The Telegraph reports:

Senior figures in Unite are angered by the shadow health secretary’s failure to adopt an “anti-austerity” economic policy since announcing his bid.

They plan to approach Len McCluskey, Unite’s general secretary, to consider formally backing no candidate unless there is a clearer Left-wing option on the ticket.

The latest monthly polling newsletter is out. The high level summary is:

Curia’s Polling Newsletter – Issue 85, May 2015

There were three political voting polls in May – a Roy Morgan, a One News Colmar Brunton and a 3 News Reid Research.

The average of the public polls has National 21% ahead of Labour in May, up 2% from April. The current seat projection is centre-right 63 seats, centre-left 49 which would see a National-led Government.

In the United States Clinton’s favourability goes negative for the first time, on the back of scrutiny of donations to the Clinton Foundation. Walker takes the lead from Bush in the Republican race.

In the UK the Conservatives have increased 3% since the election. Current views on the EU are 45% want the UK to remain, 38% leave and 18% undecided

In Australia the country direction has improved significantly in May, after the recent budget. Abbott’s approval also improving.

In Canada following their win in Alberta, the NDP are increasing support throughout the country.

The normal three tables are provided comparing the country direction sentiment, head of government approval and opposition leader approval sentiment for the five countries.

We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on the NZ Head of State, 2015 Budget, John Key’s ponytail pulling and the recent tax changes on property plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please e-mail [email protected] with your name, organization (if applicable) and e-mail address or go to http://curia.us10.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=e9168e04adbaaaf75e062779e&id=8507431512 to subscribe yourself.

CBC reports:

A same-sex couple from St. John’s is upset after discovering the jewelry store that sold them their engagement rings has posted a sign that seems to oppose same-sex marriage — but one of the store’s owners says he’s allowed to post his religious beliefs.

Personally I think it is silly for a business to limit its business by stating their political views on who should be able to marry. But that’s their decision to make.

The couple went to the store the following day, and asked about the sign.

“They just said that that’s their beliefs, and they think they can put up whatever they want. I just said it was very disrespectful, it’s very unprofessional and I wanted a refund,” White said.

“I have no issues with them believing in what they believe in. I think everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. But I don’t think they should put their personal beliefs inside their business.”

But that’s their choice – it is their business.

Jardon said he’s an immigrant, and feels blessed to live in Canada.

“One of the reasons my family chose to come to Canada was the freedom of rights,” he said, noting the freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

“Nothing in that shop or in these posters is against the law… There’s nothing there that means to discriminate or to hate anybody else.”

Jardon said he won’t apologize for his beliefs.

“I feel really bad that [White] feels that we would in any way try to hurt or discriminate against her, but we will not retract from what we believe. I cannot say, ‘Well because you feel bad, I will stop believing what I believe,'” he said.

“When I walk on Church Street in Toronto, where I am right now, and I see [LGBT rainbow flags], and I see a lot of signs and a lot of things on public property, I don’t have a problem with them. I accept it. I chose to come to Canada… and we accept the whole package… I don’t discriminate against that, nor do I come and tell them to take them down. For the same reason, I ask to have the same respect in return, especially when it’s in my own business.”

Sounds reasonable.

Jardon said he’s getting a big backlash from social media.

“I had to shut down the Facebook page because of so many hate emails and phone calls and just, really nasty stuff,” he said.

Some people are threatened by diverse opinions.

Stuff reports:

The skirmishing over a set of doors between Labour and National MPs’ offices has broken out again with each blaming the other for the dividing wall across what had become known as Parliament’s “demilitarised zone”.

With work on the doorway due to start soon, National backbencher Judith Collins on Tuesday tweeted: “Sad that@nzlabour has insisted on $50k doors between Lab & Nat MPs on Parlt’s 2nd floor.”

But Labour senior whip Chris Hipkins denied “insisting” on the doors, saying it was part of the original agreement between the two parties.

And a spokeswoman for Parliamentary Service said that while the actual cost of the door was not yet known, “it would almost certainly be less than $50,000”. 

The double doors bring to an end a detente originally hammered out between Collins and Labour’s Annette King after the election when Labour’s shrinking caucus forced a shared area in the old Parliament Buildings.

Under the deal the two sides agreed to use lifts, toilets, a kitchen and staircases “behind enemy lines”, on the understanding that no-one strayed into each other’s offices without permission.

Hipkins said that agreement was only temporary and the doors were Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee’s idea, which he proposed when the offices were divvied up.

“If Judith would like to give up her office … we would be more than happy to take it back. But the doors were put in so that Judith could get the office she wanted in the corner,” Hipkins said.

National and Labour MPs are sharing a floor, because Labour has so few MPs they no longer covered the whole floor. All you need is an agreement that you respect each other’s offices and don’y go wondering in without permission.

The National MPs on that floor have said that they are fine with that approach.

It is Labour which has insisted on putting the doors in. They have been asked many times to drop the demand, but they refuse. So the result is up to $50,000 being spent on a new set of doors.

The Herald reports:

More than two months after the Northland byelection the electorate’s new MP Winston Peters is yet to make any approaches on the promise he made to introduce SuperGold Card free ferry travel in the Bay of Islands and Hokianga.

At a public meeting in Paihia two days before the byelection, Mr Peters was asked about the lack of GoldCard concessions in the north. He said it was unfair Aucklanders benefited from free ferry rides to Waiheke and Northlanders should get the same for Paihia-Russell and Rawene to Kohukohu.

“I’ll get you a Gold Card across there. But it goes like this: you’ve got to vote for us first.”

Northlanders kept their side of that bargain but Mr Peters admitted yesterday he had not yet approached ministers about the SuperGold Card or sought to have the ferry rides included in this year’s Budget.

It’s coming soon!

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: When he said that part of the reason for paying $4 million of taxpayer money to a Saudi business was “wanting to resolve the issues that were holding back the Gulf States free-trade agreement”; what were those issues and why did he think paying Hamood Al Ali Al Khalaf’s company $4 million would help resolve them?
2. STUART SMITH to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s economic plan continuing to support the most vulnerable New Zealanders while at the same time encouraging economic growth?
3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Senior Citizens:When can my office expect a response to the letter sent to her on 27 May 2015 regarding SuperGold Card concessions?
4. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Housing: Did he consult Auckland iwi on his plan to use vacant Government-owned land for private housing developments before he made the announcement on 21 May?
5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How does Budget 2015 support research and innovation in regional areas?
6. JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to a supplementary question yesterday about carbon emissions that “A target of a 40 percent reduction on 1990 levels would be disastrous for the New Zealand economy”?
7. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that national standards data has been “remarkably consistent”; if so, why?
8. DENIS O’ROURKE to the Minister of Transport: Does he intend to fully implement the Ten Year Turnaround Plan for KiwiRail announced by Hon Steven Joyce in 2010, to get rail working for all New Zealand, to have all modes of transport working to complement each other, and priced appropriately so importers and exporters have clear choices?
9. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Local Government: What progress is being made by the Government’s Rules Reduction Taskforce?
10. Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development: Does the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s expenditure of $43,000 on a sign show it is achieving one of its principal goals of realising efficiency gains over time?
11. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Acting Attorney-General: Will the terms of reference of the New Zealand security and intelligence review be amended to reflect the views of other legislatures, which are protecting civil liberties, including the United States Congress, which yesterday passed the Freedom Act to end mass collection of American phone records?
12. BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has he made in regard to New Zealand’s Fire Services?

National: Four questions on the economy, Budget 2015, the Rules Reduction Taskforce and NZ Fire Service

Labour: Four questions on the Saudi Arabia farm, Auckland housing, national standards and the MBIE sign

Greens: Two questions on climate change and spying

NZ First: Two questions on SuperGold Card and KiwiRail

General Debate 3.00 pm to 3.00 pm

The general debate consists of 12 speeches of up to five minutes each, so a maximum of one hour.

Stuff reports:

Supporters of the three-strikes law designed to combat violent crime say it should be extended to cover more offences, with one group saying a similar law could cover almost every crime.

But a critic says more should be done to address the causes of violent crime.

The “three-strikes legislation”, which passed into law in June 2010 after a push from then-ACT politician David Garrett, gives people who commit violent offences “strikes” when they plead or are found guilty.

A first strike serves as a warning, and a second strike requires an offender to serve their sentence without parole.

Someone who gets a third strike must serve the maximum sentence possible without parole, unless the court considers it would be manifestly unjust.

Nationally, 5378 first strikes and 76 second strikes have been given, but no third strikes.

So 98.6% of offenders who got a first strike, have not gone on and committed a second strike offence. That’s great. The certainty of knowing that they will not get parole if given a second strike appears to be a strong deterrent.

The violent crime rate was increasing significantly under Labour and pre three strikes. In 2004 it was 77.87 per 100,000 and it increased every year peaking at 105.13 in 2009. Since then it has dropped every year, down to 87.80.

Labour Party justice spokesperson Jacinda Ardern said she did not accept figures showed the bill worked, and that more specific research should be done.

Labour wanted the law gone, as it took away judges’ power to look at the circumstances around an offence, with the party wanting to put more focus on helping offenders turn away from crime, she said.

So that is crystal clear. Labour will repeal three strikes.

The 3 News Reid Research poll released last night is now on Curia.

The weighted average of the recent polls has the CR on 62 seats, CL on 49 seats and 10 seats with centre parties.

@MandyHager @CitizenBomber there’s already people making money off vulnerable kids – charter schools

— Kirsty Johnston (@kirsty_johnston) June 1, 2015

There’s three interesting things about this exchange.

1. Portraying charter schools as exploiting vulnerable kids, rather than helping them
2. Portraying charter schools as people making money. As far as I know every charter school operator in NZ is a not-for-profit entity
3. The tweeter is the NZ Herald’s specialist education reporter

If you were a charter school operator, teacher or parent what confidence would you have that the Herald will report fairly on your school, when the reporter seems to have such a negative view of them.

Stuff reports:

Sepp Blatter has stunned the world of football,  resigning as Fifa president just four days after being re-elected to a fifth term.

The 79-year-old, who has held office since 1998, announced the decision in Zurich on Tuesday (NZT Wednesday), six days after Swiss police, acting on a request from United States authorities, raided a hotel in the Swiss city and arrested several Fifa officials in a corruption investigation. Blatter has not been charged.

“While I have a mandate from the membership of Fifa, I do not feel I have a mandate from the entire world of football – the fans, the players, the clubs, the people who live, breathe and love football as much as we all do at Fifa,” Blatter said.

“This is why I will call an extraordinary congress to be held as soon as possible, for a new president to be elected to follow me.”

Domenico Scala, head of Fifa’s independent audit and compliance committee, said there would need to be four months’ notice for any new presidential election.

“The decision for the timing of the election of the next president will be up to the executive committee and will take place any time from December until March.”

This is good news for football, but why the change of heart? He was totally defiant just two days ago.

One possibility is that the corruption probe was getting close to him personally. The $10,000,000 payment to Jack Warner was apparently made by the FIFA Secretary-General. How credible is it Blatter would not have known?

But I think the bigger issue, is that the next World Cup was facing a boycott. Having chatted to a number of friends in Europe, there was strong support for UEFA to refuse to participate while Blatter remained in charge, and corruption so rampant. And a World Cup without Germany, Italy, Spain and France would be meaningless. Plus the commercial money would dry up without the Europeans.

Hopefully the next President will be someone of unimpeachable integrity – but also someone who will seek and get a mandate to fundamentally restructure FIFA so that future world cup venues will be decided by merit, not bribes.

Patrick Gower writes:

I actually can’t believe I’m saying this, but ACT leader David Seymour is doing a great job.

That’s a real change for me because for the past five years the words ‘ACT leader’ are invariably accompanied by ‘having a shocker’.

I think David is doing a good job also. Rebuilding will take a long time, but they are doing the right things.

For so long the ACT Party has been dogged by the myriad problems of Rodney Hide, Don Brash, John Banks and Jamie Whyte.

But Seymour has been going well. He took the heat out of Epsom, and has been going well since entering Parliament.

He’s looking like a safe pair of hands with a sense of humour to boot.

The right-wing of this country needs somebody solid.

And I really can’t believe I am saying this, but Seymour is looking like he might just turn out to be a class act.

d

The Herald reports:

Chorus, the regulated telecommunications network operator, has called on the government to enact changes to the Resource Management Act to speed fibre rollout to multi-unit properties and those with shared driveways, which currently takes six times longer than for stand-alone homes.

The median time to complete a fibre installation in a simple property, such as a stand-alone house, representing 80-to-85 percent of builds, was 18 days, chief executive Mark Ratcliffe told a briefing in Wellington today.

More problematic were more complex builds, with multi-dwelling unit installations taking a median 130 calendar days and a property down a shared right-of-way taking 110 days.

Ratcliffe said the major delays caused in the consenting process came from Chorus having to find neighbours to confirm they didn’t object to the build, or from ongoing disputes between neighbours or third parties.

“The best role the government could play is help with the consenting stuff, that’s the one thing the industry can’t sort out on its own,” he said.

“We’ve got a pool of properties where consents have been refused, and the way that those work at the moment, we don’t get back to those for another six months, otherwise there’s just more cost involved.”

I support RMA changes in this area. Neighbours shouldn’t be able to say no to a fibre installation any more than they should be able to stop power or water to a house.

Stuff reports:

For the first time since September 11, 2001, Congress curtailed the National Security Agency’s authority to track suspected terrorists as lawmakers struggled to restore approval for mass collection of phone records and other surveillance methods.

No solution was likely before Tuesday (Wednesday NZT) at the earliest. The high-stakes drama played out as Congress debated significant changes prompted by the disclosures of Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who revealed the phone records collection and other main surveillance programs.

While intelligence officials publicly warned of danger, they said they were not deeply concerned with a lapse of a few days or weeks, given that the authorities remain available in pending investigations. What they most fear is a legislative impasse that could doom the programs permanently.

Republican Senator Rand Paul, a presidential candidate, took credit for blocking the Senate from extending the surveillance powers in an extraordinary Sunday session. That forced the Senate to take up a different bill passed by the House of Representatives, which then stalled on Monday (Tuesday NZT) as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other leading Republicans sought changes.

It is good to see push back against ever increasing surveillance powers. Some powers are necessary, but they should be targeted at those under suspicion, not trawling through the entire population.

And the reality is that mass phone number programme has never been credited with actually helping detect or prevent a terrorist attack.

Two articles in the Herald which are a good reminder of not being too quick to judge.

The first is from Jevan Goulter, a gay activist, about his friendship with Brian and Hannah Tamaki:

In regards to Brian Tamaki’s comments over the weekend at the Destiny conference, my opinion is simply that it’s not a big issue because it is not any different from what he has said in the past.

I was not present at the conference that took place over the weekend but, was Tamaki’s speech a fire and brimstone homophobic rant designed to offend people? Maybe to those who let themselves be offended.

But it is something that certainly does not preclude me from being proud of calling Brian and Hannah Tamaki great mates. …

Yes it is true, I like to sleep with men, and in case there’s any confusion or anybody wants to save me from that, it is okay, you do not need to, because I completely enjoy every moment of it!

Has this ever created an issue between the Tamaki’s and myself? Never.

I know their view on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community, however if I based my friends simply on who did and did not agree with me, I would be the biggest loner in New Zealand and sitting on my own like Brendan Horan did in Parliament. …

I am not a member of Destiny Church, but I have been there on numerous occasions, and two of their annual conferences.

I’m not particularly inspired by Brian or Hannah specifically, however I am inspired by how many families and individuals they have helped in their congregation, who I now have the privilege of knowing personally.

I’m not fan of Brian Tamaki or Destiny. But it is a good reminder that people can do good and kind things on an individual level, even if you disagree with them strongly on certain issues.

Likewise while I regard Destiny Church as mainly an ATM machine for the Tamakis, there is no doubt it does play a positive role if the life of many of its members.

On the same note the Herald talks to a photojournalist who spent time at Gloriavale:

A photojournalist has been given full access to the daily lives of Gloriavale residents as part of a project to document the reclusive Christian community in a book.

Cameron McLaren spent two days in the isolated West Coast community last month and is planning more visits.

The 31-year-old Aucklander said he was made welcome throughout his stay.

He ate with members of the community and slept in the same communal living quarters as the families. …

Despite negative attention on the community, McLaren saw “nothing but a city of children running around being happy kids”.

“Sure the place is unusual compared to the rest of the world, the people are very religious and take the Bible literally. And, yes, the way of life is very different, people work very hard, some work throughout the night.”

His book would take at least another year to complete. Although some documentary work had already been done, McLaren said there seemed to be almost no still photography from within the community.

“The fact that they are almost entirely self-sufficient yet have such a high population brought up many questions for me.

“I wanted to know if the people of Gloriavale have a decent lifestyle and get everything they need as human beings. From what I saw, it looks like they do.”

McLaren was amazed by the facilities available and said many were “state-of-the-art and very modern”. The community had commercial kitchens, multiple dairy farms and a fully operating abattoir. He left feeling envious of some aspects of the way of life.

“Imagine living surrounded by some of the most beautiful landscapes you might ever see with a whole bunch of your friends and family. It would be great.”

Now again I think Hopeful Christian (Neville Cooper) is a bad man with bad motivations, let alone being a sex offender. But that doesn’t mean everything at Gloriavale is bad, and that for many kids growing up there, they have a happy fulfilling life. Not one for me, but it doesn’t mean every member there is unhappy, brain-washed or wanting to escape.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. JOANNE HAYES to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received about the economy’s performance in the lead-up to the Budget last month?
2. JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Did he approve of Minister McCully’s dealings with the Saudi Arabian businessman Hamood Al Ali Al Khalaf?
4. Dr SHANE RETI to the Minister of Health: How will social bonds help deliver better health outcomes?
5. JAN LOGIE to the Minister of Health: Can he guarantee no NGO that embarks on a social bond contract, in order to assist people with the most complex mental health needs into work, will go under as a result of not meeting agreed targets; if not, why not?
6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What advice, if any, did he receive on the “Better Public Services Seed Funding: Social Bonds Pilots”?
7. DAVID SEYMOUR to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in the House last week that because New Zealand Superannuation costs are currently less than 5 percent of GDP, and are forecast to rise to 8 percent of GDP by 2060, this represents a responsible path for overall Government spending?
8. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Building and Housing: What response has he received from Auckland Council and housing companies to the Auckland Crown land programme launched on Friday?
9. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in Budget 2014 “the share sale proceeds saw $4.7 billion go to the Future Investment Fund and we said we would spend $1 billion of that on schools, and a further $1 billion on health”; if so, as at Budget 2015 how much has been allocated to health and education from the Future Investment Fund?
10. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Transport: How is the Government supporting the delivery of its Transport priorities?
11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements with regard to Northland?
12. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “the Government is fully funding the delivery of the school curriculum”?

National: Four questions on the economy, social bonds, Auckland housing and transport.

Labour: Four questions on the Saudi Arabia farm, social bonds, asset sales and school funding

Greens: Two questions on does PM stand by all his statements and social bonds

NZ First: One question on Northland

ACT: One question on superannuation costs

Budget Debate 3.00 pm to 5.00 pm

The Budget debate has one hours and 54 minutes remaining of the 15 hours allocated. They should get through 5.5 hours today. Each remaining MP can speak for up to 10 minutes, and the Minister of Finance has a final 10 minute right of reply.

Technically it is the second reading of the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill.

• Introduced May 2015

Details of the latest (One News Colmar Brunton) poll are on Curia’s new website.

There is little change in the party vote despite both pony tails and Budgets.

However Andrew Little is now tied (dropping to 9%) with Winston Peters as Preferred PM.

The last time the Opposition Leader dropped behind (or tied) a third party leader as Preferred PM was Bill English in 2003.

Stuff reports:

The Cook Islands is pushing for independence from New Zealand – but the price for its people is that their children will lose their New Zealand citizenship.

Can’t have both.

It is understood the Cooks see a vote at the UN as an important bargaining chip that could give them greater influence and leverage to secure more aid and economic development cash. Puna is keen for what officials are calling “the money and the bag” option – full independence while retaining NZ citizenship – but that is unlikely to be granted. 

The impolite way of interpreting this is that if they get a vote at the UN, they can sell that vote for lots of money. The UN and FIFA have a bit in common at times!

Stuff reports:

The Ministry of Education’s Peter Hughes has been named chief executive of the year for the third time, while the State Services Commission has been labelled a “disaster”.

The sixth annual review of New Zealand Government departments by political newsletter Trans Tasman was released today, chosen by a 16-strong independent board of advisers*.

Hughes was said to have been a strong leader but many other government agencies lacked guidance at the top.

 The Ministry of Education was the most improved agency, with its rating moving from 2.4 to 4.3 (out of a possible 7) over two years, and Hughes given much of the credit.

The review dubbed the Accident Compensation Corporation the rising star of the public sector, after recovering from “significant privacy issues” and getting its finances under control.

Chief executive Scott Pickering was praised for making significant positive change, such as restoring customer services, with little public fuss.

At the other end the State Service Commission (SSC) had the worst ratings seen in the history of the Trans Tasman surveys and Commissioner Iain Rennie was said to be on the way out.

The SSC was described as a “disaster” after a year in which Rennie appeared alongside former Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority chief executive Roger Sutton at a press conference after Sutton faced allegations of sexual harassment.

“It is untenable for an agency meant to be one of the three core agencies responsible for the quality of the public service to have such appalling ratings,” the report said.

I think the Government needs to seriously look at whether to retain SSC in its current form, or hand over its functions to other agencies. The CIO function moved to DIA some time ago. DPMC could take over the CE recruitment.

WINNERS

• Peter Hughes, Ministry of Education: chief executive of the year.
• Ray Smith, Corrections: second in overall performance of Department, and ranked second for his personal performance.
• Scott Pickering, ACC, third ranked chief executive, and ACC took out Department of the Year.
• Rebecca Kitteridge, SIS..
• Bill English, Finance Minister: top-ranked Minister for success in his department (Treasury) implementing his policy agenda, and described as “the most consistent and diligent of all Ministers”.

Despite very little money for extra resources, many government departments have managed to perform well, and have also made the transition from focusing on outputs to focusing on outcomes – specifically the Government’s 10 Better Public Services targets.

* – I am one of the 16

The Herald reports:

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman says private investors in the mental health sector will not be able to cherry-pick clients or “fudge results” in order to get a return on their investment.

The Government has confirmed plans for New Zealand’s first social bond, which will focus on job support within the mental health sector.

Dr Coleman defended the scheme against claims that it was gambling with New Zealand’s most vulnerable people.

Until now there had been no sanctions or incentives in the mental health sector, he said. Because individuals, private companies or charities would be paid a return only if targets were met, there would be an incentive to provide high-quality services. “This will sharpen everyone’s minds,” Dr Coleman said.

The history of the world is incentives work. If incentives can produce better results for mental health patients, then that’s a great things. The focus should be on results.

Labour MP Annette King said the policy was a “disaster in the making” which treated vulnerable people as “guinea pigs”. She pointed to independent advice to the Department of Internal Affairs from 2011, which said social bonds created significant risks and difficulties for both Government and investors.

New Zealand Initiative executive director Oliver Hartwich said social bonds could appeal to philanthropists such as Sir Stephen Tindall or to risk-averse investors such as pension funds.

He said social bonds removed the Government’s monopoly on social services, reduced risks to the taxpayer, and encouraged better results.

The key to their success was setting clear targets and timeframes, Dr Hartwich said. While it was easy to set targets for services such as criminal reoffending, it was more difficult to help mentally ill people find jobs.

A lot will depend on how they are implemented. It is a good concept, but as Oliver says you need clarity.

“Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.”

– Ronald Reagan

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.

Peter Hartcher has what appears to be a detailed briefing of an Australian Cabinet meeting:

As a member of the Abbott cabinet, Malcolm Turnbull is obliged to keep any criticisms of the government’s performance to himself. Unless, of course, it’s in the confidentiality of the cabinet room itself.

“This is an extraordinary proposition,” the Communications Minister said to the cabinet meeting on Monday night, according to people present in the room. 

The Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton, was proposing that he should have the power, at his own discretion, to strip an Australian of his or her citizenship. Even if it’s the only citizenship they have.   It was not for any random reason, however, but specifically for use on people suspected of terrorism-related offences.

Dutton enjoyed the vocal support of the Prime Minister. The meeting had no  trouble accepting a related proposal, the idea that a dual citizen could be readily stripped of Australian citizenship. But someone with no other citizenship?

Turnbull objected: “A person’s citizenship is of enormous importance, intrinsic to themselves. Take me. The only people who’ve lived in Australia longer than my family are Aboriginal. I have no other identity. Are we seriously saying some minister could take my citizenship?”

Only if you’re a terrorist, was the rejoinder. “Only if you are someone the minister thinks is a terrorist,” Turnbull corrected. 

This was Barnaby Joyce’s central objection too – the lack of hard proof, the lack of a trial, the absence of a jury, the lack of real rigour in a decision to take away a basic human right. “Isn’t that what we have courts for?” Joyce posed.  The deputy leader of the National Party went to the heart of the matter: “If you don’t have enough evidence to charge them in a court, how can you have enough evidence to take away their citizenship?”

According to participants, Dutton replied: “That’s the point, Barnaby. You don’t need too much evidence. It’s an administrative decision.”

This was too much for George Brandis: “I am the Attorney-General. It is my job to stand for the rule of law.”

Christopher Pyne was forceful on this point too: “This is a matter for the judiciary to decide, not the minister.” …

Julie Bishop pointed out a central reason that the idea was unworkable. If Australia were to strip one of its people of citizenship on suspicion of terrorism, would Britain, for example, really go ahead and give them British citizenship?

By the time the forceful objections of these five ministers had been reinforced by another –  Defence Minister Kevin Andrews warned that if the idea was controversial in the cabinet it would be much more so in the community – it was apparent that the idea was moribund.

From time to time you get reports of discussions or disagreements in Cabinet. But it is very rare to see a story such as the above, in which one or more Ministers have basically described in detail the discussions to a journalist. That makes for a very good story, but a rather troubled Government.

Contrast that to New Zealand. The decision to increase benefits by $25 a week would have been known by Cabinet for six weeks or so. Also by many political staffers (and Treasury and DPMC officials). Possibly even caucus knew of it. But not one single hint of it was leaked before the Budget.

I suspect there will be attention in Australia about whom in Cabinet is describing Cabinet discussions in detail to the media.

THIS WEEK ON PRIME TV’s “BACK BENCHES”: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

RENTERS FOR LIFE:  Are we moving towards being a nation of renters? Is this a travesty or just the new order? What’s wrong with being a life-long renter like New Yorkers or the French? And if we are to become a nation of renters-do we need to put more protections in place for renters? A WOF for homes? Rent Control? And if you aren’t going to investing your money in a home-where should we be encouraging people to invest their money?

ZOMBIE TOWNS:  Is Auckland New Zealand’s black hole, sucking all of the jobs, opportunities and people away from our regions?  What can be done for regional growth? Is it about creating incentives? Building of new infrastructure? Better roads? Or is it better to just let the market economy sort things out?

JUNK FREE JUNE: Cancer Society’s Junk Free June has just started-kiwis around the country are sacrificing lollies and chips to raise money for cancer. Could you give up junk food for a month? What do you consider junk? And are we a nation addicted to poor food choices? Is a month off of junk enough to cure you for good? Should we be taxing the junk? Or paying people to make better choices?

There are two ways to get in on the political pub action:

First, you can join the live audience in Wellington’s iconic Backbencher Pub on Wednesday, 3rd of June at 6pm. Filming begins around 6:15pm.

Or watch us that night on PRIME TV at 10:40pm!

http://www.primetv.co.nz/

Plus, Follow us on Facebook (BackBenchesTV) or on Twitter @BackBenchesTV.

Our Panel: ACT Party Leader David Seymour, Green Party Co-Leader James Shaw, Labour MP Jacinda Ardern, and National MP Dr. Parmjeet Parmar.

” This show is shaping up to be essential election year viewing ” – Paul Casserly, NZ Herald 3/6/14