Another Treasury working paper finds:

Comparison of earnings patterns across foreign and domestically-owned firms shows a clear difference in average individual earnings. Workers in foreign-owned firms earn, on average, around 14 percent more than those in domestically-owned firms. This gap is primarily due to compositional differences, with observable worker and firm characteristics jointly explaining around 80 percent of the raw earnings gap, leaving a residual gap of between 2.7 and 3.5 percent for starting and ending wages respectively.

Workers who move into foreign-owned firms gain around a four percentage point higher wage increase than those moving between domestically-owned firms, of which around half appears to be due to differences in firm characteristics (eg, moves to larger firms and more highly paid regions or industries). Controlling for firm composition, a two percentage point premium remains. Finally, workers experience slightly higher wage growth during their tenure at a foreign-owned firm, which may reflect stronger human capital accumulation.

So he left stands for higher wages, yet they also oppose foreign investment. Do you see the contradiction.

And in case you argue the wage gap is because foreign owned firms are larger:

The foreign-ownership wage premium also varies across firms. It is highest in smaller firms, and in industries that tend to serve the domestic market, suggesting that foreign owners bring knowledge or networks that are of value to such firms and their employees.

So can we stop the fear campaign against foreign investment?

Wellington City Councillor Nicola Young has e-mailed out a report on her first year on Council. It’s a good summary of what she has done, and what she has opposed. I’d encourage other Councillors to do similar reports.

It’s one year since the voters of Lambton Ward elected me to the Wellington City Council. It‘s been an interesting year and I thought you might be interested in some of the things that have happened in the past 12 months. 

 Some of the big surprises were:

·                 The extent to which major issues are delegated to sub-committees with limited opportunity for the Council to intervene;
·                 The need to build shifting coalitions based on issues rather than left/right politics; and
·                 Councillors’ tendencies to make decisions without taking into account the full financial implications.

My committee responsibilities are:

Economic Growth & Arts;
Transport & Urban Development (with special responsibility for Central City Projects); and
Governance, Finance & Planning (a committee of all councillors).

Council life is often portrayed as a battle between the left and right; in practice, each issue brings about its own coalition of supporters so I have focused on building strong relationships to help me deliver on my promises and the projects that I value.

            1)            ‘Living Wage’: I led the fight against implementing this for the Council’s direct employees, because the Government is the main beneficiary; the most needy recipients would have their state benefits reduced.  We lost, but I’ve received a lot of positive feedback about my role as a new councillor leading this issue.  I note that the plan to roll out the so-called ‘living wage’ to council-controlled organisations and contractors has gone rather quiet; there now seems to be a better understanding of the real costs and lack of effect.

            2)            Bus Fares: Despite late (and tepid) support from fellow councillors, I won my fight with the Greater Wellington Regional Council over its proposed increase in bus fares, as passenger numbers are declining and Wellington’s fares are already the most expensive in New Zealand.  Affordable bus fares will encourage greater use of public transport, and (unlike the Living Wage) they’re a direct benefit to those on low incomes.

            3)            Island Bay Cycle Way: I opposed Stage One of the cycleway into the CBD, as the full cycle-way (the next three stages) have not yet been planned and there’s a real fiscal risk.  Already Stage One’s costs have increased from $1.3m to $1.9m. I organised a ‘Notice of Motion’ (supported by Southern Ward councillor, Paul Eagle) asking for the full Council to make the decision, rather than the Transport and Urban Design committee (which is top-heavy with Greens). Notices of Motion are rare, and even more unusual to be organised by a first year councillor; disappointingly, two councillors switched sides so we lost the Notice.

            4)            Building Numbers: I campaigned for the enforcement of the existing rules requiring that all buildings show street numbers.  Council officers have almost completed this work in the CBD – it’s particularly visible for anyone walking down Cuba Street!

            5)            Thorndon Village: Unrealistic expectations and local disagreements held back this planned upgrade for years. When chairing a meeting of residents and business owners, I made it clear it was the last chance to have any work done.  The work is now almost complete.

            6)            Erskine College & Chapel, Island Bay:  As a former head prefect, I know these buildings well so I re-ignited the campaign to save these wonderful buildings. A narrow special interest group (SECT) has been stalling the proposed strengthening and restoration, to the despair of the property owner.  I’m cautiously optimistic about the likely result and hope the owner can start the strengthening work in the New Year.

            7)            CBD Speed Limits: Council proposed making the official speed limit 30kph and spending $250,000 on signage,  when the mean speed is already 31kph. I led the successful charge to stop this money-wasting scheme.

            8)            Town Belt: During last year’s election campaign, I promised to protect this precious part of our city’s landscape. I voted against a proposal (led by Councillor Andy Foster and supported by the Mayor) to allow Council to sell pockets of this land and this lunacy was stopped.

            9)            Lane Upgrades: Inner city lanes can be a real feature, as seen in cities like Melbourne and London, so I campaigned for our lanes to be upgraded. Work will commence early next year on Mason’s Lane, Leeds, Eva and Bond streets; Cable Car Lane and Garratt Street may also be tackled.

     10)              CubaDupa: I campaigned for the return of the Cuba Street Carnival which brought enormous vitality to the central city. I am delighted about its successor ‘CubaDupa’, which will be held on March 28 & 29 next year. It’s being billed as “New Zealand’s biggest street party” and will offer something for all age groups.

We’re now one third of the way through the term. I am conscious of the need to ensure Council decisions have a positive cost benefit for ratepayers, and I will continue to oppose vanity projects. 

I love working for our city so I’m committed to getting things done, and I welcome hearing any ideas you may have for Wellington. Please don’t hesitate to contact me.

A good succinct report.

An interesting working paper by a couple of Treasury staff:

Results of the DiD analysis suggest the accumulation of net wealth by members of KiwiSaver was some $16,000 less than the comparable accumulation of non members.

Further, in an attempt to hold some of the other factors likely to affect net wealth accumulation constant, the DiD analysis was repeated by age, gender, education, income, wealth, partner and home ownership status. There was a positive effect in only five of the 28 cases examined. In three of these cases the estimated effect was small. In one case, however, the estimated effect was relatively large, at $20,000 in favour of KiwiSaver members. All other cases indicated KiwiSaver members’ accumulated less than nonmembers.

The DiD analysis only holds one factor constant at a time however. To address limitations of the DiD technique various fixed and random effect panel regression models are estimated in which changes in net wealth are related to many factors simultaneously. These include: KiwiSaver membership; income; net wealth; age; gender; partnership status; home and investment property ownership; ethnicity; if the respondent was born in New Zealand; education; labour force and health status. With four observations over time on assets and liabilities in SoFIE it is possible to measure three changes in net wealth for each of approximately 10,000 individuals. This provides nearly 30,000 observations for inclusion in each regression. 

The effect of KiwiSaver on net wealth accumulation is estimated to be negative in all model specifications examined, although the coefficient estimates are typically not statistically significant at conventional levels.

This is very significant. The evidence to date is that KiwiSaver has not increased the level of net wealth overall in NZ. It has merely transferred savings from one form of investment to another- but at a huge cost to the taxpayer in subsidies.

Labour say KiwiSaver must be compulsory, as if that magically will make everyone wealthier. It won’t. People are best left to make their own decisions about how to save.

Andrew Little now have a the tough job of nominating a Deputy Leader and allocating portfolios. The deputy role is especially challenging as the three best candidates for the job all don’t want it, and the candidate that does want it is not supported by caucus. Let’s go through the options.

Deputy Leader

Little’s best bet would be Jacinda Ardern. The last four leaders have been from Auckland, and as Little is a Wellingtonian, then a Aucklander as deputy is desirable. Ardern is their most high profile Auckland MP and very popular with the activists. The problem is she really doesn’t want it and was basically Grant Robertson’s campaign manager. On the downside a Little/Ardern ticket means List MPs hold both leadership roles.

Grant Robertson is another option. He has probably the best skill set of the caucus to be deputy, as a good deputy helps manage the caucus and the leader’s office. But again he has done it before and is not that keen on it.

David Parker has ruled it out.

Nanaia Mahuta desperately wants it. But her nomination would go down very badly in caucus.

So Little has to convince either Jacinda or Grant to take it, go with Mahuta or go for a less likely option such as Phil Twyford.

His best bet is to convince Jacinda to step up.

Finance

David Parker has ruled it out.

Appointing David Cunliffe would antagonise caucus massively.

He could go to a next generation MP such as David Clark or Stuart Nash. They would both get eaten alive by Bill English initially but by 2017 could be experienced and credible. This should be about projecting a vibrant future Government in 2017.

Another option being canvassed is Grant Robertson. I think this would be a mistake. Grant is a skilled politician but he has never worked a day in his life (well post study) in the private sector. I don’t think he has credibility in the finance portfolio, and I think Labour would struggle to reconnect with business if he has the job. That’s not doubting his intelligence and ability to articulate the key issues.

Education

Little should be bold and appoint Kelvin Davis as Education spokesperson and the next Minister. Hipkins has done a fine job for Labour in the area, but Davis is a star after beating Harawira, and has greater experience in the sector.

Health

Annette King is easily the best performing Labour MP. However she will not be Health Minister in the next Labour Government, so she should mentor someone new into the role. I’d move Hipkins into health, as he has a good ability to work an issue, and find pressure points. Lees-Galloway is keen on this, but has less caucus support.

I expect King to retire in 2017, and Little to become the MP for Rongotai (where he lives). She has resisted him taking the seat for some time, but now he is leader, he won’t be challenged for it.

Shadow Leader of the House

Robertson is the obvious choice to continue. May need a Deputy if he does take Foreign.

Attorney-General

Keep Parker on here.

Foreign Affairs

While Shearer is very credible here, I’d be tempted to put Robertson in here. He has a love for foreign policy and is a former diplomat.

Economic Development

Cunliffe an obvious choice. Clark and/or Nash could also play a role.

Maori Affairs

Mahuta by default

Social Development

Moroney has this currently. Not spectacular but solid so probably remain.

Front Bench

Robertson and Ardern are automatic as well as Little.

As he won with their support needs to have Mahuta and Cunliffe there, even though upset some.

Parker is looking to exit I’d say, so could keep him off, but for now probably need to retain him. So that is six.

For the other two or three I’d look at Hipkins, Twyford and Clark.

The Herald reports:

Lightbox, the internet-based television service launched by Spark this year, has welcomed the competition from United States online streaming giant Netflix, which aims to start up in New Zealand in March.

Lightbox says it is “confident” it has enough to offer that Netflix will not have.

Netflix, an online TV and movie website with 53 million customers worldwide, will directly compete with both Sky TV and Lightbox.

It will be good to have Netflix here officially. It gets a bit tiring pretending to be American so they will take your money!

It’s well known that Andrew Little hasn’t done well in New Plymouth as the candidate in 2011 and 2014. But how much has Labour lost support in this seat they used to hold? Here’s the change from 2008 to 2014.

• Party vote – dropped from 31.4% in 2008 to 21.2% in 2014 – a 10.3 percentage point drop
• Electorate vote – dropped from 47.9% in 2008 to 31.9% in 2014 – a 15.9 percentage point drop

By comparison Grant Robertson in Wellington Central increased his electorate vote from 42.2% in 2008 to 52.0% in 2014 – a 9.8 percentage point gain.

UPDATE: Russel Brown makes the point:

I’ll be brief (it’s 5am where I am and have to catch a plane) but the Labour’s leadership result and the means by which it was achieved both seem disastrous for the party and for the prospects of the centre-left.

Little didn’t win the support of the party or the caucus, he loses his electorate more badly every time he contests it, and he’s vowing to dump all the intellectual capital built up by David Parker. I can’t see any good thing about this.

Despite all that it is hard to win a 4th term. Little has a 40% chance or so of becoming Prime Minister, despite just four caucus votes for him.

Brown continues:

The result ends the leadership aspirations of Robertson, easily the best campaigner in the field, and pretty clearly lays waste to the coherent economic philosophy that Parker had been patiently building. I could be wrong, but for now I’m of the view that this result borders on tragedy for Labour.

The New York Times has a story on the latest terrorism statistics. They cite two studies which have researched the statistics for 2013.

Pointing to a geographic imbalance, the report by the nonprofit Institute for Economics and Peace said five countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria — accounted for four-fifths of the almost 18,000 fatalities attributed to terrorism last year. Iraq had the bloodiest record of all, with more than 6,300 fatalities.

This data will not surprise anyone. According to Vision of Humanity’s research these are the raw statistics.

• 17,958 people were killed in terrorist attacks last year, that’s 61% more than the previous year
• 82% of all deaths from terrorist attack occur in just 5 countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria.
• Last year terrorism was dominated by four groups: the Taliban, Boko Haram, ISIL, and al Qa’ida.
• More than 90% of all terrorist attacks occur in countries that have gross human rights violations.
• 40 times more people are killed by homicides than terrorist attacks.

The New York Times also states that in the four years starting in 2007, worldwide attempts to defeat terrorism only managed to achieve ‘modest decreases’.

Vision of Humanity cite the principal causes for terrorism

The three main factors associated with terrorism are state sponsored violence such as extra-judicial killings, group grievances and high levels of criminality. Poverty rates, levels of schools attendance and most economic factors have no association with terrorism. Most terrorist attacks use explosives; since 2000 only 5% were suicide attacks.

It is certain the 2014 terrorism statistics will be even worse.

[UPDATE]: Vision of Humanity uses the following definition of terrorism

The definition of terrorism used by the Global Terrorism Index is: “the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation”.

The ODT reports:

Prime Minister John Key says major companies such as Fonterra have been asked not to exploit the gap left by other countries’ trade sanctions on Russia because to do so would be a “terrible look” for New Zealand.

This raises the question why we haven’t imposed trade sanctions ourselves. It seems the answer is that we haven’t changed the law from from Labour had it, which was we can only impose sanctions if the UN agrees to them.

The problem is that Russia of course has a veto at the UN, so this means we allow our foreign policy to be subservient to their veto at the UN.

In most cases we would want to only do sanctions when the UN agrees to them. But as an independent country we should have the ability to impose them, even when there is no UN vote.

Labour approved at the last election 40 a rule that they have a gender quota for their list to try and ensure that in 2014 at least 45% of their caucus is female and for 2017 at least 50% is female.

They failed to correctly implement it, as in fact their proportion of woman from 43% to 38% this election. But think what would have happened if they had correctly implemented it. Instead of having 12 female MPs out of 32, they should have had 15. So what would this have meant on the list.

To comply Labour should have no male List MPs, which means no David Parker, Clayton Cosgrove and Andrew Little. They would be replaced by Maryan Street, Moana Mackey and Priyanca Radhakrishnan.

The key take out is that under Labour’s policy, Andrew Little should not be an MP. He is only there because they mis-calculated how much support they would get.

So does Andrew Little support retaining the gender quota, even though it means he should not have retained his list position?

This is a great example of how Labour has introduced barmy rules, but it seems no one is prepared to stand up and challenge them.

Labour have a rule which if correctly implemented would have seen their new leader not retain his seat in Parliament. Rational people would say “hey maybe we should reexamine that rule”.

I detest Islamists and the psychopaths that are flocking to ISIS as much as anyone. But I also deplore people who think they represent the majority of Muslims. They are a very significant threat, but treating every member of a religion as the same is stupid and goes against my beliefs of treating people as individuals.

News.com.au has a cool feature on four young Australian Muslims. They are:

• Delina Darusman-Gala, a fashion blogger
• Neslihan Kurtonal, a tattooed social worker
• Frida Deguise, a stand up comic
• Abi Moustafa, a TV content editor

I’d encourage people to read the article and consider the need to distinguish between Islamists and Muslims.

Andrew Geddis writes:

Labour just made the wrong choice, in the worst possible way.

Obviously, I think that the decision to choose Andrew Little over Grant Robertson was the wrong one however it came about … that’s because Grant is a good friend whom I think will one day make a fantastic Prime Minister of New Zealand. So Andrew Little could be the reincarnation of Jack Kennedy mixed with Bob Hawke by way of Michael Joseph Savage (which he most certainly isn’t) and I’d still be lamenting the Labour Party’s decision to appoint him leader ahead of Grant.

So let’s put aside my personal disappointment at the actual decision that Labour has made and instead look at how it has done so. Because it looks to me like it’s created an almighty cluster&*k.

Andrew explains:

First, Little beat Grant by just over 1% of the weighted votes cast. That’s about as close a margin of victory as you can get, achieved on the third round. So the overall mandate for Little’s leadership is … fragile, at best.

Second, Little lost heavily to Grant in both the Caucus and the Membership vote in every successive round of voting. Little was the first choice to be leader of only four of his colleagues (assuming he voted for himself, that is). Only 14 of 32 backed him as leader over Grant by their third choice – meaning 18 of 32 think Grant is a better person to lead them. And in respect of the membership vote, Little was consistently 10% behind Grant at each stage of the vote.

The thing that gave Little the edge, of course, was his support amongst “affiliates” – which means those unions that still retain membership ties with Labour.

Now, I’m not a knee-jerk anti-union person. I am, and always have been, a member of AUS and then the TEU. I served on the local branch committee for a while. I believe strongly in the need for collective organisation and action to protect the rights and interests of working people.

I also accept that the Labour Party has been (and to a degree remains) the political expression of that need. So I don’t have any sort of problem in principle with the union movement having some sort of guaranteed input into the process of selecting the leader of the Party. Plus, of course, its really only the Labour Party’s business how they do things.

But for all that, as a “concerned observer”, I think that the sight of the Labour Party leader being chosen almost purely because of lopsided support amongst the union organisations is a terrible,terrible one for it.

They have a leader rejected by his colleagues and the party members, but there due to the union vote.

It’s not that 75% of the individual members of all the affiliated unions think Little is a better leader than Grant. It’s instead that 75% of those people that each union allowed to decide the issue plumped for Little ahead of Grant. People who, in the case of (say) the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, basically were told by their leaders that they should vote for the guy who used to be their boss. 

Only one of the six unions allowed their members to vote. The other five had the bosses cast the votes for them. A few score union bosses got to decide the labour party leadership over the wishes of the caucus and the party members.

Try to imagine if the National Party had a leader who had the support of only four of his colleagues. It’s so ridiculous that you can’t even imagine it.

But then imagine if the National Party had a leadership system where the Auckland Chamber of Commerce Board got say 7% of the vote, the Wellington Employers Association Council got 5%, the Federated Farmers Executive got 6% and those three employer and industry groups got to determine the National Party leadership over the wishes of the caucus and/or the membership?

Here’s the real problem for Labour. In a rational party, some senior members or activists would be speaking up and saying “hey our rules have led to us having a leader who failed to win a majority of support from either the caucus or the members, this is a bad look, so we should review the rules”. But no one dares say this in public, even though they are saying it in private.

The Herald reported:

A former Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority worker has blasted the official investigation into accusations of sexual harassment by former chief executive Roger Sutton as “incompetent”. …

Former communications adviser Tina Nixon questioned whether “people really think that a hug was what it was all about”. …

“No woman in the public service should currently feel confident that any complaint would be investigated professionally and without bias,” said Ms Nixon, who left Cera earlier this year to become economic development programme manager at Masterton District Council.

Cera operated the most “robust environment” she had experienced, in having worked in “half dozen or so” government departments.

Therefore, she said people needed to “get past the breathtaking PR snow job”.

The woman at the centre of the incident had done more for the post-earthquake Christchurch community “than many people I know”, Ms Nixon said. …

I know Tina Nixon well. She’s a friend. Tina is no sensitive 1970s feminist petal. She’s a tough as boots battler who kills mutton birds the old fashioned way by biting their necks. If Tina says that there was far more to this than the odd hug, she is worth listening to when she says the press conference was a “breathtaking PR snow job”

Andrea Vance wrote yesterday:

Gosh. Wasn’t that all a silly misunderstanding over dear old, affectionate Roger Sutton yesterday? Lost his job over a couple of hugs and a few off-colour remarks.

It’s a shame really. On Thursday, Roger was going to speak at a construction industry event in Christchurch called “How to attract women to your jobs”. He’ll probably have to give it a miss now.

Thankfully, those decent chaps at the State Services Commission (SSC) have got his back.

In a year when the public service should be self-flagellating over the mishandling of the Malaysian diplomat sexual assault case and the Roastbusters scandal, the SSC has taken victim-shaming to a whole new level.

Sutton’s victim did not make her complaint lightly. She’s respected, professional (not that this matters) and, like any woman forced into this nightmare, would have worried about her career. But, she bravely made a stand and forced her harasser to face up to his actions.

And how did the SSC reward her for her courage? They allowed her to be victim-shamed. First privately. And then very publicly.

First, she was sent home to work. Sutton remained in his job at the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority offices for the course of an eight-week investigation.

Her complaint was upheld. But the SSC did not deem it serious enough for Sutton to be sacked.

I can’t describe the nature of the complaints. But, as described to me, behaviour of that nature is sexist, humiliating, demeaning and an assertion of power over the victim.

I think Andrea makes some valid points. It seems what went on was more serious than was portrayed at the press conference, and allowing Sutton to spin his version of what happened was unfair to the complainant.

My view has been that it would have been preferable for the complainant to raise the issues internally with a deputy Secretary and/or HR manager and have them talk to Sutton and tell him that his style is making some staff feel uncomfortable. And then only if no change, elevate it up to the SSC. While I don’t know the full process of what happened, it seems that these issues are long standing and that there were attempts internally to raise concerns.

The Press has some more details:

The Press has obtained details of the complaint from a source that describes the nature of Sutton’s alleged impropriety.

They include: 

– Suggesting to young female staff that they participate in “visible G-string Friday”.

– Unwanted, body-press hugs.

– Asking the complainant whom she considered to be “hot” and “sexy” and who she would like to have sex with.

– Calling female staff members “honey” and “sweetie”.

A public sector CEO should not be behaving like that. It does create a hostile work environment for female staff.

The Press has seen details provided by another Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera) employee as part of the SSC investigation into Sutton.

This alleges:

– Sutton made a sexually suggestive comment about Prime Minister John Key’s wife, Bronagh, in the presence of the chief executive of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Andrew Kibblewhite.

That’s rather stupid!

A friend of the complainant yesterday released a statement expressing concern that Sutton’s show of contrition had allowed him to downplay his actions.

“The unfairness of this is just wrong. She has followed all the rules, kept quiet and maintained her dignity, yet the other side gets to play the sympathy card and laud it over her.

“Someone needs to speak for her before any more damage is done and victims everywhere decide there is no point fighting the big man’s system.

“It has torn her up – she loves her job at Cera.”

The press conference was a very bad idea, as it allowed Sutton to frame the issue on his terms.

Meanwhile, State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie yesterday confirmed he was considering sanctions against Sutton for breaching confidentiality. …

Rennie would not discuss the allegations yesterday, saying he was bound by confidentiality clauses, as were Sutton and the complainant.

He believed Sutton had breached the agreement by divulging details of the case at Monday’s press conference and had told him so.

Last night, Rennie said he was considering what action to take against Sutton.

Wouldn’t it have been a good idea and somewhat competent to work out before hand what would be said at the press conference?

Stuff reports:

Parliament’s Speaker David Carter has proposed a new prayer to be read at the opening of the parliamentary day.

He is asking MPs for their feedback on the prayer which could replace the existing one adopted in 1962.

I personally don’t think Parliament as an institution should have a prayer. Religious belief is a personal decision, not an institutional one. MPs who wish to offer a prayer should be able to do so as they see fit, but my preference would be that there be no official prayer led off by the Speaker as this jars with being a secular country.

The existing prayer is:

Almighty God,

Humbly acknowledging our need for Thy guidance in all things, and laying aside all private and personal interests, we beseech Thee to grant that we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country to the glory of Thy holy name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen, and the public welfare, peace, and tranquillity of New Zealand, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The proposed new prayer is:

E te Atua Kaha Rawa (Almighty God)

Ka whakamanawa taua hunga katoa kua riro atu i mua i a tatau – moe mai okioki (We honour those who have gone before us – rest, slumber on.) We recognise the mana whenua, Te Ati Aawa, the kaitiaki of this region, Te Upoko-o-Te-Ika-a-Maui.

We acknowledge the need for guidance and lay aside all private and personal interests so that we may conduct the affairs of this House for the maintenance of justice, the honour of the Queen and the public welfare, peace, and tranquillity of New Zealand.

Amine (Amen).

The proposed new prayer is superior in that it is no longer explicitly a Christian prayer. If there is to be a prayer, it should be a prayer all MPs with religious beliefs are comfortable with participating in.

But on the downside, I don’t think a prayer to God is the appropriate forum to talk about recognising the local Iwi. Also this is the Parliament of New Zealand, not the Parliament of Wellington, so the reference is inappropriate.

Someone asked me what would the result of the Labour leadership election if the unions bosses didn’t have 20% of the vote. This is pretty easy to calculate as you weight the caucus and the members 50% each. If the union bosses (barely 100 bosses vote in five of the six unions) did not get 20%, the results would have been:

1. Round 1 – Robertson 41.0%, Parker 22.2%, Little 20.7%, Mahuta 16.2%
2. Round 2 – Robertson 42.4%, Little 34.2%, Parker 23.4%
3. Round 3 – Robertson 55.7%, Little 44.3%

So without the unions Little would have been third on first preferences and easily lost to Robertson in the third round.

The Herald reports:

Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom will face tougher new bail conditions and make a daily visit to the police for at least the next week.

The restrictions – imposed yesterday by Judge Nevin Dawson – ban him from using a helicopter, travelling by boat or going more than 80km from his rented Coatesville mansion.

Dotcom, who is fighting extradition to the United States, must also report daily to the Albany police station.

The new conditions are in place only until next Monday, when Dotcom will appear for a bail hearing in the Auckland District Court.

The restrictions follow Crown lawyer Christine Gordon yesterday making an allegation that the Herald is not permitted to publish.

Fascinating. It is unusual to have more stringent bail conditions applied. Normally, bail conditions lessen over time.

Before the issue of bail, Judge Dawson gave Dotcom’s former lawyers – Queen’s Counsel Paul Davison and firm Simpson Grierson – leave to withdraw from the case.

Simpson Grierson have not just withdrawn but deleted all mention of Dotcom from their website – including editing previous published newsletters.

Would be interesting to know why they withdrew? Have they not been paid? Or is it for professional reasons?

Mr Davison did not disclose to the court why he was stepping down and said the reasons were “private and confidential”.

Wellington barrister Graeme Edgeler acted for Dotcom in court yesterday after the lawyers withdrew. Fletcher Pilditch, representing accused Finn Batato, was also given leave to withdraw as the lawyer for that defendant.

I suspect Graeme costs a bit less than a QC! But that may not be the reason.

We also might get a decision at some stage soon in the John Banks appeal, where allegedly new witnesses have contradicted the evidence given by Dotcom.

NBR reports:

If you were Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, you would need and expect the smartest kid on the block for your research and she had that with Max Harris, a Wellingtonian Rhodes Scholar, graduate from Auckland University who has just won what has been called the ‘hardest exam in the world’.

The exam is the Prize Fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford University, which is undoubtedly one of the world’s most prestigious academic awards.  Auckland University Dean Andrew Stockley says it is an “incredible opportunity” and Max, who a correspondent says is not only super smart but a “really nice nerd,” is interested in indigenous issues, prison policy and plays sport badly, he says.  A young man to watch, without question. 

That’s a very impressive achievement.

In terms of his future, I named him in 2012 as a future Attorney-General for Labour.

Andrew Little has been elected leader, but with the support of only four of his colleagues. That’s half the support David Cunliffe managed!

Full results are here.

Here’s how it went each round

Caucus

• Round 1 – Robertson 14, Parker 7, Mahuta 6, Little 5
• Round 2 – Robertson 14, Parker 7, Little 11
• Round 3 – Robertson 18, Little 14

Members

• Round 1 – Robertson 38%, Parker 22%, Mahuta 14%, Little 26%
• Round 2 – Robertson 41%, Parker 25%, Little 34%
• Round 3 – Robertson 55%, Little 45%

Unions

• Round 1 – Robertson 19%, Parker 7%, Mahuta 10%, Little 64%
• Round 2 – Robertson 20%, Parker 9%, Little 71%
• Round 3 – Robertson 24%, Little 76%

Overall Little beat Robertson by 50.5% to 49.5%. This is a disaster of a result for Labour. Not in terms of Andrew winning, but the way the votes split. The takeouts are:

1. The new leader was the first choice of only four of his colleagues!!
2. The new leader wasn’t the preferred choice of the members, barely beating David Parker
3. The new leader is only there because of the bloc union vote
4. More Labour MPs thought Nanaia Mahuta would be a better leader than Andrew Little
5. If only two (or at the most three) faceless EPMU delegates had voted Robertson instead of Little, then Robertson would have been leader

Andrew has the personal ability to do well, but this result makes it much harder for him. To only have four of your colleagues vote for you makes the job of convincing the public to vote for you much harder.

UPDATE:

• Grant Robertson has said he will never seek the leadership again. However his statement is not a Shermanesque one which leaves wriggle room in future. I think his statement is premature. If he had lost the members vote it would be justified, but Grant was the popular choice of both the members and caucus and if Little fails, he is the logical sucessor.
• David Parker has said he will refuse the Deputy and Finance portfolios. He says no plans to leave Parliament but I predict he will be gone by 2016.
• Little will either make Cunliffe Finance spokesperson (which will make him even less popular with his colleagues) or go to Nash or Clark in the next generation
• Names being bandied for deputy are Mahuta, Sepuloni, Robertson and Ardern

The Herald reports:

A complaint has been lodged with police against a former politician who tweeted the name of a prominent Otago man who has permanent name suppression.

The man’s lawyer, Jonathan Eaton, QC, confirmed to the Otago Daily Times a “formal complaint was lodged with the NZ police last evening”.

That complaint related to a tweet by a former politician who named the man on Twitter.

The Herald have not named the former politician. It is not hard to guess though. I’m interested in where liability may lie if you do name the former politician who tweeted. Think through these scenarios.

1. If I retweeted the tweet naming the prominent Otago man, then that would very likely mean I breached the supression order also
2. If I did not retweet it, but provided a link on my blog to the tweet, would that make me liable? Probably.
3. What if I do not link to the specific tweet, but did link to the twitter account. Would I be liable? Less clear cut.
4. And what if I named the former politician who tweeted, but did not link to his twitter account. Is simply naming him something that could make me liable? I would hope not, but like the Herald won’t risk it.

The former politician still has the tweets up, and has repeated the name in a subsequent tweet, so I don’t think he cares if he gets prosecuted. Hard to imagine he won’t be, as the breach is deliberate and sustained. I have sympathy for what he did as I think name suppression should not have been granted, but think it is unwise for anyone to deliberately breach a legal order.

Any commenter who names (or hints at identity) of the tweeter (or the supressed) will get a strike.

The Herald reports:

Yesterday Prime Minister John Key told reporters a wide-ranging inquiry would be launched into the matter.

He said there were many unanswered questions around the incident including “quite delicate issues around data-sharing”.

The inquiry would cover whether someone who was incarcerated for a serious crime, like Smith, should be able to be on short-term release without electronic tracking, he said.

I wonder if it is time for us to follow other countries and have a unique identifier for every resident and citizen. That way one can have 100% confidence when checking the passport application against the prisoner database that someone is eligible or ineligible.

There are risks with a unique identifier. you don’t want the IRD staffer able to access your online health records for example, and a unique identifier can increase risks of unauthorised access. But I think it is worth debating if the pros outweigh the cons.

The Herald reports:

Cabinet Minister Gerry Brownlee has been fined $2000 over an airport security breach.

Two parliamentary aides who were with Mr Brownlee at the time were given formal warnings.

The Civil Aviation Authority launched an inquiry following an incident at Christchurch Airport before the election, when the then Transport Minister and two of his staff deliberately bypassed airport security in order to catch a flight.

Civil Aviation Authority director Graeme Harris said today: “The subjects of this investigation are now fully aware of the importance of abiding by airport security rules, and the consequences of breaching these. ]

“The publicity surrounding the incident should also act as a warning to the travelling public that any airport security breaches are taken very seriously by the CAA.”

This is a good outcome. It shows that Ministers are not above the law.

If there had been no penalty for the incident, there would be potential ongoing resentment over the perception that Ministers can bypass security checks. But a fairly significant fine will satisfy most people that this is not the case.

Having been fined, it would not probably be tenable for Brownlee to have continued as Transport Minister. But as this portfolio went to Bridges after the election anyway, the issue is not now at an end I’d say.

Geordie Hooft writes in The Press:

Over 90 per cent of tax revenue is collected from personal income tax, company tax, and GST. Due to the broad application of GST, New Zealand’s GST collections are around 10 per cent of GDP – the highest in the OECD, even though we have the sixth-lowest rate.

Similarly, the amount of tax collected from individuals as a percentage of GDP is the sixth highest in the OECD, even though we have the seventh lowest top personal tax rate (currently 33 per cent).

Some on the left moan that our top tax rate is only 33% and demand the rich be punished more. But unlike most countries we have very few exemptions, and the broad base means that actually wealthy individuals are paying just as much tax if not more than many richer people overseas.