The President of the Tertiary Education Union said:

With that in mind, let’s start focusing on how good it is to see the seriousness with which the Vice-Chancellor takes the responsibilities that result from actively acknowledging Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the foundation for the relationship between Māori and the Crown. I only wish she could have stuck to this position publicly at the time this debacle first surfaced.

The views the Vice-Chancellor was seeking to keep off campus have no place in Aotearoa New Zealand. They should not be encouraged, respected, nor accepted, especially not under the banner of free speech.

This is incredibly depressing, but not that surprising.

The TEU is the union representing many academics in NZ. It has in the past claimed to be a defender of academic freedom.

But it shows its true colours with this statement. They say that if you have a view against creating race based seats on local authorities, then you have no place in New Zealand and you should be silenced.

The arrogance of these people who believe that anyone who disagrees with them on issues around the Treaty of Waitangi is racist and should be silenced is nauseating. They don’t accept any views are valid but their own.

Chris Hipkins announced:

Cabinet papers will be proactively released, Minister of State Services Chris Hipkins announced today.

The Cabinet papers will be released no later than 30 business days after a Cabinet decision. This process will be in place for Cabinet papers lodged from 1 January 2019, Chris Hipkins – who is also responsible for Open Government – said.

“This change is about being an open and accountable government.

“It will also make it easier for the public to understand government decisions and bolster the accountability of decision makers and advisors.

“Cabinet papers will be released within 30 business days of the Cabinet decision unless there is good reason not to publish. If we can publish it, we will.”

This is a good step in the right direction and a welcome move by the Government.

Individual ministers will have responsibility for releasing Cabinet papers, which will be subject to an assessment to decide if there are good reasons to withhold any of the information. For privacy reasons Appointments and Honours papers will be excluded.

What would be good is if Cabinet agendas are published also, so one can see if there were any papers not released.

Also would be good if the papers were released centrally on a (for example) oia.govt.nz website. Having them on each agency’s website makes it harder to know what is out there.

But again a good decision by the Government.

DW reports:

The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has overtaken the Social Democrats (SPD), the junior party in Germany’s governing coalition, in voter popularity to become Germany’s second-strongest party, behind Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives, according to the Deutschlandtrend poll by public broadcaster ARD.

The AfD moved up two percentage points since the last survey on September 9, bringing it to 18 percent — one percentage point more than the SPD, which lost a point. Merkel’s conservative CDU/CSU bloc, which has led German governments since 2005, also slipped a point to 28 percent, representing its worst result since the survey was launched in 1997.

AfD are benefiting from the backlash over immigration and refugees. Most people support some immigration and helping some refugees. But very few people believe in open borders where you just allow millions to flow into your country.

The poll results in total were:

Right Parties 55%

• CDU/CSU 28%
• AfD 18%
• FDP 9%

Left Parties 42%

• SPD 17%
• Greens 15%
• Left 10%

The AfD leader is Alice Weidel. She is 39 years old and has a PhD in international development. She is a lesbian who rails against political correctness. It is not impossible she could be Chancellor one day.

A fascinating open letter from the NZ Resident Doctors Association to the PSA:

Andrea Vance writes:

While female MPs were sipping orange juice at a celebratory Parliament breakfast, and their male colleagues were pinning white camellia to their suit lapels, it was sexist business as usual in the corridors of power.

Jacinda Ardern was distracted. She had too many papers crossing her desk. She was weak for not firing Clare Curran. 

Don’t think this is sexist? 

When Simon Bridges accuses Ardern of being distracted dealing with Winston Peters, his underlying message is: baby brain. It carries the scent of paternalistic condescension. 

Bridges might not even be conscious of it. But the words we choose infer things beyond what we intend.

No commentator ever suggested John Key had too much paperwork to deal with, even when he was struck down with one of his “brain fades”. 

He was not described as weak for letting foreign minister Murray McCully get away with using a private email account – and he got hacked.

Andrea basically says that words such as weak are only used to describe female politicians, not male ones.

A quick search of Scoop shows on 82 occasions a release or speech from Labour or the Greens has “John Key” and “weak” in it.

A couple of examples:

“Now that John Key is facing a similar donations scandal with one of his own Ministers, but refusing to act on it, he is showing how inconsistent and weak he is,” said Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei.

That Metiria Turei being sexist against John Key.

John Key is showing his weak leadership and refusal to do what is morally right by not raising human rights abuses of New Zealand born Australians on Christmas Island with Malcolm Turnbull, Opposition leader Andrew Little says.

“This was a weak and gutless display in Parliament today from the Prime Minister. 

And Andrew Little also called John Key weak.

Prime Ministers are routinely called weak by Opposition MPs. To say it is sexist when the PM is female is, well, weak!

Winston Peters is running rings around her because that’s what Winston Peters has done to successive coalition partners. His disruptiveness is gender-neutral.

Yes and having Simon Bridges criticise her leadership as weak because of it is not sexist. In fact there is an interesting background when it comes to criticising weak leadership of PMs dealing with Winston.

Back in 1997 Jim Bolger was Prime Minister and Winston was Deputy PM. And the Northern Region of the Young Nationals had an excellent regular newsletter. Off memory it may have been called Northern Lights.

The July edition of that newsletter had a cartoon and story which portrayed the PM as drunk in the kitchen on whiskey while Winston and the “Tight Five” were running around playing havoc, stealing the cutlery etc. It was excellent Young Nats humour.

The newsletter caused a big stir as the Sunday Star Times got hold of a copy and ran it on the front page during the National Party conference. The Regional Chair of the Young Nationals was summoned to a brutal dressing down by not just the Prime Minister, but also the party president, the chair of the Rules Committee, the Chief of Staff, the Chief Press Secretary the Party General Secretary etc. He was told he was “the stupidest f**k who had ever lived”, had destroyed the conference, destroyed the Government’s unity etc and that as a consequence he must withdraw from the election scheduled the next day for Young Nationals President as him being elected would be seen as the Young Nats endorsing the cartoon showing Bolger as weak.

The Young Nats Chair in question took what would have been an incredibly intimidating brow beating for the best part of half an hour but stood his ground and refused to withdraw from the election. He said the newsletter was just light hearted humour and the Young Nats should get to decide who their own officers are. I was incredibly impressed with his stance as I would have been a quivering wreck if I had endured the same.

The next day at the AGM I am told there was a remarkable sight. The Prime Minister turned up to the Young Nats AGM. Party rules make the Party Leader a voting member of every committee and body, including Young Nats. So he used this obscure rule to turn up just to vote against this Regional Chairman, and even started lobbying others to vote against him. Young Nats were startled to have the PM in attendance as for the last ten years they had invited him to their conference and he had never been able to make it.

So who was the Young Nats Chair whose newsletter portrayed Jim Bolger weak for how he was dealing with Winston Peters? By coincidence it was a Simon Joseph Bridges.

Reuters reports:

The United States told the World Trade Organization on Monday it would block the reappointment of one of the WTO’s four remaining appeals judges next month, confirming trade experts’ fears of a crisis in the system for settling global rows.

U.S. President Donald Trump has railed against the WTO, calling it a catastrophe and a disaster. He has said the United States loses cases because other countries have most of the judges.

In fact, trade experts say, the United States has a similar, if not better, lose-win rate than other countries that have taken complaints to the WTO, and it has a rare privilege in that the judges on the WTO’s Appellate Body have always included one American.

Trump faces a barrage of disputes at the WTO against his trade policies, including global tariffs on steel and a tariff war with China. Since he came to power, Washington has blocked all appointments to the appeals chamber as existing judges’ terms end.

There are normally seven WTO appeals judges, but if Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, a trade judge from Mauritius, is not reappointed when his term expires on Sept. 30, only three will remain — the minimum for the system to function.

It looks set to break down finally when two more judges’ terms expire in December 2019, but it could seize up sooner if any judges need to recuse themselves from a case for legal reasons.

The TWO dispute resolution system is vital. It is what allows global trade agreements to be enforced. What the US is doing doesn’t just affect countries trading with the US, but every WTO member.

If the US cripples the appellate body, then (for example) Australia could once again start blocking our apples on spurious grounds. And it would be impossible for us to get a binding ruling preventing them from doing so.

The Herald reports:

Whether you believe this Government is to blame for the downturn, or that it is the victim of a political backlash, news that consumer confidence slumped to six-year lows in September is cause for concern.

The Westpac McDermott Miller Consumer Confidence Index released yesterday showed consumers are following the gloomy lead set by business owners this year.

Households are increasingly concerned about their financial prospects for the next 12 months.

The economists who conduct the survey say it is not clear whether this reflects the reality of a slowing economy or whether consumers are simply reacting to the highly publicised negativity of the business community.

Certainly factors such as the cooling housing market and rising fuel prices seem to be playing a part.

What is interesting is that the Government’s increase to WFF and benefits should mean consumer confidence is very high, as many households have had an income boost.

The fact it is at a six year low just after the increase in welfare payments is a concern.

Claire Trevett reports:

The Herald has learned that after Ardern became Prime Minister, the guidelines for ministers’ overseas travel set by the Cabinet Office were reviewed and changed.

The rules are not set by the Cabinet Office. They administer them. The rules are set by Cabinet.

They now allow a minister with a young infant to take someone other than a partner to care for that child or for a minister with a disability to take a support person if needed.

Ardern said she had not sought the change for parents of babies and did not intend to use the extra entitlement herself. She would only allow it for other ministers in “exceptional circumstances.”

So why only for Ministers? Why do Ministers deserve to have taxpayers pay for nannies to fly with them, but no one else in the public service?

How about Public Service Chief Executives? Why shouldn’t they get nannies to travel with them if they have young children. Or Deputy CEs? Or Principal Policy Analysts? Or all staff?

Why should only Ministers get the taxpayer to pay for travel for their nannies?

Is the $300,000 salary not enough?

John Key as PM basically banned Ministers from taking their partners on overseas travel. Labour is saying you can take your nanny and charge it to the taxpayer.

I have no problem with the PM having their partner attend overseas events at taxpayer expense. It is expected.

But if there is a case for Ministers to have taxpayers pay for nannies to fly overseas with them, then why do only Ministers get this paid for? Many public servants do far more overseas travel than Ministers. Do they get taxpayer funded nanny travel if they have young children?

UPDATE: Even worse the Government has kept this hidden. They haven’t updated the Cabinet Manual or published a Cabinet Circular with the new rule. There was no pro-active release of this change.

I have been sent the following statement:

As a lecturer in the School of Humanities at Massey University, I wish to go on record in joining the call for the resignation of Professor Jan Thomas as Vice-Chancellor.

I believe that Professor Thomas’ handling of the Don Brash affair, as documented both in her public statements and in the newly released batch of e-mails, reveals three things about her leadership:

(a) She is a woman of strong political beliefs.

(b) In support of her core beliefs, she feels entitled to banish any potentially offensive speaker or idea from the university over which she presides.

(c) She is prepared to use any means necessary to achieve (b), in whatever way seems easiest to “spin” for PR purposes.

While I respect Professor Thomas for (a), I vehemently disagree with the attack on the freedom of academic speech and debate contained in (b). But for me as a lecturer, point (c) is the most troubling, since it means that I can no longer trust my own boss. If Professor Thomas decides one day that my teaching and research or even my personal opinions are not in harmony with “a Te Tiriti-led university”, will she take overt or covert steps to have me removed too, without being upfront about her reasons for doing so?

Effective teaching, research, and learning at a university are impossible under a regime of thinly veiled, ideologically driven censorship.

Dr Jonathan Tracy
Lecturer in Classical Studies, Massey University

The Sun reports:

A TRANSGENDER lag who carried out four sex attacks at a women’s prison was an “occasional crossdresser” who “played the system”, her ex girlfriend has claimed.

Karen White, 52, previously known as David Thompson, was sent to HMP New Hall despite not having gender reassignment surgery.

The former drag artist was a paedophile on remand for multiple rapes with a long list of sexual and violent offences against women.

But White claimed to be transgender to authorities and within days of moving to the female prison, she carried out the attacks.

This shows how barmy officials can be.

White is a convicted rapist. He has raped multiple women. He is sent to jail. He then says “I am now a woman” and they send him to a women’s prison where within days he starts sexually assaulting more women.

Of course the government should generally be considerate of prisoners and those who are genuinely transgender should be imprisoned in the safest environment for them.

But if the prisoner has been convicted of raping women, and hasn’t undergone surgery or hormone treatment, then you don’t stick then in a women’s prison.

Former neighbours at Elphin Court in Mytholmroyd, West Yorks, have also said White made little effort to transition.

One transgender neighbour told The Times: “Other than wear a wig and put on women’s clothing, she has made no more effort.

“I believe Karen is not a transgender, I believe she is more transvestite than transsexual with no real desire to be a woman.”

White’s interest appears to be assaulting women, not being one.

While at New Hall, West Yorks, White was also charged with a 2003 rape and has now pleaded guilty to four rapes.

Guilty of four rapes and White was put into a women’s prison. Madness.

Mike Hosking writes:

What a scandal eh? And if Massey values it’s reputation, Jan Thomas is gone.

I suspect most of us knew that when it came to the Don Brash fiasco the security excuse was bogus, given it never really got detailed and the police were never called.

But little did we know just how fundamentally dishonest Jan Thomas would appear to be in this matter. …

The campus, the university, the home of free speech, the exchange of ideas, the heated debate, the ability to learn through diversity, the welcoming of diversity, the open arms approach to expression. Well, that’s all been made a joke. The university of 2018 is a hijacked enclave of hand wringing and political correctness.

It’s where offence is guarded, if not policed against, where views held must adhere to hierarchies, where there is a gate keeper driven by the Treaty of Waitangi and its politically correct outworking.

It’s where what was once welcomed is now to be closed down at all costs. And, tragically, seemingly done so with dishonesty, subterfuge and underhand tactics.

I’m not sure what’s worse, the overarching agenda that it’s our view or no view, or what seems dishonesty keeping it in place.

Is a politically driven view of the world, a left-leaning one, of more danger to the community? Or the fact that morally these people will seemingly stop at nothing to drive it, and protect it?

There is nothing wrong with holding a view as clearly Thomas does. But to me the protection of that view at the expense of other views, especially on a place like a campus, is a crime, certainly morally.

And to go to such extent and effort to have your view, and your view alone, enforced smacks of an extraordinary level of paranoia.

A view well held is a view that can be defended and debated.

But so far this seems a basic abuse of power by dishonesty. I would have thought it is a sackable offence. You’d like to think she’d quit in humiliation. But I hope the university doesn’t give her the chance.

Thomas has a vision of the Treaty of Waitangi that made her think anyone who disagrees with that vision has no place being allowed to speak at Massey, let alone work there or possible even study there.

The OIA shows that she got the rules changed for events so event organisers had to agree that no event they ran could go against Massey being a Treaty led university, and that also applied to their guest speakers.

So if you disagree that the Treaty of Waitangi is a partnership (as Winston Peters does), she doesn’t want those views on campus as they may upset some staff.

Stuff reports:

Vaping may not be the gateway to cigarette smoking as was once feared, according to New Zealand’s largest smoking survey. 

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) canvassed more than 26,000 Year 10 students from across the country and found that only 2 per cent used electronic cigarettes, also known as vaporisers, daily. 

While that figure had risen from 1 per cent in 2015, the study’s manager said there was good reason for that.

“E-cigarette use by Year 10 students is increasing, but slowly and [it is] largely confined to students who already smoke,” said Boyd Broughton from ASH.

The research found less than 1 per cent of daily vapers were people who had never smoked cigarettes before.

That is useful and reassuring research. E-cigarettes are not without harm. They are far far less harmful that cigarettes. But if non-smokers were taking up e-cigarettes that would be concerning and if they were a gateway to smoking even more concerning.

But the ASH survey shows the opposite. That people transition from cigarettes to e-cigarettes (reducing harm) rather than vice-versa.

Whereas students who already smoked daily were more than 25 times more likely to use e-cigarettes every day than thier non-smoking peers. 

“There is a huge moral panic about young people taking up vaping, and even going on to smoke. These results don’t support that at all,” Broughton said.

“Never smokers might try a puff on a friend’s e-cigarette, but they are very unlikely to become a daily user.”

Good.

Meanwhile, the number of Year 10 pupils who said they were regular or daily cigarette smokers has dropped from about 25 percent in 2001, to about 5 per cent in 2017.

“Young people take risks, and whilst we can never stop experimentation altogether, trying an e-cigarette is a much better option that trying a cigarette, and one that appears less likely to lead to smoking.”

Good to see ASH taking a sensible approach on this.

Gwynn Compton has an op ed at Stuff against the name change and a group of graduates, staff and students have done a very detailed paper destroying the case for change.

Compton notes:

The agenda for the upcoming University Council meeting on the decision glosses over the significant issues raised about the name change, specifically concerns with how the consultation process was undertaken and with the deeply flawed business case.

However, the most crucial slight of hand in their recommendation was ignoring the fact an overwhelming 75 per cent of submissions received were in opposition to the name change.

It’s not explicitly mentioned once.

Instead, in their commentary they prefer to highlight 53 per cent of staff who made submissions were supportive, as well as the nebulous “stakeholder” category where 80 per cent of submissions were in favour.

Unsurprisingly, they chose to not highlight that 92 per cent of student submissions were opposed, as were 81 per cent of alumni. Those only appear in the summary table.

92% of student submissions against and 81% of alumni. How could the Council or the Minister possibly conclude a mandate for change.

And from the detailed document against:

The VC and Council do not appreciate that VUW would lose its current identity and all the established prestige, hard-earned quality reputation and recognition, let alone invaluable goodwill, which has been built up over the years. Likewise all the value within citations of academic records and papers would be lost, creating havoc and loss of recognition for actual staff and students with published research papers.

Further actual graduates would have degrees from a university that no longer exists in name, confusing potential employers, and lowering the value of those qualifications worked and paid for through thousands of
hours of effort and their cold hard cash. Fundamentally the university that has existed for 120 years would in one fell swoop be deleted: the only part of the name that has existed since day one is “Victoria”.

Yep a name change damages graduates massively.

Stats NZ reports:

Gross domestic product (GDP) rose 1.0 percent in the June 2018 quarter, up from 0.5 percent last quarter, Stats NZ said today. This is the largest quarterly rise in two years. …

Annual GDP growth for the year ended June 2018 was 2.7 percent.

That is an excellent quarterly growth figure, and above market expectations. Worth noting though it is for the period from April to June, so we’ll see next quarter if the weaker confidence of recent months has had an impact.

by John Stringer.

There are seismic civic rumblings in Christchurch as ideological tectonic plates grind and rub against eachother.

Christchurch -that brought you Big Norm Kirk, Jenny Shipley, John Key- has always been an engaged civic democracy, with hot feelings on both sides of the “People’s Republic of Christchurch.” It’s traditionally a Labour town, but National won Christchurch Central for the first time back in 2011 (by 47 votes) and again in 2014, but returned to the Red Flag fold 2017 (by 3000 votes). It had the first openly gay MP, and was responsible for the bill to make prostitution legal in New Zealand.  The City Council just this week gave $40,000 of taxpayers money to assist street sex-workers‘ “safety” and “well-being.” That’ll ill-please residents on Manchester St of this ever-so English city of Aotearoa.

The grinding and rumbling has most recently manifested around the “Eastgate” scandal (and here). It is further expressed in a very low public rating for its council in the Quality of Life Survey (only 36% confidence, down from 47% in 2006) and even lower in the City Council’s own Residents Survey (just 28% confidence).

Whichever way you cut it, voters are unhappy with Christchurch City Council which is led by former Labour minister and MP Lianne Dalziel (Chch Central/List 1990-1999 and Chch East 1999-2013). It can perhaps be understood to one extent, in the wrestling match of political ideology v civic application.

Cr Aaron Keown (Harewood) is dis-allusioned with democracy in Christchurch. He says there is none, and what’s left is strangled by process. Local MP Gerry Brownlee says the council simply isn’t making needed decisions.

That is most acute where the rubber hits the road over cycle-ways, inwhich city council spent gazillions putting in kerbed dedicated cycleways (sometimes on both sides of a road) when residents had not asked for them and in many cases have said loudly they don’t want them. There’s a strong feeling all future spending on more cycleways should be well and truly ‘flat-tired’ and cash spent on existing road surfaces.

Now there is a radical proposal for new dedicated bus and bike lanes through the heart of northern Christchurch suburb Papanui, one of the oldest suburbs in Christchurch (ca 1850).

It’s a case of proposals being put up by well-meaning professional experts on behalf of a Council who, via political application, are trying to “change mind sets” with ratepayers’ money, and forcing residents to cycle or use buses.  City councillor Keown again,

“Is it our role to facilitate the way people want to live their lives? Or is it our role to dictate to people the way we think they should live their lives?”

Many residents are reacting in Letters to Editors (and council surveys) to being ideologically ‘preached’ at; and their money used on projects they increasingly question: money-losing buskers’ festivals, twinkly lights in Hagley Park; cycling for health; Green Cities; swimming pools on every corner (because “well being”); and support mechanisms for commercial sex work. This week Council voted to dedicate $220 million of a taxpayers’ cash injection of $300 mill., on a new Christchurch sports stadium. (Bob Dylan has just played for the third time, at the perfectly useful Horncastle Arena in Sydenham; as did the All Blacks to a sold-out AMI stadium next door the same week).

The local body elections are in October next year, 13 months away. 2019 suggests itself as an election in Christchurch at least, over process, application, and emphasis.

I have now gone through and read in full the several hundred pages of e-mails to and from the VC and key staff, and have put them into a timeline below. This will clearly demonstrate how determined she was to cancel the event, and how the decision to cancel was made within a couple of hours of the open letter being published on Facebook. There are no references at all in the e-mails to and from the VC about actual threats or guns. This was used as justification later.

While the Politics Club had approached Massey operations staff a couple of days prior asking for security assistance, there is no evidence in these e-mails that this info was even known by the VC when she made the decision.

The VC defended her decision to Massey staff by citing the fear of gun violence. But again the comment about bring a gun on a Facebook post doesn’t appear in any of the e-mails to or from her before the cancellation (and it definitely would have if known). It may not even have been made at that time. It was a convenient excuse later.

Anyway look through the timeline yourself and see how it was the VC personally driving the mission to find a way to ban Brash and her staff who kept arguing that she shouldn’t do it.

The decision to cancel was made just 30 minutes after a staffer discovered they could use security as a reason to cancel. After weeks of trying to find a way within their policies to cancel it, she now had it.

The Herald reports:

Labour MP Meka Whaitiri has been sacked as a minister over allegations of a fracas with a staff member but Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has left the door open for her to return to Cabinet.

Ardern said today she no longer had confidence in Whaitiri as a minister after receiving a report last night into an incident in Gisborne on August 27 between Whaitiri and a staff member.

Whaitiri was suspended as Customs Minister on August 30. The details of the incident have never been revealed but it is believed there was a physical altercation between Whaitiri and a press secretary who had been in the job for only a week.

“While the facts are in dispute, the report says an incident occurred. Meka Whaitiri continues to contest details of the incident, but there are elements which are agreed,” Ardern told reporters.

She would not reveal further details of the report by Ministerial Services because it was an employment matter and to protect the privacy of the staff member involved.

But she said a version of the report would be publicly released.

This is the right decision and kudos to Ardern for making it.

When facts are in dispute, you look at credibility and motive. Why would a brand new press secretary fabricate an alleged assault by their Minister?

So good to see Ardern make the right call on her remaining a Minister.

However I note she is saying she can remain as an MP despite allegedly assaulting her press secretary and she may even become a Minister again. Compare that to Aaron Gilmore who was basically forced to resign over merely big noting at a restaurant.

Consumer Affairs Minister Kris Faafoi, who took over the Customs portfolio when Whaitiri was stood down, would keep it, Ardern said.

Whaitiri’s associate minister responsibilities would revert to the lead ministers, and Ardern said there were no plans for a Cabinet reshuffle.

It’s good they are not being replaced as the Executive was far too large anyway. Not the best way to trim its size, but hey the end result is good.

But it does give Ardern a problem in terms of gender. Labour now has two fewer female Ministers than Bill English had. For some people, this would not be an issue. But Labour has said they think there should be equality of numbers and under 30% of the Ministry are female. And if you only include Labour Party Ministers they are at just 26% female.

Now compare that to National. Bill English had 25 National Party Ministers and 10 were female, which is 40%. So 40% vs 26%.

Andrea Vance writes:

MPs tell themselves it’s an important democratic institution, a check on accountability.  Last week, Question Time gave us a petulant display from Winston Peters as he sought to slip out of answering Paula Bennett’s questions. Curran’s career-ending confusion was a rare episode.

It now matters so little that leaders don’t bother to show up on Thursdays, and the Greens gave over their questions to National.

And it’s horribly expensive. Hours and hours of public servants, officials and advisors time is wasted prepping, ringing around and taking instruction for Question Time.  If your minister has a question, the hours 10am to 2pm will be a write-off as you script their answers and try to guess what follow-up questions could trip them up.

Opposition staffers and MPs grind away strategising for Question Time. Even backbench Government MPs – or their assistants – will devote at least an hour perfecting their rare patsy question. Three to five hours of sitting time is wasted on the archaic, unproductive ritual where MPs take turns to squabble over points of order or bait each other. For each of those hours, every MP is paid at least $80.

And to what end? The beltway obsessions and semantic gymnastics that consume Question Time are of little consequence to the average person.

Vance says question time should be reformed or scrapped.

Here’s the changes I would make.

1. Turn Monday into PM’s question time as the House of Commons has. No questions set down in advance. Just an opportunity for any MP to question the PM on issues of the week
2. Reduce the number of primary questions from 12 to 8. It is often a struggle to find enough worthwhile topics. And the media will never cover more than a couple of issues anyway
3. Have six of the eight questions reserved for the Opposition and just two for backbench Government MPs.
4. Allow more supplementary questions so MPs have a greater ability to keep questioning evasive Ministers

The Herald reports:

Emails exchanged between former minister Clare Curran and millionaire entrepreneur Derek Handley over the Government’s chief technology role via her private email account remain a mystery, despite attempts by Parliament’s Speaker to shed light on them.

Speaker Trevor Mallard yesterday directed State Services Minister Chris Hipkins to bring with him to the debating chamber today all previously undisclosed emails from Curran’s private Gmail account to and from Handley on the CTO role in order to satisfy questions from National’s Nick Smith.

Today Finance Minister Grant Robertson, standing in for Hipkins who has gone on parental leave, read out the dates and a description of the content of the emails.

Curran has handed over her emails to Archives New Zealand, which has in turn told Mallard that the Public Records Act overrides the Official Information Act and Curran retains ownership and control of them.

Robertson said he had been assured Curran would release them under the Official Information Act.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has told Parliament that in addition to a text message, she also received an unsolicited email to her private account from Handley on June 7 but did not open it or reply to it.

Her staff had told her it had informed her that he had applied for the CTO role.

Ardern yesterday said she had received a text message from Handley about the CTO role but said she never spoke to him.

It is of course quite normal for someone applying for a $400,000 a year Government job to text the Prime Minister and tell them they have applied.

It is also quite normal to be appointed despite (reportedly) applying after the deadline for applications.

Also quite normal to have a secret meeting with the Minister in charge of making the appointment.

Nothing at all out of the normal here.

Stuff reports:

Inland Revenue has slammed a claim by Oxfam that pharmaceutical companies are “cheating New Zealand” out of about $21 million of tax a year.

Oxfam based its estimate on an assumption that drug companies’ profit margins on their New Zealand revenues would match their global profit margins.

But Inland Revenue international revenue strategy manager John Nash said the methodology Oxfam used in its report “in our view, completely misrepresents the situation in New Zealand”.

“Taking a global profitability figure and applying it across the board does not and cannot illustrate what is happening in this country,” Nash said.

Yep it is arrant nonsense. With drug companies they lose $3 billion on producing the first pill and then make say $5 per pill thereafter. Different countries pay for research & development, marketing, production, distribution so there is no way you can compare any one country to the global profitability.

The main driver of profitability in the pharmaceutical industry was the creation and development of intellectual property but that did not generally happen in New Zealand, Nash said.

“It is important to examine what actually happens in a jurisdiction and how value is added before arriving at a conclusion that insufficient taxation has been paid by a multinational.

Exactly. But when do facts stop Oxfam. I miss the days they actually did useful stuff helping starving kids. Now they’re just a left wing lobby group.