Some of the e-mails and letters being sent to MPs and media are almost beyond belief. I don’t know how they think they will persuade people with such arguments. Here’s a collection of some of the worse.

I especially like the proposition that heterosexual marriage involves “painless” coitus and homosexual marriage involves painful anal sex and cunnilingus! In my experience around 99% of heterosexual women like cunnilingus and it doesn’t tend to be too painful. Also more anal sex is very common with heterosexual couples also.

This one is classy. If you vote “pro gay” your grandson may end up kissing a man in front of you or even worse having sex in your home with a man. Not because he is gay, but because he thinks you will approve of it!

And some quotes from assorted letters:

“Love in itself is not illegal, although the way it is expressed may be (rape, adultery, incest, euthanasia, abortion, murder).”

I didn’t know rape and murder were products of love!

“Trying to normalise and legalise a sexual perversion such as homosexuality can also cause a lot of harm in creating criminals out of normally law-abiding citizens or unfairly restricts their activities.”

Huh?

“If a man does this to women he can be charged with sodomy. So how is it that there are people in the government who want to make this act between two people equal with marriage as it now stands? How can sodomy be illegal in one case and legal in another?”

Someone is not up to date with the law!

“THEN AGAIN…. What would happen if the Bill is passed into Law? What would happen if it was compulsory????

Oh yes, compulsion is the next step!

“It is my belief that homosexual and lesbian feelings are a usually a result of some neglect, dysfunction or abuse. Homosexual men commonly have had emotional distance or lack of love from their fathers; lesbians often have had a poor relationship with their mother. Also, sexual abuse is another factor. 

Hear that lesbians – it is all the fault of your parents!

Had an e-mail from an Auckland parent appalled their primary school daughter had their teacher spent 10 – 15 minutes telling the kids why charter schools and performance pay are evil, and how the Government is trying to impose both (in fact they are not implementing performance pay – sadly). To add insult to injury the NZEI propaganda was repeated in the school newsletter (paid for by taxpayers).

The NZEI is also heavying teachers, telling them it is “expected” all teachers attend their protest marches on Saturday. One Brigid McCaffery posted on Facebook:

I’m concerned there is a high level of apathy among some teachers and in many schools (not including those on this page). Teacher NZEI members voted to support this Saturday’s action. The excuses as to why they can’t now march are flowing thick and fast. Staff Reps- think of some way to make it an expectation within your school that all teachers (at least) are going. Anyone with a genuine reason not to go has to put in their apologies.

Don’t you love the language – they must attend or they must put in their apologies. No exceptions!

Useful admission that most teachers are not fussed about charter schools. They will be turning up just because their union is forcing them to do so.

Also Christine McCartney said:

Apparently ChCh plans are for a march on gerry brownlee’s office I have done that march before, pathetic numbers showed up and office was closed I felt embarrissed that that was all we could muster.. We need to drum up support we need huge numbers and we need our protests/rallies to be in central locations in the city. I’m not carting my sign all over town on two buses and walking miles to meet up to 20 people to form a rag tag column to march to a closed office. Sorry.

Maybe the union could out on free taxis to help bolster the numbers?

Professor Alexander Gillespie writes in the NZ Herald:

North Korea’s young leader must be allowed to claim small victory in order to avert a crisis nobody wants. …

The way that this has happened in recent years is that the North has lashed out, militarily, at the South. They have shelled disputed areas, and sunk South Korean vessels. In such instances the South has exercised “heroic restraint” and not risen to such extreme provocation. This has allowed the bully to maintain his facade, and peace to remain. It is unlikely that South Korea is willing to pay this price any longer. It is no longer politically acceptable to turn the other cheek. This means that if Kim Jong Un tries to lash out, to save face, he will get a blood nose in reply. If this young man gets a blood nose, the population he rules will become emboldened.

To avert this risk, he must strike harder at the external enemy. If that happens, complete escalation of every weapon in the arsenal could take minutes. This is especially so if the South hits, intentionally or unintentionally, any of the North’s strategic assets.

What this suggests is that some other method has to be found to get the North Korean leader out of the trap he is creating for us all. The key here is finding something symbolic, that gives the appearance that he has won a small victory.

On the military level, it may be that we accept a further missile or nuclear test, which is signalled in advance so there is absolutely no misunderstanding. It may be that we tone down the military exercises in the South, or that the armed forces in the South publicly reposition a military asset, away from the potential conflict. If this blink is done, then the North can reciprocate.

Promises of talks on peace treaties, food, fuel and disarmament can be part of the following package. But first, a symbolic step, away from the precipice is required. In any other situation, the bully should be confronted, toe-to-toe. But this is not that instance.

I can’t think of an argument that is more wrong. All the history of the world is appeasement fails. If you allow North Korea to attack South Korea with no retribution, then all that will do is encourage them next time to go even further.

The argument by Gillespie, while well intentioned, is as fatally flawed as Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler.

Hat Tip: No Minister

Audrey Young writes:

Why does the world biggest country pay so much attention to such a small country as New Zealand?

Before the changing of the guard in the Beijing leadership last month, of the nine former members of the powerful group Standing committee of the Politburo, seven had visited New Zealand.

The only other country to receive such a concentration high-level visits is said to be Singapore.

The new Standing Committee has been reduced to seven and only two have been to New Zealand, but the most important two, the President Xi Jinping (three times) and the Premier Li Leqiang in 2009 both in former capacities.

New Zealand has had annual talks with Beijing for some time. Australia has just got them this week.

Prime Minister John Key is being accorded time with both the Premier and President this trip.

So why does one of the smallest countries in the world have such a good relationship with the largest country in the world?

New Zealand is also small enough for China to test out ideas without complications, such as the joint aid project to provide Rarotonga with clean water. …

China is usually secretive and defensive about its aid budget. The Cook Islands joint aid venture is a first for them.

I wasn’t aware of that. The Pacific was in danger of becoming an arena for competing aid diplomacy. A co-operative approach is in fact much better for the Pacific.

One of the least recognised reasons China is so well disposed to New Zealand is the late Rewi Alley, the New Zealander who lived in China for 60 years helping to establish co-operatives -though these day the most famous Kiwi is probably Sir Peter Jackson.

No Hobbit or Jackson haters in China.

The Herald reports:

The Government is refusing to say how many jobs could be lost in a proposed overhaul of the provision of hospital meals that would save up to $175 million over 15 years.

The plan has been drawn up by Health Benefits Limited (HBL), a Government-owned organisation set up to find savings by reducing duplication and administration costs.

Health Minister Tony Ryall confirmed there would be staffing cuts and didn’t rule out closing or downsizing some of New Zealand’s 39 hospital kitchens operated by 20 district health boards.

But Mr Ryall said the quality of meals provided to patients would be paramount and not compromised by the changes.

If the DHBs can save money with more efficient meal costs, and no change in quality, then of course it should and must do it.

The purpose of the health system is to help sick people get well. Not to create jobs for kitchen workers.

The more money one can save on support services, the more money available for surgeries, drugs, cancer treatment etc.

Compass already provides a third of health board meals, Spotless Services another third, and local providers the rest.

So two thirds already contract the service out. Not surprised the DHBs have realised that one national contract could cost a lot less than 39 separate contracts.

Stuff reports:

The New Zealand dollar is eyeing the US86-cent mark today as it continues its relentless drive upwards.

Actually it is more a relentless drive down by the US dollar. The Australian dollar is now worth more than US$1.05 and the NZ dollar is still historically low compared to the Australian dollar at 81c.

We could join the US and Europe and Japan in printing more money to devalue our national wealth. But guess what – that just makes us all poorer, and will make the wage gap with Australia even bigger.

Stuff reports:

Evidence included a statement from the woman alleging Wilson had indicated he would flee New Zealand to escape his parole conditions.

“She also [said] that in their previous telephone conversations Mr Wilson talked about how he wanted to take her to Australia, how he always had $1000 in his back pocket and how it was easy for him to break his bracelet off and run away,” the decision said.

Not even Australia deserves Wilson.

Stewart Murray Wilson was recalled to prison on an interim basis on February 21, pending yesterday’s parole hearing. He has now been recalled indefinitely.

Good. I said when he was released that it would only be a matter of time before he broke his conditions. In prison, there will be no more victims.

Stats NZ announced:

Revenue from filmmaking in New Zealand took off in 2012, powering the screen industry beyond $3 billion, Statistics New Zealand said today.

“This is the first time since the survey began in 2005 that the screen industry has surpassed $3 billion. The breakthrough has been aided by a surge in feature film revenue, which rose almost 50 percent in 2012 to more than $1 billion,” screen industry statistics manager Hamish Hill said.

“Forty feature films were completed in New Zealand in 2012, five more than in 2011. This shows New Zealand’s film industry is expanding from its success in creating and producing world-class content.”

I wonder what it would have been if the Hobbit haters working for the Australian union had won?

$3 billion of revenue is a great achievement for the screen industry. Long may it last and grow.

Peters Saunders from CIS looks at the Thatcher legacy:

In 1970s Britain, the state was involved in everything, yet nothing seemed to work. It owned great swathes of industry – supplying water, gas and electricity, digging coal and making steel, running the railways and a major airline, building motor vehicles and aero-engines, monopolising post and telecommunications – and was landlord to more than a quarter of the nation’s households. But nobody wanted to buy the cars it built, British Rail was a laughing stock, the coal and steel industries were on their knees, and it took months to get a telephone connected.

Governments in the 1970s operated in fear of the union bosses who were treated to ‘beer and sandwiches’ in Downing Street as they told successive prime ministers what the unions would and would not tolerate. Political scientists began writing books about the emergence of a ‘corporatist state.’

A few years before Thatcher won office, Britain’s homes had been plunged into darkness by a miners’ strike that put industry on a three-day working week. At the shops there was a run on candles. Then in the winter of 1978–79, public sector militants stopped rubbish being collected from the streets, disrupted meal deliveries to the housebound elderly, and left corpses unburied at graveyards.

Time and again, union militancy was bought off with unaffordable pay deals that pushed annual inflation past 25% and sent the Callaghan-Labour government scurrying, cap in hand, to the IMF for emergency loans. Britain became known as ‘the sick man of Europe.’ Political scientists began writing books about the country being ‘ungovernable.’

In their increasingly fruitless attempts to control the mounting chaos, successive Conservative and Labour governments increased controls over many aspects of everyday life. You were not allowed to take more than a couple of hundred pounds with you if you went abroad for a holiday. Your wages were pegged by law. A government hotline was set up for informers to report shopkeepers whose prices exceeded those laid down by the state.

Britain was locked into a downward spiral, and nobody seemed to think it could be reversed. Except Maggie.

She scrapped the price and wage controls, arguing that governments cannot possibly know how investment is best directed or who should be allowed to trade at what price. She sold off the nationalised industries, opening them up to the cleansing blast of competition and setting an example that the rest of the world quickly followed. She allowed working-class families to buy their council houses at a discount (a policy that infuriated middle-class socialists but which at last prompted me to re-evaluate my socialist beliefs).

A great summary of how bad things were.

But taking her record as a whole, the balance is clearly and overwhelmingly positive. The proof is that no succeeding government has tried to reverse her key reforms. For all the left-wing bluster, nobody has ever seriously suggested that industries be renationalised, union bosses be re-empowered, or that governments should again try to fix prices, wages and dividends, or direct private investment. Margaret Thatcher found a country on its knees in 1979, and in just 11 years, she reversed decades of miserable decline.

Put the Great back into Great Britain.

Rupert Murdoch writes in the Daily Telegraph:

And, here is something else we are not hearing about: we must argue the morality of free markets and the immorality of markets that are not free.

The cold, commercial word “market” disguises its human character – a market is a collection of our aspirations, exertions, choices and desires. Typically, those of us who believe in free markets make our arguments by extolling the market’s economic superiority.

But I believe we need to do something very different from what we are used to.

We need to defend the market on precisely the grounds that its critics attack it: on justice and fairness. Yes, the morality of free markets.

To the contrary, too many people think that the market succeeds because it is based on a vice: greed. And that socialism is better because it is based on a virtue: sharing.

As Murdoch says, a market is simply letting individuals make their own choices and decisions to meet their aspirations and desires.

The market succeeds because it gives people incentives to put their own wants and needs aside to address the wants and needs of others. To succeed, you have to produce something that other people are willing to pay for.

Yep.

Environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg writes in The Australian:

Yes, global warming is real and mostly man-made, but our policies have failed, predictably and spectacularly. I was one of the strongest critics of the Kyoto climate change treaty, back when it was considered gospel. People were aghast when I criticised it then. Now Kyoto has no friends, and everyone remembers how they really did not believe in it.

Kyoto achieved almost nothing, because the major emitters were excluded.

When economists estimate the net damage from global warming as a percentage of gross domestic product, they find it will indeed have an overall negative impact in the long run but the impact of moderate warming (1C-2C) will be beneficial. It is only towards the end of the century, when temperatures have risen much more, that global warming will turn negative. One peer-reviewed model estimates that it will turn into a net cost only by 2070.

We need to stop claiming that it will be the end of the world. Just as it is silly to deny man-made global warming, it is indefensible to describe it as the biggest calamity of the 21st century.

So what are the possible costs?

Here is how to quantify this. The most well-known economic model of global warming is the DICE model by William Nordhaus, of Yale University. It calculates the total costs (from heat waves, hurricanes, crop failure and so on) as well as the total benefits (from cold waves and CO2 fertilisation). If you compare these over the next 200 years, the total cost of global warming is estimated at about $33 trillion.

While this is not a trivial number, you have to put it in context. Over the next 200 years, global GDP will run to about $2200 trillion, so global warming constitutes a loss of about 1.5 per cent of this figure. This is not the end of the world but a problem that needs to be solved.

1.5% of global GDP is a significant amount of money. As Lomborg says it is a problem that needs solving, but it is not doomsday.

No matter what carbon cuts we make in the next couple of decades, they will make no measurable difference until the second half of the century, because the climate system is such a super-tanker. This means that a smart climate policy is not about doing just anything now but doing something significant that will be sustainable and cut a large amount of CO2 in the long run. This is the difference between doing something that feels good and focusing on something that will do good.

Similarly, the emissions that matter in the 21st century are from the developing world. Yes, we in the rich world emitted most of the CO2 in the 20th century, but we are slowly sliding towards insignificance. Today we emit just 43 per cent and by the end of the century, we will be down to 23 per cent.

All the rich countries’ climate policies will not matter much unless China, India and the rest of the world are in on them. And they really are not right now, because our feelgood policies are all high cost for little benefit, which poor countries cannot afford.

An agreement without China and India will have almost no environmental impact. But the problem is that there is little economic incentive for them to agree to a cap.

Second, even if successful, this approach would not solve the problem. If everyone implemented Kyoto, temperatures would drop by the end of the century by a minuscule 0.004C. The EU policy will, across the century, cost about $20 trillion; yet will reduce temperatures by just 0.05C.

One can believe global warming is a problem, but believe Kyoto was economic insanity.

The only way to move towards a long-term reduction in emissions is if green energy becomes much cheaper. If it cost less than fossil fuels, everyone would switch, including the Chinese.

This, of course, requires breakthroughs in green technologies and much more innovation.

At the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate, a panel of economists, including three Nobel laureates, found that the best long-term strategy was to increase dramatically investment in green research and development. They suggested doing so 10-fold to $US100bn a year globally. This would equal 0.2 per cent of global GDP.

Of course, R&D holds no guarantees. We might spend billions and still come up empty-handed in 40 years’ time. But it has a much better chance of success than continuing the futile efforts of the past 20 years.

That sounds a good plan to me. It is similar to the investment we are making in research into reducing agriculture emissions. Science is the answer.

This is what the US has done with fracking. It spent about $US10bn in subsidies over the past three decades on innovation, opening up huge new resources of previously inaccessible shale gas. Despite some legitimate concerns about safety, it is hard to overstate the overwhelming benefits: a dramatic fall in natural gas prices and a shift in US electricity generation from 50 per cent coal and 20 per cent gas to 37 per cent coal and 30 per cent gas. This has reduced US annual CO2 emissions by 400 million-500 million tonnes — about twice what the rest of the world has achieved over the past 20 years.

The fracking bonanza also creates long-term social and economic benefits through lower energy costs: US consumers benefit by about $100bn in lower gas prices. By contrast, estimates show that a 330 million-tonne CO2 reduction in the EU using carbon taxes would cost $240bn. It illustrates why we must confess to the failures of the past 20 years. As long as renewables are not ready, we are spending vast sums of money on tiny cuts in CO2. Instead, we should focus on investing dramatically more in R&D into green energy over the next 20-40 years.

The solution is not to make fossil fuels so expensive that nobody wants them because that will never work but to make green energy so cheap that eventually everybody wants it.

He speaks a lot of sense.

Freemantle Media report:

 FremantleMedia International today launches the eagerly anticipated remake of the cult drama Blake’s 7 to international buyers at MIPTV. In development with US cable network Syfy, the 13 x 1 hour series will be produced by Georgeville TV, the independent studio co-founded by Leon Clarance of Motion Picture Capital, the financing arm of Reliance Entertainment, and producer Marc Rosen. The science fiction classic will be written by Joe Pokaski (Heroes, CSI) and directed by Martin Campbell (Casino Royale, GoldenEye).

Yes, yes, yes.

I loved the original Blake’s 7, especially the ending.

Of course Blake was a bit of a pussy. I preferred Avon.

Paul Bennett has announced:

Three new benefit types will replace the seven current benefit categories, in addition to the new Youth Payment and Young Parent Payment introduced in August last year.

The new categories this Bill creates are:

• Jobseeker Support for those actively seeking and available for work

• Sole Parent Support for sole parents with children under 14 years

• Supported Living Payment for people significantly restricted by sickness, injury or disability.

This is a fairly major reform, which changes the focus far more onto having welfare as temporary assistance, except for those incapable of any significant work at all.

“The legislation also introduces new social obligations to ensure children in benefit-dependent homes get quality Early Childhood Education, are enrolled with a doctor, get their Well Child checks and are in school if they are school-age,” Mrs Bennett said.

The law will also require Jobseekers to be drug-free, and will allow benefits to be stopped for outstanding arrest warrants.

I can’t believe it has taken this long to say you can’t claim a benefit if on the run from the Police!

The investment approach will target interventions and support to those most at risk of long-term welfare dependence.

“By investing in people sooner, we can actually start to break that cycle of dependence.”

It may cost a bit more in the short-term, but is a good long-term investment.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers. 2.00PM-3.00PM

1. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZF) to the Prime Minister: Has he ever met with representatives of the Motion Picture Association of America; if so, when?
2. JOHN HAYES (NAT) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on business activity and the outlook for growth?
3. DAVID SHEARER (LAB) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
4. TIM MACINDOE (NAT) to the Minister of Transport: What reports has he received regarding the Waikato Expressway Road of National Significance?
5. Hon ANNETTE KING(LAB) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that the Government will not agree to anything that “doesn’t improve patient services”?
6. Hon KATE WILKINSON(NAT) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government undertaking to eliminate online child sexual abuse?
7. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN(GRN) to the Prime Minister: Who in his Government had access to the Rebecca Kitteridge report into the Government Communications Security Bureau before it was publicly released; and did the Prime Minister, or any of his Ministers, or their offices, leak the report?
8. Hon PHIL HEATLEY(NAT) to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made as part of the Children’s Action Plan to support Grandparents Raising Grandchildren?
9. CLARE CURRAN(LAB) to the Minister of Justice: Was an outside person able to gain access to Ministry of Justice data which showed plain text passwords to a secure database and a payment gateway?
10. Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA(NAT) to the Minister for ACC: What is the Government doing to reduce drowning numbers amongst the Pacific community in New Zealand?
11. CHRIS HIPKINS(LAB) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her answers to Oral Question No 11 on 26 March 2013; if not, why not?
12. Hon TARIANA TURIA(MRP) to the Minister of Police: What instructions will she be giving to New Zealand Police about the fact that, despite a plethora of research reports and strategies to reduce youth crime, today’s report from the youth law advocacy group, Just Speak, has just revealed that young Māori between the ages of 10 and 16 have a much higher chance of facing prosecution than young Pākehā?

Today there are four questions from Labour, one from The Greens and one from New Zealand First. Labour are asking a standard stand by all your statements gotcha to the Prime Minister, government improvement of patient health services, Ministry of Justice hacking, and asking the Minister of Education whether she stands by her answers given on 26 March 2013. The Greens  are asking about the early leaking of the report by cabinet secretary Rebecca Kitteridge into the practices of the GCSB. New Zealand First is asking about whether the Prime Minister meet with representatives of the Motion Picture Association of America.

Patsy of the day goes to Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga for Question 10:  What is the Government doing to reduce drowning numbers amongst the Pacific community in New Zealand?

General Debate 3.00 PM – 4.00PM

Twelve speeches of no more than five minutes in  duration. Interesting to watch as the speeches are not scripted and standing orders are not so strictly enforced.

Government Bills 4.ooPM – 6.00PM and 7.30PM-10.00 PM.

1 Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill – Committee Stage

2 Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) – Committee stage (CONT)

3 Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill – Committee stage (CONT)

4 Building Amendment Bill (No 4) – Second Reading.

The Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is being guided through the house by Simon Bridges. This bill is an omnibus bill and amends the Crown Minerals Act 1991, the Conservation Act 1987, the Continental Shelf Act 1964, the Reserves Act 1977, and the Wildlife Act 1953. This bill aims to promote prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand.

The Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) Bill is being guided through the house by Chris Tremain. This bill seeks to amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 with regard to provisions for the conduct of local elections; transparency and accountability around electoral donations; and the integrity and efficiency of the electoral system.

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

The Building Amendment Bill (No 4) is being guided through the house by Maurice Williamson. This bill implements policy decisions of the Building Act Review to provide incentives for building professionals and trades people to take responsibility for their work and to stand behind it.

The Herald reports:

A ramshackle fishing boat carrying 66 suspected asylum seekers from Sri Lanka has arrived in Australia – carrying passengers holding a sign saying “We want to go to New Zealand”.

The overcrowded wooden fishing vessel carrying men, women and children was spotted off the coast of Geraldton, about 400km north of Perth in Western Australia.

It is believed to be the first boat to have travelled so far south in recent years. Most asylum seekers arrive near Christmas Island, more than 2000km north, where they are usually intercepted.

The boat, thought to have been at sea for 44 days, was spotted by two local men testing the motor of a dinghy about 500m offshore.

It was met by customs and police officers about 12pm yesterday and towed into harbour.

Photographs show a group of passengers holding a sign with the words: “We want to go to New Zealand. Please help us”.

A New Zealand flag was flying on the boat.

While I admire their good taste in choosing New Zealand over Australia, these journeys are very dangerous.

The passengers included four babies and a pregnant woman.

Could easily have been tragic.

The Dom Post editorial:

Of all the millions of words that will be written about Margaret Thatcher in the coming days none will more succinctly sum up the impact of the late British prime minister than those uttered by her former press secretary Sir Bernard Ingham: “She knew what she wanted to do, and did it.”

So true.

What Baroness Thatcher will be remembered for is breaking the power of the unions, privatising British Telecom, British Gas and dozens of other publicly owned companies, going to war over the Falkland Islands and resisting Soviet expansionism.

Not a bad list.

She changed the world, too. In the 1980s, building more missile bases and condemning Soviet totalitarianism at every opportunity was viewed as dangerously provocative. But, with the benefit of hindsight, Baroness Thatcher and her closest political ally, then United States president Ronald Reagan, were indisputably right.

People forget this. Tens of millions demanded that the West basically unilaterally disarm and appease the Soviet Union.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Margaret Thatcher’s social views stemmed from her Christianity and a belief in the importance of individual rights. If there was nothing novel in this, nor did she invent a new economic policy. Rather, she and Ronald Reagan brought monetarism into the mainstream, with their advocacy of reduced state intervention, free markets, entrepreneurialism, less taxation, and the privatisation of state assets. The implementation of this programme was made the easier by Britain’s dire state when she claimed power. The country was commonly described as the sick man of Europe. A postwar decline had been exacerbated by the power wielded by trade unions and a general sense of despondency.

Margaret Thatcher proposed to change all of this, and she did. From 1982, Britain provided a ready canvas as it started to pull out of its worst post-World War II slump. Spurred on by her leadership and a sharp curbing of inflation and interest rates, people soon had the confidence to start their own businesses and buy shares. This sparked a high level of social mobility – and the yuppie.

With time, I think people forget how morbid the UK was in the 1970s. It was sick beyond belief.

Her uncompromising style allowed her to be outstanding in foreign as well as domestic policy, an achievement rare among politicians. In the midst of her first term, Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands provided the opportunity to establish her credentials. If Britain’s recapture of the islands was a close-run thing, it, nevertheless, occasioned a wave of patriotism, and applause for her decisiveness. In President Reagan, she found a leader who shared her view of the world. Transatlantic co-operation blossomed, especially with the taking of a sterner approach to the Soviet Union. Ultimately, this played a part in the end of the Cold War and the downfall of communism.

In 100 years time, Thatcher will be the only UK Prime Minister still talked about, post WWII. She was a force of nature.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn blogs that he believes the Government’s amendments to the Crown Minerals Bills to make it an offence to interfere in drilling operations at sea should be vetted against the Bill of Rights Act.

I agree.

I support the amendments, and believe that the right to protest doesn’t extend to actually interference in a company going about its legal business.

At present Standing Orders requires the Attorney-General to report to Parliament if a bill ins introduced that may not be in compliance with the Bill of Rights Act. That opinion is advisory, but can be influential. The AG did a video on this process which I blogged a while back. SO 262(1) states:

Whenever a bill contains any provision which appears to the Attorney-General to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Attorney-General must indicate to the House what that provision is and how it appears to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

But this only occurs upon introduction in SO 262(2):

An indication by the Attorney-General to the House concerning the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is made by the presentation of a paper in the case of a Government bill, on the introduction of that bill, or in any other case, as soon as practicable after the introduction of the bill.

The solution here is to amend SO 262(2) so that there is an obligation to report on any inconsistent provisions prior to each reading of a bill. Possible wording would be:

An indication by the Attorney-General to the House concerning the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is made by the presentation of a paper at least 48 hours prior to each reading of a bill.

The first reading captures the bill as introduced. The second reading captures any amendments made by select committee and the third reading captures any changes made by the Committee of the whole House.

Standing Orders get reviewed towards the end of each term of Parliament. Hopefully one or more parties will support such a change.

Stuff reports:

Lowering the drinking age to 18 has not led to more binge-drinking or alcohol-related road accidents among young people, researchers have found.

The study, due to be published in an academic journal later this year, shows changes to the minimum purchasing age passed by Parliament in 1999 had no significant impact on the drinking patterns of 15 to 19-year-olds relative to 22 to 23-year-olds between 1996 and 2007.

I am not surprised. The data has been clear for several years. ALAC’s own surveys showed a drop in the youth drinking rate from 53% in 2006 to 2010. Also the number of under 17 year olds drink driving has been plummeting since 2007.

Thank goodness Parliament didn’t give into the moral panic brigade and vote to make it illegal for a 19 year old to buy a bottle of wine.

I have to say I am incredibly impressed with the report done by Cabinet Secretary Rebecca Kitteridge into the GCSB.

All too often reports of this nature can avoid being too specific and just talk in generalities about the need for more work in this area or that area.

Kitteridge has outlined in detail the long-standing problems at GCSB, including organisational and cultural – plus of course the lack of legal rigour in some of their work.

She’s also provided 80 specific recommendations that are basically a reorganisation blueprint.

It really is worth taking the time to read the full report.

The issue that much media focus has been on is that the GCSB may have been in breach of the GCSB Act when it assisted the SIS with intercepting communications of NZers. The practice was

Firstly, it was long-standing practice – going back to before the enactment of the GCSB Act in 2003 – for GCSB to provide assistance (i.e. its specialist capabilities) to the NZSIS on the basis of NZSIS warrants. The clear understanding within GCSB was that in such cases section 14 did not apply because GCSB was acting as the agent of the requesting agency and was therefore operating under the legal authority of the warrants. If the NZSIS, with the authority of an intelligence warrant, requested GCSB to provide assistance in cases involving New Zealand citizens or permanent residents, GCSB provided that assistance.

This has been the case for probably several decades. The issue is the GCSB Act passed in 2003 may have made such assistance illegal. It is basically a matter of whether they are operating under the GCSB Act when assisting the SIS.

The consequence of these developments is that the lawfulness of some of GCSB’s past assistance to domestic agencies is now called into question. In relation to NZSIS, the relevant period is between 1 April 2003, when the GCSB Act came into force, and 26 September 2012, when such assistance ceased. During that period GCSB provided 55 instances of assistance to NZSIS, which potentially involved 85 New Zealand citizens or permanent residents

Now it is important to note that the SIS were legally entitled to intercept their communications. The Commissioner of Security Warrants (a former High Court Judge) and the PM must both authorise such a warrant, based on genuine security concerns.

The issue is whether the GCSB were legally able able to assist the SIS with their interception, and if not, should they be able to?

I would suggest that there is little common sense in saying the GCSB should not be allowed to assist the SIS. If you do that, you probably require the SIS to duplicate the quite costly infrastructure of the GCSB for what is just half a dozen cases a year.

But such assistance must be beyond legal doubt. Hence why a law change is going to happen. I don’t think there was any intention that the 2003 Act would prevent the GCSB from assisting the SIS. The last thing you want is silos in the intelligence community – that was a key lesson the US learnt post 9/11.

The PM has said that none of the 88 people who *may* have had the GCSB illegally intercept their communications were arrested on the basis of the info obtained. If they had been, I’d expect court action.

Some are saying that the 88 people should get an apology and/or compensation. I’d need a lot of convincing that that is a good idea. Here’s why.

1. Their communications were legally able to be intercepted due to security concerns – just by the SIS, rather than the GCSB. It is not a case of the interception being unjustified – just that the wrong agency may have done it.
2. If the 88 people were told that they had been under surveillance, it could endanger many ongoing security operations. Some of them may have links to terrorism even. Remember these were all people who had a legal interception warrant approved by the Commissioner of Security Warrants.
3. Was there any significant harm done to them as individuals that the wrong agency did the interception? There is certainly harm to NZ as a whole that the GCSB may have broken the law, but I don’t see great harm to any individual involved.

The above in no way reduces the unacceptability of the GCSB not ensuring they were acting in a beyond doubt legally complaint manner. Kitteridge explains some of the background:

For a number of years there has been only one source of legal advice at GCSB, which was the DDME, a second tier manager. …

As at the time this review commenced, in addition to legal advice, the DDME had responsibility for governance and performance, strategy and policy, risk management, the Liaison Officers, the Compliance Advisor, strategic relationships, the Chief Financial Officer, knowledge services, the registry, the Chief Information Officer, technology infrastructure, security (physical, personnel, and IT) and mission capability (IT) development. Until fairly recently he also had responsibility for HR, finance and logistics, procurement and property services.

Doesn’t leave much!

The DDME had too many hats. His multiple roles meant that there was insufficient internal debate and challenge. He was solely responsible for policy and legislative development, providing drafting instructions, interpreting the resulting law and overseeing its implementation and operation. These were conflicting roles. It is essential in an organisation that exercises intrusive powers of the state that there be robust challenge and the ability for contesting views to be expressed and explored. As the chief architect of the legislation he spoke confidently and authoritatively about the legislation and staff were not in a position to challenge that. …

The DDME’s seniority, as a Deputy Director, contributed to reluctance on the part of staff to question his judgement. Staff were unanimous in stating to me that the DDME’s view was seen as completely authoritative.

Useful to also pick up a conclusion, especially as some MPs say we don’t need a GCSB.

My belief in the importance of the work carried out by the men and women at GCSB has only increased as this review has proceeded. The world is becoming more complex, and physical borders are less relevant. The nature of the threats to national security is shifting so rapidly that keeping up with them is a challenge – let alone getting ahead.

The PM has announced:

Prime Minister John Key today released the report of Rebecca Kitteridge into compliance at the Government Communications Security Bureau.

Ms Kitteridge was seconded to the GCSB to undertake the review in October 2012.

The review had two main areas of focus – ensuring that all the GCSB’s activities are lawful; and reviewing the agency’s compliance framework.

“I had intended to release this report to the Intelligence and Security Committee next week, however the public disclosure of the contents of the report means I have taken the decision to release it today.

“Members of the Intelligence and Security Committee have received the report a short time in advance of my releasing it publicly.

“The report makes for sobering reading. At a high level it finds long-standing, systemic problems with the GCSB’s compliance systems and aspects of its organisation and culture.

Ouch. That is quite damning.

The report Andrea Vance was leaked was a draft report it seems. It would be interesting to speculate on who had a copy of the draft. Drafts normally go to people who might be the subject of critical comment, so they can respond.

“I acknowledge this review will knock public confidence in the GCSB.

“This is why the Government has a comprehensive response underway to address the organisational problems at the GCSB.

“The steps we are taking will be outlined in detail next week and are intended to begin the process of rebuilding public confidence in GCSB.”

The GCSB Act has been in place for 10 years. Over that time, GCSB has been providing assistance to other agencies, including the New Zealand Police, New Zealand Defence Force and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service.

It has done so in the belief that it was acting within the law on all occasions.

The essential problem is legal uncertainty over whether they can assist the SIS with communications interception, when the SIS have gained a warrant to intercept such domestic communications. There is no question the SIS were legally able to intercept communications of these people – the issue it seems is whether they could use the GCSB to assist them.

There are 88 cases identified as having a question mark over them since 2003.

Police have conducted a thorough check of all their systems. Police advise that no arrest, prosecution or any other legal processes have occurred as a result of the information supplied to NZSIS by GCSB.

“I have written to the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security and asked him to look into those cases.

“I have asked him to inquire into each of these cases to determine in each case whether or not GCSB has acted in compliance with the law. I have requested that the Inspector General determine whether any individuals have been adversely affected and, if so, what action he recommends be taken.

“It is not my intention to disclose details of those cases. However, the results of the review will be made public after its completion.

The level of transparency over this is welcome. It would have been politically easy to treat the Dotcom issue as a one off mistake. Instead the PM sent in the Cabinet Secretary to do a full review, and has published the report.

“When I return from China, I will announce details of legislative proposals the Government will be bringing to Parliament to remedy the inadequacies of the GCSB Act.

“At the same time I will announce proposals to significantly strengthen the oversight regime across the intelligence community.

That will be interesting.

The report is not online yet but will be placed on the GCSB website.

No Right Turn blogs that businesses don’t want youth rates as McDonalds, Restaurant Brands, The Warehouse, Farmers, Kmart, Bunnings and Countdown have all said they won’t offer them.

This is the thing – the starting out wage is an option only. It is a minimum, not a maximum.

I employ a large number of young people at Curia. I would never dream of offering youth rates to my staff, because I deliberately pay for quality (in fact a recent industry survey showed our rates were the highest of all research companies that took part).

But what is right for some employers is not right for others. Flexibility is a good thing. For some employers being able to hire a 17 year old (or an 18 year old who has been on a benefit for six months) for a bit less, will mean they’ll offer them that job, rather than someone more experienced.  And getting people into their first job is critically important.