The Herald reports:

The New Zealand Herald has today launched an experiment in crowdsourcing following the release of donations and expenses’ returns for candidates at the 2014 general election.

The Electoral Commission has published returns for all 462 candidates, including all 121 current members of Parliament. Donations and expenses for candidates from the previous 2011 election are also available.

This is an enormous potential dataset and the Herald has uploaded nearly 900 documents to its own microsite, Money in Politics, allowing members of the public to interact with and analyse the data.

That’s a smart move. Going through 900 returns would take one reporter ages and drive them to suicide. But many people wil be happy to read through one or two and summarise them.

So far 468 out of 473 donation returns for 2014 have been done.  But only two out of 473 expense returns.

The Government has announced the members of the Flag Consultation Panel, which will oversee the public engagement process, invite proposed designs and short-list four designs for the first referendum later this year. That referendum will be a preferential ballot where people rank the alternatives in order, with the winning one going to a second referendum against the current flag.

The panel was nominated by members of the cross-party parliamentary group consisting of representatives from National, Labour, Greens, Maori, ACT and United Future.

The panel members are:

• Professor John Burrows, ONZM, QC of Christchurch who was co-chair of the Constitutional Advisory Panel (chair).
• Kate de Goldi of Wellington, writer and reviewer (deputy chair)
• Nicky Bell – CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi New Zealand and board director, Auckland
• Peter Chin, CNZM – Former Mayor of Dunedin, director and trustee, Dunedin
• Julie Christie,  ONZM – Director of Julie Christie Inc. and board member, Auckland
• Rod Drury – CEO of Xero and technology entrepreneur, Havelock North
• Beatrice Faumuina, ONZM – Olympian, Commonwealth gold medallist, ASB Head of Talent & People Strategy, board member and trustee, Waitakere
• Lt Gen (Rtd) Rhys Jones, CNZM – Former Chief of NZ Defence Force, Wellington
• Stephen Jones – Invercargill Youth Councillor, Invercargill
• Sir Brian Lochore, ONZ, KNZM, OBE – Former All Blacks captain, coach and administrator, Masterton
• Malcolm Mulholland – Academic and flag historian, Palmerston North
• Hana O’Regan – Academic, Māori studies and te reo Māori,  Christchurch

I’m looking forward to the various designs. My strong preference is that the silver fern should be prominent, and that it should be a simple design without too many elements.

The Herald reports:

An Anglican cleric who controversially told Jews last month the holocaust “should have taught them a lesson” has been stripped of his title as bishop.

Good. Kudos to the Anglican leadership for taking meaningful action, not just a slap on the hand.

The Dom Post editorial asserts:

And indeed charter schools do not operate on a level playing field.

They appear to get much more money per pupil than most state schools. …

They receive more money than state schools and therefore their pupils do better.

Once upon a time an editorial may have opinions you would disagree with, but its fact would not be incorrect. Now it seems an editorial thinks if you repeat a lie twice, then that makes it okay.

The Ministry of Education has a site that shows the actual funding for two partnership schools, compared to state schools of similar size and decile.

The decile 3 primary charter school receives $647 a student less funding than a comparable state school.

The decile 3 secondary charter school receives around 1,142 a student less funding than a comparable state school.

Stuff reports:

Labour leader Andrew Little has stood down his welfare spokeswoman Carmel Sepuloni after her mother was accused of benefit fraud.

Little said there was an obvious conflict of interest.

I don’t think there is a conflict of interest. Sepuloni is not responsible for what her mother does. Unless there is some reason to think Sepuloni knew her mother was allegedly fraudently claiming a benefit, then it is nothing to do with her.

TVNZ reported her mother Beverley Anne Sepuloni faced 19 benefit fraud charges and would appear in the New Plymouth District Court tomorrow.

It said she was accused of claiming the sickness benefit in 2006 when she shouldn’t have and applying for a disability allowance when she shouldn’t.

“It’s alleged she claimed rent subsidies between 2003 and 2010 which she wasn’t entitled to. And she’s also accused of failing to tell welfare officials – for 10-and-a-half years – that she was living with a partner,” TVNZ reported.

The court process needs to take place for Mrs Sepuloni, but I don’t think there is any need for Miss Sepuloni to stand down as spokesperson. At most she just needs to avoid commenting on the specific case.

Little said Sepuloni would be reinstated regardless of the outcome of any charges against her mother.

So why stand down?

One can only have sympathy for Sepuloni. Having a parent charged with an offence would be embarrassing for anyone, let alone when you are an MP. But no one will reasonably think it reflects on her at all.

NBR reports:

Ownership changes at news and press release website Scoop mean several shareholders are short of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In December the website’s majority shareholder, Margaret Thompson (mother of Scoop publisher Alastair Thompson), exercised her power of sale under her first-ranked security, effectively wiping out all other shareholders.

Imarda co-founder and chief executive Selwyn Pellett held 20% of the shares in Scoop, with the rest being split between several shareholders including journalists Gordon Campbell, Russell Brown and Pattrick Smellie.

Asked how much he had invested in Scoop, Mr Pellett says, “How much I invested and how much it gobbled up are two different answers.”

“The truthful answer is that I don’t know, but [the total amount lost] would be approaching $200,000 to $250,000.”

He paid $250,000 or so for a 20% share in Scoop?

Scoop has reached 30% of its $30,000 fund raising goal on Pledge Me.

I would be saddened if Scoop fails. Their press release archive alone is incredibly useful. And I often read what Gordon Campbell writes, even if I rarely agree.

142 people have pledged $10,444 which is an average $70 or so. You can pledge here.

However I have doubts that donations is a sustainable model going forward. People may donate once for a good cause, but harder to get them doing it regularly.

LBC has a transcript of an interview with UK Green Leader Natalie Bennett on affordable housing. Some extracts:

Nick: The third key theme is ‘The Greens will ensure everyone has a secure, affordable place to live. How would that be brought about?

Natalie: A couple of things that we want to focus on. In terms of council housing, we want to build 500,000 new social rent homes.

Nick: Good lord, where would you get the money from for that?

Natalie: Well, what we want to do is fund that particularly by removing tax relief on mortgage interests for private landlords. We have a situation where…

Nick: How much would that bring in?

Natalie: Private landlords at the moment are basically running away with the situation of hugely rising rents while collecting huge amounts of housing benefit.

Nick: How much would that be worth, the mortgage relief for private landlords?

Natalie: “Erm… well… it’s… that’s part of the whole costing.”

Nick: Yes, but how much would that bring? The cost of 500,000 homes, let’s start with that. How much would that be?

Natalie: “Right, well, that’s, erm… you’ve got a total cost… erm… that we’re… that will be spelt out in our manifesto.

Nick: So you don’t know?

Natalie: No, well, err.

Nick: You don’t, ok. So you don’t know how much those homes are going to cost, but the way it’s going to be funded is mortgage relief from private landlords. How much is that worth?

Natalie: Right, well what we’re looking at with the figures here. Erm, what we need to do is actually… uh……… we’re looking at a total spend of £2.7… billion.

Nick: 500,000 homes, £2.7billion? What are they made of, plywood?

Natalie: Erm, basically what we’re talking about is 500,000 new homes and basically each one pound spent on this brings back £2.40…

Nick: Yes, but what is the total cost of 500,000 homes?

Natalie: [Long, long pause] Erm… it’s a cost of £60,000 per home.

Nick: £60,000 per home?

Natalie: Because what we’re talking about is, is the opportunity for…

Nick: That can’t include the land?

Natalie: Well, what we’re talking about is, what we want to see is the possibility of, um, of homes being built…

Nick: That’s not much more than a large conservatory, £60,000. So where’s the land, how are you going to pay for the land?

Good to see an interviewer holding a politician to account for promises that are clearly going to cost more than they say. We need more of that.

It has been labelled in world media as possibly the worst interview ever.

Been sent the academic results for the Vanguard Military School, one of the five charter schools. Their results are hugely impressive, especially when you consider that many of their students wer estruggling in other schools.

Their results are:

• 96% achieved NCEA Level 1, compared to 83% nationally
• 100% achieved NCEA Level 2, compared to 87% nationally
• 100% of Asian students achieved NCEA Level 1, compared to 85% nationally
• 100% of European students achieved NCEA Level 1, compared to 89% nationally
• 92% of Maori students achieved NCEA Level 1, compared to 71% nationally
• 100% of Pasifika students achieved NCEA Level 1, compared to 69% nationally
• 97% of Year 11 students achieved literacy standard, compared to 90% nationally
• 95% of Year 11 students achieved numeracy standard, compared to 88% nationally
• 100% of Year 12 students achieved literacy standard, compared to 95% nationally
• 100% of Year 12 students achieved numeracy standard, compared to 94% nationally

For some reasons Labour and Greens remain determined to close down schools like Vanguard.

The Herald editorial:

No New Zealand government should commit troops to a war zone without a clear awareness of the ramifications. In the case of the fight against the Islamic State, the consequences could be particularly grim.

The barbaric treatment of prisoners signals the fate of any New Zealander who falls into its hands. Then there is the manner in which New Zealand’s involvement will heighten the chances of terrorism on home shores. Finally, there is the reality that our troops will make little difference in a conflict that defies easy answers. Nonetheless, the Government has made the right call in committing more than 100 regular soldiers to a non-combat training mission at Taji Camp, north of Baghdad.

The editorial continues:

The most powerful reason for sending soldiers is the just nature of the cause. Whatever the doubts about the Iraqi Government and the eventual make-up of the region, an entity as evil as the Islamic State cannot be left to flourish. In the past few weeks, the increasingly horrific nature of its behaviour has confirmed that. The international community cannot allow atrocities to proceed unchecked.

This is the key point. And the proposal by Andrew Little that you’ll defeat ISIL by reconstruction projects, not military force, is possibly the stupidest thing he has ever said.

The decision to send troops comes at a time of emerging consensus on how the Islamic State can be eliminated. Its ideology requires continuing territorial expansion. If that does not happen, it will stagnate, losing much of its allure, especially to potential recruits in Western countries.

Good to see the Herald has picked up that key fact, of territory being vital to their success. They are very different to Al Qaeda.

Achieving that containment need not involve major battles. It can be realised by continued aerial bombing and stronger resistance by the ground forces arrayed against the Islamic State, especially the Iraqi army.

Therein lies the role of the New Zealand troops. They may not be crucial to a final victory. But they will personify, once more, their country’s willingness to stand up for what is right.

Doing nothing is, in my opinion, simply wrong.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “Get some guts and join the right side”?
2. ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister of Finance: What are the features of the new social investment approach the Government will use in Budget 2015 and in future Budgets?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “We recognise ISIL is not a short-term threat and there is a lot of work to be done in the long-term”; if so, does he accept this means New Zealand’s deployment may last longer than two years and involve more than training?
4. Dr SHANE RETI to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What reports has he received about employment growing across New Zealand?
5. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No 4 on Tuesday, 24 February 2015?
6. TODD MULLER to the Minister for Social Development: What is the Government doing to support older New Zealanders receiving New Zealand superannuation?
7. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he agree with KPMG that banks are warning that the “significant deals done at ridiculous pricing” for New Zealand land and property could spell disaster for them?
8. SARAH DOWIE to the Minister for Small Business: What measures has the Government implemented to support small businesses in accessing the Government procurement process?
9. RICHARD PROSSER to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements?
10. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf last year about his contact with Mr Liu that: “As Prime Minister and the leader of the National Party, Mr Key attends a number of functions up and down the country which are attended by a large number of people. While we don’t have a record of who attends these events, Mr Key recalls seeing Mr Liu at various functions, including a dinner as part of a National Party fundraiser”?
11. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “we’re actually going to stand up for human rights…”?
12. Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development: What was the “range of price escalation” for the New Zealand International Convention Centre as recorded in advice to the Minister dated 26 February 2014?

National:Four patsies on social investment, employment, NZ superannuation and small businesses

Labour: Five questions on Iraq, Minister of Finance standing by his answers, house prices, Liu donation and Sky City

Greens: Two questions on Iraq and human rights

NZ First: One question on MPI Minister standing by his statements

General Debate 3.00 pm – 4.00 pm

A debate with 12 speeches of up to five minutes.

Local Bills 4.00 pm – 6.00 pm 

Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill – second reading

The Bill authorises the (now Auckland) Council to make bylaws specifying places in the district where the business of prostitution or commercial sexual services may not occur otherwise than in a brothel or a small owner-operated brothel.

Introduced: August 2010
1st reading: September 2010, passed 82-36 on a personal vote
Select Committee report: The Local Government and Environment Select Committee recommended the bill not be passed on the basis the matters covered are not appropriate for a local bill, and that existing bylaws can be used

A debate of up to two hours.

Members’ Bills 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill – third reading

The bill amend the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 to extend paid parental leave to from a maximum of 14 to 26 weeks. It is in the name of Labour’s Sue Moroney.

Introduced: April 2012
1st reading: July 2012, passed 61-60 with National and ACT against
Select Committee report: February 2014: no agreement on whether it should proceed or be amended due to 3-3 split between National and Labour MPs
2nd reading: May 2014, passed 61-60 with National and ACT against
Committee of the whole House: December 2014, passed  with a number of amendments by Sue Moroney defeated 60-61 with National and ACT against

A debate of up to two hours.

Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill – second reading continued

The bill requiring judges to make returns of pecuniary interests to provide greater transparency within the judicial system and to avoid any conflict of interest in the judicial role. It is in the name of Green MP Kennedy Graham.

Introduced: November 2010
1st reading: June 2012, passed without dissent
Select Committee report: February 2014. The Justice and Electoral Select Committee recommended the bill not be passed on the basis that it is not needed

The debate has up to 50 minutes remaining.

David presented to the Act Conference over the weekend.  It was an overview of where the party had come from, the last election, and the possible policy stances Act can advance.    

“So let’s take a look at where your support currently is.   ACT got 0.7% nationwide but this was actually 1.4% in Auckland and 0.4% in most other places. And in Auckland you had 2.4% in the Eastern suburbs. So the challenge is to expand from being an Auckland party to a party that can get at least 2.4% everywhere. That would get you almost four MPs.

Polls have shown that you get twice as much support from men as women. One fifth of your support comes from the self-employed and business owners which is significant, and one quarter from the under 30s – well done ACT on Campus. 

In the last three years 25% of ACT supporters cited the economy as the most important issue, followed by taxes on 10% and jobs on 9%. These are of course all linked so almost a half say the most important issues are economic.”

So how can Act gain more voters to increase their representation in parliament and decrease their reliance on the Epsom electorate?

“However I think a clear message of opposition to most forms of corporate welfare has potential appeal to not just economic liberals on the right, but also to many on the left. It would make it hard for the left to paint ACT as the party of big business, if they are signing up to your campaigns against corporate welfare. 

Turing to social liberalism, the issue I would suggest ACT focuses on is euthanasia. Is anything a more fundamental human right than being able to choose between quantity of life and quality of life?

This is not some abstract issue. Sadly for many families, they have been through the horrors of a loved one who was unable to make an informed choice to reduce their suffering.  I actually used to be against euthanasia until I listened to the speech Rodney Hide made in 2003 about the death of Martin Hames. It reduced me to tears and made me realise how harmful the current law can be, and converted me to favouring a law change.

It is an issue that is both very real to many, but also very popular. The last public poll on this issue saw 61% in favour of terminally ill people being able to choose when to end their lives and only 18% opposed. A 3:1 ratio in favour is about as good as it gets.

Labour has banned their MPs from advancing this issue, because it may distract them from their core mission of getting more people to join a union. National MPs are discouraged from doing bills on conscience issues. In fact I think National discourages their MPs from doing any bills that haven’t been written by Chris Finlayson for them. The highlight was the West Coast MP’s bill on reforming the law of habeas corpus.

NZ First are generally against euthanasia, except for immigrants. The Greens are admirably supportive, but the suspicion is they see it as a way to reduce carbon emissions. 

More seriously there is an opportunity for ACT here to lead on this issue, and connect to New Zealanders on an issue that resonates, as well as clearly position themselves as the only party not wanting the state to interfere in decisions that belong to individuals.

Stuff reports:

Dame Thea Muldoon, wife of the late Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon, has died.

Dame Thea passed away peacefully yesterday, aged 87.

She was the wife of New Zealand’s 31st prime minister, who was in power from 1975 to 1984 as leader of the governing National Party.

The often-polarising Sir Rob died in 1992, aged 70.

Dame Thea, born Thea Dale Flyger, married Muldoon in 1951 and they had three children.

The Muldoons’ eldest child Barbara Williams died following a battle with motor neuron disease.

A service for Dame Thea will be held at the All Saints Chapel in the Auckland suburb of Meadowbank on Tuesday.

I don’t know a person alive who ever had a bad word to say about Dame Thea. She remained active in public life and charitable causes many years after her husband died.

I’d be interested to hear if anyone seriously seriously thinks that if Labour was in Government, they would have made a different decision about contributing to the coalition against the Islamic State?

I totally believe that the Greens would have. They absolutely and passionately believe that the way to defeat the Islamic State is to do something like employ more community facilitators in under privileged communities, and all will be right with the world. It’s a bonkers view, but a sincerely held one.

But not for one second do I think a Labour Government would have said “No, we will be the only country in Western World not to contribute in a military sense to defeating ISIL”. Which means that their rhetoric this week is just opposition, because they don’t actually have the responsibility to make a decision.

Bear in mind that the last Labour Government sent the SAS to Afghanistan, and military engineers to Iraq.

But I’d be interested to hear a rational argument by anyone that Labour would actually have made a different decision, if they were in Government.

The Herald reports:

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has flagged a tougher stance on hate preaching and warned Australian citizenships could be revoked as he spelled out the worsening terrorist threat to the nation.

The Prime Minister outlined a number of steps to tackle terrorism in a speech at the Australian Federal Police headquarters in Canberra.

“The terrorist threat is rising at home and abroad and it’s becoming harder to combat,” Abbott said.

To date, 110 Australians have travelled overseas to join Isis (Islamic State), with 30 returning and at least 20 dead.

However, Abbott said there were at least 140 Isis supporters in Australia and the country faced a real risk of Australians returning as “hardened jihadists” intent on radicalising others.

Since September when the national terrorist threat level was lifted to “high” – meaning a terrorist attack is likely – 20 people have been arrested and charged.

Spy agency ASIO has more than 400 “high priority” counter-terrorism investigations under way – more than double the number a year ago.

Under changes to be brought in this year, returning foreign fighters will be prosecuted or monitored under control orders and could lose their citizenship and welfare benefits.

“Australians who take up arms with terrorist groups, especially while Australian military personnel are engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, have sided against their country and should be treated accordingly,” Abbott said.

A national counter-terrorism co-ordinator will be appointed and the states will be included in the national strategy.

Abbott named the group Hizb ut-Tahrir as being among the organisations that will be targeted for “blatantly spreading discord and division”.

“The Government will be taking action against hate preachers,” he said.

I’m not sure the problem is Australians going to fight for the Islamic State. The problem is them returning!

Stuff reports:

Walker has pointed to the unions’ membership troubles as a victory – presenting himself as a conservative warrior unafraid of taking on big battles against liberal interests.

Walker administration budget analysts said forcing public employees to contribute more to retirement plans and health insurance helped local governments save US$3 billion (NZ$3.9b). He also credited the 2011 law with saving homeowners money on property taxes while giving school districts the ability to make reforms that boosted third-grade reading levels and high school graduation rates.

“We took the power away from the big government special interests and put it firmly in the hands of the hard-working taxpayers,” Walker told Iowa Republicans recently. “That is what we need more of in this great country. The liberals don’t like that.”

Union officials declined to release precise membership data but confirmed in interviews that enrolment is dramatically lower since the new law was signed in 2011.

The state branch of the National Education Association, once 100,000 strong, has seen its membership drop by a third. The American Federation of Teachers, which organised in the college system, saw a 50 per cent decline. The 70,000-person membership in the state employees union has fallen by 70 per cent.

That’s a huge decline in just a few years. The reforms pushed by Walker were:

• public servants to pay 50% of the cost of their pension payments, up from 0%
• public servants to pay 12% of their health insurance premiums, up from 6%
• A referendum needed to approve any public sector wage settlement greater than CPI
• Unions must collect their own fees, rather than employers
• Non union members no longer required to pay fees to unions

Walker survived both a recall election and the Wisconsin State Supreme Court upheld his laws as constitutional.

From the PM’s ministerial statement to Parliament:

Last November I gave a national security speech which outlined the threat posed to New Zealand by ISIL.

This brutal group and its distressing methods deserve the strongest condemnation.

ISIL’s ability to motivate Islamist radicals make it a threat not only to stability in the Middle East, but regionally and locally too.

It is well-funded and highly-skilled at using the internet to recruit.

Disturbingly, if anything, ISIL’s brutality has worsened since I gave that speech late last year.

In recent weeks we have witnessed a mass beheading and the horrific plight of a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a cage.

And we’ve seen stories of Western hostages who have been kidnapped and killed in barbaric ways.

ISIL’s outrageous actions have united an international coalition of 62 countries against the group.

The coalition includes Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Panam, Singapore, Sweden and Spain.

New Zealand is a country that stands up for its values.

We stand up for what’s right.

We have an obligation to support stability and the rule of law internationally.

We do not shy away from taking our share of the burden when the international rules-based system is threatened.

We have carved out our own independent foreign policy over decades and we take pride in it.

We do what is in New Zealand’s best interests.

It is in that context that I am announcing that the Government has decided to take further steps to help the fight against ISIL.

The Iraqi government has requested support from the international community and has been clear with us that security is its top priority.

We have been clear that we cannot, and should not, fight Iraqis’ battles for them – and actually Iraq doesn’t want us to.

Our military can, however, play a part in building the capability and capacity of the Iraqi forces so they can fight ISIL themselves.

I have been open with New Zealanders that we have been considering an option to train Iraqi Security Forces alongside our longstanding partner Australia, in Iraq.

Such an operation would be behind the wire and limited to training Iraqi Security Forces in order to counter ISIL and legitimately protect innocent people.

Mr Speaker, the Government has decided to deploy a non-combat training mission to Iraq to contribute to the international fight against ISIL.

No surprise. It’s at the lower end of what we could do.

The deployment will be reviewed after nine months and will be for a maximum two-year period.

I’m glad it isn’t open ended.

We recognise ISIL is not a short-term threat and there is a lot of work to be done in the long-term.

Defeating ISIL will mean winning the hearts and minds of those vulnerable to its destructive message.

That will take time.

As I said last year, we have already contributed to the humanitarian cause and we are currently examining options to provide more help.

We are also stepping up our diplomatic efforts to counter ISIL and support stability in Iraq.

As part of this, we are looking at options to base a diplomatic representative in Baghdad to serve as a conduit between the Iraqi government and our military deployment, as well as assess how we can support better governance in Iraq.

We will also expand our diplomatic engagement on international counter-terrorism by appointing a new Ambassador for Counter Terrorism.

Many other countries have done this.

We cannot be complacent, as events in Sydney, Paris and Ottawa have underscored.

To those who argue that we should not take action because it raises that threat, I say this:  the risk associated with ISIL becoming stronger and more widespread far outweighs that.

I know there is already risk.

New Zealanders do too, because they know we are a nation of prolific travellers who have been caught up in terrorist activity around the world many times before.

Mr Speaker, the Government has carefully considered our contribution to the international campaign against ISIL.

We are prepared to step up to help.

New Zealand does not take its commitment to Iraq lightly.

In return we expect that the Iraqi government will make good on its commitment to an inclusive government that treats all Iraqi citizens with respect.

Sending our forces to Iraq is not an easy decision but it is the right decision.

I would call it the least bad decision. There are risks. But the greater risk is leaving ISIL unchecked with their ambition to be a global caliphate. They are not terrorist. They are 7th century fundamentalists who wish to have the world live under their 7th century religious doctrine.

The Green Party in response to a petition has stated:

The Green Party agrees with the petitioner and seeks a stop to further GM food approval ahead of full safety studies, more comprehensive and enforced labelling, and a reassessment of existing GM food approvals.

It’s been 14 years since a Royal Commission chaired by a former Chief Justice concluded that there was no scientific basis to ban genetically modified organisms. Despite this, the Greens have fought against the science undeterred.

The order paper is here and oral questions here.

Ministerial Statement 2.00 pm – 2.30 pm

It is likely that the Government will make a Ministerial statement on military assistance against the Islamic State. If so then the PM speaks for five minutes, followed by the Labour, Green and NZ First leaders for five minutes each and the PM can reply for up to two minutes. By leave, other party leaders may be allowed to speak. Hence the debate will be from 22 to 37 minutes.

Oral Questions 2.30 pm – 3.30 pm

1. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement with regard to the deployment of troops to the warzone in Iraq that “I don’t think that’s a matter for a Parliamentary vote”?
2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “Just passing everything by the barest of majorities isn’t the right way to govern a country”; if so, why?
3. PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on trends in Government revenue and how does this compare with forecasts in the Half-Year Update in December?
4. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: What is the additional amount of gross debt that the Crown has taken on since the Government was elected in November 2008?
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
6. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that a 30 centimetre rise in sea level “may not sound much” but “will be significant at a national level” in New Zealand?
7. STUART SMITH to the Minister for Social Housing: How will the Ministry of Social Development’s social housing purchasing strategy lead to better outcomes for tenants?
8. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Defence: What is the level of risk assessed by the New Zealand Defence Force if its personnel are deployed to Iraq and what force protection would be provided for them?
9. MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Small Business: What steps is the Government taking to support growth for small business?
10. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he consider that cuts the Government has made to biosecurity have contributed to the current fruit fly outbreak?
11. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What actions is the Government taking to limit the powers of repossession agents?
12. CLAYTON MITCHELL to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements?

National:Four patsies on government revenue, social housing, small business and repo agents

Labour: Four questions on Iraq (x2), government debt, and biosecurity

Greens: Two questions on Iraq and sea level rise

NZ First: Two questions on PM and MSD Ministers standing by their statements

Government Bills 3.30 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) – third reading continued

The bill amends the Gambling Act 2003 with minor policy and technical amendments

Introduced: August 2007
1st reading: August 2007, passed without dissent
Select Committee report: May 2008 and June 2013
2nd reading: May 2009, passed without dissent
Committee of the House: February 2015. SOPs from the Greens and NZ First were defeated. The bill was amended further and passed 108-11 with only NZ First dissenting

The debate has 40 minutes remaining.

Parole Amendment Bill – third reading continued

The bill amends the Parole Act 2002 to reduce the number of unnecessary parole hearings where the offender has little prospect of release

Introduced: November 2013
1st reading: November 2013, passed 104-15 with Greens, Mana and Horan against
Select Committee report: May 2014: supported with amendments by the majority, with Greens dissenting
2nd reading: November 2014, passed 105-16 with Greens and Maori Party against
Committee of the whole House: February 2015, passed 104-16 with Greens and Maori Party against

The debate has up to 80 minutes remaining.

Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill – second reading continued

The bill increases the penalties for producing, trading, or possessing child pornography.

Introduced: May 2013
1st reading: November 2013, passed without dissent
Select Committee report: April 2014, supported unamiously with no amendments

The debate has 70 minutes remaining.

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) – second reading

The bill makes minor changes to the local government acts and the Official Information Act.

Introduced: May 2014
1st reading: April 2014, passed without dissent
Select Committee report: July 2014, supported unamiously with amendments

The debate can be up to two hours.

Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill – 1st reading

This bill confirms and validates unappropriated expenditure and validates excess net asset holdings for the 2013/14 financial year.

Introduced: December 2014

This bill is not debated.

The Herald reports:

Two former British Foreign Secretaries are exposed for their involvement in a new “cash for access” scandal.

Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind offered to use their positions as politicians on behalf of a fictitious Chinese company in return for payments of at least 5000 ($10,231) a day.

Straw, one of Labour’s most senior figures, boasted he operated “under the radar” to use his influence to change European Union rules on behalf of a commodity firm paying him 60,000 a year. He has been suspended from Labour following the disclosures, described by the party as “disturbing”.

Straw claimed to have used “charm and menace” to convince the Ukrainian Prime Minister to change laws on behalf of the same firm. Straw also used his Commons office to conduct meetings about possible consultancy work – a potential breach of rules. And he suggested his Commons researcher had worked on his private business matters, raising further questions.

Rifkind, who oversees Britain’s intelligence agencies on behalf of Parliament, said he could arrange “useful access” to every British ambassador in the world because of his status.

The senior Conservative told undercover reporters from the Telegraph and Channel 4’s Dispatches, to be broadcast today, he would submit questions to ministers on behalf of a paying client, without revealing their identity.

Rifkind also described himself as “self-employed” and had to “earn my income” – despite being paid 67,000 by the taxpayer for his work as an MP. The disclosure that two of Britain’s most senior politicians are embroiled in a new “cash for access” scandal highlights Parliament’s failure to address the issue which has plagued British politics for a generation.

MPs should not accept payment for any sort of lobbying or representation. If the 67,000 pounds a year is not adequate income, then they should leave Parliament and become full time lobbyists. But you can’t and shouldn’t do both.

One problem the UK has is that they have so many MPs, there is not enough meaningful work for all of them to do. Those who have previously been Ministers and are unlikely to be Ministers again often disengage from parliamentary work. One solution is reducing the number of MPs. The Conservatives tried to do this, but were blocked by Labour and the Lib Dems.

A rule of thumb for the ideal size of a lower house is the cube root of the population. This suggests the UK needs 400 MPs, not 650.

The latest quarterly stats on the DHB Health Targets have been published. They show:

• Cancer patients waiting less than four weeks for radiotherapy or chemotherapy – 99% (was 65% under Labour)
• Emergency Department treatment within six hours – 94% (was 70% under Labour)
• Elective operations at 107% of target (84,022 in 6 months up from 118,000 in 12 months under Labour)
• 94% of 8 month olds are immunised (was 76% under Labour)
• 92% of Maori 8 month olds are immunised (was 78% in 2012)
• 96% of Pacific 8 month olds are immunised (was 87% in 2012)
• 95% of smokers in hospital given advice or help to quit (was 17%)
• 89% of smokers seeing a primary health care practitioner given advice or help to quit (was 40%)
• 87% have had a cardiovascular assessment in last five years (was 46%)

The performance of our heath system is one of the more important things to New Zealanders. Despite the tight fiscal conditions, National has shown sustained significant improvements in outcomes.

From Twitter:

Top U.S. companies founded by 1st/2nd gen immigrants:

1 Apple
2 Google
3 IBM
4 Oracle
5 Facebook
6 Amazon
7 Qualcomm
8 EMC
9 eBay
10 VMware

Steve Jobs’ father was born in Syria.

Sergey Brin was born in the USSR.

Herman Hollerith’s father was born in Germany (IBM).

Larry Ellison’s father was Italian.

Mark Zuckerberg’s great-grandparents were immigrants

Jeff Bezos’ father was a Cuban immigrant.

Worth remembering when some people rail against immigrants.

The Dom Post editorial:

Islamic State is a gang of murdering fanatics who must be resisted. Almost the whole world agrees with that, so the only question is: how?

New Zealand, as Prime Minister John Key has said, was unlikely to do nothing about Isis. A political force which prides itself on beheadings and crucifixions of the innocent is intolerable to any democratic state.

But not intolerable to those who say it is nothing to do with us.

The problem is that almost every form of Western intervention is fraught with trouble. The West has learnt from the invasion of Iraq, and the long bloody stalemate in Afghanistan, that making war in the Middle East often makes things worse rather than better.

So the choice is extraordinarily conflicted. Honest opponents of intervention should admit that the decision not to fight is deeply troubling because Isis is evil. Honest proponents of intervention should also admit that the war might have a just purpose but it is also probably unwinnable.

Islamic State is different to Al Qaeda. It’s strength comes from holding territory.

The Key Government has decided to send a small military force to “train” Iraqi soldiers. This is defensible in principle. It recognises that the fight against Isis is primarily the task of local people, not of the West. It also recognises, perhaps, that the West has some responsibility for the rise of the terrorist group. They filled a vacuum created by the Iraq invasion and the subsequent chaos. So the West has to help restore the damage. …

All the signs suggest that Key is doing what Keith Holyoake did in Vietnam – sending the smallest possible force into the war, mainly to keep the allies happy and to show the flag. And probably the most that can be hoped for from this war is to contain Isis and stop it from building a lasting fundamentalist caliphate.

If it can’t build the caliphate, it loses its theological reason for being. And it then might lose some of its support, and splinter under its own murderous fanaticism. None of that is certain to happen, but it is a defensible aim for limited Western military intervention. It is the best option available.

I agree.