One of our smallest native birds- the Gray Warbler. They’re surprisingly easy to hear, & surprisingly challenging to get close enough to photograph.
Riroriro
Looks like the rain has arrived in Auckland, so plans today look like hunkering down with a ongoing supply of coffee.
Roger Kerr blogs:
Deborah Hill Cone is one of my favourite journalists.
Her cosmopolitan reading habits are unique in the New Zealand media, and she’s generally no slouch in business and economic commentary either.
But she must have got out on the wrong side of the bed the day she wrote ‘Dream of success keeps slipping away’ (New Zealand Herald, October 22, 2010).
She wrote that New Zealand is losing its place in the international league tables and that nothing we have done has made a jot of difference.
A reading of yesterday’s 2025 Taskforce report will cheer her up. It confirms – see the graph on p4 – that New Zealand kept pace with the average per capita growth rate of the OECD as a whole following the earlier economic reforms, only falling away in the last years of the 1999-2008 Labour government. In other words, the long-term decline relative to the OECD was arrested (although Australia did a bit better). OECD projections suggest that New Zealand will outperform the OECD average to 2025.
Polices do make a difference. I have not had time to go through the 2025 taskforce policies in depth but may get time next week to do so.
Whale Oil reports:
I have been leaked emails showing the co-ordination and organisation internally of the so called Board of Trustees revolt. What is apparent is that this isn’t an action being orchestrated by Boards, it is instead being run by the NZEI and the unionised principals. The Boards seem not to have been informed let alone the parents of the schools named in the revolt.
Here are two emails from Perry Rush, Prinicpal of Island Bay School. The first email makes it clear that Board Chairs may well have not been fully informed, or informed at all about the pending action.
You can read the e-mails at Whale.
The principals of course are doing this during the working day, from work premises. In other words us taxpayers are funding their campaign.
To my surprise my status as co-chair of The American Politics Appreciation Society got me an invite to the reception for US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Around two dozen people there all expressed amazement – not at me being there, but that I was wearing a suit. I explained that if they were the most powerful woman in the world, then I’d might wear a suit for them also.
Audrey Young snapped this photo of my brief conversation with Hillary, which mainly consisted of me saying how popular Chelsea was with those who got to meet her, when she was here in 1999.
Clinton and McCully spoke for around 20 minutes. Clinton is the absolute political professional – excellent at speaking with few notes, and working a room. She of course spent over a year campaigning to be President and came closer than any other woman has to winning that job. A lot of the discussion was about whether she might still manage it – either in 2016 (my theory) or 2012 (the theory of the stupid people who don’t understand a Cabinet Minister can not challenge a President). By 2016 she will be 69, but the US is not so anti older politicians – plus she looks considering younger than she is.
I’m actually more optimistic about Obama’s chances of re-election than most I chatted to there. If the economy improves, his chances will improve. Also the GOP controlled House may overplay its hand and get a backlash. Last but not least the choice of Republican candidate will be crucial.
Just received this e-mail:
Amazing – I’ve been going to Vic since 2004 and never been asked to comment on the services VUWSA provides before. Amazing what VSM can achieve – they actually have to check that they’re relevant to students!
What she is referring to is a online survey VUWSA have commissioned from TNS. The survey says:
This survey is your chance to direct VUWSA about which services you think are important and how well you think they are performing.
It is great VUWSA are doing something they have never done before – asked students what they think on issues and on what VUWSA should be doing. This is exactly what VSM is about – giving an incentive for student associations to be responsive to their members.
Labour and Greens are 100% committed to repealing VSM, so that students will lose any choice over joining a student association, and so VUWSA can go back to ignoring students – rather than asking them their opinions.
I encourage all Vic students to take part of the VUWSA survey. If Labour win the next election, they may never ever again be asked their opinion – this may be your only chance.
I would also encourage all other associations to consisder doing such a survey also- it may help you survive. Asking your members what they think is the first step in a process towards becoming responsive, accountable and eventually valuable.
iPredict released stocks today on who will win the Maori seats next year, and Epsom and Ohariu. Earlier this week also stocks on what each party will get as party vote in the election.
The current prediction for the election, is:
So you need 61 of 121 seats to govern. National/ACT/United are 62 seats. With Maori they are 67 seats. It shows the importance of ACT being there.
Labour/Greens are 54 seats. With Maori Party they could make 59 seats. Close but not quite there.
National is well ahead of Labour in the polls, but iPredict shows people think that come the election things will be closer. I agree.
The third quarter Household Labour Force Survey is out. The headline is that unemployment is down 0.5% which is good news. But as always, the interesting stuff is beyond the headline.
So most of the stats are moving the right way, but the under 20s continue to be priced out of employment.
Actually it says I got 7/10 but I accidentally hit the wrong answer in one question. Quiz here. 27 seconds.
Overall the changes made by the Select Committee to the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill represent an improvement. I’m especially pleased that they have effectively shelved for now the termination provisions, as I thought that would set a bad precedent. What are the changes?
The Greens have said they support the bill going forward, but think Internet suspension should be out of there entirely – not just held in reserve. I agree.
Ai I said, overall this improves the bill, and the bill itself was a huge improvement on the old S92A. MPs, and Simon Power, have done a good job of dealing with some challenging and complex issues.
However, the bill can be made better still – a universal burden of proof assumption is not warranted, and I hope MPs will consider further enhancements to the bill at the next stage.
A number of commenters have pointed out that the boards which have said they will not co-operate with the Ministry, did not consult any of the parents to whom they are accountable over their decisions. One parent sent me this letter they also sent to the Minister:
Two of my children attend Island Bay primary school, in southern Wellington.
The Board of Trustees recently provided a newsletter to parents advising that Island Bay school would not be complying with the requirements of the National Standards policy. This appears to represent a change in position by the newly-elected Board, and replaces an earlier resolution (reproduced on the Principal’s Federation website opposing National Standards) in which the then Board decided to comply with the requirements of the policy, while formally resolving that it did not support the policy.
The newsletter to parents states that the Board has resolved to write to you and to the Secretary of Education directly informing you of the position. They may not, however, have informed you of the poor process used in reaching the decision. We requested copies of Board papers considered in reaching the Board’s decision, and were informed that there were none. There was also no ex ante consultation with parents. The school advertised an open meeting at which it was stated that the Principal would articulate his (well known) views on National Standards: in fact, this meeting proved to be simply a vehicle for the Principal to explain the Board’s decision. We asked for a copy of the presentation slides used at this meeting and were refused – almost certainly a breach of the Official Information Act.
As a parent and as a taxpayer, I support the Government’s apparent desire to lift the performance of our education system and, as part of that, to provide parents and taxpayers with better information on the performance of our schools. I am relatively indifferent at present on the specifics of National Standards themselves, and regret that the National Party stepped away from, for example, the approach to education reform taken in its 2005 manifesto.
But the critical point now is that government policy, backed not only by a clear electoral mandate but also by legislation, must be, and be seen to be, implemented. The Island Bay Board of Trustees, and their employee the Principal, are simply refusing to do that. State schools are Crown entities. Most parents have little effective choice but to use state schools. We therefore expect that you and your ministry ensure that those charged with the management and governance of those Crown entities, which deliver formal education to our children, do their job. I fully respect the right of individual members of the Board of Trustees, and of staff, to disagree with the policy and its application. But they have an obligation – not just a moral obligation, but nothing less than that – to implement it. If they, as a matter of conscience, decide that they cannot implement it they must, as matter of moral obligation, resign. But if they won’t, you have a responsibility to dismiss them. You act for parents, for children, for taxpayers, and for the rule of law. I therefore urge you to make clear to the Island Bay Board of Trustees that they must either quickly comply or face dismissal. If there are no sanctions, the policy itself risks failing before it has ever been given a serious trial.
It is worth noting that very few schools are actually refusing to implement national standards. The 10% have merely said they will not tell the Ministry what their targets are.
I don’t think the Govt should sack non complying boards – that is what Simon Mitchell and co want – to be martyrs. I would just freeze discretionary funding. No access to capital funding for buildings or computers. Bottom of the priority list for connection to fibre etc etc.
Meanwhile Phil Goff has come out and shown he does not understand the issue. The Herald reports:
Labour leader Phil Goff said the system the Government was trying to ram into place wouldn’t succeed.
“Schools should be required to use the world-leading assessment tools already in place, not be required to use this untested, unclear and confusing system National is trying to impose on them,” he said.
Goff does not seem to understand that national standards is not a replacement for the world-leading assessment tools already in place. No school using them is being told or even encouraged to stop.
All national standards involve, are two additional steps.
That’s it.
The unions, and Labour, just don’t want parents to have this additional info. Here are some comments made yesterday by parents:
As a parent of 4 “children” having gone through mixture of schooling – public, USA, private and tertiary. Our son (my step-son) went through the public school system. When he got to year 6, we discovered he was way behind and could barely write a sentence. All his reports to this point had stated that although he was low on the scale, he was still in the range of normal for his age – using their scale which was sent home with the report. His teachers had never expressed any problems at any of the parent teacher interviews my husband went to, till his teacher in Year 6 took the told us there was a real problem. His teacher for 3 years running prior to this was the Vice Principal of the school.
Sadly, it was too late by then, Early identification allows for early intervention.
1635: Had a meeting to attend. The Republicans are doing better in the House than expected but have not won some Senate races where they were looking competitive. Harry Reid looks to have survived in Nevada which will come as a big relief to the Dems, and may be a lesson for the Republican base about getting then balance right between electability and core voter appeal.
In the House 538 now predicts that a 54 seat pick up (equal to what they got in the 1994 revolution) is the minimum they are projecting and it could go into the 60s
1348: Democrats Joe Manchin retains West Virginia for the Democrats. This pretty much confirms the Dems will hold the Senate.
1329 Now at the Malt House with a dozen others. TVs are rotating between Fox and CNN to keep everyone happy.
At this stage it is clear that the Republicans will take the House. I think the real issue is whether or not they will beat the 54 seat pick up of 1994.
Equally clear is a takeover of the Senate will not happen, unless there is a major upset. But the long term game for the GOP is not 51 seats in 2010 but to get 60 seats by 2014. If they get to 48 seats they will be well positioned for that.
Rubio has effectively won the Florida Senate seat.
The Herald reports:
Two men facing forgery charges following a bid to influence the Super City election allegedly ignored a court order to not speak with each other.
Daljit Singh and an associate, who has name suppression, appeared in Manukau District Court yesterday after being arrested for allegedly breaching bail.
The pair were granted bail on October 5 but one of the conditions was that they were forbidden from speaking to each other. The two men were again granted bail yesterday.
When there was an inquiry into Taito Philp Field, he went around everyone telling them what to say – additional offences he got convicted on.
The purpose of the Court telling defendants not to speak to each other is often to stop then conspiring on a story, so history seems to be repeating itself.
Gift duty brought in $1.8 million to the Government. It costs the Goverment $900,000 to collect it so net revenue is $900,000. The private sector compliance cost for all the returns etc was estimated at $70 million. So seems like a no brainer.
But nope, Goff led Labour think imposing a $70 million cost on NZers to collect a net $900,000 of extra revenue is a good thing, the Herald reports:
The scrapping of gift duty, announced by the Government on Monday, represents a tax cut by stealth for the wealthiest New Zealanders, Labour leader Phil Goff says.
“The abolition allows the very wealthiest New Zealanders to structure their affairs by transferring income and assets into trusts and to their children to reduce their tax liability,” he said.
I despair of the Opposition. I really do. Their politics of envy. If they even bothered to read the facts they would realise the very wealthiest are already transferring income and assets. The fact gift duty only collects $1.8 million a year is proof of that.
Just imagine – if Labour is willing to cost NZers $70 million a year to collect $900,000 of extra net revenue – just so it can say it is punishing rich pricks, how far will it go with hiking the top tax rate?
The really stupid thing about Goff’s statements are that as we have no death duties anymore, one can pass your savings onto your kids tax free by just keeping them until you die. But if you wish to say help your child with a contribution towards the deposit for their first home, then you get whacked with gift duty.
Okay over 600 votes in a couple of days. So let’s look at the results. Not remember these are not scientific results, but they do give some idea of the sentiments of Kiwiblog readers over time.
First we have the net approval ratings. This is the % who give an above average rating less the % who give a below average rating. The results are, with previous results, below.
| Net Approval | Nov-10 | Aug-09 | May-09 | Mar-09 |
| Key | 65% | 43% | 57% | 67% |
| English | 40% | 31% | 44% | 54% |
| Brownlee | 27% | 12% | 6% | 2% |
| Power | 23% | 31% | 41% | 54% |
| Ryall | 60% | 43% | 47% | 43% |
| Smith | -23% | -15% | -8% | 27% |
| Collins | 53% | 51% | 37% | 46% |
| Tolley | 13% | 3% | 13% | 21% |
| Finlayson | 36% | 47% | 52% | 53% |
So in terms of net approval eight out of nine Ministers have a positive rating. The exception is Nick Smith, and in my opinion that is probably more a reflection of sentiment on the ETS.
Six Ministers have improved their ratings since last August, and three have dipped. Those three are Power, Smith and Finlayson. There is perhaps a common theme of some discontent with certain policies coming through.
The nine Ministers in order of net approval are Key, Ryall, Collins, English, Finlayson, Brownlee, Power, Tolley and Smith. Note these are the blog poll ratings – not my personal views.
The PM has had a big lift in approval from last year – perhaps a combination of the Earthquake and the Hobbit movies. he has reclaimed the top spot.
English seems to have recovered from the housing issues of 2009 also, and has a solid +40% ratings
Gerry Brownlee would probably get the prize for most improved – from a +2% in Mar 2009 to +27% today.
Simon Power has gone the other way – he was 2nd highest in March 2009 and is in 7th place now. Perhaps the talk of regulating the Internet has not helped.
Ryall and Collins basically continue to have excellent ratings – Ryall especially has had a big jump up.
Nick Smith remains at No 9. Again, I think this is partly because of his portfolios.
Anne Tolley gains 10% from last year and seems to be gaining some fans for her refusal to be cowed by the unions.
Chris Finlayson retains a solid rating but has dropped a fair bit – no doubt linked to the Foreshore & Seabed issues.
Now let’s look at what I call the weighted average. This is where you assign a weight of 100% for very good, 75% for good, 50% for average, 25% for poor and 0% for very poor. This calculation captures the intensity of approval and disapproval, and anything over 50% signifies an above average rating.
| Weighted Average | Nov-10 | Aug-09 | May-09 | Mar-09 |
| Key | 79% | 68% | 76% | 80% |
| English | 63% | 60% | 66% | 70% |
| Brownlee | 57% | 53% | 50% | 49% |
| Power | 58% | 61% | 66% | 71% |
| Ryall | 76% | 67% | 70% | 66% |
| Smith | 39% | 43% | 44% | 58% |
| Collins | 73% | 73% | 66% | 70% |
| Tolley | 53% | 49% | 53% | 57% |
| Finlayson | 64% | 68% | 71% | 71% |
Three Ministers are in the 70s – Key, Ryall and Collins. In the 60s we have Finlayson and English. The 59s have Power, Brownlee and Tolley and Nick Smith at under 50%.
So overall sentiment about most Ministers is up from 14 months ago – close to the what it was in the first half of 2009.
I’ll try and remember to do another of these in the 1st half of 2011.
Elizabeth Binning in the Herald reports:
More than 200 schools are refusing to introduce part of the Government’s mandatory national standards next year after voting “no confidence” in the system.
Boards of trustees of at least 225 schools – out of a national total of 2018 – say it is time to take action against the standards, which they say are “flawed, confusing and unworkable” and need to be completely reviewed.
So around 10% of the schools boards have succumbed to the NZEI and NZPF campaign. And in fact they are not refusing to intrdouce national standards – they are just not going to tell the Ministry what targets they are setting.
Parents at those schools will it seems still get reporting against national standards in their reports. I imagine this is because parents overwhelmingly have said they do want this information.
Balmoral School, in Auckland, is one of the schools which says it will not implement any part of the standards.
Board chairman Simon Mitchell said the issue was not about having standards, as most schools already did, but that national standards would not help underachievers and would instead result in children who did not meet the required level being labelled failures.
Simon Mitchell. Hmmn, an interesting name. Is that the same Simon Mitchell who is a Labour Party activist, sought the Mt Albert nomination, and infamously known as the man who purchased the forged painting in Paintergate and got it destroyed. Mitchell is also the lawyer (if the same Mitchell) who told employees not to accept a job with a company of fewer than 20 employees due to the trial period law. Now that it being extended to all employers, will he advise employees to never seek a job with anyone?
What a coincidence.
The Herald reports:
Hundreds have gathered in Christchurch this afternoon for a funeral to farewell celebrated war hero Lieutenant Colonel John Milbanke Masters.
Mr Masters, who famously saved the life of a Gurkha soldier under heavy fire in Borneo in 1965, and was instrumental in getting recognition for war veterans exposed to the defoliant agent orange, died last week at age 75.
Among the mourners who gathered today at St Barnadas church were Defence Minister Wayne Mapp, Chief of Defence Force Lieutenant General Jerry Mateparae, senior leaders of the RSA and numerous war veterans wearing their medals pinned to their chests.
Masters worked so hard for the welfare of his fellow veterans, that he was an easy and popular choice for inaugural ANZAC of the Year.
In April this year, Mr Masters was named as New Zealand’s inaugural Anzac of the Year, an award recognising comradeship, courage and commitment.
The Military Cross, presented to Masters by the Queen, followed an action in Borneo in 1965 when Masters, attached to a Gurkha regiment, was retreating with his patrol under heavy fire. A sergeant-major was badly wounded in the legs. Masters carried the Gurkha for 54 hours through thick jungle and swamp. He then hid the wounded soldier in the jungle, got back to base, and organised a search party, travelling with them back through the jungle to retrieve their injured comrade.
54 hours!!
The Dom Post has an editorial and a story on MPs perks today, and both rather over-state their case in my opinion.
The editorial is on transparency over the MPs travel perks. Now my position is actually the same as the Dom Post’s – that the perk should be abolished. But the editorial goes too far when it says:
Dr Smith argues that the subsidy, which cost $432,989 last year, is actually paid for by MPs collectively forgoing part of their salary entitlement.
It is an argument that bears a passing acquaintance with the facts. The Remuneration Authority takes account of the cost of the subsidy when setting MPs’ pay.
That is not a passing acquaintance with the facts. It is 100% correct, even if the Dom Post does not like it.
The travel subsidy, like many other MPs’ perks, was initially introduced in lieu of a pay rise. However, when responsibility for setting MPs’ pay was transferred from Parliament to the Remuneration Authority’s predecessor, the Higher Salaries Commission, it ignored many of the entitlements MPs had voted themselves.
It did – up until 2003. In 2003 the Remuneration Authority moved to a total remuneration calculation where it calculates what should be the total remuneration for an MP, and deducts off the super subsidy and the travel perks.
Hence MPs receive what an independent body thinks their jobs are worth plus the value of the extras they have voted themselves over the years
No this is absolutely wrong. The independent body works out what their jobs are worth and deducts the value of the extras off the remuneration to calculate a base salary.
extras that inflate the base salary of today’s MPs from $131,000 to more than $180,000.
Not quite. The Herald calculates it as:
That is around $170,000 as the value of an MPs remuneration package.
That gives even the meanest MP an income higher than 99 per cent of his fellow citizens. Whether it is too much is a matter of judgment, but it is not a matter of judgment that should be exercised by those who stand to benefit from it.
Eight years ago Parliament was advised to set up an independent body to determine MPs’ pay and entitlements, but when the legislation reached Parliament’s standing orders committee – a body every bit as powerful and self-interested as any trade union – it was gutted.
The ongoing furore over MPs’ travel expenses is the price MPs pay for refusing to surrender control of their pay and perks. It is a price successive Speakers have been happy to pay, but it is not one the public should tolerate.
MPs’ pay and perks should be set by an independent body that takes account of comparable pay rates here and overseas, the state of the economy and workloads.
I agree they should all be set by the Remuneration Authority, but I don’t think it would reduce the “furore” over pay and perks.
Now in this article we read:
Members of Parliament are secretly planning to change the rules around their $24,000-a-year accommodation allowance to make it easier for those who make Wellington their home to still be counted as out-of-towners.
Under the new rules, MPs will be able to nominate a “home base” where they normally live when not doing parliamentary business in Wellington. If that is outside Wellington, they will qualify for the accommodation allowance.
I have not got a copy of the new rules, but from what I can glean the change is around wording, not substance. The old rules referred to primary residence and the new rules refer to a “home base”. The Auditor-general herself said the term “primary residence” was not a useful one as the test has never been where an MP spends most of their time. If that was the test, then no Minister would ever be found to live outside Wellington.
One has to approach this from a principled approach, in relation to the fact the job of an MP requires them to live in Wellington some of the time, and when in Wellington they need to be have a place to live. The principle is that an MP should not be out of pocket for what is a work related expense, but neither should they gain from it.
If an MP, before they became an MP, resided outside of Wellington then their Wellington accommodation expenses get met (up to a limit) by the taxpayer. The exception to this is if the MP abandons their out of Wellington residence – either by selling it or renting it out. If they do that, then they are gaining at taxpayer expense.
The Auditor-General ruled (as did Speakers Hunt and Wilson) that Bill English was entitled to a Wellington accommodation allowance because he still maintained his Dipton property. If he had sold it or was leasing it out, then they would have found differently.
The one change I would make is I would bar MPs from having a direct or indirect interest in the Wellington accommodation they claim the allowance for. The Greens had their super scheme own several as a way to maximise income for themselves – and in fact were even claiming twice for the same property. Other MPs have owned the places they rented.
So the change in the rules is fine – the only potential for abuse is:
But one MP agreed yesterday that under the new definition it might be possible for an MP to maintain a small empty apartment out of Wellington and nominate it as a “home base”, when it would not have fitted within the definition of a primary residence as most people understood it.
In theory yes it is possible an Minister could move their family to Wellington, and sell their five bedroom house in the electorate and designate a small apartment as their home base. But there is always a way for venal people to rort the rules – and if any tried to do that, I would hope the media will expose that.
You could try and have a rule that an MP does not downgrade their home residence while they are an MP, but frankly it is unworkable – what if their kids move out of home etc.
So no problems with the change, but I do think it would be desirable to do a further change – to ban MPs from claiming the allowance for a property they have a direct or indirect interest in.
Do you recall Len Brown saying h would announce 100 initiatives or policies in his first 100 days in office – 1 a day.
Today is Day 2. I presume Day 1 was spend lots of money getting sworn in. so what was the big policy for Day 2.
He announced it on Breakfast this morning. They’re going to clean the windows of the Town Hall.
Day 1 it turns out was doing designations for the planned rail tracks. No problems with that as early designations help, but I await with interest his policy on how much he will increase rates to pay for his rail plans.
Len may think he has a mandate for the rail – and he does if the ratepayers of Auckland who voted for him are willing to pay for it. But he does not have a mandate to demand the taxpayers of Wellington, Napier, Nelson and Christchurch pay for it. In fact the best quote I can give comes from Labour’s Stuart Nash:
All this posturing, threats and huge budget promises re Auckland from their new councillors etc makes me shake my head in disbelief.
Akld is but one of many cities in this wonderful country and if Aucklanders think they have pre-eminent rights on all of our taxes then they need to pull their heads out from their nether-regions and get real. New Zealand does well when all New Zealanders are thriving.
Well said Mr Nash.
Brian Fallow in the Herald reports:
The Government is to abolish gift duty, confident any risks to creditor protection or the targeting of social assistance programmes can be met by other laws.
The 125-year-old tax has brought in an average of $2.2 million a year over the past seven years, and on a declining trend.
But officials estimate it imposes $70 million a year in compliance costs on taxpayers, or rather on non-taxpayers, as only about 900 or 0.4 per cent of the 225,000 gift duty statements filed to the Inland Revenue a year disclose a liability to pay the tax.
A sensible move by Peter Dunne. Peter has been a revenue Minister in three separate governments, and has actually a achieved a lot of useful reform.
The good news with the law change is that Kiwblog readers can now donate more than $27,000 per annum to me, without attracting gift duty 🙂
Lincoln Tan in the Herald reports:
A government office promoting ethnic diversity has pulled support from a multi-ethnic carnival over pictures it deemed offensive to Muslims – without apparently consulting Islamic groups.
The Office of Ethnic Affairs said “highly inappropriate” pictures on the website of the Auckland International Carnival, including scantily clad Cook Islands and Brazilian dancers, would upset Muslims and called for the office’s logo to be removed from promotional material.
What is interesting is how the PC bureaucrats in Wellington have decided that the sensitivities of one religion out strip the cultural traditions of all other cultures, and even worse make this decision without even consulting anyone.
The Islamic federation said the office had appeared to reach its decision without consultation.
Javed Khan, the federation’s senior vice-president, said such pictures might be viewed as inappropriate but many Muslims also would respect that the way the dancers were dressed “was part of their culture”.
“We have not made any complaints, and I am not aware of any Muslim groups who did,” Mr Khan said.
Bravo to Javed Khan. I have said many times that I think we are fortunate in NZ that the senior leadership of the Islamic community is moderate and they are good ambassadors for their community.
A director of the company behind the festival, Patrick Iwobi, said the organisers were deeply disappointed “that officials at a Government agency, meant to support ethnic people in New Zealand, is hell-bent on destroying the reputation of those who are trying to put together an ethnic event”.
Carnival organiser Jocelyn Sasa says dealing with the Office of Ethnic Affairs had been “a nightmare”, but there was no plan to remove its logo.
“It will cost us $20,000 to replace all the promotional materials. We just don’t have that kind of money and the OEA says they will not pay the cost, so their logo stays.”
Can I suggest that Minister Pansy needs to bash some heads together in the Office of Ethnic Affairs.
The Herald reports:
Labour leader Phil Goff said the SAS should not be fighting for a corrupt regime that had failed to lift the “hearts and minds” of the people.
I’m confused. Is Phil Goff saying the SAS should have refused to obey instructions from the last Government? 🙂
I agree it was despicable they way they defended the actions of Taito Philip Field, but I think saying the SAS should have refused to fight for them is a bit too strong.
I blogged yesterday about the claim to remember McDonalds opening in Porirua, which happened when Kris was one year old. Since then, Whale has produced a series of photos showing other events Kris remembers being at. This is my favourite.
A reader has sent me a copy that Labour has distributed around the electorate. It is below.
Just hold your screen on its side to read it. Anyway the key quote is “I had a great start because my family settled in Mana”.
Now this is pushing the truth to breaking point. Yes Kris has cousins and uncles and aunts in Mana whom he visited. But he was born and raised in Christchurch. 99% of people reading his brochure would take his statement to imply he grew up in Mana.
I don’t personally think it is a huge issue that Kris was not raised in Mana. Neither was Winnie Laban off memory. But this is the second time that Labour and Kris has pushed the boundaries of the truth to create a false impression – they obviously think it is vital.
One could also quibble over his slogan to vote Faafoi to vote for more jobs for Mana. Never known a backbench Opposition MP to be able to create jobs – but that at least is a subjective view that can be debated.
It would be interesting if someone complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the brochure, as that would give a ruling on whether or not the brochure stretches the truth so far as to be misleading.
I had an uncle and aunt in Perth whom I visited occasionally. I would never claim “I had a great start because my family settled in Perth”.