The Herald editorial:

In straitened economic times, the renegotiation of contracts routinely results in employees losing allowances or other benefits. Rarely is the base salary raised in compensation.

This starts with a false premise. The triennial review is not something done due to the recession. It happens every three years.

The Herald also makes another false premise – that people do not get compensated for losing allowances. Most senior employees are on a total remuneration package. So if for example you get a company car for private use, then your salary drops to keep the total package the same.

The authors of the review, Sir Doug Kidd, a former Speaker of the House, and economist Philip Barry, are certainly right to bring the boom down on these perks. No one has ever mounted a coherent explanation for them being necessary for an MP’s job.

I agree, which is why they are deducted from their total remuneration, to give MPs a lower salary than would otherwise be the cause.

In practice, they furnish a generously subsidised pursuit of pleasure. They were introduced by Cabinet, not an independent commission, supposedly as compensation for parliamentarians accepting lower salaries.

But the independent Remuneration Authority does deduct them from their salary package. It has done so since 2003.

Yet there has never been a time when there was a shortage of people wishing to be MPs. Further, most pay little heed to the money on offer.

The review does not explain why MPs should be compensated for the loss of a benefit that bears no relationship to their work and should never have been granted. Nor does it say why parliamentarians should be treated differently to members of the public.

Again they are being treated no differently to any other employee on a total remuneration package. The Remuneration Authority will not be instructed to increase MPs salaries if the perks disappear – it will be obliged under the law to do so because they explicitly deduct them from the package to calculate salaries at the moment. And they can not deduct something if it no longer exists.

Think of an analogy. Say you have a contract with your employer that they will pay you a total package of $120,000 a year. Now they pay $10,000 into a superannuation fund on your behalf, so your actual salary if $110,000. The company decides that it no longer is appropriate to be offering a superannuation scheme so they scrap it. Well then they will automatically adjust your salary up to $120,000 to keep the total package the same.

I know this is not a popular position to take, but it is a principled position that MPs should not be treated differently to anyone else on a total remuneration package.

I have not seen the final list, but as I understand it the only confirmed Labour retirements at the next election are Pete Hodgson and Lynne Pillay. The old warhorses of George Hawkins and Ross Robertson are standing again.

Horomia, Mallard, Hawkins, Dyson are all standing again.

In their top 16, only one person was not a Minister in the Clark led Government. A total of 21 former Ministers are standing for office again, and will no doubt form the great bulk of the Cabinet if they win.

National has yet to start (yet alone complete) candidate selections, but it will be advisable for John Key to send out signals to some of his Caucus about their futures, so they can make decisions with dignity about whether or not to retire at the next election.

What he does not want to do, is to fail to rejuvenate his Caucus, like Phil Goff has done. Goff should have communicated to more of Labour’s former Ministers that even if they win, they will not be in the running for Ministerial jobs. That way they would be more likely to retire, and allow new blood to come through.

Both parties always need to rejuvenate. It is not something you do at some elections – it is something you need to do every election – even if it means more experienced MPs giving way to new MPs.

Goff’s already tough job to win the next election, has become much harder with so many of his colleagues refusing to retire.

Businessday reports:

Families with school-aged children could be provided with portable computers under a future Labour government.

Education spokesman Trevor Mallard says that is “one of many ideas in the mix” as the party develops its education policy, which will be announced in the runup to next year’s general election.

“My initial thinking is that the devices would have to be able to be used both at school and at home – therefore we will have to look beyond the traditional desktop.

“And with technology moving quickly and costs coming down, it would be foolish to dictate the type of hardware at this point.”

Mr Mallard says it is possible that in two years’ time, suitable computers could be provided for $200 to $300 each. …

Education Minister Anne Tolley was hostile. “This is another example of Labour promising to spend money the Government doesn’t have.

“What would Labour cut to pay for this half-formed pipedream, which would cost in the region of half a billion dollars?

“The Government is getting on with the sensible plan of targeted spending to upgrade our schools, to make sure they are ready to take advantage of ultrafast broadband.”

There are almost 750,000 children in school.

It is obvious one can not afford $1,000 computer to every student at school. That would costs $750 million.

But what if one phased it in by giving each kid a computer on the day they enter school – and it is a $250 laptop. Now around 60,000 kids enter school every year, so that would be $15 million a year – something which is arguably affordable.

Of course the laptops they get at age 5 might not last their entire school life, but if you get them into using computers from the beginning, then the family is more likely to purchase computers themselves in future.

When I saw the headline in the Herald:

Communists keep close watch on Key

my first thought was that the Greens had hired a private detective to follow the PM about 🙂

Instead it was a different sort of communist:

North Korean soldiers watched Prime Minister John Key’s every move as he toured the area between North and South Korea yesterday. …

As Mr Key toured the South Korean side with his family and delegation, North Korean soldiers came down to their side of the line with binoculars to find out what was going on.

South Korean and US soldiers stood puffing their chests on one side and the North Koreans glared from the other.

The DMZ is not the safest place to be – 550 soldiers from the South were killed there between 1953 and 1999. As the recent North Korean sinking of a South Korean ship showed, they are not that stable.

Labour and the unions in NZ keep decrying the Government for freezing the budgets of most state agencies. They think borrowing $250 million a week is not enough, and it should be more.

What they do not understand is that if you do not get debt and spending under control, then you end up with the type of deficits in the UK (and US) which require more dramatic surgery, as reported here:

The only departments not included in the Treasury trawl will be health and international development, which have been “ring-fenced” for the current Parliament. Education and defence will also escape lightly.

Alexander has told the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, and the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, to plan for two scenarios – cuts to budgets of 10 per cent at best and 20 per cent at worst over four years.

All other departments – including the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Transport – have been ordered to produce plans showing the impact of cuts of 25 per cent, and at worst 40 per cent.

So the best case scenario is a 25% funding cut and the worst case is a 40% cut.

Makes a freeze look rather benign, doesn’t it.

The Herald reports:

The Government is considering making it unlawful for adults to give alcohol to young people without their parents’ consent.

At present, under-18s can be given liquor without consent if they are in private homes or at private functions.

Justice Minister Simon Power says parental consent is one of the liquor issues he is looking at but stresses that a change is not a certainty.

“This is a really delicate balance because National is not in the business of getting into people’s homes on issues like this and telling them how to run their lives,” he said last night.

“But the sheer proliferation of outlets and the time that liquor is now available definitely changes the framing of this debate.”

Mr Power said parents had asked for such a move to help deal with teenage drinking. “I do think there is starting to emerge a view from parents that they would like some more assistance from the law to be able to have a firmer view on how their children are supplied with alcohol.”

At present it is totally legal for an adult to give a 14 year old a bottle of vodka. It is also totally legal for that 14 year old to share it with his or her friends. And they can drink that bottle of vodka in public view on the front lawn of a private residence, and the Police can do nothing about it.

I am supportive of the Government bringing in law changes to make it illegal to supply alcohol to under 18 year olds. The tougher issue is how to define the exceptions. Most people would support a parental exception- you can argue about whether it should be a total exception, or only for kids over a certain age (say 14) and also whether there should be a requirement for any alcohol supplied to be done so in a “responsible” manner.

The other issue is whether parents can authorise another adult (ie parents of a friend) to legally supply alcohol, and does such consent need to be in writing, or implied. In this case one would also expect any supply to be done responsibly, which probably means an adult must supervise – and that adult can be held legally liable for any irresponsible drinking (such as that which has led to 10 teenagers drinking themselves to death).

A law which makes it illegal to supply alcohol to 14 year olds will be far more effective, than making it illegal for  19 year olds to have a glass of wine in a restaurant over dinner.

To that end it was pleasing to see Simon Power state on Q+A that if there was a conscience vote on the purchase age, he would vote to keep it 18.

The HoS reports:

Hanlon police have launched an investigation into the prison guards’ union with a raid on the organisation’s offices, the Herald on Sunday has learned.

There has also been a separate request by officers investigating finances at the union to the Department of Corrections for records relating to one of its staff.

The prison guard they have sought information on also works for the Corrections Association of New Zealand as an official. …

The police inquiry comes after a complaint made by senior prison officer Helen Williams, 45, over spending controls at the organisation.

Williams said she had repeatedly raised concerns at a national level within the union with the backing of the Northern Regional Corrections staff she represented.

However, she said her concerns had been constantly rebutted by CANZ president Beven Hanlon.

There is no proof of wrong doing at this stage, but the fact the Police have done a raid suggests they are concerned something has happened.

Happy 236th birthday to the USA.

This photo from The Press is too good to ignore. Again funny not nasty.

Reuters reports:

Britain will hold a referendum in May on its biggest electoral reform in decades in a vote that will test its coalition administration, a government source said.

Voting reform was one of the biggest stumbling blocks in creating Britain’s first coalition government in 65 years after an inconclusive election in May ended 13 years of Labour rule.

Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron had long opposed any reform, but said after the election he would compromise to form a stable government, despite opposition within his party.

The concession was one of the key factors behind the formation of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats that saw its leader Nick Clegg named Deputy Prime Minister.

In the referendum, voters will have their say on switching from the current “first-past-the-post” system to an “alternative vote” (AV) model, similar to that used in Australia.

I think the UK will vote for AV, and it is a better system than FPP. It will be interesting to see what effect it has on the Lib Dems.

In theory the Lib Dems should pick up more seats under AV. In a seat where Labour or the Conservatives comes third, their votes will be redistributed and I expect most of those votes will go to the Lib Dems as second preference rather than the traditional opponent party. So that may help them win an extra 20 seats or so.

The more common scenario is that the Lib Dems will come third, and whomever their voters name as next preference will determine who wins the seat (if no one gets over 50%). While each Lib Dem voter will decide for themself, the experience of Australia is that most tend to follow the advice of their parties in terms of ranking the candidates. The “how to rank” cards given out by party activists are very important.

Broadly speaking whichever party gets endorsed by the Lib Dems as being their second preference could do very well under AV. Now normally I would expect this to be Labour, but if the Conservative/LD Government stays together and is successful, a preferences deal could shut Labour out of office for some time.

The Herald reports:

A Labour MP has taken the controversial step of proposing a new law to legalise abortion on request for women up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

Steve Chadwick, a midwife and former associate health minister, is gauging support for what would be the first changes to abortion law since 1978.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee has repeatedly urged Parliament to review the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act, which states the legal grounds for abortion, but MPs avoid the issue.

A judge has questioned the lawfulness of most abortions.

Last year, 17,550 abortions were done, compared with 17,940 in 2008.

Mrs Chadwick’s Abortion Reform Bill would take abortion out of the Crimes Act, making it solely a health matter and a choice for the patient, at least in the first part of pregnancy.

I support this. We have had de facto abortion on demand for the last two to three decades. Around 99.9% of termination requests are granted. Either the law should reflect the reality or the law should be enforced properly.

I have no desire to live in a country where women are refused legal abortions, and have to flee to Australia to terminate a pregnancy and/or have a termination done illegally and unsafely.

I would like to see fewer abortions, but I believe the way you achieve that is through education and health services, and reforming the Adoption Act.

But because MPs were divided 50-50 on abortion, she would not proceed until sure of majority support for the bill – in what would be a conscience vote in the House – to go to a select committee. She had not yet sought Labour caucus approval to put the bill in the parliamentary ballot.

Steve may not be doing Labour many favours with this bill. While I support it, there would be fierce opposition, and Labour could end up being seen as obsessed with carrying on its social engineering reforms of the last Government.

Prime Minister John Key did not answer Weekend Herald questions about the bill yesterday. Labour leader Phil Goff said he hadn’t given the matter much thought.

Ha. I can just see the conversation. Hey John/Phil – I’ve got a journalist on the phone wanting to know if you will support Steve Chadwick’s bill to legalise abortion on demand …. long pause ….. hello ….. hello …. are you still there …. door opens to find an empty room and a smashed window.

This photo was taken the day Phil Goff became Leader.  Normal rules – funny not nasty.

Attended the annual Herald’s Mood of the Boardroom breakfast yesterday. A big crowd gather to hear the results of the survey by Fran O’Sullivan, plus speeches and Q&A with the Finance Minister and normally the Opposition Spokesperson. For some reason David Cunliffe couldn’t attend this year, which was a pity.

Around 350 CEOs took part in the survey. Now before anyone states the obvious, no of course they are not a representative sample of New Zealanders. But as a group they manage a greater share of the economy than the Government does, and their view on business conditions determines whether or not billions of dollars of investments and purchases occur. So I regard it as a very good group to get views from.

Some of the findings were:

• 79% support there being a Regulatory Responsibility Act
• 70% support mining on the conservation estate, so long as conservation values are retained or restored
• 62% are focused on reducing energy costs
• 60% support foreshore & seabed reform
• 76% want ACC opened up to competition
• 58% want the NZ company tax rate to be below Australia’s
• 57% support partial listings of some SOEs on the NZX

I found it interesting that partial sales of SOES had the least support, even though still a majority.

The budget was rated 3.63/5 (think 73%) as a solid foundation for future growth, 3.8 (76%) as business friendly and 3.92 (78%) as making the taxt system fairer.

The eight top ranked Ministers were:

• John Key 4.58
• Steve Joyce 4.50
• Chris Finlayson 4.47
• Tony Ryall 4.09
• Simon Power 4.08
• Judith Collins 4.08
• bill English 4.06
• Jonathan Coleman 4.03

Individual Labour spokesperson were not ranked but 98% of CEOs said Labour’s leadership has yet to begin carving out a credible alternative to the Government.

The top ten domestic issues of concern (out of 10) were:

1. Labour productivity 7.2
2. Regulation 6.9
3. Skills and labour shortages 6.9
4. Level of govt spending 6.9
5. Adequacy of infrastructure 6.8
6. NZ dollar level 6.7
7. Wage increases 6.4
8. ETS 6.2
9. Level of NZ Govt borrowing 6.1
10. Access to capital 5.9

The top ten international issues affecting confidence are:

1. Instability in capital markets 8.5
2. Protracted global recession 8.4
3. Level of borrowing by govts 8.0
4. Strength of US recovery 7.7
5. Exchange rate volatility 7.7
6. US dollar value 7.2
7. Competition for global talent 6.5
8. Protectionism 6.3
9. Commodity prices 6.2
10. Global inflation 6.2

They also ranked the two leading candidate for Mayor on several attributes on a 1 to 5 scale

• Leadership skills – Banks 3.47 v Brown 3.06
• Puts interest of Auckland over political alignment – Banks 3.33 v Brown 2.74
• Vision and strategy – Banks 3.33 v Brown 2.99
• Management – Banks 3.27 v Brown 2.63
• Experience – Banks 4.11 v brown 2.84
• Judgement – Banks 3.26 v Brown 2.51
• Trustworthiness – Banks 3.37 v Brown 2.86
• Ability to form support within Council – Banks 2.98 v Brown 3.15
• Economic management – Banks 3.65 v Brown 2.56
• Courage – Banks 4.30 v Brown 3.46

But 50% of CEOs want a new candidate to also enter the race.

Also 85% of CEOs support compulsory superannuation, as in Australia.

And ratings of various aspects of the budget:

• Closing loopholes for Working for Families 4.73
• Increase in GST 4.44
• Personal tax cuts 4.24
• Corporate tax rate cut 4.21
• Aligning top personal and trust rates 4.09
• Change tax treatment for LACQ’s 4.06
• Axe depreciation for residential housing 4.01
• Cuts to savings vehicle tax rates 3.95
• Reduction in thin cap threshold from 75% to 60% 3.63
• Ace depreciation on commercial buildings 3.17
• Axe 20% depreciation loading on new assets 3.16

This is a good idea.

The Wellingtonian has had a panel rate the performances of all the City Councillors.

I don’t agree with all the ratings, but it is good to see scrutiny and appraisal of Councillors. Far too many people get elected on name recognition alone with the public having no idea who is or is not effective etc.

There are occassional days when I think the Law Commission may have got it right on the evils of alcohol. These days always occur the day after I hit town with Cactus Kate, and today is one of them.

The day started at lunchtime and ended up in town close to 2 am.

It’s not so much the damage to my liver which concerns me – it is the damage to my wallet. I am sure we personally lifted Auckland’s GDP by around 1% yesterday.

Half a dozen of us had lunch and drinks at Soul. We we trying to see if six of us at Soul could spend more than Parekura Horomia at a Chinese restaurant. We managed it, but it was a close thing.

Cactus ended up having to tip the waiter a three figure sum as way of compensation for Whale’ amusing but inappropriate “banter” with said waiter. The highlight was the waiter telling Whale to get fucked :-). The tip should ensure we are allowed back there again.

Astonishingly Whale was not the worst behaved person yesterday. That came later in the evening in the form of a well known Auckland A-lister. I’ve never seen anyone offend and terrorise other party goers so well 🙂

I also learnt a useful lesson. If you have been drinking champagne non stop for eleven hours, and then it runs out, swapping to straight vodka is a very bad idea.

Anyway am close to recovered now and meeting more friends tonight. Have to get my fun in now just in case the Government goes all nanny state on us, and actually implements the Law Commission’s recommendations!

news.com.au reports:

THE Government will lose $1.5 billion in revenue after agreeing to cut the resource super profit tax from 40 per cent to 30 per cent.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has also agreed to water down other key aspects of the tax, which will apply to just 320 companies involved in mining iron ore, coal, oil and gas. More than 2450 companies were originally flagged in the deal. …

In another major concession, the tax will apply from a much higher rate than originally planned 10-year Commonwealth bond yield.

The new cut-in rate has been adjusted to the long-term bond rate plus seven per cent – an approximate rate of about 12 per cent.

The original proposal to tax any profits above the risk free rate of return (long-term Govt bonds) was the most outrageous part of the proposal. It would have been an awful precedent that making a higher profit than sticking your money in the bank was undesirable.

To offset the lost revenue from the new mining tax agreement, the Government will cut the company tax rate to 29 per cent from 2013/14.

Small companies will still benefit from an early cut to the company tax rate to 29 per cent from 2012/13.

Every three years a review of parliamentary spending is done. The boring name disguises that these are very important reviews as it is almost the only external scrutiny of how Parliament functions.

This review was done by former Speaker Doug Kidd and economist Philip Barry. There are 28 recommendations – some well overdue. I’m going to blog and comment on most of them.

That an independent program manager be appointed by the five parliamentary agency CEOs (if necessary, by direction of the Speaker, the Attorney General and Prime Minister) with responsibility for and the necessary delegated authority and funding to deliver the ICT rationalisation program developed by Government Technology Services.

This is a minimum step. It is insane that different parts of Parliament are on different computer systems.

Personally I would go much further and seriously look at a full merger of all five agencies into one “Department of Parliament”. You would still have specialist sections for Cabinet Office, legal drafting etc and they can be given autonomy over their policy functions. However you would have just one IT system, one HR system, one accounting system etc etc. I reckon the savings would be in the millions.

That MPs’ out-of-Parliament staffing entitlements be converted to a monetary value and the funding integrated with MPs’ funding for out-of- Parliament non-staff expenditure.

That the funding for MPs’ executive assistants and some communications entitlements also be integrated within the single budget recommended in recommendation two above.

I strongly support these recommendations. It effectively bulk funds MPs and allows them to decide how to spend their budget. At present an MP gets one parliamentary executive assistant and two (one for list) electorate agents whose salaries are set by a scale, and around $65,000 on top of that.

This system would see an electorate MP get around $220,000 total and a List MP around $150,000, and they would have total discretion about how to spend it. A List MP might hire just one parliamentary staffer for $50,000 and spend $100,000 on communications. An electorate MP might decide to hire a top class EA for $75,000 and have only one electorate staff member for example.

The inclusion of communications into a bulk fund would also provide some incentive for keeping such costs down, as they are met centrally at the moment. Labour would be less likely to run phone banks from Rick Barker’s office if they had to cover the costs of the calls from their budget.

That a pilot scheme be set up permitting MPs or recognised parties to directly employ MPs’ support staff if they wish.

Staff are officially employed by The Parliamentary Service itself, even though the MPs decide who get hired and who gets sacked.There are some dangers in making MPs the official employers (would mean MPs themselves could end up in employment court) but the option of letting each parliamentary party be the employer has some merit.

That consideration be given to broadening the class of family members for which restrictions on employment as an MP’s support staff apply.

At present only spouses, partners and dependent children are excluded from working for their partner or parent. The suggestion is it includes siblings and parents also.

I’m not sure on this one. A wider ban is becoming common overseas, but I recall Rodney Hide had his sister as his EA for many years and it was absolutely successful and professional.

That the already-purchased x-ray machine facility be installed at the Bowen House entrance without delay.

No no no. Don’t do it. They’re a waste of time that was forced on Parliament after 9/11. I’m personally not inconvenienced by them as I have a pass, but they just give a false sense of security.

That the remunerative aspects of MPs’ entitlements be removed from the entitlements provided for in the Speaker’s Directions so that the parliamentary business expenses of MPs can be identified for the purposes of the next appropriations review.

That the rebate for private international travel by MPs and their spouses or partners be discontinued and a new entitlement be established allowing MPs to travel internationally for professional development purposes.

That domestic air travel for each spouse/partner and dependent (under the age of five) be limited to an appropriate number of return trips per annum.Those return trips could be anywhere in the country but should be associated with parliamentary business.

That entitlements for MPs to travel by rail, bus and ferry be restricted to travel for parliamentary business and their spouses/partners and dependents be restricted to travel associated with parliamentary business.

This set of recommendations has attracted the most headlines, but also the most misunderstanding. They are very good recommendations which should be supported. First we need to understand how an MPs salary is currently calculated. The Remuneration Authority calculates a total remuneration level for MPs, and then deducts off the value of certain “perks” to get a base salary.

This means that if you eliminate the “perks”, then the base salary will increase. But this is not an increase in their total remuneration. And in fact it is more transparent and caps the ability of an MP to game the perks. Take the 2008 remuneration:

• Salary $131,000
• Superannuation $26,200
• 5% of MPs domestic travel $1,176
• 45% of spouses domestic travel $3,449
• 100% of MPs/spouses international travel $9,646
• Total $171,471

The percentages are what proportion of an entitlement the IRD has calculated to be of “private benefit”.

Now what the review has proposed is that spouses travel be restricted to parliamentary business and they get rid of the international travel entitlement. These are valued at around $13,000 so it would automatically increase the salary by that much to keep the package the same.

I think it is fairer and cleaner to stop the entitlements, and have the salary package reflect this.

That entitlements and allowances for MPs be set by an independent body. This body could be an independent Officer of Parliament.

This is common sense but don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

That, for the purposes of the Wellington accommodation entitlement, MPs entering Parliament from the next general election not be able to claim public funding for premises owned by either an MP or an interested party. The funding for premises owned directly or indirectly by current MPs should be grand-parented while the MP continues in Parliament.

This is exactly what I have been advocating for over a year. MPs should not be their own landlords – either directly or through fronts like the Greens superannuation scheme.

The definition of an interested party should include family, another MP, or a political party, plus associated companies and trusts.

That the level of the Wellington accommodation entitlement remain capped at $24,000 p.a.

This is around $460 a week, which is sufficient to rent an apartment or to cover three nights a week in a hotel.

That the Speaker’s Directions be amended to define the expenses that may be claimed as expenses incurred “in respect of accommodation” and the definition be limited to rent and utilities.

This is a minor change to exclude rates and cleaning.

That the definition of the Wellington commuting area be extended to include the Kapiti Coast up to the Waikanae River.

Seems fair. Basically it means if you live in Pararparaumu you are expected to commute in, rather than live in Wellington.

That the amount of the individual members’ support entitlement be set by an independent regulator.

Yes. The agreement between National and Maori Party to increase funding to Maori electorate MPs was the wrong way to do it and set a bad precedent,

If an independent regulator is not given responsibility for determining the individual members’ support entitlement, that:
a. a cross-party agreement on the appropriate funding regime
be entered into;
b. the funding for the Maori/largest electorates be altered to
$87,588;
c. East Coast and Taranaki-King Country electorates be added to the Maori/large electorate tier of funding; and
d. that an additional intermediate tier, receiving $87,588 (but not an extra staff member), be established consisting of the
Northland, Rangitikei and Wairarapa electorates and up to five
electorates in the lowest socio-economic areas of the country.

I much prefer to have some clear principles and have the level of support funding determined independently. The backup proposal above is an improvement on the status quo but still flawed. For example the rental costs in metro central city electorates can be massively higher than in other seats. So having extra funding tied just to size is problematic.

Also with the proposed extra funding for electorates in low socio-economic areas can be improved. Personally I would give those electorates an additional staff member rather than extra funding.

That MPs entering Parliament from the next general election not be able to receive public funding for out-of-Parliament offices owned by an MP or an interested party. The funding for premises owned directly or indirectly by current MPs should be grand-parented while the MP continues in Parliament.

The definition of an interested party should include a political party and a union affiliated to a political party. The review excludes them from being an interested party.

If recommendation 24 is not accepted, that funding for an MP’s out-of-Parliament office owned by an MP or interested party be limited to 80% of the independently determined market rental for the property. The present funding arrangements for premises owned directly or indirectly by current MPs should, however, be grand-parented while the MP continues in Parliament.

This is also something I have advocated.

That the above recommendations for changes to the system of allowances and entitlements for MPs take effect from the start of the next parliamentary term.

Makes sense. Let’s hope MPs will act or most, if not all, of the recommendations.

I seem to be a very busy bee at the moment 🙂

As always, clicking on the image will bring up a larger version
(It took a lot of shots to get this one)

Paddy Gower at TV3 reports:

Labour high-flyer and union boss Andrew Little will launch his Parliamentary career by standing in the New Plymouth electorate.

Nominations open today, and 3 News has learned Little will put his name forward – confirmed by top-level sources in the Labour hierarchy.

This is an interesting, but not unexpected, development. There was some talk of Andrew standing in Rongotai or even Hutt South if the incumbents retired or went list only. That obviously is not going to happen now.

New Plymouth is the most marginal electorate in the country – Labour’s Harry Duynhoven lost to Jonathan Young by 105 votes.

By putting their local boy and big gun in, Labour are showing they want this seat back.

But it’s a risky move.

Duynhoven had a hugely loyal following in New Plymouth.

Look at the party vote; there’s a 6611 majority to National. So, really, Little needs 6716 votes to overturn Young.

The electorate vote margin is rather misleading, due to the Duynhoven factor. Andrew will be a strong candidate, but it is not really a marginal seat.

So the risk is Little may not win – a loss would be hugely embarrassing and set his career off to a stuttering start.

Of course, he would still come into Parliament on a high list spot.

If Little really backs himself and cares about the New Plymouth, maybe he will have the guts to go all-or-nothing and not take a list spot.

I don’t think Andrew will turn down a high list spot. And as he chairs the list ranking committee, I think it is safe to say he will rank himself highly. He will be busy though, as he will also be running an independent third party campaign for the EPMU.

While risky, there are huge rewards in this – a power base from which to launch his career. Electorates are still vitally important to those who want to make big moves in politics because of the base they give.

You don’t generally become leader if you are a list MP. Hence the need for a seat.

The muppets are up in arms over a postal survey from a National MP.

A reader happened to have received a copy of this survey from Labour MP Pete Hodgson.I’ll let readers make their own minds up about how outrageous (or not) these are.

I must say that the National graphic designer should get a pay rise – their surveys are far better laid out than the rather ugly Labour one.

Labour Survey

I presume Phil Goff will be refusing to meet with the Dalai Llama in future. In fact according to one of his MPs, the Dalai Llama is an evil torturing dictator. Raymond Huo blogged:

China established what is now known as Tibetan Autonomous Region in the early 1950s, which put an end to the notoriously cruel system of serfdom on Tibet.

There are two versions of the Dalai Lama. For those of his followers his Holiness is a saint. For others, he is viewed as the leader who supported a system of slavery in Tibet which the Chinese authorities put an end to in the 1950s.

What Westerners do not know, or do not want to know, as argued by the other party, is what level of cruelty the Theocratic Serfdom under Dalai Lama had to offer. An exhibition in New Lynn in 2009 displayed:

• Tibetan Lamaism instruments for worship ceremony made by human parts including human skin drum and a necklace made of finger bones,

• A “gandong” (a flute made of human leg bone)

• Skin from serfs (including children) for religious purpose

• Serf’s eyes gouged out for punishment

What an evil man the Dalai Llama is. I am surprised Raymond is not calling for him to be prosecuted in the International Court of Justice.

As Danyl points out:

How fortunate the people of Tibet were to be liberated from their cruel rulers and taken under the wise and benevolent protection of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai, who then went on to kill over a million Tibetans through various purges and famines, replacing the dead with ethnic Han Chinese migrants who now rule Tibet as an apartheid regime.

(The current Dalai Lama was fifteen at the time of the Chinese invasion. He’s subsequently been a harsh critic of the feudal society of pre-occupation Tibet.)

I would also point out that while I am not exactly a devoted fan of the Dalai Llama, he has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yeah I know Obama has won it also, but back in 1989 it actually was meaningful. He also have been given 100 or so honours and awards from various governments.

Now to be fair to Labour, other MPs have disagreed with Raymond Huo in the comments on the post. But it is still extraordinary to see a New Zealand MP repeat such propaganda.