Stuff reports:

An American sex education teacher has drawn the ire of parents after taking high-school students on a field trip to an adult novelty store in Minneapolis.

Gaia Democratic School director Starri Hedges took about a dozen students to the Smitten Kitten last week. Hedges told the Star Tribune that she wanted to provide a safe environment for students to learn about human sexual behaviour.

Besides offering adult books, videos, toys and other products, the store also has educational workshops, which the students attended.

“What I saw happening on our trip, I thought it was beautiful because kids could talk to these sex educators without any shame, without any fear,” Hedges said. Some of her students bought condoms, she said.

The small Minneapolis school has a motto that promises academic freedom, youth empowerment and democratic education. Parents say it has about 25 students. 

Parent Lynn Floyd’s 11- and 13-year-old daughters were on the field trip. Floyd said the trip was “a major breach of trust” and has withdrawn his children from the school. Floyd said he is most troubled that parents were never notified before the trip.

Sex education is a good thing. Taking school kids to a sex shop is a bad thing as part of that.

If the teacher can’t work that out, they’re in the wrong job.

Stuff reports:

The right-to-die debate is poised to be thrust back on the political agenda as support mounts for a parliamentary inquiry.

More than a decade after Parliament was divided by a vote on voluntary euthanasia, there is cross-party support that the public deserves a fresh debate through a select committee inquiry.

It follows the death on Friday from natural causes of Wellington lawyer Lecretia Seales on the same day that it was made public she had lost her bid lost her bid for the courts to rule in favour of assisted suicide.

A petition due to be presented to Parliament could be the catalyst for a fresh debate on voluntary euthanasia – but the Government is refusing to say whether it would back a wide ranging inquiry.

ACT leader David Seymour has confirmed he is drafting a member’s bill calling for a debate on euthanaisa and will urge the Government to adopt the bill.

Good to see that a bill will be put forward. The challenge will be to get it drawn from the ballot, or adopted by the Government (less likely).

I believe any bill, if drafted carefully with safeguards, will pass Parliament with a substantial majority.

Public opinion is massively in favour of a law change. The last public poll saw 74% in favour and just 20% opposed.

A select committee inquiry in response to the petition is a useful thing to do, but not as a substitute to a bill. It can get the arguments on the table, but it can’t lead to a law change, a vote in the House or even a debate in the House. As it is uncertain when a bill might be drawn out of the ballot, it is a good thing to do to keep attention on the issue, and hear arguments on what safeguards there should be. But a bill should go into the ballot as soon as possible, to maximise the chance of it being considered this term.

Stuff reports:

Statistics New Zealand hopes to provide a quicker and more accurate picture of how small businesses are faring as a result of a deal with accounting software firm Xero.

Businesses which use Xero’s cloud software will be able to volunteer to have some details of their business, such as their profit and loss, transmitted automatically to the government department.

Statistics NZ said the trial would test the feasibility of the department automatically collecting financial information electronically and if it was successful it could mean business owners would spend less time in future filling in forms.

If this means I have to spend less time every year filling in those 20 page business surveys, then I’ll be a very happy man.

Stuff reports:

Released prisoners make up a big proportion of those joining the sickness benefit, and their children are falling through the cracks, the deputy PM says.

Finance Minister Bill English said data sharing has revealed that 5500 of the 7500 prisoners released each year join the sickness benefit within 12 months, and nearly half of those go on to reoffend.

If they’re well enough to commit crime, they’re well enough not to be on the sickness benefit.

“They [the prisoners] left healthy, trained, probably in their heads not quite rehabilitated, and within 12 months two-thirds of them are on a sickness benefit which means they don’t have to front up for a work test,” Finance Minister English said.

“We’ve had [the prisoners] drug free, alcohol free, fed properly, insulated and warm.

“That is nuts. We didn’t know that until about three months ago – that the main flow of people on to a sickness benefit is healthy former prisoners.”

The great thing about the data focus we are seeing is as we learn stuff like that, then you can do something about it. You need to identify the problem, before you can solve it.

The court ruling is below. Her applications were not granted.

Some key quotes:

I cannot declare that Ms Seales’ doctor would be acting lawfully if she administered a fatal drug to Ms Seales within the terms sought.  Nor can I declare that it would be lawful for Ms Seales’ doctor to provide her with a fatal drug knowing that Ms Seales intended to use that drug to end her own life and did so.  Because Ms Seales’ health is rapidly deteriorating, I informed the parties of this aspect of my decision on 2 June 2015

It’s good the court communicated this aspect as early as possible, three days ago.

I have decided that Ms Seales’ right not to be deprived of life is engaged, but not breached in her case. I have also concluded that Ms Seales’ right not to be subjected to cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment is not engaged by her tragic circumstances. I have therefore concluded the relevant provisions of the Crimes Act are consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in the NZBORA.

Basically that is a loss on all grounds. It was always going to be a stretch for the court to rule assisted suicide was legal, but I thought there was a pretty good chance they would at least rule the current law is inconsistent with the NZBORA.

First, palliative care cannot necessarily provide relief from suffering in all cases. 

Palliative care helps greatly, but it doesn’t mean you don’t suffer both physically and mentally.

That research suggests that between three and eight per cent of suicides in New Zealand during the last century were by persons who were rational, competent, and suffering a terminal illness. 

That 3% to 8% may have lived longer if assistance was a legal option.

Although Ms Seales has not obtained the outcomes she sought, she has selflessly provided a forum to clarify important aspects of New Zealand law.  The complex legal, philosophical, moral and clinical issues raised by Ms Seales’ proceedings can only be addressed by Parliament passing legislation to amend the effect of the Crimes Act. 

It is time for Parliament to act. And by act I mean a law change, not a select committee inquiry. A select committee inquiry is better than nothing, but should not be seen as a substitute for a bill.

Seales v Attorney-General

The Telegraph reports:

It also emerged that they are also pushing plans to introduce a minimum corporation tax rate across the continent in a move that could result in higher taxes on British companies. …

On Wednesday, EU officials will discuss how to tackle tax avoidance and create a system of “fair, transparent and growth friendly” corporation taxation at an orientation debate in the College of Commissioners, a forum used to float ideas, ahead of an announcement in June.

The discussion will include plans to create a basic rate of corporation tax across Europe, reported Handelsblatt, the German business newspaper. The

“Germany and France and demanding a minimum threshold value; we are reacting to that,” one commission source told the newspaper.

A commission spokesman denied the reports. At 20 per cent, Britain has the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7, and among the lowest in western Europe.

How about a maximum tax rate instead of say 25%!

If the EU tries to bring in a minimum corporate tax rate, it would be very good for non EU members!

Hat Tip: Jim Rose

So NZ, Australia, North America and parts of Latin America the most racially tolerant. Asia and parts of Africa the least. 

Danyl McL blogs:

The draft states – in a diplomatic way – that the affiliates, ie the unions, have an awful lot of power within Labour, but that they don’t do much during elections or give the party much money.

Which I find interesting. Ever since the UK election I’ve been wondering about the role that unions play in left-wing politics there, in Australia, and here. Having these powerful external organisations running around stacking selections, picking MPs and playing kingmaker within the party, which then gets slaughtered when the public don’t like the candidates they picked doesn’t seem to be working out that well for anyone.

Sadly Labour have been moving towards giving unions more power within Labour, not less. The unions annointed Andrew Little leader, despite Grant Robertson being the first choice of the members and caucus.

But I doubt former EMPU boss Andrew Little would agree with that, or the implied criticism of the unions in the review. So my theory is that Little demanded that point be removed from the final draft and someone who felt strongly about the point – and, perhaps, the role the unions played putting Little into power – leaked the draft.

A plausible theory.

A lot of people spent an awful lot of time and money trying to get ‘the missing million’ to vote in 2014. The conventional wisdom on the left is that the missing million stopped voting because there was no alternative to ‘neoliberalism’. Well, the Cunliffe-led Labour Party was very left-wing. The Greens were even more left-wing. Mana/Internet were very left-wing. The missing million didn’t vote for any of them. I’m all for research into this group of voters, but the lesson of 2014 is that targeting people who don’t vote instead of people who do is political suicide.

Hopefully Labour will ignore Danyl, and keep focusing on the missing million!

This section is too long to fully quote, but reveals that Labour does not have an executive committee or a campaign committee, both fairly staggering organisational gaps in a modern political party.

Their NZ Council has 22 members on it. Everyone knows that is too large to be a proper governing body. You need o either have a more manageable size (National has a nine person board) or have an executive committee.

And a party that doesn’t have a campaign committee!

Labour had some embarrassingly terrible candidates in the last election. But one of their biggest problems is that too many of their candidates are unionists or staffers imposed by the party on electorates that they have no connection to, and who keep running in that same electorate even as the electorate and party votes sink lower and lower. Building up the local branches and letting them identify high quality candidates seems like the obvious solution there, not further centralisation. That would be lots of hard work through, instead of a simple organisational change.

Labour Party member Phil Quin is even harsher:

The Gould Review was a carnival of navel gazing. A joke. 

And:

However, the leaked review contains a glistening turd, namely the proposed Vetting Committee for the Labour list.

This is an atrocious idea. Because of its first past the post voting rules, Labour’s governing body is already a mono-factional behemouth incapable of promoting anyone but their own.  Adding an additional committee made up of handpicked members, unelected and unaccountable to party members, to vet poential candidates is not only needlessly bureaucratic; it is flagrantly undemocratic. 

Who would the NZ Council appoint to such a Vetting Committee other than people who agree with them?  How does that solve anything? How does it not simply entrench the problem that the party elites are determined to shrink the talent pool to include only people they would be happy to invite around for dinner?

The solution to a lack of internal democracy is not to create an undemocratic entity that takes even more power away from party members. 

In the pantheon of bad ideas, this one deserve high billing. 

The leaking of the review has highlighted even better than the review itself, the major problem. Labour is unfit to govern. Different factions leaking to do over the other faction.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key went in to bat for his cat Moonbeam after Conservation Minister Maggie Barry’s call to put down stray cats and limit pet cats to one or two per household.

Ms Barry proposed the limit while launching a $11.2 million fund for kiwi conservation at the Zealandia bird sanctuary. She said the SPCA policy of neutering and releasing stray cats was “one of the most foolish and counterproductive techniques and practices I have ever heard”.

“I would like the SPCA to stop … because if you capture a cat, spay it and release it, often what happens is they find a little supermarket for cats, which are the bird sanctuaries.”

She said that instead, strays should be put down or rehomed as pets.

Mr Key was quick to knock back her proposals, saying they were her personal views, rather than the Government’s.

“Some people are going to have lots of cats and some people are going to have few.

The Government isn’t going to limit the number of cats people can own.”

He said he would nonetheless advise Moonbeam to steer clear of the SPCA if it did decide to go ahead with Ms Barry’s instructions.

When the PM says he’d want his cat to avoid the SPCA, if a Minister’s proposal is accepted, well that’s a pretty good sign it isn’t going anywhere!

The Herald reports:

Maori Television’s star broadcaster Mihingarangi Forbes has quit the company after complaining of management interference in the popular Native Affairs current affairs show.

Forbes resignation came as a shock to many at Maori Television today but was the result of long-running tensions between the news team at Native Affairs and chief executive Paora Maxwell, appointed after a tumultuous process.

Forbes was unavailable for comment but confirmed the resignation on Twitter, saying: “I’ve resigned. Thank you those who shared stories.”

The Herald has been told Forbes’ resignation came after the Native Affairs team were told they were not to run a story on Te Kohanga Reo National Trust, planned for Monday.

If this is correct, it is appalling. Media should be about exposing wrong-doing, not covering it up.

Mihi Forbes is an excellent reporter and interviewer, and I don’t blame her for quitting if management were interfering in editorial decisions.

The Native Affairs team’s investigation into management and spending at the Kohangareo trust was considered by Maoridom’s old guard as a disrespectful way to probe an establishment organisation led by matriarch Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi.

But there were also those who championed the team for having the courage to raise questions about powerful establishment figures.

Respect runs both ways.

If Maori TV isn’t willing to scrutinise Maori organisations that are behaving inappropriately, then what is the point of having them?

The Dom Post reported:

BurgerFuel is all go in Upper Hutt with a new restaurant and take-away store opening its doors on Main St this week. …

Despite their long scouting and local knowledge Kingi said it was access to city council financial incentives which sealed the Upper Hutt deal.

“That really swung it,” Kingi said.

The council’s economic stimulus package offers a range of concession for qualifying businesses moving into Upper Hutt. 

Kingi estimates financial savings of more han $30,000 through the incentives but he is enthusiastic about all his dealings with the council.

“They have been very, very quick in responding and in helping us out. It’s been amazing really.

 “It’s been a real eye opener and made it such an easy road for us,” he said. .

BurgerFuel Australasia general manager Craig Notman said the city council’s approach was as good as it gets.

“This is the first time we’ve worked with a council that has such a pro-active stimulus package,” he said.

This is appalling.

We now have ratepayer money being spent to persuade burger chains to open a store in their local area. BurgerFuel probably can’t believe their luck.

Have you noticed a shortage of burger restaurants?

There is a real risk of a domino effect where all councils in start offering $32,000 subsidies for businesses to set up there. The winners are the businesses and the losers are ratepayers. This adds nothing to economic growth for NZ.

Councils can do stuff to assist new businesses such as fast tracking of consents and low fees for major new developments. But giving a burgen chain $32,000 to open a new store is a bad thing, and not something we should praise.

Inside Story is a publication of the Swinburne Institute for Social Research in the School of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities at Swinburne University of Technology.

They look at what is happening in NZ:

Imagine a country in which a government of the centre-right decided to make it a top priority to tackle inherited disadvantage. Where much of its limited new spending is devoted to “social investment” to reduce deprivation and increase workforce participation. And where it’s chalking up impressive results.

You don’t have to go far to find it – just across the Tasman. Taking on disadvantage is rarely a priority for conservative governments, but it has become an increasingly important theme of the second and third terms of the National Party government under prime minister John Key.

They look at the motivations of Key and English:

John Key himself grew up on welfare, in public housing in Christchurch with his sisters and widowed mother Ruth, a Jewish refugee from Austria. While he rose to become head of global foreign exchange trading for Merrill Lynch before entering politics, he has never forgotten where he came from. In his first speech as National Party leader, in 2006, he declared, “You can measure a society by how it looks after its most vulnerable… It is in the interests of no one, and to the shame of us all, that an underclass has been allowed to develop in New Zealand.”

Bill English, whom close observers see as the main generator of the government’s ideas, came to politics as a young conservative Catholic who had been a Treasury economist, then a farmer in the remote Southland. He has grown into a formidable independent thinker, committed to balanced budgets, small government, rebuilding earthquake-damaged Christchurch, and increasing business opportunities – but also to creating a society that intervenes to help its most vulnerable back into the mainstream.

And then they focus on the investment approach:

Key, English and other ministers have combined humanitarian instincts with actuarial logic to create a world-leading experiment: investing heavily to reduce the risk of children inheriting their parents’ welfare dependency, and to offer incentives and intensive help for the parents themselves to get off welfare and into work, and then stay in work.

What is most remarkable is that Key and English have made this “social investment” a top priority, in part, as a business decision to reduce the long-term cost of government.

Spending more money now, so we have to spend less later. All too often a Government won’t look beyond an electoral cycle.

English described it to Inside Story as “using an insurance approach to crack welfare dependency… A lot of government spending is trained on a relatively small part of the population whose lives are…” he paused, “complex for them, and expensive for us.” Targeted interventions aimed at lifting them out of dependency and into productive working lives not only improve their lives, he said, but also dramatically reduce government spending in the long term. “What works for the community works for the government’s books.”

It is working in welfare – the challenge is now to expand it.

The hardship package was focused particularly on “children at risk”: those kids whose parents are long-term welfare dependents and have family problems and criminal records. At the budget launch, English said actuarial assessments based on longitudinal studies have found that among children growing up in such families:

• 75 per cent will not complete school;
• 40 per cent will themselves become long-term welfare dependents by the time they’re twenty-one; and
• 24 per cent will have been jailed by the time they’re thirty-five.

Children growing up in this group, English said, cost taxpayers an average of NZ$320,000 by the time they turn thirty-five; some cost taxpayers more than NZ$1 million. These are stunning figures, which he uses to persuade fellow conservatives that it is in society’s interests to give these children and their parents a priority on spending that they have never had before.

So many of these families have second or third generation dependency and offending issues. It is about breaking the cycle.

Received this morning from her family:

Lecretia Seales, the 42-year-old Wellington lawyer with terminal brain cancer, died of natural causes at 12.35am this morning.

Ms Seales’ health had deteriorated rapidly in the days since her appearance in the Wellington High Court last week where she was seeking a landmark declaration that her doctor would not risk prosecution under the Crimes Act if she were to assist Ms Seales to end her life, in the event her final days became unbearable to her.

Lawyers Andrew Butler, Chris Curran and Catherine Marks also argued that denying their client lawful access to physician assisted death amounted to a breach of Ms Seales’ rights and fundamental freedoms under the New Zealand Bill of Rights.

Ms Seales became increasingly paralysed over the past week and was moved into a hospital bed in her home on the weekend. Since then her husband Matt Vickers and mother Shirley Seales have been caring for Ms Seales supported by Mary Potter Hospice and the Capital & Coast DHB district nursing team.

Ms Seales’ death came just hours after her family and lawyers received Justice Collins’ full judgment. The judge has embargoed his decision until 15.00 hours today. [Friday]

My thoughts and condolences go out to her husband Matt, and the rest of her family and friends. There are few things worse than losing a loved one to cancer at such a young age.

Her CV, which includes DPMC, the Law Commission, Chen Palmer and Kensington Swan, indicates how very successful she had been as a lawyer.

Exposing her private struggle with cancer, to the public, must have been very challenging.

We’ll find out this afternoon at 3.00 pm the decision of the court. While that decision will be on an issue of significant public interest, it is worth remembering that at the core of the case was the untimely death of an individual, who will be missed greatly by her family and friends. For now my thoughts are with them.

Received this release:

Auckland residents Ray Calver and Dick Cuthbert are part of a group of concerned ratepayers organising the Auckland Rates Increases Public Meeting to be held June 10. “There is widespread anger at the imposition of an average 9.9% rates increases across Auckland. It particularly hurts those in poorer parts of Auckland where residents of Mangere face increases of 16.9%.” 

Mr. Calver says “The purpose of this meeting is to give Aucklanders an opportunity to voice their opposition to the increases and also to plan how they would like to make this opposition known. 

The meeting will be addressed by several speakers who have a variety of ideas on how ratepayers can take a stand against the Council’s rates plan.” 

The meeting will be held at Mt. Eden War Memorial Hall 487 Dominion Rd on Wednesday June 10 commencing from 7:30pm. Confirmed speakers are   

• Stephen Berry – Affordable Auckland Mayoral candidate
• Cameron Brewer – Orakei Councillor
• Penny Bright – Mayoral candidate
• Jo Holmes – Auckland Ratepayer’s Alliance
• Damien Light – United Future
• Bill Raynor – Grey Power
• David Seymour – Act Epsom MP

“Following speeches, there will be time put aside for people to ask questions of the speakers and also voice their concerns about the rates increases. The meeting organisers and I look forward to hearing how those who have attended wish to proceed.” 

I’d encourage people to go along. If the 15 Councillors who voted for a 9.9% rates increase get away with it, then I have no doubt future increases will continue to be at such a high level.

If on the other hand, 18 months of pressure leads to those 15 Councillors being sacked, it will be a great message to both the Auckland Council and all other councils, that ratepayers are not an endless source of funds, and there are consequences to being unable to rein in spending.

Bill English’s right of reply in the Budget Debate is well worth watching as he eviscerates Labour.

This behind the scenes look at Budget Day may be of interest to some also.

Stuff reports:

The Government’s business super ministry has admitted its controversial sign outside its headquarters cost almost $70,000, about 50 per cent more than it previously claimed.

The culture in MBIE is obviously not right, if no one involved in the project of moving offices flagged that this was a wasteful idea.

On Tuesday, MBIE said the sign was designed to be in character with the historic building it uses for its headquarters.

Many cheaper ways to do that.

A spokeswoman said the sign “was a one-off cost in a relocation programme projected to achieve around $40 million-$50 million in public sector savings over 20 years”.

The savings come from a cut in the amount of office space used by the ministry.

It’s good money was saved elsewhere, but a saving in one area doesn’t justify extravagance in another.

The NZ Initiative has released a new report – Un(ac)countable – Why Millions on Maths Returned Little.

Some key findings:

• This report documents the 15-year history of the Numeracy Development Project (the Numeracy Project), a nationwide centrally devised approach for improving maths. The Numeracy Project existed officially as a professional development (PD) programme for teachers in most primary schools in New Zealand between 2000 and 2009. It put more emphasis on teaching children a range of strategies for solving maths problems, with greater emphasis on mental problem solving and less on written methods.
• New Zealand policymakers have been lamenting the state of maths education for over 30 years. However, maths performance did start to show signs of improvement in the late 1990s, around the same time that many localised teacher PD programmes for maths (that were precursors to the Numeracy Project) were in play. But maths performance has since been in decline.
• TIMSS 2011 showed that New Zealand students spend much less time memorising basic facts and much more time explaining answers compared to students in the top five performing countries.
• While the basics (like times tables) are likely limited in use unless they are understood conceptually, they are still important because knowing the basics off by heart helps to free up working memory for children to learn more complex maths.
• A 2010 study found that a third of new primary school teachers could not add two fractions (7/18 + 1/9).

That is 9/18 or 1/2. Took me around three seconds.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Climate Change Issues:Does she agree that local authorities will face greater adaptation costs and find it more expensive to protect infrastructure and property as the climate changes; if not, why not?
2. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received this year on access to rural health services?
3. ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister of Finance: As part of the Government’s wider economic plan, how will Budget 2015 help families and businesses in New Zealand’s regions?
4. PITA PARAONE to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his statement, “Ngāti Whātua has offered up a number of options to the Crown and we expect the Crown to deal with them in good faith”?
5. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Did he promise to spend $1 billion on education and $1 billion on health from the Future Investment Fund; if so, is there enough money not yet committed in the Future Investment Fund to keep his promise?
6. MATT DOOCEY to the Minister for Social Development: How will Budget 2015 help the Government meet its Better Public Services target to reduce the number of people on benefits?
7. DENISE ROCHE to the Minister of Immigration: Will he increase New Zealand’s annual refugee quota from the current 750; if not, why not?
8. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Transport: What update can he give on the Government’s Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance?
9. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Housing: Can he confirm he intends to redesignate land held for transport and education as “land that is held for state housing purposes” so that under section 136 of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 he can circumvent the right of iwi to first right of refusal under treaty settlements?
10. CLAYTON MITCHELL to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements regarding the Fire Service?
11. MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Education: What recent appointments has she made that will support quality teaching and leadership to deliver high-quality education for New Zealand children?
12. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Primary Industries: Is the Customs Export Prohibition (Livestock for Slaughter) Order 2013 still in force and how does it differ, other than as to dates, from the Customs Export Prohibition (Livestock for Slaughter) Order 2010 and the Customs Export Prohibition (Livestock for Slaughter) Order 2007?

National: Four questions on Budget 2015 x 2, Puhoi to Wellsford Road and EDUCANZ

Labour: Four questions on rural health, Future Investment Fund, Auckland housing and the Saudi Arabia farm.

Greens: Two questions on climate change and refugees

NZ First: Two questions on Auckland housing and the Fire Service

Government Notice of Motion 3.00 pm to 4.10 pm

Hon Bill English to move, That, pursuant to section 161(2) of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989, the House ratify the funding agreement entered into by the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand pursuant to section 159 of that Act on 26 May 2015 and presented to the House on 3 June 2015.

Each party gets one speech of up to 10 minutes, so a total debate of up to 70 minutes

Government Bills 4.10 pm to 6.00 pm

For those who haven’t seen it, the below is from Sir Bob Jones on what happened on that Air NZ flight:

PUTTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

Twice in successive weeks recently, I slammed the New Zealand media’s ludicrous behaviour in two New Zealand Herald satirical columns, over their infantile excesses following the ponytail incident.  How ironic then that a few weeks later I should be the subject of their obsession with trivia.  Here’s what happened.

I shot up to Auckland for a Vice-Chancellor’s university function, in my honour.  As I’ve done countless times I gave my ticket to the always helpful Koru Club ladies who set about re-organising me into the big leg room emergency seat and if possible, and as indeed in that case, with no-one besides me.  On the flight I was greeted by one of Air New Zealand’s most charming chief stewards, a Chinese chap, took my seat, donned my air phones to avoid the unbelievably childish safety claptrap, and had a pleasant 50 minutes read. 

The following day at Auckland saw a repetition, marked by one of the X-ray machine officers shaking hands with me, saying he hadn’t seen me for a while.  Such is the usual friendly conduct I and doubtless other regular Auckland-Wellington are accustomed to.  Once again, I took my seat, donned my earphones and settled into my book, of which more shortly.  There was a tap on my shoulder.  I looked up to see a young hostess frowning at me and assuming it was the usual seat forward silliness, pushed the side button and returned to reading.  She tapped again.  I took off the headphones. 

“You’re in the emergency seat”

“Yes”

“Do you know you’re in the emergency seat?”

“Yes”

“Do you want to change seats?”

“Not particularly”

She then disappeared and I resumed reading.  Then came another tap.  This time a grim-faced woman of about 60 was glaring at me.  We went through the same rigmarole only she then commanded me, the first such occasion in countless times in that seat, and I’ll wager, the first such time ever, to turn to the wall and read the instructions.  I did so, and turned back and with another glare she started to walk away.  “Childish,” I remarked to the chap beside me.  She heard me, spun around and snapped, “I’ll get the captain.” “OK,” I said and resumed reading.  20 minutes later a couple of security guards appeared so I left with them.

There was a smattering of applause, I assume from people frustrated at the delay, this predictably, subsequently reported as mass cheering.  I’m told the captain then announced that safety was their foremost concern.  The only safety threat, once the doors closed, was of everyone drowning in his extreme wetness. 

What then happened was an abrupt reversal.  I was greeted by a certain senior ground official, plainly disgusted at what had occurred, who took my ticket and said they’ll have me on another flight in a flash.  Half an hour later I boarded again for the usual trouble-free, head-phoned trip south, there absurdly to encounter the camera crew half-wits en masse.

People assumed I’d made a fuss.  Not so, for a very good reason.  In Auckland I’d purchased a recently published Epicurus book, this written by a classicist unconvincingly arguing that financial collapses would become a standard event in future and that unless we adopt Epicurean principles, we’re doomed.  In particular he honed in on what he considered the real victims of the hard-driven market economy; the unskilled underclass who in the highly stratified modern economy, were reduced to utterly tedious repetitious work.  I was musing over that when the grim-faced 60 year old arrived and I realised she epitomised the author’s point.  Decades of mindlessly pouring tea and coffee, but a uniform and by God she was bent on using it and taking her misery out on me.  Even if not very bright she should have worked harder at school back in the 1960s.  Perhaps she realised that and the sight of me engrossed in a book incensed her.  

That afternoon in the Wellington office the manager came in.  He’d just had an email from our managing director, then in New York.  “That puts paid to it,” he wrote.  “We’ll definitely buy a private jet,” this something we’ve been considering.  And so we shall.  I’ve had enough of Air New Zealand’s infantilism.

POSTSCRIPT – I’ve had numerous calls from senior journalist friends saying that someone called Patrick Smellie claimed I made a fuss.  Their uniform response was that if Smellie said that, then I must have been in a coma.  Take heed of the nearby passenger who commented publicly that all I wanted was to read my book and I was being deliberately pestered.

I suspect you can read your book in peace on a private jet!

Someone in Labour leaked a copy of their campaign review to 3 News. It is online here.

Some of their conclusions are stark:

In general, Labour’s campaign preparation was inadequate.

Perceptions of tension around the leadership and disunity within caucus seriously undermined Labour’s credibility with voters and frustrated any attempt to present a Party that was ready for government.

Labour did not present a coherent and convincing image of itself or its policies. There was a general lack of message discipline, and the policies put forward at the election were often complex, difficult to understand and easily misrepresented by our opponents.

• It is imperative that Labour acts – and is seen to act as a disciplined and coherent team that is ready for government if it is to win the trust of voters in 2017. As a key element of this process, the senior leadership team within Caucus should be given greater prominence and responsibility throughout the three years.
• Great care should be taken in deciding when and which policies should be put before the public, and the language that should be used to explain them.

The first one is the leader should stop hogging all the limelight. The second seems to suggest that some of their policies will be kept secret form the public!

• Labour has still to define positively and confidently convincing, alternative macro-economic policies, which also respond to wider social and environmental issues,despite emerging international challenges to neo-liberal orthodoxy

This sounds like a Bryan Gould point – railing against neoliberalism, despite the fact we do not have anything close to a neoliberal Government.

• All electorate candidates should also nominate for the list to ensure that candidates campaign for both the electorate and the Party. It was apparent in the last election that some electorate candidates did not campaign for the Party vote.

Such as Clayton Cosgrove, who ironically is a List MP!

Patrick Leyland looks at the review, and is unimpressed with it.

At the end of the day this review is a mess. However the biggest problem will be if the party focusses on the guff in it (I can already imagine the fights that changes to LEC and regional council rules will cause) and continues to ignore the very real political problems it faces – which remain largely unaddressed.

Given this review is a waste of the envelope it was written on, it will be interesting to see how the new leader and president react

Also of interest is Richard Harman at Politik:

Another major Labour Party document has apparently come as a surprise to Leader Andrew Little.

The review of the Election Report was leaked on Wednesday afternoon to Radio New Zealand.

But even though the report was obviously finished,  POLITIK understands it was not made available to the Leader’s office until after it had been leaked.

So the media got hold of the review before the Leader!!

As a members’ bill was passed last night, there will be a ballot today for a new bill to be introduced. The draw is at midday.

Below are the bills in the ballot currently. I’ll update after midday with the winner.

The bills by party (Ministers excluded) are:

• National – 17/34
• Labour – 32/32
• Greens – 14/14
• NZ First -10/12
• Maori – 1/1
• ACT – 0/1

Only half the National backbench have a bill in the ballot. That’s pretty slack.