Stuff reports:

A bill that would make ACT leader David Seymour accountable under the Official Information Act has passed its first reading by one vote.

Labour MP Adrian Rurawhe introduced the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill, which had its first reading in the House on Wednesday night.

It was UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne who broke ranks with National and ACT and got the bill over the line – voting in favour of it along with fellow Government support partner, the Maori Party, as well as Labour, NZ First, and Green Party MPs.

Seymour, who is under-secretary for education and responsible for charter schools, as a result of a supply and confidence agreement with National, said it was a “stunt bill”.

He questioned why Labour didn’t change the bill back in 2005 when former Labour MP Dover Samuels was an under-secretary.

“This is a bill entirely designed to target a particular member: strangely enough, me.”

It is.

But that doesn’t make the bill without merit.

Seymour said the bill was redundant because under-secretaries answered to their Ministers, who were accountable under the OIA.

Under-Secretaries may not have formal decision making power, but they are part of the Executive and hold meetings, write correspondence and the like. I think they should be included, even though I agree the motivation is partisan politics.

As it happens I suspect the bill will be somewhat academic by the time it passes (if it does) as I expect Seymour will be a Minister by then.

Chris Trotter writes:

Not that Mr Little was without a strategy on Tuesday morning. His proposed way of dealing with the TPPA was to see it ratified; to assist the National Government in bringing New Zealand’s laws into conformity with its provisions; and then, upon becoming the Government, simply “flout” those TPPA rules which conflict with his government’s plans.

As a gift to Labour’s political opponents, this strategy is hard to beat. No responsible political party loudly announces to the world that, if it wins office, no other nation should place the slightest trust in their country’s solemnly given word. Such behaviour would turn this country into an international pariah.

Yep.It may be the stupidest thing he has said.

Not that it’s likely to happen. From now until the 2017 election, National will use Mr Little’s words to shred Labour’s political credibility. Not only that, but Little’s decision to “flout” will also allow Mr Key to present New Zealand’s adherence to the TPPA as a matter of national honour. Labour will be made to look like an untrustworthy bunch of thieves and liars.

In the House on Wednesday, Labour had only one question on TPP, and National had three. This shows that National thinks Labour is in deep trouble over what Little has said.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister with respect to achieving surplus, “Yeah, for a few hundred million we could go and slash you know, fundamentally, health, education and welfare. They’re the only big areas where you could take money. I think most New Zealanders would say that’s a bit short-sighted”?
2. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR to the Minister of Finance: How does New Zealand’s fiscal position compare to other advanced economies?
3. JAMES SHAW to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will he take a more ambitious climate target to Paris than the current target, in light of new evidence showing “only the most ambitious effort to curb emissions will stop Antarctica’s ice shelves from collapsing”?
4. CARMEL SEPULONI to the Minister for Social Development:What percentage of cancer patients receiving benefits have been found to not really have cancer due to the requirement that they submit regular medical certificates to Work and Income New Zealand?
5. ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister for ACC: What recent announcements have been made on ACC levies?
6. FLETCHER TABUTEAU to the Minister for Land Information:Does she intend to issue a new directive letter to the Overseas Investment Office; if not, why not?
7. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: Will the Government support families who want to repatriate the remains of family members buried in Malaysia who died while on deployment between 1956 and 1969; if not, why not?
8. TODD MULLER to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on how the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will benefit New Zealand horticulture?
9. JAN LOGIE to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied with the number of women who hold Cabinet positions in the Government?
10. FLETCHER TABUTEAU to the Minister of Finance: What is the current value of the New Zealand Super Fund?
11. BRETT HUDSON to the Minister for Small Business: How will the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement benefit New Zealand small business?
12. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Why has early childhood education funding on a per-place basis failed to keep up with inflation in Budget 2015 when early childhood education costs for parents have increased by more than six times the rate of inflation in the past year?

National: Four questions on the surplus, ACC levies, TPP x 2

Labour: Four questions on the surplus, cancer patients, Malaysia veterans and eary childhood education funding

Greens: Two questions on climate change and gender equality in Cabinet

NZ First: Two questions on overseas investment and NZ Super Fund

Government Bills 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm

Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) – committee stage

“The Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) modernises the Passports Act 1992 by extending the maximum validity period of the New Zealand passport from 5 years to 10 years for persons who are at least 16 years old and by taking into account certain changes in technology.

• Introduced June 2015
• 1st reading: June 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report: August 2015, supported with amendments unanimously
• 2nd reading: September 2015, passed unanimously
• Committee of the whole House: September 2005, passed unanimously

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.

The bills entered in the ballot are listed below.

The bills by party (Ministers excluded) are:

• National – 16/34
• Labour – 31/32
• Greens – 14/14
• NZ First -12/12
• Maori – 1/1
• ACT – 1/1
• Total – 75/94

If the other 18 National MPs got a bill in the ballot (or could get agreement of the hierarchy for their bills) then the chances of a non hostile bill being drawn would increase from 16/75 to 34/91 or from 21% to 37%.

Stuff reports:

A campaign to “save Dave” has been launched in support of Kaikoura helicopter pilot Dave Armstrong, who is being prosecuted after flying to the rescue of an injured hunter.

Armstrong faces possible jail time because he was flying while suspended when he rescued Christchurch hunter Scott Lee and his girlfriend Lisa McKenzie from the remote Puhi Puhi Valley, north of Kaikoura, in April last year.

He is being prosecuted by the Civil Aviation Authority for three alleged breaches of the Civil Aviation Act, and is due to appear in the Kaikoura District Court on Friday.

He was not meant to be flying that day, because a medical scare had grounded him.

It is understood he flew as supervisor to the scene, but dropped off his less-experienced co-pilot and took the throttle himself in dark and cloudy conditions so he had room to deliver two rescue teams and a doctor. They walked the couple out.

Lee and McKenzie have written to the CAA pleading for mercy for Armstrong. …

He said the authority could have censured or warned Armstrong, but its decision to prosecute “alienated” the flying community.

“We believe that right-thinking New Zealanders would be affronted by it. We do not believe this is fair and we do not think it is just. This should not stand.”

I agree.  At the most he should have got a warning. But prosecuting him for helping save people’s lives is a very bad look.

Peter Gregory writes:

The UN ratified its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) a month ago. $US2.5 trillion of foreign aid spending between 2015 and 2030 will be devoted to achieving them. UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon says they are a plan “for ending poverty in all its dimensions, irreversibly, everywhere, and leaving no one behind”. He is wrong. The SDGs are inefficient, driven by politics and misdiagnose poverty.

Unfortunately, it is poor people themselves who will suffer as a result of foreign aid programs that are less effective than they could be. 

The SDGs are supposed to build on the work of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which expired this year having run since 2000. But whereas the MDGs consisted of 8 goals with 18 targets, the SDGs consist of 17 goals with 169 targets.

The SDGs fall into the trap common amongst big multilateral foreign aid organisations of trying to fix everything, rather than working in the areas where they can have the biggest impact. In attempting to be everything for everyone, the SDGs have only succeeded in becoming a disparate wish-list for the development community.

As a result, the 169 targets are both too ambitious and too specific. For example, goal 1.1 seeks to “eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere” whilst goal 14.9 wants to “provide access of small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets”.

I reckon anything more than 10 targets and you have no chance of achieving them.

To overcome this problem, Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg constructed a rigorous cost-benefit analysis on each of the SDG targets. He whittled the list of 169 down to just the 19 most impactful targets.

That is not a hard-nosed ‘economic rationalist’ approach to foreign aid. It is about to trying to ensure development has the greatest impact for the people who need it. Foreign aid can’t fix everything but as development economist William Easterly says, it can help some people some of the time. The fact that the SDG process is political and ideological means the kind of foreign aid the goals offer isn’t as helpful to poor people as it could be.  

So aid can help some people some of the time.

Poor people are poor because they have been prevented from participating in free markets. This is because free markets are the best drivers of economic growth, which in turn provides access to health, education and other things the SDGs are trying to achieve.

Yep. By poor we don’t mean $20,000 a year poor, but $500 a year poor.

No country has developed successfully without some measure of free markets. The evidence of this is absolutely manifest in the last few decades. 

In China, free market reforms such as allowing international trade, removing barriers to private enterprise and reducing state control of agriculture have lifted 680 million people out of poverty since 1980. Furthermore, World Bank economist Martin Ravallion believes economic growth in other developing countries has lifted 280 million people out of poverty since 2000.

The embrace of markets by China and India did far more to lift people out of poverty than the UN goals.

A recent study found that the economic liberalisation in India has partially eroded the caste system. Increased female entrepreneurship precipitated by microfinance has been shown to reduce domestic violence and gender discrimination. Swedish economists recently found that countries with greater economic freedom were more likely to have greater tolerance of gay people.

Liberal markets can lead to liberal countries.

The Lomberg study is interesting also. They found:

Freer trade from completing the World Trade Organization’s Doha agreement would return more than $2,000 of extra value for each dollar spent to retrain and compensate displaced workers. It would lift 160 million people out of extreme poverty, giving every person in the developing world an extra $1,000 in income every year by 2030. By comparison, money transfers—paying the poorest people enough to lift them out of poverty—would have huge administrative challenges and institutional deficiencies, with benefits of only $5 for every dollar spent.

Free trade is hugely more effective than aid.

Boosting the availability of preschool is an exceptional development target. Tripling access in sub-Saharan Africa would have benefits worth more than $30 for every dollar spent, because of improved future earnings and other social benefits, such as instilling an interest in learning in children when they are very young.

One of the more useful things you can do.

Stuff reports:

Two Northland children who demanded money from a dairy owner at gunpoint ended up being chased from the store with a broomstick.

Police said the 12-year-old and 15-year-old boys turned up at the North Road dairy in Kaitaia at 7.30pm on Sunday with a rifle.

They demanded money from the woman at the counter but were only able to grab a few lollies on their way out as she chased them out with a broom.

Superb.

They did not co-operate with police and the younger boy has been charged with assaulting police and resisting arrest, he said.

They have both been charged with aggravated robbery.

The boys were wearing bandannas on their faces and were intoxicated. Police suspected there may have been methamphetamine involved but were investigating that further.

Very sad.

Patrick Gower writes:

The Labour Party is swallowing a dead rat, and not just any old dead rat.

Labour is swallowing an enormous, filthy, stinking, rotten, maggot-infested dead rat called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Labour’s 32 MPs looked deflated and rattled in Parliament’s question time today.

Sounds like normal question time.

It was like 32 individual TPP rats were served up as a ghastly afternoon feed.

Labour looked as if it had nowhere to go when attacking the TPP the Government had agreed to.

Labour seemed to be flailing about, its questions effectively patsies that allowed Prime Minister John Key and company extol the virtues of the trade deal.

The lowest point for Labour was the inevitable and humiliating recital by Key of Helen Clark’s public statement that it was “unthinkable” for New Zealand to be left out of the TPP.

It was always going to come, but it looked like it really hurt the Labourites. Their hero, Clark, was in support of TPP – her words thrown back at them as a disgusting garnish on their dead rat feed.

It wasn’t so much that she endorsed it, but her language – saying it was unthinkable not to be part of it.

The Herald reports:

A Christchurch man has been arrested for allegedly contacting mothers online and offering cash to perform sex on their children.

Matthew Garland Kelly, 21, was due to appear at Christchurch District Court today facing 16 charges, including child porn offences, which allegedly occurred between December 2013 and August 18 last year. …

Two charges of a similar nature claim that on February 12 last year he had online conversations with two women.

During their online chats, he offered them money to get “alone time” with their children. He then allegedly described the sexual acts he would perform on them “knowing that the publication is objectionable”.

Police also allege that on August 10 last year, Kelly paid a woman to sexually violate her 1-year-old son and film the act.

I hope the mother was charged also.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that the Government’s top fiscal priority is “returning to surplus this year and maintaining surpluses in the future”?
2. MARAMA FOX to the Prime Minister: Is he concerned about the alleged human rights abuses being perpetrated on detainees in offshore processing centres in Australia; if so, what does he intend to do to seek assurances from Malcolm Turnbull that the human rights of New Zealanders who are currently detained on Christmas Island are maintained and upheld?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Social Development?
4. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister for Economic Development:What is the Government doing to encourage investment and growth in the New Zealand economy?
5. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements relating to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?
6. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister of Health: What impact will the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement have on New Zealand’s public health system?
7. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “That’s really a matter for them”, when asked whether he was concerned about any of the United Nations Permanent Five members bombing Syria without a UN mandate?
8. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: What is the dollar amount of gross and net core Crown debt and by how much have these grown since he became Minister?
9. BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on how the Trans-Pacific Partnership will benefit New Zealand’s dairy industry?
10. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Was he advised by officials that agriculture was in the highest risk category, and dairy cattle farming in the second highest, when determining which industries should have health and safety representatives; if so, why did he remove them from the list?
11. FLETCHER TABUTEAU to the Minister for Economic Development: How would the Trans-Pacific Partnership help regional New Zealand?
12. JOANNE HAYES to the Minister for the Environment: What reports has he received on the environmental components of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and how do these compare with other free-trade agreements entered into by New Zealand?

National: Five questions on the surplus, the economy, TPP x 3

Labour: Four questions on confidence of Social Development Minister, TPP, crown debt and workplace safety

Greens: One question on Syria

NZ First: One question on TPP

Maori Party: One question on Australian deportations

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

Education (Charter Schools Curriculum) Amendment Bill – first reading

This bill would requiring partnership schools kura hourua (“charter schools”) to teach the NZ curriculum. It is in the name of Labour MP Phil Goff.

• Introduced July 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.

Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill – first reading

This bill implements recommendations made to the Minister for Social Development by the Social Workers Registration Board to provide for the current voluntary system of registration for practising social workers to become a mandatory system. It is in the name of Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni.

• Introduced July 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.

Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill – first reading

This bill would ensure that information held by Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in their official capacity is official information, and subject to the Official Information Act 1982. It is in the name of Labour MP Adrian Rurawhe

• Introduced July 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.

Affordable Healthcare Bill – first reading

This bill 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 of $500 off medical insurance. 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.

Keep Kiwibank Bill – first reading

This bill would require any proposal to partly or wholly privatise Kiwibank to gain the support of 75% of all members of the House of Representatives or, alternatively, the support of a majority of voters in a referendum, in order to lawfully proceed. It is in the name of Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove.

• 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.

The Government’s financial statements released today showed our first surplus since the Global Financial Crisis struck – $414 million.

This is psychologically important. Economically there’s not a big difference between a $400 million surplus and deficit when you have revenue of $95 billion. But it continues a trend of fiscal discipline which has paid off.

Also Andrew Little claimed somewhat hysterically that a failure to achieve surplus would be the biggest political betrayal or deception of his lifetime. So does this mean it is the biggest kept promise of his lifetime?

Note that this is the OBEGAL surplus. It excludes stuff such as Reserve Bank dividends and financial market revaluations. If you include that there is a surplus of $5.7 billion. But the OBEGAL is the important one.

None of our major comparative countries such as Australia, Canada, the Euro zone, UK and the US are back in surplus.  In fact they all have significant deficits and are only projected to reach surplus around 2020.

Just four years ago the deficit was almost $20 billion. But the story actually goes back to 2008. Labour had ramped up spending by so much, that when the GFC hit, the forecast wasn’t just for a decade of deficits, but as the chart from the 2008 DEFU shows, a permanent structural deficit. That means never getting back to surplus, and just borrowing endlessly. The forecast was that even as far out as 2023, we would have a deficit of around 2% of GDP (around $5 billion) but possibly as high as 4% of GDP.

So how has the deficit been eliminated? Well core crown expenses have increased by only $2.2 billion since 2011, while revenue has increased by $15.1 billion thanks to a growing economy. This is what Governments need to do – have expenditure grow slower than the economy.

Core crown expenses were forecast in 2008 DEFU to be 35% of GDP and they have ended up being 30% of GDP. That is a huge amount of fiscal restraint – in nominal terms that is spending $12.5 billion a year lower than forecast.

And this includes spending $12.9 billion (net of reinsurance) on Canterbury earthquake recovery

This is due to some policy changes (Kiwisaver subsidies) and some general fiscal restraint with much lower allowances for new initiatives, and a big focus in the public sector on reprioritising spending rather than getting new funding.

Does anyone seriously think Labour would have got spending down to 30% of GDP? They opposed pretty much every policy change and every piece of fiscal restraint. In their last three years of office Labour increased core crown expenses by $17.5 billion.

The 2008 DEFU forecast gross debt reaching 57% of GDP (in 2023) and net debt 47%. Instead it looks like it will peak at around 36% gross and 25% net. That is around $55 billion less debt.

But this is not the end of fiscal restraint, but only the beginning of the end.

The weaker economy means a surplus for this current year is not guaranteed. There is no room for a big spend up. Core crown expenditure should grow no faster than the economy so that it reduces as a percentage of GDP. I think 25% would be a good target – that would allow significant tax relief (and people get taxed more as inflation pushes them up the tax brackets).

So it is good to see a surplus as the outcome of fiscal discipline. But we need the discipline to continue. I will reveal later this week an estimate of how much extra spending would have been incurred if the Government did everything opposition MPs and lobby groups had demanded in terms of extra spending.

The other focus for the Government needs to be further economic reforms, to boost the economy. Keeping a lid of spending is necessary, but not sufficient by itself.

So what are the odds for the quarter-finals, according to Betfair?

1. Australia 1.12
2. NZ 1.21
3. South Africa 1.37
4. Ireland 1.56
5. Argentina 3.0
6. Wales 4.0
7. France 6.6
8. Scotland 10.5

The odds for making the final are:

1. Australia 1.59
2. NZ 1.60
3. Ireland 3.8
4. South Africa 3.9

And the odds of winning the final:

1. NZ 2.26
2. Australia 3.65
3. South Africa 8.2
4. Ireland 12.0

Stuff reports:

A bill that would legalise voluntary euthanasia has been launched by ACT leader David Seymour.  …

“The End of Life Choice Bill is a response to the anguish faced by a small but significant minority of people with terminal illness or who are grievously and irremediably ill, as they anticipate the prospect of intolerable suffering and the indignity of the final few days and weeks of their lives.

“The motivation for this Bill is compassion. It allows people who so choose and are eligible under this Bill to end their life in peace and dignity, surrounded by loved ones,” he said.

Part of the Key’s reluctance to put the issue on the Government’s books is the number of the grey areas the issue presents. 

He has said its very difficult to get the legislation right. 

Seymour said his bill “carefully defined those eligible for assisted dying”. 

“It details a comprehensive set of provisions to ensure this is a free choice made without coercion, and outlines a stringent series of steps to ensure the person is mentally capable of understanding the nature and consequences of assisted dying.”

The details around safeguards will be an important focus.

The bill is online here. The eligibility criteria are:

• is aged 18 years or over
• has New Zealand citizenship or is a permanent resident
• suffers from a terminal illness likely to end their life within 6 months or has a grievous and irremediable medical condition
• is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability
• experiences unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that he or she considers tolerable
• has the ability to understand the nature and consequences of assisted dying

The process would be:

• A person requests assisted dying
• Two medical practitioners will have to be satisfied that the person meets the criteria required. 
• The medical practitioner must also encourage the person to talk about his or her choice with family, friends, and counsellors, ensure that the person has had the opportunity to talk to his or her choice of people, and do his or her best to ensure that the person has chosen assisted dying free of any pressure or coercion.
• The medical practitioner must then contact the SCENZ Group, which will refer the person requesting assisted dying to a second medical practitioner, who must be independent of the person and of the initial medical practitioner.
• After the reading of the person’s files and the examination of the person have occurred, should either medical practitioner be uncertain about whether the person requesting assisted dying is competent, the two medical practitioners must jointly refer the person to a specialist with a relevant scope in mental health.

The House may deal with as many as four members’ bills today, which means potentially four to be drawn from the ballot tomorrow. The odd for this bill being picked will be around 4/70 or around 6%. So it is unlikely to come before Parliament for a fair while.

Stuff reports:

Trade Minister Tim Groser has been ordered to take a fresh look at a request for information on Trans Pacific Partnership (TPPA) negotiations.

Professor Jane Kelsey and others took Groser to the High Court after he refused to release information to her under the Official Information Act. It later emerged that Groser had not reviewed the documents he refused to release, in a blanket refusal for information.

On Tuesday Justice David Collins delivered a judgement in which he said there was was “no lawful basis for the Minister to withhold, in the way he did, some of the information requested by Professor Kelsey”.

Collins added: “It is therefore appropriate for the Minister to ensure officials assess each piece of information requested by Professor Kelsey that is in the possession of the Minister and [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade] MFAT against the criteria in the Act for withholding information”.

The decision fell short of a declaration that Groser or officials at MFAT acted illegally in the refusal.

This is an important court decision as it clarifies how the OIA should operate. Even if you disagree with Jane Kelsey on other issues, you can appreciate her victory in this court case as supporting the public good.

What is interesting is that the Chief Ombudsman had ruled the refusal was legal, so it is a wake up for them also.

The court ruling doesn’t mean that the Government has to release confidential negotiation documents. It means that a blanket refusal was not lawful. Instead officials have to look at each document and come to a view as to whether it can be released. I suspect there would be a very large charge for doing so, but if someone is willing to pay it, then some documents would be released.

However one OIA expert said it may be that Groser’s office and MFAT officials had made a basic error in the way it handled the request. Groser could simply have used section 18A of the act, which covers requests involving a substantial amount of collation and research to request further time and possibly inform Kelsey that she would have to pay for the research to be undertaken.

Charging should only be done rarely but if you want 30,000 documents analysed then it seems reasonable.

A former lost nominee for Labour recently tried to rejoin the party. His application was declined by the NZ Council:

As you know, you resigned your membership of the NZ Labour Party on May 14th 2015 and sought to rejoin on August 28th 2015.  Council retains the right to decide on membership applications, and in your case has decided to decline the application.  Under Rule 6 of the Constitution we will be informing the Taranaki King Country LEC of the decision which we have made.

Although there is no obligation to provide reasons for this decision, Council were well aware that you operate a “Labour Members and Supporters” Facebook page which has from time to time contained unhelpful comments which could well be regarded as risking disrepute.

So if you are a supporter of Labour and saying anything unhelpful to them on Facebook, they don’t want you as a member!

I would have thought they needed all the members they could get.

Stuff reports:

Terminally ill Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly is pleading with the Government to improve access to medicinal cannabis, as she confesses she is “a little bit scared” of dying.

Kelly, who has lung cancer, said on Monday she had exhausted all legal pain relief and had resorted to the black market to obtain cannabis oil. But she did not like putting people in an awkward position to help her.

“I’ve tried [cannabis oil]. I’m not promoting it as a curative, but as a pain relief it’s incredibly effective for me and it doesn’t make me feel sick, which morphine does.”

She took the drug at night to make sure being stoned would not disrupt her day.

“It just seems absolutely insane that I’ve got no idea what I’m taking, how much I should take or how it’s manufactured – it’s crazy.”

There were plenty of other countries accepting that medicinal cannabis was useful for pain relief and New Zealand needed to “stop being a fishing village”.

I don’t support use of cannabis being a criminal offence, so I also support it being available for medical purposes.

In the US, 22 states allow cannabis for medical reasons and four states (plus DC) have legalised the use and sale of cannabis in all situations. There’s been no evidence of increased ham.

Stuff reports:

Labour leader Andrew Little says it is unlikely the party would withdraw from the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPPA) free trade deal if it gains power, following a meeting with Trade Minister Tim Groser to discuss the agreement.

Little and Trade Minister Tim Groser met on Monday evening to discuss the provisions of the TPPA in further detail, after the 12-nation free trade agreement was signed last week.

Little told Radio New Zealand the party still had a number of unanswered questions about the deal, but was unlikely to pull out of the agreement if it gained power at the next election.

It would be politically suicidal for them to do so.

But does this mean they are still insisting it is a truly horrible deal? If so, why wouldn’t they pull out?

Little said a Labour government would take a “responsible” approach to the deal, but would flout provisions of the deal if they were not in New Zealanders’ best interests.

This man wants to be Prime Minister?

Does he also think NZ should flout all the UN conventions we have signed, if he deems it not in our best interests? Does he think Iran should flout the deal they brokered on not developing nuclear weapons, if the Supreme Leader deems it not in their best interests?

Does Little think the other TPP countries should simply ignore provisions of an agreement they don’t like? Does he think Australia should ignore the WTO ruling and ban our apple imports again?

This is pathetic sophistry from Labour. You can not have a policy saying we will not withdraw from TPP but will ignore parts we want to.

The Police have announced:

A 60 year-old Auckland businessman has been charged in connection with the criminal blackmail threat to poison infant formula with 1080, made public in March this year.

This follows the execution of five search warrants in Auckland and the Rangitikei district this morning.

He has been charged with 2 counts of Blackmail, each charge relating to the threat letters sent to Fonterra and Federated Farmers in November 2014.

Blackmail is punishable by a sentence of up to 14 years imprisonment.

The accused will appear in the Manukau District Court this afternoon.

Great work to identify them and make an arrest.

Hopefully they will not get name suppression. It will be interesting, if they do not, to learn about their background and assumed motives.

Stuff reports:

A gang member will be paid $37 an hour and forbidden to wear gang regalia as part of a Dunedin City Council weed control contract.

The council was praised after signing a social procurement contract with Mauri Kohatu Incorporated on October 5.

As part of that contract, Black Power member Albert Epere would control weeds, litter and maintain paths at six Dunedin sites until June 30, 2016

A copy reveals the $52,000 plus GST contract was based on a 30-hour working week with a fee schedule of $37 an hour.

A breakdown of that hourly rate includes a labour unit rate of $25 an hour and operational costs of $12 an hour.

Those operational expenses include maintenance costs, fuel, rent, power, communications, IT and compliance costs.

Under a section called “Public relations”, it was noted “the council requires its staff to maintain high standards of the conduct  and courtesy in all dealings with the public, and contractor’s staff are required to maintain similar high standard whilst working under this contract”.

“Contractors and contractors’ staff are not permitted to wear gang patches/regalia when carrying out work for the council.”

Rates would be reviewed after six months of contract completion, the contract said.

Having gang members working is preferable to not working.

The Spin Off has asked 19 people their thoughts on improving question time.

Most are a bit predictable, while some are laughable such as Andrew Little trying to compete with Jeremy Corbyn and have NZers ask questions via a video link! Little also demands that Government MPs can not ask primary questions, so it will be interesting to see if he promotes that change if he is ever in Government.

Many complained about the stupid “Do you stand by all your statements” questions.

I thought the most interesting came from former Clerk Mary Harris:

What could be improved? Speakers are always concerned about the quality of answers. But the question is important to getting an answer. Too often questions ask for opinion: Does the Minister agree …? Does the Minister stand by his statement …? More often that not an opinion by way of an answer will not satisfy the questioner, but there is little the Speaker can do to assist. An opinion was asked for and one was given! Question Time is most effective when the questions are short and seek information and the questioner listens to the reply and asks probing supplementary questions based on the reply.

Frequently supplementary questions miss opportunities because they are now almost always scripted in advance by researchers. They are often too long. They ask numerous questions and introduce political statements, which allow Ministers to comment on them and in so doing get off the hook. As Speakers have said many times, straight questions should get an answer and the Speaker will assist. While the Speaker cannot force a particular answer, the Speaker does have the ability to express disquiet about a reply, allow the question to be repeated and to allow a member additional supplementary questions where a Minister is being particularly evasive. While an informative answer may not always result, it certainly puts the acid on Ministers and demonstrates their relative ability.

Opposition MPs should reflect on this advice from the former Clerk.

We have a system of representative democracy, which provides for our elected representatives to hold the government to account on behalf of their constituencies. This is their role on behalf of the people. To do it well they need to learn to be effective in Question Time.

There are very few opposition MPs who are effective at question time.

An interesting suggestion from David Seymour:

For every two supplementary questions asked by a questioner, the Minister should be given one supplementary back to the questioner. It would raise the standard of questions because questioners would only ask questions they thought they could answer themselves. Ministers with their own formalised opportunity to counter attack might be more willing to answer questions rather than use their answers as an opportunity to attack the questioner.

Worth considering.

Judith Collins notes how unsuccessful the recent attempt to gang up on the PM was:

So, it depends what we mean by better. If you support the Government and you like watching the Prime Minister entertainingly bat the Opposition for six every Tuesday and Wednesday, then I’d suggest that all Opposition questions should be addressed to the PM and should all have a Primary question of “Does the Prime Minister stand by all his statements?” This will then elicit a slap around that leaves the poor questioner asking themselves, “Whose stupid tactic was this?”

But by the time the rest of Parliament has stopped rolling on the floor laughing, it’s time for a supplementary question on any topic that relates to the humiliating first question. Sadly, for the questioner, the PM has all the leverage in the world to shrug off this more detailed question, because the inept questioner lacked the fortitude to ask a straight up, forthright question in the first place.

If, however, you actually think that Question Time is about the Opposition holding the Government to account by asking serious questions about things that matter, then the inane question of the moment of “Does the Prime Minister / Minister stand by all their statements” should be banned. As soon as a Minister sees that question, it signals that the questioner isn’t that confident of their position.

The marvellous thing about me giving this opinion is that the Opposition will read my suggestion, and do the opposite.

Probably yes.

Got over 2,500 responses in just over half a day to the online survey on flag preferences. This is the first survey that I have seen that asked people to rank all six options for the NZ flag in order. The aim was to understand preferences better,

It is not a scientific poll as it was self-selecting from people who read my blog, or follow me on Facebook or Twitter (plus their circles).

Anyway what were the results of the first preferences:

1. Union Jack & Southern Cross 26.3%
2. Silver Fern (Black, White & Blue) 25.8%
3. Red Peak 24.0%
4. Silver Fern (Red, White & Blue) 18.4%
5. Silver Fern (Black & White) 3.8%
6. Koru 1.6%

So the current design is the most popular.

What happens when we drop off the least preferred design.

1. Union Jack & Southern Cross 26.6%
2. Silver Fern (Black, White & Blue) 26.0%
3. Red Peak 24.8%
4. Silver Fern (Red, White & Blue) 18.6%
5. Silver Fern (Black & White) 4.0%

Then you drop of the black and white fern:

1. Silver Fern (Black, White & Blue) 28.2%
2. Union Jack & Southern Cross 27.2%
3. Red Peak 25.2%
4. Silver Fern (Red, White & Blue) 19.4%

So now we are left with the four most popular options, all with significant support. What happens when the red, white and blue fern drops off?

1. Silver Fern (Black, White & Blue) 42.4%
2. Union Jack & Southern Cross 30.9%
3. Red Peak 26.6%

No surprise most support from one the Kyle Lockwood designs goes to the other. The big question now is if Red Peak drops out, what do its supporters do?

1. Silver Fern (Black, White & Blue) 53.7%
2. Union Jack & Southern Cross 46.3%

Most Red Peak supporters actually ranked the current NZ Flag higher than the Black, White and Blue Silver Fern. The current flag picked up 15.4% and the fern 11.3%. But in this survey the fern flag would still win as it had a big buffer. Note again this is not predicting the referendum outcome.

So how would each of the five alternative flags go against the current NZ Flag? This is what they would each get in a one on one:

1. Silver Fern (Red, White & Blue) 54.5%
2. Silver Fern (Black, White & Blue) 53.7%
3. Red Peak 41.5%
4. Silver Fern (Black & White) 37.4%
5. Koru 29.1%

So among those who did the survey, only the two Kyle Lockwood designs would win against the NZ flag. Of interest is the design with red does slightly better than the design with black, even though it has less primary support.

An excel file with the survey data is here – Flag Preferences – in case anyone wants to do further analysis on the preferences. Again this is not about predicting the outcome, but about understanding how the supporters of certain flags feel about the other flags.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Will he be formally raising the issue of New Zealanders detained in Australia when he meets with Malcolm Turnbull later on this week?
2. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “I don’t want to ban foreigners from buying residential property”?
3. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the outlook for the world economy, and what are the consequences for the New Zealand economy?
4. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “in the order of about 1,000” people with New Zealand citizenship could be deported here from Australia due to criminal convictions?
5. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Trade: What recent progress has he made in improving access to international markets and supporting New Zealand exporters to grow and create new jobs?
6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What is the estimated cost to Vote Health of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?
7. SARAH DOWIE to the Minister for Economic Development:How would the Trans-Pacific Partnership help regional New Zealand?
8. FLETCHER TABUTEAU to the Minister of Trade: Will he release the full details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement immediately, given that the 12 Asia-Pacific countries have concluded their negotiations?
9. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that the Government’s top fiscal priority is “returning to surplus this year and maintaining surpluses in the future”?
10. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister for the Environment: What specific species and natural features does the Government aim to protect from the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary announced by the Prime Minister at the United Nations in New York on 28 September?
11. JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by the Prime Minister’s statement on the gender pay gap that “I don’t think it’s discrimination, it’s just the occupations they are more typically involved in”?
12. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by his statement, “I want to do things as Housing Minister that are going to make a material difference to my kids and their generation having access to more affordable homes”; if so, is he still confident he can do that under the terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?

National: Four questions on the economy, TPP x2 and the Kermadecs

Labour: Five questions on Australian deportations, TPP x 3, and surpluses,

Greens: Two questions on Australian deportations gender pay gap

NZ First: One question on TPP

Government Bills 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill – first reading

This bill provide governance arrangements for the Canterbury Regional Council to operate during the 2016 to 2019 local authority election-cycle period”, being seven elected Councillors and six appointed Counillors.

• Introduced August 2015

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

Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill – first reading

This Bill implements a settlement between the Crown, District Health Boards, providers of home and community-based care and support services, and certain unions on behalf of home and community-based care and support employees.

• Introduced September 2015

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

Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill – first reading

The bill amends the following statutes relating to taxation in order to facilitate easier communication with Inland Revenue, simplify tax rules and provide for the sharing of information. The Acts amended are: the Income Tax Act 2007; the Tax Administration Act 1994; the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985; the KiwiSaver Act 2006; the Child Support Act 1991; the Student Loan Scheme Act 2011; the Gaming Duties Act 1971 and the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

• Introduced June 2015

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