The Young Nats have said:

The Young Nats support the New Zealand Medical Students Association’s campaign to exempt medical students from the seven year equivalent full time study cap on borrowing for course costs, and want the cap extended to nine years for this group of students.

“The seven year cap makes sense for most students because most courses don’t require study beyond seven years. We know the obvious exception to this is medical graduates who need to acquire essential skills through postgraduate study” Young Nats President, Sean Topham says.

Medical students are in short-supply and are arguably our hardest working. Making it harder for them could put further pressure on the health system in the long-term.

When the cap takes effect in six months, many students close to graduating will find it difficult to finance additional costs of around $15,000, possibly forcing them to delay their study or quit altogether.

It’s good to see the Young Nats doing their job and disagreeing with the Government from time to time. Youth wings of political parties should not just be agreeing with everything their party does. It is healthy for them to have their own views, and to express them publicly.

The Herald reports:

And as for the criticism that he did not drive, “that is simply a statement of fact.”

Aged 16, Mr Shaw decided he would not learn to drive for environmental reasons. He has maintained that stance while living in Wellington, Brussels, and London.

Let’s think about this. James hasn’t decided not to use cars, just not to drive himself. This is like someone saying they won’t cook a meat meal, but they will eat it.

A stance of refusing to drive, on environmental grounds, only makes sense if you refuse to travel by car at all. Does James ever travel by taxi? Does he ever get in a car with a friend? Does he refuse to travel by plane? (plane travel creates more greenhouse gas emissions than car travel – around 80% more)?

Refusing to ever travel by car or plane would be a principled stance. But refusing to learn to drive yourself but allowing others to drive you is not principled. It’s, well a bit weird to be honest.

A good column by Press Editor Joanna Norris on free speech:

But from time-to-time issues arise that quietly threaten the rights of New Zealanders to express themselves.

On such threat is a rising tide of offence-taking and indignation, particularly in social media where a discussion can move swiftly and viciously, influencing views and actions.

Smart young Australian philosopher Richard King, author of On Offence: The Politics of Indignation, says increasingly people are claiming it is their right not to be offended. People are not seeking freedom from offence but the freedom to ensure their view prevails, ie they are arguing their right not to be offended overrides the free speech of others.

The echo-chamber of a platform such as Twitter, meanwhile, can silence dissenting views in the face of a vicious mob attack on those viewed to have erred from a ‘right-thinking’ view in the minds of the mob.

The, at times, sanctimonious Twittersphere can be quick to condemn and swift to move on.

But even this presents a conundrum, because members of the  mob are themselves exercising their rights to freedom of expression.

The solutions lie at the heart of the issue itself. Freedom of expression, which underpins media freedom, should be valued and protected. People need to know they are free to state their views, whilst also respecting the rights of others to express theirs, even when those views are not mainstream, or are offensive to a great many people.

Whether you are a fringe activist, member of the power elite or lonely bigot, you have the same right to express yourself. New Zealanders can do this in the knowledge that we are contributing to a marketplace of ideas that can be debated and discussed in a free media. And in doing so, we must all respect the rights of others to have a view different than our own.

Can’t agree more. I wish our Government would do what Tony Abbott did and appoint someone like Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission as a dedicated Free Speech Commissioner.

As I blogged earlier, Winston was complaining that opposition MPs have been getting thrown out of the House more than Government MPs, and somehow blamed the Speaker for this. In fact half of the 31 evictions have been him and Trevor Mallard, and most of the remaining 15 were National MPs. So we know once again Winston was speaking crap.

I’ve now got data for all ejections from 1999 onwards. What is amazing is how few ejections have occurred, compared to the past. Here’s the data:

• 1999 – 21
• 2000 – 31
• 2001 – 14
• 2002 – 21
• 2003 – 54
• 2004 – 33
• 2005 – 32
• 2006 – 41
• 2007 – 31
• 2008 – 10
• 2009 – 2
• 2010 – 4
• 2011 – 4
• 2012 – 6
• 2013 – 4
• 2014 – 8
• 2015 – 2

So Speakers are ejecting far far fewer MPs than in the past. Here’s the total per Speaker, and average per year from 1999 on.

• Doug Kidd – 21, 21/year
• Jonathan Hunt – 153, 29/year
• Margaret Wilson – 109, 29/year
• Lockwood Smith – 17, 4/year
• David Carter – 14, 6/year

And the proportions for each Speaker

• Doug Kidd – 57% Labour, 24% NZ First, 14% National
• Jonathan Hunt – 34% National, 34% Labour, 17% ACT, 11% NZ First
• Margaret Wilson – 63% National, 20% Labour, 9% ACT
• Lockwood Smith – 41% Labour, 35% National, 18% NZ First
• David Carter – 50% Labour, 21% National, 21% NZ First

And since 1999, who has been ejected the most?

1. Trevor Mallard 26
2. Nick Smith 25
3. Winston Peters 23
4. Rodney Hide 23
5. Gerry Brownlee 17
6. Chris Carter 13
7. Tau Henare 13
8. Phil Heatley 10
9. Bill English 9
10. Ron Mark 9
11. David Cunliffe 6
12. Dover Samuels 6
13. Wayne Mapp 6

Steven Joyce and Amy Adams announced:

The 2015 ICT Sector Report is the second in a series that provides in-depth analysis of New Zealand’s information and communications technology sector, and showcases New Zealand’s very strong performance in the ICT industry over the last few years.  The first report was released in 2013.

“The report shows that the technology software and services sector has been growing at the rate of 9 per cent per annum since 2008 and now contributes 1.7 per cent of GDP,” Mr Joyce says.

“The export performance is particularly pleasing. Exports have grown at 14 per cent per annum over the last six years to exceed $930 million in 2014.

I believe the ICT sector will continue to grow rapidly. Our geographic distance is a major disadvantage for us for many goods and services, but in ICT the distance doesn’t matter.

The challenge is for the Government to have a policy environment which remains favourable to ICT growth.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development:Does she stand by her statement that “this Government is working with a number of service providers to make sure that those clients of Relationships Aotearoa are well looked after”?
2. NUK KORAKO to the Minister of Finance: How does Budget 2015 continue the Government’s plan to deliver better public services?
3. JAMES SHAW to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Has a full and final settlement been reached with Mr Al Khalaf; if so, what is the total cost to taxpayers?
4. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Did he seek advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about whether, using the multimillion dollar payment for the benefit of Hamood Al Ali Al Khalaf – a Saudi Arabian businessman to cause the Saudi Arabian officials to advance the GCC FTA which had stalled, breached the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions?
5. BRETT HUDSON to the Minister for Communications: How does Budget 2015 continue the Government’s commitment to the Ultra-Fast Broadband programme?
6. CLAYTON MITCHELL to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What is the status of the Health and Safety Reform Bill, and what feedback has he received on it?
7. ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Associate Minister for Primary Industries: What recent Government initiatives encourage the planting of forests in New Zealand’s regions?
8. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all the spending commitments made in Budget 2015?
9. TODD BARCLAY to the Minister of Corrections: What announcements has he made regarding the roll-out of new stab-proof vests to Corrections officers?
10. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister of Conservation: What action, if any, is she going to take to prevent Maui’s dolphin going extinct by 2029 given new research showing the population has declined from an estimated 55 adult dolphins to an estimated 43 to 47 adult Maui’s dolphins?
11. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he agree with the Prime Minister who said yesterday that the Health and Safety Reform Bill needs more work because “despite what we might say there isn’t great divisions, there are just interest in making sure we get it right”?
12. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Conservation: How does Budget 2015 help to secure the future of the kiwi?

National: Five patsies on Budget 2015 x3, forests, and stab-proof vests

Labour: Four questions on Relationships Aotearoa, the Saudi Arabia farm, Budget 2015 and Health & Safety

Greens: Two questions on the Saudi Arabia farm and Maui’s dolphin

NZ First: One question on Health & Safety

Budget Debate 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm

The Budget debate has 5 hours and one 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.

Stuff reports:

A mother whose teenage daughter attempted suicide after a secret abortion is asking the Government to change the law so underage girls won’t undergo terminations without their parents’ knowledge.

Hillary Kieft, of Stratford, Taranaki, presented a petition calling for an amendment to the law to Whanganui MP Chester Borrows on Monday.

Kieft and her husband Peter found out that their daughter, then 15, had had an abortion organised by her school, when she attempted suicide a year later in 2010.

Six years after the procedure, their daughter still suffered from depression, and was infertile, so would never be able to have children, Keift said.

At 15, their daughter was not mature enough to have made a genuinely informed decision on her own, she said.

The reason she hadn’t wanted to tell them about her pregnancy was because she was ashamed and scared, they found out later.

“She thought that we would be disappointed in her, just the normal family stuff.”

I do not believe there should be parental consent, but I do think that if the child is aged under 16, then the default setting should be for the parents to be notified. I think more harm is done by not having parents knowing and able to support their daughter, than the counter factual.

There should be an ability for a pregnant girl to not have their parents notified, if there are extenuating circumstances. But the default should be, I believe, that parents get notified – just as they would for any other medical procedure on someone aged under 16.

Stuff reports:

Amnesty International said in a report on Wednesday that Islamist Hamas committed war crimes against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip during last year’s war with Israel.

A ceasefire last August ended 50 days of fighting between Gaza militants and Israel in which health officials said more than 2,100 Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed. Israel put the number of its dead at 67 soldiers and six civilians.

“Hamas forces carried out a brutal campaign of abductions, torture and unlawful killings against Palestinians accused of ‘collaborating’ with Israel and others during Israel’s military offensive against Gaza,” the human rights group’s report said.

The report is here. Some extracts:

They subjected at least 23 people to summary, extrajudicial executions. Six of these men, at least one of whom was arrested during the conflict on suspicion of “collaboration” but never formally charged, were extrajudicially executed in public on 22 August 2014.

No charges, no trial. Just an accusation and death. And this is of their own citizens.

In every case Amnesty International has documented, it has uncovered evidence of Hamas forces using torture during interrogation with the apparent aim of extracting a “confession” from the detainee. Testimonies indicate that victims of torture were beaten with truncheons, gun butts, hoses, wire, and fists; some were also burnt with fire, hot metal or acid. 

Again this is how they treat their own citizens.

Good on Amnesty for highlighting these cases.

Isaac Davidson at the Herald reports:

The Green Party’s choice of a new co-leader on Saturday will come down to two contenders – a sensible, safe pair of hands or a riskier, flashier newcomer who has the potential to lift the party’s vote.

Not a bad summary.

The early favourite, Mr Hague, is the safe choice. The Greymouth-based MP has centred his campaign on his experience – both his seven years in Parliament and his “real world” experience as head of a District Health Board. The huge demands of being a party leader have been understated in the leadership campaign, he says.

“Here’s a reality check. Whoever is elected to this role, that person needs to come into the House next Tuesday, take on John Key and win. That’s not something that someone just has a natural flair for, it’s something that you win the ability to do through hard graft. I’ve done that graft.”

As the caucus’ strategic head, he has played a key role in the Greens’ path to credibility. He has worked hard to downplay the zanier aspects and has banished anti-scientific policies such as opposition to 1080, fluoridation and immunisation.

One of the reasons I like Kevin. He has worked hard to move some of the Greens away from their anti-science beliefs. Not entirely, as we see with genetic engineering and fracking – but some progress.

He is known for his face-to-face negotiating skills and his ability to find common ground, as proven in his work with National MPs on same-sex marriage legislation, ACC, and changes to health and safety laws after the Pike River disaster.

He has a reputation for being level-headed and never raising his voice. But that does not mean he lacks mongrel. Some of his campaigns began with strong attacks on Government policy, followed by negotiation.

In my experience Kevin will focus more on getting a good outcome, than just making headlines.

This is where Mr Shaw comes in. He is 13 years younger than Mr Hague, charming, and moderate. One colleague described him as “Bill Clinton-esque”.

Oh dear. Not sure that helps him.

Mr Hague is sceptical of Mr Shaw’s leadership credentials. He says the MP was only one part of the Greens’ popularity in Wellington, and his recipe for success does not translate to South Auckland, suburban areas and provincial centres. Would he be at home speaking on a marae, to farmers or to trade unionists, Mr Hague asked, and could the wider population relate to a Wellington-based, metrosexual MP who doesn’t drive?

Amused at the homosexual MP saying a metrosexual MP may not appeal 🙂

I think both Kevin and James have strengths and will do well. The Greens are lucky to have a positive choice – not just of Kevin and James but also Gareth and Vernon. Their members are getting a say on what the future leadership and direction should be.

Winston Peters has compiled a list of MPs that have been ejected from the House since 2008. He thinks that the fact twice as many opposition MPs get booted as government MPs is the fault of the Speaker. This is nonsense – it is the fault of the MPs.

Opposition MPs often try to get booted out, as a way to get publicity. I bet if you look at the 2000 – 2008 period you’ll also find more opposition MPs were booted.

Anyway which MPs have been ejected since 2008, and how often. They are:

• Trevor Mallard 10
• Winston Peters 6
• Tau Henare 3
• Jonathan Coleman 2
• Chris Hipkins 2
• Paul Quinn 1
• Phil Heatley 1
• Clare Curran 1
• Hone Harawira 1
• Bill English 1
• David Parker 1
• Metiria Turei 1
• Steven Joyce 1
• Grant Robertson 1

The real data is that of the 32 ejections, half have been Mallard or Peters. Peters was not even in Parliament for three of those years. Blaming the Speaker for Mallard and Peters continually getting ejected is like blaming the victim of an assault for being assaulted.

If you exclude the two MPs who regularly deliberately try and get ejected as a publicity stunt, then there have been 16 ejections in six and a half years.  Nine have been National MPs, five have been Labour MPs and one Green MP and one Mana MP.

Stuff reports:

The United States is seeking to extradite corporate executives and officials of Fifa, the international association responsible for governing football  and the World Cup, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Wednesday (Thursday NZT).

Swiss authorities arrested six defendants in a dawn raid at a swanky hotel in Zurich on Wednesday on charges stemming from taking bribes, including from countries bidding to host the World Cup.

Those arrested have been taken into custody, a law enforcement official said. If they fight the extradition order, the case could drag on for years, the official said.

Swiss authorities said that six of seven individuals arrested on corruption charges will contest their extradition to the United States, but that one person agreed to be extradited.

In a brief statement which didn’t disclose names, Switzerland’s Federal Office of Justice said US officials now have up to 40 days to submit formal and detailed extradition requests to Swiss authorities.

“Extradition proceedings will be resumed as soon as these requests have been received,” the justice office said in a statement on Wednesday.

It’s been an open secret that FIFA is basically corrupt, and that there must have been bribes for Qatar to win the World Cup hosting for 2022. Very impressed that finally someone has done something about it, and that charges have been laid. That is the way to stop it in future.

European football’s  governing body UEFA has called for Friday’s Fifa presidential election, where current president Sepp Blatter will seek a fifth term against Prince Ali bin Al Hussein to be postponed, secretary general Gianni Infantino told reporters.

“We strongly believe the Fifa Congress should be postponed with new Fifa presidential elections to be organised within the next six months,” he told reporters at the Sheraton Hotel.

Blatter may not have been charged himself, bit it happened on his watch.

US officials gave details of a case in which they said they exposed complex money laundering schemes, found millions of dollars in untaxed incomes and tens of millions in offshore accounts held by Fifa officials.

Can’t wait for the trials.

On radio a week or so ago I compared FIFA to the mafia, and reflected afterwards that I may have been too harsh. But as we learn about the offshore bank accounts, I think not.

An interesting infographic from the US. People see the Republican Party as dominated by old men, but in fact they are significantly younger than the Democrats.

The breakdown in the House is:

• Over 80 – four Democrats and two Republicans
• 75 to 79: 12 Denocrats and Two Republicans
• 70 to 74: 21 Democrats and 10 Republicans

NBR reports:

Asked about measures to tackle poverty and child poverty, Mr English told a Maxim-organised gathering in Auckland last night that those terms have been taken over by ideologues and the government does not trust the way those words are used.

“The term ‘poverty’ has been captured by a particular idea of how you measure poverty and a particular solution to it. That is, you measure it relative to incomes, and the solution is mass redistribution.”

And we should resist that definition. Once you accept that as the definition then the only way you can solve poverty is to massively increase taxes on half the population to redistribute it to the other half. If you accept that as the definition, then the only solution is socialism or communism. Doubling the wealth of every person in NZ wouldn’t reduce poverty by one iota according to some in the poverty industry.

“We are not addressing that phenomenon. What we are addressing is absolute levels of hardship. That is someone not having enough to live, and we don’t think that is worse just because someone else has a bit more.”

But the poverty lobby groups do. They don’t want anyone earning too much more than anyone else.

Incomes are only one part of what keeps people at the bottom of the social heap, he says, and other factors matter more.

Labour have said that lifting benefits by $25 a week is not a solution to poverty, it just makes life easier for those in poverty. They are right. Just increasing benefits is not a solution to poverty.

The solutions to poverty take a generation or so to succeed. They are things such as:

• Having a free economy and flexible labour market that creates jobs, for those wanting to get off welfare
• Welfare reforms that don’t leave people on welfare for 20 years
• Targeting the tail in education with initiatives such as the Investing in Educational Success initiative and charter schools
• Reducing crime rates, and reducing reoffending rates
• Reducing child abuse
• Not taking kids from dysfunctional parents and sticking them with their extended family who are equally dysfunctional

Sadly labour have opposed most of these initiatives, which will actually make a difference long-term in reducing poverty. There is no doubt that being on welfare for more than a short period of time has a huge impact on not just income, but also education and health achievement. The data is crystal clear. So you need to ensure those on welfare are supported adequately, but you need to work just as hard at making sure you don’t leave adults who are able bodied on welfare.

Jonathan Coleman released:

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman says the latest quarterly health target results show the shorter stays in emergency departments target has been met for the first time.

“DHBs are continuing to improve their performance on the Government’s health targets,” says Dr Coleman.

“Across the country over 250,000 New Zealanders were admitted, discharged or transferred from an emergency department within six hours. Achieving the 95 per cent target for the first time is a significant achievement.

“The number of patients presenting to emergency departments continues to increase. In quarter three, 4,481 more people attended an emergency department compared to the last quarter.

“Reaching the target is a tribute to all the staff working within emergency departments and DHBs. We know that emergency departments only work well when the rest of the hospital is working well too.”

The improved access to elective surgery and the hospital component of the better help for smokers to quit targets were also met:

Here’s the latest national data, and how it compares to the past:

• ED treatment within six hours – 95%, up from 70% in 2008
• 123,585 elective surgical procedures in 9 months compared to 118,000 for all of 2008
• 67% get cancer treatment within 62 days of referral
• 100% get radiotherapy or chemotherapy within four weeks of decision to treat, up from 65% in 2008
• 93% of infants immunised compared to 76% in 2008
• 96% of hospitalised smokers given advice on how to quit, up from 17% in 2010
• 89% of smokers seeing a primary care professional given advice on ow to quit, up from 30% in 2013
• 88% of eligible population have had a cardiovascular risk assessment in last five years, up from 46% in 2012

Once again we see the benefit of having a health system focused on eight or so goals, rather than the 50+ there were under Labour, almost none of which were achieved.

The real credit should go though to the doctors and nurses in the DHBs and primary care professionals. They’re done really really well to get such improvements, backed up by extra funding.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. DARROCH BALL to the Minister for Social Development: Does she agree with the Minister of Finance when he said of the delivery of social services, “There is no evidence at all that contracting out, as the member calls it, will reduce service provision.”?
2. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Building and Housing, given that the Minister is considering building houses in Auckland on the site of an electrical substation?
3. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Finance: How does Budget 2015 continue the Government’s plan to manage spending and start paying down debt?
4. MARAMA FOX to the Minister of Local Government: What advice has she received through report back from officials in March this year about Māori participation in local government processes, and what consideration, if any, has been given by her as a result of that advice?
5. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, “we would expect to be able to continue to expand the use of user charges”; if so, what further user charges will he introduce?
6. PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Education: How is the Government assisting New Zealand students who need the most support?
7. Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development: How much smaller in percentage terms is the floor area of the main exhibition hall at the New Zealand International Convention Centre announced yesterday when compared to the 10,000 square metre exhibition space heralded in 2011 when SkyCity became the Government’s preferred development partner; and how many fewer exhibitors does such a reduction represent in a “world-class convention centre”?
8. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What action is the Government taking to improve the quality of financial advice?
9. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
10. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Who was paid the first $4 million in respect of the multimillion dollar payments to Saudi Arabian interests referred to in the Cabinet paper of 13 February 2013 he tabled yesterday, and how was the value calculated and split between “intellectual property which the Saudi investor brings to the platform, the services and in-market networks he will contribute” and “the settlement of the long-running dispute”?
11. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Land Information: What work is she aware of that has been completed to safeguard New Zealand’s historic aerial photo collection?
12. BARBARA STEWART to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he believe Hong Kong-based He Run International Investment’s plan to build a dairy factory in Otorohanga will benefit the Waikato and wider New Zealand dairy industry; if so, why?

National: Four patsies on Budget 2015, NZ student support, financial advice and historic aerial photos

Labour: Four questions on Auckland housing, user charges, Sky City and the Saudi Arabia farm

Greens: One question on PM standing by his statements

NZ First: Two question on social services contracting and foreign investment

Maori Party: One question on Maori participation in local government

Budget Debate 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

The Budget debate has 7 hours and 47 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.

Rose Patterson at the NZ Initiative writes:

Along with intelligence, self-control or willpower is the personal trait most predictive of a good life.

The book cites a multitude of studies to show just how powerful willpower can be. The “strongest evidence” the authors say, comes from our own shores. The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Study has been tracking a cohort of 1,000 people from birth. Those who had better self-regulation as children, even when factoring in the effects of socio-economic status, ethnicity, and intelligence, are now doing better on a myriad of indicators – health status, education levels, criminal activity, and so on.

Some on the left think that your destiny is set by your socio-economic status, ethnicity, intelligence etc. And they certainly do have a big impact. But willpower is not something that is set by destiny. You can develop it by discipline and training. And as the research shows, it can have a huge impact on how you perform in life.

In Australia some on the left have been appalled at a documentary series called Struggle Street, because what it has exposed is how large a factor willpower plays in poverty.

Fortunately, willpower can be developed. Dr Dione Healey from the University of Otago, for example, has developed a programme that helps pre-school children at risk of developing ADHD to better self-regulate.

Helping people to help themselves is always a more empowering way. The goal should be to work towards a society that is regulated not by government, but by people powering and willing their own way forward.  

Indeed.

The Guardian reports:

Now Britain finds itself with the queerest legislature in the world: 32 of the United Kingdom’s 650 MPs calling themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual. At 4.9%, this pretty closely reflects what researchers believe to be the sexuality of the population as a whole: an impressive achievement, still to be matched in matters of gender or ethnicity.

The good thing about the representation now being approximately proportional, is that it shouldn’t be such a big thing in future. Having a representative Parliament shouldn’t be a big thing.

So who are the LGB MPs (the T, for transgender, is still missing, none of the four candidates who stood this election won their seat)? Twelve are Conservative, 13 Labour, the rest Scottish Nationalists.

So 3.6% of Conservative MPs are gay, 5.6% of Labour MPs and 12.5% of SNP MPs. Looks like the SNP needs a quota for heterosexual MPs!

The Herald reports:

Embattled counselling service Relationships Aotearoa says it has been forced to shut its doors by the end of the week, leaving its vulnerable clients feeling betrayed.

Funding negotiations with the Government to keep the service open fell through this week.

Barnardos, Family Works, Stand Children’s Services and Lifeline have now agreed to take on the service’s clients.

All reputable organisations. The Government funds services, not organisations. One has to ask why other organisations could provide services at the level they are funded for, but not Relationships Aotearoa.

Stuff reported:

Relationships Aotearoa is thought to provide counselling services to about 7000 clients, and receives close to $8 million a year from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), Ministry of Justice and Corrections Department. It had failed to deliver on up to 30 per cent of its contracts. 

Well that is unacceptable.

Lysistrata is a very old play, performed by a very new cast, at Bats Theatre.

The play was first performed 2,426 years ago in Athens, produced by Aristophanes – a comic playwright who wrote 30 plays. 11 of them survive today.

Lysistrata is based on one woman’s (Lysistrata) effort to end the Peloponnesian War, by persuading the women of Greece to stop having sex with their husbands to force them to negotiate peace. I guess the flaw in the plan should be that they’ll probably just start having sex with each other (they call it Greek style for a reason!), but we’ll overlook that.

The play is put on by The Bacchanals, in a 90 minute production.  The cast of 12 skillfully interlace a very old comedy, with some modern references. It combines into a very fun show.

Ancient Greek comedy is very dirty and far from subtle, and so was this production. It most definitely is not a play for children or people offended by large artificial penises and/or profane language. It also has some nudity.

The nude (well topless) scene was slightly discordant for me. I’ve been to lots of shows with nudity with no problem, but in this show I slightly know the actress concerned, and when it happened I near-automatically started looking everywhere around the theatre except at the stage.  It was interesting how you react differently to nudity of strangers and someone you know.

The show is pretty faithful to the original, but has a feminist and pacifist theme running through it. You don’t need to agree with the politics, to enjoy the show – in fact quite the opposite.

It’s on in the Dome at Bats Theatre until Saturday 6 June. Makes for a fun bawdy night out.

Mike Smith at The Standard blogs an extract from a recent speech by Michael Cullen. I’ve blogged on a similar speech of his previously, but some stuff there worth emphasising:

There are some facts we need to take into account.

First, John Key is a phenomenon – the modern-day Holyoake. We spent 12 years underestimating Holyoake to our cost – we’ve spent nine years underestimating Key. Every now and then we think the tide is turning but I see no evidence of that in the polling data. Key still has numbers which are stratospherically good by historic comparisons – we must recognise that, and the amount of time that we spend on attacking Key is largely a waste of time.

Yet this is what they try and do week in and week out. They’ve done it for nine years so far.

Second, Labour is well behind on leadership and economic credibility – no-one has ever won government by being behind on both.

The leader is Andrew Little and finance spokesperson is Grant Robertson. I think they’d do better if they swapped roles.

Broad areas of agreement on policy – sustainability which for me is the unifying over-arching concept. Issues of inequality and poverty – but let us talk about levelling up instead of levelling down – that is why growth is important because we have to redistribute the dividends of growth – no government has every got elected by redistributing a static cake.

How many Labour policies are about increasing economic growth?

In terms of Labour itself there are four things we nee to recapture. First is choice – for young people what they want to know is that we will enable all people to have choice.

How many Labour policies are about increasing choice? How many are about removing choice?

Second is aspiration  – party that has stood for hundred years for opportunity has lost the concept that we help all people to get ahead. Need to be careful – attacking the super-rich easily turns into people feeling that we are attacking those who are trying to do well.

Only 6% may earn more than $100,000 (and they pay 37% of income tax) but a good 40% or so aspire to earn that much, or have family members earning that much.