A guest post by Keith Mawson of Egmont Seafoods:

Scientists telling fibs about Maui’s dolphins

In 2003 the government banned fishing in the Maui’s dolphin habitat off Auckland and Waikato.  No Maui’s have been recorded as harmed by fishing since then.

Yet this is not what the experts in the International Whaling Commission were told as they voted against New Zealand at the IWC meeting in Slovenia.

The IWC relied on a paper presented to its Scientific Committee in 2013 which stated there was a yearly documented death rate of the endangered Maui’s from fishing.

It was written by Dr Barbara Maas, who works in London for NABU International, a conservation organisation. 

She reported to the IWC that there was not only a recorded Maui’s death rate from fishing, but that in 2008 it increased.

Since the 2008 protection measures were introduced, the number of stranded and reported bycatch cases has increased slightly (Slooten 2013). Between 1970 and 2008 an average of 1.00 entangled Maui’s dolphin was recorded per year. This figure increased marginally to 1.33 dolphin deaths per annum between 2009 and 2012.

Maui’s are clearly threatened subspecies of dolphin. Though the well-known number of 55 Maui’s adults is an estimate, the real population total is probably not too far off this.

Were Maas’ figures to be true, (though she states the figures come from Otago academic Liz Slooten but Maas provided no footnote reference) there would have been eight dead Maui’s dolphins from fishing since 2008, and nearly another 40 back to 1970.

If fishing was killing them at the stated rate, and expanded into a theoretical and often cited multiplier total of 4.97 per year, then something would need to be done.

But the figures, though worked out to the seemingly scientific second decimal point, are bogus.  A Slooten paper which is the probable source, states the numbers are taken from a DOC database. 

But the DOC database has no such information.  The IWC has been misled.

The information DOC holds is that in four cases, between 1921 and 2002, fishing may have killed a Maui’s.  Two were ‘possible’, one ‘probable’ and one ‘known’.

There is no yearly rate at all.  There are only four instances of fishing possibly killing Maui’s since records were first taken 93 years ago.  It is actually the confirmed reason in only one of these four cases.

Even more significantly, the most recent fishing implicated case was in 2002.  In 2003, the government imposed set net and trawl restrictions in the known Maui’s range – encompassing the areas where these four mortalities had occurred. 

So set net fishing had at most a questioned and minor impact on Maui’s before 2003, but no effect at all has been evident since.

There is no record of any Maui’s ever being caught in a trawl net either.

It is well known where most of the Maui’s live. They frequent shallow waters 30 kilometers north and south of the mouth of Waikato River, with some as far north as the Kaipara.

The occasional migration of Hector’s dolphins from the South Island confuses this picture. Both belong to the species Cephalorhynchus. They look exactly the same.

When Maui’s were categorised as a subspecies of Hector’s dolphins in 2002, the scientists believed the population had been separate since the end of the last ice age thousands of years ago.

Imagine the surprise when in 2010 sampling of DNA found a couple of Hector’s alive right in the core of the Maui’s habitat.  Theoretically they should not be there.  But they are.

Since physical separation of Maui’s and Hector’s no longer applies, genetic distinctions and old fashioned physical measurements are the remaining criteria for distinction.  It’s a weak case, since there is no more genetic difference discovered between Maui’s and Hector’s than there is between at least 26 subsets of Hector’s themselves.

The latest government commissioned survey information of Hector’s is that there are more than 9,000  off the East Coast of the South Island, with other populations off the West Coast and Southland, making a total population of about 14,500.  They are not at risk of extinction.

Dolphin campaigners will not accept this figure and still insist the total Hector’s population off the South Island is not much more than 7,000. 

This much lower number is used in the recent Economists at Large analysis of the Maui’s and Hector’s, which was commissioned by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation organisation.  The report did not mention that the figure is at best a contested estimate.

The Economists at Large document includes a map of where they think Maui’s and Hector’s live and which the authors want for a dolphin sanctuary.   The map depicts three ostensible migration routes of Maui’s going to the South Island.

The map is a Pixar Animation level of imagination.  There is not a shred of evidence any Maui’s dolphins have ever crossed to the South Island, let alone that such migrations are studied and frequent enough to justify a number of detailed route maps.

There is no evidence either that the Maui’s and Hector’s breed with each other, so the demand for a huge no-fishing ‘breeding corridor’ between North and South Islands is another fantasy.

But back to the facts.  Five Hector’s DNA samples have been collected along the Wellington coast to Taranaki since 1967.  No Maui’s DNA has been found south of Kawhia, well up into Waikato, since 1989.

In November 2011 there was a Hector’s sighting in Wellington Harbour.  Over that summer there were sightings up to Taranaki and Hawkes Bay.  There were two sightings between Hawera and Whanganui – the only ones ever recorded.  A beach-cast DNA confirmed Hector’s was found at Opunake in April 2012.

Crucially a dolphin was captured and killed in a fishing net in January 2012.  The regulations prevented any samples being taken and it was returned to the sea.  We will never know whether it was a Hector’s or a Maui’s.  DOC thinks it was a Maui’s. The Ministry for Primary Industries thinks the chances of it being a Maui’s or Hector’s are even.

But in the popular mind it was a Maui’s.  Advocate scientists successfully had more fishing restrictions imposed later in 2012 and then more again the following year.

As a result of these unjustified restrictions the fishing industry along this coast has contracted.  Workers have been laid off.

A risk assessment panel in 2012, with handpicked dolphin advocates, declared there to be Maui’s populations, not just off Taranaki, but as far south as Whanganui which needed protection from fishing effort.

The evidence though is increasingly that in some, but by no means all, summers there is something which drives or lures a very small number of Hector’s from the South Island to the North Island, to Wellington, along the Kapiti coast and then sometimes further north again. 

Off Taranaki, more than 1,000 MPI observer days have been spent on fishing vessels looking for Maui’s in the past two years.  A similar time has been spent by independent observers on oil exploration vessels.  DOC has used boats and aircraft to find Maui’s or Hector’s in the region.

They have seen none of either.  If the expert panel in 2012 had been anywhere near correct in its population estimates then there would have been at least dozens of Maui’s sightings.

Undeterred, the experts keep on supplying their opinions to the IWC. This year the Scientific Committee was informed that the number of Maui’s killed by fishing between Hawera and Whanganui could exceed one per year. 

Based on established ratios of population to capture from the Hector’s in South Island waters this death rate would mean a population of some hundreds of Maui’s would need to exist between Hawera and Whanganui.

No scientists have seen a Cephalorhynchus (Hector’s type) here.  There have only been two public sightings ever.  Both were following Hector’s presence along the coast to the north and south in the 2011-2012 summer.

The panel has been proven quite wrong in another respect as well.  It concluded that the rate of deaths in Maui’s due to disease was less than one every 100 years, so certain was it that fishing, both set net and trawl, was the culprit of population decline.

The panel did not consider three post-mortems which were being conducted on three Maui’s at Massey University.  The cause of death for two of them was established as Toxoplasmosis, a protozoan disease originating from land animals, with cats playing a critical role in the disease life cycle.

The diagnosis resulted in the expert panel’s allocation of disease blame to be used up for the next two centuries and beyond.

Hector’s dolphins dissected at the same time were also riddled with toxoplasma. The species has shown to be more vulnerable to this disease than other types of dolphin.

Unlike the many petitions which have been raised to call on the government to multiply the sea area closed to fishing, none are circulating wanting the government to fund research on Toxoplasmosis.

There is no research programme for Toxoplasmosis, which has been proven to kill Maui’s, yet many calls for more restrictions on fishing, for which there is no evidence that it is causing Maui’s any harm at all.

The conclusion must be that either it’s easier to run a blame-game campaign on human activity, than it is to target disease infection from land animals.

More specifically, is that the campaign to save the Maui’s is more generated by antipathy towards people earning a living from the sea, than it is to actually saving the Maui’s.

Over the past few months Maui’s campaigners have refocused their targeting on the petroleum industry off Taranaki.  There is no evidence that oil exploration or extraction has harmed a single Maui’s in half a century of activity in the region.

But it is interesting to note how the argument on where the Maui’s are supposed to be living, is manufactured to suit the activity being cited to cause the threat.

When fishing is targeted, the Maui’s population is described as being up to three-quarters of the way round the North Island and even off the South Island.  That is, where there is fishing.

But now, when the target is the petrochemical industry off Taranaki, the Maui’s population spread has been totally reinvented.  The new claims are that ‘their entire population [is] residing in a small sanctuary established in 2008 off the west coast of the North Island’.

We all want to see the Maui’s population flourish.  We do not want it to become extinct.  This will mean boring science stuff, such as investigating how the Maui’s get diseases from the land, or how their reproduction might be helped.  None of this is being done.

Instead, ideological targeting masquerading as scientific objectivity will not help them.

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has reported:

The inquiry found the NZSIS released incomplete, inaccurate and misleading information in response to Mr Slater’s request, and provided some of the same incorrect information to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s Office.

“These errors resulted in misplaced criticism of the then Leader of the Opposition, Hon Phil Goff MP. Mr Goff is owed a formal apology by the Service,” said Ms Gwyn.

Ms Gwyn found no evidence of political partisanship by the NZSIS but did find that the NZSIS failed to take adequate steps to maintain political neutrality.

 “Having released inaccurate information that was predictably misinterpreted, the then Director of the Service had a responsibility to take positive steps to correct the interpretation. He failed to do so,” said Ms Gwyn.

Stuff reports:

The Government is warming to the idea of a 110kmh speed limit on the best roads – and has confirmed it is under serious consideration for several new motorways, including Transmission Gully.

Transport Minister Simon Bridges said he would be open to discussions about raising the present 100kmh limit if the New Zealand Transport Agency felt there was a good case for it.

Ernst Zollner, the agency’s road safety director, confirmed yesterday it had been “mulling the idea for a good year at a strategic level”, after research from Monash University in Melbourne suggested it could be done without increasing the risk to motorists.

A 110kmh limit was being considered for motorways built as part of the Government’s roads of national significance programme, provided they were flat, straight, had two lanes in each direction, a median barrier and good shoulder space.

Candidates included the Transmission Gully motorway and Kapiti Expressway in the Wellington region, the Waikato Expressway, the Tauranga Eastern Link and the Northern Gateway toll road north of Auckland, Zollner said.

If we have good enough roads, such as the ones above, then 110 km/hr is a more sensible limit.

Australia and Canada have motorway limits of 110kmh, while Britain’s is 70mph, or about 113kmh.

And speed limits in the US are as high as 130 km/hr in some states. France is up to 130 km/hr, Germany has no limit.

A group of Cantabrians are trying to set up a bike share system in Christchurch. They’re trying to crowd source the $45,000 cost.

It’s a great idea, especially for such a flat city. The bike share system in London is hugely popular and useful. Hopefully they’ll get enough support.

In my 2009 profile of Andrew Little for NBR I said:

I first met Andrew Little when he was President of the New Zealand University Students Association in the late 1980s.

The organisation was in crisis and at risk of dying. Andrew helped save it, and a reform package was implemented that reduced a staff from 14 (a president, six vice-presidents and seven staff) to a staff of around four (two co-presidents and a couple of staff). The new leaner meaner NZUSA stopped campaigning for Nicaragua, and started focusing on student education and welfare and has been a much more effective beast since.

A former NZUSA insider corrects my memory. He e-mails:

First, the reform of the New Zealand University Students’ Association was in 1986 (Simon Johnson was VUWSA President and Bidge Smith was NZUSA President). I think that Andrew was Sports Officer at VUWSA and was a delegate to NZUSA Councils that year.. 

You are correct there was one president and six vice-presidents and an additional two researchers and a “typing pool”. They described themselves as the Typist Liberation Front (TLR) – i am not making this up.

The reform happened at the 2006 August Council and NZUSA had one President and one vice-president – not the two co-presidents as you stated. 

Although Andrew was involved sort-of in the reform of NZUSA but it was acutally as VUWSA President in 1987 and therefore on the Federation Executive and then as 1988 and 1989 NZUSA President that Andrew was critical in making a full success of the NZUSA reforms that you highlight in your article.

I’m grateful for the clarification. A 28 year old memory can be faulty.

Coincidentally Grant Robertson’s thesis for his honours degree was on the 1986 restructuring. He labeled them a step to the right!

Stats NZ reported:

Migrant arrivals (107,200) reached a new high in the October 2014 year. The annual increase was led by more student arrivals, particularly from India, and more New Zealand citizens arriving from Australia.

The fall in migrant departures was primarily due to fewer departures of New Zealand citizens to Australia (down 13,300), compared with the October 2013 year. The net loss of 5,300 people to Australia in the October 2014 year was the smallest since the October 1994 year (5,300).

Net migration to Australia in 2008 was almost 36,000 people so it has fallen by around 85%.

Stuff reports:

New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd has taken his fight for Maori representation a step further, calling for a law change so up to half of all councillors in New Zealand are Maori.

Judd, already fighting critics over his council’s plans to create a Maori ward, believes there should be more Maori representation across the country to better reflect the Treaty of Waitangi. 

“The reasonable interpretation of the Treaty is that you would have fifty-fifty representation around the table,” Judd said. 

Fiji has just ended an electoral system that divided people up on the basis of their bloodline, but Mr Judd wants to extend and entrench such a system here.

In the interests of being bi-partisan there is one that makes fun of Obama, the other the GOP.

Obama’s immigration policy and its legality under the US constitution.

Nick Anderson (Houston Chronicle)

This one makes fun of the GOP’s chronic indecision.

Michael Ramirez (Investors.com)

Cartoons were found here at Real Clear Politics.

A comparison of the National (11) and Labour (8) front benches.

MP Status

Only one of Labour’s front bench is a List MP – the leader. All the others are electorate MPs. National is two thirds electorate and one third list.

Gender

Both are close to one third female.

Ethnicity

Both around one quarter Maori.Labour also has a Pasifika front bencher.

Age

For the first time for a while (I think) Labour now has a younger front bench. Three quarters are aged below 50.

Area

Labour has issues here. Half the front bench is from Wellington and no one from Christchurch or provincial NZ.

Island

There is not a single South Island MP on Labour’s front bench. In fact only two SI MPs intheir top 17.

Decade Entered

National and Labour now have similar profiles in terms of longevity of front benchers in Parliament.

So overall this reshuffle has rejuvenated the Labour front bench and the two front benchers now looking quite similiar except Labour has an age advantage and National an area advantage.

I’ve been to every post-election conference put on by Vic Uni since, well as far as I can recall.

They are the one form where all the campaign managers come together and talk about what they did wrong and right, and take questions about the election. You also get some interesting academic contributions on issues ranging from polling to media coverage.

The 2014 conference is on Wed 3 December. Speakers include:

• John Key
• David Carter
• Steven Joyce
• Te Ururoa Flavell
• Peter Dunne
• David Seymour
• Russel Norman
• Winston Peters
• Nicola Kean
• Corin Higgs
• Jane Clifton
• Kate McMillan
• Colin James
• Stephen Mills
• Matthew Beveridge
• Rob Salmond
• Morgan Godfery
• Stephen Church
• Therese Arseneau
• Nigel Roberts

Amusingly Labour have been unable to name the poor sucker who will front for them, to speak about their campaign 🙂

If you’re a student of politics and elections, its a fascinating day. Only $65 to attend, or $30 for students.

UPDATE: Andrew Little is now fronting for Labour. Updated programme is here – Conference Programme (Nov)

Overall Andrew Little has done a good job with his reshuffle, considering the somewhat limited options he has. I’d give it a 7/10. He has rejuvenated the front bench and not played factional politics too much. Most appointments seem to be based on merit.

His first week as leader has gone well. He has been comfortable in his press conferences, and his tone has been good. When asked on TV this morning why he is calling for Rennie to go, but not also the DPMC head, he gave a logical response based on their different roles.

He hasn’t set the world on fire, and maybe our expectations are lower because of the stuff ups by previous incumbents, but at this stage there is nothing much you can fault him on. Labour need a solid leader, and that may now have it.

In terms of the new line up, let’s start with the overall look, and then the details.

• A plus for a fresh front bench, of whom only two were Ministers in the last Government
• A plus for a front bench which has good gender and ethnic diversity
• A plus for a front bench largely based on merit
• A big negative for four of the top six being Wellington MPs including Leader, Deputy Leader, Leader of the House and Finance Spokesperson. Labour may struggle to reconnect with NZ when their top six is so beltway.
• A small negative that no one wanted to be Deputy Leader (except Nanaia) so poor Annette had to be drafted in again

In terms of the individuals

• Little having no portfolios outside security is sensible
• King as Deputy Leader is a good short term move (she has it for a year only). While it is a bad look that they need an MP who entered Parliament 30 years ago to remain Deputy, her personal skills for he job are superb. One Labour insider commented to me that the gap between Anette and the next most competent female Labour MP is astonomical.
• Robertson as Finance is a risk. He is a skilled politician and communicator, but I am not sure how much credibility he will have talking about the economy, when he has never worked in the private sector. His challenge is to bridge that gap.
• Mahuta gets No 4 mainly because her followers all voted for Little. few could seriously suggest she is their 4th best MP. What are her achievements in the 18 years she has been an MP? With just one portfolio (Maori Development), her workload could be very light.
• Twyford as Housing and Transport is a good choice – he knows the issues well.
• Hipkins as Shadow Leader and Education also sound.
• Sepuloni is promoted ahead of Ardern to get Social Development. A big opportunity for her considering she has had only one term in Parliament. Has to prove she deserves the spot.
• A very good call making Davis front bench and giving him portfolios such as Police, Corrections and Domestic Violence. Could do very well so log as he gets Little to dump his policy of making people accused of rape having to prove their innocence.
• Ardern gets demoted for the second time in a row and drops off the front bench (they have only eight front bench seats in the House). She gets a major portfolio in Justice but is against Amy Adams who I think will excel there.
• Clark gets a promotion and Economic Development. Could have gone further but has a chance to prove himself
• Sio has Pacific Island Affairs and Local Government. Doubt we’ll see much more than in the past,
• Lees-Galloway gets the important (for Labour) portfolio of Labour. Suspect Little will lead most of the work in this area though.
• Woods gets Environment and Climate Change. Likely to be over shadowed by the Greens.
• Cunliffe, Parker, Shearer and Goff are Nos 14 to 17. This is smart by Little. All get a ranking to reflect their contribution, but also one low enough to suggest they are on the way out (maybe not for Shearer).
• While Cunliffe has a low ranking, he has meaty portfolios in Regional Development, Tertiary Education and Science. A path to redemption.

In terms of the unranked, surprised Louisa Wall and Stuart Nash not put into the top 20. Also somewhat surprised Sue Moroney not given a ranking.

As I said, overall a pretty smart reshuffle by Little, considering his limited options. The heavy Wellington skew at the top is a significant weakness, but overall he has done a good job of rejuvenation, and starting to put together what could look like a competent alternate Government.

Stuff reports:

A Brazilian court has ordered the deportation of convicted murderer and paedophile Phillip John Smith within 10 days.

Brazilian freelance journalist Alexandre Tortoriello said the court noted New Zealand had offered a police escort and to pay for Smith’s deportation, Radio NZ reported.

Maybe the cost could be charged to Smith out of the $10,000 he has.

Tony Ellis, who has represented Smith in New Zealand, has been trying to arrange a Brazilian lawyer to visit him in jail in Rio de Janeiro. But they all want payment upfront.

Smart lawyers.

Tortoriello said Smith had the opportunity to find a Brazilian lawyer and appeal, but this had to be done before he was deported, which could happen at any moment.

I suspect sooner rather than later.

Whale quotes the SST:

Police are investigating an entity that funded Auckland mayor Len Brown’s 2010 and 2013 election campaigns.

More then $750,000 in backing for Brown’s two successful campaigns was paid by a trust that kept donors’ identities secret. Since February police have been investigating whether the trust breached the Local Electoral Act.

The Sunday Star-Times has confirmation from Brown’s former campaign team that Greg Presland was involved in the donor trust. He was also the main trustee of the trust that paid almost $20,000 in anonymous donations to former Labour leader David Cunliffe during Labour’s 2013 leadership contest.

Greg is of course one of the main authors at The Standard which of course campaigns vigorously against the use of secret trusts in politics!

Maybe they could help fund their blog if Greg put in the trust deeds that 1% of all donations go to The Standard 🙂

As to whether there is a breach of the law, my initial response was there isn’t, as secret trusts were legal for local government elections in 2010 and 2013.

However the issue raised by the complainant is that a person must be listed as a donor and a trust is not a person. A company is and an incorporated society is, but a trust is generally regarded as not being a legal person, but something on behalf of the trustees (lawyers will correct me if I have this not quite right). So the complainant has said that as the trust is not a person, then the trustees should be named. That seems a not unreasonable thing to do. So it will be interesting what the Police decide – my pick is as usual, nothing.

Stuff reports:

Streamlining rich Chinese into the country because they hold a Chinese-issued credit card has been slammed by New Zealand First leader Winston Peters who said it will lead to corruption here.

But the tourism industry welcomes the new move as knocking down a barrier to growth in getting wealthy Chinese to come to New Zealand.

Immigration New Zealand’s agreement with China UnionPay allows holders of Platinum and Diamond UnionPay credit cards to provide evidence of their “premium card” status instead of information on their employment and source of funds, as part of the visa application process.

UnionPay is the only domestic bankcard organisation in China.

In the joint statement by New Zealand and China last week, the Chinese side welcomed “New Zealand’s recent visa facilitation package for Chinese citizens visiting New Zealand for tourism and business, and is willing to work with the New Zealand side to create more favourable conditions for bilateral personnel exchange.” Chinese visa applicants are also required to meet other requirements such as being of good character and having an acceptable standard of health.

This is about making it easier for Chinese nationals to visit NZ, not making it easier for them to gain residency here. This is a crucial difference.

Nationals from many countries can visit here without needing a visa at all. Is Winston complaining that British people can visit NZ and not need to prove they have a job and a source of funds? Of course not, as they’re not Asian.

Tourism Industry Association (TIA) New Zealand chief executive Chris Roberts welcomed the new credit card immigration policy.

He said the TIA had been advocating strongly to the government for more streamlined visa processing for high-value Chinese visitors.

It is one of the key growth opportunities identified in the industry’s Tourism 2025 framework.

“The Tourism 2025 goal of almost doubling total tourism revenue to $41 billion a year can only be achieved by the public and private sectors co-operating to remove barriers to growth and seizing opportunities.

“Smart schemes to target high-value Chinese travellers to get the visas they need as quickly and easily as possible will make New Zealand more internationally competitive for this crucial market, which has grown quickly to become our second-biggest source of visitors after Australia.”

So again this is about tourism, not migration.

However, Peters said Prime Minister John Key had not learnt lessons from the Kim Dotcom affair which had cost the country “a packet in the courts” and tarnished both the government’s and our international reputation”.

“Instead of saying we have a rigorous immigration programme and policies capable of doing the job . . . he’s now transferred that right onto another country and another country’s system.

“If holding some sort of platinum card is going to be the criteria then you hugely expose yourself and leave yourself open to corruption.

Winston has tried this before. I blogged on almost the same issue in 2012. Nationals from 57 countries can visit NZ without even needing a visa. Chinese nationals do still need a visa, and have to provide

• Proof of good health
• Proof of good character
• A proper purpose for visiting
• Proof they plan to leave
• Proof of funds to cover stay in NZ ($1,000/mth), and departure
• Not have a serious criminal record

They still have to fill in a 16 page form. All this change is that having a platinum credit card is an acceptable substitute for a statement from an employer about what their earnings are.

Winston knows this of course, but can never resist an opportunity to scaremonger.

Stuff reports:

A 93-year-old woman living quietly in an Auckland rest home has been revealed as one of the bravest spies of World War Two.

On Tuesday Phyllis Latour Doyle – Pippa to her friends – will be bestowed with France’s highest decoration for what she did 70 years ago. …

She was parachuted into France to get information on German positions and on one mission, into Normandy, she played a crucial role in the D-Day landings. …

She first went into Aquitaine in Vichy France from 1942 and was dropped behind enemy lines under a new code name, Paulette, into the Calvados region of Normandy on May 1, 1944.

Aged 23, she had the identity of a poor 14-year-old French girl to make the Germans less suspicious. 

She used bicycles to tour the area, passing information through coded messages. …

She will receive her honour on Tuesday from French Ambassador Laurent Contini.

“I have deep admiration for her bravery and it will be with great honour that I will present her with the award of Chevalier de l’Ordre National de la Legion d’Honneur, France’s highest decoration,” the ambassador said.

Great to see her being honoured. I still think it was a huge mistake NZ never gave Nancy Wake an honour. I’m not sure if Pippa Doyle is a NZ citizen, but not too late for us to give her one also!

Stuff reports:

States Services Minister Paula Bennett says commissioner Iain Rennie retains her confidence, despite opposition calls for him to be stood down over his handling of a sexual harassment complaint against former Cera boss Roger Sutton. …

Labour leader Andrew Little has called for Rennie to be dumped.

“The idea that you arrange a press conference for a senior public servant, about whom a finding of serious misconduct has been made, it is such a lack of judgment that I think it goes to his fitness to do the job,” he said. “He [Rennie] should be stood down and an investigation be conducted into how he came to make that decision.”

Bennett has confirmed she sought “constant” assurances that the investigation was “thorough and professional”. “I have expressed to the state services commissioner that I am disappointed with the handling of Mr Sutton’s resignation last Monday, and he accepts that it should have been handled differently, that there are lessons he has learnt, and that there will never be a repeat.”

On the substantive matter, I’m not convinced (on the evidence to date) that Rennie’s actions have reached the threshold where the head of the state sector in NZ should resign. Yes he made the wrong call in allowing the press conference, but I think one needs to be careful about having state sector CEOS forced out due to political pressure. I would expect a removal to be justified only if there was an ongoing series of wrong calls on multiple issues, rather than one situation handled badly.

On the issue of process, the Government can’t actually simply sack the State Services Commissioner. he can only be sacked by way of resolution of the House of Representatives. S16 of the State Sector Act 1988 states they can only be suspended by the Governor-General for up to 21 days, and they resume their job unless House of Representatives declares by resolution they ought to be removed from office. This shows that the threshold for removal is set very high.

John Key has released the draft legislation that will go to the House on Tuesday. It will got to select committee very briefly, and then come back to the House to be passed before Christmas.

The four main measures are:

1. Extending the period the Minister of Internal Affairs can cancel a passport to up to three years from the existing law’s 12 months
2. Giving the Minister of Internal Affairs the power to temporarily suspend passports for up to 10 working days in urgent cases
3. Allowing the NZ Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) to carry out video surveillance on private properties for the purpose of observing activities of security concern, modelled on the Police’s powers in the Search and Surveillance Act
4. Allowing the NZSIS to conduct emergency surveillance for up to 48 hours prior to the issue of a warrant, with the approval of its Director and subject to the oversight of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security.

The first two proposals do not seem a big issue to me. They are just an extension to an existing power.

The third proposal is long overdue arguably, and just brings the SIS powers  in line with the Police.

It is the 4th proposal that I have problems with, and frankly I don’t think the case for it has been made to justify it.

The justification in the bill is that information may come to light that someone not previously identified as a risk is about to travel to a conflict zone, and in the hours it takes to get a warrant, intelligence may be lost and they leave NZ.

I don’t think that is justification enough. Even if someone does leave to go to a conflict zone, that isn’t the end of the world. I’d rather they didn’t, but this isn’t enough of a threat to justify emergency surveillance without a warrant.

I also think there is a danger in trying to cover off every sort of theoretical possibility. You can justify almost anything with hypothetical justifications. You can justify torture if it is to discover the location of a nuclear bomb that will kill 100,000 people. But how likely is it? The question I would ask the SIS is whether there has ever been a situation where something bad happened because they had to wait six to 12 hours to get a warrant? Not a hypothetical situation, but an actual situation?

The danger of emergency powers is that can become a lazy norm. Why bother getting a warrant, if we can take a quick look for 48 hours, and then see if we learn enough to justify a warrant application? Now I have considerable respect for the current SIS Director, but the law should not be about the person in charge, but the institution.

So at this stage I’m unconvinced the fourth part of the law is justified, and if an MP would vote to remove it, unless I got better justification for it.

However it is worth noting there are some safeguards proposed for the emergency surveillance power. They are:

• Only the Director can authorise
• A maximum of 48 hours
• Only when a delay is likely to lead to a loss of intelligence
• The Commissioner of Security Warrants (CSW) must be notified within 12 hours
• The CSW or the Minister can order the emergency surveillance to halt, once notified, if they do not think it meets the threshold
• The Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence must be notified asap and can investigate if an emergency authorisation was appropriate
• The SIS annual report must report how often an emergency surveillance was done
• Law change is temporary, until 2018

These are good safeguards, but again I don’t think the case has been made for the power. If I was an MP I’d want details of actual harm caused in the past by not having this power.

I, along with many others, have been critical of Roger Sutton for breaching the confidentiality around the complaints against him by a CERA staffer. The press conference was a very bad idea, as it allowed him to spin his side of what happened.

But if one is to criticise Sutton for breaching the agreed upon confidentiality, doesn’t that apply both ways? A number of stories make it very clear that either the complainant is anonymously briefing media, or someone is on their behalf.

Now don’t get me wrong – the complainant is the wronged party. But if one is to criticise Sutton for talking publicly, then doesn’t the same apply to the other party?

As an example of the obvious briefings to the media.

The Herald:

The woman, who is bound by a confidentiality clause, said she was driven to take a stand because of what she says was similar treatment of other women at the organisation.

Another Herald story:

Meanwhile, other sources say there were problems with measures the commission put in place to keep Mr Sutton and the complainant at a distance while the allegations were being investigated.

These meant that he occasionally worked from Cera branch offices in the city, allowing the woman to work at the organisation’s HSBC Tower headquarters. The arrangement meant the complainant was told where Mr Sutton would be, so the two could avoid running into each other.

However, NZME News Service has been told Mr Sutton allegedly didn’t always stick to the arrangements and there were times the complainant believed they were both in the same building at the same time.

While their paths never crossed, the complainant raised concerns with the commission that Mr Sutton’s actions meant it was a very real possibility, the source said.

And today in the SST:

I’m told Sutton’s victim feels unable to walk down the street in her home city.

Now the complainant herself may not be talking to the media, but she is obviously talking to people who are talking to the media on her behalf. All these stories relay information only known to the complainant.

Now again Sutton is the one who has done wrong, and the SSC also stuffed up majorly with their press conference. But I think the ongoing anonymous briefings to the media on behalf of the complainant is not appropriate either.  Having this issue become an extended campaign of anonymous briefings to the media from one side, may encourage the other “side” to respond. I don’t think that would be a good outcome for anyone.

And once again so no one misrepresents me, I think both Sutton and the SSC are the ones who stuffed up and were in the wrong. But that doesn’t mean that one can’t be critical of what appears to be an ongoing release of information through anonymous sources.

Stuff reports:

A supermarket boss told teenage checkout girls to fork out up to $700 when organised thieves walked off with full trolleys.

This sounds just as bad as the petrol station stories about making staff pay for drive offs, but there is a difference.

The mother of one of the Pak’nSave checkout girls said the company was “passing the buck” on to its least powerful workers. “Those sort of huge firms will just push you around and that’s just the way it is, they get away with it,” said the woman, who did not want to be named to protect her daughter from employment repercussions.

Her daughter, then 18, earned $13.75 and worked 10 to 30 hours a week. She was working with a colleague on one checkout early this year when two women approached with two trolleys. After the first, full of expensive goods, was scanned the first woman asked her to get her some eggs.

When she returned the woman was unloading the first trolley into a car as her accomplice prepared to pay the checkout operator for both trolleys – until her debit card was declined. “She said, I need to get another card from the car, then she went out and they took off with the first trolley. Cunning, eh?” said the worker’s mother.

The supermarket’s owner-operator Andrew Soutar insisted the teens were liable to split the cost of the theft, about $700, because they should have prevented it.

This is slightly different. The staff allowed the women to leave without paying. Yes they were conned, but there would be procedures such as don’t leave your till unattended, and don’t let someone leave unattended without leaving the unpaid groceries behind.

This is different to petrol stations where staff can’t actually do anything to prevent drive offs.

Now having said that, it’s still pretty heartless by the store owner. Rather than make the girls pay, I would give them a warning, tell them if they didn’t follow procedures in future then they may be liable, and use it as a training example for other staff on the sort of cons you can get.

The petrol station owners were probably breaking the law. The supermarket owner is not I would say, but I think they are lacking some compassion. It was a fairly sophisticated con, and you should allow people to learn from their mistakes. Having said that, it would be useful to know how explicit and detailed the policies and procedures were on what to do in these situations.

Stuff reports:

A year may have passed but the message is still the same. 

The second annual National Day of Action to Bust Rape Culture was held in Auckland and Wellington today.   

Organsier Jessie Hume and 200 other supporters turned out to the High Court in Auckland this afternoon to demand resolutions to an “endemic and devastating” rape culture. 

Hume said half of the supporters formed a circle with one donning red to represent the one in 100 women who receive justice in the form of accountability through the courts when making a rape complaint. 

It’s thought just ten per cent of sexual assaults are reported and only one per cent of those will lead to a conviction, according to the Ministry of Justice. 

I have great sympathy for the cause, but less sympathy for dodgy statistics.

The statistic on only 10% of sexual assaults are reported could well be true, sadly.  It comes from a 2001 report and anecdotal evidence from female (and some male) friends is that many have been assaulted and not reported it.

But the 1% figure is clearly wrong. Fairfax have written it in a way that states only 1% of those reported will lead to a conviction.

I blogged in 2009 on an excellent report by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs which reviewed 2,000 sexual violation complaints over a 30 month period.

They found 13% of complaints lead to a conviction, and of complaints deemed “valid”, 20% led to a conviction.

Not don’t get me wrong both figures are too low, and the story is right that we should have a higher conviction rate for valid complaints. But they are massively higher than 1%.

The research on what happens to complaints is interesting. The data is:

• 8% deemed “false” by Police
• 26% deemed “no offence” which usually means the victim withdrew the complaint. This doesn’t mean there was no offence, just that the complainant didn’t want to proceed.
• 11% did not have a suspect identified
• 24% did have a suspect identified but were not prosecuted. It was stated this is normally due to victim withdrawal, insufficient evidence or conflicting evidence
• 18% did lead to a prosecution but the person was found not guilty or the case dropped
• 13% were prosecuted and a person convicted

Of the 31% that went to trial, 16% had a guilty plea, 30% had the case withdrawn or discharged and 52% went to trial. The conviction rate for those that went to trial was 49% guilty and 51% acquitted.

The biggest factor is victim withdrawal – either initially, or before charges are laid or even charges are laid. This is not surprising as going forward can be extremely traumatizing.  This is where I think the focus should be – on having a less traumatic judicial process for victims. But I don’t support changing the burden of proof as proposed by Andrew Little.

Laila Harre said on The Nation yesterday that she is quitting as Leader of the Internet Party, and is no longer on the payroll. Dotcom’s $4.5 million has all been spent it seems.

While saying they mismanaged the last month, she seems to have a long list of others to blame, namely:

• Georgina Beyer
• The media
• Labour
• Greens
• The “right” attacking

A week after the election I blogged on why the Internet Party failed. What I put it down to was:

• Dotcom’s motives were not trusted with the $4,5 milion he out into it
• Laila was the wrong leader for it
• The Fuck John Key video backfired massively
• The Moment of Truth fiasco

The Herald on Sunday profiles Dotcom today.

Three years ago the mansion bustled with up to 50 employees but that is now believed to have dwindled to fewer than 10 people, including a butler, security men, kitchen staff and gardeners.

Having only 10 servants instead of 50. That must be very tough.

Introduction

Earlier this year the Fraser Institute from Canada who research and analyze public policy issues published an article about the optimum size of government. The article cites the research of Canadian economist Livio Di Matteo who has written a research paper on this topic (see end of this post for the web link).

The key question is at what point does increasing government spending actually hinder economic growth and progress on complex social issues?

Over the years, economists have measured the effect of the size of government on economic growth and social outcomes such as life expectancy, infant mortality, homicide rates, educational attainment, and student reading proficiency.

The source data used by Di Matteo was from the OECD.

Findings

The key findings were.

Di Matteo’s analysis confirms other work showing a positive return to economic growth and social progress when governments focus their spending on basic, needed services like the protection of property. But his findings also demonstrate that a tipping point exists at which more government hinders economic growth and fails to contribute to social progress in a meaningful way.

The big takeaway in Di Matteo’s paper is that government works best (ie. economic growth) when government spending is 26% of GDP.  For societal programs the optimum figure is 30-35%. Beyond this point the benefits of unchecked spending by governments on social programmes show less and less benefits. Di Matteo (page 86) cites increased government spending on programmes to reduce infant mortality rates at birth as a typical example.

US Federal Government spending was according to the OECD in 2012 40% of GDP. Also bear in mind the huge US pubic debt ($US18 trillion) is too high. By comparison as of 2014 New Zealand government spending is just under 36% of GDP.

According to the Fraser Institute Canada is an example of what can be achieved by reducing the size of government.

The federal and many provincial governments took sweeping action to cut spending and reform programs. This led to a major structural change in the government’s involvement in the Canadian economy. The Canadian reforms produced considerable fiscal savings, reduced the size and scope of government, created room for important tax reforms, and ultimately helped usher in a period of sustained economic growth and job creation.

This final point is worth emphasizing: Canada’s total government spending as a share of GDP fell from a peak of 53 percent in 1992 to 39 percent in 2007, and despite this more than one-quarter decline in the size of government, the economy grew, the job market expanded, and poverty rates fell dramatically.

It is of note that reducing government spending didn’t increase poverty rates in fact the opposite happened.

[UPDATE]: The Fraser Institute article mentions poverty in Canada. Note the article was written in March 2014 and as clearly stated are not discussing the most recent data and is talking about a specific period.

Conclusions

There are of course many debating points here but the challenge for economists and politicians is to better understand the specific effects of state spending. The mind-set should be that government spending be carefully monitored and not expanded unless there are concrete reasons to do so.

Sources

OECD Data

Measuring government in the 21st Century by Livio Di Matteo

World Bank