Fran O’Sullivan writes:

Not one – not even one – of the bosses of the top 50 listed companies on the NZX are women.

That’s one of the standout takeouts of the Herald’s CEO pay survey released this week.

It needs to change.

Dig a bit deeper and there are some shining female lights at the top of NZ business.

The problem is most of them are in governance roles. Sue Sheldon, Dame Jenny Shipley and Joan Withers are household names. Talk to young women and many offer up an ambition to go straight “into governance”.

I’m not sure that is a problem. I love governance roles. You get removed from day to day issues to focus more on the strategy, the environment and the risks. You can get a high level of impact, for less time than in an executive role. And the flexible timing of governance duties is I am sure especially appealing to many women.

But that’s not where the real drive in business comes from.

We want our boards to be stacked with people who know enough to usefully challenge the status quo , whose antennae are sharp enough to sniff out managed earnings rorts and understand markets.

Experience in top corporate positions teaches some of that.

But the ability to shape a business comes from being in the chief executive’s seat. That’s where the dynamism is created and the future is shaped.

I agree the experience from corporate management is very valuable, and directors with corporate management are valued.

But for many Kiwi women the game is not necessarily climbing the corporate ladder.

Wendy Pye, Erica Crawford and Diane Foreman are all self-made millionaires who have created major international businesses from New Zealand.

Ask for their pay packet and you will be rewarded with a snort. “That’s my business.”

Yep, nothing like owning your own business!

Jeb Bush has announced he is standing for the US Presidency. This is not unexpected, but is news. Donald Trump has also said he is standing. That is now serious news.

Could it be Bush vs Clinton again? Let’s look at the current polling for each primary.

Bush is averaging 9.7% in the heavily contested Republican race, behind Marco Rubio 12.4%, Scott Walker 11.0% and Ben Carson on 10.1%. Behind behind the flaky Carson is not good.

Clinton is averaging 58.5%, miles ahead of socialist Bernie Sanders on 12.0%.

What are their respective favourabilities?

Bush has 32% favourable and 50% unfavourable for a net -18%

Clinton has 46% favourable and 49% unfavourable for a net -3%

In a direct match up the average is Clinton 51%, Bush 42%. A landslide.

Of course 16 months to go, but hard to see Jeb Bush in the White House.

An interesting report on perioperative mortality in NZ. It’s great that we have such transparency of data.

The mortality rates within 30 days of an operation are:

• Coronary artery bypass graft 2.47%
• Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty 1.66%
• Hip arthroplasty 1.58%
• Cholecystectomy 0.37%
• Knee arthroplasty 0.17%
• General anaesthesia 0.12%
• Bariatric surgery 0.07%

There is a huge difference based on you ASA score. The ASA scores are:

1. Healthy person 0.05%
2. Mild systemic disease 0.05%
3. Severe systemic disease
4. Severe systemic disease that is a constant threat to life 16.9%
5. A moribund person not expected to survive without the operation 52.8%
6. A brain-dead person

Eugene Kontorovich at the Washington Post writes:

The President of Sudan was allowed to leave South Africa unmolested today, despite courts in the country ordering his arrest on a genocide warrant. The International Criminal Court, pursuing a case launched by the Security Council, issued warrants for Bashir’s arrest years ago. Yet he has roamed the globe with impunity.

The free pass given to Bashir is another in a series of major blows to the credibility of the ICC – and in this case, the Security Council. If member states like South Africa do not take the Court seriously in cases that do not even involve its own nationals, it is hard to expect non-members to do so.

While refusing treaty obligations to arrest the world’s leading genocidaire – known of course for his campaign against black Africans in Darfur – might seem unconscionable, Bashir has his defenders.

The charges by the ICC are

• murder
• extermination
• forcible transfer
• torture
• rape
• pillaging
• intentionally directing attacks against civilians
• genocide

Among them is Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who vocally opposes the ICC process against Bashir. “We must also take a decisive stance of solidarity alongside fraternal Sudan and President Omar al-Bashir,” Abbas has said. He has has also expressed his “solidarity” with the Sudanese despot, and categorically rejected enforcement of the ICC warrant. …

Thus even as the Palestinians got the ICC to bend its rules about statehood to join, they were advocating the defiance of the Court’s writ in the single most important and grave kind of case, genocide cases initiated by the Security Council. In short, the Palestinians seek to exempt genocidaires from the Court’s jurisdiction while pushing for it to prosecute Israelis for allowing Jews to live in Jerusalem. The PA is involved in the trivialization and corruption of the Court from both ends.

It is a good example of the double standards at play. If there is no sanction for countries to ignore ICC warrants, then there seems little point in having an ICC. Countries that refuse to extradite, should be expelled from the convention.

A guest post by Deanne Jessup:

Here in New Zealand we have just had a survey that tells us journalists are the least trusted, and firemen are the most.  This got me thinking about why, and what if anything should be done about it?

Imagine the world where most fires put themselves out safely every time.  Only we never knew it happened.  Instead, firemen turn up, wave spraying hoses and extinguishers, and hit things with their axe-shaped tools.  Once the fires are out, we celebrate them as heroes, declaring them wonderful and the most trusted of us all.

Now imagine we found out through the internet that firemen are frauds!  Over time we discover it was all a ruse to keep them in work.  Would you still trust them?  What if it then came out that firemen themselves actually lit most of the fires?  Would you still call them when the fires appeared?  What if it was a fire that would not extinguish itself?  What happens then?

As absurd as this tale is, a variation of it has been playing out every day of the last decade.  Journalists have fallen from our graces.  Though obvious, my main moral is not ‘the boy who cried wolf’ though it is certainly relevant to ask what happens if we decide we don’t need the media at all.

In my view, this tale parodies the one from ‘the Emperor’s new clothes’.  We know we can get our news elsewhere; we know about social media, blogs, and live streams.  But like the people of the Emperor’s court who thought they had to pretend, perhaps we are worried what they will do if we point out their nakedness.  So instead the absurd situation persists where we pretend their relevance but trust them the least.

The internet has both caused this situation and is constantly changing the nature of it.  Initially, it revealed the nakedness of the media, now it is becoming the child from the story pointing loudly and shouting “you have no clothes on!”  Technology has radically reshaped the world.  We are moving into a new era.  Media are trying to reinvent, to clothe themselves in the attires of the day.

The current scramble to ‘change’ shows the media think the reason readership and profitability are both low is because they are printing in the wrong place, rather than the reality that they have been caught printing the wrong thing.  There is no road to trust by adopting old practices on new platforms.  Media must take to heart that no amount of blogging, social engagement, and digital media will change that we can now see around them.

They must understand that we can now see the truth, often faster than they report it.  To become trusted again, they must add value and once again report honestly, openly, and without prejudice or bias.  Of course, as they were ‘caught’ naked, a fair question is did they ever?

The Herald reports:

A bankrupt business trainer whose mentoring companies are in liquidation has been revealed as a taxpayer-funded envoy hired to teach fledgling Tongan firms the secret of success.

Auckland’s Richard Peter Gee, 64, was in Tonga last week on his third mentoring session since being made bankrupt in the High Court at Auckland. Herald inquiries have found Mr Gee received $29,000 for the mentoring courses in Tonga – part of an aid package for the Pacific nation funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

A spokeswoman for Mfat – which runs the aid scheme – said it had no idea Mr Gee had been bankrupted during a period he was carrying out business mentoring courses.

She said the money was paid to the Tonga Chamber of Commerce as part of a larger aid package and the organisation then handled contracting itself. She said Mfat believed $29,000 had been paid to Geewiz Group Professional Speakers Ltd which provided “six courses of up to five days in length” between 2013 and 2015.

“The ministry takes the delivery of its business development programmes very seriously. We have high expectations of the procurement standards and contractual arrangements set by our aid partners, and expect action to be taken in the event of any potential breach.”

The fault appears to be with the Tongan Chamber of Commerce, but it is still our money being wasted.

Mr Gee was made bankrupt in August last year. The bankruptcy followed the liquidations of two mentoring businesses and a High Court case critical of how Mr Gee met his legal obligations as a company director. In the case, Justice Brendan Brown found it had been “irresponsible” for Mr Gee to continue to trade as Richard Geewiz Gee Consultants Ltd when he had not worked out how to pay outstanding taxes.

Mr Gee’s former accountant Tim Livingstone told the court the company operated by Mr Gee was insolvent the entire time it was in operation. He had written to Mr Gee each year advising him of this.

Mr Gee was ordered to pay $85,000 in the wake of the company liquidation. It was separately found the successor company, Geewiz Ltd, also went into liquidation in 2011 and was found to be owing $70,000.

I think most people would agree that someone whose business mentoring business has gone bankrupt, is probably a very bad choice to be a business mentor.

However we are the country where the host of The Apprentice went bankrupt, so maybe it is following in those foot steps!

The Herald reports:

The controversial episode of the current affairs show that reportedly cost Maori Television its star broadcaster has aired – with new reports of misspending by Kohanga Reo officials.

Those reportedly tied up in the financial mismanagement include the Maori king, King Tuheitia.

Executive interference in the Kohanga Reo story, and another on Whanau Ora, was believed to be a factor in Mihingarangi Forbes’ resignation from Native Affairs earlier this month.

Today’s piece focused on misspending at the Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board and its wholly-owned subsidiary Te Pataka Ohanga Limited, a follow up to an earlier investigation by the show.

It’s good to see Maori TV continue its fine tradition of investigative journalism and run this follow up story. The fact it has run the story does make me wonder about the unsourced claims that the resignation of Forbes was because the CEO did not want the story to run.  It would be nice to have an authoritative statement on what did happen.

However Native Affairs tonight reported that a review into Te Pataka Ohanga by Internal Affairs had found wrongdoings it described as “gross mismanagement”.

These included paying $111000 in directors fees to Kingi Tuiheitia – the Maori King – when he was not a director. That issue had now been referred to Inland Revenue, Native Affairs said.

Te Pataka Ohanga also paid themselves bonuses including koha not approved by the board, and used credit cards to purchase personal items.

It had also allowed board members to take personal loans.

Ousted board member Toni Waho, who spoke exclusively to the programme, said he had one of the loans, which he now agreed was “not a good look”.

Native Affairs reported that since then, Te Pataka Ohanga had cancelled credit cards and suspended loans, among other measures to ensure financial accountability.

It’s really simple.

• Don’t pay director’s fees to someone who is not a director
• Don’t use work credit cards for personal items
• Don’t pay bonuses not approved by the board, or by management with delegated authority
• Don’t ever lend money to anyone – you are not a bank

It was now on an Inland Revenue watch list, and had been given a formal warning.

The show also revealed the trust had made two payments totaling $800,000 for termination fees in 2007.

The trust appointed a new chief executive last month, a former Ministry of Education official named Kararaina Cribb.
Education Minister Hekia Parata appeared on the show, to say she continues to want a change in governance on the board, to a more modern alternative.

The status quo is unacceptable.

Salient reports:

VUWSA has caved into the New Zealand Union of Students’ Association’s demands, paying the national body its outstanding membership fees and agreeing in principle to hold a referendum on its continued membership.

In September 2014 the Executive decided to withdraw from NZUSA. This followed a 2013 student-initiated referendum on whether VUWSA should remain a member. 63 per cent of students voted “Yes, but only with reforms”—however, there was no straight “Yes” option. The Executive claimed reform hadn’t occurred and that this gave them a mandate to withdraw without holding a further referendum.

With NZUSA’s constitution requiring members to give 12 months’ notice of withdrawal, the national body has continued to invoice VUWSA for its $45,000 annual membership fee. VUWSA had intended to withhold over $20,000, and budgeted accordingly. But with NZUSA threatening court action, and legal advice that VUWSA would lose, the Executive has brought itself up to date with payments.

if the rules of NZUSA say you must give 12 months notice to quit (and they do) and VUWSA signed up to those rules, then they should pay the levies for that year.

The payment follows a secret meeting between the VUWSA Executive and NZUSA President Rory McCourt on 11 May. At this meeting, McCourt tried to persuade the Executive of the continued need for a unified national body. He described the meeting as “positive”, although he also delivered a legal threat over the fee.

After hashing out an agreement in private, the Executive voted on the proposal at an official meeting on 4 June. Salient, which is usually invited to all Executive meetings, was not told of the meeting or sent an agenda.

VUWSA has chalked this up to an administrative error. However, insiders have also confirmed that the 11 May meeting with NZUSA was deliberately concealed from Salient and no official record of the meeting exists.

Secret meetings which exclude the media, and lying to Salient about it – not a good look.

However, many within VUWSA also believe that McCourt, a former VUWSA President, has actively whipped up resentment toward VUWSA in an attempt to pressure the association into paying—a strategy that appears to have worked.

This year, Labour MPs including David Cunliffe and David Clark have spoken out against the exodus from NZUSA, and the perception within VUWSA is that it is losing the media battle.

Labour MPs pressuring student associations to remain members of NZUSA. I think that indicates how Labour sees NZUSA as part of the Labour family.

The Maori Party have announced:

The Māori Party is in mourning today for the loss of a loved friend, champion and trail-blazer, Richard Orzecki.

“Richard was one of our foot-soldiers from our earliest days,” says Māori Party Co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell.

“His commitment to the cause could not be faulted; he inspired everyone in his wake through his enthusiasm and his motivational leadership.”

Mr Orzecki took on the mantle of electorate chair for Te Tai Hauāuru and immediately set out to help set the strategic direction for the Māori Party.

“Nothing was too big a job for Richard. We saw that same application to the task when he became a member of Ngā Pū Waea, the Māori Broadband Working Group” says Mr Flavell.

“Richard fully understood the power of connection for whānau and worked assiduously to link up whānau with their marae through technology. He was a staunch advocate for investing in the right communications infrastructure for marae to consolidate their role as the virtual centres of their community.

Mr Orzecki served on two District Health Boards; was a member of the New Zealand Māori Council, and had previously been chair of his iwi, Te Rūnanga o Raukawa.

Māori Party Co-leader Marama Fox says, “While he was proud of his Polish whakapapa through his father, his passion knew no end for the advancement of Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Wehiwehi”.

I knew Richard through his work in the Internet space. He was a member of InternetNZ and was seen as a real leader in the Internet world. He was a strong and effective advocate and was responsible for many initiatives. On a personal note, he was one of life’s really nice people, and his death will leave all those who knew him very sad.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing how New Zealand’s broad-based economic growth is leading most other OECD countries?
2. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister responsible for HNZC: Does he accept the coroner’s finding that the Housing New Zealand home in which Emma-Lita Bourne lived may have contributed to the pneumonia-like illness that Emma-Lita was suffering at the time of her death?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied with his Minister of Building and Housing’s handling of the issue of cold and damp rental properties, in light of his statement that “people dying in winter of pneumonia and other illnesses is not new”?
4. NUK KORAKO to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How is the Government encouraging the development of innovative new businesses in Canterbury?
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements regarding the Saudi farm deal; if so, why?
6. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Building and Housing; if so, why?
7. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Building and Housing:How many new houses have been completed at Hobsonville Point and how many more are now planned with the Government announcement to speed up the development?
8. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA to the Minister of Education: Does she have confidence in the process undertaken by the Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board to determine whether they acted in a responsible and accountable manner in their oversight of Te Pataka Ohanga?
9. PITA PARAONE to the Minister for Māori Development: Has he undertaken any discussions or consultation with any other Ministers regarding surplus Crown land in Auckland, which is the subject of potential legal action by Ngāti Whātua and Waikato-Tainui?
10. MATT DOOCEY to the Minister of Transport: What updates can he provide on the delivery of the Government’s commitment to provide roading infrastructure to support economic growth?
11. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What were the names of the “interested Saudi parties” who participated in the evaluation of the tender proposals for the model farm in the Saudi Arabian desert, and how were they related, if at all, to the Al Khalaf Group who received the first $4 million payment referred to in his Cabinet paper dated 13 February 2013?
12. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he agree with the finding in the latest Mercer climate investment report that “New Zealand is the most vulnerable of the developed market sovereign bonds, due to a higher proportion of the population living in low-lying areas, as well as a higher dependence of national GDP on the agriculture sector”; if so, has he received any advice or information on the economic impacts of climate change in the last 12 months?

National: Four questions on economic growth, innovation in Canterbury, Auckland housing and roading

Labour: Four questions on cold houses, Minister of Building and Housing confidence, Te Kohanga Reo, and the Saudi Arabia farm.

Greens: Two questions on cold housing and climate change

NZ First: Two questions on the Saudi Arabia farm and Iwi claims over Auckland housing

Government Bills 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm

Appropriation (2014/15 Supplementary Estimates) Bill – first reading

This bill seeks parliamentary authorisation of the individual appropriations and changes contained in The Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2015

The first reading is not debated.

Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill – first reading

The bill is to amends the Tariff Act 1988 to enable the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea done at Seoul, Korea.

• Introduced – June 2015

The debate is 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes for a maximum of two hours.

Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill – second reading continued

The bill amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (the EEZ Act) to overcome unintended effects of Section 162 of by allowing existing petroleum operators who have applied for a marine consent to continue their operations until the application is decided and any subsequent objections or appeals are determined.

• Introduced: February 2015
• 1st reading: February 2015, passed 106-13 with Greens against
• SC report: May 2015, supported without dissent with amendments

The debate has speeches of up to 10 minutes for a maximum of 70 minutes

Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill – committee stage

This bill allows eligible persons who reside in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau to be able to apply from either of those countries or from that territory for New Zealand superannuation or a veteran’s pension.

• Introduced: July 2014
• 1st reading: November 2014, passed unanimously
• Select committee report: March 2015, supported unanimously by the Social Services Committee, but with minority reports from Labour and NZ First calling for more generous eligibility
• 2nd reading: May 2015, passed unanimously

There is no time limit for the committee stage. As it is a simple bill with broad support it should not take much time. There is one SOP from Winston Peters.

Environmental Reporting Bill – committee stage

The bill provides for independent environmental reports in the areas of air, climate and atmosphere, freshwater, marine and land.

• Introduced February 2014
• 1st reading: March 2014, passed 78 to 41 with Labour and NZ First opposed
• Select Committee report: March 2015, supported with amendments by the majority, minority views by Labour and Greens
• 2nd reading: May 2015, passed 61 to 60 with Labour, Greens, NZ First and Maori Party opposed

There is no time limit for the committee stage. It has two parts so is likely to last for at least two hours.  There is one SOP from Eugenie Sage.

The NZ Law Society reports:

New Zealand is ranked sixth in the world in the latest Rule of Law Index published by the World Justice Project.

The World Justice Project was founded in 2006 as a presidential initiative of the American Bar Association and says it became an independent non-profit association in 2009. It has offices in Washington DC and Seattle in the United States.

The World Justice Project says its Rule of Law Index is compiled from a large number of surveys to measure how the rule of law is experienced in practical, everyday situations by ordinary people around the world.

Performance is assessed using 44 indicators across eight categories, each of which is scored and ranked globally and against regional and income peers. 

The top 10 are:

1. Denmark 0.87
2. Norway 0.87
3. Sweden 0.85
4. Finland 0.85
5. Netherlands 0.83
6. New Zealand 0.83
7. Austria 0.82
8. Germany 0.81
9. Singapore 0.81
10. Australia 0.80

The bottom country is Venezuela.

Some specific rankings in categories are:

• Open Government 2nd
• Regulatory Enforcement 5th
• Absence of Corruption 6th

Christopher Snowdon blogs:

There’s a very revealing quote from the ‘policy and advocacy director’ (ie. chief lobbyist) at Queensland’s Cancer Council in this story that Dick Puddlecote picked up. He’s talking about e-cigarettes:

“This was a problem we didn’t have a number of years ago. It’s a real frustration for those of us working in public health because it wasn’t even on the horizon a number of years back.

“It’s something we’re just better off without.”

This tells you a lot about the mentality of the anti-smoking crusade. Consider the following scenario.

You are deeply concerned about the effect of smoking on health. You’ve spent your whole career trying to help people give up smoking. You dream of a ‘smoke-free world’.

But it’s a struggle. Smoking rates tend to be on the decline in wealthy countries, but they are falling very slowly. Globally, there are more people smoking than ever before and there will be more people smoking tomorrow.

No matter how many bans you introduce, a large minority of adults continues to smoke. Tax rises have had some effect on smoking prevalence but—although you would never say so openly—you are aware that these taxes are a major burden on the poor and are fueling a large and growing black market.

What’s more, nearly everything has been tried. All the reasonable stuff—health warnings, anti-smoking ads, banning sales to minors—was introduced before you were born. Even the more extreme measures on the list have mostly been ticked off, which is why you’ve had to spend the last few years scraping the bottom of the barrel with this silly plain packaging campaign. But what comes next? It has to be prohibition of some sort, and you know that won’t work.

At one time, many years ago, it seemed that nicotine patches and gum might offer a solution, but it has become clear that smokers don’t really like them and their efficacy as stop-smoking aids is pretty negligible.

And then, out of nowhere, a product falls into your lap that smokers actually like and which helps smokers quit. Incredibly, even smokers who had no intention of quitting find themselves switching to it. There is no evidence that it causes cancer, heart disease or COPD and it doesn’t create an odour that non-smokers would find objectionable.

You can’t believe your luck. This is the kind of thing that people like Michael Russell hoped to discover in the 1980s: a device that delivers nicotine in a satisfying way without delivering the smoke and the toxins. At last! This changes everything! What anopportunity!

That’s scenario number one.

And there have been some (a minority) who react like that.

In scenario number two, you are a journeyman public health advocate picking up a nice, steady wage from the government every month. You hold lots of meetings and you go to lots of conferences. You and your colleagues developed a plan of incremental prohibition in the early 1980s and you have it all mapped out.

The Plan was to ban tobacco advertising and then ban smoking in as many places as possible. You were going to raise taxes on tobacco until it became unaffordable for people on low and median incomes. Other ideas—display bans, graphic warnings, banning menthol cigarettes—could be incorporated if you could convince politicians that something should be done and these policies were something.

You would attack what you considered to be the source of problem—the tobacco industry—with plain packaging, windfall taxes, standardised cigarettes or whatever. Gradually, you would beat smokers and the industry down until both were so unpopular that you could push for the final goal of prohibition. Within twenty years (it was always twenty years away) the tobacco industry would be outlawed and there would be no more smoking. In the meantime, there was good money to be made getting research grants to prove that the various policies in The Plan would work.

And then something comes along that you didn’t expect. A new product that gives smokers a way to enjoy nicotine without the health risks of smoking cigarettes. You didn’t come up with the idea. The government didn’t come up with the idea. It came from the private sector, and private businesses are making money out of it. Worse still, after a few years of monitoring the market, the tobacco industry buys up a few companies and now they’re making money out of it.

Sure, lots of people are giving up smoking as a result, but not in a way that was part of The Plan. Where does this leave you? What will become of the public health professionals and all their peer-reviewed studies? What about the ‘endgame’? What a problem!

So you bite your nails and say to yourself…

“This was a problem we didn’t have a number of years ago. It’s a real frustration for those of us working in public health because it wasn’t even on the horizon a number of years back.”

And then you pour yourself a glass of skimmed milk, slump into your armchair and say…

“It’s something we’re just better off without.”

There are public health lobbyists who hate the effect of smoking, and there are public health lobbyists who just hate tobacco companies. The former tend to be rational about reducing harm.

Rob Salmond writes at Public Address:

Last year I worked on Labour’s campaign in a relatively senior role, and as a result I had access to some of our internal research, including opinion polls and focus groups.

When people in focus groups reported having voted Labour in the past, but reported planning to vote National in 2014, they were often asked: “why have you changed your mind?” In response, issues of unity, backstabbing, in fighting, and so on came up immediately, spontaneously, and repeatedly. Sitting behind the one-way glass listening to that was no fun at all.

That is interesting.

You then need to ask if people will think if things have changed. The leaking of the review report will not have helped change the perception the public have. Some MPs wanting to expel people who want to set up a think tank won’t help either. The fact their leader only got four votes in caucus is a barrier also.

A useful feature at the Herald where you can see the salaries of top CEOS over the last decade, and also the profits of the companies they run.

What it shows is the vast majority of CEOs have their salaries go down, as well as up. Presumably all linked to the profits of the companies they run. That is how it should be.

Of the 26 companies included, only one (Sky TV) has had the CEO salary increase every year.

“Here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it.”

– Winston Churchill

The quote of the week is brought to you by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. To support the Union’s campaign for lower taxes and less government waste, click here.

The Herald editorial:

It is little wonder that superannuitants applauded long and loudly in 2008 when the Labour Government, at the behest of New Zealand First, added free off-peak travel on buses, trains and Waiheke Island ferries to the list of SuperGold Card entitlements. Even today, they must be pinching themselves. Many have taken full advantage, undoubtedly thinking such largesse would come to an end at some point. It has not, but the time has surely arrived for the Government to pull in the reins.

It has every reason. The scheme was originally budgeted to cost taxpayers $18 million a year. That has now swollen to $26 million, and will continue to rise if nothing is done.

Only the most essential public services should be made free of charge. If you make users of a service pay nothing for it, then demand will inevitably increase.

During the Northland byelection, Winston Peters pledged to gain free ferry travel in the Bay of Islands and Hokianga. If Aucklanders benefited from free rides to Waiheke, it was only fair that Northlanders should get the same for Paihia to Russell and Rawene to Kohukohu, said the NZ First leader.

Why stop there? Why not free flights up and down the country?

The increasing pressure on the concession should be enough to persuade the Government to be far more decisive. But that seems unlikely. Superannuitants represent a strong voting bloc, and any administration is bound to be wary of losing their support. In its defence, the Government can also point to the merit of giving seniors mobility and greater access to the community. Surely not to the extent that is being provided, however.

The vast majority of active superannuitants do not need free public transport. It is no coincidence that the entitlement was introduced during the dying days of the Clark Government. It was a blatant vote-catcher, along the lines of the interest-free student loans wheeled out three years earlier. The SuperGold Card concession wasn’t enough, however, to turn the electoral tide. Taxpayers have paid the cost ever since.

It may be too much to expect the Government to kill off the entitlement. But it is time to limit it to a sensible and sustainable level. At the very least, seniors should have to pay a reduced fare for their days out, so the cost of the concession is no more than that originally intended.

That is exactly what should happen. There should be a part-charge so that there is some incentive for the service not to be abused.

GAME OF THRONES SEASON FINALE SPOILERS. DO NOT READ IF YET TO VIEW TODAY’S FINALE.

Continue reading »

The Herald reports:

Green parties from as far afield as Iraq and Mongolia have been comparing notes with their New Zealand counterparts at a rare gathering today.

The Asia Pacific Greens Federation congress is being held in New Zealand for the first time, and has brought together Green politicians from 16 countries.

The congress in Upper Hutt was focusing on the impacts of climate change on the Asia Pacific region.

But it was also an opportunity for more established Green parties (Australia, New Zealand) to compare ideas and strategies with fledging Green movements (India, South Korea).

In countries where Green politics was relatively new, some parties had grown quickly.

Green Party Korea co-representative Yujin Lee said her party had registered more than 6000 members since establishing in 2013 – a number equivalent to the New Zealand Greens, which marked its 25th anniversary this year.

But that is out of a population of 50 million. So in the NZ context that is like having 500 members – the same as the Civilian Party or United Future.

Other parties spoke of the difficulty in getting a foothold in the traditional political landscape.

The APGF has 12 full members. They are in Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Nepal, NZ, Pakistan, Philippines and Taiwan.

But in reality they are only a significant presence in three countries – Australia, NZ and Mongolia. In all other countries they were not even on the ballot, or were so insignificant they had under 0.5% of the vote.

The Greens globally basically exist only in white European countries. Almost everywhere else they are insignificant.

Korean and Japanese representatives said their governments were expanding nuclear facilities, and defended this move by saying that the nuclear plants created fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

But the Green parties opposed nuclear power, so they had to fight for action on two fronts.

If you want less greenhouse gas emissions, then nuclear power is a very good option.

Foreign affairs spokesman Kennedy Graham said it showed that not only were Asia-Pacific countries increasingly responsible for the global share of carbon emissions

Here’s the share by country in Asia-Pacific:

1. China 22.7%
2. India 5.7%
3. Russia 5.4%
4. Japan 2.9%
5. Indonesia 1.9%
6. Iran 1.6%
7. South Korea 1.6%
8. Australia 1.3%
9. Saudi Arabia 1.2%
10. Turkey 0.9%
11. Thailand 0.8%
12. Kazakhstan 0.7%
13. Malaysia 0.7%
14. Pakistan 0.7%
15. Taiwan 0.7%
16. Vietnam 0.6%
17. Iraq 0.5%
18. Uzbekistan 0.5%
19. Kuwait 0.4%
20. Burma 0.4%
21. Bangladesh 0.3%
22. Philippines 0.3%
23. North Korea 0.2%
24. NZ 0.2%
25. Singapore 0.2%
26. etc etc

If you can get an agreement between China, US, EU, India and Russia that is over 60% of global emissions. NZ and the rest of the world I am sure would agree to reductions in line with the Big 5, if those five can agree.

Chris Trotter writes:

IF IT HAD ONLY HAPPENED ONCE, I could have written it off as a simple overstatement. Politics lends itself to exaggeration, and there was a lot of that associated with the Labour Party’s Review of the 2014 General Election. But, what I’m describing wasn’t the usual bluff and bluster of the instant commentariat. What I was hearing was coming from “civilians” – people without a platform – ordinary folks. And, what they’ve been saying to me, over and over again, in the week or so since the Review was leaked to TV3’s Paddy Gower, is the same statement-cum-question:  “I think Labour’s finished as a major party – what do you think?”

Now, this is a not the sort of statement/question that political parties ever want to hear. Because it isn’t just another complaint about this leader, or that policy. No, this is an existential query: and existential queries only get made when the subject has already got at least one foot (and a good portion of leg) in the political grave. …

The difference between National’s response to its electoral nadir and Labour’s reaction to its worst result since 1922, is that the former took its thrashing seriously and Labour isn’t. Long before the Review was complete, Labour insiders were already speculating on whether or not it would be big enough to make a passable door-stop.

This is the key thing. Labour didn’t respond to their then worst ever modern defeat in 2011, and following an even worse defeat in 2014, they again have not looked to make any major changes.

National looked upon its defeat as a catastrophic market failure. National Incorporated’s share price had crashed, the Bank was ready to call in its overdraft, and the receivers were hovering. Time was of the essence. The Board of Directors had to do something.

What did they do? Well, they did what every big business in trouble does. They called in the political equivalent of McKinsey & Co. – consultants in extremis – and ruthlessly refashioned the National Party into a lean, mean electoral machine. National’s review panel didn’t just lop-off the dead wood, they fed it into the wood chipper, mixed it with the blood and bones of several sacred cows, and spread it over their flower beds!

Yep. I recall the special conference to approve the changes. I spoke in favour of them (bar one).

Democracy is one of those things (like fairness) that National tends to honour more in the breach than the execution.

I’m reminded of the quote by General McArthur – I’m here to preserve democracy, not practice it 🙂

Perhaps Labour could be saved if, like the ancient Romans, they were willing to install a dictator to “save the Republic” from its enemies (in the case of Labour’s membership that would be themselves!) someone capable of turning the party into a lean, mean electoral machine.

Except, of course, Labour’s never going to do that. Which is why so many people are telling me “Labour’s finished” – and  why, regretfully, I’m agreeing with them.

I think Little, as a former president, could save the party. If he is willing to use his position and prestige to push a significant reform package, then he could get it through. But will he take the risk, or just rely on the hope that the voters won’t want to give National a 4th term?

UPDATE: Rob Hosking has similar thoughts:

Hemmed in by enemies on all sides, the New Zealand Labour Party looks increasingly like the old New Zealand Liberal Party: a movement whose time has passed.

The Liberals had their time in the political sun, but society moved on and the party did not. The different wings of the party hived off into other movements and the party itself was subsumed.

Labour looks headed the same way: its cadre of professional politicians have relied on the political cycle turning their way again but the thing about cycles is they tend to turn and end up in a different place.

That s basically their plan – hope the tide turns.

New Zealand’s political Left is overdue for realignment: that re-alignment has, over the past month, moved much closer. 

Budget 2015, meanwhile, dealt another blow: in its combination of the first real increase in benefit levels since 1972 and greater incentives to get off those benefits, it raised the awkward question of why Labour did not do something similar when in government.

Not for the first or last time, the underlying question many on the Left are asking is: what is Labour for?

Giving more power to unions, so they get more money and members, so they can fund Labour.

The Herald profiles Phil Twyford:

Twyford was among those understood to be trying to persuade David Shearer to step down although Maryan Street took most of the fall publicly for that. In the ensuing leadership contest Twyford helped run Grant Robertson’s campaign.

On the day the results were announced, Twyford arrived at Robertson’s side to a function in Wellington but quietly left soon afterward. To the surprise of those at the Robertson do, an hour later Twyford suddenly popped up at Cunliffe’s shoulder in Auckland.

That’s impressive speed!

The Herald reports:

When most people find their missing phone, it’s followed by a vow not to lose it again.

Prime Minister John Key, on the other hand, quickly bins his.

Mr Key has revealed that he gets rid of his mobile phone every few months for security reasons.

Those precautions are prudent not paranoid, an expert in technology and security says, as phones can be successfully tampered with in only a few moments.

The Prime Minister’s admission follows revelations that other world leaders had their phones accessed, and that US President Barack Obama and others use strict security measures.

While Mr Key’s phone has special security measures on it, he does not assume his conversations are private.

“I kind of work on the principle that I will be [listened to] at some point,” Mr Key said on More FM yesterday.

“If I was having a conversation with my national security advisers … I would never have a mobile phone in the room I’m in … because you can use it as a listening device, whether it is on or not.”

Left behind or not, the phone will be replaced every few months.

“If I left it in a hotel room by mistake, which I have done on a few occasions, I would just throw it out [after getting it back],” Mr Key said.

Barry Brailey, chairman of the NZ Internet Task Force, a non-profit organisation that aims to improve the country’s cyber security, said that was prudent.

“There is commercially available spyware-type stuff for handsets. If you can get physical access to the handset you can probably install that in less than three minutes.”

We know there are people in the country that will hack communications of their political opponents, so this is no surprise. Let alone, any attempts by non NZers.

Matthew Hooton writes:

Labour’s finance spokesman, Grant Robertson, expresses this suspicion of “the economy” quite well.  As he puts it, fairly gently: “To me, the economy is only a means to an end to the kind of society we want, to the well-being of New Zealanders.”

This makes it sound like the economy is something that is the property of the Government!

For many in Labour, though, the sentiment is more extreme: “The economy” is something dirty and unpleasant; the other; something almost to be feared.  After all, talk in the 1980s of economic efficiency and reform – let alone the dreaded “neo-liberal orthodoxy” – is what created the horror of today’s satanic mills that replaced the workers’ paradise they seem to believe existed prior to 1984. Such talk created the vast underclass that these Grey Lynn and Wadestown liberals have read about on Bryan Bruce’s Facebook page and seen on Campbell Live.

The Grey Lynn and Wadestown sets are smart enough to know they must tolerate the continued existence of “the economy” but only because it is necessary to fund benefits for the  “missing million” and government-funded arts festivals for themselves.

Sadly this is only slightly exaggerated.

In contrast, Progress wanted Labour to take a more holistic view of who people are, how they live and where they want to be.  As they see it, in a 24-hour day, people want the opportunity to spend eight hours being involved in creating something meaningful and valuable at work.  They want another eight hours to enjoy time with their families and communities.  And they need the remaining eight hours for sleep in a safe, warm, comfortable home.

That’s a very good way to look at what people see as important – work, family, and home.