
2. Of those on a benefit as at the end of April 2010, nearly 80 percent do not have a work expectation attached to the receipt of their benefit.
3. Just over 170,000 beneficiaries had spent five or more out of the last 10 years on a benefit (not necessarily a continuous spell).
4. About one in five children (around 222,000 dependent children aged under 18) were living in benefit-reliant households (as at 30 June 2009)
5. The proportion of the working-age population receiving a Sickness or Invalid’s Benefit has risen steadily from about 1 percent in the 1970’s to 5 percent in 2008.
6. Between 2004 and 2007, when 10 percent of the working age population were on benefit, 15 percent of employers found it difficult to fill labouring, production and transport vacancies

With regard to (1) it is worth remembering that those working are also supporting all those who have retired also, and we have an aging population.

Generational welfare is a big concern with (4). I do not believe it is good for kids to grow up in a household where there is no adult in work.

(5) has been well canvassed, and needs action.

The report canvasses a massive range of options. It provides three or four choices in around a dozen areas. This is not small tinkering stuff, but potentially the largest social policy reform since the 1930s. Here are some of the options:

Focus on early intervention

1. Enhanced status quo with work expectation and target intervention towards those likely to stay on welfare for long periods
2. Social Insurance – A system with an actuarial assessment of risk and its future cost; in return for a premium, the management of risk is shared by the insured and the insurer. If the risk eventuates, the insurer provides benefits.
3. Insurance based strategies – a benefit system structured around helping people with high risk of long-term benefit dependency into paid work. Policy and delivery decisions being made with respect to the expected life-time costs.

Promoting a greater focus on paid work

1. Guaranteed Minimum Income – An unconditional tax credit with a uniform tax rate that would replace all benefits and supplements
2. Enhanced status quo – Maintain categories of benefit, but increase the work expectations within those categories
3. Expansion of the Unemployment Benefit – A benefit system that includes one benefit for all people who have current or future work capacity (and no means to support themselves) and one for people who have no work capacity over the long term
4. A work-focused benefit system – structure on a focus on paid work for people with current or future work capacity, clearly communicated reciprocal obligations on the Government, the delivery agent, and the beneficiary with an expectation of temporary benefit use and stepping up work expectations and obligations of beneficiaries as their time on benefit increases

Changes to DOLE

1. Improved diversion and triage – Improved diversion strategies so that more resources are invested in helping people to secure paid employment before applying for a benefit; and better triage for those entering the system
2. Future liability and investment model – Reduce the life-time costs of benefit receipt by better targeting and designing active employment interventions.
3. Six month threshold – A threshold, for example, six months, at which point a person identified as at risk of long-term receipt would be placed in either paid or unpaid work (including voluntary work) to enhance chances of entering paid work.

Drugs & Alcohol

1. Treatment – A threshold, for example, six months, at which point a person identified as at risk of long-term receipt would be placed in either paid or unpaid work (including voluntary work) to enhance chances of entering paid work.
2. Obligations – Clearer obligations regarding drug testing and sanctions relating to drug use, combined with treatment services.

DPB changes to reduce child poverty

1. Enhanced status quo – Clearer obligations regarding drug testing and sanctions relating to drug use, combined with treatment services.
2. Align to ECE – Part-time work obligation from when the youngest child is three years old; full-time work obligation from when youngest child is six years old.
3. Align to parental leave – Part-time work obligation from when the youngest child is three years old; full-time work obligation from when youngest child is six years old.
4. Align to unemployment benefit – Part-time work obligation from when the youngest child is one year old; Unemployment Benefit from when the youngest child is six years old.
5. Youngest Child – Tie the beginning of work expectations to the age of the first child rather than subsequent children of a parent who enters the benefit system.

Childcare

1. Childcare for low income sole parents (permanent) – Provide more childcare assistance for low income sole parents who are in employment.
2. Childcare for low income sole parents (temporary) – Provide time-limited subsidies to sole parents who move into paid work. This could either be paid to the provider or the beneficiary.
3. Expand out of school services – Expand out-of-school care for school-aged children. This could be targeted just at sole parents.
4. Personalised childcare support – Provide help to sole parents to locate and arrange childcare as part of case management. Some funding could also be available.

Help for people when they move into employment

1. In-work payments to beneficiary – Provide long-term beneficiaries with an allowance for the initial period of employment.
2. Provider-delivered in-work support – Building on current programmes, have a more significant pool of funds that can be used to support work outcomes by long-term beneficiaries.
3. Transition assistance for sole parents – Cover the cost of transport, childcare and other direct costs for first year of employment up to a cap.
4. Transition allowance for sick and disabled people – Cover the direct costs associated with sickness and disability, including workplace modification, as a sick or disabled person moves into paid work.

Strong signals to discourage semi-permanent use of the benefit system

1. Increasing conditions with benefit duration – Increasing conditions with benefit duration to send signals about the temporary use of benefit. This could include ensuring people are active while on a benefit, including a limited work-for-the-benefit, for example, 2 days per week or 16 hours after 2 years continuous duration.
2. Income Management for long-term beneficiaries – A component of benefit payment may be strictly managed when people with work capacity are on a benefit almost permanently and they demonstrably fail to use the benefit appropriately, for example, failing to provide essentials for children.
3. Step down – Components of benefits withdrawn when people with work capacity are using the benefit system on an almost permanent basis, for example more than a year.
4. Strict time limit – Each person without an exemption from work expectations is funded for a certain period, for example, up to a limit of five continuous years on a benefit. Reliance on hardship assistance beyond this period.

These are just some of the options being canvassed. Some will be popular, and some won’t be. Some are stick, and some are carrot. Some will save taxpayers money and some will cost taxpayers more money – at least in the short term.

My initial thoughts are:

1. I like the idea of a more flexible system where one can look at the likely life-time welfare cost of a beneficiary, which may mean spending more money early on to help them transition off welfare.
2. Work testing for those with some capacity to work, is very important
3. Childcare assistance should be targeted more at lower income families so you gain more financially from re-entering the workforce
4. I like the idea of a transition allowance for those going from benefits to working
5. I support some benefits being time-limited as this sets clear expectations. However some sort of emergency relief benefit would have to remain available with some flexibility.

If you have a view on what options are most preferable, then have your say. There is an online response form here. You can also e-mail submissions to [email protected].

A lot of people are upset that the Government has brought back a spending cap on third party spending in elections. Well, did any of you make a submission – either to the issues paper, the options paper or the select committee? I did, but not many did submit against a spending cap. If more people had bothered to take the time to submit, then there may have been a different outcome.

So don’t be silent. Take the time to read the document, and tell the WWF what options you do and do not like. Because Sue Bradford is sure as hell going to do so, and I guess many of you don’t want her voice to be the only one heard.

The Dom Post reports:

Lambros Serepisos will appear in Wellington District Court next week to face multiple charges of breaching home detention last month, and a single charge of possession of cannabis.

I wonder how many got excited over the headline though 🙂

If you comment on this post, be careful not to make defamatory remarks.

Chris Trotter writes:

Analysing last weekend’s Mana by-election results, I’m wondering if we might be witnessing another seminal political moment. Like the 1972 general election, it is possible that the closely- fought Mana contest holds some crucially important lessons for the major parties.

At the most superficial level, the result was a clear moral triumph for the Government and its very effective candidate, Hekia Parata. In a country only slowly emerging from recession, in an Opposition- held electorate perfectly positioned to send the Government “a message”, it almost beggars belief that the by-election campaign ended with a 14 per cent swing towards the governing party.

A moral triumph indeed. Heh it reminds me of the caption that my brother’s rugby team had on their team photo. It was “Played 15, Won 11, Moral Victories 4” 🙂

Indeed, without radical Left-wing trade unionist Matt McCarten’s last-minute entry to the by-election race, it is entirely possible Parata would have won the seat.

Umm, that is an unusual interpretation.

His challenge to Labour was to give on-the-ground, practical expression to the progressive policy ideas announced at its annual conference by campaigning – as he did – on low wages, inadequate housing and the urgent need for job creation.

Labour’s candidate, the woefully inexperienced television journalist Kris Fa’afoi, wasn’t equal to that challenge, but McCarten’s sudden intervention was sufficiently worrying for the Labour hierarchy to pour everything it had into the Mana campaign.

It was this massive intervention that ensured Fa’afoi’s victory – albeit with a sharply reduced share of the popular vote.

I think Labour were always going to pour everything into the campaign, but McCarten’s candidacy may have cemented that.

To the cynical observer, McCarten’s 3.6 per cent share of the Mana vote might seem derisory. But then, so did the 2 per cent share won by Values in 1972. Besides, there are moments in politics when, as Key told Parata’s jubilant supporters on Saturday night, “losing is winning”.

Hopefully Labour’s “got the message” McCarten was sending it throughout the campaign. That, if it is to successfully counter Key’s (obviously still effective) appeal to aspirational Kiwis, it has to maintain the sort of on-the-street presence for which McCarten and his radical Unite union are justifiably famous, and which, ultimately, is all that rescued Fa’afoi from catastrophic defeat.

But, even more important than getting Labour out on the street, McCarten’s candidacy – like Values’ campaign in 1972 – should remind Labour that getting people to vote is only half the battle; the other half is giving them something to vote for.

What you mean no GST on fruit and veges is not enough?

I can’t help wondering what if the two robots start fighting each other? Which one would win?

In better news, it has been reported the drill has broken through, and the robots are showing some areas.

The bore hole drill doesn’t show anyone in the refuge, which is sadly as expected. There are no bodies there either, which suggests that if the miners are dead they died quickly.

The robot has come across a lit miner’s helmet but no miners. It is not yet at the point of the first loader, so still a fair way to go.

Closure may be possible today, hopefully.

The Dom Post editorial:

However much Labour nabobs may try to spin the Mana by-election result, they cannot disguise that it was a walloping for their party which shows it in danger of again being the wallflower next year. …

The bald reality for Labour is that it, in what is according to many politicians the only poll that counts, came uncomfortably close to losing the seat. Its majority of more than 6000 has been turned into one of a smidgin over 1000.

The National Party achieved a 6.6 per cent swing against Labour on a straight two-party comparison – something that just does not happen in by-elections where the disgruntled usually take the chance to give the party in power a kick, even if just to show they can.

This is a key point. Governments generally do not get swings towards them in by-elections.

However, their biggest concern must be the inability to convince voters they should have a problem with the Government, much less that Labour has the solution to that problem.

Labour had set much store in its campaign to scrap GST on fresh fruit and vegetables, and hammered the rise in the cost of living during the campaign. It did not translate into votes, particularly in the middle-class areas of the electorate. Nor did its heartland supporters get out and vote in sufficient numbers to send a message. …

One of Mr Goff’s predecessors, David Lange, was fond of saying that elections were usually won or lost nine or 10 months before polling day. That is around now.

Mr Goff’s problem is not that he has not yet overtaken National. It is that he is standing still, or even going backwards.

Voters hung up the phone on Labour long before the last election. The Mana result confirms they are not yet showing any sign of being willing to pick it up again, much less agree to a date.

Part of Labour’s problem is the domination of the parliamentary wing with figures from the 5th and even the 4th Labour Government.

The core front bench is 100% former Ministers, and only Charles Chauvel is on the extended front bench.

Phil Goff has talked about a reshuffle. He should do one before the year ends, and promote some of the Class of 2008.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Three years after the outcry at financial restrictions on independent electoral advertising, the Labour Party has got its way. National has folded on an issue it fought from Opposition, agreeing to restrictions that differ only by degree with the spending limits legislated by the Labour Government. …

National has surrendered to the left’s fear of money, which is just one possible influence among many in an election. Its bipartisan fix will leave our politics poorer and preserve elections largely for the parties who have conspired to produce this disgraceful discouraging law.

Again I encourage National Party members to speak up on this law. Bring the topic up at monthly electorate meetings with MPs. Ask your regional chairs and board members what their views on the law is, and will they do to represent the views of members on this issue. Consider moving a resolution at Regional Council meetings reaffirming National’s opposition to having the Government restrict the ability of “third parties” to spend their own money criticising parties, candidates and policies they don’t like.

I recognise that the law change has been agreed to, and will occur. You may wonder then what is the point of protesting – is it just to be destructive? No, the idea is to provide an incentive for this not to happen again in future, where the parliamentary wing agrees to something that National campaigned against so strongly. Unless MPs hear the voices of party members on this issue, then the party becomes marginalised.

Remember that the EFA had already been repealed (with Labour’s support) soon after the election. The bill that entered Parliament did not have restrictions on third party spending in it. National was not forced to agree to it, to get the law passed. It chose to do so.

Parliament has now passed the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and Holiday Amendment Bill into law. This was the bill that the union movement had declared a jihad against, but since the CTU’s disastrous involvement with The Hobbit, their roars have faded.

So what are the actual law changes? There are several, and while I support most of them, I actually agree with the union criticism of one aspect of the changes.

• Consent needed by employer for union to enter workplace, but can not be reasonably withheld, and a response to a request must be given by end of the next working day, and reasons for any declining within two days max. Basically this just calls for some good faith between unions and employers. Unions can’t barge in whenever they like, and employers can’t unreasonably restrict access. Not sure there was a big problem to fix here though, so give this a 6/10. Was a 2008 election policy.
• Allowing employers to communicative with employees during collective bargaining, so long as not breach of good faith. This allows an employer to tell the truth to employees about what they have offered, if te union is mis-representing or lying about their offer. A not totally uncommon problem. 7/10
• Extending the 90 day trial provisions to all workplaces. This has been incredibly successful in workplaces of less than 20 employees. A DOL survey has found 40% of staff hired under a probation period would not have been offered the job without this provision. The CTU campaign against the bill has failed to come up with even one convincing example of abuse. I rate this extension as a 9/10.
• A small but significant change to the justification test for employers. The test changes from “what a fair and reasonable employer would have done” to “what a fair and reasonable employer could have done”. I’d rate this 8/10 as the current law had it almost impossible for employers to meet what was almost a mythical standard of perfection.
• An employee can ask an employer to cash up their 4th week of leave. This was National election policy and will be great for employees who need some extra money so they can enjoy the other three weeks of holidays more. It is worth noting that when you leave a job you get your outstanding leave paid out anyway, so not a big change for many. I give this a 9/10 as it is a big win for employees in giving them choice.
• Allows an employer to ask for a sick leave certificate for sick leave of less than three days duration, if the employer will pay for it. Previously an employer had to have reasons to suspect abuse. I don’t like this part of the law change. I think it is impractical as no doctor will ever be able to state whether someone really was sick two days ago for a day. People won’t be able to get in to see doctors in time. I give this change 2/10.

TV3 have a copy of a CCTV video of the impact at the mine entrance from the blast.

As I understand it the entrance is around 2 kms from where the blast originated. And that the 29 miners were all within say 200 metres of the blast.

While there is always some hope until the mine is accessed, I have to say that sadly I think the 29 probably perished in the blast.

I am looking forward to the second reading speeches on the Electoral Finance Bill bt National MPs. Whale has dug up some quotes from the last time there was a law passed to restrict the ability of citizens to advocate against the Government dueing an election campaign.

• Lindsay Tisch: This is a Government that purports to support human rights in Zimbabwe and Fiji, yet at the same time wants to limit Kiwis in having their say.
• Jo Goodhew: . I can assure her that we are responding to the many, many New Zealanders who have told us how much they dislike this bill and who have said they do not want their freedom of speech shut down.
• Allan Peachey: : I was particularly anxious, after days of trying, to get a call on the Committee stage of the Electoral Finance Bill, because I want it recorded for all time in the annals of this House that I am one of those members who spoke against and voted against this attack on the democratic tradition of this country—and that is what this bill is.
• John Key: We know that after this legislation New Zealanders will no longer be free. They are used to operating in a democracy in New Zealand where they are free to express themselves on political issues, they are free to criticise the Government, they are free to criticise the Opposition, they are free to promote policies they like and to protest against policies they do not like,
• John Carter: This is an absolute restriction on the freedom of speech in this country, and if people ever thought that one day we would have to be here defending the democratic right of people in this country to express their views

As I said, I am looking forward to hearing the speeches about how a $120,000 limit was an attack on free speech but a $300,000 limit (admittedly over a smaller time period) is fine.

Just when I thought their collective amnesia and rewriting of history could not get worse, Phil Goff hits a new record.

Here is the NZPA story:

Prime Minister John Key should stop protecting former minister Pansy Wong and sack her after she misused MPs travel perks, Labour leader Phil Goff says. …

“She is aware of when she broke the rules and how often she broke the rules. It doesn’t need a speaker’s inquiry to confirm that.” …

“I just remember the constant attention that was given to Chris Carter. No excuses for Carter. I never made any. Excuses are being made for Wong,” he said.

“Other MPs have been prosecuted criminally for doing what she has done. She is still there as an MP, she ought not to be.”

When asked about leniency for former Labour Minister Taito Phillip Field, who is in jail for misusing his position, Mr Goff said that case needed to be determined in court.

“He was prosecuted. He was booted out of the Labour Party and I say there is enough evidence that the same should happen to Pansy Wong.”

So Phil Goff is demanding Pansy be booted out of Parliament without even any sort of report or inquiry. Further down we will look at Labour’s record on this, but let us put things in perspective. Pansy claimed a perk she should not have. For doing so she was immediately sacked from Cabinet.

Numerous Ministers in the last Government had the taxpayer pay for things, which they were not entitled to. We paid for Shane Jones’ porn, amongst other things. None of those former Ministers have quit Parliament over it. Even Chris Carter was merely demoted from the front bench to the second bench. That was in fact a pathetic punishment.

But let us look at our friend Taito Philip Field. Did Labour sack him without even waiting for an inquiry? No, they did not. Here is what they did.

1. Refuse to sack him when allegations arose before election
2. Refuse to have an inquiry before the election
3. Defend Field as being only guilty of helping his constituents
4. After election announce an inquiry with no powers
5. When inquiry finally reports (six months later – and Goff is complaining about a two week wait) it details dozens of abuses, lies and the like from Field.
6. Amazingly Labour still defends Field, with Cullen saying he is only guilty of working harder for his constituents than National MPs
7. Also Clark holds out the possibility that Field could return to the Ministry, despite the abuses listed in the report.
8. And Labour at no stage move to evict Field from caucus for his criminal behaviour and multiple abuses. They only kicked him out when he publicly mused that he could stand for another party, if not re-selected.

So Goff’s hypocrisy is simply staggering. In Government they defended a corrupt MP, even after a damning report highlighted his abuses. In Opposition, they are demanding Pansy be sacked from Parliament without even waiting for any sort of report.

Let me be clear – if the report by the Parliamentary Service concludes criminal behaviour has been involved, then the Police should prosecute. Even if no criminal behaviour is involved, what emerges from the report may be serious enough that Pansy is not re-selected as a candidate, or even is expelled from Caucus. But those decisions can not be made without knowing the facts.

NZPA report:

Wellington students are having a party on Wednesday to highlight what could be lost if ACT’s Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill passes.

Oh this is too good to be true. They are going to spend compulsorily acquired money on a party to protest they will not be able to force students to fund their parties in the future.

On Wednesday student radio station the VBC 88.3FM would host a gig at the San Francisco Bath House to highlight concerns that the bill would gut funding to students’ associations and clubs like the VBC.

The gig was organised by the VBC, the Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association (VUWSA) and the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA). Bands Glass Vaults, Jetsam Isles and Albert Mikoaj would play.

Oh how nice of NZUSA to help out.

VUWSA President Max Hardy said the bill would cripple the VBC.

“Wellingtonians have enjoyed the support VBC provides to local Wellington music culture through giving local bands air time and holding regular gigs. It’s important they know the student radio station could be at risk due to the government’s actions.”

A little history lesson is needed here. Radio Active is a very popular and successful radio station in Wellington. It has around 45,000 listeners. It was owned by VUWSA but they ran it so incompetently it mae huge losses and almost bankrupted them.

In 198993 it was sold to some of the staff, and it has been very successful ever since – and with no compulsory fees.

For some unknown reasons VUWSA decided it was competent to become a broadcaster again and in 20076 set up VBC, and both VUWSA and the university itself subsidise it. god knows why – it certainly shows that universities have too much money, if they use taxpayer money to fund a radio station.

If one did a survey of students, I suspect you would find far far more listen to Radio Active than VBC.

The enemies of freedom continue to make gains at the UN. This is the problem when so many of the members are countries with little regard for human rights.

Pink paper reports:

The United Nations has removed a plea for lesbians, gays and bisexuals not to be executed in a narrow vote.

For the last 10 years sexual orientation has been included in a list of discriminatory grounds for executions – gay rights activists say the vote to remove that listing is “dangerous and disturbing.”

The UN resolution urges countries to protect the right to life of all people, calling on them to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. Sexual orientation was previously listed as one of these forms of discrimination, alongside ethnicity, religious belief and linguistic minorities.

Others protected by the resolution were human rights defenders (like journalists, lawyers and demonstrators), street children and members of indigenous communities.

So pretty much everyone except gays have the right to life.

But now sexual orientation has been taken out of the list. The amendment was supported by Benin in Africa on behalf of the African Group in the UN General Assembly. It passed on a narrow vote of 79 for, 70 against , 17 abstentions and 26 absent.

Some of those voting to remove sexual orientation were countries where gays are known to be or thought to be executed or summarily killed including Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iraq.

No doubt many of them are members of the Human Rights Council.

Iran almost got elected to the Women’s Rights Commission – it took a dedicated campaign from the US to shame enough other countries to vote against Iran.

We do need a UN which all countries belong to. But its scope should be limited. We need another body to complement it – some sort of league of democratic nations. There should be quite tough criteria for admission, the ability to be expelled, and benefits for joining (such as free trade between members).

Labour List MP Carmel Sepuloni has blogged that National is ending race based funding. She is very very unhappy about this.

I urge her to keep blogging on this topic. Not just blogging though. I think Labour should launch a major campaign complaining that National is ending race based funding.

Now as it happens National isn’t, but the truth has never got in the way of a good Labour campaign. Remember their GST campaign?

So please Labour rev up the campaign bus, and stick up the billboards, all using Carmel’s slogan that John Key is ending race based funding.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key is indicating that a commission of inquiry will look into the cause of the explosion in the Pike River mine. …

A commission of inquiry was likely to be set up as opposed to a royal commission, Mr Key said.

What many do not realise is that in fact the powers of such inquiries are the same. The PM’s exact words from the press conference were:

Will you hold a Royal Commission into this?

He said didn’t want to speculate what the make-up of a (Inquiry) commission might be; Royal Commissions were generally for social areas. Cave Creek had been a Commission of Inquiry which was essentially the same structure.

The DIA bible of inquiries explains the different types of inquiries. The range available are:

1. Statutory inquiries
2. Ministerial inquiries
3. Select Committee inquiries
4. Ombudsmen inquiries
5. Statutory Commissions
6. Royal Commissions and Commissions of Inquiry

Option (6) is the most powerful, with its own 1908 legislation. The legislation says:

2(e) The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, appoint any person or persons to be a Commission to inquire into and report upon any question arising out of or concerning … Any disaster or accident (whether due to natural causes or otherwise) in which members of the public were killed or injured or were or might have been exposed to risk of death or injury

The DIA guide goes on to elaborate the differences between a Royal Commission and a Commission of Inquiry.

A Royal Commission is policy/advisory and is for “Review or reform of social, legal and administrative systems”

A Commission of Inquiry is investigative and is for “Matters of conduct or misconduct and major accidents and disasters”

DIA also note:

Royal Commissions are perceived to have higher status than Commissions of Inquiry. However, there is no statutory imperative behind the two categories of inquiry.

Apart from the title, the only real difference is the method of appointment of the Commissioners.

Royal Commissions are appointed by the Governor-General in the name of the Sovereign, under the Letters Patent. Standard Commissions of Inquiry are appointed by the Governor-General pursuant to an Order in Council. The Governor-General appoints both types of Commission on the basis of recommendations by Government.

So it is very clear that the inevitable inquiry will be a Commission of Inquiry.

All the 29 dead or trapped miners have been named, and all of them will have family and friends in grief over what has happened.

The story of Joseph Dunbar is arguably the saddest of all the miners. The day of the explosion was his first day in the mine, being the day after his 17th birthday. In fact he was not meant to start until Monday but was so excited, he was allowed to start on Friday. What a cruel irony.

I understand the staff put the notice up!

UPDATE: According to Whale, Bob Jones got the sign put up. That would make sense – very much his style.

UPDATE II: The original photo was e-mailed to me so I had no idea of whose photo it was. Alan has emerged as the photographer.

I’ve found some of the spin from Labour around the unprecedented 80% drop in an Opposition seats’ majority in a by-election very amusing.

The worst excuse is from Su’a William Sio, who said:

“Low-income people can’t think about the future, let alone about voting in a by-election, when they are being forced to focus on just surviving.

So Labour almost lost because low-income people are focusing on survival. Worst spin attempt ever.

Audrey Young also highlights some terrible spin:

Some in Labour who should know better are creatively suggesting that Labour actually did better in the byelection than the last general election, despite having its majority slashed from 6155 to 1080.

From three senior figures has come the suggestions that Kris Faafoi winning 47 per cent of the candidate vote on Saturday was a better result than the 43.9 per cent party vote that the party got in 2008, when Winnie Laban stood.

That is like comparing raisins and sheep droppings.

So true. Phil Goff is one of those pushing that desperate line.

I saw on Twitter a blog post titled “Reflections on Mana” on Red Alert had appeared. I clicked on the link wondering which MP would be spinning. And I saw it was Grant Robertson, and commented to the person with me “Aha, this will be very very clever spin”. And so it proved.

Grant did something none of his colleagues could do, and something very different to Kris Faafoi’s own comments. He praised Hekia.

I also think Hekia deserves some credit. She is an articulate person who campaigned hard. Most importantly in terms of the result she has been campaigning/working in the electorate non-stop for about four years, compared to Kris’ few months. That makes a differenece. She had a profile and that worked to her advantage. She did not win, but no doubt she feels she put in a good result

Everyone in the press gallery knows Hekia is a very good MP, who ran a good campaign. Grant makes the point that Hekia had a head-start on Kris, and this is right. But what is implicit, but worth stating explicitly, is that the head-start is only useful if you use it effectively. Hekia spent two years supporting community groups, helping with fundraising, sorting out constituent problems, arranging Ministers to visit etc etc. If she had not done that (and done it well) then her headstart would not have assisted her much.

And the challenge for Kris is to spent the next year showing if he can be as effective as Hekia.

There are no doubt some things from a Labour point of view that we would want to do better and different. That’s the nature of a campaign.

And again Grant shows his smarts. Conceding there were mistakes made (but carefully not detailing them) means that his blog post comes over as balanced, thoughtful and not some desperate piece of spin. He should offer tutoring to some of his colleagues in political communications.

The Electoral Referendum Bill has also been reported back. Major aspects are:

• Comes into force 1 Jan 2011
• aligns advertising rules with Electoral Act, including $300,000 spending limit
• MMP to only be reviewed if people vote for it to remain, not if they vote for change. So any run-off referendum will be with the current version of MMP
• Order of alternate voting systems to be alphabetical
• ballot papers will not be counted on E Day, but the results of advance votes will be known which should indicate the likely result
• The SM option has been defined as a 90/30 option. This is quite significant as it means it will be significantly less proportional than MMP. My preferred SM option would be 70/50 as MMP currently has. On the plus side a 90/30 system will have smaller electorate seats.

The question in Part A has been modified to be:

Should New Zealand keep the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system?

The options are:

• I vote to keep the MMP voting system
• I vote to change to another voting system

The select committee has done a diligent job with the bill. Politically I believe a majority will vote to retain MMP, especially with the SM option being significantly disproportional.

While I am mightily pissed over the restrictions on third parties, the select committee has made many other changes, which are reasonably desirable. I’ll summarise them below.

• The editorial content of any periodical, radio or television programme, or news media Internet site is now excluded from being an election advertisement, rather than the former requirement that it be “solely for the purposes of informing, enlightening, or entertaining” which I and other submitted was too narrow.
• The exclusion for those expressing personal political views on the Internet was defined as only applying if “non-commercial”, and now it applies unless “the person makes or receives payment to express that view for publication”. That is a very welcome change.
• The definition of the regulated period has changed from what was in the draft bill, to the definition I proposed at a seminar of “experts”. The regulated period will now start 2 years and nine months after the last general election unless the PM calls an early election. This is great as it means no longer will there be a retrospective regulated period, and it also provides certainty as to when it will begin (if no snap election).
• A $300,000 (incl GST) expenditure cap on third party spending during the regulated period. This will inflation adjust. While the limit is relatively high, it is less than 10% of what a party spends in total and National should not have voted for it.
• Candidate expenditure limits have increased from $20,300 to $25,000. A small step in the right direction but the reality is that this is still an inadequate amount to be able to effectively communicate to 40,000 people over three months.
• The party expenditure limit also increased from $1.015m and $20,300 per electorate ($2.436m in total) to $1.032m and $25,000 per electorate ($2.782m in total). Again a good move in the right direction but it doesn’t even cover the inflation impact since 1993. It will at least be inflation adjusted in future.
• The summary disclosure of total revenue from donations changes from bans of under $1k, $1k to $10k and over $10k to $1.5K to $5k, $5l to $15k and over $15k. I think it is regrettable that the total amount of small donations will not be disclosed as this would have allowed the public to form a holistic view of the total way a party is funded.
• The disclosure limit of identity for individual donations has increased from $10k to $15k. Presumably this is part of the trade off with Labour in return for support third party restrictions. However I think the $10k limit was about right, and don’t see a need for it to increase to $15k. Transparency is my preference over limits.
• The disclosure limit for candidates increases from $1,000 to $1,500. Not a big change there.

Both Greens and ACT have done minority reports.

I will be very interested to see what Labour says about this bill. It is a win for them.

Most of the changes made by the select committee are good ones. The compromise over third party spending limits is what spoils it. I would be very interested to know where the decision was made to do that compromise – was it at Cabinet or at Caucus?