The Press reports:

Two daughters of a woman who died in the Mt Erebus disaster have rejected claims that Air New Zealand’s use of “whoop whoop” in advertising is insensitive.

There was a “whoop whoop” warning from a ground-proximity system just before an Air New Zealand DC-10 crashed into Antarctica’s Mt Erebus in 1979, killing 257 people.

A new Air New Zealand domestic-fare campaign uses “whoop whoop!” at the bottom of an advertisement, below the words “Let’s party like it’s $19.99”.

The advertisement has prompted a woman who lost her father in the crash to label the airline’s use of the phrase as insensitive.

“It definitely tugs at the heartstrings,” Jayne Holtham said. “The second you say that, you remember the last few seconds of the flight.”

Holtham’s father, Bryan, died in the air disaster.

“It is pretty s… marketing, obviously they’re not even thinking about that,” she said.

However, Susan O’Rourke, whose mother Marlene Hansen was a passenger on the flight, said the phrase did not upset her.

“It’s commonly used. I have even used it on my Facebook page, so I’ve got no issues with it,” she said.

“It’s used all over the world by many different people, especially younger ones.”

O’Rourke’s sister, Melanie Fishburn, said she was not worried by the phrase.

However, the sisters said they understood why some relatives might be upset.

I think 31 years after Erebus, it is fair enough to use the expression “whoop whoop” and not have it seen as associated with that crash.

The Press reports:

A Christchurch business has rejected union claims it told staff to come to work on the day of the Canterbury earthquake.

Unite Union alleged Garden City Bowl staff had been told in “no uncertain terms” to come to work after the 7.1-magnitude quake.

“Staff came in under duress and didn’t feel very confident. The company realised they weren’t going to make any money that day and sent the workers home. For that whole weekend they received no pay for lost hours,” Nelson-Christchurch Unite organiser Matt Jones said.

Keeping Stock has been doing an admirable job blogging on Matt Jones, and his antics in Christchurch.

At a time where most of the community are working together, Jones seems to be exploiting the earthquake to gain publicity. It is rather nasty.

However, Julie Williamson, group human resources manager, denied those claims.

She said workers were advised not to come to work on Saturday, other than two technical staff who were paid.

Williamson said staff scheduled to work on Saturday were paid and “given the required period of notice” the centre would not open on Sunday.

Some of these businesses may go under and all the staff lose their jobs. I’ve worked for a small business. Even a week of no income can be devastating.

Karl du Fresne writes:

I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of the contemptible schoolyard bullying reported last week by TV3 political editor Duncan Garner. Presumably it was overtaken by the much bigger drama unfolding around David Garrett and ACT.

An agitated Witana, an executive member of the Principals’ Federation, then turned on an extraordinary performance in front of Garner, gesticulating and speaking directly to the TV3 camera, saying things like “Don’t make me look terrible Duncan” and “Don’t make me dislike you.” He looked so emotionally unstable that Garner could have been excused for feeling slightly threatened himself – just as parents with children under Witana’s care might have been excused for wondering whether he needed to take stress leave.

And it is no surprise that so few teachers, principals or schools will speak publicly in favour of national standards. They know what will happen if they do.

Interviewed for TV3 News, Newman (whom Kiwiblog’s David Farrar reports is seeking the Labour Party nomination for Whangarei) tried to skew the issue, suggesting that principals and boards of trustees were not being allowed to question and criticise education policy.

I’m not aware of anyone trying to deny them that right. The issue here is one of intimidation and harassment of a colleague who dared dissent from the union line.

Intolerance of minority or opposing views can be a deeply unattractive aspect of trade union culture, and it’s not the first time we’ve seen evidence of it in the teaching unions. Attempts to introduce bulk funding in secondary schools in the 1990s were sabotaged by blatant teacher intimidation of elected school boards and the worst shame of it was that the Bolger government was too gutless to intervene.

School that took it up were threatened with black-listing, and that their schools may become ungovernable.

My lesson from this, is that National’s error was to make bulk funding a choice. It should just have been announced and implemented.

I’d love National to have a 2011 education policy that fully bulk funds all schools, allows parents maximum choice in schools, and brings in full performance pay for teachers.

Whatever the background factors, nothing excuses Witana and Newman for behaving like a couple of gang enforcers. It’s intolerable enough that teacher activists should arrogantly defy an elected government, and in so doing place themselves above the democratic process that other public servants submit to; but it becomes even more offensive when they collectively monster anyone brave or rash enough to defy them.

The irony, of course, is that schools are supposedly united in their determination to stamp out bullying. It’s officially not condoned in the playground, but a different standard seems to apply in staff rooms.

Footnote: Several of the anonymous comments attacking Donnelly on the TV3 website clearly came from teachers, some of whom displayed only a primitive grasp of grammar and spelling. Herein may lie one of the reasons for the almost hysterical resistance to national standards

Heh well spotted.

The PCO has usefully listed together all the regulations made around the Canterbury Earthquake.

As I have said before, vigilance is important when it comes to the use of these extraordinary powers. It is my intention to regularly publish updates, so people are aware of what has been regulated.

Gerryorder 1 -Canterbury Earthquake (Resource Management Act) Order 2010

• Last until 31 March 2012
• Only applies to CRC, CCC, SDC and WDC
• provides for the extension of certain time periods prescribed by or under the RMA
• relaxes certain administrative and other duties; and it modifies certain statutory requirements
• provides immunity from prosecution for the local authorities for omissions that permit a contravention of the Act where that omission is reasonably necessary

Gerryorder 2- Canterbury Earthquake (Transport Legislation) Order 2010

• expires 30 November 2010
• Only applies to CCC, SDC and WDC
• exempts operators of heavy motor vehicles from certain provisions regarding heavy motor vehicles where those heavy motor vehicles are operated as part of a relevant authority’s response to the Canterbury earthquake

Gerryorder 3 – Canterbury Earthquake (Local Government Act 2002) Order 2010 Explanatory note

• expires 30 June 2011
• Only applies to CRC, CCC, SDC and WDC
• exempts them from requirements such as full cost benefit analysis before any decision is made, Maori consultation, community consultation
• also exempts them  from requirement must be consistent with long-term plan
• exemptions only apply if necessary or desirable for earthquake recovery etc

Gerryorder 4 – Canterbury Earthquake (Civil Defence Emergency Management Act) Order 2010

Covered previously.

Gerryorder 5 – Canterbury Earthquake (Building Act) Order 2010

• expires 16 September 2011
• only applies to CCC, SDC and WDC
• enable councils in the Canterbury region to take appropriate action in respect of dangerous buildings and related issues arising from the Canterbury earthquake

Social Security (Income and Cash Assets Exemptions—Canterbury Earthquake) Regulations 2010

• provide for payments made in relation to the effects of the Canterbury earthquake of 4 September 2010 on or after 13 September 2010 out of the fund created by donations made to the Canterbury Earthquake Appeal of New Zealand Red Cross Incorporated to be treated as being neither income nor cash assets for benefit purposes

Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Regulations (No 3) 2010

• provide for payments made in relation to the effects of the Canterbury earthquake of 4 September 2010 on or after 13 September 2010 out of the fund created by donations made to the Canterbury Earthquake Appeal of New Zealand Red Cross Incorporated to be treated as being neither income nor cash assets for residential care means testing purposes

Social Security (Temporary Additional Support) Amendment Regulations (No 3) 2010

• provide for payments made in relation to the effects of the Canterbury earthquake of 4 September 2010 on or after 13 September 2010 out of the fund created by donations made to the Canterbury Earthquake Appeal of New Zealand Red Cross Incorporated to be treated as being neither income nor cash assets for temporary additional support eligibility purposes

Tax Administration (Emergency Event-Canterbury Earthquake) Order 2010

• covers taxpayers who were unable to pay their tax on time due to the earthquake
• allows the IRD Commissioner to waive penalty interest rates on late payments

The Herald reports:

The Government chose not to lower the drink-driving limit despite receiving advice that doing so could save lives, papers show.

Of course it could save lives. Having a speed limit of 30 km/hr will save lives. Having a zero blood alcohol limit will save lives.

The sensible question is how many lives could it save, and how many drivers will be affected negatively by a policy change. A 30 km/hr speed limit would save probably 300 lives a year but would affect three million motorists every day.

Advice from the Ministry of Transport said a lower limit would save up to 33 lives a year.

An email from a ministry employee said statistics showed people with a blood alcohol level between 0.8 and 0.5 caused 30 deaths between 2006-2008.

From 2006 to 2008, 21 drivers involved in fatal accidents were found to have a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.  That probably relates to the 30 deaths.

However, what is overlooked is that some of those deaths involved younger drivers who already have a BAC of 0.03 – ie they were already breaking the law, and a law change would have no impact on them.

If you exclude under 25s (who should have pretty much a zero alcohol limit), then the number of drivers involved in fatal crashes with 0.05 to 0.08 BAC is six – or two drivers a year on average.

So on current knowledge, a law change might result in two less fatal crashes a year – around a 1% reduction. That is assuming those drivers would change their behaviour in response to a law change.

But what we don’t know, and what the Government has sensibly decided to find out, is how many drivers such a law change would criminalise? In other words how many drivers do actually drive at that level, and what is their rate of accidents?

Once we have that data, a decision can be made more reliably.

a Cabinet paper said keeping the same level would mean the goal of reducing the level of drink driving fatalities to the Australian rate would not be met.

A reduction to the Australian rate is a fine target, to aim for. But a reader has pointed out to me, does this mean we need joint exercises with the Aussies.

The Police talk of Operation Unite here.

Acting Assistant Commissioner Win Van der Velde, Specialist Operations, Police National Headquarters, said the combined New Zealand and Australia police jurisdictions Operation Unite has reinforced the message that police, partner agencies and the public need to work together to reduce alcohol related harm on both sides of the Tasman.

My reader writes:

NZ /Aust Police and customs unite to enforce drug law, money laundering, terrorism and other shared border threats or Inter -pol related matters but it’s not as if the 2 country’s police forces need to be on alert for offender’s driving drunk between the 2 continents!

Aside from the mixed messages and a negative spin in police reporting of less than a 1% nabbed – yet police are still disappointed, I can see the merit in police unity with partnership agencies, community and public but can’t see a cross border risk with the need for uniting Aussie and NZ forces

Our police and the Aussie police are autonomous – I’m sure each country’s police can operate these blitzes – they are pretty standard in the way they are administered, managed and performed aren’t they? –  autonomously and within their own HQ’s without any need for conference  or consultation and I fail to see sense in the fraternity of this campaign.

Or, does it serve for funding trips to Aussie for our boys in blue?

I think she has a fair point. There are many many logical things for Australian and NZ Police to combine forces on. But drink driving blitzes is not one of them – unless someone builds a bridge from Waitemata to Hobart.

I’m not arguing against drink driving blitzes – I think there should be more of them. I just don’t see how this is an issue needing international co-ordination.

Simon Power announced last week:

Voters will be able to re-enrol and update their details online in time for next year’s general election, Justice Minister Simon Power said today.

Cabinet has decided that legislation to be introduced to Parliament in November, is the first step in a process that will also eventually allow voters to use the Internet to enrol for the first time.

Currently, voters have to complete and sign a written form when enrolling and making changes to their details.

The Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill No.2 allows voters to re-enrol and make changes to their details online using the ‘igovt’ government logon service, which is run by the Department of Internal Affairs. This will take effect from the middle of next year when the legislation is expected to be passed.

A good step forward. The igovt login service should be secure – more secure than our current system which allows anyone to enrol without showing proof of identity or residence.

And don’t get me started on how you can even vote without proof of identity.

Would be good to have trialled Internet voting for some local body elections this year. With a user name, password and token it can be as secure as Internet banking.

Must see video of Paul Henry accepting his People’s Choice Award at the Qantas Awards. He reads out a letter from one of his “fans”. Classic. Includes more swearing that a Southpark video include the c word.

Hat Tip: NBR

Darien Fenton at Red Alert blogs:

A UMR survey released today by the CTU shows that 80 per cent of New Zealanders oppose the Government’s planned changes to dismissal law.  Previous polls had asked the question about whether respondents supported a 90 day trial and unsurprisingly, the majority said yes – because after all these were already allowed under previous law.

But Darien is wrong in claiming the UMR poll shows 80% are opposed. The question that was asked is:

“Do you think that all employees should have the right to appeal if they think they have been unfairly dismissed, even if their dismissal was during the first 90 days of their employment?

Now that question is open to a very wide interpretation. An appeal can mean anything from asking your boss to reconsider, to appealing to your boss’ boss to “appealing” to the ERA.  The question is so wide, that it of relatively little value (in my opinion) in judging whether or not people support or oppose the Govt’s law change.

Note this is not a criticism of UMR.  This is a criticism of how Labour and the CTU have portrayed the results.

As a comparison, let us look at the poll done by Colmar Brunton for One News. It asked:

Currently employment law allows a business to take on a new worker and then if it does not work out dismiss that worker within 90 days without the worker being able to take a personal grievance claim. Currently the scheme only applies to companies with fewer than twenty employees but now the government plans to extend the 90 day trial period to cover all companies and so all new workers could be subject to the scheme. Some people believe this places workers in a vulnerable position but the government claims it creates jobs because businesses will be more willing to take on a new worker.

Do you think the 90 day trial law should be extended to cover all companies every time someone starts a new job?

Now this is a far better question (for judging if someone agrees with the Government’s proposed law change) as it tells people what the current law is, tells them what the proposed change is, and summarises arguments for and against.

Colmar Brunton found 60% in favour of extending the 90 day law to all companies.

This is a good example of the importance of poll questions. And again it isn’t that one question is necessarily “good” and one is “bad”.  It is about whether one can fairly interpret the poll result as reflecting what the public think of a proposed law change.

It is quite clear that the UMR result can not be used as representing public opinion on the Government’s law change. All it can be used for is representing whether people think there should be some sort of generic appeal from dismissal decisions – no details on who the appeal should be to – which is crucial. And an appeal is not the same as the right to take a personal grievance and get compensation etc.

One has to wonder why the CTU did not ask the same question as One News? The answer is obvious.

18 months into the first terms, the presidential approval ratings for various Presidents was:

1. Eisenhower 75%
2. Bush GWH 74%
3. JFK 67%
4. LBJ 65%
5. Bush GW 65%
6. Nixon 55%
7. Ford 48%
8. Carter 43%
9. Clinton 43%
10. Reagan 41%
11. Obama 41%
12. Truman 34%

Reagan, Clinton and Truman all went on to win another term, so maybe Obama is following their strategy of not peaking too early!

Okay, well here are my thoughts on my local Council.

Mayor

• Al Mansell
• Bernard O’Shaughnessy
• Bryan Robert Pepperell
• Kerry Prendergast
• Celia Wade-Brown
• Jack Yan

It is effectively a two person race between Kerry Prendergast and Celia Wade-Brown.

I’m voting for Kerry on the very simple grounds that I think she has done a good job, that Wellington is heading in the right direction, and that she is effective at making things happen.

Have not agreed with Kerry on every issue – especially the daft proposal to have a city wide liquor ban. But I do think she has been a good Mayor.

She can be tough, but you need this at times. For example she was one of the local government negotiators that got the Government to agree to up its contributions to sorting out leaky homes from 10% to 25%.

Celia Wade-Brown is a good Councillor in my opinion, and has run an energetic campaign. She is a Green Party member and while she has some good policies, she is opposed to the very sensible four lanes expressway from the airport to Levin.

I will be ranking Kerry No 1.

Celia will be No 2, Jack Yan No 3, Bernard No 4, Al Mansell No 5 and Bryan Pepperell No 6.

Lambton Ward (3 councillors)

• John Bishop
• Stephanie Cook
• Adam Cunningham
• Michael Fowler
• Marcus Ganley
• Mark Greening
• Ian McKinnon
• Iona Katherine Mary Pannett
• Kris Price

Two of the three choices are very easy to make – Ian McKinnon and John Bishop. Ian does an excellent job as Deputy Mayor and is highly respected.

John would be a superb addition to the Council. He is very good at working with diverse groups of people to achieve good outcomes, has sensible instincts and is not one of those people who will grandstand or cause trouble just to get name recognition. He will lend a good strategic focus to Council.

The third choice is harder.. You have incumbent Councillors Stephanie Cook and Iona Pannett. You also have former Mayor Michael Fowler.

Sir Michael was a great Mayor, but I think his contributions lay in the past.

I have voted for Stephanie Cook in the past, despite her Alliance/Green background. She has been good with the community groups. However I think people can serve too long on a Council and after 15 years she seems to be losing her energy.

The Wellingtonian had a panel assess Councillors in July, and Stephanie got rated pretty poorly.

My third pick is going to be Green City Councillor Iona Pannett. It goes without saying we disagree on quite a few policy areas. However she was the leader of the forces against the daft city wide liquor ban, which I very much supported her on.

Being a Councillor is not just about voting on policy and spending, but also about representing and helping the community and Iona does an excellent job there. The Wellingtonian panel actually rated her the most accessible and effective Councillor – which is a real tribute for a first termer.

She also works hard for election. She knocked on my door in 2007  and did so again in 2010. I like candidates who put in the hard yards actually meeting the voters.

So Iona will be ranked No 3.

Northern Ward (3 Councillors)

• Ngaire Best
• Camilia Chin
• Justin Lester
• Gareth R Morgan
• Helene Ritchie
• Gary W Roberts
• Hayley Wain

I always recommend voting Helene Ritchie bottom. Over a period of around 30 years she has shown herself to be almost incapable fo working with others. She even got sacked as Deputy Mayor in the 1980s by her own team, she was so bad.

Ngaire Best is an incumbent Councillor and who I would rank 1 if in the ward.

When Hayley Wain was elected to Council in 2004 I was delighted. I think it was great that an 18 year old wanted to stand, and could get elected. And I think she did a pretty good job in her first term.

I’m not sure what has happened, but she doesn’t seem to have done well this term. The Wellingtonian panel absolutely caned her and said she was the least effective Councillor.

I feel a bit sad saying this, as I like Hayley, but I think it is time for her to have a break from the Council, finish her studies, and get a job in the “real world”. Then down the track I think she would be in a very strong position to continue contributing.

So who to support from the challengers? I like Justin Lester. He is a small business owner, has run a good campaign and seems a good choice.

Gary Roberts looks a reasonable punt also. Don’t know about him but he is a former military policeman, and head of the local RSA which I approve of.

As with all these positions, comments from locals sharing their views is welcome.

Onslow-Western Ward (3 Councillors)

• Sharon Blaikie
• Jo Coughlan
• Mike Fleming
• Andy Foster
• John Morrison
• Jack Ruben
• Ingrid Sage

Fairly simple here. I would re-elect Jo Coughlan, John Morrison and Andy Foster – rank them 1, 2 and 3 and rank Jack Ruben 7. The three Councillors are all good people, even if Andy did have a brain fart over the indoor stadium.

Eastern Ward (3 Councillors)

• Ray Ahipene-Mercer
• Taima Fagaloa
• Mike Fiechter
• Leonie Gill
• Rob Goulden
• Simon ‘Swampy’ Marsh
• Mike Mellor
• Amanda Nicolle
• Allan Probert
• Rosemary Russell
• Tony Travers

I would rank Simon “Swampy” Marsh as No 1. He is a great guy, who was an iconic radio figure for many years. He is one of the more creative guys you can meet, and has strong community and business links. I think Swampy would be an excellent addition to the Council.

I would also put in a good word for Amanda Nicolle. Amanda is a fellow panelist on Face Off on ZB with me, and has a passion for Wellington. She is a good peron to get things done.

The three current Councillors are all quite well known. I’d keep at least one of them on – so people should also support their preferred incumbent.

Southern Ward (2 Councillors)

• Paul Eagle
• Ida Faiumu-Isa’ako
• Keith Johnson
• Greg McPhee
• Will Moore
• Thomas Morgan
• Rex Nairn
• Bernard O’Shaughnessy
• Seann Paurini
• Bryan Robert Pepperell

I’ll just put in a plug for Seann Paurini. Seann is an old friend, and cares deeply about helping those most in need. I don’t agree with all his policies, but do know he would be a diligent advocate.

As always I recommend ranking Peperell bottom. Of course they won’t, and he’ll get back in as name recognition is what most people vote on.

Hard to judge the others on the basis of bios. Rex Nairn looks like he might be okay. Again comments welcome from locals.

Started by the fake Paul Holmes twitter account, no less.

http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23surnamegenitalia

• Frodo’s Baggins
• Alan’s bollard.
• John’s Key
• Elizabeth’s Windsor
• Phil’s goff
• Mel’s gibson
• Charlotte’s dawson
• Ann’s coulter
• Cameron’s slater
• Russell’s brand
• Vladimir’s Putin
• Simon’s power
• Halle’s berry
• Nelly’s furtado
• Farrah’s fawcett
• Nicole’s whippy
• Paul’s henry
• Pippa’s wetzell

More are coming at at the rate of several a minute. Oh I do love Twitter.

The Press reports:

The woman who put up a strong challenge for the Christchurch mayoralty three years ago is Labour’s pick for the Wigram seat, either in a by-election or next year’s general election.

Megan will be the next Labour MP for Wigram. Little doubt of that.

But I would caution media from applying labels which are not that accurate.

In 2007 Woods only got 32% of the vote in the Mayoral election, despite being the centre left candidate in a fairly leftish city. Parker got 45% and Jo Giles (former ACT) got 14%.

A member of the Spreaydon-Heathcote community board between 2004 and 2007, she put up a strong challenge for the Christchurch mayoralty that year, polling 34,000 votes, about 10,000 less than Parker.

She polled 32,821 votes and it was not about 10,000 less than Parker – it was about 14,000 less.

Congratulations to my friends in the Swedish Christian Democrats, wo have just got re-elected to Government.

Reuters reports:

Official preliminary results showed the centre-right coalition government winning 173 seats in the 349-seat parliament and the Social Democrat-led centre-left with 156 seats.

Reinfeldt, who has benefited from one of Europe’s strongest economic recoveries and sound public finances, would be the first sitting center-right leader ever to win re-election in Sweden. The Social Democrats, architects of Sweden’s welfare model, ruled for much of the last century.

A very good result to be the first CR Government re-elected. The Moderate Party is the largest CR party.

However, the big news of the night for a country which has long prided itself as being one of the most tolerant in Europe was that the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats looked set to win 20 seats, their first entry to the national parliament.

This is not a surprise. In most countries in Europe there is a backlash against immigration. Not against all immigration, but against immigrations where immigrants do not assimilate into the local community, but instead form hostile enclaves.

The Herald reports:

Firebrand Maori Party MP Hone Harawira is considering a tilt at the party’s leadership over the foreshore and seabed legislation, claims Ngapuhi academic and leader David Rankin.

At this point my radar tells me not to take it seriously. Rankin has a long history of making oddball claims.

Andrew Geddis blogs at Pundit:

Parliament’s Law and Order committee has, by a majority consisting of National and Act members, recommended the enactment of Paul Quinn’s Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill – although they would change its name to the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill.

My first response to this news was wry amusement that despite me being the only submitter in favour (along with Paul Quinn the author), that the select committee went along. Of course that is not due to any powers of advocacy on my behalf, but because it is a National MPs bill.

This proposal is downright wrong in its intent, outright stupid in its design and (if finally enacted) would be such an indelible stain on the parliamentary lawmaking process as to call into question that institution’s legitimacy to act as supreme lawmaker for our society.

Now Andrew is a polite sort of chap. So when he starts bolding his comments, you take notice. It’s a sort of halfway house to shouting in CAPS.

The majority of the Law and Order select committee obviously agrees with him. Why? I have no idea, because the majority says nothing at all about why the basic principle behind Mr Quinn’s proposal is the right one to adopt.

Let me reiterate that. National and Act members of the Committee want to strip literally thousands of people of one of the most basic rights New Zealanders’ – every adult New Zealander – possess, and they say nothing at all about the reasons for doing so.

Now Andrew has a very fair point here. The majority should indeed state their reasons. That struck me also when I read their report.

I suspect the reason why the Committee majority have nothing to say is that there really isn’t any sort of reasoned answer to the case against Mr Quinn’s proposal. The most that those who support it can come up with is that it is somehow “less arbitrary” to disqualify all prisoners than just those sentenced to more than 3 years in jail, it will make life easier for electoral and prison officials, and that prisoners are bad people who just shouldn’t get the same say as you and me.

The link is to my submission. I don’t intend to get into a big debate on the merits of the bill, because it is fair to say my support is luke warm. I don’t see the bill as a priority, and would not normally advocate it as an area in need of change. However as the bill was put forward, I did conclude that the current law of a three year threshold is extremely arbitrary, and that the more principled positions are to either have no prisoners have the right to vote – or have all prisoners with the right to vote. My preference being the former.

Obviously, I think this is a flawed argument – one that flows out of knee-jerk “get tough on crime” rhetoric rather than any sort of reasoned view of penal policy or proper democratic process. But lets say you are the kind of person who takes it seriously. Clearly, three people who you believe shouldn’t get to have a vote are William Bell, Graeme Burton and Clayton Weatherston.

Well, guess what? If the Law and Order committee’s recommendations to the House get passed into law, these three guys – as well as any other murderer, rapist or violent criminal currently serving a sentence of more than 3 years – will get to vote at the next election.

That’s because the committee suggests completely repealing the current disqualification provision in the Electoral Act 1993, s.81(d) and replacing it with this provision:

“a person who is detained in a prison pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment imposed after the commencement of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced 15 Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010:”

See the problem? It removes the legislative provision that disqualifies people presently serving lengthy prison sentences and instead only disqualifies people sentenced to prison after the bill is enacted into law. So, there would be nothing in law to stop anyone imprisoned at the time the bill is enacted from applying to be registered to vote, and consequently casting a vote at the 2011 election.

This is a major screw up. Andrew correctly points out it would in fact restore the vote to every person currently doing a term of more than three years.

The Government should be thankful that Andrew is not a partisan who would be tempted to keep quiet on this flaw until after the bill is passed – when it would be far far more embarrassing to fix.

That’s why I called the majority members of the Law and Order committee “dumb”. They obviously don’t understand what the effect of their recommended amendments would be. How could they have got it so wrong?

Well, the answer lies in yet another abuse of parliamentary process. You might think that a proposed piece of legislation that will amend New Zealand’s electoral laws naturally would get considered by Parliament’s all-party Electoral Legislation Committee, rather than its Law and Order committee. And you’d think that whatever committee considers the matter would receive support from the Ministry of Justice, which has oversight of New Zealand’s electoral laws, rather than the Department of Corrections, which deals with keeping prisoners in jail.

I don’t think calling MPs dumb is particularly helpful, as I think it is more a job for officials to word the bill so it doesn’t have unintended consequences. But where Andrew is on strong ground is pointing out that the Government chose not only not to send it to the specialist electoral committee, it also chose not to have the Ministry of Justice advise on it – Corrections was used instead.

This should serve as a warning for why seeking to avoid using a Ministry just because you may not like their advice is a bad thing.

The Government, and Parliament, owe Andrew a debt of gratitude for pointing out the drafting error which would basically achieve the opposite of what the bill seeks to do.

I am not an Aucklander, but spend a lot of time up there, and follow the Council politics pretty closely. For those who may find it helpful, here are some of the people I would vote for, if I was a voter:

Mayor

It is probably no surprise I am a John Banks supporter. Most readers will already have made their minds up about who to vote for, but for those who have not – I will make this point.

It is healthy for all democratic bodies to have periods where they are governed by the left and by the right. They right tend to be more determined to keep rates down, and the left tend to be higher spending (and higher rating or taxing). That way, over time, you get a pretty good balance .

For the inaugural term of the new Auckland Council, I think it is quite vital that the initial Council and Mayor be “fiscal conservatives” who will be tough enough to keep costs and rates under control. If that first Council starts spending like crazy (as Dick Hubbard and City Vision) did, then high levels of debt and rates will be locked in. Once spending has been committed to, it is damn near impossible to cancel. On the other hand it is considerably easier to loosen the fiscal reins at some later stage, than try to tighten them retrospectively.

So apart from all the other reasons, that is an additional reason for this inaugural 2010 election to vote for Banks and a fiscally conservative Council.  If you do not – well all I can say it is won’t me be in Wellington complaining about my rates bill 🙂

Albany

20 candidates seek two spots.

Candidates who I would describe as broadly being centre-right, and would be good for keeping rates down are:

Cameron Slater (Whale Oil)
Linda Cooper (C&R)
Graeme Hunt (North Now)
Josephine Kim (C&R)
Margaret Miles (Shore Voice)

Albert-Eden-Roskill

11 candidates seeking two spots. I recommend

Chris Fletcher (C&R)
Paul Goldsmith (C&R)

Franklin

Three seeking one spot. I recommend

Des Morrison (C&R)

Howick

Six seeking two spots. I recommend

Dick Quax (C&R)
Jami-Lee Ross (C&R)

Manukau

12 seeking two spots. Candidates worth supporting:

Sylvia Taylor (Residents & Ratepayers)
Bob Wichman (C&R)

Manurewa-Papakura

Seven seeking two spots. Best bets are probably:

Barry Curtis (Residents & Ratepayers)
John Walker (Independent)

Maungakiekie-Tamaki

Five seeking one spot. Highly highly recommend:

Alfred Ngaro (C&R)

North Shore

Twelve seeking two spots. Good candidates are:

Christine Rankin (North Now)
George Wood (C&R)

Orakei

Three candidates seeking two spots. Both Cameron Brewer and Doug Armstrong would make excellent contributions to the new Council – sadly only one of them will make it.

Rodney

Four seeking one spot. I would recommend:

Penny Webster (Independent)

Waitakere

Nine seeking two spots. I recommend:

Mark Brickell (C&R)
Marie Hasler (C&R)

Waitemata & Gulf

Mike Lee is likely to win as the vote looks to split between Alex Swney and Tenby Powell. If a poll shows one of them in ahead of the other, then I’d back the one with the best chance of winning against Lee.

Having said that, Lee is not too bad as lefties go. He is at least competent.

Whau

Four seeking one spot. I recommend:

Noeline Raffills (C&R)

Local Boards

Generally you should vote for these tickets:

C&R
North Now

And generally you should not vote for these tickets:

City Vision
Shore Voice (this is debatable – some candidates it appears are centre right, while others are former Labour MPs)
Grey Power
Future West
Any ticket that mentions “people” in its name
Residents & Ratepayers Team in Howick
Labour

I welcome comments/feedback from locals as to the leaning of other tickets.

Big News blogs:

I have spoken to someone who was at the meeting yesterday. Labour’s Local Electorate Committee is controlled by Winnie Laban. She wanted Fa’afoi, so her committee voted for Fa’afoi, even though some may have not supported him. Goff’s office wanted Fa’afoi, and his three votes got him. The other vote was decided by the community. That vote was made up of 52 locals and 60 unionists. The locals wanted Pagani. The unionists wanted Fa’afoi. None of the unionists were locals, but because there were more of them, they had sway. [DPF: The unionists are in fact local – they are local affiliate members]

This meant that the community vote was stacked with unionists to make sure Fa’afoi got the nod, meaning that the Local Electorate Committee actually voted against the wishes of the local voters, and stacked the floor so that the community vote also went against the wishes of the community.

And a commenter at Kiwiblog states:

The local members vote was 34 Pagani, 16 Faafoi and 2 others. The 60 union votes went all to Faafoi. Local members got out voted by union members who have never worked for Labour in Mana.

And Phil Quinn has some advice:

It may have been another despicable parachute-job, but he won under the rules as they stand. That makes him the Labour candidate today, and he has my support.

But Kris Faafoi will lose the Mana by-election if he thinks it will come as easily, or with as many short-cuts, as his dubious path to the nomination.

He must, first and foremost, ask whomever (a) wrote his letter to members, (b) employed his replacement in the leader’s office before he was nominated, (c) put him on Radio Australia, (d) thought it was smart to stack the hall yesterday with advisors and press secretaries on overtime and (e) was responsible for his poor performance at the Q+A, to remove themselves from any position of influence in the campaign.

I’m quite glad to be in a party where unions do not control selections.

The SST headline is:

Plot to grab Epsom as Hide’s Act falls apart

Except there is no plot. The story doesn’t talk about any plot. This is not the fault of the journalists who wrote the story – sub-editors pick headlines. So what does the story say:

NATIONAL is deciding whether to stand a credible candidate and grab back the Epsom seat from Act’s Rodney Hide.

National is not deciding, in the sense of making a decision. Of course many in National are discussing Epsom, but decisions on whether to vigorously contest Epsom will not be made in the next few days or even weeks. You never decide strategically important things in the middle of a media storm.

Around the middle of 2011 is when National will make decisions about what sort of campaign to run in Epsom. You don’t decide these things 14 months before the election.

With Act’s credibility in tatters over the David Garrett fiasco, National is worried endorsing Hide next year would upset Epsom voters, particularly women. That has put pressure on National to stand a strong candidate or risk voters ignoring any tactical voting option.

National has in fact never endorsed Rodney. National has always stood a candidate. The issue is whether the candidate primarily pursues the party vote (which most candidates are expected to do), or also campaigns aggressively for the electorate vote (which only happens in a few seats not held by National).

My expectation is that National will have a strong candidate, regardless of what sort of campaign is run.

Some party insiders believe the anti-Act mood is so strong that Epsom voters could decide “stuff this, I’m voting for National anyway”. The Act brand is so discredited that there is already talk in National about a new far-Right party.

Unless Fairfax is going to start talking about the Greens as a “far -left” party, could they please not use that term about ACT.

It is quite possible that voters in Epsom will vote for a National candidate, even if not explicitly seeking their votes. I actually don’t think the decision rests with National – it rests with the voters in Epsom. And I think they will make their decision quite rationally. If voting for Rodney looks like it will significantly increase the chances of National retaining Government, then they will – as they did in 2005 and 2008. If however it looks like voting for Rodney will not help the centre-right greatly (if if ACT is polling at below 1%), then his chances are not so good.

But these are decisions that people reach in the election campaign, not 14 months before.

So Rodney’s challenge is to use the next 12 months to get ACT polling well enough, so that Epsom voters will tactically vote. But this will need a blemish free performance from ACT and Rodney. And there seems little doubt that a couple of the “scorpions” within ACT are determined to destroy the party, so long as they can have “utu” on Rodney. This was made clear in the e-mails Whale oil blogged. And they may succeed – time will tell.

Len Brown must have a lot of money to spend, as his TV ads have even been appearing in Wellington. Its his money, so he can spend it how he likes – but TV seems a costly medium for a local campaign.

Whale Oil points out in this edited video, that Len’s rhetoric and actions are somewhat inconsistent.

The HoS editorial:

Attorney-General Chris Finlayson stayed away from the House as the first-reading debate began on the bill repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

It was a gracious gesture: although the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is in his name, he wanted Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia to be first to speak to it.

It was a fitting acknowledgement of the role she played in wrenching the 2004 legislation from the jaws of history.

Which shows that one MP can make a difference.

Unfortunately, some try to depict the repeal as an act of surrender to Maori demands that ancient entitlements be honoured in modern law. But that is very far from being the case.

The 2004 act was a sledgehammer response to a Court of Appeal decision that had not “given” Maori anything: it had suggested that Maori might be able to seek customary title in the Maori Land Court to parts of the foreshore and seabed.

The Clark Government pre-empted that right; the act now before the House restores it. To quote Turia, it reopens a door that was slammed shut.

That is for me the key aspect – that Maori New Zealanders have had restored their right to go to court.

In any case, for those seeking customary title, the bar is set high: applicant iwi must demonstrate virtually uninterrupted exclusive use and occupation of the areas since 1840; areas to which title is granted cannot be sold; and free public access must be preserved.

Which is one reason why Hone Harawira is not supporting it. He thinks that the entire foreshore and seabed should be in Maori title. I believe the correct test is what the Court of Appeal set down – uninterrupted exclusive use and occupation since 1840.

I’ve twice blogged on how the OECD teacher pay stats actually show teachers are paid more generously in NZ, than most other countries, when you take GDP/capita into account. Our problem is the overall wealth of the country – not what proportion we spend on education.

Both Kerre Woodham and the HoS editorial pick up on this point.

Kerre writes:

Teachers claim they are poorly paid in comparison to other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). David Farrar of Kiwiblog makes the point that we’re all poorly paid in comparison to other countries. It’s because we don’t earn as much as everyone else. It’s all about gross domestic product (GDP).

When you do the sums, as Farrar did, New Zealand teachers get paid more than almost every other country in the OECD compared to GDP per capita. They certainly get paid far more than the median wage – as well they should.

And you know what – if the unions would agree to performance pay, I’d be the first person to be advocating big pay rises for the good teachers – the top ones should be on $100,000.

The HoS editorial:

The problem is that the Government is not short of priority issues right now: recovering from the biggest economic meltdown in living memory and funding recovery from an earthquake that has upended life for about half the people in the South Island are two that spring to mind.

This is not to say that the teachers’ claims are without merit. And plainly the Ministry of Education recognises that, since many of them have been conceded, in whole or in part.

Others, including an increase in the employer contribution to members’ Kiwisaver funds and a 4 per cent wage claim while other wage settlements (and the inflation rate) are running at less than 2 per cent, look remarkably like the demands of a sector out of touch with reality.

Remember that the Government is running a huge fiscal deficit. Every dollar more of government spending has to be borrowed, and will be a burden on today’s kids who will have to pay it back.

The plain fact is that the average secondary teacher salary is now more than $71,000 or $1365 a week. It has risen since 2000 by more than 45 per cent – almost twice as fast as wages in the public sector as a whole (24 per cent) and the private sector (25.3 per cent).

It is provocative but misleading for teachers to compare pay rates with colleagues internationally: salaries have to be reckoned against GDP per capita for international comparisons to be meaningful – that’s why our teachers earn 82 per cent less than their Luxembourg counterparts. And our spending on non-tertiary education is the same as or higher than the OECD average in terms of GDP.

And the solution, as I have said before, is to increase our national wealth. And the way you do that is not big pay increases for doing the same job. It is by improving our productivity.

To put it bluntly, teachers need to stop disrupting the lives of students so close to end-of-year exams, prioritise their demands and get back to the bargaining table. They got 4 per cent last year and 4 per cent the year before. Parents and everyone else may take the view that teachers aren’t doing too badly.

Who else has had a 45% increase in their salary since 2000? And I don’t mean through promotions – I mean for doing the same job?

The HoS reports:

Disgraced MP David Garrett is ready to quit Parliament for the good of the Act Party.

Garrett said last night it was “very much more likely” he would stand down from Parliament before the next election. “I am in a very dark place right now,” he said.

To be fair to Garrett, he has done the right thing in quitting ACT – and so quickly. Unlike others who went to court to fight for their right to remain, he has put the interests of his party ahead of himself. I also give kudos for his resignation statement which said:

I can do nothing to change the past. For any number of reasons, I wish I had not done such a stupid and dreadfully hurtful thing in 1984. When my wrongdoing was revealed, the worst aspect of it all for me was reading the letters written by the mother and sister of the dead boy whose identity I used to obtain the passport.

As a result of my own actions, my political career is almost certainly over, but that is not my greatest concern. The worst aspect of all of this for me is that those who have seen fit to do so have opened the wounds of the boy’s mother and sister all over again. As the person who inflicted those wounds in the first place – however unwittingly – I must take ultimate responsibility for that.

I wrote letters of apology at the time – letters I realised were woefully inadequate, but there was nothing else I could do. I wish to reiterate my profound regret for the distress and hurt my thoughtless actions inflicted on two women, one of whom is elderly. I am simply unable to imagine how it must have felt at the time they first learned of what I had done, and I am equally unable to imagine what they must feel now.

I still well recall my horror when I read the letters from the boy’s relatives, one of them in the handwriting of a clearly elderly lady. I do not think I have ever felt worse.

There is certainly no excuse for what I did, and I make none.

His statement reeks of sincerity.

I have little doubt Garrett will resign from Parliament, and not try to stay on as an Independent MP. And this was before the extra complication the HoS reports on:

Their willingness to put the party’s interests ahead of their own came as a Howick woman, who met Garrett on an internet dating site, revealed he tried to woo her with a McDonald’s dinner and a private viewing of the film Casablanca.

A McDonald’s dinner? No wonder it didn’t work out!