The Dom Post reports:

A National minister used her taxpayer-funded travel perk for a trip to China with her husband where he did a business deal that later turned sour.

Ethnic Affairs Minister Pansy Wong has been under fire since it was revealed she signed herself “Minister of NZ Govt”, and her address as “Parliament Buildings, Wellington NZ”, when she witnessed a contract between Pacific Hovercraft NZ and China-based Lianyungang Supreme Hovercraft during her trip to China in January last year.

A spokesman for Prime Minister John Key confirmed last night that his office was looking into the use of Mrs Wong’s travel subsidy.

Parliament’s rules expressly forbid MPs from using their private travel perk to pursue their own or their spouse’s private business interests.

But Mrs Wong’s office insisted last night that the purpose of the trip to China was a holiday. …

There was no issue with either of them using the perk as they were on holiday, she said. While business documents were signed during the trip, “that wasn’t the aim of their holiday”.

I think the Minister may be on shaky ground here. The aim of a trip is subjective. Whether or not business was done on a trip is objective, and it seems clear there was.

Now one can argue about whether or not one business deal as part of a trip that is mainly holiday, turns it into a business trip. What if the business only took up 5% of the holiday? Or 10%?

But in reality I think that doing any business on a trip (unless utterly trivial such as signing some documents faxed to your hotel) will render the trip ineligible for use of the travel perk.

I don’t know the precise details on this issue, but my gut reaction is that the cost of the travel should be repaid if business was done on the trip. The intent is not what counts – it is what happened on the trip.

UPDATE: The above was written at 9 am and set to appear at 1 pm. The media are now reporting she has been stood down.

AP report:

Amazon.com is selling a self-published guide that offers advice to paedophiles, and that has generated outrage on the internet and threats to boycott the retailer.

The availability of “The Paedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct” calls into question whether Amazon has any procedures – or even an obligation – to vet books before they are sold in its online stores. Amazon did not respond to multiple email and phone messages.

The title is an electronic book available for Amazon’s Kindle e-reader and the company’s software for reading Kindle books on mobile phones and computers. Amazon allows authors to submit their own works and shares revenue with them.

Amazon have not now removed the book from sale, and that is a prudent move. But people go too far in demanding that Amazon should somehow vet books before they sell them. This would destroy the economics of online selling. Amazon has millions of titles. They would have to hire around 1,000 staff to do nothing but read books if they were to be held liable for them.

Certainly once a complaint is received, they should act swiftly to verify it is breaks any laws, or policies. But don’t start demanding they vet material in advance from authors.

The ballot for the private members bills had only 24 bills in it this week. Previous ones had 38, 47, and 40.

Why? Because only one Labour MP’s bill was in the ballot. Normally they have 17 – 20.

Trevor blogs on Red Alert:

As may be obvious we are having a crack at getting Darren’s bill up here

I am sceptical about this explanation, and wonder if the truth might be that someone fucked up and forgot to resubmit the bills.

If Trevor is telling the truth, then they should sack whomever came up with the idea of only putting Darren’s in there. Here’s why.

In all the other ballots, the chance of Darren’s bill being selected for a spot is around 2.5% and the chance of a Labour bill being selected around 40% to 50%.

Under this cunning plan, Darren’s chances do increase – from 2.5% to 4%, but Labour’s overall chances plummet from near 50% to also 4%.

Is that not the stupidest cunning plan since Baldrick?

So I don’t know what the reality is. Is Trevor telling the truth and Labour implemented a moronic strategy of not entering the ballot just to lift Darren’s chances from 2.5% to 4.0%, or is Trevor covering up for a fuck up?

John Armstrong reports:

New Zealand ministers have their fingers crossed that a poll of the Japanese public will back Tokyo’s plans to join a Pacific-wide free trade agreement.

The Japanese Cabinet formally approved a new trade policy on Tuesday which will see Japan “gathering further information” before “initiating consultations” with the nine-member Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which includes New Zealand and the United States.

Despite the cautionary tone of that statement, Trade Minister Tim Groser last night described the Cabinet’s position as the most significant development in Japanese trade policy in the last 25 years. …

Japan’s highly-inefficient farmers have long been sheltered behind high tariff walls, effectively blocking foreign exports, particularly rice and dairy products.

However, big business in Japan is firmly behind the Government amidst feelings that Japan risks falling behind the play unless it secures more free trade deals to safeguard its industrial exports.

A poll in the Daily Yomiuri newspaper had more than 60 per cent of respondents favouring Japan joining the TPP and only 18 per cent against.

This would be amazing if Japan agreed to an FTA which includes agriculture.

The EU may remain the last bastion of protectionism at this rate!

Haven’t forgotten, just pretty rushed this morning.

In contrast to our furtive NZ birds, Australian birds are a little easier to photograph. I opened the lens wide to make the head the focal point of the shot.

Click for larger, higher res image

Ok… going to need a lot of coffee this morning. Hope every body has a good end-of-week.

Carmel Sepuloni on Red Alert blogged yesterday:

John Chapman is a staunch Labour supporter and is one of our good friends in Waitakere:)

Given his support for Labour and generous nature, he’s kindly put up one of his prints for sale on trademe – proceeds raised will go towards the Mana campaign.

The print is entitled ‘It’s only going to get worse’ – how appropriate given the state of our country under the current National Government.  We may have to persevere another year (or slightly less) of a National Government but that gentle reminder of how much worse it could get if we have to endure any longer than that – is a great motivator for getting Labour people and the generally ‘disillusioned with National’ ordinary kiwi, enthused about the next election!

Whale has this graphic:

Not a single person bid. No not one. How incredibly embarrassing.

I guess Carmel was right – it was only going to get worse – for Labour.

UPDATE: A reader commented to me  that they are surprised a certain Board of Trustees Chair didn’t bid for the artwork so it could then be burnt – or does that only happen when it is part of a Police investigation involving the PM?

The Herald reports:

Len Brown didn’t spend much time sitting down during his first “Mayor on the chair session” in Aotea Square yesterday. …

From 12.30 to 1.30pm, Mr Brown sat – then stood – in the rain under an umbrella, chatting to members of the public who had a range of questions for him from whether he was a Christian to what he could do for students worried about losing accommodation during the Rugby World Cup and how to improve the angle of parking spaces. …

In Mr Brown’s weekly Mayor in the Chair sessions, no bookings are required and he goes to the citizens.

Each week, he will go to a different part of the city so he can get a feel for the community and talk to people about their concerns or issues.

It’s an idea he has brought with him from his time as Manukau Mayor and one that proved so popular, there was never a shortage of people to talk to during his hour with them.

You know that’s not a bad idea – having an hour a week where you can meet the Mayor on any issue without an appointment. Sure, it is partly a media gimmick, but it is also a good way to stay connected and provide an avenue for residents to get issues looked at, without the normal bureaucratic hurdles.

NewstalkZB reports:

Independent MP Chris Carter today Identified his former Labour colleague Trevor Mallard as one of 17 MPs that opposes Phil Goff’s leadership

Chris Carter claims former Labour colleague Trevor Mallard is one of 17 MPs who oppose Phil Goff’s leadership.

Mr Carter was expelled from the Labour caucus earlier this year after publicly undermining Mr Goff.

At the time, he said he there were 17 Labour MPs who wanted to get rid of Mr Goff.

Asking a question in Parliament today, Mr Carter described Mr Mallard as his “very good friend and former colleague”, causing chaos in parliament.

He went on to say Mr Mallard was one of his 17 good friends.

Now that Carter has named one of the 17, there is little doubt he will name them all – I suspect around one a fortnight.

I am hearing that Labour are so frustrated by him, that they are seriously looking at selecting Twyford in Te Atatu, so that Carter will resign, triggering a by-election which will see Judith Tizard return on the list.

It seems that Judith has become the lesser of two evils, and if it gets Carter out of Parliament, they will have Judith back for eight months. The alternative is Carter announcing another name every fortnight up until the election.

Pretty tough this week. I made four guesses and got two right and two wrong.

There is a small group of activist principals who are driving this campaign against national standards. We’ve already seen how they refer to the Minister. Leaked e-mails now reveal what they plan for another of their targets – the School Trustees Association. They literally want principals to take it over. Yep, that is right – how dare there be an independent voice for parents in the sector that doesn’t always agree with the unions – so it must be taken over.

And who is at the heart of the plot? The aspiring Labour candidate for Whangarei and their future education minister.

John Hartevelt in the Dominion Post reports:

A group of rebel principals plotted to “quietly take over” an association representing 90 per cent of school boards in an effort to overwhelm the national standards debate, leaked emails suggest.

An email exchange shows principals involved in a boycott of the standards discussed “dealing with” the New Zealand School Trustees Association.

“The easiest way is for us to quietly take over regional organisations of NZSTA … Just imagine NZSTA run by principals!” an email written by Hora Hora School principal Pat Newman states.

Newman, the aspiring Labour candidate, is also one of those union activists who bullied a principal who dared to go on television and say she thought national standards were good. There is a pattern of behaviour here.

What Newman and others planned to do with NZSTA, is to effectively turn it into their mouthpiece.

His email was sent to, among others, Denise Torrey, president of the Canterbury Primary Principals Association; Frances Nelson, president of the national primary teachers’ union; Iain Taylor, president of the Auckland Primary Principals Association, and Perry Rush, Island Bay School principal.

Marlene Campbell, principal of Invercargill’s Salford School and a member of the Southland Primary Principals Association executive, which this week called Education Minister Anne Tolley “Minister Hitler”, was also a recipient. All have been vocal critics of the national standards.

Readers will know most of these names. It would be interesting to file OIAs asking for all their e-mail correspondence, to see what other schemes they have plotted.

Mr Taylor responded to Mr Newman’s August 20 email with: “Oh that the go!! Great thinking … loved ya email to her too … man she awful!!” Mr Taylor was referring to NZSTA president Lorraine Kerr, who has refused to criticise or fully endorse the standards.

How dare she refuse to join the campaign against national standards. Dissent from the union line can not be tolerated.

Mr Newman said his email was private. “The email in question was an irreverent one sent by me as a result of the frustration and disquiet I was feeling, around the fact that NZSTA had, and still does, refuse to consult with boards of trustees in any meaningful way on the national standards issue.”

A private one? Did he send it from his work computer? Mr Newman seems to have forgotten that he is employed by the taxpayer, and his school is subject to the OIA.

It was a personal comment and the recipients did not automatically agree with what the email said. “To be realistic, instead of trying to read a conspiracy theory around it, any normal reader would realise that what was suggested was done tongue-in- cheek, and is neither a feasible nor practical suggestion.”

The first line of Mr Newman’s email states: “Seriously folks, [Nelson Park principal] Nevan [Bridge] has hit a good point. At some stage we as principals need to deal with NZSTA.”

The email suggests principals could turn out at regional meetings of the NZSTA and outnumber everyone else as a voting bloc.

Doesn’t sound tongue-in-cheek does it?

NZPA report:

A spokeswoman for Mrs Wong told NZPA yesterday the minister had sought Cabinet Office advice and had not done anything wrong.

“That advice is that there’s nothing wrong with witnessing a document as she did,” the spokeswoman said.

“The Cabinet Manual wasn’t breached, nor was anything else. It’s Pete Hodgson once again trying to muckrake and smear and it shows Labour isn’t focused on the issues that matter.”

That’s the official response. And the unofficial response:

Prime Minister John Key’s chief press secretary, Kevin Taylor, put it more bluntly when he reportedly told Radio New Zealand Mr Hodgson was a “f…wit” — a comment Mr Hodgson later said was not helpful or accurate.

Well I agree with Pete Hodgson, that the comment wasn’t helpful.

The bloglight that shined on the principal of Salford School referring to Anne Tolley as Hitler got picked up by the media, and her board has distanced themselves from the comments of Marlene Campbell.

Campbell has also apologised on her school blog:

I regret and withdraw my ill considered and not thought through reference to Nazi Germany, I feel passionately about National Standards and I am immensely frustrated by the damage they will do to children’s learning. I really regret that my comments have created a diversion from the real issues: the negative impacts of National Standards as a policy.

I care passionately about children and their learning- some might argue too passionately- but it is that passion which drives my opposition to National Standards.

I unreservedly apologise to the parents and students of Salford for casting our school into disrepute.

So she has apologised to her students and parents, but not to Anne Tolley for calling her Hitler. What a wonderful example to the students.

Now talking of the campaign against national standards, it is important to stress again that sadly the taxpayer is being forced to fund most of this campaign. Membership of the various principals’ associations is not paid for by the principal, but by the taxpayer through Vote Education.

Whale Oil has some documents showing the extent of the taxpayer funding – around $100,000 from the regional principal associations.

The taxpayer funding of the unions comes about because it is in the collective contract. My advice to the Government is to refuse any future agreement that results in the unions being funded by the taxpayer. If a principal sees benefits from joining the principals’ union, then they can do so out of their own pocket.

I previously blogged on how Trevor Mallard criticised Hekia Parata for attending select committees instead of campaigning for votes in Mana.

Now Clare Curran has done the same, and criticised Hekia for attending question time.

Hekia is campaigning non stop whenever she is not required to be at Parliament. But I for one think it is a good thing she actually is also doing the job she is getting paid an MPs salary to do, even if Labour think campaigning is more important.

NBR carry an NZPA story on Winston’s latest claim:

Overseas ownership of New Zealand news media outlets is in the political spotlight, with New Zealand First leader Winston Peters saying it has eroded journalism standards.

A traditional opponent of overseas ownership, Mr Peters told NZPA he was concerned about the profits of domestic media, banking and forestry companies going off shore.

“It has also led to serious erosion of media standards and journalism reporting because people are given no time to do any work properly, instant sound bites have become the name of the game, and that is sliding its way into tabloid journalism,” Mr Peters said.

International companies that owned New Zealand media outlets had failed to support investigative journalism and had “squeezed the professional capacity” out of the industry, he said.

“I’m the last one in the world that should be making a sympathetic argument for the journalists of this country, but I’m telling you that’s exactly what happened.”

Proper investigative journalism was essential for the democracy of a nation, Mr Peters said.

Now normally I ignore what Winston says, but the irony here is too great. I actually agree we need more investigative journalism, but we do have some sterling examples of good investigative journalism by Fairfax and APN journalists. Namely the superb work done by reports Phil Kitchin, David Fisher, Audrey Young and others in exposing the tissue of lies Winston told about the funding of NZ First and himself by various wealthy businesspeople. It was investigative journalism at its finest and exposed Peters as a charlatan whose reality was the direct opposite of what he railed again.

The comments thread on the NBR story has some superb contributions, such as Phil Kitchin:

Bernard Orsman writes in the Herald:

The Super City is only 10 days old, but councillor George Wood has spat the dummy about the relatively minor job given to him by Mayor Len Brown.

The former North Shore Mayor and senior policeman said he was “somewhat deflated” to be told by Mr Brown he would chair the community safety forum when he wanted a public transport role.

He wondered if he was being sidelined for going public on the “crummy levels of public transport” in Otara – launching pad for the political career of Mr Brown. the the former Manukau Mayor.

Well I doubt that helped.

When Mr Brown assigned committee jobs, the five C&R councillors missed out on top roles. Mr Wood, whose ticket has questioned the affordability of Mr Brown’s rail projects, was overlooked for the top transport job.

The job went to former Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee, whose number one priority is to “support the mayor in expanding rail as soon as possible”.

Yesterday, Mr Wood acknowledged his position on public transport probably contributed to him missing a senior transport role, although all was not lost. The mayor has since said all councillors could be members of the transport committee.

While I think Len’s transport plans are going to cost Aucklanders a huge amount of money, they are what Auckland voted for. It is not unreasonable that the Mayor will want a chair who is fully supportive of his policy, rather than one who campaigned against it.

Add to the fact that Mike Lee’s background as ARC Chair makes him very experienced in the transport area, and I don’t think one can fairly criticise Len’s decisions. Again, this is not to say I agree with his transport priorities but as Mayor he should be able to select a chair who will back him fully.

Go read the article by Derek Cheng at the Herald, and then tell me if I have it wrong in concluding that Labour’s big issue is that Pansy Wong stated her occupation as “Minister of NZ Govt” rather than “Member of Parliament”.

Wow that will bring the Government down for sure. The quality of Pete Hodgson’s scandals seem to be declining rapidly and they were never that great to start with.

You can click on the image for a larger version. Quite clever, even if I don’t agree with it.

Hat Tip: Half Done

These figures were released from Keneperu Hospital under the OIA. The left hand axis is surgical procedures which have grown a staggering 57% in just two years. The right hand axis is outpatient consultations, which have increased 30% in two years.

I think most will agree a far better trend than from 2005 to 2008.

Overheard at lunch  a comment along the lines of:

“According to Kiwiblog and Whale Oil, the guy leading the charge is a Labour Party candidate”

It was a group having lunch. I resisted the urge to introduce me, and just kept the quiet satisfaction to myself.

I blogged previously about Kris Faafoi’s remarkable memory, when on Q+Q he claimed to remember McDonalds coming to Porirua, at the age of one.

I also blogged on his pamphlet which talks about how he had a great start because his family lived in Mana, when the truth is his immediate family lived in Christchurch.

The McDonalds line was dismissed as:

He has since said he “mis-spoke”, and meant to say he had heard it was the first McDonald’s in the country and it was where he had his first McDonald’s burger.

However a Porirua Citylife reader tells me the following quote appeared in the local newspaper on 3 November – three days after the Q+A interview:

Some of his fondest memories include going to the opening of New Zealand’s first McDonalds, which he proudly boasts was in Porirua.

“It was like a family playground for me at that time,” he says.

It’s one think to mis-speak in a live debate. Quite another to repeat it to a newspaper.

NZPA report:

Labour expects the Government to consult with it over a constitutional review to consider such issues as Maori representation, leader Phil Goff says. …

Mr Goff said constitutional issues should be decided on a non-partisan basis but the Government had made no effort to contact his party over the review.“The Government, I presume, will make an approach to try to get a cross-party agreement on something as fundamental as constitutional change in New Zealand,” he said.

“I think the whole process should be inclusive, and that includes talking to all the parties across Parliament.”

I agree with Phil Goff. Labour, and indeed all parliamentary parties, should be consulted at an early stage on constitutional issues. These should be dealt with as openly as possible.

Of course Labour did not consult themselves on major constitutional issues such as the Electoral Finance Act and the Supreme Court establishment, but the record of the last Government should be seen as what not to do – not a benchmark for future Governments.

Prime Minister John Key said the Government had not yet decided when it would consult other parties.

“That’s something we’re going to have to consider, not just Labour but other political parties,” he said.

“You’ll remember that its genesis came from the confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party so that’s been our initial body of consultation … between National and the Maori Party.”

However, the nature of the review meant it was likely other parties would be consulted.

Sounds like they will, which is the right thing to do. Also, maybe ask the public for our views on what the terms of reference for the review should be. Ultimately the constitution belongs to the people, even if indirectly.