The Thorndon Bubble

The end of an era

2008-01-23T10:41:00.000+13:00

The Thorndon Bubble is leaving blogspot, and moving to it’s new site at http://www.thorndonbubble.org. I will leave the old website up for a few days until I delete it permanently. I have imported the posts from the old site, so you won’t lose anything (important for those who are using aggregators to compile blog posts), although i wonder how many people still link to this old site.

When I think about when I set up the first blog, it was always my intention to expand the website, and I knew that meant leving the blogspot nest and setting up my own website eventually. I hope that you all find the website useful and informative, but more importantly, I hope you stick around.

The Bubble hits the airwaves

2007-03-12T20:13:00.000+13:00

Well to be honest, Geoff Hayward is. I'll be on the new VBC station (88.3FM) every Tuesday morning from 10 - 10.30 am. Topics will be around three major headings: Campus, National and International political topics.

So, Tune in to the VBC tommorrow.

2007 Treaty Debate Series at Te Papa

2007-01-11T14:35:00.000+13:00

6.30-8.00pm. Soundings Theatre, Level 2, Te Papa Tongarewa.
Free entry.

Thursday 1 February: Fishing for answers - Māori and the Fisheries

In the three decades since the widening of the Waitangi Tribunal's powers to investigate historic claims we have heard the contemporary meaning of Article 2 of the Treaty debated extensively, culminating, in part, in the passing of the Maori Fisheries Act in September 2004. What does this development mean for Maori commercial fishing and the future relationship of Māori and Pākehā with the sea?

Thursday 8 February: The Big Picture - Where is the Treaty?
The term 'living document' has become synonymous with the Treaty of Waitangi in this country, with its three short articles being debated in contexts their original signatories could never have imagined. With so much interpretation and analysis, will the original intentions of this document remain, and does it have a place in the multicultural society of our future?

After attending last year's series, I highly recommend going. Details on the speakers are here.

The Dom on the money with political apathy

2007-01-08T15:32:00.000+13:00

From today's editorial:

"In a settled democracy like this, voters rarely take their right to vote seriously. It is usually only when their little world is on the verge of being up-ended that they get involved. By then, it can be too late, leaving unrealistic expectations and over-the-top invective in its wake. But, if residents and ratepayers want a city, district or region that allows easy living and creates a healthy, wealthy local economy, they need to be prepared to shrug off their apathy. Posting a ballot paper to local voting officials every three years is just not enough."

Decisions are made by those who show up. Although I don't know about a wealhty local economy (maybe it's the socialist in me)

Australian Universities beat NZ at level of investment

2007-01-04T11:11:00.000+13:00

And yet somehow, I am not surprised by the report. In fact, the only surprise I have is the opinion I share with the NZVCC with the need for the Government to take University investment seriously. The level of investment, particularly building depth in existing programmes is something I am in favour of, and recent reforms have only hinted at it.

The rhetoric supports “economic transformation”. This transformation requires a commitment to fresh, new ideas, nurtured in high quality research institutions like universities.

But of more importance is the challenge to improving the quality of research and courses within the university. Even the argument “it’s not how much we spend, it’s where we spend it” does not hold water: eventually a severe lack of investment will lower the overall quality of university study. It is time to stop the rot, and give students, current and future, an assurance that the government will be as diligent to improving our universities, as students are in improving their grades. When buildings crumble, so will test scores, and who will take the blame for that?

Midterms: my breakdowns

2006-11-09T09:23:00.000+13:00

In August, I stated a number of midterm election races that were ones to watch. So, with nearly all of the results in, I thought I should go through and see how they went.

Gubernatorial

Michigan(Is it the AMWAY?)

It wasn't AMWAY's day: Gramholm securing her second term, beating Dick DeVos. Expect to see her star rise in future years.

California (Can Westley terminate the Governator?)

Perhaps the most dissapointing of races, Schwarzenegger getting home in a canter. But it is perhpas the first time an incumbant has been able to win on (for the most part) 'green' issues...food for thought in later elections, even in NZ.

Senate

Connecticut (A Three Way Dance)

This one as well failed to live up to expectations. Lieberman winning the only race that mattered, after losing the DNC nomination. Still, he has vowed to work within the Democrat caucus, which could be seen as an olive branch to his former party, or an attempt to consolidate his position and shut down notions of a repeat in 2012, or it could be that he just could not take the leap to the GOP.

Missouri (History never repeats)

Well, it did, but not for Talent. This was a barn burner, with the result being close, and a campaign that was muddied with the state referendum on stem cells and the appearance of actor Michael J. Fox, and the controversial comments of Radio Talk show host Rush Limbaugh in response. In the end, McCaskill picking up the swing state.

Rhode Island (it’s all about the electoral math, stupid!)

A bittersweet victory for the Democrats, with Lincon Chafee, one of the most liberal republicans losing his seat, means that the Republican's caucus will be even more on the periphery than before. Bipartisanship just got a bit harder. Unsurprisingly Sheldon Whitehouse won the primary and the Senate election by seven points.

New Jersey (No One Likes Anyone in the Garden State)

Seen by some analysts as a referendum on State Governor (and former Senator) Jon Corzine, this eventually was superseeded with the states dislike for the President's performance, Robert Menendez being elected for a full term (he served the remaining year of Corzine's term)beating the republican candidate, Thomas Kean, Jr by 8%.

House

Arizona 8 (Kolbe’s out, who’s in?)

This race lived up to it's expectation. Gabrielle Giffords won over a number of challenges for the blue ticket in a marginally red state, going up against Randy Graf (who narrowly lost to the outgoing Jim Kolbe in the 2004 republican primary). Giffords easily beat Graf in the election, replacing the retiring Jim Kolbe, who again, a quite liberal republican (Kolbe is also an openly gay republican) and so the victory is bittersweet for bipartisanship.

Florida 22 (Unlucky 13?)

Another big win for the Democrats, removing stalwart Clay Shaw, a 12 term congressman. Shaw had perhpas his toughest rival in Rob Klein. Klein, who had the weight of the DNC behind him, strong credentials as a fundrasier, and Shaw's own controversies (Shaw had been criticized for refusing to return $30,000 in campaign contributions from ARMPAC: the organisation at the centre of the Tom DeLay scandal)in the end took the state away from the Republicans, in a blue district.

Indiana 8 (The bloody eighth!)

With its long history of incumbents being ousted, this did not dissapoint, with John Hostettler beaten comprehensively by Brad Ellsworth. Hostettler was unable to claw back his dismal popularity (in October they were in the 30-40% range), in spite of his history of wining tough re-elections.

Iowa 1 (Watch the signs)

In a battleground state like Iowa, any race is a useful indicator for the 2008 Presidential Elections. The blue state (although Jim Nussle, a Republican held the seat for 16 years), picked Democrat Bruce Braley over Republican Mike Whalen.

Illinois 8 (The empire strikes back)

Democrat Melissa Bean will be returning for a seond term, consolidating her 2004 win, with 51% of the vote, but well ahead of her major rival, David McSweeney.

Ohio 18 (another Ambroff casualty?)

Robert Ney's involvement in the Abramoff' scandal has cost his party this seat. Zack Space, a suprise winner of the democrat primary, beat Joy Padgett (who also won a tough primary). The result, a 30 point win to Space in a typically red state, is a real slap in the face to the GOP.

Pennsylvania 6 (Run to the hills)

Jim Gerlach repeated his 2004 win against Lois Murphy, right down to the 51% to 49% margin, his tactic of distancing himself from fellow republicans State Senator Rick Santorum (who lost his senate seat) and President Bush paid off...but only just.

Texas 22 (You reap what you sow)

This one will be put into a trophy and hung in the offices of the DNC headquarters. In a seat that only the Republicans could lose, they followed though with aplomb. Because of Tom Delay's bumbling, there was no Republican on the voter form, and the Republicans messing up their campaign for a “write in candidate” (which was expected to be local mayor David Wallace but the party went with Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, creating disunity within the local party apparatus), Nick Lampson won back part of his old district (that DeLay acquired in the 2003 redistricting) as well as his nemisis' seat. Vengance.

An animated version of the midterm results is avaliable here

Why?

2006-11-09T09:20:00.000+13:00

Labour scraps environmentally friendly school

Humour - Politicians Sweep Midterms

2006-11-09T09:13:00.000+13:00

From The Onion

(Hat Tip Aucklander at Large)

Rumsfeld's fall...wrangling the news cycle

2006-11-09T08:28:00.000+13:00

The media is reporting that Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld has quit. Considering that Democrats including newly elected Senator for Missouri Clare McCaskill had demanded for his resignation, was his departure not just a sacrifice for the appeasement of what looks to be a Democrat dominated Congress but a strategy to wrench the media cycle away from the Democrats. The shock annoucement certainly suggests that they pushed the annoucement...even more so when President GW Bush gave his support in Rumsfeld only days earlier.

Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill defeated at second reading

2006-11-09T07:32:00.000+13:00

And how so!

The vote was anticlimactic, with a 23 vote blow-out. The media specualtion that the vote would be too close to call was in the end unfounded. The NZH has the voting list. I think that the Government's proposed review would have swayed a few to vote no, but this was no sideswipe. It is also the course which might actually bring to light the issues of under enforcement and low resources devoted to education on promoting safer drinking. I don't think that the bill's defeat last night is a success for surmounting New Zealand's drinking culture, but it is a blow for harshly thought out, knee-jerk legislative responses.

I think that the efforts of a united political youth, as part of the “Keep it 18” campaign should be congratulated. They worked very hard and the bill’s defeat should serve as a big pat on the back. I hope that the movement continues to work for more education and enforcement, protecting at risk youth.

PS: The Select Committee report for the defeated bill is here

Kerry's bushism and a hidden truth

2006-11-02T08:24:00.000+13:00

Remember 2004? Remember when people waxed lyrical about Democratic Candidate John Kerry’s ability to speak with confidence and quality, well if there was a time where this bubble burst, you could not pick a worse time (apart from his own doomed presidential race) to step all over himself.

Kerry’s statement below could be as disastrous to the DNC as OBL’s video release in the days up to the 2004 race:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Is this a big deal…well it’s hard to say. Certainly with all the negative campaign advertising in all the senate, congressional and gubernatorial races (I have heard of a four to one ratio of spending on negative to positive ads), the muck raking would eventually reach the free media.

Kerry stepped all over the joke. I see how the joke could have worked, but it’s a bushism to be sure. The problem is that its timing was misplaced. It’s no wonder Kerry is not stumping for others in the few days left before the midterm elections.

But his comments belie a truth, which perhaps their republican opponents may have missed. The US military is a volunteer military. But I would not be surprised to see if that if you had a higher family income, you are more likely to go to college than the military. Likewise, I would not be surprised if you have a higher SAT score, then you will be more likely to go to college than the military.

But let’s also acknowledge that many people join the military in spite of the opportunities afforded them. There are intelligent people in any army, but to presume that the armed forces are a microcosm of the wider American nation is a misnomer. And we should not expect it to be. When have armies been directly proportional to the public? Never! Maybe the Spartans or the Russians in the Second World War. A military career is, has and always will be a one that is available to almost all, but is not desirable to all.

Don’t whinge, get a positive frame!

2006-11-02T07:30:00.000+13:00

I don’t think that Wellington Airport will ever disclose their reasons as to why they refused to place a billboard paid by the National party attacking the Prime Ministers numerous scandals. Which is a real disappointment, because some insight may be useful for National.

I have noticed a trend by National over the past year, to overstep the mark. They have been able to put the PM and the Government on the ropes, but then they go just a little too far and the public blasts back. While I cannot presume why this is continually happening, I wonder if National needs a new political strategist that can read the wind change.

I like to think that the airports decision was one of their disappointment with the over-reaction by National’s advertising campaigns. On TV3 news, they were able to find 3 “people on the street”, all of which were ambivalent or annoyed with the style of negative campaigning. I’m sure that had they picked people off the street in Clutha or Tamaki, they might find a different response. But I do think that the public has a low tolerance for muck raking, especially over old news. It makes you wonder if they even put these banners through a focus group.

What made things worse was according to TV3 National’s “whinging” over the airport’s refusal, and categorising the fear that the Government will retaliate is not just specious, it is ridiculous. I don’t think Auckland or Christchurch airports are worried about their position.

If we looked at this as any other company putting up advertising space on their property, we can see that in the end, it is at the discretion of the owner as to what goes up on their hoarding space. I not saying that telecom wouldn’t put up a hoarding from Labour praising the unbundling of the local loop, but they have that discretion. Discretion seems to be something that National does not understand at the moment.

So, could National have tried something different? Could it suggest something more positive? The answer is yes. Had the billboards pushed the party’s Blue-Green policy, it certainly could shift to the positive frame, tacitly attacked the government for their as yet absent policy, and got people thinking about an issue that will have a direct impact on their lives, or at the very least a tangible one.

National is stumbling over itself to win, and if it does win in 2008 with this strategy, it will be more because of luck than guile.

PS: With the Stern Report, the Blue-Green banner, would have been a master stroke, publicising National's opportunity for discussion in line with the dominance of the report in the media cycle would be a master stroke. What a pity it did not happen.

Geoff Hayward, VUWSA President

2006-10-05T09:32:00.000+13:00

While the Thorndon Bubble (and it's authors) do not engage in self-promotion (that is done elsewhere);

Congratulations to Geoff who was elected 2007 President of the Victoria University Students' Association.

Hypocrites!

2006-09-15T09:52:00.000+12:00

I was going to write a piece on this. Luckily, Russell Brown made the call:

"But I wasn't terribly impressed with National's Judith Collins tearfully accusing Mallard and Benson Pope of dragging Parliament into the gutter on Morning Report today. It was Collins, you may recall, who smirkingly implied that Benson Pope was a "pervert" in the House, probably beginning the current descent."

More information is available, courtesy of the NZH.

Here is part of a piece that will feature in next Monday's Salient:

For those MPs who would attack any others integrity external to their job, I can only say that you are scum. And we have seen a lot of it, even recently, for example the David Benson-Pope (Labour, Dunedin South) scandal. While National’s main attack, and the reason why this stuck around a long time, was the issue of misleading (lying) to the House, there was always at the bottom of all this, the character assassination of Benson-Pope by political opponents. In fact the question that he had apparently lied to was challenging his integrity as a Minister while trying to prevent student bullying (Thanks Judith Collins (National, Clevedon) and Rodney Hide (ACT, Epsom)...The TV footage of Trevor Mallard (Labour, Hutt South), retorting “…speaking of affairs!” which stunned Brash from answering his question is like finding evidence that Nostradamus had predicted something 9/11 after it happened. But it’s hard not to see now what he was alluding too, and that’s walking down the same dark path as his fellow colleagues in the House.

[You can add Benson-Pope's retorts to the list as well]

Let’s be clear here. There’s no evidence that Brash has had an affair (although a lot of rumour), and likewise, no evidence that these allegations have come from the recently resurfaced Brash emails (or for that matter, a co-ordinated campaign by Labour). But allegations are all you need in politics, like the old saying goes “never let the truth get in the way of a good story” and this story is tasty pulp for the printer. And it will be interesting to see how this all pans out."

Good, but you aren't the ones to say it

2006-09-12T08:30:00.000+12:00

It's rare when I agree with the editorial staff of the Dominion Post, but today's Editorial gets it right: wlefare system is still failing people, although solutions are hard to come by.

The problem is, it isn't the Dominion Post that has to say this, and not even the Government...it's the people who are apprently "abusing" the system.

Section 59 Policy Impact Night

2006-09-11T06:49:00.000+12:00

Policy Impact Evening: Repeal of Section 59

Wednesday 20th September, 6pm

Hunter Lounge

Level 2, Student Union Building,

Victoria University of Wellington

Parliament is deciding whether to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act. What
does this mean? How will this effect yourself and others? Is repeal the
solution?

Hear from a range of Academics and NGO representatives on the issues
surrounding repeal, including:

Professor Bill Atkin (School of Law, Victoria University)

David Kenkel(UNICEF New Zealand)

Dr Jan Pryor (Roy Mackenzie Centre for the Study of Families)

Mike Coleman (Barnados New Zealand)

Dr Sandra Grey (Social Policy, Victoria University)

Liz Moore (PhD student in Criminology, Victoria University)

Steven Gore (parents.org)

Sonya Hogan (Save the Children New Zealand)

There is no charge for this event. All welcome.

The last day of Submissions on the section 59 bill are tomorrow

2006-08-30T13:22:00.000+12:00

This Thursday is the last day of oral submissions on Sue Bradford's (Greens, List)

Crime (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill.

Go and find out what the media never reports on. You'll be suprised.

Justice and Electoral SubCommittee 9.45 am - 11.30 am

Room 4, Parliament Buildings.

Hear some of the last of the 300+ oral submissions being heard on this Bill by the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Khandallah debate on section 59

2006-08-29T14:03:00.000+12:00

The section 59 debate stopped by at Khandallah last night. A debate hosted by the local Presbyterian Church featured local MP Peter Dunne (United Future, Ohariu-Belmont), Sue Bradford (Greens, List) and Family Integrity Leader Craig Smith.

My word of the night was fascination. There was a part of me that wanted to see a genuine, even handed debate. I was robbed of that. Entering the Church hall, I found myself accosted by a proud woman behind a modest table, offering me pamphlet after pamphlet of Family integrity's postion on smacking and section 59.

It was an uncomfortable wait at first, people were trying their very best to keep themselves restrained. It was pretty clear by now that the meeting hall with a capacity around 50 was going to be full to the brim.

Regarding the speakers, each took their first comments off a script, Bradford rattling hers off like it was just another day at the office, offering the same arguments in support of her bill. I was interested in her criticism of fundamentalist groups like Family Integrity, in comparison to the mainstream churches, which have been supporters of repeal. She also was the only speaker to mention in their opening remarks any reference to the scriptures, taking time to highlight the inconsistencies between the old and new testaments.

She had some very key observations regarding the issue, trying to reconcile the removal of the rule of thumb (or legislation to that effect), but not legislation tacitly condoning physical violence on children: “I despair that parents see their rights to physical assault on their children transcends the rights of their children…”

She closed her remarks with her own approach to parenting (as a mother of five) as being one from a position of peace and love in a nurturing environment.

Craig Smith spoke next, choosing to almost replicate his oral submission to the Select Committee earlier that day. “This is not a bill to repeal anti smacking…this is a bill that is anti-parental authority”. He elaborated on the current legislation; nothing that ‘reasonable’ and ‘correction’ are important elements of section 59, detailing the context in which he believes that physical punishment is ok. (It should be noted that his organisation released the pamphlets detailing why the bible says “why we need to smack, what we use to smack [and] how we do it” but we will come back to this later). Repeal will according to Smith, “strip parents of their legal status” to use “parental hands-on authority” (a euphemism for physical punishment).

Smith could not see that there was any other effective means to discipline children: “how does any parent discipline their children without the use of force…there isn’t any!” and left with a sharp attack against the pro repeal movement, nothing that in spite of public surveys in the media showing “80% support against repeal of section 59, the pro repeal lobby knows better…they have the moral leadership of Joseph Stalin”

Smith literally left his religion on the table, choosing not to utter one reference about the scriptures, but planting a bible in front of him. Strange, considering that his organisation was giving out material that used the scriptures to support his arguments and after being asked twice by the audience (one of whom was the local pastor), he finally explained his stance, and one that he considered was not related to the repeal of section 59. It was as though he lacked the courage to speak in a church about his own faith in positioning himself on the wider issue of violence in the home.

Peter Dunne called upon “his old friend: common sense”, speaking candidly (and only as himself, United Future are having a free vote on the bill), feeling that the status quo was leaving too many cases of child abuse under the radar, but cautious as to the current bill as it is, only committing to support it, if he sees that it will actually make a difference (he initially voted down the bill at the first reading, citing that the “State should stay out of the household” and that the bill would be “neither practical nor effective”). Like Bradford, Dunne found any attempt to define reasonable force as “pointless” but was better than Bradford in detailing the fear of criminalising parents, and the need to “protect parents acting in good faith in normal situations”. He was upset at how the extremes had been given so much attention: “one shudders to think of one’s company that they seem to keep”

When public questions came around, the audience was clearly anti-repeal, featuring children who were happy to be beaten (I found out that they were with Family Integrity afterwards). Several people could not wait for the microphone, choosing to speak immediately about their faith, and one person commenting “god beats me up when I do bad”, and others whose questions where clearly pre scripted, including a venomous attack against Bradford on the issue of abortion: “how can you come here and talk about protecting children, when you support the murder of fifty children each year?”

Chester Burrows (National, Wanganui) as a member of the audience, took several minutes to explain his views on the subject. Burrows, Dunne and Bradford never seems so agreeable on how to move on the bill, suggesting some amendments (not defining “reasonable force” though)…surely that would have been something that the meeting could have picked as a topic instead.

I was dismayed at the lack of courage that Smith had in being clear about his faith, and the audience’s impatience…but it was a fascinating night.

UPDATE: The night was recorded for Maureen Garing's Spiritual Outlook on National Radio, September 17 at 5pm. Tune in for it.

Not again

2006-08-24T17:42:00.000+12:00

The "she was asking for it" defence has crossed the chamber and now seems to be obiter:

"They were silly, vulnerable and very drunk and the major complainant was clearly flirtatious," he said.

"This girl was partly the author of her own misfortune. She managed to get herself drunk."

So let me get this straight: if I get someone drunk and they then act drunk, that's an invitation for sexual adventure? You can't have it both ways! either binge drinking is bad because amongst other things you lose self control, or there is no excuse for enticing anyone against their will for any act, in this case sex. Especially with illegal drugs!

Get on Down to the ACC Meeting

2006-08-24T09:42:00.000+12:00

Auckland City Council meeting

Auckland Town Hall, 6pm.

Here's a chance to hear a number of speakers on the issue of section 59 before the ACC decide on a motion supporting Sue Bradford's (Greens, List) Bill to repeal the section from statute.

According to the NZH, Former Children's Commissioner Ian Hassall and Maxim Institute legal counsel Alex Penk will be at the meeting, debating the alternate positions.

If people are in the city, and want to see something more concrete than just a mud-slinging match, I suggest you turn up and see what happens.

Also, I cannot go (although I wish I could) so it would be nice if I heard what it was like afterwards

Just a quick thought.

2006-08-24T09:05:00.000+12:00

Did anyone else pick up on the serendipity of a New Governor-General and a New Maori King in less than three days?

Why wait?

2006-08-24T08:07:00.000+12:00

Why did the Governement wait to respond to the National-Greens deal on rates?

New Zealand First was going to get their deal with the Government in exchange for their support against Rodney Hide's Bill (Epsom, ACT), and there was

Was somebody thinking it could be used as a means to dilute the focus on Field or Parliamentary electon spending?

An interesting idea, but those topics were never going to abate with National. And this delay in the annoucement only begs the question: did the Government get sideswiped as to how far it would go in the media.

Just great. A reactive government, instead of a proactive one!

Sophia set's it straight,

2006-08-24T08:00:00.000+12:00

Here's a thorough piece on child welfare in New Zealand. I think the paragraph at the end really recognises the political reality.

Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu, 1931 - 2006

2006-08-15T19:43:00.000+12:00

"Ka mate tino tangata, tena ka rewa mai"

I just heard on Maori TV that the Maori Queen has passed on.

A decent first report has come via RNZ (although, I always wonder if like in the US, NZ media organisations have a piece like this waiting in the wings

The barbarity within the fog of war, Vietnam teaches us that no nation is "too soft" on war

2006-08-14T20:54:00.000+12:00

Today I read two articles which in itself underline the largest flaw in a proportional war: the humanity in the soldier (or its lack thereof)

A fascinating op-ed in the Boston Globe, in response to a NYP article on the west being "too soft in war" brings back that notion that 'no war is proportional or merciful: our enemies will not grant us that comfort upon us, so why should we upon then?'

This comment was incredibly blunt, but myopic:

"What if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests?"

But I felt that the retort was rather weak. So I went to look for an answer

I think that history provides a few clues to this: Soldiers are at their extreme, not human. They are not supposed to be so. Neither training, nor the experiences of war can guarantee the humanity of the soldier in all situations.

The LA Times article (Hat Tip: Truthout) on a recently declassified Pentagon archive, detailing over 300 substantiated claims of military atrocities on Vietnamese citizens by US troops sums up what is already happening in Iraq, decades later and it is likely that similar stories will eventually emerge, substantiated by military investigation, but far, far, far too late for any reasonable sense of justice to be delivered.

“The records describe recurrent attacks on ordinary Vietnamese - families in their homes, farmers in rice paddies, teenagers out fishing. Hundreds of soldiers, in interviews with investigators and letters to commanders, described a violent minority who murdered, raped and tortured with impunity. Abuses were not confined to a few rogue units, a Times review of the files found. They were uncovered in every Army division that operated in Vietnam.”

So, all soldiers are capable of terrible acts, of atrocities: it seems hypocritical to even suggest that western governments are soft. But the issue of why these events are hardly the norm is the real issue. Soldiers do (and must) to a certain extent, take some responsibility for their actions, even if they are never punished by a higher power. In the end they probably get off far lighter, than the Government’s themselves. It’s harsh to suggest that the atrocities that occur today are a result of Government’s failing to prevent these atrocities, but the problem is that Western democracies, for their part have had to learn some proportionality. All out destruction usually hurts aggressors as much as their antagonists. We need a consistant reminder that soldiers fighting in our name are also as capable to breaching the measures of proportionality set by a state trying to be responsible, and even cross their own moral authority, as those who we accuse of being barbaric, cruel and inhumane.

The recent Israel-Hezbollah War has created another batch of atrocities; even Amnesty International is ready to admit the failure of the UN Human Rights Council to look at atrocities committed on both sides, and it is improbable that any inquiry will ever be set up. Again this oportunity to learn about the ultimate futility of a humane war will be lost in time.

Wars are brutal and people on all sides are victims of the barbarity within the fog of war. Let’s not delude ourselves to the point of considering any nation being “too soft”.

The 2006 CDI is not a mixed bag, its stats saying two contradictory things

2006-08-14T15:43:00.000+12:00

I was going to start out saying that today’s Centre for Global Development's 2006 Commitment to Development Index is a strong reminder of the policies of the 1980s, but also that global development is not a “one shot cure”. After reading it, I am more curious as to our "rise" statisticaly. Nevertheless, it still serves some interesting observatons and it finds us wanting

Looking at the breakdowns, we score #1 for trade overall, a legacy of Rogernomics (yeah, it’s good so long as you don’t look at what happened here at home) and a top 3 in security (I think they forgot Timor, or were our efforts there miniscule?) and migration (this also ignores the issues of cultural immersion and unity, but we already had that problem!)

Now the bad.

Aid (18th place overall), Investment (19th place) and Environment (12th).

While NZ puts a lot into regional development (in regards to the Pacific), and although recent boosts to the aid budget should be acknowledged, 0.22% (or around 200 million, to look at it another way) is not 0.7% (the UN MDC sets the goal for donor nations to contribute 0.7% of GDP). Considering that our weaknesses stem not just by how much but from how we dish out the aid, an easier step (for the immediate future, than trying to get more funding) can be made in the area of “project proliferation” (I would like to try a trans-pacific project, as larger projects usually need to appreciate the local situational context, and we get along reasonably better in the Pacific than elsewhere, and arguably better than Australia)

Investment is an enormous problem, but seeing policy solutions in this area seems remote at best. The current administration is more committed to local investment.

My greatest displeasure(and one area that can and should be resolved immediately) is our abysmal environmental inaction. Looking at our weaknesses in particular, I find a little utilised connection between global development and a more comprehensive climate change policy. Although, I find it strange that NZ is considered to have low gas taxes…Oh, I see the problem, everyone above us lives in Europe! This is a good example of once again NZ falling well behind our convenient yard stick on progressivism: Europe.

In fact, when comparing the ‘most improved’ measure of the CDI, IS is wrong to point out that we haven’t dropped as quickly as Finland and Australia, in fact in the last three years, we have been the second worst improved nation on the index, to Denmark.

A real disappointment. The rise is a sham!

Let Parliament be Parliament

2006-08-14T15:32:00.000+12:00

The CoA decision to allow Murray McCully (National, East Coast Bays) to view court documents already known to the media is the right one.

The problem is that once the media knows, there is hardly a situation of confidence existing here. The media have the capacity and will to declare the details to the public (the amount of disclosure is another matter). When Justice Wild suggested that the material could be used for political purposes (in the pejorative), are we assuming that the media could also in effect create the same amount of political damage. It also weakens the power of parliamentary scrutiny.

In other words, the media are capable of being as political as the Opposition. There is no distinction, and any appeal to ethical standards purported by the media in general is inconsequential.

It is also wrong to suggest that politicians would be unable to hold up separation of powers, in particular a Member of Parliament commenting on a case in the courts. There are of course, rules against contempt by MPs.

Let the Loyal Opposition do their job, instead of questioning the corruption of the New Zealand Government.

The Midterm Pool

2006-08-11T14:19:00.000+12:00

I've been looking into the upcoming midterm election and have come up with the following as the "must watch races": the ones which could go either way. Anyone want to pick the winners?

Gubernatorial

Michigan (Is it the AMWAY?)

Michigan, traditionally more a blue state, have had to deal with many major plant closures, with the public approval rating of incumbent Jennifer Granholm and with high profile opponent Dick DeVos (Anyone who has done AMWAY knows the name) kicking in his campaign early, Granholm’s attempt for a second term looks shaky.

Granholm has been considered a ‘rising star’ in the Democratic Party and won the primary uncontested, but so far has struggled to find the resources to fight a campaign against one of the largest contributors to the GOP. Already DeVos has spent 16 million in TV ads alone. DeVos was set to go to a primary until the two other candidates dropped out. DeVos has pushed his campaign entirely on the economy, but is coy when pushed on family issues.

California (Can Westley terminate the Governator?)

Arnold Schwarzenegger has found himself in the same situation as all candidates in the centre…pissing off the periphery. His positions on abortion and stem cell research have alienated conservatives and his veto of California's gay marriage bill alienated liberals. Still don’t count the “Governator” out. Going up against him is State Treasurer Phil Angelides, winning a close primary and he needs to unite the party and capitalise on the Anti- Schwarzenegger climate (last years public rebuking of all four of Schwarzenegger’s proposals shows a pliable public that can be turned against the incumbent

Senate

Connecticut (A Three Way Dance)

Joe Lieberman is fighting for his fourth term as U.S. Senator. After losing Tuesday’s primary, Lieberman has quickly formed his own party and will stand as an independent. He has taken flak over his support over Iraq (in a state that has been shown to be strongly against the war) and his public closeness with President Bush had irked many. Despite this, he still has supporters, and is a major challenger.

The winner of the Democratic Primary, Ned Lamont is clearly more liberal than the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate, supporting universal health care and gay marriage, but strongly vocal against the Iraq war and domestic anti-terror reforms. Combined with his ability to fundraise, and the immediate support of the DNC, he is in a strong position. Yet, like above, he still has to win over supporters in his own party on the hustings. The entry of Lieberman is set to split to some extent the Democratic vote.

So a split democratic vote, in a blue state, even a muppet monkey would have no trouble, right? Sorry the GOP lucked out here; earlier this year Alan Schlesinger was nominated for the republican ticket, yet less than a month later, he was facing scandal over his gambling problems. It’s no surprise that with the best chance for the GOP to win here, that the state party has asked him to stand down, and there is no shortage of possible replacements.

Missouri (History never repeats)

Missouri is traditionally a "swing" state and with no gubernatorial race, this is the only show in town. Senator Jim Talent was first elected by a very slim margin in 2004 and faces state Auditor Claire McCaskill, a former Jackson County Prosecutor and the 2004 Democratic Gubernatorial nominee. McCaskill is still tagged with her loss from 2004, yet has herself in the same position Talent was in 2004.

Rhode Island (it’s all about the electoral math, stupid!)

This battle is probably more in the primaries than in the actual race with Lincoln Chafee, arguably the most liberal Republican in the Senate facing a primary challenge from conservative local mayor Steve Laffey…so the old slogans are coming out. However Chafee has strong connections with the GOP and they are keen to keep him there.

Former U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island Sheldon Whitehouse, who narrowly lost the 2004 Democratic primary for Governor, gets a second chance with support from the DNC in his senatorial bid. Up against him is Iraq vet Carl Sheeler, a folksy anti-war candidate, who is considered a dark horse. Surveys see the most likely match up being Chafee and Whitehouse race.

New Jersey (No One Likes Anyone in the Garden State)

Current Governor Jon Corzine, was elected in 2005 after serving in the senate and immediately appointed Robert Menendez to serve the last year of the Senate term. State Senator Thomas Kean, Jr. has since put his hat in the ring for the Republicans. The state itself is generally blue, with President Bush very unpopular, but the public aren’t that happy with Governor Corzine and there are fears that this could tank Menendez’s re-election. Add to this the fact that both parties’ aren’t waxing lyrical about their own candidates (Democrats see Menendez as too abrasive, the GOP see Kean as too liberal) and it’s no surprise that this could get very close indeed.

House

Arizona 8 (Kolbe’s out, who’s in?)

This race is fascinating, but mostly because of the state, rather than the candidates. It is a Red State (just), but the retiring Jim Kolbe (an openly gay Republican), has been consistently elected for two decades, often by wide margins (in 2004, he beat Randy Graf, in what was considered to be a tough primary, yet won the general election with 61% of the vote) So this is a state that the Dems will want to take. The Democrat primary is a smorgasbord of candidates, including former State Senator Gabrielle Giffords, former fighter pilot Jeff Latas, Raytheon employee Alex Rodriguez, former government employee Francine Shacter and anchorwoman Patty Weiss.

Randy Graf is back to contest for the seat, in a primary with war veteran and small business owner Mike Hellon and current state Representative Steve Huffman.

Florida 22 (Unlucky 13?)

Republican incumbent Clay Shaw has been elected to twelve terms in the House and has strong local support but will be facing his toughest race since 2000 going up against State Senate Minority Leader Ron Klein. Shaw has been criticized for refusing to return $30,000 in campaign contributions from ARMPAC the organisation at the centre of the Tom DeLay scandal. But we will be coming back to this part later. With such a tight race expected (Klein is noted as a good fundraiser and good friend of neighbouring Congressman Robert Wexler [D] as well as having the wider party support), will take it’s toll on the candidates, and for Shaw, recently found to be suffering from lung cancer, it could be quite an accomplishment to win his 13th term.

Indiana 8 (The bloody eighth!)

So called because of its long history of incumbents being ousted, the state is red, but elects Democrats in local elections. Incumbent John Hostettler [R] is up against Sheriff Brad Ellsworth. Hostettler has a history of winning tough re-elections (which goes with the territory), but Ellsworth is believed to be his most popular opponent to date (with Hostettler’s own popularity at the 30-40% range).

Iowa 1 (Watch the signs)

In a battleground state like Iowa, any race is a useful indicator for the 2006 Presidential Elections. While the state is blue, it has been represented by Jim Nussle [R], who is retiring so as to run for Governor. In a shock win, Mike Whalen took the Republican nomination on a border security platform, and will face attorney Bruce Braley.

Illinois 8 (The empire strikes back)

A highlight of 2004 was the election of Melissa Bean (D) over 35-year House veteran Phil Crane (winning 52% of the vote), in what is a typically Red State. She goes up against investment banker David McSweeney, who has been willing to spend much of his own money on the campaign, after winning a heavily contested Republican primary. The Party has been very active and wants the seat back. Meanwhile, Bean has a thorn in her side in the form of Bill Scheurer, eroding her liberal and union support base.

Ohio 18 (another Ambroff casualty?)

Though incumbent Robert W. Ney (R) has won here since 1994 his involvement in the Abramoff' scandal, withdrew and has reportedly asked Ohio state Senator Joy Padgett to run in his place. This state has recently been a red one, but the unpopularity of Governor Bob Taft and tough republican primaries mean that this state could switch. Dover Lawyer Zack Space, popular in his home town, beat three others in a surprise win for the Democratic nomination. He is also a strong supporter from embryonic stem cell research (with has a son with Type I diabetes)

Pennsylvania 6 (Run to the hills)

In a repeat of 2004, Jim Gerlach [R] will go up against Lois Murphy. Gerlach won re-election by a 51% to 49% margin, but he is also caught up in the DeLay scandal, with Democrats demanding that he return the disputed $30,000 he received, or donating it to charity. The state is marginal, and with the likely defeat of State Senator Rick Santorum [R], Gerlach opened his media campaign by distancing himself from the GOP, with a TV ad criticising President Bush's immigration proposals.

Texas 22 (You reap what you sow)

Sometimes fact is better than fiction, and with a plot that is better than any political drama, The incumbent, Tom Delay [R], the main person embroiled in the scandal bearing his name, initially decided to run, in spite of being indicted, winning the primary in March this year. Then in June, he resigned his seat (note that Gerlach in the race above said, he would pay back the 30,000 if he resigned, yet he has not) and Governor Perry, also running for election, is determined to not get caught up in the matter, leaving the election for the post until the midterms. However, bumbling by Delay, has meant that there will be no Republican on the voter form, as DeLay has pulled out (and moved to Virginia), and the law prohibits a replacement on the basis of resignation. The republicans have no choice but to campaign for a “write in candidate”, with local mayor David Wallace the likely ‘candidate’. Despite DeLays poor 2004 showing (winning with only 55% of the vote, in what is a strong Red district) and Libertarian nominee Bob Smither is a plausible dark horse. The Democratic nominee is Nick Lampson, a former House Rep whose district was dismantled during the 2003 mid-decade redistricting engineered by DeLay. The 22nd now includes part of Lampson’s old district.

The Forgotten Impact

2006-08-09T11:03:00.000+12:00

It could be acceptable to forget the wider impacts of this Israel-Lebanon War (I think someone has to be clear and say that this is certainly one) beyond the loss of innocent life and livelihoods on both sides, but the long term impacts are likely to be much wider.

From the UN News Feed:

"Two United Nations experts arrived in Syria today to evaluate the consequences of the oil spill caused by Israel’s bombardment of a power plant in Lebanon that has already polluted over 140 kilometres of coastline, according to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which reported that no clean-up action has yet been possible.

“While I fully understand the complexity and political implications,” UN Executive Director Achim Steiner said, “many are appalled that, more than three weeks into this crisis, there has been no on-the-ground assessment to support the Lebanese Government, no moves possible towards a clean-up, and indeed few practical measures to contain the further spread of the slick.”

UNEP said the quantity of oil spilled in Lebanon is already comparable to the disaster caused in 1999 off the coast of France when the Erika tanker spilled an estimated 13,000 metric tonnes of oil into the Atlantic Ocean. The agency warned that if all the oil contained in the bombed power plant at Jiyyeh leaked into the Mediterranean Sea, the Lebanese oil spill could well rival the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989.

“We are dealing with a very serious incident and any practical steps are still constrained by the continuation of hostilities. We are glad that two of our experts will now be able to provide advice from Damascus, even though much more is needed,” said Mr. Steiner.

UNEP is working with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the European Commission (EC) to create the conditions under which remedial action can be taken.

Marine species such as sea turtles and Bluefin tuna are feared to have been affected by the oil spill. According to the information received by UNEP’s Athens-based Mediterranean Action Plan, there is a spawning area for Bluefin tuna in the Eastern Mediterranean and the eggs and larvae may well have suffered the consequences of the oil pollution.

Fisking Charlie

2006-07-19T09:14:00.000+12:00

Apologies over such a long absence, but I had to post on this. Charlie Pedersen used his keynote speech to the Federated Farmers Annual Conference, to attack the tactics of fear used by enviromentalists. Here is his speech:

Good morning, and welcome to the 61st annual conference of Federated Farmers of New Zealand.

I want to begin with a thank you to council members from our 24 provinces and seven industry groups of Federated Farmers who are here in Nelson today. I also welcome observers, partners and friends attending the most important event in our national organisation’s annual calendar.

Thanks...there's a real white old man feeling I get at these things, and I'm ever so chuffed.

Thank you to our business partners, who help us fund this event. In particular I acknowledge Telecom, our first gold business partner. Our other valued sponsors are Rural Post, Ravensdown, and the National Bank.

Telecom...public relations for the company that balks at broadband access for rural New Zealand. thanks for picking up the tab.

In a week I will be celebrating my first anniversary as President of Federated Farmers, New Zealand’s premier and most effective industry association. Have no doubt of the pride and responsibility I have in carrying out this role.

We don't, I just wonder how prestigious the President of Federated Farmers you think it really is...let's face it, it's not the Secretary General of the UN

As the effective ‘chairman of the board’ I can assure you that you have a cohesive and hard-working board, which is committed to making Federated Farmers an even more effective organisation in the year ahead.

Speaking on behalf of the board I would like to thank you for the enormous support you have given over the past year.

Your backing, advice and direction allows the board to work with management to ensure the Federation is on the right track, is outcome focused, and sets clear strategies in line with our mission statement – “adding value to the business of farming for our members”.

AKA farming businesses to farmers...noble. And the 'federation is on a right track'. A good pun.

You will know that there have been some governance and organisational improvements to the Federation over the past two years. The benefits of these changes are beginning to show.That said, I believe we have more work ahead before we see all the benefits of change.Turning now to the theme of this conference – water.

[Take a pause, and a sip of water...classy]

Water sustains the earth. It makes up about two-thirds of our body’s weight. It is valuable and at the same time indestructible. The exact same amount of water, to the last drop, is here on earth as it was in the beginning.

Really, the beginning? So way back while the earth was still coalescing into the solid planetary formation, you can assure me that water was here. Or are you ignoring that, and just using the revised biblical historical record?

The government’s Sustainable Water Programme of Action is underway. The details of its plans have yet to be decided. Nevertheless, the catch cry is that we have a water shortage. I hear people say “we are running out of water”.

They make an over-simplistic arguement, but you are right, there are people saying that.

Such a statement is a bit like a child taking a bath and complaining about the lack of water, with both taps on full and no plug in sight. If you want water, you have to set about to capture it – it is ridiculous to expect to have enough water, where you want it, when you want it, without planning to capture and save some.

Again, correct. What the argeument is really one of not being enough water around that can easily be utilised.

Federated Farmers supports the commitment to help regional councils to resolve difficult water management challenges, to build on proven industry-led initiatives, and strongly supports a move to better align the taxpayer-funded science programme with national and industry priorities.

The Federation also welcomes the government’s intention to work in partnership with industry.

Like Martha says, it's a good thing.

Tomorrow we have a 90 minute session on water, kicking off with a presentation on the Sustainable Water Programme of Action. We will then have an opportunity to debate water allocation and quality.

So I can't spend the day in the bar, I get it.

We have had huge amounts of water falling from the sky over the past two months. And yet we are told that we don’t have enough water.
Our previous generation carried out important projects to create water storage to reap Nature’s blessing of high rainfall. Their wisdom and hard work has brought all New Zealanders a better standard of living through agricultural irrigation and hydro-electricity power generation. These great works make the cities and industries that generate our standard of living possible.

We will ignore the externalities of these great works. Do go on.

There is no shortage of water in this country, there is only a shortage of the commitment, wisdom and dedication required to harvest water in times of plenty, for times of shortage.

So, it's because we are stupid, lazy and unfocused that we can't get enough water...

Nature has a cycle, but humanity has a constant demand. Early humans learnt to harvest food and store it for the winter. So do clever animals. But modern man is being told to ignore these lessons from nature.

With good reason, there's too many of us!

Environmentalists are not interested in storage. They want to ignore the lessons from nature, and instead cap water use at summer’s low rain falls and flows.

Huh?

Where would we be if our ancestors had shown such a degree of high-minded arrogance in the name of environmentalism.

Hmmmmm, still in the Garden of Eden, naming all the animals?

Environmentalism threatens to be the new century’s politics of envy – the politics that seek to reduce the brightest and hardest working, the committed, to the level of the ordinary, the uninspired.

No, there's plenty of them already!

Environmentalists are correct. We do need to protect our country, our planet, our children’s’ future and their children’s’ future, but not with fear.

Agreed.

We must encourage innovation, science and our own good scientists to uncover the solutions to our problems. Locking in yesterday’s answers from yesterday’s science is no solution – it is the road to definite ruin – a road that will lead to the capping of food producers’ productive capacity. If food production cannot grow, then our population cannot grow. Or, as is more likely, there will be less food for the poorest people.

I agree with the last part, but that's ignoring the amount of food that could feed the world adaquately now.

I am yet to hear any environmentalist admit that rolling back agriculture’s intensification would have to be matched by worldwide starvation or a matching reduction in population.

And I have yet to hear anything that you have said that says that an increasd population is a good thing.

A good comparison is the minerals industry. Unlike our neighbours in Australia, the mineral bounty of our nation is largely in the DoC estate – riches locked away from contributing to the betterment of the lives of ordinary New Zealanders, locked away in the name of environmentalism in the misguided belief that every square metre of flora and fauna are more valuable than the potential its mineral wealth could unleash for our children.

I take it, you aren't a nature lover. or a hiker. You are however a complete loon. Let's go rip up the national parks!

I say shame on the people who elevate environmentalism to a religious status, shame on you for your arrogance, shame on all of us for allowing the environmentalists’ war against the human race to begin, and take hold.

Yes, for shame. Where's my gun, let's get dem enviroments before they take hold over my precious bodily fluids.

It seems to me the once common practice of Christian public worship and young folk performing Christian missionary work now competes with the new religious status of environmentalism. Some may think that statement as a step too far, so let me explore the logic.

Logic?

Followers of Christianity throughout the centuries have had a fervent belief in their faith and believed that through the adoption of that faith, that others would become better human beings and the world a better place.

Just the Christians? Does this also mean I have to thank god for electric light, antibiotics, polyester (well apart from the 1970s), eradicating smallpox and such.

Over centuries young missionaries have left their native lands and travelled to the far flung corners of the world on crusades to convert the population of the world to their ideals.
While I largely follow Christian principles I do have a problem with the idea that humans are basically bad and without a doctrine to guide them, individuals and humanity would fall and fail.

I have a problem with that same assertion too, but it's in spite of not being a follower of so-called 'christian' principles.

Now I draw the similarities with the Environmental movement of today.
Environmentalism does not speak about the good of man and what mankind has achieved. Like missionaries it talks of man’s work as negatives to the natural environment. Environmentalists and historic missionaries both look upon mankind and our achievements as a negative that needs to be curbed and defeated.

Hmmm, why is that?

Environmentalism talks of humans failings and is scathing of its influences and the changes made to the “natural world”, and seeks to wind the clock back.

Young people around the world are enlisted and travel overseas as missionaries for Greenpeace – they stop street-goers and seek to influence and convert them to their cause. Environmentalism, the cause of winding back the clock, capping and reducing are their ethos.

I hate them on the street corners, but not as much as you...how much spare time do you have, being the President of New Zealand’s premier and most effective industry association, to come up with such a misconstrued theory upon which your anathema is based?

Environmentalism has captured the attention of a great many people. Citizens across the spectrum have bought into the environmental teachings that the world is on the road to ruin, and with it, mankind.

Haven't you heard, we're doomed. so what's the point of doing anything if we are doomed?

Many are adopting these teachings without proper scrutiny because of the momentum the movement has, supported by experts who too often owe their livelihood to the environmental business. Even in this country, thousands now owe their living and personal prosperity to continued development of environmental controls. Those controls in turn are reducing the development and productivity of the nation and its ability to increase the standard of living of the New Zealand people.

You owe your job and livelihood to the farming business. You even pointed out what your organisation does. what's up with that?

I ask all Kiwis to think more deeply before supporting environmental causes. I believe they often give support to relieve themselves of any guilt about their lifestyle. Kiwis must understand that ill thought out environmental controls based on emotion rather than science will inevitably lead to a reduced standard of living.

No, it's because of the absence of emotional and economic incentives that nothing has happened in this country to seriously address the problem.

Finally, I want to talk about another handbrake on economic prosperity. The Resource Management Act.

Here we go again...sigh

In November, this council kicked off a priority project. We want to deliver benefits to members by driving changes to the RMA and the way it is implemented.

So, you are happy with the 95% of applications that succeed without any challenges?

These benefits could take a long time to occur. Indeed, many people say that we are on a fool’s mission. We’ve heard that sort of talk before. Later today, you will hear more about the beginning of this long term project.

But now I want to make a public overture to the government: Work with us to improve the RMA and its processes.

Good. I want to help too.

Federated Farmers is often criticised by MPs and government officials for being too reactive, rather than pro-active. We are accused of jumping on political bandwagons. We are accused of being the National Party in gumboots. The single most significant criticism of Federated Farmers is that, too often and too early, we adopt a position of opposition, rather than one of constructive engagement.

It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

There is a sense that Federated Farmers’ default position tends to be one of disagreement with the government. Some critics say that Federated Farmers does not always pick its fights strategically and might usefully adopt a more constructive approach to finding solutions on some occasions.
I am going to answer these unjustified criticisms by saying to the government – both central government and local government – that the Federation wants to work with you on finding solutions to the problems caused by the RMA.

You're better in the debate, than outside of it. Good call.

To an extent we are already doing this. Our RMA project is proactive. In recent months we have twice hosted the Minister for the Environment, the Minister responsible for the RMA. We have taken the Minister on field trips so he and his officials can hear and see the problems caused by the RMA. Many of these problems are caused by processes administered by councils under the RMA, which are not just the fault of the RMA itself. However, it is not just the councils which need to improve. The Act itself is flawed. I stress the word flawed. We do not believe the Act should be scrapped, at it is based on the ethic of sustainable management, which is what the majority of our members practice every day on their farms. But we do believe it needs improvements in key areas. So let me say to government that we are willing to work with you on solutions. Engage with us and other groups who have issues with the RMA. There have been 15 amendments to the RMA in 15 years. It is not good enough to point to the most recent amendment, and say that everything has been fixed. It hasn’t. I say to Government, if you don’t want to engage on the RMA, then let it be known on the public record we have held out our hand. We want to work proactively to find solutions. If there is no attempt to work with us, then this Federation will inevitably look at other options for getting our message across. The RMA, in its current form, is stifling innovation and investment in this country. That must change for the sake of the New Zealand people.

You could have this last paragraph at a Greens party rally wihtout a significant change. Funny that.

A recent headline in The Press newspaper said “3-nil to farmers”. It referred to the Federation’s success in forcing the abandonment of the FART tax and legislated right of access over private land and, most recently, gaining an exemption so that working dogs do not need to be micro-chipped. We prefer not to run these sorts of campaigns. These campaigns are expensive in time and money, they create divisions, and they use up our political capital. But, in each of these three cases, we were forced to do them as a last resort when the government would not listen to not only us but also to the majority of New Zealanders.

So, it will hurt me more than it hurts you kind of tactic...fascinating.

Looking ahead, I would rather we did not resort to high profile actions on the RMA. We would rather work on finding solutions in a positive working environment. Fixing the RMA’s legislative and process problems presents a good opportunity to work constructively.

I wish we didn't have to fight so much...oh well.

So, hear our plea. Help us fix the RMA. Our door is open to constructive engagement. Let us expand our cooperation and improve this necessary legislation.

Thank you for listening. Have a good conference.

Greenpeace has already launched their retort - Attack on Environmentalists Attacks Kiwi Values

The New, New Zealand Energy Strategy

2006-07-05T12:51:00.000+12:00

Anyone expecting some fantastic policy agenda being announced yesterday on the Government’s (New) New Zealand Energy Strategy…would be very disappointed. What was provided was more of an appeal for someone to tell the Government what the strategy is. A lost opportunity, considering the amount of anticipation and the lack of actual news while Parliament is in recess.

If that doesn’t upset you, then perhaps the ever biased Tracy Watkins was able to construct a fabulous story, pursing the idea that we are doomed:

“It has been acknowledged in Cabinet papers that New Zealand was unlikely to hit targets agreed to under the 2002 agreement…

Climate Change Minister David Parker appeared yesterday to be playing down Kyoto's importance, suggesting it was only a "subset" of the wider climate change problem.”

Hmmmmmm, mountains out of molehills? Anything to get on page one.

The Herald was strangely more prepared to follow the concept of journalism and report the news:

Carbon-tax option back on agenda

Transport sector at centre of energy-efficiency drive

Although you get the feeling that someone was just cribbing the official statements. Thanks Scoop [1],[2],[3]

Looking in detail in the discussion documents themselves, there is an absence of anything that could be considered controversial. From the terms of reference:

“15 The New Zealand Energy Strategy will deliver the following:

[a] A long-term strategic view out to 2050;

[b] Clear strategic priorities to provide focus for government and market actions;

[c] Improved a certainty about the future policy and regulatory environment to promote a favourable investment climate;

[d] Policies to address greenhouse gases in the energy sector;

[e] Key areas and direction for investment in energy innovation and efficient energy use; and

[f] Stakeholder by-in and cooperation to galvanise action of government, industry and the community behind strategic priorities.”

I am disappointed that there has been no specific mention about carbon sink policies, carbon credits or so forth and the section on R&D is pathetically limp.

Perhaps the most honest remark was from Jeanette Fitzsimons (Greens, List):

“The first Strategy, developed five years ago, set some ambitious targets but did not fully establish who was responsible for achieving them.”

Actually it’s clear to see by who got the finger pointed at for the failure for both the fart and the carbon tax, whom was responsible for achieving them. Anyway, better luck the second time, we really don’t have the time to spare.

Kura stop

2006-06-26T10:48:00.000+12:00

Picture from the Daily Post, Rotorua

I'm disturbed with the ephemera today's Herald has on Maori

I'm with Shane Jones (Labour, List) on this: what's wrong with a bilingual sign? it would seem to be the most equitable solution to the problem; it allows the Kura Kaupapa to assert the need for promoting Te Reo Maori, and it is in line with the bilingual status in New Zealand.

As to the Land Transport Safety Authority’s specious argument that the sign would put children at risk, I remember that road signs are supposed to be interpreted, not only by what is written on them, but by their unique but identifiable symbolism. That’s why Stop signs are octagonal and red, and not turquoise and trapezoid. Although judging by the Herald picture, the sign is possibly not to regulation (in terms of its appearance, other than the wording I mean), it's either pretty close, or a simple alteration could make it so.

Is LTNZ expecting us to make our own interpretations about road signs…give New Zealand drivers some credit!

Not a flipflop, but with the same effect on public's confidence?

2006-06-26T10:45:00.000+12:00

Predictions are a very dangerous thing in politics, but Don Brash (National, List) has never been one to shy away from political gambles…[insert any National election 2005 campaign anecdote here] and although it will be avoided by the slimmest of margins, the failed prediction of a recession is another failure to get traction on National’s economic acumen. What’s more, it could become a provocative argument to Labour to suggest either Brash’s divergence from reality, or the party’s failed white washing of the economic doom under Labour, eroding the power of their message.

If anything, it makes it look pretty pathetic, especially when combined with business confidence in Auckland is up again.

LAWS179 sets the record straight on the RMA and power infrastructure.

2006-06-26T10:36:00.000+12:00

Dean's right to point out that the latest amendments to the RMA permit more indirect control for the Minister of the Environment to override the RMA process for the national interest...I just don't think that's going to be enough to please most of the RMAs critics...it wasn't when the Act was passed.

To them, nothing short of complete Ministerial override will be sufficient, jeopardising the whole point of devolving to local Government.

Blog battle on section 59

2006-06-14T12:48:00.000+12:00

While the civil union debate a few years ago was perhaps New Zealand first experience with campaign blogging; specific campaign blogs for the pro-union side, we may be on the cusp of seeing blogs on both sides.

Every Blogger Counts, has been active, although with limited intensity, since July 2005. A look at the website, puts confuses noone about the local supporters in the blogosphere. But I was bewildered by the following;

“Every Blogger Counts is a coalition supported by up to 290 blogs and up to thousands of individual supporters.”

Where? Who? I could make up numbers too.

It has been even handed enough, if not polite to link to “The Anti Smacking brigade” including NGOs and Government agencies/QUANGOs.

Perhaps the more potent pieces written in opposition to repeal have been on Dave Crampton’s Big News blog but as the media buzz intensifies, the blog is sure to pick up the pace.

Fresh out of the blocks, and with no clear authorship, Repeal 59 is on the web, with posts from pro repeal supporters. They have decided to keep a polite tone, by not linking to supporter blogs or the opposition. It’s certainly a lot clearer as to its purpose:

Many of New Zealand's most reputable child and family advocacy organisations are united in the campaign to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act. Repeal gives a clear message that hitting children is not OK.

I will be interested to see how this blog goes, as well if some sort of internecine war develops, I hope not.

What happens when you don't check your email inbox all day

2006-06-09T19:56:00.000+12:00

You get a whole heap of funny. Thanks to Yef Frego.

Where are Maori and Labour going?

2006-06-05T10:41:00.000+12:00

With the year’s budget and no major scandals breaking out in a while, it seems like the pattern of political tactics that has continued since the election campaign may finally be ending. This could be bad news for National, but Labour has got problems of its own. Indeed, race seems to have painted both National and Labour into separate corners, with Maori in the middle left dazed and confused.

It’s pretty clear that the current leadership of National wishes to hold steady on its race and Treaty policy, it’s a stance that has captured the core voter group (What Jon Johansson calls the angry, white male) but locks them out of the urban liberal vote, crucial to winning in 2008. Any deviance in the policy framing and National could haemorrhage support.

But Labour has got problems too. Labour is suffering from a major image problem with Maori, and this looks to destabilise Labour’s once vaulted unity. But more importantly, it suggests a strategic shift by the Labour Leadership to move away from Maori. A tactic that works well so long as National holds fast (and thus allows Labour to maintain the liberal vote: a quiet withdrawal from the race issue)

The question is where are they going?

Suffocate the Maori Party

One tactic is to remove the influence of the Maori party. Come the next election, Labour would have to win most or all of the seats captured by Maori in 2005. Likewise, the numbers suggest that there may be no increase in Maori seats. With the Maori party caucus destroyed, the party will lose it’s effectiveness in the House and so it would be presumed, would shift Maori back to their traditional Labour standing.
This is a dangerous and difficult tactic. First, Labour will have to find high quality candidates. The Labour brand has been tarnished in terms of electorate candidates. They will need to find a phalanx of Shane Jones’ and John Tamihere (without the latent sexism and an inbuilt sense of political instinct), to win the confidence of Maori. But many Maori leaders aren’t looking to join the party. A shadow has descended on the party, one that will stay so long as those who were crucial in the foreshore debate stay within the party. This strategy is also dangerous for the sake of fracturing the already cool relationship between Labour and the Maori party. Should this tactic fail at the polls, then Labour may need to go cap in hand to the Maori party for supply and confidence.

Ignore them

This is also a flawed strategy. Maori voters did not support the Maori party whole heartedly, splitting their vote dramatically to Labour. What it shows is that Maori want Labour to work with the Maori party, so the voters want harmony between the two. Of course, the major assumption is that this trend will continue through the next election, and based on the unlikelihood of National shifting tone, it certainly will.
The problem is that if Labour get voted out, they lose a large amount of resources to communicate with Maori. As it stands, Maori Ministers can utilise their resources to a Maori electorate even without holding the seats themselves. But in opposition it’s a different story, so to stay in Labour will have to consider the need to gain the support of the Maori party’s support. Combine that with the probability of the Maori party maintaining their seats should Labour either not contest or place weak candidates up; in fact an ignorant Labour party could lose all their Maori seats to the Maori party.

Remove the head, keep the body

It seems clear that both parties would work a lot better, should either of the leaders of Labour or the Maori party be replaced. Tariana Turia is the weaker politically. Her co leader Pita Sharples (Maori, Tamaki Makaurau) is far more elegant in the public, and whose mana is regarded well by other MPs in the House. He is the true leader of the party and seems likely to not be burdened by personality conflicts, like Turia has. PM Clark could leave before the next election, but the uncertainty of who will replace her would make it difficult to ascertain how the inter-party relationship will change. Otherwise it is likely that both parties can work together on issues, both acknowledge the urgent need for the economic transformation of Maori, but the challenge not to remove the safety net that is just holding those statistical failures. Certainly nothing from any other party seems to show an acknowledgement of this reality. A strong candidate to elect over Turia would remove this thorn in Labour’s side.

Surgical strikes

A similar approach to the problem is to retake in addition to Turia’s seat, the urban Maori seat of Tamaki Makaurau, provided a high profile candidate is found. This is by far the easiest of the seats to retake, considering the latent urban support for Labour so far. But taking this seat comes at a cost, losing Sharples from the mix, dangerous in terms of wanting to keep him in Parliament so he can lead the party. Another close contest is looming in Te Tai Tokerau, should Shane Jones (Labour, List) run against Hone Harawira (Maori, Te Tai Tokerau), meaning the end of Labour stalwart Dover Samuels (Labour, List). Waiariki is going to be an interesting electorate, a cleavage between the Maori party and Te Arawa Trust board over the lakes settlement could either be a mountain or a molehill in terms of Te Ururoa Flavell’s (Maori, Waiariki) support. Labour could also lose seats as well, with a loss of resources in the lost electorates so it will have to be a balancing act, to use the party resources where they are most likely to gain support.

The Party Vote

In any case, Labour needs to maintain the Party vote. There is an untapped area of support, but requires a strategy that empowers Maori to vote at all. Fear will not cut it, it did not in the last election (although overall the voter turnout increased, Maori voter turnout rates did not rise significantly) and considering the equality of all party votes, it seems ludicrous not to find support in Maori. Furthermore, the high rates of disallowed and informal votes; votes which do not count, casted by Maori mean that the real voter impact of Maori is even less than the voter turnout percentages suggest. Labour and the Maori party could benefit from working together on voter education and registration drives, and may at least at the extra-parliamentary level, lead to a better working relationship.

What about policy?

MMP has certainly allowed the larger parties to give up some of its policy flanks. Labour does not try to aggressively go after the green vote, a tactic that National is trying, following overseas examples. This may explain the shift of Labour’s funding priorities away from Maori, exposed recently in the media. However as it stands, Labour certainly seem more appealing, they are either not prepared to change anything that would create major opposition from Maori in contrast to National’s policies. But they aren’t putting anything fresh on the menu either.

There are number of unexplained factors in this debate, that would take too long to articulate at the moment, but there is considerable flux in Maori political culture, and the party or parties working together could foster more political involvement and inclusion for a growing Maori population, but also go a long way to securing the party’s wider objectives.

Section 59 - The first day of oral submissions

2006-05-25T16:42:00.000+12:00

The first set of oral submissions on the Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Bill, put forward by Sue Bradford (Greens, List) started today.

Bradford, as well as Ann Hartley (Labour, List), Lynne Pillay (Labour, Waitakere), Nicky Wagner (National, List) and Jackie Blue (National, List) were on the Committee today. I hope it was only coincidental that there were no men on the committee today, even though Russell Fairbrother (Labour, List), Christopher Finlayson (National, List), Nandor Tanczos (Greens, List) and Dr Richard Worth (National, List) are also on the JEC. Maybe Tanzcos swapped with Bradford? But the others…way to let the team down.

Anyway, the organisations that appeared were

Save The Children NZ

EPOCH

Families Commission

UNICEF

Parents.org Inc

Barnados

Relationship Services

CCS

IHC

Office of the Children’s Commissioner

All groups supported the Bill.

There were some interesting observations during the hearings.

Families Commission made a recommendation for a 12 to 18 month delay to the enactment of the Bill. Their reasoning was for the provision of adequate education resources to inform the public. Hartley found it disappointing that this recommendation was in the submission and made it clear she was firmly against any delay. Dr Rajen Prasad, Chief Commissioner conceded that if the Bill was enacted without delay, then they would not object, as their primary objective was the repeal of s. 59.

Steven Gore, representing Parent.org Inc provided a unique perspective, with an at times light hearted oral submission. Gore confessed to smacking his children but has since decided not to use corporal punishment. Gore went on a different tack, pushing the lack of positive parenting role models. Comments included:

“In parenting…we have no heroes, only villains.”

“Raising a kid can’t be done in five minutes…smacking a child is like carving a statute out of marble with a sledgehammer, rather than using a fine chisel hammer.”

“This is a rather minimal piece of legislation…there are more troubling things for parents.”

CCS initially submitted in writing that they would be prepared to consider the modification of the Bill to allow incorporation of what constitutes reasonable force. After conferring with their Canadian counterparts, they found that it was impractical from the overseas experience to articulate this and so therefore reversed their position.

A consensus was therefore reached that no one wanted to see any alteration to the Bill in regards of what is reasonable force, but Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro in their oral submission did highlight that the police could be given better guidelines on investigating child abuse cases.

A cabinet paper, obtained via the OIA, was presented by EPOCH explaining the police’s opinion on parent's fears of criminalisation:

"Prosecutions of one-off trivial offences are unlikely…there are significant safeguards in the justice system to minimise the risk of parents being prosecuted for trivial offences and it is not feasible or necessary to develop a specific mechanism to manage this risk."

Wagner was concerned if people would be happy with the police having that much discretion and if people were worried about police consistency.

Bradford was surprised to hear from Kiro that in her conversations with Police Commissioner Rob Robinson that the correspondence between National Integrity National Director Craig S. Smith and chief legal advisor Andrew Jack (1,2) did not represent the opinion of the Police.

It will be of interest in subsequent hearings what opponents will have to say on the issue.

Oral submissions on s.59 start today

2006-05-25T09:13:00.000+12:00

I will be attending the first set of oral submissions on the Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Bill, put forward by Sue Bradford (Greens, List)

They start at 10am and are scheduled trhough to 1pm. It is in Room 6, Ground Floor, Parliament.

Will try to post later today on highlights from today's session.

Today in the House

2006-05-23T12:00:00.000+12:00

Today's Order Paper

Oral Questions to Ministers

1. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: Does she believe Hon David Cunliffe was correct to have made the statements he made last week regarding Telecom's dividend policy; if so, why?

2. GEORGINA BEYER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many New Zealand families will receive targeted tax relief through the Working for Families package?

3. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: Does she agree with Hon Dr Michael Cullen's comments that tax cuts may be affordable "in a year or two's time, depending on forecasts of revenue."; if so, what action will she take as Prime Minister to ensure New Zealanders can benefit from tax cuts?

4. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Maori Affairs: I tukuna ki whea o nga kaupapa a-mahi o naianei te rua tekau ma toru miriona, iwa rau mano taara o te Putea, a, he aha i kore ai i whakapauhia ketia ki nga kaupapa a-mahi i whakaritehia i te tuatahi?
Translation: From which existing programmes was the $23.9 million reallocated in the Budget and why was this money not expended on the programmes for which it was originally allocated?

5. GERRY BROWNLEE to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What stage have Crown negotiations over Tainui claims to the Waikato River reached?

6. H V ROSS ROBERTSON to the Minister for Economic Development: What steps is the Government taking to assist exporters enter key overseas markets?

7. JOHN KEY to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, in relation to the proposed new tax on overseas investment, that "GPG is not registered in New Zealand, it's registered in the United Kingdom and its call for a special exemption makes no sense in terms of tax policy or fairness"; if not, why not?

8. GORDON COPELAND to the Prime Minister: Does she consider that the State Services Commissioner, Dr Mark Prebble, was right when he stated, in relation to his investigation into the leak of a Cabinet paper to Telecom, "I consider that Telecom is not to blame for its receipt of the document."?

9. CHRIS TREMAIN to the Minister of Commerce: Will she act upon suggestions from the business community to the Quality Regulation Taskforce, in light of the fact that the Small Business Advisory Group scored the Minister an average rating of only 5.3 out of 10 for the implementation of its recommendations to reduce regulation?

10. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident that the additional $1.5 billion being allocated to new roading projects will be justified by growth in traffic volumes, given Transit's figures showing a significant decrease in traffic on three Auckland motorways and the five percent increase in bus patronage reported by Stagecoach?

11. JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is he satisfied with the performance of helplines funded through the Ministry of Social Development and Employment?

12. MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Commerce: What are the key features of the quality regulation review announced yesterday and what has been the response?

Language: The long and the short of it

2006-05-23T10:43:00.000+12:00

I don’t make a habit of agreeing with Gerry Brownlee (National, Ilam), but Labour is suffering from a language problem.
This year’s budget has been a recent example. The failure on the part of Labour to make it explicit to the public that tax cuts were secondary to social service provision; the need to appeal to the community instead of the wallet, or as I once heard ‘kiwi not ki-me’. But even in more cerebral issues like the foreshore and seabed debate, the party seems to run away from the tide of debate, and right up the shore.

Meanwhile National has had quite a run of slogans. ‘Bondi Budget’, ‘Super size my surplus’ and ‘where the bloody hell are they’ can proudly join the ‘pay the money back!’ slogan as progenies of a party who last year brought us the ‘iwi-kiwi’, ‘tax-cut’ and ‘drift-net, safety-net’. And last Friday we saw the next batch arrive. Of course the left have got their own back, but there also seems to be a dearth of original design going on the left, although the 'going going gone…gone by lunchtime’ was a notable exception.

Slogans have their place: in the world of the seven second sound bite and the ten word answer, conciseness works. I still think that had National won the plurality in the 2005 election, people would remember the media campaign by National. In fact it did work for the Conservatives in Canada last year

But slogans don’t win elections; if they did Kevin Roberts would be on his sixth term as PM. The language has to be in a format that can be shortened from a hundred to four words without losing the point, and poignant enough to win the hearts, minds and pockets of the New Zealand public…a difficult task. Also, as the Greens have pointed out, it might be too much to not let the truth get in the way of a good slogan.

However it’s zero for two with Labour, and the New Zealand public could tire very quickly, should conditions change. Of course, 2/3 of Australian voters would prefer spending on services than tax cuts, destroying the anticipated support the Howard Government was expecting for their 2006 budget. One might be too hasty to ignore the pulse of the nation, now all one has to do is to speak in time with it.

OT - You'll see this ad very soon

2006-05-17T14:20:00.000+12:00

Messenger, Corporate Services - Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet

Actually, I think this was the ad Mr Ryan responded to.

RSS, OPML...what is this sh*t?

2006-05-17T14:00:00.000+12:00

While trying to explain to a relative the benefits of newsreaders, I wondered how many people actually know that this stuff exists?

So here is my quick rundown for the uninitiated.

RSS (AKA Really simple syndication) is a service offered by some news outlets in the MSM and most blogs, to feed their stories to centralised location. Think of it as building your own newspaper, with the entire world as your newsstand.

As usual, wikipedia has an entry on RSS (actually the practical details are for 'Web feed'

Like the article suggests, you also need an aggregator. I use feeddemon, although I have tried the RSS add-on for mozilla thunderbird. I prefer a standalone program to the web based service, but they are available too.

So simply put:

RSS feeds + Aggregator = News! It's a lot easier than trolling websites.

Local news outlets are finally getting into it, with varying levels of coverage. I have graded them on the basis of their news coverage

Stuff has a feed, but it only seems to get a few stories, the home page headlines. Nothing fantastic, better off using their email updates. C+

NZH has a truckload of feeds, they separate their stories by subjects, so there is some cross over (for example, a piece on 'carbon tax' could make 'politics', 'government', 'taxation' and 'environment'. Also, the subscription content is an problem, but there is a solution. A-

Scoop has finally provided RSS feeds, and has made my life a lot easier. It seems to have sorted the grouping of stories, and everything is available. Brilliant. A+

TVNZ was similar to stuff in it's meagre offerings, but it has started to post it's stories more often. B

Radio NZ, is the RSS-Whore: In a single day, they will post 275+ posts on their 'news' feed. There are four cateogories, but the main feature is their podcasts. If they can break down their stories into bite size subjects, that would help. A

Newstalk ZB, runs in a similar track to RNZ, just with slightly fewer stories. B+

Watea News. The new kind on the block, bunches stories into posts, like it was a script from a news bulletin, but the material is pretty good. B

There are other local news services, listener, investigate and the NZ Govt all having their own RSS feeds. Likewise overseas news services are available. I haven't forgotten the blogs. The best thing with a standalone reader is that the copy of the blog post is stored, so even if the poster takes down a controversial post, you still have a copy for later. sometimes that's as good as an archived copy via google. Plus once again, wouldn't it be easier for the posts to come to you, rather than you having to go to 10,15,20 blog sites each day...or the same blog site again and again each day, waiting for their next furiously written rant.

Moving onto OPMLs, think of these as a bookmark of all the RSS feeds you have currently subscribed to. Useful for backing up or for giving to others, like my one, which I am providing here. You'll find the feeds for the sources mentioned above there. (NOTE: Right click and select 'save target as'). You have to import the OPML into your reader of course, and most programs show you how.

Why use RSS? well, if you are like me and you can't stand just the news from one newspaper, or waiting till the top of the hour for the radio (or even 6pm for the TV news), you have the freedom to get the news delivered to you, particularly those in front of a PC more days than not. Work smarter, not harder.

PS: If you know of any other local news sources that have RSS feeds, I would be happy to include them.
PPS: If you are looking for other blogs, check other bloggers webrolls, or the Planet of the Journals

Today's Reading List

2006-05-17T12:28:00.000+12:00

So as to take your attention from leakers in the DPMC

Guardian - Children to be taught 'traditional values'

Christian Science Monitor - Guard's impact at border

Christian Science Monitor - FBI checking reporters' phone records (this is a good review of the issue)

Gurardian - MP in immigration row to leave Netherlands

BBC - Husband not culpable for suicide

Pravda - Poll: Clinton could have 2008 trouble in own backyard

The independant - Bono, Guest Editor: I am a witness. What can I do?

New York Times - About that free trade...

Actually I lied, there is one on the leak, courtesy of David Slack:

Island Life - Risky Business

Today in the House

2006-05-17T12:07:00.000+12:00

Today's Order Paper

Questions for Oral Answer

1. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: Is it still the goal of her Government to have New Zealand "return to the top half of the OECD ratings by 2011"; if so, will tomorrow's Budget ensure that New Zealand achieves that goal?

2. MARTIN GALLAGHER to the Minister of Police: What steps has the Government announced which implement the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First in respect of police numbers?

3. JOHN KEY to the Minister of Communications: Does he stand by his statement that Telecom shareholders "need to accept that in the short run there may be somewhat lower dividend flows or lower returns"; if not, why not?

4. MOANA MACKEY to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to ensure that students stay at school?

5. GERRY BROWNLEE to the Prime Minister: Is she satisfied with arrangements for the handling of sensitive Government documents by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; if not, why not?

6. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his reported statement to the Auckland mayors that "rail will never work"?

7. SIMON POWER to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that she does not underestimate the difficulties in recruiting extra police; if not, why not?

8. Hon TONY RYALL to the Minister of Health: How many elective surgery patient discharges were there in the financial year to March 2006, and how does this compare to the same period in 2000/2001?

9. BARBARA STEWART to the Minister of Health: What steps is he taking to ensure that the significant funding boost to the aged residential care sector that is to feature in this year's Budget is delivered to the aged care sector in its entirety and in a timely fashion?

10. SANDRA GOUDIE to the Minister for Senior Citizens: Does she stand by her statement that "As far as the Government is concerned, abuse or neglect of our older citizens in residential care - or anywhere else, for that matter - is abhorrent. It is simply unacceptable."; if so, why?

11. STEVE CHADWICK to the Associate Minister of Health: What initiatives is the Government considering to reduce tobacco consumption?

12. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister of Maori Affairs: Does he stand by his translated statement in the House yesterday regarding Te Puni Kokiri that it is not right to say here whether his Ministry is "a waste of time for Maori"; if so, where does he believe Te Puni Kokiri should be held to account?

Fear mongering by the Daily Post

2006-05-12T19:51:00.000+12:00

I think the headline plastered along the front page of the Daily Post (Rotorua and Eastern BOP daily newspaper) is so far this year’s most inaccurate headline:

“Maori blamed for NCEA slump”

The article makes hay of comments by Rotorua Lakes High School principal John Ellis that it was unfair that his high school, like many in the central North Island had a high failure rate of NCEA Level 1 (the old School Certificate) candidates because of the high level of Maori students in the region, who held the average down…

First of all well done to John Ellis for not just seeing how that comment would be misconstrued by the media, but justifying his schools less than stellar performance on a statistical anomaly.

Secondly, well done to the editorial staff of the Daily Post who ignored the public good, by hyper-inflating one person’s viewpoint, and then spent the rest of the time softening the initial response. They will only reinforce an already abundant Maori-bashing mindset, one that does nothing to actually create a positive mindset, crucial to encouraging academic success.

Finally a big thank you to the reporters Abigail Caspari and Cherie Taylor, who spent no time in proving how this was actually a slump by providing NO evidence of the long term trends in NCEA or it’s equivalent precursors within the region, resorting to unrelated figures:

“In 2001 33 per cent of Maori students were leaving school without a qualification. That had since dropped to 8 per cent.”

[Which qualifications are being included here, well we will never know, but that doesn’t seem to matter to the D.P]

And unarticulated generalisations:

“Nationally Maori, who traditionally had problems with NCEA…”

What a monstrosity of journalistic effort.

Editorialwatch: Manawatu Standard on John Key

2006-05-12T14:55:00.000+12:00

Today's editorial, from the title to the article proper seems to do nothing but stoke the debate of leadership change in the National party, and the first reference I have heard, alluding John Key (National, Helensville) to Conservative (UK) Leader and would be British PM David Cameron. An interesting comparison, considering Cameron's media savvy and dubious past, Key seems dull in comparison.

But once again, the Nats have to acknowledge how to live in an MMP environment. Trying to get to 45% of the party vote, and simultaneously try to kick New Zealand First and the Greens out of Parliament must have seemed like a fantastic wet dream, which turned into a nightmare when it ultimately failed, and it seems that the only way that National can get back in is if two things happen around the next election:

A substantial haemorrhage of Labour support (i.e. an ‘I’m fed up!’ electorate);

A viable arrangement of centre right parties ready to go into coalition/support arrangements

Nothing seems to suggest that this is happening, and in fact what the political discourse is saturated and stale with is clearly more of the same from 2005, from both sides of the House.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. The New Zealand public seems to agree so far in 2006.

Happy Birthday to the Nats

2006-05-12T14:22:00.000+12:00

Last night's anniversary party at Parliament looked a swanky affair, with media overage focussing on the reunion of the rolled (or soon to be?)

I was fascinated by the comments of Jim Bolger and Jim McLeay in the above article:

...In his speech to the function, Mr Bolger delivered a plea for more inclusiveness of Maori and Pacific Islanders.

He noted that Maori corporations were getting bigger and more influential but were not represented at the function. Maori and Pacific Islanders gave New Zealand something extremely precious, "which is babies", Mr Bolger said.

The party needed to ask itself "Where are we going? New Zealand today is not New Zealand 1936."

Mr McLay said New Zealand must rejoice in diversity but also be a cohesive, single nation...

One could read these as coded messages to the effect that National has got them into a hole on race issues that it cannot get out of easily,and a friendly reminder that not all of the party faithful are happy with where they are now. In fact a blog post in a dusty old blog elaborates on the mindset of Bolger regarding 'national identity' (although maybe this is code as well.)

It is most likely that these comments will fall upon a deaf ear...time will tell how prudent that apporach will be.

PS: would enjoy comments about the evening and how they found it.

Union membership doesn't get you higher wages in public service?

2006-05-12T12:09:00.000+12:00

The latest issue of the Policy Quarterly (VUW School of Government) features an article by Goldie Feinberg-Danieli and Zsuzsanna Lonti called "The Union and Non-Union Wage Differential in the New Zealand Public Service" who contend that:

...Contrary to the general findings in the
international literature, employees on collective
agreements in the NZPS earn substantially less than
employees on individual contracts. The negative wage
differential persists across most employee subgroups.
However, New Zealand public sector unions seem to
deliver better results for part-timers, blue-collar workers,
young workers and lower-skilled white-collar workers,
groups that are traditionally disadvantaged in the labour
market...

Probably not a glowing display of union led pay increases. but with this year's demands for wage increases from the department of conservation, inland revenue the police and corrections, this could put a spanner in the works from union members expecting a lot from the negotiations.

Brash: Hunter has become hunted...again?

2006-05-10T12:44:00.000+12:00

I suppose after reading the Question Time transcript, press releases (1, 2) and the numerous stories (1, 2, 3)in the MSM, I can’t help but be convinced, that the team with the most political instinct or discernment is the very same that is in power. They have in one stroke diverted attention away from the Telecom leak and simultaneously brought back the stories, picturing Don Brash (National, List) as a ‘flip-flopper’, usefully exploited in the 2005 election campaign.

It is also very funny how things change. Many Right blogs during the David Benson-Pope (Labour, Dunedin South) story highlighted that when criticised for point scoring and gutter politics, the response was that it wasn’t so much the allegations that were touted, but rather that the Minister had lied in the House and in the MSM (1,2, 3, 4) . Now it seems that the Left are now on the same track, in particular Jordan Carter demanding the resignation of Dr Brash as leader of National.

I guess it comes down to this: who is the bigger problem…a Minister who misleads, or a Prime Minister in waiting who misleads. On the one hand, there is the breach of parliamentary standing orders and on the other the political ineptitude displayed by the most important opposition member. The answer will not be unanimous.

The other thing is that when Benson-Pope’s allegations came out, the public tired of it, and there was no surge of support to National, in fact one could argue the opposite. I think that this stunt by Winston Peters (New Zealnd First, List) will just as surely meet the same reception. But the advantage that the Government has is that they by virtue of their position can change the media agenda a lot quicker and better than their opponents can. The government would benefit from being prudent, and the National party may benefit by focusing on a better target, one closer to the hearts and minds of Joe Public.

I am intrigued by the fact that very little has been said of the flip flop between Maurice Williamson (National, Pakuranga) and Brash regarding the party’s support for LLU.

Today in the House

2006-05-10T11:48:00.000+12:00

Order Paper

Questions to Ministers

1. JUDY TURNER to the Minister of Health: Why is the Government building more public hospitals when there is under-utilised capacity in private hospitals?

2. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that "it is time to move to the next level in the economic transformation agenda."; if so, how is that agenda affected by last night's Australian budget?

3. SHANE JONES to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any recent reports on business reaction to the proposed changes to telecommunications regulations announced last week?

4. JOHN KEY to the Minister of Finance: Will he be following the lead of Australian Treasurer Peter Costello by raising income tax thresholds and/or cutting tax rates in his 2006 Budget; if not, why not?

5. DAVE HEREORA to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What recent steps has the Government taken to further its commitment to settle all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims?

6. GERRY BROWNLEE to the Prime Minister: Why has she not asked each of her Ministers for an assurance that neither they nor any members of their staff were responsible for last week's leak of the confidential budget-related Cabinet paper?

7. Dr PITA SHARPLES to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I runga i te ahua kua tohaina te rima miriona tara mo nga tau e wha ka taea e te Minita te kii mai, e hia nga tono e pa ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi ka oti, i runga ake i nga tono i whakaritea kia oti, mehemea kare i tukuna e ia te rima miriona tara hei putea?
Translation: Given the five million dollar funding over a four year period, how many Treaty of Waitangi claims does the Minister believe will be completed, over and above those which would have been completed, had the five million dollars not been made available?

8. Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Minister of Education: Would a student sitting an NCEA external examination in 2005 have had the same chance of passing a given standard as they would have had in 2004 in the ten mainstream subjects analysed by Professor Warwick Elley; if not, why not?

9. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Education: What initiatives is the Government implementing to support environmental education in light of the Labour-led Government-Green Party co-operation agreement?

10. Hon TONY RYALL to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, "What I'm satisfied by is that PlunketLine, in terms of calls picked up, was not providing a good service"; if so, why?

11. GEORGINA BEYER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps has the Government taken to ensure that Work and Income services are meeting the needs of New Zealanders?

12. SIMON POWER to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement to the House on 8 December 2005 that "we will recruit another 1,000 sworn front-line police", and does she mean that there will be 1,000 more sworn police on the streets by the end of this term on top of the current 7,657 sworn front-line officers?

Today in the House

2006-05-09T11:47:00.000+12:00

Order Paper

Oral Questions to Ministers - Question Time

1. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers, in light of the leak last week of confidential budget-related Cabinet papers that reportedly wiped $1.8 billion from the market value of Telecom New Zealand Limited, and what steps has she taken to quickly identify the source of the leak?

2. SHANE JONES to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Crown's financial position?

3. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH to the Prime Minister: How long has Taito Phillip Field got to respond to the draft inquiry report of Noel Ingram QC into alleged conflicts of interest?

4. Hon TONY RYALL to the Minister of Health: Is he concerned about the Government's ability to meet New Zealanders' need for elective surgery; if not, why not?

5. KEITH LOCKE to the Minister of Police: Has she received any reports that the police are inappropriately using pepper-spray; if so, what action does she plan to take?

6. Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Minister of Education: What public statements or formal reports has he seen as evidence for his statement in relation to NCEA "that every assessment expert who we have had available to us, including people like John Hattie who has been part of the Ministerial reference group, has said that this year the variation is fine."?

7. MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made on constructing new public hospitals around New Zealand?

8. Hon TONY RYALL to the Prime Minister: What was the date and nature of the offer made to Plunket that she referred to in the House last week when she said, "I have received advice that Plunket was offered funding for more calls and did not take up the offer."?

9. GEORGINA BEYER to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has he received on the Government's progress on moving New Zealanders off benefits and into work?

10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Minister of Civil Defence: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the tsunami warning last Thursday that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management was "accurately on top of their job" and that "the BBC is at fault"; if so, why?

11. RON MARK to the Minister of Defence: What is the hourly base rate of New Zealand's Special Air Service soldiers, given that they are contracted with the army to be on duty 24 hours a day, and seven days a week?

12. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister for Biosecurity: Is he satisfied with current border control checks on meat imports, and was there a risk that foot and mouth disease could have been imported with recent raw pork discovery?

Facists 2, Humans 0

2006-05-09T11:08:00.000+12:00

Democrracy.net seems to going on a facism slant very recently.

I thought the piece on the rise of the neo-facist BNP in the British local elections and Margaret Hodge's contribution was very interesting.

The other article is one by Art Historian Dora Apel. It's a bit out there IMHO, particulary how the "civil defence vodka" was designed for the growing neo facist market in Russia:

"Civil Defence [vodka] was invented and has been highly successful, not because it tastes better than other vodkas, but because the bottle is impressive to unemployed and disaffected youth, the growing population of racist skinhead gangs, and the supporters and sympathisers of the increasingly strident radical nationalist parties in Russia. While they may or may not recognise the precise source of the image, they are well aware of the fascist and racist ideology it represents, which they identify with right-wing Russian nationalism, and which appeals to some among the youth who perceive post-Stalinism as an era of cynical and corrupt politicians."

I suggest you read them both.

Powhiri: why did it get to this?

2006-05-09T10:50:00.000+12:00

If we believe that Judith Collins (National, Clevedon) was not told that a powhiri was to be held until she and the rest of the Select Committee delegation arrived, then you can understand how she would be peeved. I am certain that a compromise could have been reached that would have been amicable. I will elaborate later.

It seems that there are two arguments here. Actually only one argument has been considered in the blogosphere, and that might be, I assume because there are almost no woman speaking to this topic. The first is on the issue of sexism. The press statements I have seen from political parties (and some blog entries) suggest that the whole matter is sexism behind the veil of tikanga/kawa. I find the argument to be bullshit, as I define powhiri (and I must point out here that this is hardly an expert opinion, being based upon my own experience and education). Why is that? I always respond with the following questions:

1. What is the first formal, and essential act of the powhiri?

2. Who performs this?

3. What is the purpose?

4. Could this be ignored?

I reply, as follows;

1. The karanga (some would argue the wero, but it is rare that these are held, and thus not essential)

2. Only woman can perform this. In fact only specific woman can (tuakana, the eldest daughter)

3. They identify manuhiri and tangata whenua, the reason for the meeting, honour the relationship between the groups (that may include highlighting the shared ancestry, if the woman are good at karanga), begin the greetings.

4. No. But they cover a lot of stuff that is elaborated during the whaikorero (speeches)

So powhiri cannot be held without a karanga, powhiri cannot be started without women. Of coure, powhiri cannot be finished without men, so what is actually present is a gender balance, roles shared by both men and women.

That being said, there needs to be a need to address what is more important, the gender, or the prestige (mana) of the individuals who sit at the front. No one denies the reverence placed to MPs in public visits. I agree with Pita Sharples (Maori, Tamaki Makaurau) that the gender barrier could be superseeded by their mana of an MP and thus deserves to sit at the front, male or female. In fact the kaumatua needs to be reminded that departmental policy is that there is no gender gap; woman are allowed to sit at the front and he had better modify his application of kawa.

Staying on the topic of kawa (accepted protocol on the 'marae'), I do find it unacceptable that the National MPs (Remember it wasn't just Collins who refused to sit at the back, a point I will return to) were talked to in such a disrespectful fashion....It should have been conducted DURING...there is precedent, the idea that the whaikorero can be controversial or antagonistic (but not to the point of conflict) is one that is allowed. The kaumatua’s concerns could have been made then and would have be more acceptable. The speakers that the manuhiri had, would then have to defend and articulate their reasons. Once the powhiri is over, there is a need to 'bury the hatchet' Furthermore I was upset that the SC was not informed properly before the powhiri that one would be held...especially one that would turn out to be a political stunt.

How is that? The presence of all female National MPs (Anne Tolley (National, East Coast), Paula Bennett (National, List) and Collins) refusing demonstrates a level of collusion that was designed to draw coverage to themselves via the media. I'm not saying that political stunts are wrong, but that both parties refused to actually 'work it out' would have avoided media coverage. It was done to intentionally draw attention.

Fianlly, it seems that Collins refused to follow other matters of protocol, like the relatively simple act of taking off one shoes, according to RNZ.

Was anybody expecting this?

2006-05-04T14:14:00.000+12:00

Two-way traffic on Maori electoral roll

It's a net shift to the Maori roll, but some are shifting across to General from the Maori roll.

I'm trying to hypothesise the reasons why Maori would shift to the General roll. As I can see, it may be an extension of tactical voting to the next stage...Tactical registration. If you were a die hard non Maori party supporter, why would you stick in an electorate that was most likely going to stay Maori?

Either that or that Maori are filling out the forms incorrectly. I don't want to make it sound like the concept of filling out a registration form might be too difficult for your average Hohepa Bloggs, but remember a post I did earlier on the high rates of disallowed and informal votes cast in the Maori electorates and it could be plausible that if you have problems filling out a vote slip, you could have just as much trouble.

In fact, this is an issue that seems to be neglected in the general discourse: why is there this high proportion of informal and disallowed votes within the Maori electorates?

And why aren't we looking to sort this issue out? (I'm looking at political parties to help on this one)

Anyway, I’m working on a more general series on voting dynamics for ‘the brown vote’. Stay tuned.

Who would you trust?

2006-05-04T13:48:00.000+12:00

A comprehensive poll between the BBC, Reuters and The Media Center creates some interesting, but limited statistics about people and the media.

S Koreans 'trust internet news'

Media holds its own in trust poll

Blogs: To trust or not to trust?

The breakdowns are available here.

On the same day, The Guardian puts a piece out that BBC misleads in it's coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (but apparently, it's not biased.)

So today's question is...who do you trust?

Update: The Guardian did a piece on British Market Research Bureau's quarterly report showing that blogs are 'overhyped'

First two questions up in the House today...

2006-05-04T12:16:00.000+12:00

1. MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Communications:

What is the Government doing to make faster, cheaper broadband available to all New Zealanders?

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Prime Minister:

How did Telecom New Zealand Limited obtain a copy of a commercially sensitive Cabinet document?

David Parker will not be prosecuted

2006-04-26T16:35:00.000+12:00

Scoop reports that the Companies Office will not prosecute David Parker (Labour, List) or any other member of Queens Park Mews Limited, based on the advice of the Crown Solicitor Meredith Connell:

"In conclusion, therefore, there is no basis whatsover for a prosecution of Mr David Parker for an offence or offences under s377(2) of the Companies Act 1993 of making or authorising the making of a statement in an annual report that is false [or] misleading knowing it to be false or misleading."

Questions:

1. How quickly will PM Clark reintroduce Parker to the Cabinet?

2. How quickly will calls come from those who like taking Labour apart of corruption, interference and dishonesty?

3. Will Ian Wishhart and Investigate take any time to mention this development in subsequent editions?

Maybe it will just be a race to see which happens first, although I think I know where the safe money is.

UPDATE: Go the Appleby's on winning question 2 before anyone else!

AFP reports that world on track to halve poverty (if you ignore Africa)

2006-04-26T10:34:00.000+12:00

A World Bank-IMF report, shows that India and China, with their economic explosion, are leading the way, but other regions are either "not reducing poverty, [or] are slipping behind."

Africa, particularly the Sub Saharan countries are stagnating in spite of the Millenium Development Program being over six years into operation.

Who's to blame...some would argue that unless National institutions within targeted nations reform to encourage development and eradicate corruption and inefficiency, there are no accomplishments worth celebrating and there's no point to continuing to help them...

I respond that the blood, so to speak will be on everyone's hands if even one country is left behind as a consequence of no cooperation. Everyone will have to sacrifice a little; New Zealand has boosted its foreign aid budget to 0.27 - 0.28% of GDP, but still way, way, way below the (voluntary) 0.7% target set by the UN, which will provide the funding to complete all eight MDGs.

Likewise, an equal commitment is needed from countries that need assistance. A commitment to surmount the forces of the West to undermine their achievements and blast negative stereotypes is absolutely necessary.

The report requires one action from all of us...shut up and help out. Let the praise and blame come forth at the end of the day, not at lunchtime.

Warning Warning Will Robinson! Attacking the Treaty in healthcare

2006-04-21T09:34:00.000+12:00

I have built up an emotional tolerance for the 'one law for all' polemic from the National Party, instead trying very hard to understand the argument. And the reasoning thus far is superficially logical.

But I always find my patience thin in matters regarding healthcare. And yes it may be so that "teeth are teeth and people should get help on the basis of need, not race", according to Tony Ryall (National, Bay of Plenty) in the NZH. Indeed teeth are teeth, but the people whose gums hold them aren't. Put it this way, health professionals have to be very aware of the need to make their patients feel comfortable, in fact it makes patient outcomes better.

I wonder how comfortable women would be if all OB-GYNs were men again, in the current social climate (I'm wondering if Capitalism Bad, Tree Pretty would agree with this assertion); If I was a woman, I am certain that I would feel more comfortable with a woman doctor (if given the choice), and I'm sure that's the same for many other people: it helps to be comfortable, patients are more likely to be honest and forthcoming and I argue they would be more receptive to following treatment. Building trust is easier in a comfortable setting.

Think about how doctors, already handle patients differently to carry out their jobs. Dealing with a homicidal, drug loaded, patient in the A&E at 2 in the morning is different from working with a lethargic child with cancer at 9.30 in the morning. We value our health professionals, because they can deal with a number of patients from different situations, providing medical service, tailored to get the best outcome.

Well, Mr Ryall, please think of that when cultural concerns should not be accounted for, and while it may be flippant to consider the Treaty something different from what many, if not most Maori hold, health practitioners had better be wary not to be so in dealing with people of differing cultural backgrounds. Empathy should be in their bag with the rest of their tools to treat patients. It's the responsible and professional thing to do.

Today's Reading List

2006-04-20T08:25:00.000+12:00

Open Democracy - Nepal: the underbelly of the beast

China should cut barriers to foreign investment, says OECD

Eldis - Aboriginal engagement and sustainability compendium

Christian Science Monitor - Democrats eye big House gains

Asia Times - Vietnam's banks: A wild new world

The Bad Blood Scandal: Explained

2006-04-19T18:08:00.000+12:00

A recent development in a story of personal interest is the Government paying a $10 million compensation package as part of the “bad blood scandal”. For those who don’t know the story, it goes like this:

Back in February 1990, Helen Clark (Labour, Mt Albert) was the Minister of Health, and was trying hard to cut health costs (for example, she was asked to cut health expenditure by 2% in 1989). In the meantime, blood products like factor IX (used for haemophiliac treatment) screened for hepatitis C was available on the market. Despite advice from the Health Department, it was not introduced due to the cost. After the December 1990 election, The New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA) wrote to the incoming Health Minister Simon Upton about mandatory testing of donated blood, blood that was used for amongst other things, blood products. No response. In July 1992, the Haemophiliac Centre at Auckland Hospital wrote to the Minister of Health stating that high-heat-treated factor IX was still not available and asked for funds to buy safer supplies. Upton delayed his response to September that year, explaining that the blood transfusion centres were responsible for providing services, funded through money direct from area health board and not the ministry directly ( in line with the need to ‘privatise’ the health system), and so he was not responsible as Minister. Finally, in November 1992 the story went public…Upton stuck to his story. After strong criticism in Parliament and in the media, an inquiry by the Health Department revealed a sad story:

A total of 337,500 patients would have had blood transfusions between February 1990 and July 1992. Of those, 733 (including 70% of all haemophilia patients) would contract hepatitis C and in extreme chronic cases, lead to cirrhosis and cancer. Looking at only those infected patients, 323 (44% of haemophiliacs) would ‘probably survive’. By 1994 it was estimated that the remaining 410 would die.

The inquiry came and went, the patients suffered. The story died away, the patients suffered.

When Labour was re-elected in 1999, they provided a $7 million fund to compensate the victims (at a paltry $44,000 each), but claimants had to prove that they were infected between February 1990 and July 1992. Many could not, forcing sufferers to demand a police inquiry (which found no evidence of criminal nuisance by either Clark or Upton as Ministers of Health) and legal action (some that is still ongoing) and partially successful ACC claims, leaving many bitter. Attempts to uncover the truth were stonewalled by Archives New Zealand, restricting archived records of Clark and Upton

Then a glimmer of hope. A year ago, at a meeting of the New Zealand Haemophiliac Foundation, the Government was open to a new compensation deal: they would accept a new report from the foundation, effectively allowing them to make their case.

Then news on Sunday last that the Government, after 16 years, would be pushing the end of the story as close as ever before. A $10 million package including a $60,000 payout to each victim of the bad blood scandal (including those who have already died), but have been fighting in the courts to get justice. But notably, victims will receive a public apology from Prime Minister Helen Clark (a long held demand of victims for several years.). The deal requires all court cases regarding the scandal to be dropped.

But the most surprising thing is that the story broke with the rumour that the agreement was precipitated to avoid a smear campaign in swing electorates: a letter drop highlighting the broken promises to hundreds of sufferers. Whether it’s a political stunt to leverage the government or an olive branch to a cruelly afflicted group, it must be some consolation that after so many years of struggle, some patients will finally get a fair treatment, in more ways than one.

And the rest of the story...we may have to wait a few decades where the restrictions on Clark's and Upton's archived records will finally be released. Perhaps in 2020, by which some of Clark's records will be publicly available a new chapter can be added…probably too late for the 733 to ever see.

Today's Reading List

2006-04-13T10:27:00.000+12:00

Pravda - Bill Clinton says boring is better

Times Online - Sobriety? Hardly a thing of the past

Open Democracy - Internet hoaxes hit politics

Asia Times - Bush: Method in the madness?

A brief note to Dr Brash

2006-04-13T10:00:00.000+12:00

To:

Dr Donald Brash

Leader of the Opposition

Government Buildings

Wellington

From:

Geoff Hayward

Thorndon Bubble

As you are well aware, your political opponents made a lot of hay out of your discussions with American officials regarding New Zealand's foreign policy and in particular New Zealand's nuclear policy stance. May I pass on a piece of advice before your upcoming meeting with Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick.

Whatever you do, do not for the sake your continued leadership of the National party discuss anything before lunchtime. In fact, I would have a large brunch.

Furthermore if you do talk about it, try not making any witty remarks that may be turned into potent quotes.

And make sure that you and your caucus colleagues have a clear idea of what is the party's stance and that you won't unilaterally create ambiguous comments to undermine your party.

McKesson, fraud, frogblog and who cares?

2006-04-13T09:50:00.000+12:00

The frogblog have posted on today's 'latest' development on the McKesson Corporation's connections to defence contractors and fraud.

In terms of context, I note that all of those who were indicted for fraud were first fired by McKesson. Not that it makes any difference, when so many have been due to the gross mismanagement. And I did not see anywhere the class action suits filed by shareholders, with 960 million USD so far paid out, according to this report.

But here's the biggest question that the NZ public will deliver when they delve into the details; who cares? The matter seems to be almost resolved, and the company's ability to provide service never was questioned, rather their ability to be honest with the books.

Put it another way, how many people use Kodak products even though they lost a patent case to Polaroid?

I think it's harsh to judge a corporation for the mistakes of the past, if they have paid their punishment and moved on with decent service...some tried to with our MPs and that didn’t work out (for those who tried it)

Editorialwatch: Plunketline

2006-04-11T07:45:00.000+12:00

Today's Southland Times, makes a point about the Government's call to dump plunket for McKesson's, as one of political risk but economic necessity. I also offer the need to maintain the mana of a national institution.

I agree that Plunket is a national institution, one that this decisionit has been argued could undermine it's lofty place in New Zealand families, but could we all agree that Plunket is not just a phone-in service, and the very reason why it has such a proud reputation is because they do a lot of things well. For example, TVNZ news also featured a news story on child seats, with calls from Plunket to get more seats into cars with children on board. The Plunket website shows that Plunketline was just one of a plethora of services, it's not like this will destroy Plunket’s good work, it just means it loses something that isn't maintaining a high enough standard

Perhaps it's more questionable that McKesson may not have the skill to maintain a good quality service. In fact the Plunket brand works against McKesson, a (relatively) new organisation has a higher than normal expectation to provide good service. Indeed, we should be cautious to think that unanswered call rates are an effective measure of a high quality organisation, and I can only assume that the criteria for assessment is far more stringent.

OT- The blogroll has been updated

2006-04-10T23:49:00.000+12:00

But if you want your site here, or you really think I got your position wrong, message me your thoughts.

The reasoning for the change was partially because the list was lost off the template, but also to get a fairer idea of the current NZ political blogsphere.

Another other reason is cut out the dead/hibernating blogs, to make the list easier to use.

A New Blog, NZAID in the field

2006-04-10T14:26:00.000+12:00

http://nzaid.blogspot.com/

A new, insightful blog from members of the NZ governemt aid and development agency, featuring posts from NZAID members from around the world. It may be the first NZ Government blog, other that ones started by Members of Parliament. it also allows a closer look at NZAID funded programmes and projects.

First up is Catrina McDiarmid, who is travelling to Papua New Guinea on a visit focussing on the Millennium Development Goals and the Pacific, HIV/AIDS, and other sexual and reproductive health issues.

Progressive's Website Hacked

2006-04-10T10:20:00.000+12:00

http://www.progressive.org.nz/

The progressives website has been hacked by an annonmyous hacker. The front page has been replaced with a scrolling message that conatins a repeated line:

"Hacked By HeLLBoY ---> MSN iLeTiSiM---> MeCHuLMeKaNSiZ@mynet.com [Turkish Hacker]"

One wonders how quickly the party will figure this out?

Housing New Zealand, and Whistleblowing in the Public Sector

2006-04-10T10:12:00.000+12:00

Just as quickly as the Government had got their message back on track, they now have to deal with another executive crisis. This issue however, does not in itself involve the private affairs of an MP, but the organisation that is responsible for an institution of New Zealand’s welfare state: the State House.

It is clear two point out that there are two major issues; the rights of whistle-blowing in the public sector and the allegations in themselves.

Speaking to the allegations, the Herald on Sunday reports the following:

accounting of taxpayer money was being "manipulated" so programmes "come out on budget"
a senior manager in Housing NZ is aware of the accounting "manipulation" and is "encouraging it"
management reports supplied to Mr Carter are "untrue"
There is deliberate lack of scrutiny over invoices being sent to one particular division of the corporation
Overspending of $2.1 million of taxpayer money was hidden and reintroduced in a later period when additional funds were available to balance the books, with accounts falsified to appear on time and on budget.

And considering that this organisation has to deal with some the most destitute of people, who are trying to live and work in this country, makes me feel a greater sense of exploitation. This is a considerable shame, and so far seems like there is no end of criticism or a positive success coming HCNZ’s way.

The crisis could yet erode centre support for the labour party in particular, those who may feel that social provision must be prudent and tempered will not be happy if this supposed corruption is indeed intentionally malicious. Another unanswered question is if the reports sent to the ministry were known to be untrue by them. It will take a while to ascertain if this is the case. It's a relief that the matter has been quickly given to Ernst and Young to investigate.

On Blog and TVNZ Rodney Hide (ACT, Epsom) has already leapt into the political crisis, it will be interesting how the ACT and other parties react, as well as how much damage that Hide will successfully deliever and most importantly if the New Zealand public actually care enough.

But speaking to the issue of Public Sector whistle blowing, there seems to be a larger problem. Why did it have to get to this point to get the allegations dealt to by the minister? Even Pat Sneddon agrees that the agreement that the executive made with the whistleblower that prevented the access to the minister was wrong.

But was the Office of the Ombudsman ever contacted? In 2001 the Ombudsman in a quarterly report stated:

The Ombudsmen’s two main roles under the [Protected Disclosures] Act are: "supplying information to and guiding anyone in the public or private sector who wishes to consider making a disclosure as to serious wrongdoing; and acting as an “appropriate authority” to whom complaints can be made".

Bell Gully also notes on their website:

To qualify as a protected disclosure under the Act the information must relate to "serious wrongdoing". This includes:

unlawful, corrupt or irregular use of public funds or public resources;
acts or omissions that constitute a serious risk to public health or safety or the environment;
acts or omissions that constitute a serious risk to the maintenance of law and the detection of offences and the rights to a fair trial;
an act or omission or cause of conduct that constitutes an offence; or
an act or omission by a public official that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory, grossly negligent, or that constitutes gross mis-management.

In addition the "whistleblower" employee must:

believe the information is true, or likely to be true;
want to disclose the information so that it can be investigated; and
want the disclosure to be protected.

…If the employee believes that the head of the organisation is implicated in the wrongdoing, then disclosure may be made directly to the "appropriate Authority". An appropriate Authority includes the Commissioner of Police, Solicitor-General, Ombudsman, or Director of the Serious Fraud Office.

Now, I’m also trying to figure out, if the gagging agreement signed would have been difficult to enforce if the allegations had involved the chief members of the executives of HCNZ, which the allegations above seem to have done.

[Update: Bill Hodge seems to think so, even of the agreement wasn’t devised by them, their consent was required. Strangely, I also agree with Hide, why is Helen Fulcher, the CEO of HCNZ still in her role, considering the allegations that swirl about her?]

PS: An american/ccanadian perspective on whistle-blowing is available here

PPS: The Auditor-General has now also entered the investigations, according to TVNZ.

When Churches Go Good

2006-04-07T09:23:00.000+12:00

A few days ago I saw the following article in the DP:

‘Bishops call for action on climate change’

Although the article does frame the arguments they make outside of a religious context, I note this comment from the Bishop of Waikato David Moxham:

“He said some people might question whether Christian leaders should involve themselves with such issues but "God's world needs God's people to act for the redeeming of God's creation"

A while back, I blogged on a group of churches in the US who also made similar calls for climate change reform. I commented at the time about the possible split the Right may have in the US, coming up to the midterms without unanimous support being assured.

I commented on this topic in particular with a colleague, who dislikes organised religion with a vengeance. It really tore them up, to think that churches who in their eyes cheat, steal and exploit their congregations, especially those who have trouble getting enough money to survive each week, yet drive ‘fancy cars’ yet would show some leadership on issues of concern to their congregation.

The point is that organised churches can sometimes be a catalyst for social change. I still remember the Hikoi of Hope in 1998 (A google search is here), with many of my relations being a part of the march. I applaud the calls made by the Anglican Church, while we all have our own fallibilities, and we may look at many things differently it’s important to reach out to challenge important issues.

Blogging in the public sector, and a blogger code?

2006-04-07T08:57:00.000+12:00

Last night's Blogging in the Public Sector seminar featured four local bloggers, three of which balance their work as public servants and private blog thoughts. Issues discussed included

Suppression orders and the ethical issues that face a blogger

Internal blogs (and wiki’s) as knowledge bases

Reputation and responsibility

I was personally impressed with the turnout of people and the contributions from both the panel and the audience was useful.

Regarding the issue of blogger responsibility, I remember a popular US blog, Daily Kaos, is part of an group known as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who demand blogger’s rights, articulated in the United States context. Considering that the FEC also has released a series of regulations that govern how bloggers may contribute in this years midterms, the idea of imposed regulations is not something that fits in with the freedom of the internet.

Last night I suggested a voluntary, non profit, peer review organisation that will comprise of members who support a professional approach to their material, so as to convince the mainstream media, and the general public that blogs can be just as reputable in providing accurate and useful insight within the general discourse, but have the advantage of time and breadth of material that other media formats cannot possibly match. Members of this organisation must agree to a prepared charter of obligations, and it is the task of the membership to ‘peer review’ others works.

While I don’t have the clearest idea about what precisely should be a charter, these could be some elements:

Obedience with local laws, bylaws and regulations;

Disclose sources on specific matters-of-fact;

Avoids profanity, offensive and slanderous material to other readers, groups, bloggers etc;

Produces ‘cerebral’ material; short posts editorialising does not necessarily expand the debate;

Freedom of opinions, but demonstrates a principled and ethical approach to their work;

Supports commentary by readers on the blog (although moderated within reason);

A principled approach to Intellectual Property that acknowledges the source of unoriginal material

but also does not sell their original material either;

No advertising material upon their sites.

Obviously some of these elements are highly subjective, but there must be allowance for those sites that do indeed have a political spin, but do contribute to the discourse.

My idea would in the end, feature a simple icon on the blog, showing that you are part of this group, a simple way for users to recognise a responsible, community based, peer reviewed system to help them select reputable blogs (or perhaps more reputable than others). It also shows that legal restrictions would and should only go so far in restraining the power of new media like blogs.

I would certainly enjoy more comments upon this topic, both positive and not so positive, but it would be a nice idea to get off the ground, for the sake of getting more people into a responsible and reasoned debate.

Today in the House

2006-04-06T12:39:00.000+12:00

Today's Order Paper

Questions to Ministers

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Prime Minister: Has she, the Prime Minister's Office or the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet received any written advice, briefing or opinion from the Companies Office or the Ministry of Economic Development in relation to the investigation into legal declarations by David Parker; if so, what were the dates and titles of all such communications?

2. H V ROSS ROBERTSON to the Minister of Transport: What advances in the UK-New Zealand Air Services Agreement have been made to allow Air New Zealand to secure a second daily service to London?

3. Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Minister of Energy: Does he stand by the statement from the Government on 14 March that "I can assure you - no rolling blackouts this winter."; if not, why not?

4. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY to the Minister of Education: What reports has he received about the 2005 NCEA exams?

5. JOHN KEY to the Minister of Finance: Is he still committed to making progress on a single economic market with Australia?

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Immigration: What reports, if any, has he received regarding yesterday's release of the Immigration Act Review Discussion Paper?

7. JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs: Does he stand by his statement that "This Government encouraged submissions to the Health Committee, and agreed to the joint working-group comprising representatives of the Ex-Vietnam Services Association, the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association, and officials from the office of the Ministry of Defence and Veterans Affairs New Zealand to address the concerns."; if so, why?

8. LYNNE PILLAY to the Minister for Disability Issues: What action is the Government taking to reduce barriers to information and services currently faced by deaf New Zealanders?

9. PANSY WONG to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Does he stand by his statement that "We have already made significant progress in improving quality and increasing participation in the tertiary education sector." in regard to senior citizens; if so, why?

10. KEITH LOCKE to the Prime Minister: What human rights issues, if any, has the Government raised with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during his visit to New Zealand?

11. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: Will he confirm that he has now committed to a full-scale inquiry into shortcomings of care within the disability sector, or will his inquiry be confined only to shortcomings of care from the disability provider Focus 2000?

12. CHESTER BORROWS to the Minister of Health: Does he have confidence that ambulance services in provincial areas are appropriately resourced to ensure community safety; if not, why not?

Today In the House

2006-04-04T12:44:00.000+12:00

Today's Order Paper

Questions for Oral Answer

1. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: Does she still stand by her stated objective "to restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process."; if not, why not?

2. DARREN HUGHES to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Has he received any reports on reactions to the interest-free student loan scheme, which came into effect on 1 April 2006?

3. GERRY BROWNLEE to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services: Does she share the concerns of the Auditor-General who, in his Inquiry into funding arrangements for Green Party liaison roles, stated that "there is a risk arising out of the 3 individuals being based in the Green Party's parliamentary office ... the 3 individuals may be drawn into activities outside the scope of the Vote: Ministerial Services appropriations"; if not, why not?

4. PETER BROWN to the Minister of Transport: What criteria would his Ministry follow were it to study a potential code-share agreement on trans-Tasman routes between Qantas and Air New Zealand?

5. SIMON POWER to the Minister of Police: Has she seen any recent reports about levels of violent crime?

6. TARIANA TURIA to the Minister of Fisheries: Does he agree with Northland oyster farmer and Ngati Kuri and Ngai Takoto chief executive, Ben Waitai, that in respect of the allocation of marine farming space, this Government "worries about tax evasion - this is Treaty evasion", and what will he be doing to respond to the claims that the Government's aquaculture legislation is unworkable?

7. JOHN KEY to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in relation to comments previously made by the Minister of Revenue, that, "I'm the person responsible for either having or filling fiscal holes. In the end, that buck stops literally right here."; if so, why?

8. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: What reports, if any, has he received about Government investment in research and development?

9. Hon TONY RYALL to the Minister of Health: How is the rate of inflation in hospital costs measured, and what reports has he received on the Hospital Price Index over the past 12 months?

10. HEATHER ROY to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does he stand by his statement that "Labour is targeting tax credits where they are needed", and does he believe a backbench MP with five children and no earning spouse should be eligible to apply for extra welfare assistance because they need it?

11. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister for Biosecurity: Can he assure New Zealand there will be no biosecurity risk as a result of a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry proposal to allow honey and bee products into New Zealand?

12. MARYAN STREET to the Minister for Information Technology: What feedback has he received on the Government's promotion of information technology?

OT - Nicotine interferes with chemotherapy...well duh!

2006-04-04T11:53:00.000+12:00

When I first read the headline, I was trying to think how this could have been any other way:

Nicotine interferes with chemotherapy, study finds

Seriously, would the fact that the cigarettes would be causing more malignancies be a factor in making chemotherapy ineffective?

I don't fault the research as much as the fact that this story seemed to make it onto Reuters. More relevant news please?

Get rid of the middleman in the media.

2006-04-04T10:40:00.000+12:00

Last week, I saw question time on TV (courtesy of Sky News Digital, Channel 054) which was fantastic, especially considering the terrible weather down here at the moment. I'm impressed that the proceedings are on TV, although it would be better to see it freely available on FTA TV.

I have consistently been of the opinion that these proceedings should be freely public, especially when not everyone can make it to Parliament. It also gives a (relatively) unbiased account of what goes on in the House, and may be a catalyst for bringing House performance back as a factor in public support for political parties and members. And considering that the current state of House spin and posturing does nothing to help the level of debate, more media exposure will probably not change that element of spin mongering, but it may teach some members how to be civil in the chamber.

Molesworth and Featherston reported on Saturday;

"We hear the [parliamentary press gallery] AGM was dominated by discussion of extensions to the gallery's parliamentary office space, including a big new development to house recording studios and the yet-to-be approved unit to broadcast Parliament. We wonder if the offer of new offices might be a stalking horse to deflect criticism from the big bucks going into MPs’ vanity broadcasting venture."

So the idea of broadcasted parliamentary sessions is certainly not dead in the water yet.

On a related note, The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday passed two bills aimed at bringing television cameras into federal courtrooms, including the Supreme Court. The courts still have the power to exclude cameras if it interferes with due process and considering that a number of Supreme Court justices do not like the thought of cameras in the courtroom, they may yet find a way to exploit that condition.

OT - Blogging in the Public Sector

2006-04-04T10:35:00.000+12:00

Network of Public Service Communicators Presents:

Blogging & the Public Sector

Thursday April 6 - 5:15 - 7:00 at Archives (10 Mulgrave Street Thorndon)

New media is having an increasing impact on the way we gather and distribute information. These new technologies are providing exciting new channels for public sector communicators. To look at the impact of blogging in the public sector, we will be presenting a panel discussion featuring four Wellington bloggers who all work in the public sector. This will be a unique opportunity to hear about new media from the people who are practising it.

Archives New Zealand

10 Mulgrave Street

5:15 pm

Light refreshments will be provided

Speaking of teritary sector reform...

2006-04-04T10:27:00.000+12:00

According to both the NZH and NZPA, Teritary Education Minister Michael Cullen will be reforming the means by which teritary institutions are funded. This seems very similar to my last post regarding some ideas for further reform.

Regarding one section in the NZPA article:

"One change would be resourcing agreements that lasted for several years to avoid fluctuations based on student numbers."

This could create problems for any institution that rapidly grows in size (in terms of student numbers), then suddenly drops as dramatically...

Anyone see a practical example coming soon?

The future of teritary sector reform...an initial thought

2006-03-28T19:08:00.000+12:00

After a long absence, I am happy to be back on the Bubble. I apologise once again for the lapse.

With the Government’s student loan interest write off policy starting on Saturday, it seems an appropriate time to pause and consider what’s next; what will student ‘activism’ demand in terms of reform? Let us assume for the moment that no existing policies will be changed to the extent of elimination, and that any new policies incorporate existing systems into the reform. I highlight three areas.

1. Universal Student Benefit

The main reasoning is to give all students the support to survive while studying. Many students get upset at the thought that they cannot receive an allowance because their parents earn over the threshold and some even say that because they work, they have to take on the burden of paying for their own survival if they wish to get out from under their parents fiscal thumb. You can just feel their frustration. I have yet to see any comprehensive study on how prevalent this is, and if this situation is more an exception than a rule (I would suggest that in a general sense, even those who work and live away from their parents, still receive some financial backing, especially in an emergency situation…a safety net not available to all). However current Government policy to raise the income threshold (even if it seemingly ignored the consequence of a high inflation rate during the transition) and the unlikelihood of the living costs component being removed from the student loans scheme, sees this idea pretty much dead for the time being.

2. Fee Maxima

New Zealand compared to other nations within the OECD, spends a relatively large portion of GDP on tertiary education subsidies (see report here), however, this amount is dropping. If one is prepared to accept that more funding is better than less, especially when comparing the New Zealand situation to Australia (I make this point to those on the Right who would use comparative analysis with Australia as a rhetorical tool); according to the AUS, “Government funding makes up 38 per cent of New Zealand university income, compared to 46 per cent in comparable Australian universities” then this, combined with the restrictions on fee rises means that Universities are under ever increasing pressure to maintain solvency. The loser would therefore be…consumers i.e. students. It is in terms of lowering the quality of the education provided; a hindrance to the overall objectives of the education system in creating a viable investment for economic and social growth. Considering that this is an issue that has been left on the backburner in terms of the political rhetoric, I believe that focusing on this issue may yield results.

3. Course regulation

There are rumblings to move in and avoid more of the ‘Twilight Golf’ courses in terms of future policy reform. But in New Zealand, we have what can best be described as a systemic failure due to two countervailing forces: a market lead education system, and responsible subsidisation by Government (or lack thereof). How did this happen? It is a populist idea to rail about deficient courses being offered, but perhaps those who have been the staunchest critics will also not move from removing the importance of the market in pricing courses. What is needed is to bring the quality (and in some cases quantity; do we need eight movie makeup courses in Wellington?) of courses into the cost to the country and the consumer/student. Any extra funding into a relatively high (although not high enough, see the previous point) subsidised system will not be palatable without significant and comprehensive measures to focus funding in areas of national interest, but also maintain quality, rather that quantity of graduates.

These are three of a number of policy ideas. I would certainly enjoy contributions to the validity and the reasonable political likelihood of them being passed, or alternatives (I would actually prefer alternatives rather that a critique of my own, we can only gain from a plethora of idea, rather than a bashing of existing ideas). One thing is for certain...the forces for tertiary student reform have not abated, in spite of whatever victories may arrive.

If New Zealand ever gets this

2006-03-20T21:33:00.000+12:00

Then we are all in trouble.

New Zealand has had a plan in place for a number of years to look into the possibility of bringing in electronic voting.

Electronic voting brings the possibility of an election result within minutes of the polls closing. However issues remain over what form of paper records they keep that could verify the votes cast and how the security is audited.

Some machine's in America have been found to keep three databases with the vote records in them. The number of voted cast is read out of the first database and the results are taken out of the third. Why these three databases are kept and what security issues they bring up needs to be addressed.

The Maori in the middle, with nowhere to go

2006-03-16T10:53:00.000+13:00

The Maori party is quickly developing into the ‘new centre’ party. With party support concentrated in electorates, the party needs only to serve the collective constituencies of the four MPs. But their stands on Member’s Bills in the session so far have suggested an attempt to provide conflicting signals about their ‘ideology’

It is no surprise that the Maori party have come out and supported the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill of Barbara Stewart (New Zealand First, List). NRT points out that the strength that a party that is in the situation of the Maori party can only gain by getting this Bill passed.

It is other Member’s bills that are causing confliction. The Maori party voted for Sue Bradford’s (Greens, List) Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill, and are tipped to support Wayne Mapp’s (National, North Shore) Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill. Both will affect a large and increasing number of Maori workers who will either gain or lose from both of these. This is also assuming that their support for these Bill’s will change after the Bills return from Select Committee.

The party’s support of the Whangamata Marina veto by Minister of Conservation Chris Carter (Labour, Te Atatu) but also supportive of Gordon Copeland’s (United Future, List) call to compensate the Marina Society for the costs of getting consent does show a dedication to shift their support on a issue by issue basis, easily done in their position in the House.

Unlike the Greens, it’s hard to see clarity of vision…precisely what the Maori Party want to us to see. Looking to the next election, I highly doubt they are looking for anything more than electorate victory. The problem after that is…what next? They can demonstrate representation, but there seems to be a lack of leading vision, and may in time be seen as conservative, myopic and unstable to coalition partners.

Consider this, both the election policy of reducing the age of National Super eligibility for Maori and the planned Member’s Bill of Hone Harawira (Maori, Te Tai Tokerau) to ban cigarette production and consumption shows a lack of vision; by promoting over-reactive legislation. The policies are certainly to the benefit of Maori to be sure, but ignore long term progress.

I fear that their approach may backfire, should an opportunity arise to join a Government. Labour and National would be wise to watch if this party finds an ideology that can easily work with either.

More debate on the Future of ACT

2006-03-13T09:40:00.000+13:00

Robin Booth from the Whig comments on the future of the ACT party and his insider expericence does make it worthy of note.

The post is here.

The state of prisons

2006-03-10T18:27:00.000+13:00

So even with Parliament out to recess this week, the debate continued in the media of the state of Prisons in this country. It’s a little convoluted, so I’m going to demonstrate the week’s events through a dialogue (of sorts):

Rachealle Namana: Prison wasn’t so hard. I don’t think I have been reformed for killing a 23 month old baby. I was able to get P and a cellphone into prison.

Corrections Association president Bevan Hanlon: It’s easy to hide contraband now that random searches are deemed a breach of prisoner rights. We need more money to stop it.

Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust: Punish them all! Rehabilitation and reform doesn’t work.

Damien O’Connor (Labour, West Coast-Tasman): Well, it’s not as bad as one case suggests…look at these numbers, we agree that the number of confiscated contraband is going up…

New Zealand Prison Guards' Union: Hold on a sec, guards capture a whole lot more than that.

Simon Power (National, Rangitikei): There's no denying the system is in crisis. There should be a wide-ranging inquiry into the Corrections Department.

Helen Clark (Labour, Mt Albert): Prisons can only do so much. Some people will always cheat the system wherever they can and some people like Namana are very hard to make headway with.

Corrections Department CEO Barry Matthews: Namana was never honest with police or prison officials...why should anyone listen to her now?

Mark Burton (Labour, Taupo): Hey, you know when we said we would be tough on crime, well in four years time we will have nearly 9000 people in prison, up from 7500 today.

Criminal Bar Association president Peter Winter: What about the 250 people who are remanded each year but are found to be innocent, 15% of remanded inmates?

Mark Burton: We’ll be looking into that, but we can’t be sort on hardened criminals either…we may need more prisons.

NIMBY supporter: Yeah right!

Mark Burton: But before we try that path, more non-custodial sanctions may be more effective for some non-repeating, lower level offenders.

Simon Power: I know New Zealand, and there’s no public support for that. Here’s an idea…privatise the prisons. That sure will keep the costs down

Damien O’Connor: It will be a great excuse to get rid of all of the rehabilitation, education and drug programmes.

Simon Power: Well, not all of them work anyway.

Former Guard Celia Lashlie: How about we try and solve the problem at the source?

Annette King (Labour, Rongotai): We’ll have 1000 more police within three years...although that might exacerbate the prison problem.

Ron Mark (New Zealand First, List): Or maybe their presence will deter criminals, lowering the prison population.

Nandor Tanzcos (Greens, List): A cross-party accord is the only way to fix the justice system, let’s get the spokespeople from every party away from the media, to have an open minded discussion about what is and isn’t happening in New Zealand prisons and find some solutions.

Everyone else: [Silence]

Order in Council today lowers student loan interest rate from FY2006

2006-03-07T14:01:00.000+13:00

From the IRD:

Hon Dr Michael Cullen
Minister for Tertiary Education

Hon Peter Dunne
Revenue Minister

MEDIA STATEMENT

Student loan interest rate set for 2006-07 year

The student loan interest rate for the 2006-07 tax year has been set at 6.9%, down from 7.0%, Tertiary Education Minister Michael Cullen and Revenue Minister Peter Dunne announced today.

"Most borrowers living in New Zealand will have interest-free student loans from 1 April, thanks to major legislation enacted last year that will reduce the cost of tertiary education for hundreds of thousands of people," the Ministers said.

"Borrowers who qualify for interest-free loans will continue to be charged interest during the tax year but their interest will be written off after 31 March 2007.

"Most borrowers who live overseas for more than six months, however, will not qualify for the write-off.

"The new interest rate – for those who still have to pay interest – was arrived at by means of a recently adopted formula that will add certainty to the annual process of setting the rate.

"Under the formula, the total interest rate is based on the five-year average of the ten-year bond rate, plus a margin to cover administration costs," they said.

The new interest rate was approved by Order in Council today.

Michael Cullen spins the Trademe Deal

2006-03-06T10:28:00.000+13:00

From the Beehive:

Trade Me deal - a vote of confidence in NZ

Fairfax's purchase of on-line auction house Trade Me represents 700 million votes of confidence in the New Zealand economy Finance Minister Dr Michael Cullen said today.

"The $700 million dollar deal is a timely reminder of the fundamental strength of the New Zealand economy.

"Here's proof that the outside world has a different view our economic health than some within this country.

"Forget the surveys, this is business confidence.

"Fairfax would not have made this investment if the medium to long-term growth prospects of the New Zealand economy were not excellent," the Finance Minister said.

"The blinkered doomsayers in the Opposition keep nagging us that Australia is so much better than our country. Well, here's crystal clear evidence that Australians still think New Zealand is a great place to do business with.

"I congratulate Sam Morgan on his success. He typifies the smart, tech-savvy Kiwi we need to help transform this economy. May he continue to inspire entrepreneurs across New Zealand," concluded Dr Cullen.

Brilliant. I'm not so impressed with the deal itself, but rather that it didn't take long to spin it.

Today's Reading List

2006-03-06T09:40:00.000+13:00

An international flavour for today:

Foreign Policy Centre: Media arms race in Iran

MSNBC: Blog pioneer maps political strategy for 2008

Open Democracy on The axis of oil: China and Venezuela

New York Times: Women giving birth in chains

Asia Times: The US's nuclear cave-in

Open Democracy on Fear and loathing in Zimbabwe: the self destruction of Mugabe's own political machine.

Last week, this week. A shift from the gutter to the gaol and general practice

2006-03-06T07:30:00.000+13:00

First of all, I have two words in response to last weeks article in the Dom about David Benson-Pope (Labour, Dunedin South) and his contortions…not newsworthy. Thank goodness that the story has taken a back seat, although both the SST and the Dominion Post are continuing the fight to get rid of him (the NZH meanwhile have moved more toward supporting DBP, hat tip Jordan).

Also last week, we saw the fine performance of Nandor Tanzcos (Greens, List) against a seasoned but obfuscating Winston Peters (New Zealand First) on terminator gene technology. A while back I took to Tanzcos’ party colleague Keith Locke (Greens, List) as a bumbler. Tanzcos is the complete opposite. If you scored this by the entertainment value, Winston wins, especially the ‘patsy’ question by Doug Woolerton (New Zealand First, List) to his leader on the effects of marijuana. If you score it on the content, directness and adherence to the standing orders, Tanzcos wins. It’s hard for me to accept that the wider New Zealand public fails to see the value of Tanzcos, when people are more intimidated with his image rather than his diligence.

This week starts with more insight into the corrections and health portfolios; chincs in the Government's armour. After reading the SST article on Rachelle Namana and her ‘not so hard’ time in prison. Certainly more support for the National ‘lock them away and throw away the key’ Corrections policy. Goodness knows where they would find the money. The other being the report released by the National party: that in spite of increasing health funding, elective surgeries has decreased over the last year, compared to five years ago. The defense of Health Minister Peter Hodgson (Labour, Dunedin North) is that the figures do not contain non admitted surgeries. My issue is that, surely someone in the ministry must have known that this would have been picked up by National, and surely it would have been important enough to get the data. Someone dropped the ball here.

There is, however, a lack of acknowledgement in the mainstream media to highlight the three largest (non political) causes of increasing health care.

The increase in the range of services and procedures as technology improves, and our need to provide for an ever widening range of products.

The increasing cost of medical supplies (above the rate of inflation), especially the disproportionate increase for newer products.

The increased provision for long term treatment and managed care, including palliative care, due to the increased longevity of patients whose conditions are debilitating but no longer fatal.

Note to any government, current or in waiting: ignore these factors at your own peril.

OT - Result in TheCarConnection.com's contest for the USA's best street name

2006-02-28T11:58:00.000+13:00

'Psycho Path' voted best U.S. street name

Today in the House

2006-02-28T11:53:00.000+13:00

Order Paper

Oral Questions to Ministers

1. JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What complaints, if any, has he been advised of that could seriously impact on his ability to carry out his job as Minister of Social Development and Employment?

2. Hon BRIAN DONNELLY to the Minister of Education: On what basis was the list of students drawn up whose New Zealand birth certificates, certificates of citizenship, or passports were required during last year's roll audit of Kamo Intermediate School in Whangarei?

3. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers; if so, why?

4. SHANE JONES to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the KiwiSaver scheme?

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the statement of the previous Associate Minister of Education to the House on 12 May 2005, "I have not been guilty of, or involved in, any inappropriate behaviour in my 24 years as a secondary school teacher. As well, I am not aware of any complaint of any kind."; if not, why not?

6. JILL PETTIS to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received on burglaries in New Zealand?

7. Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Minister of Education: Has the Ministry of Education investigated allegations that a Canterbury school's property consultant has taken kickbacks from contractors in exchange for ensuring they receive school contracts; if not, why not?

8. JUDY TURNER to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): What is her role in the Cabinet Committee on Government Expenditure and Administration's review of Child, Youth and Family?

9. JOHN KEY to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that he will be taking a clear line with State sector CEOs on labour costs, and will he be stressing this objective to his colleague, the Associate Minister of Finance, as he oversees the forthcoming State sector spending reviews?

10. MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports on how New Zealand's work to prepare for an influenza pandemic compares internationally?

11. SIMON POWER to the Minister of Corrections: Is he satisfied that his department is fulfilling the purpose of the corrections system, which is to "improve public safety and contribute to the maintenance of a just society"; if so, why?

12. Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON to the Minister of Transport: Is he satisfied with Transit New Zealand's 10-year State Highway Forecast process for planning State highways; if so, why?

Pay it back now...the slogan that's taken hold

2006-02-28T10:57:00.000+13:00

Although not a story in the current news cycle, I have to admire the campaign. What started as a question in a House, quickly became a chant by the opposition and now there is even a website for petitioning the Prime Minster to 'Pay the money back now!"

A bit obvious from the 'Brethren Blue' design and some of the photos as to who's behind it. I wonder if it could have been any less original...still, it's a worthwhile visit.

Kiwisaver Bill is tabled today, labour gets the work done because it's not going too well elsewhere

2006-02-28T10:42:00.000+13:00

From the IRD:

"The government has introduced the KiwiSaver Bill, which establishes the voluntary, work-based savings scheme announced in Budget 2005..."

So the Labour led Government pushes on with their legislative agenda, fulfilling its promises to the public. Where's the loyal opposition? In the quagmire, trying to drag everyone else in.

But seriously, the rhetoric over this allegation of misleading the House has so far lacked the ferocity of the tennis ball affair last year, although I am not blind to the delicate position that both David Benson-Pope (Labour, Dunedin South) and PM Helen Clark (Labour, Mt Albert) are now in. DBP has to perform well today in the House, against an MP turned wolverine that's high on P, Judith Collins (National, Clevedon) who will take great delight in pushing him on his memory lapses. He is not a fantastic debater in the chamber, and today’s question time will be a challenge upon his questionable discipline. If he falters, PM Clark will have to take measures to stop the bleeding in confidence.

Parker and Locke, a novice and a blunderer

2006-02-28T09:25:00.000+13:00

Last week in the House, two MPs, not known for their oratorical skill tried valiantly but were undermined by their relative limitations, one showing inexperience and the other incompetence.

Last week, questions were asked of the Minister for Climate Change and Transport, David Parker (Labour, List) on the inconsistent projections of Transit NZ roading projects, and the ongoing conflict between the forest industry and the government regarding the need for reform to reach Kyoto targets. Parker tried to defuse with humour:

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point of order is that this is the second tossing of documents we have seen today… Frankly, it brings Parliament into disrepute… I ask you, Madam Speaker, to make them desist.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member…Certainly, throwing documents around the House is not permitted, particularly if it is others. But putting them on the floor just requires someone to come and pick them up…

Hon Maurice Williamson: Does the Minister think it a suitable way to run the transport portfolio, and to give surety to people like the contractors out there, when Transit published a big, thick, glossy document costing tens of thousands of dollars in June last year that, before it even made the bookshelf, had to have a sticker on it stating that it was not valid because of changes [Williamson has tossed the document to the ground], when…2 months later, with the same car and the same road on the cover, stating that the plan had all changed [Williamson has tossed this document to the ground]…when by February it had to put out another [document]…and when, within an hour of putting those out, it had the Associate Minister of Finance saying: 'Sorry, that's not right either; forget all that. [Williamson tossing these documents as well]'… is that satisfactory?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I would say to the tosser [slight pause] of documents…

But sometimes, the best approach is to answer the question you wish were asked. Standing orders only require an answer to address the question (not to necessarily answer it). Parker got himself caught out on a number of occasions that would have been better handled by a more experienced debater:

Hon Maurice Williamson: Which of the published dates should members of this House now be working to…which of those dates is correct?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said, it is that in the projected State highway forecast plan, which is the lengthy document that the member tossed first.

Hon Maurice Williamson: In light of the Minister's answer to the previous question I asked…why did Transit tell me only an hour ago that the differences between the two dates…are that the dates in the big document are what Transit could build now if it had the money, but the ones in the regional flyer are what is planned to be built because there is no money to build the original programme—and I thank him very much for his assurance that he will work off the first dates, not the second?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I cannot confirm that.

And this:

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why would the Auditor-General's office tell the select committee that the Government had …broken the Public Finance Act…?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because the Auditor-General did not express himself in those words. It is a moot point as to what particular day the liability was quantified to the standard expected for inclusion in the Crown books, but it is absolutely clear that neither the Minister nor the ministry failed to disclose the projected deficit in volume terms—in terms of the number of tones of carbon dioxide—and accounting for it was duly made by Treasury.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister say that the Auditor-General did not express in clear language that the Government had broken the Public Finance Act, when, in response to the question 'Did the Government breach the Finance Act?', Mr Keate from the Auditor-General's office said: 'Yes, they did. There was a breach.’…?

Even the Prime Minister tried to steady him, by throwing him a question. With some reluctance he got through it nicely:

Rt Hon Helen Clark: Could the Minister spell out a little more clearly to the Hon Maurice Williamson the nature of the statutory requirement for Transit to consult on its draft plans?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The legislation that this Government passed in the last term provides for a transparent process, so that the wool cannot be pulled over the eyes of New Zealand taxpayers and road users—as it was in the 1990s—by giving people a right of participation in funding decisions and the prioritization of funding.

Parker's gaffes are one of a novice, and are unlikely to hold back his career. In time, I expect him to develop into a better debater. Keith Locke (Greens, List) has no excuse of inexperience. In questions to the Foreign Affairs Minister, Winston Peters (New Zealand First, List) about the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, he lost focus and got his facts wrong:

KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will he be calling for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre following the recent United Nations Commission on Human
Rights' report, issued 15 February 2006…?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): The issue, therefore, is not the existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, but rather the treatment of detainees there or elsewhere. The Government's position is that all persons detained at Guantanamo
Bay or elsewhere should be treated in accordance with international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Keith Locke: Why is the Government such a wimp as to not call for the Guantanamo Bay facility to be closed…

Madam SPEAKER: The member knows better, in the light of the discussions that have been going on in this House, than to use the work 'wimp'…

Keith Locke: Will the Government ask the US Government and visiting General John Abizaid to show the same moral leadership in the world that the Minister has said this week that New Zealand shows in the Pacific, and tell the US that it cannot continue with the torture, which, as stated in the UN report

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: ..I just want to say it is not appropriate for me, or I believe for any other member of Parliament, to lecture to a highly placed military person on a matter in which he has no authority or control, and when the responsibility lies with someone else.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister said, in his answer, that the visiting general does not have any power or control. In fact, General John Abizaid is in charge
of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. That is a point of debate and information.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek to table a map of the world, showing where Iraq and Guantanamo Bay are.

Again with questions to the Minister of Police (but answered on behalf of the Minister by Phil Goff (Labour, Mt Roskill)) he showed a lack of even handedness:

Keith Locke: Does the funding of keynote speaker, Canadian Gary Mauser, indicate that the Government supports his view that reducing criminal violence is helped when Governments 'encourage responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns’…?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The answer to the first question is no. But let me remind the member that he risks misleading the House and the country by quoting five out of 22 presenters. I wonder why he did not mention that other presenters…Clearly, a wide range of views are being expressed at this seminar. The Government does not stand behind, or vet, the view of anybody who turns up at a seminar to debate what is best to make firearms safe

Keith Locke: Does it not undermine and run counter to the main purpose of the seminar as the Minister has just outlined it—that is, firearm safety—to fund keynote speakers such as John Lott, who is the author of a book called More Guns, Less Crime, American National Rifle Association lobbyist Mark Barnes, and Colin Greenwood, who describes the British handgun ban as 'a pathetic irrelevance'; and what does the Minister think it achieves when five of the 11 keynote speakers at the conference are extreme pro-gun lobbyists?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member is compounding the error that I just drew to his attention. He is selectively taking some—five out of 22—presenters and facilitators and saying that he does not agree with their views. I do not happen to agree with their views either, but a range of people are invited to the seminar to debate and, as the programme says—if the member had bothered reading it—to 'exchange ideas, concepts, strategies and procedures for firearm safety'. One does not get a debate if one only chooses like-minded people who all say the same thing.

Locke isn't a great exponent inside the debating chamber, and his attempts to make political points are stifled by his rabblerousing and narrow-mindedness (not to mention his fumbling). He would be wise to pass to questions to a more capable colleague, and try to make his mark outside the House, through public stands and demonstrations, something that the Greens do very well.

These two MPs highlight a deficiency in debate, but only one has the capacity to change. The obvious alternative for Mr Locke is to push his agenda where he does better, and pick his battles where he knows he can win.

PS: I will not begrudge the frogblog for printing an edited extract of Winston Peters and Keith Lockes exchange...I edited my reference as well. But please note the absence of the bumbling Locke made in the House...I guess it would weaken the arguement, now wouldn't it.

Suprise suprise...more mudslinging

2006-02-27T10:39:00.000+13:00

More allegations into the past of David Benson-Pope (Labour, Dunedin South) look set to wedge open an even larger hole of credibility in the Minster for Social Development, as well as the Government, but anyone who was surprised that the story has gone on so long, has misread the current political drag race between the big two parties in Parliament.

Once again Investigate featured more details into the allegations of misconduct by Benson-Pope while a teacher in the 1990s. While it may look like a witch-hunt, an unrelenting attempt to character assassinate the member, the issue is not the allegations themselves, but the fact that the public only found out now.

Benson-Pope and the higher members of the Labour caucus have consistently stated that the information is already in the public domain. In the allegations that surfaced yesterday, an investigation was carried out by the School BOT and the allegations were unable to be confirmed.

The thing is that whoever is releasing the material, does not care if it already is public knowledge…the public just didn’t know it. Let’s face it; no intelligent candidate for political office would spend time highlighting every allegation that was unsubstantiated. The idea here is to smear as much muck on the person and by vicariously, the Government.

So the old adage appears: never let the truth get in the way of a ‘good’ story and this is a story that works in time with the tactics of the two largest parties. Logical debate has run its course for the moment it seems. What a few months ago was a media led debate on the merits between targeted vs. across the board tax cuts, has now turned into the intrigue of MPs pasts and their personal lives. There is no point in debating policy, when an election seems so far away, and with little difference in support between the big two parties (and simultaneously no viable third party that will erode the support between the two…they are either soporific or on a farewell tour) . So the battle is too out drag the other to 2008 by throwing as much in each others way to stop them.

I liken the current situation to a drag race because the analogy works well for where each party’s weaknesses lie. One’s got a driver with shot nerves and can’t drive straight, the other has a car whose engine is half a second away from blowing.

My expectation for the year…more mudslinging. The alternative is far too difficult to achieve.

PS: more allegations involving Tatio Phillip Field (Labour, Mangere) seem to be in a similar vein...although more serious.

Tau Henare...return of the rebel

2006-02-27T09:04:00.000+13:00

Tau Henare (National, List) a long time parliamentary rebel, has wasted little time this year, by finding himself breaking the rules twice more, a tactic that may yet gather support in the short term.

Henare is no greenhorn: having a parliamentary career, as an MP for National and New Zealand First, serving as Minister of Maori Affairs. Yet for all of his accomplishments, his abrasive behavior had crested problems, which until his return to the National party had terminated his career in the House

It is not surprising that in less than two weeks into the new session, Henare has fallen back into his old groove. Henare was ejected from the chamber after challenging the Associate Speaker Ann Hartley (Labour, List) to do her job properly and releasing the (damnatory) report alleging Te Puni Kokiri's auditing failures.

There is no question that the public knew that a report was coming. The NZH had an article on this earlier in the day, so to breach privilege for the sake of making the public aware rings hollow. Furthermore, the report would eventually reach the public domain, so there would have been no loss of transparency. The only reason why Henare would take this measure was to get the first (negative) word in, irrespective of how legal of appropriate.

It is difficult to ascertain as to what boost he will receive. If he is found to have breached privilege, then it only leads into the suggestion: what limits will MPs go to challenge the government.

UPDATE: National also used the same day as Henare's leaking of the report to leave the select committee...what a smokescreen, and utterly pointless.

Peters makes Pravda

2006-02-22T18:18:00.000+13:00

New Zealand foreign minister wants credit from U.S.

Buzzword: Speech to NZ Institute of International Affairs Victoria University, Murray McCully

2006-02-22T11:57:00.000+13:00

Murray McCully’s (National, East Coast Bays) speech did feature some frank assessments about his own inexperience:

As a new spokesman in this area I feel no embarrassment about saying that I have no comprehensive solutions to that quite complex problem…

Finally, may I briefly acknowledge, in this audience in particular, that, despite having been in Parliament for a few years, I am a newcomer to foreign affairs, defence and trade. No one is more conscious of how much I need to learn than I am…

Although this did mean that the speech featured nothing original nor anything that would offend the party stance. Analysis follows.

the pacific	6
united states	5
in defence	5
our defence	5
defence spending	4
pacific states	3
of international	2
an independent New Zealand	2
the rest of the world	2

More money for defence, a more unilateral posture, with a strong commitment to the United States, more so than the rest of the world. Typical.

Today in the House

2006-02-22T11:53:00.001+13:00

Today's Order Paper

Questions to Ministers

1. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Transport; if so, why?

2. Hon MARIAN HOBBS to the Minister of Education: What reports has he received about high achievement by New Zealand school students?

3. Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON to the Minister of Transport: What action does he intend to take to correct the funding shortfall and ensure that there are no delays of commencement dates for any major roading projects?

4. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH to the Minister of Revenue: Is he satisfied that his working relationship with the Minister of Finance regarding tax policy is an open and constructive one?

5. RON MARK to the Minister of Police: Are the police to proceed with plans to destroy more than 800 Remington bolt-action rifles; if so, why?

6. Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: What action does he intend to take in response to the Auditor-General's report to the Local Government and Environment Committee that the Public Finance Act 1989 was breached last year for not including the then $309,843,000 Kyoto liability in the supplementary estimates?

7. KEITH LOCKE to the Minister of Police: How much did the police contribute to the budget of the international firearms safety seminar currently taking place in Christchurch, and what other support did they provide?

8. Hon TONY RYALL to the Minister of Health: When he said that the quality of care at Focus 2000 Ltd was "no better or worse than the quality of care anywhere else around the country.", did he have confidence in the auditing systems used to assess disability services, and does he still have confidence in those systems?

9. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: What recent reports, if any, has she received on minimum wage levels?

10. JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does he believe his ability to perform his duties as Minister for Social Development and Employment could be impaired, in light of allegations made against him in Investigate magazine; if not, why not?

11. STEVE CHADWICK to the Minister of Conservation: What assistance is the Government providing to ensure Stewart Island infrastructure is able to meet the tourism demands expected following the establishment of the Rakiura National Park?

12. Hon MURRAY McCULLY to the Prime Minister: Has she been advised of reports that her Minister of Foreign Affairs is intent on building a better relationship between New Zealand and the United States; if so, does that represent the foreign policy of her Government?

Buzzword: The Next Five Years

2006-02-22T10:28:00.000+13:00

Considering that the 'best' parts were said outside of the speech, it gives a prettty good idea of what a well crafted and vetted speech will give you in terms of insight: very little.

But from the buzzword analysis, you see the focus of the speech carried through:

‘pacific island countries’	6
‘the international community’	4
‘Asia pacific region’	4
‘the major powers’	3
‘united nations’	6
‘development challenges’	5
‘international terrorism’	3
‘multilateral institutions’	2

So in conclusion,

Very little reinforcement on individual realtionships (he left that till later)

Commitment to the United Nations, less so to other multilateral organisations, in line with our current position

A priority to the Pacifc, followed by Asia

Priority on development over terrorism...good. An approach that tackles a source of terror, but also in our part of the world, is a more pertinent problem

Little focus on the economy (AKA trade), but then again that's Phil Goff's (Labour, Mt Roskill) job...would someone remind Rodney Hide (ACT, Epsom) of this fact.

Peters to America

2006-02-22T09:36:00.000+13:00

Winston Peters (New Zealand First, List) was the best man to deal with a sticky situation: draw the Americans to the good work New Zealand does in the Pacific and try to focus US rhetoric away from the nuclear issue. He rose the irk of public servants, politicians and diplomats, but he got the job done...trying to reestablish a fairer foundation of understanding between the two nations.

There was a quote that Lange made in the oft remembered Oxford Union debate:

...people from New Zealand, a country which has never been attacked, have willingly taken up arms in Europe. They have died in African campaigns, they have their bones bleaching in deserts, they are buried in Italy. They have fought in Vietnam. We have forces right now in Sinai. We have a battalion in Singapore where the British used to be! And the fact is we do not shrink from that responsibility. We never have, and we are not going to...

This country New Zealand is not going to contribute to a nuclear alliance. This country New Zealand never has. New Zealand was declared by the former government to be no part of a nuclear alliance - and we will pick up the tab by conventional Defence...And in my country, we pay our tab.

It seems ironic that a speech that for so long solidified the New Zealand position on nuclear weapons, but also the American anathema ever since, should also illustrate the lack of acknowledgement on the part of the Americans to our efforts in the Asia-Pacific region.

There was no way that the relationship, always a delicate one could have been endangered by the previous minister...he's far too diplomatic for this. Winston has always been a man to stir waters, but unfortunately, this had to be done, much to the chagrin of the National party's shadow Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, Murray McCully (National, East Coast Bays)

It was handled so well, the diplomatic faux pas that wasn't: little diplomatic (and political) fallout, and maybe some good oil about New Zealand in the US press.

It doesnt matter who's CEO, the problem lies in the Board

2006-02-22T09:01:00.000+13:00

It won't matter who is CEO of TVNZ, so long as the existing board is under skilled and mishandled, yet there is hope for the future with a new CEO and Chairperson.

In April 2002, people were waxing lyrical about Ian Fraser as CEO and his suitability to lead TVNZ operations. Of course Ross Armstrong was the Chair, who eventually fell from grace, and with the new members of the board, the relationship between the executive and Fraser slowly eroded to the point where Fraser had no choice but to leave.

When I read the rumor mill suggesting Brent Hansen as the next TVNZ CEO, I remembered the praise given to Fraser, and I wondered how long it would last. While he will be an experienced candidate, and IMHO shares a similar view toward shows like NZ Idol, his greatest challenge will be to reconcile the executive and operational branches of TVNZ corporate. I argue that the existing board may not be able to facilitate this. And his dynamic, unconventional approach may rub the board the wrong way.

I wrote earlier about the recruitment of former ANZ National CEO Sir John Anderson. I stand by my comments as to his exemplary skills and experience. But my hopes are on whether he can gel with the rest of the board and the incoming CEO. The board will still need to cover its skill shortages, and this may mean replacing some other members of the board.

For the sake of TVNZ, a suitable mix must be found, a group that actually works as a team and not an antagonistic, ‘bitch session’ reality TV show.