Questions for Oral Answer – 2pm to 3pm

Questions to Ministers

Today, Labour are asking 4 questions to ministers on topics ranging from Solid Energy, resourcing of Child Youth and Family, consultants costs and the stock standard question from David Shearer (Potential ex Leader of the Opposition). The Green Party are asking 2 questions to ministers about Skycity and Mining with New Zealand First and Mana asking 1 question each.

Pasty Question of the Day

Today’s pasty question of the day goes to question 5 from Shane Ardern to the Minister of Health which askes,

What is this Government doing, as part of Better Public Services, to ensure that New Zealand children are better protected from preventable diseases such as whooping cough and hepatitis B?

Members Orders of the Day – 3.00pm to 6pm and 7.30pm to 10pm

1) Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill –  Mark Mitchell – Committee Stage

This bill seeks to remove the right of people to wear gang patches and other such symbols on government premises such as a local  hospital,school or other government owned buildings such as a Work and Income place. This bill was originally created by the Hon Tood McClay prior to him becoming a Minister in the John Key lead government and is based upon the original bill used in Whanganui which allowed the council to ban gang patches being shown and used in areas around Whanganui. Recently, during the second reading of this bill, Schools got included as a area that gang members will not be able to wear there patches  as a result of submissions to the select committee.

At the second reading of this bill, it passed by 69 to 51 with Labour, Greens, Mana and the Maori Party opposing the bill.

Mark Mitchell gave a really emotive speech during the second reading of the bill which summed up why this bill is required. Feel free to view the video here.

2) Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill – Te Ururoa Flavell – Second Reading

This bill was introduced in September 2010 by Te Ururoa Flavell. It seeks to allow “local authorities, in consultation with their communities, to reduce the number of, or even eliminate, pokies from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm”. This bill since the first reading has been rewritten to make some changes to the bill to be able to waterdown some of the effects of the original bill with a deal done between Hon Chris Tremain and Te Ururoa Flavell last week to ensure National Party support.

At the last reading of the bill it passed by use of a personal vote with 83 MPs in favor and 7 against. A list of who voted for and against can be found here.

3) Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill – Continuation of 1st reading – Sue Moroney

This debate is a continuation of the 1st reading of this bill with around 4 speeches left to go. The purpose of the bill is to add a new clause to the Employment Relations Act 2000 in order to allow for redundancy payments to workers to are dismissed.

4) Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill – 1st reading – Moana Mackey

This bill is designed to bring back a 10 year ban on the creation of thermal generation of power. This 10 year ban was originally removed in the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill 2008. The 10 year ban on thermal generation of power was apart of the original Emissions Trading Scheme. Expect some attacks on Labour over the 72% percent rise in power during there time in Government.

NZ Polemicist blogs in support of the Pakeha Party:

The “Pakeha Party” that you cite may well be moronic and ignorant.

However, political parties based on an exclusive race and ethnicity already exist in New Zealand. Maori Party is one.

And time and again, some ambitious Pacific Islander politician proposes the Pasifika party. Last time, before such Pasifika party could be launched and consolidated the leader had to go to jail on corruption charges (Taito Field). I hear the rumors that ambitious NZ First MP Asenati Taylor plans a Pasifika party.

Even though some may find the idea of race based political party vomit-inducing, but the truth is that in New Zealand we already have these parties. It is people’s democratic right to be able to form a racial political group (as long as it does not preach hatred towards another race or ethnicity)

So, why should we judge, mock or resent a bunch of White New Zealanders who want to huddle together and launch a political party that will predominantly look after the interests of marginalized White people, for example?

I’m sure Poor White in New Zealand far outnumber all the poor “colored” people put together. I would very much welcome a White NZ party that exclusively speaks for the rights of poor and marginalized White New Zealanders.

I would note though that the man behind the Pakeha Party is a convicted criminal:

When asked about claims he had a criminal background, Mr Ruck admitted he had been sentenced to 10 months in prison for stealing $40,000 of DJ equipment. He served five months in Paparoa Prison, he said.

“There is a small number of DJs in Christchurch who hate my guts, in my opinion because I’m better than them.”

Or they may hate you because you stole $40,000 of equipment!

He said he was sent to prison for a month on another charge for driving his scooter without a licence.

You would not get prison for that offence, unless there was prior previous offending.

Mr Ruck told APNZ he was a businessman running a company called 0199, which he said he set up to compete with the Yellow Pages.

He said he also had a bad credit rating.

Theft will do that to you.

He believed he didn’t have enough knowledge of New Zealand history or politics to run the party.

“To be honest I don’t even know when the next election is.”

It’s in July 2016. Start planning for it now, so you can peak for it.

The Civilian looks at some policies for the Pakeha Party:

• Make Christchurch the capital of New Zealand.
• Replace confusing Maori names with their white equivalents. Whangarei to become Wongaray. Kaikoura to become Cackaracka.
• Install Michael Laws as mayor of as many councils as he can logistically manage
• Haka to be performed in English and only by Chesdale Cheese ambassadors Ches and Dale
• Aoraki Mount Cook to be renamed Mount Cook Mount Cook
• Prosecute Maori for extinction of Moa
• Maori must stop dominating unemployment and prison statistics and give Pakeha a fair go
• Pakeha Television, broadcasting nothing but Friends

Heh.

Michael Fox at Stuff reports:

Justice Minister Judith Collins’ office has become embroiled in a Wikipedia war with ministry critic Roger Brooking.

Brooking is an outspoken critic of Collins and the Justice Ministry and was a prolific Wikipedia editor – now banned – under the username Offender9000.

Writing on his blog at the weekend Brooking said his entries had been slashed from lengthy articles to stubs of little more than a few hundred words.

He voiced concerns that Collins or her staff were behind the edits though admitted to Fairfax Media he had no proof.

This reminds me of the time when I worked in the PMs Office and a fervent Alliance activist publicly accused me of having used my Internet black box over-ride to block her from accessing the Internet. The reality was that Ihug just had an outage (I know as I was on the same ISP!).

In this case if Brooking has been banned from editing Wikipedia, it will be because he consistently broke the rules. It is quite hard to get banned. You have to be quite irrational, or consistently doing biased edits. Some people think Wikipedia is a forum for them to make people look bad. It isn’t.

A spokesperson for Collins admits to making minor changes but said they were up-front about who they were – claims backed up by Wikipedia logs and supported by a Wikipedia editor.

Comments from Collins’ office appear in the Wikipedia logs.

“I am Judith’s press secretary. Happy to help out by providing a more recent photo for use. As I have a clear [conflict of interest] … I won’t be editing content on the page but I may suggest changes which you can choose to take up or not and can provide further background material etc as requested,” the press secretary wrote in February.

That is exactly the way to do it. Be up front on who you are, and propose changes on the talk page, rather than make edits directly.

Brooking pointed to pages he had edited, including articles on legal aid, the police, corrections, Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Government Communications Security Bureau – which had been slashed.

“I thought New Zealanders had freedom of speech – according to the Bill of Rights we do. But Judith Collins and Chris Burns don’t seem to think so,” he wrote.

Speaking to Fairfax, Brooking admitted he had no proof but was concerned about the changes and the fact he had been banned from editing Wikipedia.

While Brooking bemoaned the changes he was often forced to defend his own entries and changes against accusations of bias by other editors.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can ignore Wikipedia’s rules. Mr Brooking is free to set up his own websites where he can say what he likes about Judith Collins. But he can’t pollute Wikipedia with his edits if they don’t comply.

A Wikipedia editor with the username Gadfium told Fairfax Media via email that Collins’ office had been open about its contributions though they were told they should refrain from making further changes.

“They declared their conflict of interest and only edited the Judith Collins article to supply a requested photo,” the editor said.

The removal of a comment from an article about David Bain which it considered defamatory to Collins was “understandable” and the staff did not try to reimpose the changes when they were reinserted but “began a civil discussion at an appropriate page”.

I love it when an article quotes someone by their online alias. Gadfium is a long-standing and well known editor of Wikipedia. He makes the point again that the best practice is to discuss potentially controversial edits on the talk pages, not just have an edit war.

Gadfium said Brooking was blocked from editing because of concerns about bias and because he was also operating anonymous accounts, something which is not allowed.

When you start setting up anonymous accounts so you can say nasty things about someone on Wikipedia, you need to relax and get a life.

There is an interesting contrast between the Stuff article on this issue, and the NZ Herald article. The Stuff article includes the claims by Brooking, but includes an interview with a Wikipedia editor, goes into lengthy detail of what Collins’ office did do, and how they followed correct process. It also highlights how Brooking has been banned, and why. I think it is very well balanced.

By contrast the Herald article gives a very different impression. It doesn’t provide key details (which are important to those who know this stuff) such as the staff identified themselves on the talk page, and explicitly said they don’t intend to do edits etc.  I’m not having a go at the Herald article but I urge peopel to read both articles and reflect the entirely different impressions they leave. It shows how decisions on what to include and highlight can dramatically change the impression you get from an article.

Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Shearer is facing more destabilising rumours after batting off speculation all day that a letter of no confidence was being circulated among his MPs.

The rumour started circulating early in the day yesterday but the MPs named as being behind the move hotly denied it and Shearer said through a spokesman there had been no letter and the claims were rubbish.

Soundings among party insiders suggested there was no push on but the latest speculation will not help his leadership after earlier rumours of a leadership push before the end of the year.

The latest speculation followed a series of Labour crisis meetings over a so-called “man ban” in proposed changes to party selection rules which were withdrawn yesterday following a backlash from Labour’s MPs.

The rumours centred on a no confidence letter supposedly circulated by Labour MPs Clayton Cosgrove, Andrew Little and Shane Jones, but all three rubbished it.

Someone at The Standard said what they had heard was Little would stand for Leader with Jones as his deputy.

Cosgrove said the rumours had been started by National and told Fairfax the speculation was “absolute crap”.

He was 100 per cent behind Shearer’s leadership.

Little and Jones also flatly denied the letter.

Jones said he had seen no letter and no one had approached him to sign any letter.

Little is understood to have approached Shearer earlier to give him an assurance he had not been destabilising his leadership.

Insiders were saying there was no discussion about a no confidence motion during Monday’s caucus.

Reports from inside the David Cunliffe camp said he had contacted Shearer to assure him he was not behind any of the rumours and was not moving against him.

The old saying is it is never official until it is denied – as Kevin Rudd did. Rudd denied he would challenge right up until two hours before he did.

As I said last night, I don’t think there is currently a letter. However it is clear there is a destabilisation campaign underway. Just two weeks ago we heard a Labour MP telling both One News and Three News reporters that Shearer had 60 days.

An Auckland Labour source suggested the aim was to replace the current leadership with Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson, former party president Andrew Little and David Cunliffe in the finance role.

The unity ticket. The big losers would be Parker, and of course Shearer.

Rongotai MP Annette King also joined in the fight back accusing reporters of getting it wrong and running false rumours from Right Wing commentators.

As far as I know, no “right wing commentator” said anything about the rumour until Duncan Garner broadcast them.

United Future have sent this e-mail out to their members:

We sent out an email a couple of weeks ago asking that people print the email and return it to us to support our application for re-registration with the Electoral Commission.

There was an excellent response enabling us to submit the signed forms yesterday. The Commission has come back to us requiring some more signatures as they have issues with enough of the forms to take us under the magic 500 required. I can assure you that we have a lot more than the required 500 members, it’s the signed forms we don’t have enough of. We are trying to get the process completed as quickly as possible hence the urgency.

It’s up to you! If you are able to print, sign and date this email then scan and email it back to xxx we will be able to complete that part of the registration process.

Thank you for your initial response, it is greatly appreciated. Your assistance with this request will get the job done.

Many thanks, 

So looks like some of the forms were non-compliant, hence it may take even longer.

A reader writes in:

Basically, what’s happened to NZ tv drama?

This week The Almighty Johnsons returned and produced a dismal +5 rating of 3 . In its target audience of males 18-49 it rated just a 4, about half of the previous series.

Go Girls has ratings of 5 in +5. Blue Rose on TV2 was a fizzer, rating 3s and 4s in 5+. TV3s Harry did a dismal 3.

It’s a good question. NZ drama has rated well in the past, but at the moment it is all rating pretty badly.

Duncan Garner has tweeted:

Good source. Coup on in Labour. Letter of no confidence being circulated. It’s over for Shearer. Watch for his resignation.

If this is right, then a fascinating Robertson v Cunliffe battle for the leadership – unless they do a deal and one does Leader and one Deputy.

Or will Little stand also and try to be the candidate in the middle, who can appeal to both the left supporting Cunliffe and the ABC faction? If Robertson is seen as too tied up in the recent bad political management, Little could come through the middle.

UPDATE: Chief Whip Chris Hipkins denies there is a coup:

@Garner_Live Your source is full of crap. No letter. No leadership challenge. Stop making things up.

Now I don’t believe Garner is making anything up. I have no doubt a source has told him that there is a letter of no confidence.

However it is possible Garner is being played by someone in Labour trying to destabilise Shearer. This was the Rudd vs Gillard strategy – keep the speculation alive, so the leader is so weakened that have to go.

Whether Garner’s source is correct or not will become apparent with time. Fascinating to watch.

UPDATE2: Duncan Garner has said on Radio Live that Patrick Gower has the letter, and will show it on Nightline tonight at 1030.

UPDATE3: Garner now says Gower not on Nightline. He has tweeted:

Gower not on nightline… labour MPs denying letter of course… Text book coup, 60 day warning, man ban, letter, denials, denials, gone.

This makes me think that there is no coup letter (at this stage), but that someone in Labour has started a destabilisation campaign.

UPDATE4: Grant Robertson has tweeted he has contacted every Labour MP, and they all deny there is a letter. So I think nothing is happening for now. However, the fact someone in Labour is creating trouble is not good for them.

Around a year ago I purchased tickets for the Wellington production of “Yes, Prime Minister”, based on the famous TV series of the 1980s.

So with great excitement on Friday night I went along to the State Opera House to see the show.

However I left slightly disappointed.

Don’t get me wrong. It was a very good show, and I enjoyed it. It is definitely worth seeing if you enjoy politics and humour.

But it was also a reminder of how almost perfect the TV series was. The actors, the scripts, the mannerisms were sublime.

I spent the first 15 minutes of the show thinking that isn’t how Sir Humphrey would speak, that Bernard is too old, and that Jim Hacker not enough of a klutz.

After a while you do get used to the new cast, but they don’t gel quite as well as the originals.

The plot, which is needing a deal with a fictional Middle East state for an oil pipline to bail out Europe is well done, and has some classic elements of the show such as Sir Humphrey trying to sneak past Hacker that the deal will require the UK to join the Euro.

All in all, a good show, and a pleasant reminder of the TV series. But not in the same league.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand has rejected Japan’s claim to be legally whaling in the Antarctic as an attempt to reduce the global whaling treaty to an industry cartel.

Intervening in the International Court of Justice case brought by Australia against Japan on Monday, Attorney General Chris Finlayson said the treaty’s purpose was not the protection of commercial whaling.

Instead Finlayson told the ICJ in The Hague that the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was intended to be for the conservation and development of whale stocks.

Its key article eight on “special permit” scientific whaling, which is being argued before ICJ, did not give carte blanche to any member country to sidestep the rest of the treaty, he said.

Under the article, Japan currently issues its whalers with permits to kill up to 935 minke whales, 50 fin whales, and 50 humpback whales in the Antarctic.

Over 26 years more than 10,000 whales have been killed in the programme, including 18 fin whales, but the humpback quota has been suspended.

Japan told the court last week that article eight unambiguously said decision-making power on permits rested with the state party concerned.

Finlayson said Japan had tried to sew together snippets of the article to construct a blanket exemption from other parts of the treaty.

“Far from creating a blanket exemption, the words create an obligation on the contracting government to operate within the words of the convention when issuing a special permit,” Finlayson said.

Japan’s claims that their whaling is scientific research is farcical. You don’t need to kill 1,000 whales a year for research, and you don’t turn the whales into food, if it is for research.

I don’t have a problem with whaling, if it is sustainable. But I do have a problem with Japan not honouring its international commitments.

Judith Collins has announced:

Justice Minister Judith Collins today announced the Governor-General has declined Scott Watson’s application for exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy.

“After thorough consideration of all the relevant material, I advised the Governor-General that Mr Watson’s application be declined,” Ms Collins says.

Mr Watson was convicted of murdering Ben Smart and Olivia Hope who were last seen boarding a yacht in Endeavour Inlet, in the Marlborough Sounds, in the early hours of 1 January 1998.

Following unsuccessful appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council claiming his innocence, Mr Watson applied to the Governor-General for exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy.

“In 2009 the Ministry of Justice engaged Kristy McDonald QC to provide advice on Mr Watson’s application,” Ms Collins says.

Ms McDonald considered not only Mr Watson’s original application, but also additional material that was provided by Mr Watson and his legal team between the submission of his original application and December 2012.

In 2011 Ms McDonald provided a report on the key issues raised by Mr Watson’s application and in March 2013, she provided a further report responding to matters raised by Mr Watson’s lawyers from her original report.

Ms McDonald concluded that nothing provided in support of Mr Watson’s application created a real risk that Mr Watson was wrongfully convicted.

I’ve read several books on the murder of Ben and Olivia, and I think Watson was the killer – so am pleased with this decision.

The Q+A notes:

A main ground of Mr Watson’s application was his submission that two key Crown witnesses (Guy Wallace, a water taxi driver, and Roslyn McNeilly, bar manager) hadmade statements changing their trial evidence relating to the identification of Mr Watson.

Ms McDonald considered the information provided by Mr Watson in support of this submission, as well as interviewing both witnesses. She advised that the information provided by Ms McNeilly and Mr Wallace in support of Mr Watson’s application was not “fresh”. It would not have added significantly to the identification evidence both witnesses gave at trial, and had to be viewed in the context of the other trial evidence, including the DNA evidence which suggested that two hairs found on Mr Watson’s boat came from Ms Hope.

Watson was convicted in 1999. His non-parole period is until July 2016. That doesn’t mean he will be released at that stage – just that he can be.

Hayley Dixon at the Daily Telegraph reports:

Doctors from the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) believe that they have now pin-pointed the moment the trend went global after an episode of Sex and the City which aired in 2000.

The pubic louse, or Pthirus pubis, have plagued humanity for thousands of years, with archaeologists discovering specimens in the UK as far back as the 1st century AD.

From 1997 to 2003, incidence of the lice dropped from 0.41 per cent to 0.17 per cent, and sexual health clinics around the world have reported that the once common complaint is now extremely rare.

The Herald reports:

Independent MP Peter Dunne will submit 500 individually signed declarations from members in an effort to register the United Future party today. …

He said he was disappointed the commission would not take six to eight weeks to check the validity of the members’ forms.

“Even if it was to check every one of the memberships, not just a sample, it would not be unrealistic to expect the process to be completed within five working days,” Mr Dunne said.

The time frame just seems unusually long. It takes around a minute to check a name and address against the electoral roll. I know this from experience as years ago one of my jobs was to check that all of National’s candidates were actually on the electoral roll, before we submitted the nominations forms!

I think five working days should be more than enough to verify some or all of the names.

Questions to Ministers 2.00 – 3.00 PM

1. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Economic Development:Does he agree with the Department of Internal Affairs’ advice to his officials on the proposed international convention centre that “virtually any of these proposed concessions would almost certainly be followed by an increase in the number of people seeking help citing problems linked with casino machines or casino table games”; if not, why not?
2. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government’s financial position – particularly progress in reaching its target of returning to fiscal surplus in 2014/15?
3. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
4. CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress has the Government made on establishing an international standard convention centre in Auckland?
5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statements regarding Solid Energy and the Future Investment Fund “Well, again I think he’s saying that technically it was in the rules it might be possible. I haven’t actually seen – can’t recall either seeing [indistinct] and marked those things that are in the budget is an allocation process” and “If Bill’s saying it’s there, there might be a [indistinct] allocation”?
6. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of State Services: What progress is being made toward the achievement of the Government’s Better Public Services targets?
7. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement “The Government decides what the Future Investment Fund is spent on”?
8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the recent controversies around the GCSB; if so, why?
9. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister of Conservation: Does he agree with former Otago Conservation Board chairwoman, Associate Professor Abby Smith, who said restructuring at the Department of Conservation has left it “dead in the water”; if not, why not?
10. MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Justice: What new initiative is the Government undertaking to fight crime and drug addiction?
11. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What actions is he taking to minimise the harm from gambling?
12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What progress has been made toward the Government’s targets for delivering more services online?

Today Labour are asking four questions. Labour are asking about whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, Solid Energy, the Future Investment Fund and Gambling harm reduction. The Greens are asking two questions. These are about the Skycity Convention Centre and the Department of Conservation. New Zealand First is asking one question, about the GCSB.

Patsy question of the day goes to Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi for Question 6: What progress is being made toward the achievement of the Government’s Better Public Services targets?

Government Bills 3.00PM-6.00PM and 7.30PM-10.00PM.

1. Psychoactive Substances Bill – Committee Stage

2. Formerly the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill, is now six separate bills. They are here 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 ,6. – Third Reading

3. Formerly the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill is now three separate bills. They are here 1, 2, 3. – Third Reading

4.  Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill – Committee Stage

The Psychoactive Substances Bill is being guided through the house by the Associate Minister of Health, Todd McClay. The bill seeks to regulate otherwise unregulated psychoactive substances such as “party pills” and other “legal highs” in New Zealand. The bill aims to restrict the importation, manufacture, and supply of psychoactive substances unless authorised by a regulator, while allowing the sale of products that meet safety and manufacturing requirements. Currently, any psychoactive substance can be sold legally if it is not listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. This bill aims to place the onus on the industry to demonstrate that a psychoactive substance is not harmful or poses only a low risk to human health before approval for sale is given. Approval could be given only to finished, packaged psychoactive products, allowing the regulator to assess all the ingredients and the risk that they might present in the particular combination.

What was the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. These six bills are the Legal Services Amendment Bill, Accident Compensation Amendment Bill, Care of Children Amendment Bill, Child Support Amendment Bill (No 2), Family Proceedings Amendment Bill and the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill.

What was the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of State Services, Jonathan Coleman. This bills is now three separate bills. These are State Sector Amendment Bill, the  Public Finance Amendment Bill (No 2) and Crown Entities Amendment Bill.

The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy. This bill provides for cost recovery arising from processing of travellers in the aviation security, biosecurity, and customs areas.

The Herald reports:

The Post Primary Teachers Association have released research which they believe shows that it is inaccurate and simplistic to say that one in five New Zealand students is failing in education.

Independent researchers Liz Gordon, who was a former member of Parliament for Alliance, and Brian Easton who is an economist and columnist for the Listener, were given access to the Education Ministry’s 2009 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) database.

They found 14.3 per cent of students failed to achieve proficiency level 2 on PISA reading.

Which would be one in seven, not one in five.

They also found 74 per cent of those who failed were male, and that socio-economic factors such as parental income and the number of books in the home were contributing issues.

Boys are doing far worse than girls at pretty much all levels of education. That’s a gender gap which should be a priority to close.

The spokeswoman for Ms Parata said ‘one in five’ was an estimate which reflected the fact that not every person is leaving school with the qualifications and skills they needed to succeed.

“It reflects the fact that 15 per cent of school leavers do not have an NCEA Level 1 qualification and the basic literacy and numeracy skills required to attain it, and that around 30 per cent of students leave school without an NCEA Level 2 qualification – the minimum level of competency required to train for a basic apprenticeship.

“The one out of five reference also drew on ERO research and reading recovery data which indicated that up to one in five young people are leaving school without the skills needed for modern jobs.

The report is here.

The Herald reports:

Labour has withdrawn its proposal for women-only selections after a request from Leader David Shearer.

Mr Shearer said it was distracting from other issues and he did not believe it was what people wanted from Labour.

He said he had asked the Council to withdraw that proposal and it had agreed.

I score this as Whale 1, Labour members and activists 0 🙂

What is astonishing is that neither Shearer nor Robertson, who sit on the NZ Council, did anything to stop this before it was adopted.

The fact they may or may not have been at a particular meeting is irrelevant. Papers get sent out well in advance of meetings. If they had good political management they would have killed this off prior to the NZ Council adopting it and recommending to the the annual conference.

Stuff reports:

Senior Labour MPs are pressuring the party to dump or modify gender quota and “women-only” selection proposals ahead of today’s regular caucus meeting.

“Free and frank” views are expected to be aired by supporters of the quota and a group of male MPs, including Shane Jones and Clayton Cosgrove, who have openly rubbished the moves.

Manurewa MP Louisa Wall has backed the rule changes and list MP Sue Moroney has also spoken in favour of their aims, although she has hinted at a compromise.

After a series of meetings that spilled over into the evening, Labour sources yesterday said the solution rested with the party’s ruling council, not its MPs.

David Shearer refused to go on television last night to talk about GCSB, unless the broadcasters promised they wouldn’t ask him any questions about the man ban. They refused of course, so he refused to appear. Not sure I can recall a previous occassion where an opposition leader boycotts television interviews!

He has managed to man ban himself!

A solution would likely centre around redefining the 50 per cent quota as an objective, rather than a requirement.

But will the NZ Council and activists agree?

The Dom Post editorial:

Wacky ideas and politics go hand in hand. One of the reasons people join political parties is because they’ve got ideas they want to advocate. Selling raffle tickets and leafletting neighbourhoods only has so much appeal.

Hence it is no surprise that there are people within the Labour Party who think a gender quota should be introduced to ensure that women make up half its MPs after the 2017 election.

What is surprising is that the proposal has been adopted by the party’s ruling council. And what is even more surprising is that leader David Shearer has not dismissed it out of hand.

Shearer is a member of the Council that approved it.

Women bring a different perspective and different life experiences to Parliament. In recent years Ann Hercus, Fran Wilde, Ruth Richardson, Jenny Shipley and Helen Clark have all left their marks on New Zealand and Judith Collins and Paula Bennett are doing the same thing now.

It is not easy being a woman in a traditionally male institution, but none required special treatment to get selected by their parties or to rise to influential positions once they had got to Parliament.

The Labour proposal is condescending to women and counter to the party’s interests.

The people who seem to be most angry about this are in fact women.

Mr Shearer and his saner colleagues know this.

So which colleagues are not “saner”?

The Labour leader has said he prefers targets to quotas. His failure to stamp out a nutty idea leads to only one conclusion. He lacks the power within his own party to do what he knows is in its best interests. That does not bode well for him or Labour.

But good for New Zealand!

So we’ve had politicians complain for the last year that the exchange rate is too high and that the NZ Government must either print money or spend billions intervening in the exchange rate to lower the dollar.

Stuff reports:

Mike Jones, a currency strategist at BNZ, said he expected the kiwi to trade between US76c and US80c in the next three to six months, based on the gyrations of the global economy.

But the general rule at the moment is based on a simple formula: the better the economic data out of the United States, the further the kiwi will fall.

Which is why calls for us to intervene are misguided. It’s like trying to stop a river with a couple of stones.

Grey Power has said:

What is our society coming to when an elderly gentleman, on a walker, is attacked leaving the RSA? This follows hot on the heels of other well-publicised and cowardly acts against elderly, and Grey Power is sick of it. It is about time that we demanded better.

Grey Power National President, Roy Reid is disgusted and says that anyone convicted of assaulting a superannuitant should automatically face a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 3 years.

So if Nigella hit Charles Saatchi first, she’d be in prison for three years?

Maybe if we bring back compulsory military training for youths we could have the ambulance at the top of the cliff. This country is under direct threat from within. We need a society with respect, for people and property, with discipline, pride and with skills and leadership qualities. We believe that military training can provide that and would prove much more cost effective than the inevitable prison sentences and many of the training schemes that are currently on offer. This would also provide a force of civilians who are trained in emergency situations that can be utilised if needed.

What could go wrong with training young thugs how to shoot and kill people!

Would never happen right!

UPDATE: I wonder if Grey Power have costed their policy. If you assume a cost of $50,000 per youth per year and say 50,000 youths doing it every year that is a $2,5 billion price tag. I’d be willing to consider CMT, if Grey Power agree to a 20% cut in the pension to pay for it!

C – A Musical is a musical about the Big C, or cancer. Paul Jenden is a long-time creative force at Circa, but this time the production was about himself – his battle against chronic lymphocytic leukameia.

It’s a sad topic for a musical, and at parts of the show, you do feel downright depressed. Mortality is not an easy topic. But despite that, the show is also uplifting and great fun.

It’s not a typical musical.  It is described as a play with song and poems.

Danny Mulheron plays Jenden himself, and is captivating and lively. He is so convincing, you would think he really was Jenden, the way he described the chemotherapy, receiving the news etc.

Photo by Stephen A’Court

Beyond any doubt the star is Jackie Clarke who plays the voice inside his head, and sings the songs. Clark is simply fantastic and was a knock out. Her acting, her voice, her costume were all flawless.

Jane Waddell plays Paul’s Mum, who died from cancer also. Some very poignant scenes, but also some funny ones. The one that sticks in my mind is when she is talking to an angel and keeps asking him how much more time she has. He keeps avoiding the question until he finally points out that if you are talking to angels, the answer is pretty obvious!

Sue Alexander does an excellent job on the piano and Louis Solini silently plays Carcinoma most effectively.

On the technical side, the lighting used was done incredibly well. Great use of lights to capture emotions and states.

Most of us know someone who has fought cancer – some successfully, and some not so. The lyrics of “say si si to C” are a statement we can all aspire to.

As I said the play is not a barrel of laughs. At times it is very funny and uplifting. At times very sombre and sad. You ride a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but well worth seeing.

Threatreview also has a review.

The Govt has released an update on progress towards their 2017 goals for better public services.  As far as I can tell from the various releases, this is the state of play:

1. Reduce the number of people continuously receiving these working-age benefits, which will become the new JS, for more than 12 months by 30%, from 78,000 in April 2012 to 55,000 by 2017: Result: A drop of 3.6% to 75,366
2. In 2016, 98% of children starting school will have participated in quality early childhood education: Result: 95.7%, up 0.7%
3. Increase infant immunisation rates so that 95%of eight-month-olds are fully immunised by December 2014 and this is maintained through to 30 June 2017: Result is 89%. Also Reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever by two-thirds to 1.4 cases per 100,000 people by June 2017: Result is 3.9, down from 4.2.
4. By 2017, we aim to halt the 10-year rise in children experiencing physical abuse and reduce current numbers by 5 per cent. Result is a 3.5% drop
5. 85% of 18-year-olds will have achieved NCEA Level 2 or an equivalent qualification in 2017: Result is 77.2%, up from 74.3% in 2011
6. 55% of 25 to 34-year-olds will have a qualification at level 4 or above by 2017: Result is 52.6%, up from 51.8% in 2011
7. By June 2017, reduce the crime rate by 15%, reduce the violent crime rate by 20%, reduce the youth crime rate by 5%: Results: Total crime down 11%, youth crime down 18%.
8. Reduce the re-offending rate by 25% by 2017: Result is re-offending down 9%
9. Business costs from dealing with government will reduce by 25  per cent by 2017, through a year-on-year reduction in effort required to work with agencies: Result is not yet quantified
10. An average of 70 per cent of New Zealanders’ most common transactions with government will be completed in a digital environment by 2017: Results include 35% of passports renewed online, 18% of GST returns done online, 93% of tax returns done online, 68% of MSD benefits applied for online

Good to see all the indicators are moving in the right direction. Some are well on the way to meeting or exceeding the 2017 targets. Others are moving more slowly. The Government has announced $20 million more funding to help agencies meet the targets.

Most focus has been on Labour’s proposed man ban, but their proposed gender quota is equally worthy of focus. Few people disagree that we should have more women in Parliament, and a gender quota would of course achieve that. But quotas are inflexible and they mean that gender is regarded as more important than all other factors.

To illustrate why this is a pretty stupid idea, I’ve analysed what changes would have occurred to Labour’s caucus in the six MMP elections to date if they had a 50% female quota. Of course you can argue they may have done things differently, but we can only act on the info we have. Also for several of those elections Labour would have had no male list MPs at all, so it doesn’t matter how you argue it – they would have lost every male List MP if they were required to have a 50% quota.

1996 Lose

Joe Hawke
Jonathan Hunt
Mark Gosche
Dover Samuels

1996 Gain

Helen Duncan
Verna Smith
Suzanne Sinclair
Sue Moroney

1999 Loss

Joe Hawke
Jonathan Hunt
Michael Cullen

1999 Gain

Lynne Pillay
Lili Tuioti
Brenda Lowe-Johnson

2002 Loss

Ashraf Choudary
Dave Hereora
Graham Kelly
Jonathan Hunt
Michael Cullen

2002 Gain

Moana Mackey
Lesley Soper
Carol Beaumont
Gill Boddy-Greer
Louisa Wall

2005 Loss

Dave Hereora
Russell Fairbrother
David Parker
Shane Jones
Ashraf Choudary
Rick Barker
Mita Ririnui

2005 Gain

Lesley Soper
Louisa Wall
Denise MacKenzie
Leila Boyle
Jennifer McCutcheon
Linda Hudson
Marilyn Brown

2008 Loss

Stuart Nash
Rick Barker
Ashraf Choudary
Kelvin Davis
Charles Chauvel

2008 Gain

Judith Tizard
Louisa Wall
Lesley Soper
Erin Ebborn-Gillespie
Josephine Bartley

2011 Loss

Raymond Huo
Rajen Prasad
Shane Jones
Andrew Little
Charles Chauvel

2011 Gain

Carol Beaumont
Carmel Sepuloni
Deborah Mahuta-Coyle
Steve Chadwick
Kate Sutton

I think illustrates the inflexibility and dangers of quotas. In 1996, 1999 and 2002 Labour would not have been able to give any male MPs a winnable list place. That means they would have lost Michael Cullen. Ironically, one of the MPs who would have been elected in his place is Lesley Soper. Soper is the only pro-life woman in the Labour Party, and quite hated by most Labour women. The thought that replacing Michael Cullen with Lesley Soper is a triumph for women’s rights is absurd.

Labour would also have lost David Parker, Shane Jones, Kelvin Davis and Andrew Little if they had to apply a 50% quota for previous list rankings.

Yes quotas will achieve 50% female representation. But at what cost?