Olivian Wannan at Dom Post reports:

The new Anglican Dean of Wellington will have no problem preaching on the parable of the prodigal son – he has a story of redemption almost as compelling.

The Rev Digby Wilkinson, 49, had his own fall from grace in 2003 when he was convicted of theft, insurance fraud and burglary.

He was sentenced to 175 hours’ community service, and resigned from his role as minister of the Otumoetai Baptist Church in Tauranga.

So why was he a thief, fraudster and burglar?

The offending stemmed from his addiction to buying mountainbikes, leaving him struggling to service debt.

Well that is a new addiction. I look forward to that being added to DMS-IV!

He was ordained in 2006. In another unusual twist for an Anglican, he has been a leader of the Palmerston North Central Baptist Church since 2007.

Once upon a time I would have thought being a baptist and a burglar might might you ineligible to be the Anglican Dean of Wellington.

Stuff has an web poll on Labour. Their options and results are:

1. Wrong leader, wrong direction 56.5%
2. Too hindered by infighting 16.4%
3. Wrong leader, right direction 15.4%
4. Right leader, right direction 11.7%

The poll is of course of no scientific value and is mainly entertainment. Nevertheless it is unfortunate they missed out one logical option – that of right leader, wrong direction.

I think that one can have the view that David Shearer is the best choice for Labour leader, out of their caucus of 33. But one can also say that the direction Labour is taking (veering hard left) is the wrong one for them.

It would have been interesting to see how many people would have chosen that option, if available.

The Press reported:

Vicki Buck is attempting a political comeback after 15 years.

The former three-term Christchurch mayor yesterday confirmed she would seek election as a Riccarton-Wigram ward councillor in October’s local body elections.

Speculation has mounted since Buck was this month spotted with mayoral hopeful Lianne Dalziel and former mayor Garry Moore, her successor in 1998, who hinted at a return too, but has since ruled himself out.

“I wasn’t confident I was going to [run], otherwise I would have just said,” Buck said.

“I vowed when I stepped down as mayor never to interfere in the council, and I haven’t. I never imagined I would go back into something like this because there are so many other things I love doing and get excited about.”

Sounding out others to potentially run was the catalyst to make a call on her own candidacy, Buck said.

She first ran for council in 1975, aged 19.

She has opted to try to depose either Helen Broughton or Jimmy Chen in Riccarton-Wigram, where she has lived for more than 15 years, rather than targeting a vacant seat.

I thought Vicki was a pretty good Mayor. So why doesn’t she stand for that job again? I think people would appreciate someone with a proven track record.

David Fisher at NZ Herald reports:

Discovery that seems to have escaped detectives and forensic scientists during the 19 years since the Bain family were murdered in Dunedin indicates Robin Bain was the person who loaded the .22 rifle

David Giles peered closely at the photograph on the screen of his computer.

On the thumb of Robin Bain, dead 19 years, were parallel marks of a kind he recognised instantly.

As a boy in the Waikato he would shoot rabbits and possums with a .22 rifle, the same calibre of rifle used to murder the Bain family.

After firing a magazine full of bullets, he would disengage the clip which fed more rounds into the rifle. Taking a bullet, he would push it into the top of the magazine using his thumb and then use the digit to fix the bullet in place. Doing so dragged the thumb across the top of the magazine – parallel metal sides which carried a light coating of burned gunpowder residue from the back-blast of the shots just fired. As the thumb came away, it carried twin lines from the gunpowder and grime on the top of the magazine.

Mr Giles told TV3’s 3rdDegree show he knew instantly what he was seeing on his computer. Robin Bain carried the same marks on his thumb any shooter would have after reloading the magazine on a recently fired rifle.

3rd degree ran this story last night, and there is a link to Kiwiblog. It seems it was comments in a couple of the threads we have had on the David Bain case, that led to this evidence being seen by the person involved. I’m pleased that some people actually have waded through the thousands of comments on the Bain threads. I normally give up after the first hundred.

It appears to be significant evidence in David’s favour. I presume it will be considered by whomever is appointed to review Bain’s likely guilt or innocence for his compensation claim, once the judicial review proceedings are done with.

Te Ururoa Flavell writes in the NZ Herald:

Parliament is not a place for dreamers who run and hide away when their dreams are crushed.

It is a place where negotiation happens, where consensus takes place, where change can happen if you know how the system works, and you are prepared to stick at it for the long haul.

When my bill came back from the select committee it was “gutted”. That’s right, there is no denying it.

But I wasn’t about to pull out on those communities who desperately need change. So I started working with the Minister of Internal Affairs, Hon Chris Tremain, on how to advance the many issues that my bill sought to address.

The result? Well, it is a broad package of class 4 gambling reforms – and while my bill has been plucked within an inch of its life, we have been promised that many of its precious plumes will be tucked away in a new home, within the regulatory and legislative reforms proposed by the Government.

The changes announced by Mr Tremain this week are a direct result of my bill, which was a catalyst for action. We raised the issue, we put it on the agenda, and this wider package is the result of our hard work.

What Flavell is saying is it is easy to grand-stand and make speeches on an issue. It is far harder to actually work with MPs and the Government to get legislative and policy reform.

The Mana Party is very good at being outraged and making speeches. but can they play a constructive role in Government?

Well kevin Rudd won the leadership back b 57 – 45, after a two year campaign of destabilisation of his own party and Government. This says volumes about his character.

Personally I liked Julia Gillard. I know many people who have dealt with her, and even a couple who have worked for her – and almost universally they say she is excellent to deal with. She was pleasant, professional, and someone you could work with. Of course I disagree with her politics, and she made a couple of momentous errors with her u-turn on carbon tax plus support for Craig Thompson. But she was well regarded by many – even if that didn’t include much of the public.

Kevin Rudd on the other hand is despised by almost everyone who has worked closely with him – especially his former Cabinet colleagues. His psychology is quite flawed, and it is remarkable that the ALP have made him Prime Minister again – despite knowing all this. It was an act of desperation from MPs wanting to keep their seats.

The ALP will get a boost in the polls, but I doubt it will last too long. In fact their machinations of the last few months show how unfit for power they are. They need to be thrown out of office resoundingly.

Assuming they lose the election, what is fascinating is who will become Opposition Leader. Will they stick with Rudd in opposition? I’m not so sure. Bill Shorten was the heir apparent, but he has now helped axe two Prime Ministers and broken his repeated pledges of loyalty to Gillard.

Also of interest will be how many Labor Ministers refuse to serve under Rudd. Treasurer Wayne Swan has resigned and also Comms Minster Conway. Emerson and Garrett also expected to go.

Meanwhile the Coalition will remind voters of what Kevin Rudd said in March:

“there are no circumstances whatsoever under which I’d return to the leadership in future”.

That is as categorical a denial as you can get. So how can Australians trust anything Rudd says?

A seminar in Wellington on credit reform, for those interested.  SSPA has also published a background paper on the issue.

In response to the 6% drop in the Herald Digipoll, David Shearer has said:

‘We’re going to be doing exactly what we are doing now,”

This response was greeted with huge cheers from all National MPs. They hope Labour will carry on doing exactly what they are doing.

He fended off questions about what it would take for him to step down as leader.

Shearer can’t stand down. There is too much of a risk that David Cunliffe would win the battle to be his successor. This is as anathema to the ABC old guard faction as Kevin Rudd is to the ALP Caucus. It doesn’t mean they won’t stomach it eventually, but they are not desperate enough yet.

John Armstrong says that time has come:

Is it time for Labour to rethink the unthinkable and think David Cunliffe? Probably not. At least not yet. Labour’s MPs would not be human, however, if they were not asking themselves – if not each other – the Cunliffe question after the latest Herald-DigiPoll survey. …

The poll is a horror story of Stephen King proportions for Labour. The party has dropped close to six percentage points since the last such survey in March to register just under 31 per cent support.

David Shearer’s rating as preferred Prime Minister has been slashed by a third and is back into “also ran” territory.

The survey uncannily resembles the result of the last election, leaving the observer to draw the obvious conclusion – that Labour has gone nowhere since.

Except David Shearer was quoted as saying that the long-term trend has been positive for Labour. So I graphed the results of the Herald Digipoll since the election.

If that is a positive trend for Labour, it’s an unusual one.

Kevin Rudd’s supporters have started to circulate a petition calling for a leadership spill. This means he has agreed to challenge Julia Gillard.

This shows the extent of his lust for power, that he will break his word so brazenly.

After his first challenge against Gillard he vowed to stop undermining her and that he would not challenge again. He lied.

After he backed off his second challenge, he said he will never ever be a candidate for the leadership again under any circumstances.

It looks like it will be a close vote. The unions are heaving people to vote for Gillard.

If Rudd wins, I expect Labor will get a boost in the polls. But I doubt it will last very long. It may help them lose by a lesser amount, but they will still lose I’d say.

And if Rudd does win, and loses at the general election, will he be kept on as opposition leader or will they roll him straight after the election?

John Key has confirmed the Government will make a contribution to the Auckland CBD rail loop, with construction starting in 2020.

The details will be released on Friday, and it seems there will be some other announcements also. What will be of interest is how much the Government is contributing.

I first blogged on the CBD rail loop in 2009, and commented:

The key thing is, it is not a choice between improving roads and public transport. They are not substitutes, but complementary.

Labour and Greens have been trying to say that it is one or the other – that one must cancel the Puhoi to Wellsford motorway extension to fund the rail loop.

I also noted at the time:

If it can be done for that much money, the economic argument really stacks up.

But the cost has grown from that initial $1.5 billion.

In 2010 I blogged:

I think it is the most sensible of the proposed rail projects for Auckland.

And said:

Let’s assume ratepayers will pay 3/4. Work out how much that is, and consult Aucklanders on whether they are happy with that investment. Then you can talk to the Government about its contribution.

The details of the cost split is critical. I have said people outside Auckland should not be significantly funding the Auckland rail loop. However if the Govt’s contribution can be funded from the approx Auckland share of the National Land Transport Fund (ie through petrol tax paid by Aucklanders), then that is fine with me.

I suspect that is why the start date is 2020. Up until 2020 the NLTF is funding the various road of national significance, and as they get completed, my guess is the CBD rail loop will be the next priority.

Incidentally as far as I know, the Government has never refused to fund the CBD rail loop. They have always been careful with their language, saying there is not currently enough money in the NLTF for it. Unless I have missed something, they have never said never (to paraphrase James Bond).

The Herald reports:

Environment Minister Amy Adams has confirmed she will block councils from setting their own rules on genetically modified organisms, saying that central Government’s controls on GM trials and releases were strict enough.

The minister was challenged in Parliament yesterday after the Heraldrevealed she was investigating attempts by North Island councils to introduce higher standards on GMOs in their planning documents.

Ms Adams said in the House that she was concerned that councils were trying to go against central Government’s rules on new organisms.

“Local councils are local councils – they operate under the national framework. There has never been the ability for them to rewrite national rules that they don’t like.

“And if councils have concerns about the way GM regulation in New Zealand works, they should raise those with the [Environment Protection Agency] and attempt to address the legislation on a national basis. They should not set up their own independent states…”

Excellent. This will stop the anti-science nutters from bullying Councils into bans. New Zealand had a Royal Commission of inquiry into GM. It was demanded by the Greens and others. They said that GM should not be banned in NZ, but allowed under strict conditions.

It is worth recalling that in over 20 years of genetically modified crops and food, there has never been any documented ill effects from it. Wikipedia states:

•  the American Association for the Advancement of Science has stated “Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques.
• The American Medical Association, the National Academies of Sciences and the Royal Society of Medicine have stated that no adverse health effects on the human population related to GM food have been reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers.

1. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
2. PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making to ensure future generations of New Zealanders are not saddled with excessive debt?
3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “In 2009, New Zealand was rated first on the Transparency International’s ‘Corruption Perception Index’. Out of 180 countries, New Zealand was rated as having the lowest perceived public sector corruption. As a nation, that ranking is something of which we can be very proud”?
4. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Has he had any reports of an imminent Government U-turn on Auckland’s City Rail Link?
5. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has she received on improvements in the retention of students in secondary school?
6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received on affordability of health care for New Zealanders?
7. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister of Housing: What initiatives is the Government taking to address housing supply in pressured markets like Auckland and Christchurch?
8. JAN LOGIE to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Attorney-General’s advice that the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) unjustifiably limits the right to judicial review; if not, why not?
9. NICKY WAGNER to the Associate Minister of Health: What is being done to address the mental health needs of people in Canterbury?
10. CLARE CURRAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement of 11 June 2013 that “I can assure the House that we do not use our partners to circumvent New Zealand laws”?
11. PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Civil Defence: What reports has she received on how civil defence managed last week’s extreme weather events across New Zealand?
12. Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR to the Prime Minister: Does he still stand by his reported statement that the Prostitution Law Reform Act 2003 “hasn’t actually worked”?

Today Labour are asking four questions, The Greens are asking two questions and New Zealand are asking one question. Labour are asking about whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, the Auckland Inner City Rail Loop, healthcare affordability, and whether New Zealand uses its partners to circumvent New Zealand Law. The Greens are asking about Public Sector Corruption, and the right to Judicial Review over decisions made by the Ministry of Health. New Zealand First are asking a question about Prostitution Law Reform, an issue decided ten years ago.

Patsy question of the day goes to Paul Foster-Bell for Question 11 : What reports has she received on how civil defence managed last week’s extreme weather events across New Zealand?

General Debate 3.00PM – 4.00PM

Twelve speeches of no more than ten minutes each. Often the highlight of the parliamentary week, as standing orders are more relaxed.

Government Bills 4.00PM – 6.00PM

1.  Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill – Second Reading

2. Taxation (Livestock Valuation, Assets Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill – Second Reading

3. Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No2) – First Reading

4. State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill  – Committee Stage

The Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Finance, Bill English. This bill seeks parliamentary authorisation for the individual appropriations and changes contained in The Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand and Supporting Information for the year ending 30 June 2013.

The Taxation (Livestock Valuation, Assets Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill is being guided through the house by the new Minister of Revenue, Todd McClay. This bill proposes measures foreshadowed in Budget 2012 to broaden the tax base.

The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No2) is being guided through the house by the Minister for Local Government, Chris Tremain. This Bill amends the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to enable local boards established under the Act to delegate responsibilities, duties or powers conferred or allocated to them under the Act.

The State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill is being guided through the house by Minister of State Services, Dr Jonathan Coleman. This bill seeks to amend legislation governing the management of the State sector and public finances in New Zealand.

Fraser Nelson writes at The Spectator:

I often think of the Kinnock speech when I hear someone like Blower saying that poor kids can’t be expected to do so well. These (stunning, sickening) examples of how the poor are systematically failed by our education system really does call for the kind of anger that Kinnock envinced in 1987. It was a conservative, George W Bush, who updated Kinnock’s point for the 21st century. “Some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards,” he said in 13 years ago. ” I say it is discrimination to require anything less–-the soft bigotry of low expectations”.

The bigotry of low expectations is alive today. If someone lives in a decile 1 area, then they are not expected to do well.

This is what separates British left and right now. The left, in its post-Blair phase, no longer very worked up about the poor doing badly at school. (“It may matter or it may not,” Blower said about poor children going to top universities). The standard left response is to talk philosophically about inequality in society, as if this has the slightest bearing on whether the sink schools ought to be tolerated in this day and age.

By contrast, the right are hopping mad about educational inequality. When the subject is raised in front of Michael Gove, it’s like flicking a switch. He blows his top.

Gove is doing an excellent job.

The difference between left and right, now, is that you will seldom hear a left-winger getting Kinnock-style (or Gove-style) angry about educational inequality. The right are so angry about educational inequality that they want to tear up the whole system. Now that Labour takes 80pc of its funds from the union, it seems to be on the side of the system, no longer on the side of those failed by the system. As Iargued in the Telegraph on Friday, the Conservatives can now claim to become the party of the working class.

Our school system is good for most students. But the bottom 20% or tail do worse than most other countries. We need to do what we can to lift their expectations and results.

The OECD has published its 2013 Education at a glance book of OECD educational statistics. The report has around 400 tables in it.

Ministers Parata and Joyce highlight NZ is :

• Investing 7.3 per cent of its GDP in education – the seventh highest in the OECD
• Investing 20 per cent of all public expenditure in education, which is the second highest percentage in the OECD
• In the top third of countries for participation in early childhood education  – 95 per cent of four year olds enrolled in 2011
• In the top seven countries for the percentage of public expenditure allocated to early childhood education
• In the top 10 of the OECD for the highest proportion of tertiary qualified adults, with 39 per cent of 25 to 64 year-olds and 47 per cent of 25 to 34 year-olds in New Zealand having a diploma or higher qualification
• Increasing significantly the number of 15 to 19 year olds enrolled in study –81.5 per cent in 2011, up from 74 per cent in 2008

So let no one say the issue for education is not enough money being spent by taxpayers.

Stephen Fry blogs:

There isn’t any point in denying that the outburst of sympathy and support that followed my confession to an attempt at self-slaughter last year (Richard Herring podcast) has touched me very deeply.

Some people, as some people always will, cannot understand that depression (or in my case cyclothymia, a form of bipolar disorder) is an illness and they are themselves perhaps the sufferers of a malady that one might call either an obsession with money, or a woeful lack of imagination.

“How can someone so well-off, well-known and successful have depression?” they ask. Alastair Campbell in a marvelous article, suggested changing the word “depression” to “cancer” or “diabetes” in order to reveal how, in its own way, sick a question, it is. Ill-natured, ill-informed, ill-willed or just plain ill, it’s hard to say.

But, most people, a surging, warm, caring majority, have been kind. Almost too kind. There’s something a little flustering and embarrassing when a taxi-driver shakes you by the hand, looks deep into your eyes and says “You look after yourself, mate, yes? Promise me?” And there’s something perhaps not too helpful to one’s mental health when it is the only subject people want to talk to you about, however kindly or for whatever reasons.

But I have nothing to complain about. I won’t go into the terrible details of the bottle of vodka, the mixture of pills and the closeness to permanent oblivion I came. You can imagine them and I don’t want to upset the poor TV producer and hotel staff who had to break down my door and find me in the unconscious state I was in, four broken ribs thanks to some sort of convulsive fit that must have overtaken me while I lay almost comatose, vomit dribbling from my mouth. You can picture the scene.

The episode, plus the relationship I now have with a magnificent psychiatrist, has made made my mental health better, I think, than it’s ever been. I used to think it utterly normal that I suffered from “suicidal ideation” on an almost daily basis. In other words, for as long as I can remember, the thought of ending my life came to me frequently and obsessively.

His entire blog post is very raw and real, but I am sure hugely helpful to the millions who suffer from depression and other mental illnesses. When you read what he has gone through, I am sure you feel less alone in your own battles.

I suppose I just don’t like my own company very much. Which is odd, given how many times people very kindly tell me that they’d put me on their ideal dinner party guestlist. I do think I can usually be relied upon to be good company when I’m out and about and sitting round a table chatting, being silly, sharing jokes and stories and bringing shy people out of their shells.

But then I get home and I’m all alone again.

I don’t write this for sympathy. I don’t write it as part as my on going and undying commitment to the cause of mental health charities like Mind. I don’t quite know why I write it. I think I write it because it fascinates me.

And perhaps I am writing this for any of you out there who are lonely too. There’s not much we can do about it. I am luckier than many of you because I am lonely in a crowd of people who are mostly very nice to me and appear to be pleased to meet me. But I want you to know that you are not alone in your being alone.

Loneliness is not much written about (my spell-check wanted me to say that loveliness is not much written about – how wrong that is) but humankind is a social species and maybe it’s something we should think about more than we do. I cannot think of many plays or documentaries or novels about lonely people. Aah, look at them all, Paul McCartney enjoined us in Eleanor Rigby… where do they all come from?

The strange thing is, if you see me in the street and engage in conversation I will probably freeze into polite fear and smile inanely until I can get away to be on my lonely ownsome.

Make of that what you will.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

Have blogged the latest Herald Digipoll at Curiablog. Labour down 5.5% and Shearer down 6.1%.

In terms of next Labour leader, 32% say Cunliffe, 17% Robertson and 14% Little.

Brian Edwards blogs:

I find it hard to contain my disgust at the response in South Africa and abroad to Nelson Mandela’s hospitalisation for what is quite clearly a terminal illness. It has been nothing short of ghoulish.

Mandela is 94. Given what he has experienced in that long life, it is perhaps surprising that he has survived to such a ripe old age. Now it is time to let him go.

But ‘letting him go’ has not been an acceptable option for the country’s politicians, its churches and many of its citizens. The nation is encouraged to ‘pray for Madiba’ – not for a peaceful end to his suffering, but for the extension of that suffering or, at best, his survival in what may be little more than a zombie-like state. What masquerades as loving concern is in fact the ultimate selfishness.

Edwards is right.  I find this deathwatch ghoulish. We don’t need twice daily updates on him. When he dies, many will pay tribute – as is appropriate.

What South Africa and the world needs to do is to mourn Mandela’s death when it occurs and, when the mourning time is over, celebrate the life he lived. Instead, we crowd like vultures around the hospital bed of a dying man, some savouring titbits of hope, others in the expectation of gathering the first morsels of publicity that will increase their journalistic reputations.

Well said.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

The top former public servant called in to restore order to the troubled Ministry of Education has been confirmed as its new boss.

Deputy State Services Commissioner Sandi Beatie today confirmed Peter Hughes had been appointed secretary for education and chief executive of the Ministry of Education.

This is very good news for the Government, and for the Ministry. Hughes is a top operator and with a five year appointment, should be able to significantly improve how the Ministry operates. Ministers will be very pleased to have Hughes stay on.

Danyl McLauchlan blogs at Dim-Post:

My book goes on sale next Friday. You can preorder it directly from the VUP online bookshop. Preorders will be (a) signed and (b) signed by me, because apparently it’s ‘unethical’ to get the intern to copy my signature. Ebook format will be available here. (It takes a while for the ebook format to go live at major providers like Apple and Amazon. I’ll keep you updated.)

I’ve not yet read my review copy, but I suspect many will purchase it on the basis of Danyl’s blog writings. I will do a review once I have read my copy. The blurb for it is:

A sleepy bohemian neighbourhood.

An ancient legend from the ancient past.

A brilliant but troubled young writer.

A voluptuous healer.

A shadowy cult and its sinister leader.

A trail of riddles; a hidden artefact.

An explicit sex scene, then a struggle for ultimate power.

And a final, unspeakable secret.

Unspeakable Secrets of the Aro Valley is a dark and hilarious odyssey through Wellington’s underbelly.

Sounds fun. I’m looking forward to reading it.

The launch party for it is on Friday 5 July at Philosophy House in Aro Valley.

The Herald reports:

Government Chief Information Officer Colin McDonald is to get more powers and a bigger budget as the Government seeks to keep a lid on IT debacles like Novopay and a string of privacy breaches.

Mr MacDonald who is also Department of Internal Affairs chief executive, will now be equally responsible with the relevant minister for the sign off and roll out of big government IT projects like the $1.5 billion upgrade of the Inland Revenue’s computer system which will be the biggest ever public sector IT project.

Prime Minister John Key said if ICT projects failed in the same way Novopay had, the buck would now largely stop with the Government Chief Information Officer (GCIO) and his department as well as the relevant minister.

“As we can see with things like Novopay, if you get it wrong it can be a very painful experience.” …

He said Mr MacDonald’s team will receive an additional $1.5 million a year for additional staff and resources.

That was on top of previously announced extra funding of $3 million in 2012/2013 and $4 million a year thereafter.

Mr Tremain said Mr MacDonald would give independent advice to ministers regarding major projects and would have sector-wide oversight of ICT plans, projects and risks.

He would also report to ministers on any security risks, and implement privacy and security standards and controls across the public sector.

The announcement was part of the wider Government ICT strategy and action plan, released yesterday which aims to save up to $100 million year by 2017.

The plan includes offering all new services online by 2017.

Giving the CIO more powers seems sensible. Few agencies have the experience and capability to manage a major IT project by themselves.

I like the commitment for all new Govt services to be offered online.

Speaker David Carter has ruled that as United Future is no longer a registered political party, it is no longer eligible to be recognised as a parliamentary party under Standing Orders. Hence Peter Dunne is now classified as an independent MP.

This means he loses $122,000 of annual leader and party funding. Also he no longer has the right to speaks on motions where all party leaders get to speak.

However the Speaker also indicated that if they do get re-registered they will likely again be recognised as a parliamentary party, so he is likely to regain his former status in a couple of months or so.

NZIER have published this note:

The Greens’ idea to use the Reserve Bank Board to make monetary policy might improve decision-making but using a board designed to represent industry, risks compromising the Reserve Bank’s independence and the goals of monetary policy.

So they’re saying collective decision making may be better, but not if those deciding are not independent.

Responsibility for monetary policy rests solely with the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Twenty-five years ago, monetary policy was tied to the neck of one person to maximise accountability for inflation targeting. Today most countries have adopted inflation targeting but use a board rather than a single person to set interest rates.1

Groups tend to make better decisions than individuals by using a wider range of information. That often leads to less extreme decisions.2 And decision-making by groups is more effective because members of the group contribute a greater variety of perspectives.3

I would note it can lessen accountability though.

Recently the Reserve Bank of New Zealand set-up an internal Governing Committee, comprising the Governor, Deputy Governors and an Assistant Governor, as a group to assist decision-making.

These innovations help the Reserve Bank form better decisions from a wide range of information and perspectives. That means the distinction between a single decision-maker and decision-making by a board is blurred by current Reserve Bank practice. 

So we expect better monetary policy from a board rather than a single person. But given the way policy is currently set these gains are unlikely to be large.4

In other words, the decisions are in practice collective ones.

Moving to a board structure has practical implications. We agree that like elsewhere in the world, releasing the minutes and voting record of the committee improves transparency.

Agreed.

But already New Zealand has a very transparent central bank. According to one measure, New Zealand ranks as the second-most transparent central bank globally.5 Publishing the board minutes is helpful but the Reserve Bank of New Zealand does not have a transparency problem. 

But let’s not pretend there is a huge problem.

It’s not clear what making the decision-making board more representative of the wider economy might achieve.

If the problem is improving decision-making, NZIER’s view is the Reserve Bank already receives considerable input from all parts of the economy as part of its regular information gathering process.

Including exporters and manufacturers on a decision-making board seems targeted towards a solving a different perceived problem: changing the objectives of monetary policy.

But good monetary policy is not about promoting exports: it’s about targeting inflation.
Ultimately, monetary policy is a technical activity. So any decision-making board needs the professional advice and experience of career economists that understand the economy.

Basically the proposal is an attempt to change the purpose of monetary policy by stealth.