Steven Joyce has announced:

Minister Responsible for Novopay Steven Joyce today announced that Talent2 will continue to administer the school payroll – but that the long-term future of the system will stay under review.

“The decision to stay with Novopay at this point was made very carefully after a great deal of consideration and weighing up of all the risks,” Mr Joyce says.

“The improvements we have seen in delivering school pay from pay period to pay period and the progress to date in clearing bugs, means it wouldn’t be sensible to make a change at this point.  Making a change now would increase the work for payroll administrators in the short-term during the cut-over from where we stand today, not decrease it.

“Three out of the last four pay periods have had a reported error rate of less than 0.5 per cent – which we have been advised by our independent technical reviewers is a reasonable error rate for a stable system. However, that is not to say that we are out of the woods yet or endorsing the current state of the pay system.

The error rate for the last pay round was 0.26%, which is well below what the previous system even had.

“The only other realistic option at this point was to switch back to the old Datacom system and then upgrade again later to a new Datacom system.  That would mean substantial additional work and two further changes for school administrators.  We would do that if required, but it is not a step to be taken lightly.

“You can’t just switch a complex $4.4 billion a year payroll that pays around 90,000 people every fortnight without creating more issues – no matter which system you are using.

“A go or no-go decision had to be made at this point because the current Datacom backup proposal is time-sensitive, and has now reached the point where it will have to be re-worked for them to be able to assist.

Datacom have made it clear they remain ready to assist if they are required at any further stage. I appreciate that, and may call on them again at any time. I thank them for all their work and assistance to date.”

Mr Joyce says the focus for the next two months will continue to be on the Novopay system remediation in which progress will continue to be monitored on a daily, weekly and monthly basis.

“Staff from the Ministry, Talent 2, and schools are working hard on the remediation.  I appreciate all their efforts as we work towards a business-as-usual state,” Mr Joyce says.

The next key milestones are the Novopay Ministerial Inquiry, which is due to be presented to the Government at the end of this month, and the review of progress in the Remediation Plan at the end of June.

The report of the inquiry was be very interesting I suspect.

The ODT reports:

The editor of Critic – the University of Otago student magazine – was escorted from the magazine’s office over an employment dispute yesterday, but says he hopes to continue in the role. …

Senior Sergeant Brian Benn confirmed police were called to the office off Cumberland St just before noon, following concerns a ”former staff member” was refusing to leave. …

OUSA general manager Darel Hall declined to make any comment concerning the dispute. Mr Fredric and the university also avoided discussing the conflict.

A spokeswoman said Otago University would be making ”no response” in regard to the matter.

However Beau Murrah blogs some details:

One of the exciting events for a lot of people this year was the visit by Belgian drum and bass Act Netsky. A then Critic TV reporter, Tristan K, was seeking an interview with the artist on behalf of Critic and was allegedly legitimately treated rudely by the event managers who kept him waiting for several hours after they said they would give him an interview.

In response, Tristan wrote an email (which I have not read) but by various credible accounts was outrageous, insulting, bitchy and rude to Netsky’s event managers under the guise of it being an official communication of Critic magazine**. When Callum Fredric learned about this he apparently was not concerned and thought it was basically rather funny and did nothing.

Netsky’s event managers, which apparently manage several other major musical acts, did not think it was funny and threatened to never send acts to OUSA/Dunedin events ever again. OUSA general manager Darel Hall was then forced to profusely apologise and Callum adjoined to it on behalf of Critic.

If I was kept waiting for several hours, I’d write a bitchy e-mail also. If anyone has a copy of the e-mail in question I’l happy to publish it!

The staff appointment the ODT alludes to is the attempted appointment of Maddie Phillips, Callum Fredric’s girlfriend, as sub-editor of Critic magazine to replace Sam McChesney.

There possibly could have been a situation where an editor boyfriend could appoint his girlfriend to the second highest (or third highest? There is also a deputy editor and I get confused) position in a newspaper and it not be cronyism but this is not it. …

If Maddie was a popular, safe choice it could have been ok but actually it is just appointing your girlfriend over a number of other possible qualified candidates (of which I am not one). At the very least, it creates a very strong impression of cronyism and needs to have been clearly justified.

If someone you have a relationship with someone who is in line for an appointment, it is best to delegate the decision, or at least involve others in it. I don’t know if this happened in this case.

The OUSA general manager, Darel Hall, probably saw and heard all this. If he did not hear the grumblings or see some questionable choices he definitely experienced the Netsky incident and he definitely had cause for concern about Cronyism. Anyways, he saw it necessary or desirable to suspend Callum’s employment.

With all of that in mind I also cannot see Callum staying as editor. He apparently is already not editor anyore and Sam McChesney, last publicly noted as resigning from his job as Sub editor a few weeks ago, was the acting director as of at least last Friday. Yesterday when the police walkout occurred Callum was allegedly told not to the come to the office for a meeting and did, thus the police walkout occurring.

What will also be interesting is what process has OUSA followed. You can’t just sack an editor because you disagree with his decisions. This case could well end up in the employment courts.

UPDATE: I’ve now heard from several sources on this issue. Two interesting further aspects.

Maddie Phillips was sub-editor in 2012, so having her do the job again in 2013 is not that big a think it seems.

The bigger issue is that it appears OUSA gave no notice or written warnings to the Critic Editor before they informed him he was suspended and had to vacate the premises. If this is correct, I think they may be on shaky legal ground. As the University now funds OUSA, it is ultimately student funds at risk.

Andy Tookey gained via OIA the number of people who have consented to be an organ donor on their driver’s licence.

We have 3,279,627 licensed drivers in NZ. 51.9% of us have agreed to be an organ donor in case of death, or 1,730,299. Pleased to see it is over 50%. I wonder how someone who refuses to be an organ donor will feel if they ever need a transplant themselves?

The breakdown by gender is interesting. 50.9% of licensed drivers are male and 49.1% female. That suggests fewer women get a license. Also 0.003% are of indeterminate gender. Not sure if that means inter-sexual, or that they didn’t fill the form in clearly!

The organ donation rates by gender are 49.1% for men, 54.9% for women and 39.3% for indeterminate. That is a significantly higher rate for women, than men. Are men more selfish than women? Or more likely to have a cultural or religious reason not to want to be a donor?

It is expected that as a mark of respect for the passing of the Hon Parekura Horomia, a sitting member of Parliament, the House will adjourn early on Tuesday.

At 2 p.m. on Tuesday there is likely to be a motion to mark the passing of the Hon Parekura Horomia, the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, who died on 29 April. Following members’ speeches on this motion, it is likely the House will rise early as a mark of respect. Normal business such as question time would be set aside. The House is scheduled to sit again at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 8 May.

Parekura is the first electorate MP to die in office while the House is in session since Sir Basil Arthur in 1985, who held the seat of Timaru. You can read a NZ Herald Editoral on Parekura’s passing here.

The Herald reports:

A $224,000 prototype house, aimed at Aucklanders who want an affordable place, has been built at Papakura.

That is the house, not the land.

The business is promoting architecturally designed houses as a revolution, designed to fit on sites as small as 350sq m.

Excellent. Different families will want different sizes.

Giam said higher specification places developed under the firm’s Smarter Small Home concept would sell for $259,000 and he hopes a house and land package can go for under $500,000.

“We are hoping to get it between $450,000 and $490,000 on a section costing between $220,000 and $250,000. The vision is sub-$500,000 for a truly desirable and functional home. And if we look outside of Auckland then it becomes even more affordable,” he said.

That seems realistic to me. But it also shows what a hollow sham Labour’s pledge to have homes available for $300,000 a year in Auckland. It is simply impossible to do while land costs so much. Even for a tiny section, the land is estimated to cost from $220,000 to $250,000. Think you can build a home for $50,000 to $80,000?

Simon Collins at NZ Herald reports:

The Green Party is calling for a public debate about how charities are defined after a decision to remove Family First’s charitable status. …

Ironically, the Greens, whose MPs voted unanimously in support of gay marriage, were the only party to speak up for Family First yesterday. Green MP Denise Roche, who has prepared a bill defining advocacy as “charitable” if it is in pursuit of a charitable purpose, said the current law should be reviewed.

This is to allow Greenpeace to become a charity again. If you are going to allow highly politicised lobby groups to be charities, then wwhy not make political parties charities also? They all claim to promote policies to benefit NZ?

I think NZers should give money to the political parties and lobby groups they support. However they should not get to make a tax deduction for doing so.

Ms Roche, a former board member of Greenpeace NZ, prepared the bill when the former Charities Commission ruled in 2010 that Greenpeace was not a charity because of its political advocacy. That case is going to the Supreme Court in July.

If Greenpeace qualifies as a charity, then every lobby groups in NZ should.

Family First have queried the charitable status of the following:

Action For Children And Youth Aotearoa CC11198
Amnesty International New Zealand Inc CC35331
Caritas Aotearoa – New Zealand CC36055
Child Poverty Action Group CC25387
EPOCH CC31965
Te Kahui Mana Ririki CC28437
UNICEF CC27773
New Zealand National Committee For Unicef Trust Board CC35979
Human Rights Foundation Of Aotearoa New Zealand CC22917
Waves Trust CC24175
Humanist Society of NZ CC36074
Agender Christchurch Inc CC20922
Save the Children CC25367
QSA Network Aotearoa CC48531
Waikato Queer Youth CC29356
Rainbow Youth Incorporated CC24284

I can’t comment on all of these, but I would not regard the Child Poverty Action Group as charitable – they are a highly activist lobby group. Likewise the Humanist Society doesn’t seem charitable to me – they promote a belief system.

The Herald reports:

A classified report has confirmed that the boatload of Sri Lankan asylum seekers who arrived without warning on the West Australian coastline last month had been sailing for New Zealand.

It diverted from its course after the captain decided weather and other safety issues were too risky to continue beyond Australia. …

Last year, 10 members of China’s banned Falun Gong movement were rescued north of Darwin after their boat broke down en route to New Zealand.

After officials explained the dangers of continuing their voyage, the group decided to apply for asylum in Australia.

This is why regional co-operation on this issue is sensible.

Stuff reports:

The hospitality industry says it struggles to find skilled staff because weak margins prevent it from paying high wages.

But a union group says hospitality is one of the lowest paid sectors around, and bosses should look in the mirror.

Wellington chef Martin Bosley had two new staff fail to turn up at his namesake Oriental Parade restaurant on Sunday night, one of its busiest dinner services.

He vented his frustration on his Facebook and Twitter pages: “I’m fed up putting time, [money and] effort into training new staff only for them to no show. Unemployment? Can’t be f….. working more like,” he wrote.

Bosley told The Dominion Post training one new waiter took several hundred dollars, including about $170 for an advertisement on Trade Me and staff time to interview them and show them the ropes.

“We rang and rang but there was no answer, no courtesy call saying they can’t work or don’t want the job.

“It is completely hopeless. They just don’t take it seriously.”

I could have sworn we have very high levels of youth unemployment. Surely not?

Stuff reports:

The Government could set up a public register of serious criminals deported from Australia, under drastic planned law changes to improve trans-Tasman information sharing.

The murder of Christchurch teenager Jade Bayliss has “really focused everyone’s minds” on ensuring the new law becomes a reality, Justice Murther inister Judith Collins told The Press last night.

It’s a good idea, and we have seen the tragic consequences of not having this info. But why not a register of all serious criminals? Criminal convictions are not private – they are a matter of public record and should be publicly available.

Documents reveal a list of pros and cons for making the details about serious criminals publicly available.

A public register could impact on an individual’s right to a fair trial if information about previous offences could be accessed.

However, that was countered by the potential for improved public safety.

If an individual is charged with a further offence, then the Govt can just remove their entry during the trial. Having a Govt register actually makes it easier to do this, than having private groups such as the SST having to run their own registers.

Last month The Press revealed Bayliss approached police with concerns about Jeremy George McLaughlin, 35, four days before he strangled her 13-year-old daughter Jade and torched their Barrington St home in November 2011.

She was unaware McLaughlin spent time in jail for killing Perth teenager Phillip Vidot in 1995 before he was deported back to New Zealand in 2001.

She was given trespass papers to serve against McLaughlin if he showed up at her home.

However, police were unable to tell her the details of the killer’s past because of constraints about what they can reveal about a person’s criminal history.

Bayliss has pledged to campaign for better access to information about serious criminals.

How heart breaking that she even asked Police, and the dumb law meant they could not tell her. Public safety must come first.

The Herald reports:

Nikki Roper strangled his ex-girlfriend Alexis Tovizi to death with a sleeper hold just days after being released from prison where he was serving a sentence for choking her, a court heard today.

The trial is ongoing so whether or not Roper is guilty is for the jury. So please don’t comment on him or his possible guilt or innocence.

I’m interested in whether or not he was released after his full sentence, or on parole? Anyone know?

The Herald reports:

Family First NZ says it will be deregistered as a charity because of its views on gay marriage.

National director of Family First Bob McCoskrie said the group has received notification the Charities Commission intends to deregister the organisation.

He said the decision was highly politicised and showed groups that think differently to the politically correct view will be targeted.

I was actually surprised that either Family First or the Sensible Sentencing Trust were registered charities. Likewise I was surprised that Greenpeace was also (and they are no more – for now).

This is nothing to do with my degree of agreement with any of those groups. All of them have some views I agree with and disagree with.

But if you run campaigns calling on people to vote a certain way, then I think you cross the line from being a charity to a lobby group.

I’m all for lobby groups. We need more of them. And people should donate to the ones they agree with. But they should not get a tax rebate for doing so.

Now there are some groups that do some stuff that is charitable and some stuff that is lobbying. One solution is to structurally separate the two. For example the SST does some amazing support networks for victims of serious crimes such as murders. Donations to support that work should be tax deductible. But donations to fund their lobbying on law and order issues should not be.

The same goes for Forest & Bird. Donations for their actual conservation projects should be tax deductible. But donations for their political advocacy in favour of certain political parties should not be. Under their current structure I think Forest & Bird should not be registered either.

That is not to say no charity should be unable to express views on political issues. But when almost everything you do is around political issues (as was the National Council of Women), then I’d say you are not charitable.

NBR (paywall) reports:

Under-fire Auckland mayor Len Brown has been accused of hypocrisy for living on a spacious lifestyle block outside the urban limit while pushing for a “quality compact city” full of small high-rise apartments.

The mayor lives on a bush-covered 6970 sq m (0.688ha/1.7 acre) property at Tiffany Close on the outskirts of Manukau, just outside the current Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL).

His house is a spacious 406sq m and he has a pool in his backyard, for which resource consent was granted in October 2002.

The property was a bare section when Mr Brown bought it with his wife Shan Inglis in 1995 for $180,000.

It now has a rateable value of $1.2 million, including land value of $495,000 and improvements of $705,000.

Critics say the mayor’s housing choice shows he is not practicing what he preaches when it comes to high-density living. 

If the Mayor was allowing Aucklanders to make their own choices about where to live, then his personal choice would be of no interest.

But the refusal to significantly shift the MUL or urban-rural limit is depriving Aucklanders of those choices. Almost all new houses will have to be within the MUL as part of his intensification plan.

Some people want to live in apartment blocks – as I do.

Some people like to be able to have a section with a back lawn that the kids can play on.

We need a plan for Auckland that will enable both choices.

That means freeing up more land. Otherwise sections will massively increase in value, as Len’s has.

The Herald reports:

Tiszavasvari is the stronghold of the Jobbik Party which is causing Hungarian Jews to fear for the future. …

Yet gypsies are not the only bogeymen Jobbik has in its sights, as a sign on the green opposite the mayoralty building suggests. In Hungarian and Persian it proudly announces that Tiszavasvari is twinned with Ardabil, a town in Iran.

There is no obvious reason why a drab rust-belt town in Hungary’s former mining area should seek links to a city in a hardline Islamic Republic 3220km away. The real purpose is to show their mutual loathing of Israel. …

“You can see Jobbik’s true nature through this,” said Peter Feldmajer, the president of the Federation of Hungarian Jewish Communities, which represents an estimated 100,000 Hungarian Jews, nearly 90 per cent of whom still refuse to disclose their religion publicly. “They hate the Jewish people, and so does the Iranian Government.”

How sad that 90% of Jews have to hide their religion.

But as the global banking crisis hit Hungary hard, leaving more than one in 10 jobless, Jobbik revived a folk devil – the wealthy, all-controlling Jews, who were traditionally influential in the finance world.

Jewish community leaders have been attacked in the street and cemeteries desecrated. As well as anti-Semitism rallies, far-right biker gangs have held ugly demonstrations known as “Step on the Gas” days. Gyongyosi was castigated recently for saying that a “security” register should be created of Hungarian MPs and civil servants who were of “Jewish origin”.

I find an MP calling for a Jewish register chilling. We have seen this happen before. This is one of the reasons why I support Israel as a safe country for Jews – the history of persecution in Europe was not just about the Holocaust.

Jobbik are vigorously anti-globalisation being populist and nationalist. They rail against “Israeli businessmen of buying up property in the country wholescale.”

The Jobbik candidate for President of Hungary has made the following statements:

• I would be glad if those who call themselves proud Hungarian Jews would go and play with their own little circumcised pricks instead of slurring me
  
• “advised” the “liberal-bolshevik zionists” to “start thinking of where to flee and where to hide” in a 2008 speech
• The only way to talk to people like you is by assuming the style of Hamas. I wish all of you lice-infested, dirty murderers will receive Hamas’ ‘kisses

Jobbik are somewhere between neo-Nazis and actual Nazis. They are now the third most popular party in Hungary.

In 1938 the Hungarian Government banned Jews from government employment and from editing newspapers.No private employer could have more than 12% Jewish employees. Most Jews lost the right to vote. In 1941 Jews were banned from marrying non-Jews. Note Germany did not invade Hungary until 1944.

Winston Churchill in 1944 said:

 “There is no doubt that this persecution of Jews in Hungary and their expulsion from enemy territory is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world….”

Never Again.

Bernard Orsman at NZ Herald reports:

Restaurateur John Palino has put his hat in the ring to challenge Auckland Mayor Len Brown at October’s local body election.

Mr Palino, a New Yorker who has appeared on the TV3 show The Kitchen Job, is the first centre-right candidate to challenge Mr Brown, who stands as an independent candidate but is a member of the Labour Party.

The businessman, a New Zealand citizen, has come forward only days after National Cabinet minister and Pakuranga MP Maurice Williamson said he was considering standing for mayor.

Last night, Mr Palino said he opposed Mr Brown’s draft Unitary Plan for intensification of residential areas in north, west and east Auckland. Instead, he planned to turn the industrial and commercial area of Manukau into the most liveable modern city in the world, and allow for business growth outside the CBD.

Good to see the race warming up.

The Herald editorial:

The public can only wonder how somebody like that can get into Parliament.

Nobody elected him. He came in on National’s list in 2008 but could not make it back to Parliament on the list in 2011 even though that election increased National’s proportional representation. The previous year this newspaper revealed he did not have a finance industry qualification claimed in his CV.

Now he is back filling a vacancy left by Speaker Lockwood Smith’s departure. This unfortunately is typical of the list system. People near the bottom of the list come and go without the public noticing or knowing much about them.

It is often claimed that the same could be said of many electorate MPs who are largely unknown outside the electorate. But they are well known within it. Before their election they have faced public meetings, attended local gatherings, made a point of meeting and talking to as many voters as possible.

List MPs may do the same but they do not face the same test. It is hard to believe someone who behaved as Mr Gilmore apparently did would win even a safe National electorate. Word gets around.

The fact he is in Parliament suggests National’s list exceeds its depth of presentable candidates.

Not quite, but it is true that most parties get some quality issues at the lower end of their lists. However this situation is partly of National’s own making.

In 2008, Aaron was ranked No 56 on National’s list, and he was the list person in on their list.

In his first term he didn’t endear himself universally. That’s now because he isn’t without skills – he’s got a good understanding of policy, and is a good debater in the House – but because he does some stupid things.

So in 2011 he was one of two MPs ranked at the bottom of the caucus on the party list, and they were not returned in the general election. Since then however two vacancies have occurred, and hence the two List MPs not re-elected were given opportunities to return.

But while they were ranked at the bottom of the caucus, they were not at the bottom of the list. They were both given places potentially winnable and this is because National has made a “policy” decision at the last three elections to rank existing List MPs above new candidates, except when the new candidates are deemed exceptionally talented or have special appeal.

In 2005 the only candidates ranked above current List MPs were Tim Groser and Chris Finlayson.

In 2008 the only candidates ranked above current List MPs were Steven Joyce, Hekia Parata, Bakshi Singh and Melissa Lee.

In 2011 the only candidates ranked above current List MPs were Jian Yang, Alfred Ngaro and Paul Goldsmith.

When you are in Government with small majorities, I understand the desire to not have incumbent MPs given unwinnable List places. However there is a price to pay when you do protect the caucus.

By this I don’t mean in any way that I believe incumbent MPs should be treated more harshly – far from it. I just think that when it comes to list ranking, MPs and candidates should compete fairly on their qualities as individuals – not dealt with collectively.

There are in fact a number of people lower down National’s List who would make solid MPs – Paul Foster-Bell (who is now there), Claudette Hauiti, Jo Hayes, Leonie Hapeta, Denise Krum, Viv Gurrey, Brett Hudson etc (not an exclusive list).

The problem is not that National won too many seats. The problem is that it protected its existing caucus and ranked them ahead all bar three new candidates. Now again, there are reasons why that can be politically desirable. But there are also reasons it is politically undesirable, as we have seen this week.

I don’t like churches trying to impose their beliefs on society throw legislation. But I also don’t like people trying to get the state to interfere in the affairs of churches.

The Herald reports:

A homosexual man is taking the Anglican Bishop of Auckland to the Human Rights Tribunal after being rejected for training as a priest.

A hearing begins today following a complaint from the man, who says he feels discriminated against because of his sexuality.

It is understood the man – who is in a sexual relationship with his partner – has wanted to enter the church’s training programme for priests for years.

But after applying to enter after years of study, he was rejected by the Bishop Ross Bay, who approves entrants.

Bishop Bay told One News last night that he was simply following the church’s doctrines.

The man was rejected “by reason of the defendant not being chaste in terms of canons of the Anglican Church,” the bishop said.

That means that anyone wanting to become ordained needs to be in what the Anglican Church deems to be a chaste relationship – a marriage between a man and a woman or committed to a life of celibacy.

While I think their rules are a bit silly, I defend entirely their right to be able to set their own rules on who can be a priest or minister. I think it is bad that they even have to front up to the Tribunal.

If we want religions to keep out of the state, the state should also keep out of religions.

In a statement to the tribunal, the complainant says he “felt totally humiliated that I had spent six years of my life in study, for a process that I was not permitted to enter because I was a gay man and in a relationship”.

“My humiliation and disappointment continue to this day.”

He also claims that had he been unmarried but in a heterosexual relationship, he would have been allowed to train as a priest.

However, it is understood that is not the case and that Bishop Bay has rejected people in such relationships in the past.

Hopefully the case will get nowhere.

Hamish Rutherford at Dom Post reports:

A last-ditch bid to modify the rules for charter schools will take place this week, with pressure expected to go on the Maori Party whose votes will decide whether legislation passes.

Labour has effectively conceded defeat in its battle against allowing a trial of the schools, which will be able to determine their own curriculum and can be staffed by teachers who are not registered.

And will be entirely voluntary to attend.

But Labour education spokesman Chris Hipkins said he would be tabling a series of Supplementary Order Papers this week, suggesting amendments to the Education Amendment Bill when it sees its second reading.

These would impose teacher registration and curriculum requirements, as well as making the schools subject to the Official Information Act.

I’m actually supportive of the coverage by the Official Information Act. But that should not just apply to charter school. I think the OIA should apply to any organisation that is wholly or largely taxpayer funded.

Mr Banks said the trial charter schools, to be opened “day one, term one” next year, would have high standards of teaching, and he expected most would be registered teachers, but it would be up to the schools to decide this.

I think aspect is just something easy to scaremonger over. I’d be surprised if many charter schools have fewer than say 905 registered teachers. But sometimes there may be individuals who have not done formal teacher training who will still be able to effectively teach and even inspire.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust have launched their Judge the Judges website.

I have some mixed feelings on this. I don’t like the personal focus on some individual Judges, and especially do not like the inclusion of their photos on the site. Having said that, in the age of televised trials many Judges have appeared on the TV news.

Some of the cases highlighted are worth highlighting. There have been some appallingly light sentences handed out. Many of these have been reported on in the media, and often subject to successful Crown appeal.

The website does not just highlight the cases where the sentence was too light. They have included cases where they think the Judge got it right on. I wonder if they would include cases where they think the sentence was excessive, if such a thing is possible?

One good aspect of the site is they have included full sentencing notes from the Judges for some of the cases. This is a useful service. As far as I know these are not available elsewhere online to the public. If people do use the site, I’d recommend they do more than just read the summaries but read the full sentencing notes.

As I said I have some mixed feelings on this initiative. I’d prefer the focus was on sentences, rather than Judges. I’d also suggest they try and get full sentencing notes appended to all the cases, rather than just some of them. But I do think some of the sentences out there do need a spotlight focused on them.

Some of the pressure should go on the Crown to appeal manifestly too low sentences. When Judges do get it wrong, the best response is an appeal.

Kayaked over to Matiu/Somes Island this morning. Was a near perfect day for it. Warm and sunny and not much wind. Got a bit choppy on the return trip but the kayak we had hired from Canoe and Kayak Wellington was suberb. It was damn fast, and stable as. If anyone else is looking to kayak out to Somes, or elsewhere, I can’t recommend them highly enough. They even drop the kayaks off at the (Petone) foreshore and pick them up afterwards.

View of Wellington from the end of Somes Island.

Walking along the loop track around the island.

The East West ferry heading over.

The perfect spot at the top for lunch.

Steph suited up for the return trip.

We did a loop around the island, both on the way in and the way out. Takes and extra half hour or so, but on the far side it was so sheltered it was almost like being on a lake.

Taking a break,

Mokopouna Island, the smaller one next to Somes.

Was a brilliant way to spend  a Sunday morning. Definitely going to do a repeat trip. So much better than taking the ferry over, and you get to enjoy unparalleled views of Wellington.

Luke Malpass writes in the Australian Financial Review:

How exactly is it that New Zealand – a country that went into recession in early 2008, had a collapsed non-bank finance sector, didn’t have a mining boom, has a historically high dollar and had its second biggest city basically levelled by an earthquake – is on track to record a budget surplus as scheduled and on time in 2014-15? This question raises a second one: why is Australia not in this position?

I think we don’t give enough credit to the Government for the very challenging task they have had, where they had to both have an expansionary fiscal policy during the depths of the global recession, but also impose spending restraint so that the projected structural deficit would have a path towards becoming a surplus.

Australia has shown how easy it is to blow a projected surplus.

The odd thing about this is that Swan and his government perpetually cast themselves as victims: of a global downturn and an unappreciative public.

But in fact, a look across the Tasman shows Swan and Labor are victims only of their own appalling policy choices. Overall Kiwi growth is at about 3 per cent – NZ grew 1.5 per cent last quarter alone. Unemployment and welfare numbers are dropping, virtually every export sector, including manufacturing has been growing. Businesses everywhere are complaining they can’t get skilled labour.

The growth in Australia is hugely variable. Western Australia has been growing faster than China. Queensland has had strong growth. But the larger states of Victoria and New South Wales were actually contracting for a while.

The Gillard government is now in the ridiculous situation that despite revenue increases since 2010, historically high terms of trade, and relatively low unemployment, any surplus has been shunted away into the future. Comparatively, New Zealand, despite relatively poor growth until recently, no mining boom and an enormous earthquake, will complete a bigger surplus than expected, earlier than forecast.

Go New Zealand!

A little known fact is that Denis Thatcher’s father was born in New Zealand. That made Denis a Kiwi, and hence Margaret Thatcher a Kiwi by marriage.

Thomas Thatcher was born in 1848 and emigrated to New Zealand in 1878. He founded Atlas Preservatives, originally a sheep dip and weed killer manufacturer.  His son Thomas Herbert Thatcher was born in New Zealand in 1885 and married Lilian Kathleen Bird, a secretary at Atlas. Their son was Denis Thatcher.

Thatcher Street in Castlecliff is named after Thomas Thatcher and Thomas Herbert attended Wanganu Collegiate from 1894 to 1897, when they moved back to England.

Larry Mitchell writes:

Councils “in stchook “ … their debt is way too high … it matters … so do proper disclosures 

Dealing as I do, with matters of New Zealand Council finances, the one area that produces most comment, sometimes heated debate, is Council debt. Public discussion of Council debt is muddled, an often fractious difference of opinion generating more heat than light.

For example, the most recent (March 2013) Office of the Auditor General’s report of their findings from New Zealand Local Government audits concludes that Councils have their debt levels “within a reasonable range”. Recent New Zealand Local Government Association press releases concur.

Compare these reassuring findings to those of the 2013 NZ LG League Table where the lowest ranked 15% (10 in number) of New Zealand Councils are revealed as exhibiting unfavourable financial sustainability and community affordability issues. Both contradictory positions can’t be right. Unfortunately, the debate over Council debt is complicated by unsatisfactory public reporting-disclosures.

Discussions of Council debt are often compounded by current Council practices. These amount to opaque, imprecise Council debt accounting and “smoke and mirrors” disclosures. It is tempting to suggest that these are deliberate attempts to suppress discussion of Council debt on a “don’t scare the horses” basis.

This is particularly evident for use of the term by Councils of “Internal Borrowing”, a meaningless label, better described as “Robbing Peter”, covering as it does Council treasury management dealings involving a clear misuse, (some might say misappropriation) of asset replacement funds.

Add to these sleights of hand a motivation for the more highly indebted Councils is to keep their heads down when their debt totals soar, along with a tendency toward misinformation.

Councils invariably discourage full, plain English disclosure of their challenging debt circumstances eschewing useful inter-Council comparisons of debt levels. The sketchy information supplied rarely “encourages” or promotes a balanced debate of prudent and sustainable levels of debt.

Is it little wonder then? that public meetings of Council ratepayers, seeking explanations of Council debt are confused and dissatisfying. The aphorism of being kept in the dark … and fed mushrooms comes to mind … with Councils doing little to clarify such matters.

What’s more, in the most egregious cases, Councils taking on excess levels of debt play fast and loose. With the tacit approval and unremarked by their auditors, Councils show a breath-taking lack of process and accountability such as when they respond to a breach of previously imposed prudential debt limits. Without batting an eyelid they merely move the goalposts and increase their debt limits.

Such shifts of debt maxima are held out as legitimising higher debt. Such elastic and dishonest manipulation is just window dressing, when previously moderated (one would have thought audit-mandated) debt ceilings are then breached.

Further complicating this confused picture, at least in the minds of layman ratepayer readers of Council financial statements, Councils react badly in providing useful debt related information. They become hyper-sensitive to public comments concerning their high and steadily increasing debt levels.

As a result, such simple informative expedients as providing meaningful year-on-year (apples with apples) Council or inter-Council comparisons of debt are rarely even-handedly reported. In these circumstances, perversely, a balanced, honest informative analysis of Council debt invariably requires some independent and determined digging.

It should not take special efforts to have Councils report their debt correctly, for make no mistake, Council debt analysis and evaluations are vitally important.

Unambiguous and balanced reporting of debt to ratepayers is essential, particularly when considering a Council’s financial sustainability because debt servicing costs have a huge impact upon Council rates.

Problems of assessing debt and debt servicing costs

Comprehensive (and comprehensible) accounting for Council debt includes reliable information addressing the influence of debt servicing charges … that is, the impact of debt interest and principal upon Council expenditures and rates settings.

Debt servicing costs are the one variable expense which of all Council cost factors has “the” most direct influence upon Council rates and charges.

Councils generally manage their day-to-day expenditures adequately so as to match their revenue funding and operational expenditures. Their management and disclosures of debt and of debt servicing charges … less so.

This partly is due to the less predictable, though direct linkage of debt to capital project costings. Debt funded capital works have a poor record when it comes to overruns of project costs which are then reflected in debt (funding) blowouts.

Look no further for a case study of poor contract and debt management than the celebrated on-going saga of the Kaipara District Council-Mangawhai wastewater plant, an over 100% cost budget haemorrhage … referred to in greater detail below.

Contrasting somewhat with the relatively controlled recurrent Council day-to-day expenditures, Council long term debt-related interest and principal payments of infrastructure projects are often poorly controlled and budgeted.

There are a number of possible reasons for this and these include:

• the vagaries of unplanned increases of and unpredictable market interest rates;
• complicated, difficult to predict timing issues relating to project construction delays, inaccurately budgeted development contributions, complex negotiated deferrals of interest and principal payments, many occurring as scheduled- back-ended funding of capital projects;
• overruns, (occurring with disappointing regularity!) of estimated capital project costs leading to higher than expected debt and debt servicing costs; 
• interest holidays … for capital projects which become due at a future date with compounded interest payments, invariably at higher rates to catch up with earlier deferrals;
• failure to match Council funding-revenues with new or increased interest rates and debt related expenditures attributable to project cost overruns;
• Secrecy of Council elected members and management relating to their aversion (distaste for) high profile public disclosures of their Council’s (mounting-blowouts of) debt levels. 
• The combination of these sometime subtle influences can lead to less than fulsome, even misleading disclosures concerned with Council debt … the Council-Debt hyper sensitivity already mentioned. There are examples a’ plenty in Council public accountability documents that demonstrate aberrations of Council debt reporting. Case studies abound as well. 

A cautionary tale

Most of the case studies are merely vexatious but one recent high profile example is not. It is a worst case cautionary tale sub-titled “A good Little Council gone bad”. The recent audited financial statements of the Kaipara District Council display most of the deficiencies of debt disclosure already discussed. The Kaipara case appears to be one where they have failed to disclose material amounts of debt attached to the Mangawhai wastewater scheme.

Admittedly, the financing of this large capital project was complicated and involved many of the interest holidays, interest rate increases and debt servicing charge deferrals referred to above. The consequences of these apparent defaults of audit practice and accounting disclosures of Council debt are proving difficult in the extreme.

Unsurprisingly “Please Explain” answers are still being sought.

A number of the answers now only slowly appearing, relate to many of the points made in this paper, for example, previously hidden unreported (secret) debt and interest blowouts concealed for fear of adverse public (and political) comment and push back.

Closely associated with these people-based motivations (above), given Council’s stage – managing of public debt information, a further issue arises from accounting disclosures of Council debt which tend to hide or under-report Council debt.

Some pitfalls of poor disclosure

Councils, with audit approval currently can misreport their debt. By making accounting errors or adjustments, including funds transfers, using misleading nomenclature and with off sets of their debt the poor ratepayer is understandably left bemused and confused.

At times, as has been the case at Kaipara (there are numerous other instances) even the complete omission of future debt and/or of debt contingencies has got past the auditors. Another on-going, as yet unsettled example concerns the confusion that surrounds the disclosure of Council interest rate “swaps”. All of these aberrations tend to obscure the full extent of Council liabilities and at best deliver opaque disclosures.

For example, it is abundantly apparent that Kaipara’s omission of their actual debt and debt contingencies in audited Council financial statements for two years running, mislead the readers of their financial statements about the true debt position. As an analyst working closely with the Council on financial matters at the time, I was blindsided, imagine the position then of laymen ratepayer readers of the accounts who were always far removed from and were given no sense of the material blowout of debt of the Mangawhai wastewater scheme. 

This often mystifying reportage of Council debt achieves confusion in the minds of layman ratepayers. They should not be expected to be put to the trouble of interpreting such subtleties as they are entitled to rely on audit field work being conducted correctly.

All that ratepayer readers of Council financial statements really want to know accurately is … “What are the set prudent limits of Council debt?” and “how much” do their Councils currently owe to their bankers and creditors?

Simple really, until as already discussed Councils get busy and cloud this picture.

Ratepayers, even when provided with the “How much” knowledge, may still be nowhere near getting the full picture. Of most significance, even with accurate debt totals provided, what is often missing is the plain English information addressing issues of the long term sustainability of Council debt.

Tucked away in the long term plan’s treasury management policies there will be detailed notes and assumptions relating to debt management policies and limits. The ten year long term plan (only published every three years) carries with it the implied assurances that planned debt levels will be both prudent and feasible. Annual reports on the other hand, comprising the Council’s more accessible financial statements, rarely repeat this planned debt-related sustainability information.

Seldom dealt with in Council public documents are consideration of such central questions as disclosing a rationale for any recent shifts in debt limits or reference to prudent and feasible debt maxima relative to other peer New Zealand Councils … the “If others have done it … then so can we? test. Ratepayers search in vain for a clear exposition of Council debt sustainability (and community affordability) issues.

There is some hint of good news in the last year , (to June 2012) as several Councils have turned the corner by commencing debt reduction programmes, a far cry from previous years where most Councils just forged ahead regardless with higher planned and actual borrowings.

The examples given … of the pitfalls of poor debt disclosure … complicate an already murky area. To summarise: From questions raised at recent public meetings, it is abundantly clear that ratepayers are not being kept properly informed on matters of Council debt. Council financial managers and their auditors should take note; budding Councillors, to their advantage might study some Accounting/Management Accounting 101.

Improvements in the pipeline … the means to a better understanding of Council debt

The reporting of debt parameters on a proposed mandated benchmark analysis planned to be introduced this (last?) year, can’t come quickly enough. With this purpose-built array of useful financial information, ratepayers will, it is hoped become much more financially literate and astute in making assessments concerning their Council’s financial, particularly debt management performance. 

In the course of debt analysis, simple debt totals provide nowhere near the whole picture. That is, tables of absolute debt totals only go so far, as do their reportage on a debt per ratepayer basis. Two similar Councils with the same debt totals can be quite different in debt-financial sustainability terms depending on the value of Council owned assets … the asset backing for their debt. 

Consider this householder analogy designed to suggest how ratepayers might be assisted in making informed judgments of their Council’s debt sustainability.

Using the net assets basis for assessing debt

Let’s say that you owe the bank, $300,000 backed by a mortgage security of your family home (asset) valued at say $500,000.
While your debt “total” may “seem a lot”, on a net assets or asset backing basis the picture is quite different, given the debt to asset ratio of 60% … ($300K divided by $500K).

The principle is the same when discussing Council debt. For if ratepayers (and their Councillors and commentators for that matter) focussed less upon debt totals and more upon the debt to asset ratios then much more productive well founded discussions would surely follow.

This claim is made subject to one major reservation, that is, the matter of infrastructure asset revaluations. The suggested form of debt to assets ratio analysis is promoted, but unfortunately asset revaluations of Council’s large network (infrastructural) assets represent a significant fly in the ointment in a search for reliable measurements of sustainable debt levels.

For when we use the revalued asset figures in a debt to assets ratio measurement, the present systemic overvaluation of Council assets skews our results. An apparently inflated high value of assets appears to credibly support a higher than is warranted debt level. Some markdown of the suggested debt maxima is required to, with realism allow for this overstatement.

Over many years, Councils, aided by the professional valuers normally acting for asset planning engineering purposes and using asset replacement valuation analysis have tended to overstate the security values of Council owned infrastructure. By using inflated engineering (optimised) replacement values for accounting, to meet bank security requirements, borrowing against these values has been permitted to artificially expand.

These higher than warranted asset values have also been used when considering matters of Council financial sustainability … for example, they are used unadjusted in the NZ LG League Table rankings. The mischief here is that the overvalued asset base has the effect of apparently supporting an inflated level of associated debt. In all our assessments of sustainability of Council debt this influence should be factored out reflecting lower sustainable debt levels than (on the face of it) seem appropriate.

These complications aside, the use of an asset backing ratio is still a favoured, better and more rounded form of analysis than just simplistic comparisons based on comparing raw absolute debt total values (debt per ratepayer) data. 

We’ve seen significant increases in both spending and debt by local authorities in the last decade – both growing faster than the economy as a whole, which means long-term it is unsustainable. Also grateful to Larry for his expert analysis.

The full table of NZTLA Councils ratepayer equity is available at a modest charge contact Larry.