An item in Trans-Tasman caught my eye:

The PM was quite bolshie this week about the CTU’s open letter and threats to cut off political co-operation. He reminded the CTU’s Helen Kelly he’d broken a National Party promise by heeding union pleas not to break what he called the union “monopoly” on collective bargaining. It’s something the CTU should “think about,” he said.

So let’s see if I have this right.

Prior to the last election the CTU ran advertisements and explicitly campaigned against National. They even targeted senior MPs in video ads.

Now if a business group such as BusinessNZ had run such a campaign against the Clark Government, they would have been frozen out of even getting to have meetings with Ministers.

Instead John Key gives the CTU direct access to him. And even better he agrees to hold off on implementing two of National’s election policies – employer consent for access, and removing the union monopoly for collective bargaining.

So just think about this. He has a National/ACT majority. He could implement his entire election policy and in fact some of ACT’s. But instead he agrees to defer two policies to keep happy the very same organisation that campaigned against him.

18 months later, he announces that one of the two deferred policies will be implemented. A policy that was explicit election policy. And on the basis of this, the CTU claims it will call for strikes, industrial action and refuse all co-operation.

There is a lesson in this for John Key. As admirable as it is to be Mr nice guy, and try actually extend the hand of friendship to the CTU, despite them campaigning explicitly against you, it was always doomed to fail. The CTU will always put first its desire to get Labour into office, and was always going to turn around and crap on you. They just needed the excuse.

I mean does anyone really think it is a rational decision to declare you are now against all free trade agreements and will try and stop them, just because a union now has to let an employer know at least a few minutes in advance if they want to visit?

The PM should get on and implement the remainder of the 2008 industrial relations policy. Unions should indeed not have a monopoly on collective bargaining. A group of employees should be able to negotiate a collective contract themselves without needing to form a union.

Likewise a lawyer should be able to represent a group of employees, and negotiate a collective contract on their behalf. You do not need a union to negotiate a collective contract. Labour merely passed a law requiring it. Under the former law, there were quite a few collective contracts that did not involve unions.

Steven Joyce has announced:

The Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Steven Joyce, has accepted a Commerce Commission recommendation to regulate mobile termination rates.

He says regulation will improve competition in the mobile market and result in lower prices for mobile phone users.

Mobile termination rates are the wholesale prices charged by a mobile network operator (such as Telecom, Vodafone and 2degrees) for providing services to customers from other network operators.

Under Section 19 of the Telecommunications Act the Minister is required to make the decision that best gives, or is likely to best give, effect to the purpose of Part 2 of the Act – that is, to promote competition for the long-term benefit of end-users of telecommunications services.

Mr Joyce says he considers that accepting the Commission’s recommendation meets this test and in this case will lead to lower mobile termination rates and more competitive mobile pricing plans for consumers.

This is no surprise at all – but still a welcome decision. I believe it will lead to more competition and better pricing plans. The current MTRs act as a price floor and deter competition.

Consumers in Auckland should be choosing their mobile phone provider on the quality and price of the services they offer. Instead far too many have been forced into choosing a provider based on  the fact most of their friends are with that provider, and they can’t afford to be on another network.

Imagine if one had to choose your ISP, based on whom you send and receive most of your e-mails from. Imagine having to pay say 5c an e-mail if it was to someone on a different ISP.

John Key has announced:

It is with great sadness that Prime Minister John Key has learned of the death of a soldier serving with the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Bamyan, Afghanistan.

The soldier was killed in an attack while he was on patrol.

Another two New Zealand Defence Force personnel and a local interpreter in the patrol were also injured.

“This is New Zealand’s first combat loss in Afghanistan and reinforces the danger faced daily by our forces as they work tirelessly to restore stability to the Province.

“This soldier’s contribution and that of all New Zealand Defence Force personnel should never be underestimated.

“It is with enormous sadness that I acknowledge that this soldier has paid a high price and my thoughts are with his family and the families of the injured.”

My thoughts are also with his friends and family but also all those serving in the military – it is a sad reminder of the risks we rely on our servicemen and women to take.

Hopefully those injured will make full recoveries.

The Herald reports:

The New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists is under fire from the Commerce Commission over claims of anti-competitive behaviour.

The industry body has been warned by the competition regulator after it sent a letter to one of its members accusing it of undercutting other physiotherapists by not introducing patient part-charges.

How stupid (or venal) are they? That is clearly illegal.  The Commission should take action to make it quite clear that such actions are not allowed.

Physiomed, which has clinics in Wellington, Christchurch, Oamaru and Dunedin, decided not to charge a co-payment and absorb the cost itself.

The decision prompted a rush of complaints from members to the society.

The society responded by writing a letter to Physiomed last year expressing its “disappointment” at the decision. …

Yes how dare they show that you can remain profitable on the ACC payment, without a part-charge.

“The profession as a whole will suffer if we do not value the services we offer and charge accordingly,” the letter says.

“We should not be trying to undercut other physiotherapy practices by aggressively advertising our fee structure or ‘free physiotherapy’.”

That is exactly what physios should be doing – competing on price, on quality and in what ever other way they want to.

The Herald reports:

Former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer says he is honoured to head an inquiry into the fatal Israeli raid on the Gaza-bound aid flotilla earlier this year. …

Overnight United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon announced the four-member panel, to be chaired by Sir Geoffrey with outgoing Colombian President Alvaro Uribe as vice-chairman, plus one Israeli and one Turkish member.

The identities of the members from Turkey and Israel were not given on Monday, but the panel is due to begin work on August 10 and submit a first progress report by mid-September. …

Mr Key said Sir Geoffrey had done a tremendous job representing New Zealand on the International Whaling Commission.

“He’s a very, very intelligent man and has a great knowledge of the law and I think it is (also) a recognition that New Zealand is seen as an honest broker, we don’t take sides between Palestine and Israel.

“I think it would be great for New Zealand if it took place.”

Israel’s decision to back the panel was unexpected as it had for weeks insisted it would not co-operate with any international probe and instead launched two internal inquiries.

The about-turn followed contacts and consultations with a seven-member Israeli ministerial forum to ensure that “this was indeed a panel with a balanced and fair written mandate,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.

“Israel has nothing to hide. The opposite is true,” the Israeli leader said.

“It is in the national interest of the state of Israel to ensure that the factual truth of the overall flotilla events comes to light throughout the world and this is exactly the principle that we are advancing.”

I think this is a good decision. I may not like his report on alcohol laws, but I do respect his ability and fairness, and hope he will be able to help resolve the tensions surrounding what happened with the flotilla. I understand he has an expert background in maritime law which is of course highly desirable.

Buckingham Palace has announced:

At The Queen’s request, new rules for the granting and use of the title “The Right Honourable” will apply in New Zealand to preserve an important mark of distinction for the holders of the Nation’s highest public offices.

Henceforth, those appointed to the offices of the Governor-General, Prime Minister, Speaker and Chief Justice will be granted the title “The Right Honourable” ex officio, for life. This will bring a measure of association and continuity with the recent past; formerly, the most senior members of the Judiciary and the Executive in New Zealand gained this right upon appointment to the Privy Council, a practice which no longer exists.

John Key, up until today, was looking to be pretty much the only NZ Prime Minister not to be a Right Hon. He comments:

Prime Minister John Key says while he was personally content to have the title “Honourable”, he appreciates the Queen’s wish to recognise service in the office of the Prime Minister.

“Her Majesty believes it is appropriate also to acknowledge the service of the Governor-General, the Queen’s representative in New Zealand, the Speaker, the highest officer in the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice, the head of the judicial branch of government.

I understand this is normal practice in other realms. and makes more sense to me than appointing people to the UK Privy Council. I really don’t think this is something the PM would have pushed.

The Chief Justice was already a Rt Hon – the second to last one appointed before today. Joining her are the GG, the PM and the Dr the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith.

Personally I feel the title got devalued back in 1998 when Winston was made a Rt Hon.

The ODT reports:

A new “lean, mean” Otago University Students Association executive structure was announced yesterday.

The shake-up followed a students’ online referendum, which voted to reduce the executive from 17 to 10 positions.

Positions lost include the women’s, “queer”, postgraduate and Pacific Islands representatives, while the Te Roopu Maori president will become an ex-officio executive position.

OUSA president Harriet Geoghegan said the new structure would improve the executive’s efficiency.

“We can have as many representatives on the executive as could be imagined, but if our internal structure isn’t functioning efficiently then we would be doing them a disservice,” she said yesterday.

17 is far too large for an executive to be functional, and you don’t need every single group having their own representative. In fact it often marginalises the issues those groups have, by people them assuming that the “insert name of exec officer here” office is the only one who deals with it.

I understand OUSA also changed their rules (subject to an appeal over the way the referendum was run and promoted) so that general meetings in future will be mainly online.

This is something student associations should have done years ago, so good to see OUSA at least start the ball rolling. Letting 50 people in a cafe decide policy is not democratic when you ave the ability to allow allow all 20,000 members to vote electronically on said policy.

Once VSM is a reality, all student associations will have to become far more Internet savvy if they want to survive.

Stuff reports:

More than 50 schools around the country will have Government experts sent in to try and lift grades.

Education Minister Anne Tolley has this afternoon announced what she calls “a major new approach to lifting achievement” in schools.

At least 50 “practitioners” from within the Ministry or elsewhere in the education sector will be appointed to schools or clusters of schools.

Some schools would need very little support, but others would need intensive help, Tolley said.

The “practitioners” would build a better relationship between the Ministry and schools.

“These experts will have proven ability in lifting student achievement, and will give specially-designed support to schools to meet the specific needs of their students and teachers,” Tolley said.

“They will use student data to assess where support will be most effective, and make sure schools get help much earlier.”

Sounds pretty good to me.

The only problem of course is the education unions don’t want the Government to have meaningful student data.

I reckon if Peter Costello had decided to take the Liberal Party leadership, he would have been almost certain to become Prime Minister by the end of the month.

Think what would have happened in this scenario.

A European/Pakeha Member of Parliament is quoted as saying he would not be comfortable if his children dated a Maori.

And then upon further questioning, he said that he wouldn’t have a problem if they dated an American or an Australian, but would not want them dating either a Maori or a Pacific Islander.

I don’t think I am wrong in saying it would be the lead item on TV news. It would be on the front page of every newspaper. The Race Relations Conciliator would have condemned it. A dozen activists would have complained to the Human Rights Commission. Every major newspaper would have condemned the MP in editorials and there would be many calls for them to be sacked.

I’m not saying Hone should be sacked. In fact I will give him his dues that he doesn’t bullshit and says what he believes – no matter what. That is a rare quality in politics.

But I do think he is getting off too lightly from what was a pretty awful thing to say. He’s really abandoned all rights to talk about prejudice, when he declares skin colour matters to him, in terms of whom his children date. Even sadder was he seems to think most Pakeha thing the same as him – only in reverse.

We don’t Hone.

Now the media have not been totally silent on Hone. Rather than get out the editorial condemnation that would if it was a non-Maori MP, they have done the easy thing and asked the PM what he thinks, which the Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key says it is “ridiculous” that MP Hone Harawira would not be happy about his children dating Pakeha. …

Mr Key said he found Mr Harawira’s views ridiculous.

“It depends on you as an individual but I wouldn’t care what ethnicity my kids dated as long as they are happy.”

Asked if he would be happy for his children to date Mr Harawira’s, he quipped: “I guess it would make the wedding an interesting thing, wouldn’t it.

But as long as they were happy, yep.”

Well that would be one way to keep the Maori Party onside – a Key-Harawira wedding.

Mr Key said he had met one of Mr Harawira’s daughters at an art college in Gisborne.

“She seemed a really nice girl, so yes, if Max wants to date her, she’s a bit older than him, though.”

Stephie Key is 17 and Max is 15.

Oh God poor Max. Having his dad talk about potential dates for him.

While the story is amusing, it shouldn’t just be about what the PM thinks on this issue. It should be about whether it is acceptable for any Member of Parliament to openly express prejudice like Hone did.

I guess you can say better to be open about your prejudices, then hide them. And again I do credit Hone with that. But I think it is again a very sad view point he has that race is more important to him than the qualities any individual person may have.

An interesting speculation has reached me. Andrew Williams will of course not be elected Auckland Mayor. I doubt he’d even make 5%.  He is unlikely to even make Council – his sole chance is that 15 people are standing in his ward so one may be able to get elected off a very small percentage.

So what will he do if he is not on Council? Well he is consumed with a loathing for Rodney Hide, as is Winston Peters. So the whisper I hear is Andrew Williams will be a NZ First candidate in a top six list spot.

For those who doubt it, remember Tim Shadbolt was once a NZ First prospective candidate.

A possible caucus of Winston, Laws and Andrew Williams. It will be like Alice in Wonderland!

Compare these two transcripts. The first is from Radio Sport on 20 July 2010:

JAMIE MACKAY: Phil, you and I will agree to disagree on that one. What about cashing in some of your holidays for money?

PHIL GOFF: Well, I don’t have huge objections to that, as long as the decision is freely arrived at by the worker, and the worker is not pressured to do it. If you’ve got that safeguard in, then if somebody chooses to do that, then I’m quite relaxed about it

Pretty clear statement from Phil Goff. And one I agree with incidentially. But after his party president and EPMU boss asserted on The National that opposition to National’s policy to give workers a choice was core Labour party policy, Phil is trying to pretend he never said it.

Here’s what he then said on Q+A on 1 August 2010:

Paul Holmes: You stated that you were relaxed about selling, or the government’s plans to allow workers to sell the fourth week of their holidays. Um, you don’t stand by that any more, do you?

Phil Goff: No, what I said was of a range of things that the government is legislating for that will hurt the interests of ordinary working New Zealanders, that’s lower down my list of priorities

That might be what Phil wishes he said, and what he wants the unions to think he said, but it isn’t what he said. It’s a pretty blatant fib.

But the unions have spanked him and reminded him that they decide industrial relations policy, not the Leader.

I also like the EPMU talking points that giving workers a choice of cashing in one week’s leave is “hurting their interests”. God forbid workers have choices.

Dita De Boni blogs:

Rhode argues in The Beauty Bias that a law found in a smattering of US states against workplace discrimination on the basis of looks should be extended nationwide.

That means that where suitably qualified people apply for jobs, and where it can be shown that hiring decisions were simply made on the basis of looks, a lawsuit can be filed – as it can be, conversely, in the recent case of the “too sexy” female banker, because of her looks and the way she was treated at work.

While no one is claiming that laws can change real, ingrained bigotry and intolerance, as commentators have pointed out, when you discourage discrimination, tolerance becomes a habit.

Surely this is a policy just waiting for Labour and/or the Greens to adopt it.

Outlaw workplace discrimination against non-beautiful people. It will have wide appeal.

But why stop there? Why not also outlaw discrimination on the basis of looks in personal relationships?

NBR is running a competition to win your weight in Veuve Clicuot.

My mate Busted Blonde is in equal first place. Most of the VRWC are backing Busted as Busted winning means more Veuve than anyone else winning 🙂

We also like her idea of a picnic on Frank Kitts Lagoon, as what she would do with it, if she wins.

So I’m backing Busted Blonde, and urge readers to follow the link and vote for her.

What is interesting is the person who is in equal first place with her. He has a lovely story:

Verve is my partners favourite drop of bubbles so since I have gone 18 years and not actually married her (make her and honest woman etc) I think I would call up Stu and Sem at The Wharf over on Aucklands North Shore and have a quiet family wedding

However Detective Whale has been at work.

First he discovers that the contestant quoted above has his status on Facebook as married. Whoops.

And then in another post, he details how the venue he mentioned is one of his clients which is a wee bit astro-turfing.

Whale even has discovered his weight, and reckons voting Busted will mean NBR forks over an extra dozen bottles or so 🙂

Stuff reports:

Telecom has confirmed plans to split into two businesses in a bid to take part in the government’s ultra fast broadband scheme.

The company said today it proposed to create a new company, “Chorus2” as a separate standalone entity through a demerger – a process giving existing shareholders pro rata stakes in the new company.

I have been a long-term proponent of structural separation, and believe it will be good for shareholders and good for the country.

While on separation day, the shareholdings of the two companies will be the same, over time they will attract different profiles of shareholders. The main Telecom will be a competitive business paying higher dividends, but with more risk involved.

Chorus will be an infrastructure company, paying lower dividends, but with much guaranteed business. In time I would expect companies like Infratril to seek stakes in it.

While the Government will claim the decision is nothing to do with them, the reality is that by setting rules around ownership for the fibre to the home initiative, the Govt has been the catalyst for this decision which will correct a major problem of the last 20 or so years – a vertically integrated monopoly. The removal of vertical integration means we will get better choice and competition at wholesale and retail levels.

Telecom’s decision to split Chorus off will significantly increase its chances at winning some or even all of the regions for the fibre initiative. However it does not mean they are automatically the preferred choice. Companies like Vector may be able to do it cheaper in Auckland because of their existing infrastructure.

Structural separation is a pre-condition to full involvement in the fibre initiative, but it is not a guarantee of success.

There may be options out there though, such as Chorus gaining the nation-wide contract and sub-contracting companies like Vector and Citylink where they already have assets. Or Chorus could buy a company like Citylink.

Alternatively the Regional Fibre Group could get ambitious and aim to buy 51% of Chorus. It is going to be an interesting two to three months.

Poor Phil. He wanted the Chris Carter episode dealt with quickly. But Chris Carter has shown immense cunning. After Phil and Trevor all called him unwell, he has turned around and said yes I am unwell, and I need two months leave. This means that issues around Carter and Goff’s leadership will still be in the public eye come October.

Stuff reports:

Suspended Labour MP Chris Carter has asked for two months leave from Parliament because he is unwell.

Labour president Andrew Little said today Mr Carter was seeking appropriate treatment, but his leave meant any decision on his membership of the Labour Party was unlikely to be made this week.

Very cunning indeed.

It is understood Mr Carter’s leave must initially be approved by Labour’s whips, till his leave entitlement  is used up. If he wats to take more leave after that he will need to get approval from Speaker Lockwood Smith.

But he has been thrown out of the Labour Caucus, so why do the Whips approve it?

Party sources yesterday indicated Mr Carter could be suspended at next Saturday’s meeting of the council as an interim measure, but Mr Little’s comments confirm the party is taking a cautious approach over any disciplinary measures.

The likely outcome has been downgraded from expulsion to suspension to “a discussion”. This raises the real possibility that at some stage Carter will be back in the Labour caucus.

Phil Goff said on Q+A:

PAUL Regarding Mr Carter, is it your belief he is unwell?

PHIL I think he is unwell, and for that reason, I don’t want to make a lot of personal comments about Chris. He needs some privacy. He needs some time. But the truth is, he is gone from the Labour caucus.

And Trevor Mallard has called Carter “unbalanced”.

Adam Smith blogs on this:

Adam does not like Chris Carter, he cannot fathom how the guy survived for so long, other than by being Clark’s poodle.

Yet despite that, he finds the rush by Labour and its fellow travellers to denigrate Carter by saying he, Carter, is unbalanced nauseating and repellent. The suggestions that Carter is mentally unhinged are not an acceptable way of seeking to deal with the issue, in fact such suggestions are being used to obscure questions raised by Carter on the grounds that he does not know what he is dong.

For a party that takes PC to extremes and would jump on anybody else who sought to suggest mental illness was the cause of an unpopular stance, as being insensitive to sufferers from such illness, the unedifying spectacle of senior Labour members queuing up to explain away Carter’s statements as those of someone who is ‘unbalanced’ is singularly repellent.

If Adam was a Labour voter he would be very seriously pondering the moral compass of a political party that sought to divert attention from some critical questions raised by a senior MP by claiming that said MP was mentally ill.

I think talk by Labour about being unbalanced, unwell and talking about psychiatrists is rather nasty, while trying to appear kind.

Certainly what Chris Carter has done is incredibly stupid from a political point of view, and I think he is acting more from emotion than from logical planning.

But there is a big difference between someone acting off emotion, and being called “unwell” by their leader.

news.com.au reports:

NICK LALICH, Labor MP for Cabramatta and mayor of Fairfield City Council, is one of State Parliament’s ”double dippers”.

When he was elected to Parliament in 2008 at a byelection he decided to keep his job as mayor and collect both salaries.

His parliamentary salary is $130,540 a year, his annual electoral allowance is $39,950, his logistical support allowance is $31,380 and he has a mail-out allowance of $65,384. Total pay and allowances: $267,254.

As mayor he receives $53,980, plus $20,320 as a councillor. He enjoys the full-time use of a council-supplied Ford sedan, and ratepayers pick up the tab for his petrol, registration, insurance and servicing. Total council remuneration: $74,300.

To sum up, as MP and mayor Lalich receives a total of $341,554 a year, which is more than the salary of Prime Minister Julia Gillard ($335,580).

Jim will leave his mentor for dead. His combined salary and expenses if he gets to triple dip may approach one million dollars.

I calculated here his annual parliamentary cost will be $690,000. The Mayor gets paid around $170,000 and one can easily imagine Jim will rake up expenses of $130,000 around his mayoral office. So I reckon Jim may end up costing taxpayers and ratepayers a combined $1 million if he wins.

Plus of course as a 72 year old, Jim is also getting his non means tested national super.

The Dom Post reports:

A website designed to help boost the country’s low voter turnout figures for local body elections has gone live.

The website, elections2010.co.nz, is a one-stop shop that aims to equip voters with all the information they need to vote in October’s local body elections.

Just 44 per cent of eligible local body election voters cast ballots in 2007.

By keying their residential address into the website, voters are instantly told which council and ward they are eligible to vote in and which candidates are standing for council and mayor.

The site contains detailed profiles on each candidate, including information on their political leanings, conflicts of interest and five main issues.

There are also links to candidates’ Facebook and Twitter pages and pre-recorded video addresses, and voters can post questions to candidates online.

The site, developed by Local Government Online with backing from Local Government New Zealand, also details which other entities voters are eligible to vote for, including district health boards and various local trusts. It will contain information on thousands of candidates, trusts, councils and boards.

What a good initiative.

I stuck in the street I live on, and it listed the four elections I can vote in, and where they have been supplied, a link to a candidate’s page.

What would be good is to take this further, and actually allow people to cast their votes via the Internet. One could have a ballot paper with hyperlinks to candidate’s pages. That way people would gain far more info than the usual 200 word biography you get in the post.

Well done to LGNZ and LGO for creating this.

Keeping Stock discovered the original version of the Chris Carter letter. Heh.

Gillard is in trouble. And it is not Tony Abbott doing the damage, but almost certainly Kevin Rudd.

A poll has the coalition ahead 52% to 48%, and on radio John Pagani said that he had heard that Labor’s polling was not looking good in the all important marginal seats. So how has it happened?

Well first there was the leak to Laurie Oakes about the deal with Rudd for him to stay on until October, which Gillard walked away from. As only three people witnessed it, not hard to guess who put that out there.

Then came the leak that in Cabinet Gillard fought against Labor’s paid parental leave scheme. This has damaged her amongst “babyland”. Gillard also tried to limit pension increases – hell I am liking her more and more. But the public are not. And again no prizes for guessing the likely leaker.

And the latest leak also has Rudd all over it – a revelation that Gillard sometimes sent her bodyguard to meetings of the Cabinet national security committee. That one may be especially damaging.

And in case there is much doubt it is Rudd, Alexander Downer reveals that the former Liberal Government used to feed info to Rudd when he was a junior Labor MP, knowing Rudd would use it to undermine the Labor Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, as Rudd wanted his job.

Is it just me, or do Rudd and Chris Carter seem somewhat alike – both try and rat-fuck their leaders, because they had their travel perks and status taken away?