The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement made on the day Statistics New Zealand reported that 151,000 people were unemployed that “the Government did not intend to do anything specific to tackle rising unemployment”?
2. BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the stability of New Zealand’s financial system?
3. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Justice: Does she believe proposed laws dealing with deportees, including those from Christmas Island, will sufficiently uphold the rights of New Zealanders?
4. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Why has funding for the Early Intervention Service declined since 2010 when the Ministry has reported that demand for the service is rising and its ability to respond to referrals on time is declining?
5. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister of Health: How will the new high-profile public awareness campaign starting today encourage people to make healthy lifestyle changes to tackle obesity?
6. TRACEY MARTIN to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements?
7. KELVIN DAVIS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
8. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Associate Minister of Tourism: What contribution is tourism making to diversify the New Zealand economy?
9. MARAMA FOX to the Minister of Health: What is he doing to ensure vital services to promote the understanding and management of asthma and respiratory conditions amongst Māori are maintained given that funding to the only Māori Asthma Society in New Zealand will be discounted at the end of 2015?
10. ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister of Revenue: What recent announcements has he made on how the Government is making tax simpler?
11. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement, when asked whether child poverty was too high in New Zealand, that “it is very difficult to use one measure to determine poverty and hardship”?
12. RON MARK to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his answers to Oral Question No. 1 on 11 November 2015?

National: Four questions on financial system stability,obesity, tourism and tax simplification

Labour: Four questions on unemployment, education, PM standing by his statements and child poverty

Greens: One question on Australian detainees

NZ First: Two questions on Police Minister and Finance Minister standing by their statements

Maori Party: One question on asthma

Government Bills 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm

International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill – third reading

The Bill amends the International Finance Agreements Act 1961 in order to enable the Government to become a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

• Introduced September 2015
• 1st reading: September 2015, passed 63 to 58 with Labour, Greens and NZ First opposed
• Select Committee report: October 2015, supported unanimously with amendments
• 2nd reading: November 2015, passed 109 to 12 with NZ First opposed
• Committee of the whole House: November 2015, passed 109 to 12 with NZ First opposed

The third reading consists of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each for a maximum debate of two hours.

Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill – third reading

This Bill introduces amendments to the Income Tax Act 2007 and the Tax Administration Act 1994 so that residential land (except a main home) sold within two years of acquisition is automatically deemed a capital gain and taxed.

• Introduced: August 2015
• 1st reading: September 2015, passed 63 to 58 with Labour, Greens and NZ First opposed
• Select Committee report: October 2015, supported with amendments by the majority with minority reports from Labour, Greens and NZ First
• 2nd reading: November 2015, passed 109 to 12 with NZ First opposed
• Committee of the whole House: November 2015, passed 109 to 12 with NZ First opposed

The third reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours.

A Members’ bill ballot will be held at noon today. Four bills will be drawn.

Proposed members’ bills may be viewed here. Recently lodged bills may not yet be available.

The bills entered in the ballot are listed below.

The bills by party (Ministers excluded) are:

• National – 22/34
• Labour – 29/32
• Greens – 14/14
• NZ First -11/12
• Maori – 1/1
• ACT – 1/1
• Total – 78/94

Really good to see six extra National MPs with bills in the ballot. My campaign must be working!

UPDATE: The four bills selected are:

• Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill – Mojo Mathers
• Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill – Phil Twyford
• Oaths and Declarations (Endorsing the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill – Marama Fox
• Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill – Mark Mitchell

So National, Labour, Greens and Maori Party each had a bill selected.

Patrick Smellie writes at Stuff:

What’s really interesting is that peace has broken out not only inside the Labour Party, but also between Labour and National in some fundamental policy areas.

In part, that follows party leader Andrew Little’s finally euthanising some old policies he had long judged political poison, irrespective of their merits in a perfect world.

Behind closed doors and with very little fuss, capital gains tax, a higher pension entitlement age, and that complicated electricity policy that everyone worried wouldn’t work, were formally ditched.

Also behind closed doors and with even less fuss, housing spokesman Phil Twyford also got sign-off on three new legs to Labour’s housing policy, two of which have all but been announced by the government.

He announced a National Policy Statement would be used to dictate to city councils on urban densification and on removing urban boundaries that create a massive distortion between the price of land inside the boundary and land just outside it.

Twyford has concluded, along with everyone apart from anti-sprawl advocates and Nimbys, that a big part of why Auckland’s house prices are so crazy is the web of rules that drive the construction of costly homes.

I’m really pleased to see Labour seeing sense on this issue. For the past few years they have insisted that you can “fix” house prices by taxing capital gains and having the state build more, ignoring the unavailability of land in Auckland. And every independent report has said the availability of land was by far the biggest issue. So it is good to see Labour having changed its stance.

Brian Easton writes at Pundit:

The stupidest thing said about the TPP deal – thus far – is the claim that it does not reduce New Zealand’s sovereignty. Of course it does. Agreeing to it will mean New Zealand will not be able to do things it currently can do. How important this reduction in sovereignty is is a proper matter for assessment for there are gains as well as losses.

Every international agreement is a loss of sovereignty, in that you agree to do something or not do something. An international agreement on climate change is a huge loss of sovereignty – it may partially dictate economic policy for the next 20 years or so. So the sovereignty argument is silly.

Does extending copyright to 70 years after death make sense? How many authors are mindful that their works of genius will be of benefit to their great-great-grandchildren whom they will never meet? Did the announcement of the twenty-year extension result in any writers getting onto writing that novel which previously they had not bothered with? (I don’t even agree with 50 years. There is a view, including among some prominent American economists, that the period should be no greater than 20 years after death; I think that is to deal with publisher stocks at the time of the demise.)

I’m one of those with think it should be life + 20.

Apparently New Zealand was opposed to the extension to 70 years, but Japan and the US already have domestically legislated it as a result of corporate pressures and they insisted. Our negotiators had to give in, in exchange for other benefits (that beef access is really valuable), although we got some phasing in of the extension.

So if we think the TPP deal is to our advantage we are going to have to adopt the 70 years. But we can adapt policies to improve access to free information. Here is the beginnings of a list:

* the government should stop privatising the information it holds; yes it has sold-off some valuable data bases and their owners are charging like wounded bulls for their use;

* the government should direct the agencies which manage its (publicly owned) data bases to stop profiting from them. They may charge for the costs of releasing the information, but only those costs. This would require some financial compensation to the agencies who may well be reluctantly charging but need the cash because of government meanness;

* the government should set up a fund to purchase private data bases putting them in the free public domain;

* the digitisation project – placing public records in the digital domain – needs more funding.

I like these ideas.

Stuff reports:

Seven New Zealanders have been flown off Christmas Island, as images emerge of the damage caused by rioting at the detention centre.

The ABC reported it had witnessed detainees being transported to the Christmas Island airport.

Australia’s Immigration Minister Peter Dutton subsequently confirmed their removal to a correctional facility in Western Australia.

Looks like they may get to stay in Australia after all now! Of course in a prison, if they get sentenced.

“They are among a group of extreme-risk individuals who are alleged to have been involved in the disturbance at the centre,” he told the ABC.

The men, who were handcuffed, said they were from New Zealand and claimed to be on their way to a prison in Perth.

Remember that some of the asylum seekers at Christmas Island said they lived in fear of these guys, and were often beaten up by then. They are not nice individuals.

That doesn’t mean that every person caught up in this new Australian policy is bad. The case of the former Kiwi soldier is a case in point. It appears he has committed no offence, except join a motorcycle gang or club. There may of course be more to the story than we know at this stage.

However Australia gets to decide who stays in Australia. And if they tell you you are no longer legally able to live in Australia, then the best thing to do is leave, and come back to New Zealand – if you are a citizen. You can fight your appeal from here, and in fact I read somewhere around a third of the appeals have been successful. But helping cause a riot won’t help your appeal.

I think the new Australian policy is overly harsh and inflexible. But that doesn’t mean it is a breach of human rights. NZ sometimes detains people for immigration reasons also – Ahmed Zaoui was detained for a lengthy time when Labour were in Government here.

Radio NZ reports:

Fiji’s Police Commissioner Ben Groenewald has resigned and been replaced by Fiji’s land force commander Colonel Sitiveni Qiliho as Acting Police Commissioner.

Mr Groenewald told the ABC he was not happy with the way the Fiji military was interfering with policing.

The South African took up the job in May last year.

His departure was indirectly due to a standoff with the military over policing matters, he said.

Mr Groenewald, who described himself as a true-blooded policeman, said he was not satisfied with the way they interfered.

In a statement, the Fiji government said Mr Groenewald was leaving for personal and family reasons.

Following advice from the Prime Minister as the Chair of the Constitutional Offices Commission, the President had appointed Colonel Sitiveni Qiliho as the Acting Commissioner, the government said.

I had high hopes for Fiji after their election and new constitution. But this is disturbing.

Having the Police Commissioner resign due to military interference is bad enough. That suggests the military may see themselves as still above the law.

But to then appoint a military officer as the Acting Commissioner is worse.

Stuff reports:

A review of the law could make it easier for battered family violence victims who kill their abusers to avoid a murder charge.

The Law Commission had been asked by Minister of Justice Amy Adams to review how victims of domestic violence are dealt with by the law if they strike back against their partner or family member and kill them.

On Wednesday, the Commission released an Issues Paper identifying several areas where our justice system could be letting down victims who kill their abusers.

Adams has previously called New Zealand’s domestic violence record “horrific” and said in August that combating family violence was her top priority.

The Commission’s paper echoed Adams’ concerns, pointing out that family violence was a “significant problem” in New Zealand, with nearly half of all homicides family violence-related.

“Most homicides are committed by people with a history of aggression but sometimes, people who have been victims of long-term physical, sexual and psychological violence kill their abusers”, the paper said.

“Usually, although not always, such people are women who have suffered years of violence by male intimate partners.”

Lead commissioner Dr Wayne Mapp said victims of domestic violence who go on to kill their partners are usually charged with murder.

One of the key questions for the Commission was whether New Zealand should introduce a new partial defence, reducing murder to manslaughter, for victims of family violence.  

“When victims of family violence kill their abusers, they are often acting in response to years of physical, sexual and psychological abuse.

“Homicide is one of the most important areas of the criminal law and it may not adequately recognise the position of victims of family violence,” Mapp said.

I’m somewhat nervous about this. The law currently allows a finding of self-defence if someone kills to defend themselves from an active attack, or threatened attack.

This potential change is about someone who doesn’t kill in the middle of a fight, but who kills their partner in basically cold blood.

Now I have sympathy that some victims of domestic violence (which I abhor) may feel it is the only way out. However it is preferable to leave your partner rather than kill them. It’s not as simple as that, but still the punishment for domestic violence should be jail, not death.

Having said that manslaughter is still a very serious offence. I just don’t know one should use that term for something that is pre-meditated.

Maybe we should not use the terms murder and manslaughter but instead just have degrees of homicide?

The Herald reports:

Dreams of an air fare war between New Zealand the United States have been realised, with Air NZ today slashing its airfares to Los Angeles just as American Airlines confirmed it will start flying here in June.

Air NZ has cut fares to Los Angeles to $499 from around $785. American Airlines chief executive Doug Parker said it hadn’t set its fares yet but said it would be competitive.

The airline is the world’s biggest and will use a Boeing 787 Dreamliner on the route –
breaking Air New Zealand’s stranglehold on direct services between Auckland and the United States.

Great to see American Airlines enter the market, and we’re already seeing the benefit.

Usefully the alliance with Qantas means one can not just travel Auckland to LA, but also have connecting domestic connections in each country.

Four years ago, the Auckland Council had $3,081 million of debt (June 2011). At June 2015 it had $6,328 billion of debt. That is an increase of 105%.

An an annual basis it means Auckland Council have been borrowing $812 million a year.

That’s $68 million a month.

Or $16 million a week.

On a daily basis that is $2.22 million every day for the last four years.

Now this isn’t central Government where your tax take is uncertain, and you have cycles of surpluses and deficits. Local Government is your rates income is a fixed amount and known and should match your spending (basically). Yet Len has chalked up $3.3 billion of borrowing in four years, which is partly why rates had to go up 10%.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. TODD BARCLAY to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that building a more productive and competitive economy that supports jobs and higher incomes is one of the Government’s priorities?
2. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements regarding New Zealand-born Australian detainees?
3. PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Government encouraging New Zealand’s medical technology sector to grow and contribute to the economy?
4. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “Well, you back the rapists…”?
5. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Are health patients getting access to publicly funded health services as prescribed by their health professionals; if not, why not?
6. JONO NAYLOR to the Minister for Social Housing: What reports has she received about the impact methamphetamine use is having on Housing New Zealand’s ability to house people in need?
7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements regarding Silver Fern Farms; if so, why?
8. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler that there are increased risks to financial stability arising from the dairy and housing sectors?
9. BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on the contribution of aquaculture to the Marlborough economy?
10. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she confident that her Government is fully resourcing the Ministry of Education to provide quality support for schools and students?
11. JAMES SHAW to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement that “New Zealand can hold its head up high when it comes to climate change”?
12. JOANNE HAYES to the Minister for the Environment: What steps is he taking through the Resource Management Act 1991 process to support cycleways and to facilitate their design and construction as quickly and economically as possible?

National: Five questions on the economy, medical technology sector, Meth, aquaculture and cycleways

Labour: Four questions Australian detainees, health services, financial stability and the Ministry of Education

Greens: Two questions on Australian detainees and climate change

NZ First: One question on Silver Fenr Farms

General Debate 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm

The general debate is 12 speeches of up to five minutes each for a debate of an hour.

Members’ Bills 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Electricity Industry (Small-Scale Renewable Distributed Generation) Amendment Bill – first reading continued

This bill is intended to break down existing barriers and provide a fair regime for small-scale renewable electricity generators to encourage greater renewable distributed generation and to help New Zealand in meeting the goal of 90% renewable electricity by 2025. It is in the name of Green MP Gareth Hughes.

• Introduced: August 2015

The first reading consists of 11 speeches, with two speeches of up to 10 minutes nine other speeches (including a right of reply) have up to five minutes each each so the debate is a maximum of 65 minutes. There are seven speeches remaining.

Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill – first reading

This bill removes the disincentives to engage in part-time work by lifting the threshold of how much persons can earn before their benefit is reduced by abatement rates. It is in the name of Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni.

• Introduced: September 2015

The first reading consists of 11 speeches, with two speeches of up to 10 minutes nine other speeches (including a right of reply) have up to five minutes each each so the debate is a maximum of 65 minutes.

Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill – first reading

This bill would direct public fund managers to divest from companies directly involved in the exploration, mining, and production of fossil fuels.. It is in the name of Green MP James Shaw.

• Introduced: September 2015

The first reading consists of 11 speeches, with two speeches of up to 10 minutes nine other speeches (including a right of reply) have up to five minutes each each so the debate is a maximum of 65 minutes. There are seven speeches remaining.

Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill – first reading

This bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013, establishing a Technical Advisory Board to which matters must be referred in instances where the Minister will be required to exercise his or her discretion or prescribe an additional area of specified security interest.. It is in the name of Labour MP Clare Curran.

• Introduced: September 2015

The first reading consists of 11 speeches, with two speeches of up to 10 minutes nine other speeches (including a right of reply) have up to five minutes each each so the debate is a maximum of 65 minutes. There are seven speeches remaining.

Affordable Healthcare Bill – first reading

The bill’s purpose is to encourage people to contribute to their own healthcare costs in a way that is consistent with supporting the public health system. It also makes health insurance a requirement for Parent Category visa applications. It proposes to require Parent Category migrants to have health insurance on arrival and to maintain it in New Zealand for 10 years; remove fringe benefit tax from health insurance; and introduce the SuperGold health insurance premium rebate.. It is in the name of NZ First MP Winston Peters.

• Introduced: August 2015

The first reading consists of 11 speeches, with two speeches of up to 10 minutes nine other speeches (including a right of reply) have up to five minutes each each so the debate is a maximum of 65 minutes. There are seven speeches remaining.

Stuff has an article and poll on NZ’s ugliest buildings.

The options are:

• The former Auckland Council building, Greys Ave
• The Hilton, 147 Quay St, Auckland
• The Spencer on Byron Hotel, Takapuna
• The Base Shopping Centre, Hamilton
• City council building, Palmerston North
• PMTC Building, Palmerston North
• The Beehive, Wellington
• The former Government Life building, Christchurch
• Civic House, Nelson

But how could they leave off the Supreme Court building?

Photo: John Ansell

After a few weeks of not seeing it I forget how ugly it is, until I view it again.

It is so beautiful inside, but the exterior looks like a Stalinist building with a barbed wire fence.

The Dom Post editorial:

Andrew Little wanted to clear the decks of old policy and shine a light on the new Labour captain – himself. The result was strangely depressing.

Little had moved long before last weekend’s annual party conference to kill off the remnants of the Leftish policy Labour touted last year. 

The capital gains tax and a rise in the pension age were officially dumped at the conference without fuss from delegates.

 Also dumped was the power policy, a joint effort with the Greens to tackle the electricity oligopoly that keeps forcing prices up. And much of the conference took place in secret.

This was creating a desert and calling it peace.

 Little now stands on a bare platform with no significant policy. The fact that nobody much cared when he threw out the old policies might be taken as a sign of a newly unified Labour Party. Or it might be a sign that Labour is a corpse. It doesn’t have the strength to fight or even to disagree with itself. So the attempt to hide everything behind closed doors wasn’t even needed.

Having no policy to sell, Little tried to sell himself. His “impassioned” speech was in fact awkward and unconvincing.

Labour’s strategy appears to be to have no actual policy and try to convince people they are both for and against the TPP!

Labour can’t even take the step of injecting new blood into its leadership with the fresh face of Jacinda Ardern.

Her qualities are modest, but she is a sign of life. Labour has few other such signs.

Little tries to build a personal link with voters by talking about his family. Perhaps he thinks that mentioning his flinty Tory dad will create a sense of paradox or at least a spark of interest. 

Neither as a union politician nor as a parliamentarian has Little been a bold or lively reformer. He has little charisma and a lack of new ideas. 

It’s hard to believe he will lead Labour out of the wilderness.

As far as I can tell their plan seems to be to aspire to get 34% of the vote (which is what they got when they lost in 2008) and hope Winston can do well enough to put them into Government along with the Greens.

Stuff reports:

Outgoing Auckland Mayor Len Brown is “not a team player”, his deputy says. …

Announcing his final decision on a Sunday morning without consulting anyone first was typical of his leadership style, she said.

“I thought we should have at least been accorded the respect to have been brought round the table to talk about how he was going to make that announcement.

“Len’s just not a team player,” Hulse said.

“That’s where the energy has drained out over the last couple of years around the council table.

“For those of us who’ve held things together it’s been pretty exhausting really.

“A good leader needs to spend as much time with his troops around the table and talking about things in detail as he does out the front chairing meetings and leading.”

Brown had not necessarily done a good job of that, she said.

That’s very damning, from your own hand-picked Deputy Mayor.

On the subject of Labour MP Phil Goff’s expected bid for the mayoralty she said she hoped he would be focused on what’s good for Auckland, rather than politics.

“The last thing we need is the long hand of Wellington running things in Auckland.”

Can Phil Goff put aside being a partisan MP for 35 years, to work with all Councillors?

Labour have been battling for weeks and months for the NZ citizens held in detention in Australia as they fight deportation orders, trying to make them the victims. They have glossed over the fact that they have all been sentenced to at least a year in prison. Now I don’t know if Australia is the same as NZ, but in NZ to get a year in prison you need to either be a recidivist offender or a reasonably serious offender. You don’t go to prison for one burglary.

Stuff reports:

A mob of aggressive New Zealanders has been terrorising other detainees inside Christmas Island detention centre for weeks, leaving asylum-seekers fearing for their lives.

Dozens of Kiwis are locked up in the Australian detention facility – many had their visas revoked on character grounds under section 501 of Australia’s Migration Act, earning them the nickname “501s”.

But while they may not have committed crimes, fellow detainees say inside Christmas Island detention centre, the Kiwis are anything but innocent.

A distressed Lebanese detainee told The Australian he feared for his life at the hands of the 501s during a riot that broke out on Monday.

“They’re f***ing going to kill me … We are in danger. You need to tell someone who cares that our prison is in the hands of very serious criminals.”

So it is not the evil Australian Government’s guards they are scared of, but the NZ detainees whom Labour are championing.

He said the New Zealanders had beaten more than 20 weaker detainees over the last month, stealing their phones and other property.

“These Kiwis are like a group. There’s about 25 of them. Very, very strong and they are very, very aggressive. We have problems with them. They call us dogs. Dogs and b****es.

“I got bashed by 14 men … My eyes are destroyed. I cannot see more than 20m. They ­f***ing ­destroyed my life.”

Perhaps not a huge surprise that Australia is deporting them.

Other detainees also blamed the New Zealanders for starting the riot, after escaped Iranian refugee Fazel Chegeni was found dead on the island, far northwest of Australia near Indonesia.

Tuk Whakatutu told Radio New Zealand there was an armed group mostly made up of New Zealanders and Pacific Islanders, who had broken into garden sheds to find weapons.

“They’ve got petrol bombs, they’ve got machetes, they’ve got chainsaws, metal bars, all sorts.

Outstanding citizens.

The New Zealand government has since promised Kiwis who elected to return home would be able to do so in a “matter of days, or at most, a week”, despite the riot.

Potential obstacles to a swift departure included detainees’ lack of travel documents, the need to charter private flights for high-risk offenders, and assessing potential risks that detainees could present upon their arrival.

Justice Minister Amy Adams said Australian Immigration Minister Peter Dutton had confirmed “there would be no prejudice to consideration of the cases of detainees who chose to come to New Zealand in the interim”.

“Further, Minister Dutton gave me an undertaking that any New Zealander wanting to return would not have to bear any of the expense involved in returning to New Zealand,” Adams said. 

“He has previously confirmed that for those who return, if their appeal is subsequently upheld then there would also be no barrier on them returning to Australia.”

But if they come back to NZ, then they don’t have Labour MPs championing their cause to try and paint them as the martyrs.

Labour were all offended when the PM said they were supporting rapists, child molesters and murderers. Well the Herald reports:

The Prime Minister’s office later released figures which showed that out of 585 New Zealanders facing deportation, 34 had been convicted of child sex offences, 22 convicted of murder, and 16 convicted for rape or sex offences.

22 of them are murderers!

The monthly newsletter is out:

There were two political voting polls in October – a Roy Morgan and a One News Colmar Brunton.

The average of the public polls has National 19% ahead of Labour in October, up 5% from September. The current seat projection is centre-right 61 seats, centre-left 50 which would see a National-led Government.

We show the current New Zealand poll averages for party vote, country direction and preferred PM compared to three months ago, a year ago, three years ago and nine years ago. This allows easy comparisons between terms and Governments.

In the United States a good month for Clinton and Carson. Biden’s withdrawal has seen Clinton gain 12% in primary polling and Ben Carson has gained 7% to be a dominant 2^nd to Trump.

In the UK Jeremy Corbyn has a net approval rating of -19% after two months in the job.

In Australia Bill Shorten appears to be in serious trouble. Malcolm Turnbull has a +35% net approval rating while Bill Shorten is on -32%. Turnbull leads Shorten as Preferred PM by 63% to 17%.

In Canada no polls since the election. The polls were quite accurate but the seat projections were not.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please go to http://curia.us10.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=e9168e04adbaaaf75e062779e&id=8507431512 to subscribe yourself.

The NZ poll comparison is:

The Herald editorial:

Mr Brown ought to have resigned a long time ago. He has done no good for Auckland by remaining in office once it had become obvious to all around him that he could not again be effective. For two years, the council has been drifting and fractious, lacking leadership in the position that was given more executive power than any other in New Zealand local government.

His decision not to seek re-election next year is the next best thing to an admission that he no longer should be there.

His main legacy will be the 9.9% rates increased after he promised 2.5%.

Stuff reports:

Police have been accused of “scaring” motorists over the lower drink-driving limit, with suggestions people should avoid even a sip of the hard stuff.

Hospitality New Zealand has published a “rule of thumb” drinking-then-driving guide that will soon be placed in most bars and pubs in the country.

The guide, which has approval from government science agency ESR, recommends no more than three standard drinks over two hours for men, and two standard drinks over two hours for women.

It comes with caveats, such as how much and what types of foods you have been eating, and your size.

Hospitality New Zealand chief executive Bruce Robertson said the organisation was forced to act after police and the New Zealand Transport Agency dragged their heels over publicising how much can be drunk under the new limit, instead suggesting no-one should drink at all.

“Police should be enforcing the limit, not scaring people into drinking less than that,” he said.

“Clearly you can have a couple, and the public needs some clarity about that.”

Robertson hits out a one particular NZTA television advertisement, in which a woman is found over the limit after a couple of drinks at dinner.

“They are saying you have two drinks and you’re over, but our evidence is that just not accurate.”

I do wish the Police would focus on being the criminal Police not the moral Police.

The drink-driving limit was cut from 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath to 250mcg at the beginning of December 2014.

Since then, thousands of people have been caught driving below the old limit, accounting for nearly a third of all drink-driving offences.

The change has also coincided with a 14 per cent drop in the number of people caught with high levels – proof, police say, that the change is saving lives.

That isn’t proof the change is saving lives. That is proof that fewer people are caught with higher levels. It could well be saving lives but to know that one has to look at fatal crash data to see if the number involving alcohol has gone up or down.

In 2014 31 out of 171 dead drivers had blood alcohol over the legal limit. So it will be interesting to see what the 2015 data is, when complete. I hope it will be lower.

Stuff reports:

An international anti-doping commission recommended on Monday that Russia’s Athletics Federation be banned from the sport over widespread doping offences – a move that could see the powerhouse Russian team excluded from next year’s Rio Olympics.

The commission, set up by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), found a “deeply rooted culture of cheating” in Russian athletics. But it also identified what it called systemic failures in the global governing body, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).

The international police body Interpol said it would coordinate a global investigation into suspected corruption and doping in athletics.

The commission said in its report that the London 2012 Olympics had been “sabotaged” by the widespread inaction of international and national anti-doping authorities.

“For 2016 our recommendation is that the Russian Federation be suspended, in fact one of our hopes is that they will volunteer that, so that they can take the remedial work in time to make sure that Russian athletes can compete under a new framework if you like,” Dick Pound, president of WADA, told a news conference in Geneva.

Russia finished second behind the United States in the medal table at the 2012 Olympics, with 17 medals, eight of them gold, and has long been one of the chief players in track and field.

Russia really is regressing to the old Soviet Union, which of course was world leaders in doping.

The Herald reports:

One of the criticisms of Labour is that it suffers from a dearth of hopey-changey stuff. Little has taken to the opposing part of Opposition with relish – lashing out at everything from the flag referendums and pandas to the economy.

Jennifer Marshment-Lees, a Auckland University expert in political marketing, says that is one of the problems. “[Little] needs to stop criticising everything the National Government do. The voters voted them in, so if you keep criticising a party that is still relatively popular and respected then you’re criticising the voters.”

She pointed to “peripheral” examples such as the flag as well as bigger issues including the TPP, talking down the economy and Labour’s gloomy response to the return to surplus. “Hitting a government on its main strength is a bit stupid.”

Yep, long may it last.

She also pointed to Labour railing against the deployment of trainers to Iraq. “Andrew Little started with negativity and he should have acknowledged it’s a difficult decision for a Prime Minister.”

It’s a view Labour Party member and political commentator Josie Pagani shares. “There is no political movement in history that’s ever won without being hopeful. Think of Martin Luther King or Justin Trudeau. At the moment it feels like Labour’s message is, ‘New Zealand is going to hell in handbasket, the Chinese are coming to get us, your lives are miserable and, by the way, you’re fat. Vote for us.‘ It’s just not going to work.”

That’s so true.

John Roughan writes:

What a strange thing it was that Sonny Bill Williams did. All the previous strange things in his career have been blamed on his manager but there was nobody in Sonny Bill’s ear when he decided to give his Rugby World Cup winner’s medal away.

It was his own spontaneous gesture to a lad who had run out to the All Blacks during their victory lap and had been tackled by a Twickenham security guard. The kid was not hurt and probably not surprised to be tackled. Williams and Steve Hansen picked him up, put an arm around him and Williams steered him back to the fence where on a parting impulse he gave the kid his medal.

A trifle excessive, I thought. Also a bit demeaning for the prize the All Blacks had just won, and I wondered what his teammates thought. I also hoped the boy’s parents would realise it was a needless gesture, probably made in a moment of excitement when the man was not thinking clearly, and one he would later regret.

I hoped they would later offer it back, which indeed they did, Williams has said. But he told them, “Nah, better he has it than it hang on my wall”. Was he modestly depreciating his generosity or did he really not want this thing?

I think it was a spontaneous gesture with the best of motivations. It was a realisation that to a young fan, the medal would have perhaps a lifetime of impact, which was greater than having it was to Sonny Bill.

This doesn’t mean he doesn’t value it, but that what he values more is the actual achievement of helping win the Rugby World Cup, rather than the medal that goes with it. The memories, the photos, the actual event are what mean the most to the players. The medal is a tangible record of it, but is not the end in itself.

He is not alone among top sportsmen is having little interest in keeping memorabilia – but it is fairly unusual to give it away a moment after it has been draped around their neck. Insulting too. His teammates might never say whether they found it insulting but as a fan, I did.

It felt like a betrayal of our enthusiasm for their achievement and the exquisite agony of those early mornings on the couch.

I don’t know whether I’m more disappointed in Williams or the many who see it as an utterly admirable act of generosity.

I’m one of those. I think it was a reflection of the All Black culture we now have about being role medals, and inspiring young people. There should be no expectation ever that any sportsperson should do what SBW did, but when it happens as it did, let’s just celebrate it in an uncomplicated way, rather than psychoanalyse it.

Most human beings get pleasure from giving other people pleasure. It can be as simple as that.

A long and interesting piece by David Fisher on the intelligence agencies:

John Key has opened up the spy agencies to public scrutiny in a way which we have never seen in New Zealand.

We know more now about what they do and even how they do it.

We know how the two agencies are managed, in that the GCSB and NZSIS both have top-flight lawyers in charge.

There will always be those who say we don’t know enough. For those people, we now have improved oversight of the agencies. This also happened under the Prime Minister’s watch as minister in charge of the agencies.

The new Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn – another superb lawyer – has been a breath of the freshest air.

Mr Key has since stepped away from directly overseeing the agencies, which is a further liberation. It seems right that the most powerful weapons of state should sit with someone whose role is to objectively challenge his Cabinet colleagues.

Now, even at a ministerial level, the SIS and GCSB answer to a lawyer, this time Attorney General Chris Finlayson.

In terms of oversight and public disclosure, we are heading into an era unparalleled in our history. Citizens now have more ability to see and have explained the tasks done in their name. Again, it might not be enough but it is considerably more than we have had before.

I’m glad to see this recognition. If you go back 10 years, no PM would answer any question on the intelligence agencies. The oversight reports were few and extremely bland. It is vastly different to what we have today with both the Inspector-General and the two directors going into considerable detail (within reason) of what they do.

That’s where we have come to, three years after Mr Key had to admit Kim Dotcom and one of his co-accused had been illegally spied on by the GCSB. He also had to apologise – a concession which must have been galling.

That single event appears to be the point at which the Prime Minister stopped taking at face value the assurances given by the intelligence agencies, and began a programme for reformation which is huge in its scale and largely behind closed doors.

I think that was a catalyst, aided by the Snowden revelations. He sent in the Cabinet Secretary to review their compliance, and having found it lacking, then made her one director, and two deputy solictor-generals the other director and the Inspector-General. They are not just all lawyers, but all lawyers whose background is very focused on legal compliance.

But there have also been reports which paint a picture of the state of New Zealand’s intelligence services, past and present. None are individually explicit in their descriptions of how bad it was but the collective run of reports gives an impression of the intelligence community as an isolated part of government, lost to the public they were serving, changing purpose and shape under a cloak of secrecy.

There is a pattern which flows through these reports, whether it be NZSIS boss Rebecca Kitteridge’s investigation into the GCSB, or the Performance Improvement Framework reviews or the most recent Gwyn report. Every reviewer is insistent staff at these important and powerful agencies all had good intent, but that they were left operating in frameworks not quite right, or in some cases flat out wrong.

It is almost tragic the intelligence services sought out such eager and patriotic staff only to subject them to a bureaucratic acid trip.

Part of the problem I think is that the culture was too mixed in with the military, and the senior leadership all tended to be ex-military. Top military officers often have some very fine skills, but they are not necessarily all the skills you need to have an agency working correctly.

John Key’s response to a community which cultured problems and surprised him with embarrassment was to throw back the curtains, hire his own directors and to put serious lawyers in charge. There are those within horrified at their new reality, which includes the need to “inform the public of what we do and why it is so important”, as one recently disclosed report stated.

Accountability and transparency make the intelligence community one in which all New Zealanders have a stake, by simple virtue of it being more accessible.

John Key has made some mistakes in this area, such as personally requesting Ian Fletcher to apply. But I do think there hasn’t been enough focus on the massive changes he has introduced, and also how he personally has been far far more willing to talk on details of intelligence operations than any predecessor. There are some dangers with this, as you can’t go into detail on everything, and where you draw the line has consequences. But our level of transparency and independent review is far greater than in the past.

Stuff reports:

The only South Island contender in the latest round of potential charter schools is also the only with a focus on learning disabilities.

Christchurch learning needs tutoring and assessment company Train the Brain has made a list of 26 organisationsnationwide all vying for the chance to become another of the Government’s recently introduced partnership schools.

The third opportunity for sponsor groups to put forward their ideas closed on October 30, and the chosen applicants will open their schools in 2017.

Partnership schools, or kura hourua, are created with a partnership between the sponsor, Government and community. 

The schools, initially referred to as charter schools, have been controversial and Education Minister Hekia Parata initially said there would not be a third application round in 2015.

Train the Brain director Carina Voges said there were four categories organisations could apply under – Maori, Pacifica, low socio-economic, and learning needs.

It was “sad” there were currently no charter schools in the South Island, and none for learning needs, she said.

She started the organisation more than six years ago for children with difficulties like dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, and visual and auditory processing disorders, and it had grown “tremendously”.

She said between 12 and 24 per cent of the population had learning disabilities.

“Parents always ask, ‘Why don’t you start a school?”‘

“I thought this would be the right time to apply.”

She believed because of the plasticity of the brain, pathways could be built to manage and overcome certain disabilities.

“What we believe is that children with identified learning needs have an average or above average intelligence and needs are not met in the classroom.”

“That potential is lost to New Zealand. New Zealand is a small country and we can’t afford that.”

The 13-staff company currently tutored about 100 children part-time, and assessed other children to identify their needs.

It was applying to become an affordable full-time school, running classes of no more than 12 children to each room.

To begin with, it would have a roll of about 85 for year 3 to 9, with plans to expand to a pre-school to year 13 school while also continuing tutoring.

If accepted, parents would only have to pay fees at state school amounts.

Doesn’t that sound great?

And again we remember that Labour and Greens have vowed to shut down all charter schools in New Zealand.