Len Brown and his city planners seem to think that you build a city to fit in with your transport plan, rather than build a transport system to fit in with where people want to live.

Their master plan is to force as many people as possible into apartments. But not just CBD apartments (which I am quite fond of), but massive apartments everywhere – up to 18 stories in height.

Yes Len and sidekick Penny have not just proposed 18 story suburban apartment blocks, but are demanding that the Government fast-track their plan to do so. Labour seem to be backing them.

The Herald reports:

Communities are rebelling against high-rise and in-fill housing, Aucklanders are struggling to follow the complex document and nine of 20 councillors have written to the Prime Minister urging him to slow down the process. …

Auckland-wide community meetings have sparked angry reactions to plans in a draft copy of the unitary plan for high-rise and in-fill housing in more than half of the urban area. …

Meanwhile, St Heliers residents turned out in force last night to oppose more “concrete monstrosities” destroying the character of the seaside village.

I understand there were almost 500 people at the meeting.

Len and Penny want a height limit of 18 stories not just for the CBD (which is fine) but also for:

1. Albany
2. Botany
3. Henderson
4. Manukau
5. New Lynn
6. Papakura
7. Newmarket
8. Sylvia Park
9. Takapuna
10. Westgate/Massey

In 13 other town centres they want 8 stories, or 33 metres.

There is no doubt that Auckland needs to grow both upwards and outwards. But the majority needs to be outwards, not upwards to reduce house prices and give Aucklanders more choices over where they live.

Auckland already has a higher urban density than Sydney and Melbourne.

The Herald editorial:

On Sunday at last, Food Safety Minister Nikki Kaye signed an agreed standard that will hold food manufacturers to account for more than 200 common health claims such as “rich in calcium”, “low in fat”.

The standard will take effect in a month and manufacturers will have three years to ensure their products comply with it.

I think it is a good thing to require health claims to be accurate.

It will be a task of the Ministry for Primary Industries to approve such claims for New Zealand products before they are put on sale. Manufacturers have welcomed the regulation and it is to be hoped they see it not as a restriction but as a golden marketing opportunity. Their products should boast their ability to meet the standard and let it underline the health benefits printed on the package.

It is good that the food industry has been supportive of these rules. They have an interest in being able to say their claims are verified.

All parties in politics have something positive to offer and on this subject the country owes much to the Greens, particularly their former MP Sue Kedgley. She made food standards her mission in politics and health-conscious consumers will be grateful to her.

It is a pity her party was equivocal in its support for the standard yesterday. Its new food safety spokeswoman, Mojo Mathers, said the regulations should not just check health claims, they should require warnings of unhealthy contents. They should not. People know the food that is not good for them and they indulge in it because they like it. They do not need warnings on the carton.

I agree. Factual information is good, but warnings are silly because no food is bad or unhealthy in moderation. A Big Mac every couple of months is fine – having them three times a day is not.

When they go looking for healthy food, however, they need and deserve to be able to trust the manufacturer’s claims.

Yep.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says his party wants to cut the corporate tax rate for exporters from 28 per cent to 20 per cent.

Well firstly it is a good thing that Winston recognises that a lower corporate tax rate is a good thing for the NZ economy. It is.

Commerce is more and more globally mobile. Companies can choose where to locate much easier than in the past. For Internet based businesses, even more so.

So all for lowering the company tax rate. But two big issues for Winston’s proposal.

The first is what spending will he cut, to fund a drop in the company tax rate? If NZ is in surplus, then you can cut taxes. But when we are in deficit, adding to debt is a bad idea.

Has NZ First even costed what their policy would be? That should be the first question from media – how much will this cost, and how will you pay for it?

The second issue is why exporters only? It is an arbitrary distinction. What if a manufacturer produces stuff for both domestic and international markets? Are they at 20% or 28%? Is Fonterra at 28% or 20%? My polling company has some international clients. Does that make me an exporter that can claim the 20% tax rate?

Tax systems are best kept simple. Two separate levels of company tax is a bad idea.

If Winston proposed an across the board lowering of the company tax rate to 20%, what it would cost, and how it would be funded – then people should take it seriously.

Also worth recalling that Winston, as Foreign Minister, opposed the FTA with China, launched a nationwide newspaper and billboard campaign against it. He campaigned against an FTA which increased exports by $5 billion a year. So much for his concern for exporter.s

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers

1. DAVID SHEARER (LAB) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
2. Hon TAU HENARE (NAT) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on progress in building economic growth?
3. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (LAB)  to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Have all the risks for potential investors in Mighty River Power been fully identified in the offer document; if so, does he expect the Crown will receive the best possible return for floating 49 percent of Mighty River Power?
4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (GRE) to the Prime Minister: What is the security classification of the full report by Rebecca Kitteridge into the Government Communications Security Bureau, and who in his Government had access to the full report?
5. MIKE SABIN (NAT) to the Minister for Social Development: How are the Government’s welfare changes ensuring a fairer welfare system, and tackling long-term welfare dependence?
6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZF) to the Minister for Land Information: Is it Government policy that a person or company involved in the 2008 melamine scandal would fail the good character test under section 18(1)(c) of the Overseas Investment Act 2005; if not, why not?
7. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (LAB) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: When will EQC staff be able to email documents to customers?
8. KATRINA SHANKS (NAT) to the Minister of Justice: What announcements has she recently made to address the harm caused by cyber bullying?
9. Hon MARYAN STREET (LAB) to the Minister for the Environment: How will the second round of proposed changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 as they are currently expressed, maintain the protection of the environment?
10. GARETH HUGHES (GRE) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Has he requested that the Attorney-General assess Supplementary Order Paper No 205 to the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?
11. GRANT ROBERTSON (LAB) to the Prime Minister: Why was only one candidate interviewed for the position of Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau in July 2011?
12. TIM MACINDOE (NAT) to the Minister of Education: What progress has she made against the Government’s early childhood education priorities?

Labour is asking five questions, National four, the Greens two, and NZ First one. Patsy of the day goes to Mike Sabin for question 5: How are the Government’s welfare changes ensuring a fairer welfare system, and tackling long-term welfare dependence?

Labour is asking a gotcha, on the MRP float, the EQC, RMA reform, and the GCSB Director appointment process. The Greens are asking on the Rebecca Kitteridge GSCB report and mining, and Winston Peters is asking about the Overseas Investment Act.

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Psychoactive Substances Bill (first reading)
2. Child Support Amendment Bill (third reading)
3. Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill (third reading)

The Psychoactive Substances Bill regulates psychoactive products, including party pills and other legal highs. It was introduced by Peter Dunne in February.

The Child Support Amendment Bill was introduced by Peter Dunne and amends the Child Support Act 1992 to reform the child support scheme. The main change is the introduction of a new child support formula taking into account the income of both parents, the estimated cost of raising children, and a wider recognition of shared care. Labour, the Greens, the Maori Party and Mana voted against at second reading.

The Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill amends the Social Security Act 1964 to introduce a new system of main benefits, drug testing requirements, and work and child welfare obligations for beneficiaries. Paula Bennett is in charge and it just barely passed second reading, with National, ACT and United Future the parties supporting.

The Maori Party held a hui on the 17th of March, in Huntly, to try to resolve the leadership issue between Sharples and Flavell.

It was chaired by Tuku Morgan, who declared that there was no consensus for change. What has not been reported is that there was overwhelming support for Flavell to succeed Sharples as co-leader, but after the seven electorates voted, Tuku closed the meeting and declared that anything other than unanimity did not represent consensus.

I’ve been informed by someone credible who was at the Hui, that five of the seven Maori electorates voted that Flavell should succeed Sharples at some stage before the election.

Flavell won the votes of Hauraki-Waikato, Te Tai Hauāuru, Te Tai Tokerau, Te Tai Tonga and Waiariki.

Sharples was supported by Ikaroa-Rāwhiti (his whakapapa) and Tāmaki Makaurau only.

Many of those in attendance were flabbergasted that the moment the vote was declared, Tuku closed the meeting unilaterally declaring there was no consensus. If the Hui had been allowed to discuss the ramifications of the 5-2 vote, it is possible a compromise or succession plan could have been agreed upon.

Sharples’ latest attack on Flavell from China (to do so while part of a trade mission has some journalists saying it is a very bad look), accusing him of blackmail has dismayed many who know that there is a limited window of time for the Maori Party to work out a compromise, or risk losing some of their seats at the election.

Audrey Young reports:

New Zealand’s ambassador to Beijing, Carl Worker, passed on a salient fact to Prime Minister John Key while they were waiting for President Xi to welcome them into the meeting room at the stately Bo’ao guest house.

If the southern Guangdong province (where Key arrived last night) were to break away from China – and there’s no suggestion it ever would – its economic strength is such it would immediately be in the G10, the top 10 economies of the world.

That’s quite extraordinary. That one province would make the G10.

Key recounted the fact on the balcony of his own hotel in Bo’ao before a mad dash to the airport for the next leg of his trip (to Guangdong) because the meeting with Mr Xi had gone well over time.

Mr Key was fizzing about the meeting about the state of relationship so far, the personal rapport between the leaders themselves but mainly because of the readiness of both parties to take it to a new level.

The fact that Key could raise something as serious as direct currency conversion between the Kiwi dollar and the reminbi with a senior minister at lunchtime and have it ticked off by Xi for further work in the talks a few hours later would make any former banker go giddy.

The possibility of direct currency conversion is fascinating. Not so much for what it means for China and NZ, but equally the decline of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. This is what happens when you start to print money because you are spending too much.

The scale of development is huge – Xi said yesterday within five years it is projected that China’s imports could be worth $US10 trillion.

He could see a day when 400 million Chinese a year could be outbound tourists.

I noticed in South Africa that a huge proportion of tourists were Chinese. As a Chinese middle class numbering several hundred million gets wealthier and spends more, the potential economic growth is immense.

Fran O’Sullivan also reports:

Like other leaders Key planned to acknowledge Xi’s recent ascension to the presidency. But his main game was to position New Zealand as a valuable partner to China in developing global supply chains to feed its people. “It makes sense to team up with Chinese capital and use other countries’ land masses to produce food we can’t produce in New Zealand,” Key says.

New Zealand has limited arable land left for developing new farms. If the nation’s agricultural businesses want to expand, they should take their expertise overseas and form partnerships in countries with bigger land masses.

Which is why the Landcorp partnership with Shanghai Pengxin should be seen as a great opportunity, instead of being condemned by xenophobic MPs from the left.

This graph shows annual exports to China. Readers will recall that the Greens and NZ First railed against the Free Trade Agreement with China signed in 2007.

Remember all those people complaining that new GCSB Director Ian Fletcher didn’t come from the traditional military background of former directors? I think we are seeing why a change from the status quo was needed.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

The Government’s beleaguered intelligence agency may have unlawfully spied on 85 people, a top secret review reveals.

The report, ordered after the Kim Dotcom fiasco, contains a raft of criticisms of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). …

The revelations are contained in the report, prepared by Cabinet Secretary Rebecca Kitteridge, and seen by Fairfax Media. …

The explosive revelations confirm that the illegal spying was far broader than the Dotcom case – and involves up to 85 people and cases dating back nearly a decade.

The illegal spying was conducted between April 2003 and September last year and done on behalf of the Security Intelligence Service, the domestic spy agency.

People should ask themselves if previous Prime Ministers would have sent in their top official to review the GCSB, and make her findings public.

Agency staff worked faithfully and were devastated to learn they were not acting within the law. There was no evidence they acted in bad faith or believed the end justified the means, the report says.

Culture problems at the agency could take a year to fix, Kitteridge says.

The GCSB’s organisation was overly complex, fragmented and had too many managers. Poor performing staff were tolerated, rather than fired or disciplined, because of fears that disgruntled former employees could pose a security risk.

And

It is understood new legislation will be introduced to Parliament soon after the report’s release.

Good. Once upon a time the Government wouldn’t even admit there was a GCSB. It was created my Muldoon in 1977 and not even Cabinet was told of it.

UPDATE: This is unusual. The entire paragraphs that I quoted from the story have now been removed from it. I wonder why?

Margaret Thatcher has died, aged 87.

I was fortunate enough to meet Margaret Thatcher around a decade ago. It was an incredible privilege to meet the woman who I regard as the best post-war Prime Minister we have seen.

But what I remember most about that function, was all the young Eastern European politicians who got to meet her. Words can’t describe their emotions as they met one of the people they regarded as having been crucial in helping secure them their freedom.  She was to them, what George Washington was to early Americans.

Of course her respect and popularity was far from universal. She would be disappointed if she ever traded popularity for doing the right thing. There are many who battled against her policies. But people go into politics to make a difference, and Thatcher was proof that one person with conviction and strength can make a huge difference.

People forget how crippled the United Kingdom was economically when she took over. She put the Great back into Great Britain. Her greatest legacy is that after 18 years of Conservative Governments, the new Labour Government basically retained most of her policies – and in some cases Tony Blair pushed her reform agenda further. She forced UK Labour to abandon socialism and embrace the free market. ironically she helped make Labour electable.

She wouldn’t surrender to the Soviet Empire, the IRA, Argentina or the Mining unions. If she thought her cause was just, she stood by it.

Her legacy is not just what she did as Prime Minister, but getting there. She was the daughter of a shop keeper from Grantham. To rise to the leadership of her party and country was an extraordinary achievement for the 1970s.

The Daily Telegraph has a collection of quotes and reactions. A few to highlight:

Paddy Ashdown

If politics is defined as having views, holding to them and driving them through to success, she was undoubtedly the greatest PM of our age.

Lech Walesa

She was a great person. She did a great deal for the world, along with Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Solidarity, she contributed to the demise of communism in Poland and Central Europe.

Vaclav Klaus

Thatcher was one of the greatest politicians of our time, in the Czech Republic she was our hero.

Tony Blair

Margaret Thatcher was a towering political figure. Very few leaders get to change not only the political landscape of their country but of the world. Margaret was such a leader. Her global impact was vast. And some of the changes she made in Britain were, in certain respects at least, retained by the 1997 Labour Government, and came to be implemented by governments around the world.

As a person she was kind and generous spirited and was always immensely supportive to me as Prime Minister although we came from opposite sides of politics.

Even if you disagreed with her as I did on certain issues and occasionally strongly, you could not disrespect her character or her contribution to Britain’s national life. She will be sadly missed.

Ed Milliband

She will be remembered as a unique figure. She reshaped the politics of a whole generation. She was Britain’s first woman Prime Minister. She moved the centre ground of British politics and was a huge figure on the world stage.

The Labour Party disagreed with much of what she did and she will always remain a controversial figure. But we can disagree and also greatly respect her political achievements and her personal strength.

She also defined the politics of the 1980s. David Cameron, Nick Clegg and I all grew up in a politics shaped by Lady Thatcher. We took different paths but with her as the crucial figure of that era.

She coped with her final, difficult years with dignity and courage. Critics and supporters will remember her in her prime.

David Cameron

She didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country.

I think she will come to be seen as the greatest Prime Minister our country has ever seen.

Her legacy will be the fact she served her country so well.. She showed immense courage.

People will be learning about her for decades and centuries to come.

Boris Johnson

Very sad to hear of death of Baroness Thatcher. Her memory will live long after the world has forgotten the grey suits of today’s politics.

Her final years were very tough. May she indeed now rest in peace, secure in the knowledge she will never be forgotten for what she achieved.

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

MARRIAGE EQUALITY: The 3rd reading of Louisa Wall’s marriage equality bill is a week away. Will it pass? What is the difference between Marriage and a Civil Union? Why get married? Does allowing gays to marry diminish the meaning of traditional marriage? Is marriage merely about commitment? Or is it about families? And what does it mean for our children?

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT?: Is the old adage true—we are what we eat? If so, then are we eating good healthy things? Or do we only think so? The Government is changing the way food & drink makers can label their foods. No more claiming healthy or low in fat if the company can’t back it up. But how many of us look at the labels? Do these regulations go far enough? Will it make us healthier?

There are two ways to get in on the pub political action:
First, you can join the live audience in Wellington’s iconic Backbencher Pub on Wednesday, 10th of April at 6pm. Filming begins around 6:15pm.

Or watch us that night on PRIME TV at 10:30pm!

Our Panel: United Future Leader Peter Dunne, Labour MP Trevor Mallard, New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin, and National MP Louise Upston.

When a play gets the half time interval, and you are annoyed that there is a break, its a good sign that the play has managed to grip your attention and you want to see how it ends.

Circa’s production of Tribes was excellent. A great mix of tension, humour, light and sound.  Thoroughly enjoyed it.

The set is a typical living room, with a large screen behind it. The screen is an essential part of the show, where the sign language is translated, and very amusingly sometimes the private thoughts of the cast also.

The play by Nina Raine, originated in London, and has won three major international awards.

The cast is primarily a family of five, all creative. Father Christopher is an academic critic who critiques everything from his children’s boyfriends and girlfriends to the deaf community and Northerners. His long suffering wife Beth is writing a a book that was originally about a marriage breakdown but hilariously also includes a murder mystery now.

The kids are all in their 20s. Daniel and Ruth have both moved back home, and ignore their father’s entreaties to “fuck off” and get real jobs. She is an wannabee opera singer and he is writing a thesis on language. Daniel has some psych issues (his father blames on pot) and hears accusatory voices all the time. He used to have a stutter, and it returns when his brother Billy moves out.

To a degree the show is about Billy. He was born deaf. His siblings are very protective of him. His father has been determined not to let his disability define him and he has learnt to lip read par excellence, rather than use sign language.

The family is charming and engaging in their mild dysfunctionality, and then things get interesting when Billy meets Sylvia. She can do fluent sign language as her parents are deaf. She was not born deaf, but is losing her hearing and becoming deaf.

Now don’t think this is some sort of woe are the deaf, how miserable their lives are play.  It is a play about tribes – the family tribe and the deaf community.

Father Christopher is very sceptical of Sylvia and asks her at one point about the “deaf community”. She replies that it is very hierarchical with people judging you on whether or not you were born deaf, or became deaf, if you can sign or lip or both, etc etc. She also  comments “Plus of course, we’ve all slept with each other” which rarks the family up as Billy has never had a girlfriend.

Jeffery Thomas is excellent as Christoper, Billy’s father. He provokes and frustrates, and provides much humour. Nathan Mesiter also was very good as Billy’ brother. He is both smart and suave and stammering and lacking self-confidence.

The play is 140 minutes long, with a break. As I said at the beginning I found it got me interested from the first scene, and never let go. There are so many tensions that you want to find out where it all leads. There are no saints in this play, just a mosaic of flawed but loving family.

A lot of humour keeps you engaged also. The thoughts on the screen. The asking Sylvia to sign a translation of “Fucking her was like making love to a concrete mixer” was memorable.

When a local theatre takes on an award winning international play, the worry is that they will not do justice to the original. But the production team and cast have shown this is not the case – it was a great play, and well worth seeing.

The Herald reports:

IMF managing director Christine Lagarde was full of praise last night for the direction in which the New Zealand economy was headed.

Lagarde was the first ever woman to be Finance Minister of a G8 economy, and was rated by the Financial Times in 2009 as the best Finance Minister in the Eurozone (admittedly that may be like being the skinniest kid at fat camp).

After meeting Prime Minister John Key on the fringes of the Bo’ao Forum for Asia, in China, she talked to New Zealand reporters about the general health of the economy in light of a recent assessment of fiscal and monetary policy.

“All I can tell you is the IMF is very supportive of what is being done by the Government in that respect.

“If you look at the numbers, if you look whether it is growth, whether it is employment, whether it is inflation, whether it is debt, overall it is very stable and it is also very promising.

“If you compare the potential growth rate of New Zealand and thee forecasts we have which I will not disclose because they will be disclosed in a couple of weeks time, it’s certainly a lot better than what we see in other parts of the world.

Those forecasts will be interesting.

The Herald reports Annette King:

The Ministry of Health process for handling Official Information Act requests has been called “laundering” after different ways of treating requests from the public, media and politicians were revealed. …

The Herald sought the ministry process showing warnings for officials about releasing “politically sensitive or controversial” details to the public. It has six possible checks for releasing information before it was sent to Mr Ryall’s office, where the minister and staff were given five days to review it.

When people from Parliament sought information, the number of steps increased to eight, and to nine when the OIA request came from media. …

Opposition health spokeswoman Annette King has labelled the scheme an “OIA laundering process” designed to keep information from the public.

Oh this is silly, Keeping the Minister’s office in the loop when Opposition MPs or media file OIA requests is a no brainer. There is a world of difference between an OIA request from Mrs Smith-Jones wanting to know how much something about her local hospital and from say the Opposition Spokesperson asking for a copy of a briefing paper to the Minister.

What matters is not the process,, but the outcomes. Does keeping the Minister in the loop mean the Ministry of Health is not meeting the 20 day deadline for responding?

No Right Turn compiled OIA stats in 2012, and 85% of Ryall’s OIA responses are done within 20 days, with an average of 16.5 days. Now this is for OIAs to him, not the Department, but it suggests a good compliance regime.

If Annette wants to score some points against Ryall, she needs to do far better than complaining about internal processes which are simply competent political management.

What I’d be interested in is what the compliance rate is for the Ministry of Health in terms of the 20 day deadline, and how often do they decline information and get over-ruled by the Ombudsman? That *might* help her to make a case, but this silly story just highlights how competent Tony Ryall is.

The Dom Post editorial:

Many Kiwis will question whether the engagement in a conflict 13,000 kilometres away was worth such a high cost. Others will question whether now is the right time for the PRT to pull out, given the Taliban remains strong in the northeast of Bamiyan, and Afghanistan’s future remains uncertain.

However, there is no denying that New Zealand was right to join the international efforts to confront al Qaeda and weaken it to the point where it no longer posed a grave threat to innocent people all around the world. The horrific September 11 attacks on the United States showed the terrorist organisation’s intent and capabilities. It had to be crippled. That mission, at least, has been accomplished.

It was also right to send the PRT to help sow the seeds of democracy and stability in Bamiyan. Likewise, now is the right time to come home.

The PRT has done everything that could have been reasonably expected of it given the harsh and dangerous conditions in which our troops were asked to operate. They have improved medical facilities, built roads and bridges and created the conditions for some semblance of what Kiwis would regard as a normal life to flourish.

Its presence has resulted in the opening of hundreds of schools, seen a rise in the number of girls getting an education and laid the foundations for improved infrastructure and a big improvement in health outcomes. Perhaps most importantly, the deployment has given the people of Bamiyan the confidence to believe they can be masters of their own destiny.

It is difficult to see what more could be achieved by the PRT remaining, and the reality is that the looming withdrawal of the rest of the international community in 2014 makes it impossible for it to stay in any case.

What annoys me most about Afghanistan is it was Labour who sent in the SAS (which was the right decision), and renewed their mission several times. Then the moment they are in Opposition they attack the Government for keeping the SAS there.

The Herald reports:

Radicals both right and left are sensing that France’s political tide is rising in their favour, driven by a President plumbing record unpopularity less than a year after taking office.

Francois Hollande, a Socialist already under fire for economic mismanagement, is bogged down in a scandal unleashed by his Budget Minister, Jerome Cahuzac.

Svelte and smooth-tongued, Cahuzac had been leading Hollande’s campaign to fill the state’s coffers by raising taxes, urging citizens to pay their fiscal dues as “solidarity” towards others.

Last week, Cahuzac quit after admitting he had had a secret bank account in Switzerland for decades.

David Shearer is lucky he remembered about his foreign bank account while he was Opposition Leader. Imagine the impact if he been a Minister or Prime Minister and it emerged.

Hollande romped to the presidency on May 6 on campaign promises to govern France competently, fairly and cleanly. He declared he would roll back unemployment, meet the EU’s targets on borrowing and, after decades of scandals embroiling both left and right, give France an “exemplary” government.

Today, his approval rating stands at only 27 per cent, the lowest of any president in modern French history at such an early point in his tenure.

Unemployment has risen like an express lift, affecting 3.188 million people, or nearly one in nine of the workforce – a tad short of a record set in 1997.

The budget deficit is 4.8 per cent of GDP, compared to Hollande’s pledge, since abandoned, to meet the EU’s limit of 3 per cent last year.

Public debt rose in 2012 to an astronomical 90.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 85.8 per cent in 2011 – and Hollande’s own target of 89.9 per cent.

Socialism doesn’t work. He’s hiked taxes and spending, and I think Labour’s housing plan is based on his pledge to build 500,000 homes a year.

To get some idea of how unpopular he has become, Reuters reports that National Front Leader Marine Len Pen has a higher approval rating than Hollande.

Phil Taylor at NZ Herald reports:

Teina Pora makes his 11th appearance before the Parole Board today – and this time he wants out.

Pora is serving a life sentence for a 1992 rape and murder which several police who worked on the case believe was committed solely by serial stalker rapist Malcolm Rewa.

Pora has maintained he had nothing to do with it since he was charged in March 1993 and is seeking a royal prerogative of mercy from the Governor-General.

That sentence is rather deceptive. It misses out the fact that he told the Police he held Burdett down by the arms while others raped her. This is hardly maintaining he had nothing to do with it.

Now of course there is great controversy over whether his confession is true or not. There is significant doubt over the confession, and it could well be false – and that Pora is innocent.

But what I object to is a story that doesn’t even mention his confession. That is not giving the public the full story.

I’ve read a fair bit on this case. I think there is more than reasonable doubt that Pora killed Burdett. It is a pity he may have lied to the Police in order to get a reward.

I’ve supported for some years the idea of an Innocence Commission that could investigate potential miscarriages of justice with cases such as this and Peter Ellis.

In case you needed convincing about the need for welfare reform, this story from the United States should help convince you.

It was an exclusive story for Planet Money on National Public Radio. It has had great resonance in the US, as it has exposed how great the growth in numbers on disability welfare has been.

Some key findings:

• 14 million people a month now get a disability check from the Government.
• In one county in Alabama, 25% of working adults are on a disability benefit.
• That the proportion of those claiming a disability benefit with a difficult to test problem (back pain, mental illness) has increased from 18% in 1961 to 53% in 2011.
• That some states have as many as 9% of their adults on a disability benefit.
• Fewer than 1 percent of those who were on the federal program for disabled workers at the beginning of 2011 have returned to the workforce since then.
• The disability benefit pays $13,000, just $2,000 less than the minimum wage, plus Medicare so some are better off financially not working.
• The number of children on a disability benefit has increased seven fold since 1974 to over 1.2 million.
• If these children with learning or other disabilities get a job, their parents lose the $700 a month disability check.
• Disability welfare now costs $260 billion a year, and will run out of reserve duns by 2016.

People should remember this story, when Labour and Greens constantly say there is no need for welfare reform in New Zealand. Note that the numbers receiving the Invalids Benefit in NZ has increased eight fold since 1976 from 10,000 to 84,000. Now by no means should anyone conclude this means everyone on that benefit shouldn’t be there. To the contrary I know some people on that benefit who would love to be able to work, or work longer hours than they can. So we need to be careful not to stigmatize those who are in genuine need.

However as the US story shows, the growth in the level of such benefits has been massive, and I encourage people to read the full story about what happens when the incentives to be on welfare are greater than to be in work.

Michael Laws writes in the SST:

This week, a schoolteacher at my children’s primary school decided to politicise every one of her charges. She did so without their informed consent (admittedly difficult to get from a 7 year old), or after any discussion with their parents.

In every schoolbag, she sent home NZEI propaganda inviting parents to join her teacher union colleagues in a protest against the government’s education policies. In specific, against National Standards, Novopay and the closure of schools in Christchurch.

If NZEI wants to communicate to parents, they should offer a facility on their website where parents can sign up to get their propoganda.

It is also untrue, as the NZEI claim, that New Zealand’s primary education is the best in the world. It isn’t, and it has been slipping for quite awhile. Primary teaching of mathematics is a national scandal, and has nothing to do with Novopay nor National Standards.

So too is the rampant sexism in the nation’s primary schools. That men only constitute 10% of the current teaching roll is wholly unacceptable. That an entire gender has been so alienated – over decades – is an appalling indictment upon both the education system and the teaching profession.

Little wonder that our boys are struggling when their adult counterparts have been so appallingly shunned.

There is a growing failure of boys in education.

It’s not as if primary teachers are poorly paid. With a good degree, and one year at Teacher’s College, I would start on a $55,000 salary with 12 weeks holiday a year. And just by being a year older, I get annual increments (quite apart from cost of living adjustments) that automatically progress me to $70,000 per annum.

On top of that there are $252 million of allowances, averaging $6,000 a teacher. Also 43% of teachers get units also, worth $4,000 each. You can get up to 17 units in addition to your salary.

What does this mean overall. The *average* pay for a secondary teacher is $74,000 and primary is $70,000.

I get TED talks on my podcast to listen to while exercising. Found this one interesting enough to share, and embedded below.

Some facts he cited:

• Since 2000 there are eight million more AIDs patients getting antiretroviral drugs.
• Eight countries in Africa have cut their malaria rate by 75%
• The same countries have 2.65 million fewer child deaths a year or 7,256 a day.
• The number of people living in extreme poverty has reduced from 43% in 1990 to 21% in 2010.
• At the current rate of decline, the number of people in extreme poverty would be close to zero by 2030

A Tale of Two Cows infographic by kylatomdesign.

 

Have seen many of these before, but not all of them. The venture capitalism one and the Iraqi one are may favourites.

Also liked this one in the comments:

In Romania: You have 2 horses… you sell them to Western Europe. As… Cows 🙂

People may be interested in this transcript from Q+A. The video at the link is even better:

SUSAN WOOD

On Friday we found out some of the details about the partial sale of Mighty River Power. The price range for the shares estimated to be between $2.35 and $2.80. That should bring around $2 billion into the government coffers.

Good morning, David Shearer.

DAVID SHEARER,

Good morning, Susan.

SUSAN         $2 billion on schools, on things that are public good. Money well spent?

DAVID          No, because you also miss out on the revenue over a longer period than that, and as soon as you do that, 50 per cent of your revenue goes, and over time, obviously, that’s nonsensical. But the other thing about selling these shares is that a small group are going to get ownership of those shares-

SUSAN         400,000 people is not a small group of New Zealanders.

DAVID          Well, if you actually add it up, it’s going to be well less than 10%. More than 90% of New Zealanders will not have the opportunity to buy shares, and they will lose, in a sense, what they already owned before, which is a national asset.

SUSAN         So without selling assets, and we know you don’t want to, how will you balance the books without borrowing?

DAVID          Well, what we had been saying before is a whole programme of economic development, capital gains tax, and in the short term-

SUSAN         So tell me how you’ll raise $2 billion. This government’s raising $2 billion doing it. How will you come up with $2 billion?

DAVID          Let’s start from the beginning, then. Do we need to have exactly that $2 billion or not? The way the government’s put its books in order, or not in order, is by putting forward an argument that we need to sell our state-owned assets. I don’t believe that that’s the way that we should be going forward. There are other alternatives.

SUSAN         Do you agree, though, that the government should be running a surplus? They should not be in deficit? Households have to tidy up their act. Do you agree that the government books should be in surplus?

DAVID          Well, of course we should be in surplus, and that’s what the Labour government did for nine years while it was in government, and that’s what it handed on to the National government – government books that were in surplus.

SUSAN         Yeah, but to be fair, there’s been a GFC.

DAVID          When you sell a state-owned asset like Mighty River Power you forego the income that that brings in.

SUSAN         I understand that.

DAVID          So what you’re effectively doing- It’s like selling your business, putting an extension on your house – you feel much better for that, but you lose the income from the sale.

SUSAN         OK, but they are getting the books back into surplus. They are getting their house in order. Give me a few ideas of how Labour would get the house in order without borrowing more money.

DAVID          Well, at the moment we don’t have a growth agenda in New Zealand. We are not growing our economy as we should.

SUSAN         But give me some specifics here of what you would do. We know what this government is doing. How would you raise a couple of billion to get the books back in balance?

DAVID          Well, what I’m saying is that what we need to do is to grow the economy in a way that it’s not growing at the moment, and we’ll be talking about Tiwai Point in a little while…one of the big problems about – no, no, let me finish – one of the biggest problems about that is that the exchange rate is so low that we’re seeing many of our businesses actually going out of business because they’re not being able to succeed. We’re not putting our money in the profitable sector; it’s going into the property market because we don’t have a capital gains tax that will help us direct money into those areas. And if you’re wanting to raise money, then at least put money into businesses- invest in businesses through the incentives of capital gains, and that brings, obviously, money into the government as well.

SUSAN         Let’s talk about the GCSB spy boss, Ian Fletcher. Is he the right man for the job?

DAVID          I don’t know Ian Fletcher, but I can say that the way he has been appointed-

SUSAN         No, no, there is nothing negative about him, is there? There is no suggestion that he is not the right man for the job. Let me phrase it that way.

DAVID          Well, let’s put it another way. Just last year, when the whole Dotcom issue was running, Ian Fletcher was the person who went to the prime minister and said, ‘Sign this, because I want to cover up the fact that we’ve been illegally spying on Dotcom.’ That was the ministerial certificate that Ian Fletcher took to the prime minister. Now, I don’t think that was a good move. I don’t have an opinion of him per se, but-

SUSAN         Well, you don’t like that.

DAVID          Of course I don’t. No, I’ve just said that. But what I don’t like is the way that he was interviewed and the process that went through. I don’t like the idea-

SUSAN         But hang on-

DAVID          Hang on, no, no, just let me finish- John Key has shoulder-tapped one person, put him into that position. We now have in our most secret agency in New Zealand a friend of John Key’s who reports directly to him. John Key is the only person who has democratic oversight over that agency.

SUSAN         And it’s his right. It is his right to select whoever he wants for that job.

DAVID          There is a real problem in New Zealand now with the confidence that we have in our intelligence agencies, and if I was coming into office, I would have a full independent inquiry into our intelligence agencies to restore that confidence, because if we don’t do that we will not be able to hold ourselves up as the transparent nation that we are.

SUSAN         Rebecca Kitteridge has been looking into it.

DAVID          That’s an internal report. I would want this to have a terms of reference that would be agreed by parliament. It would report back to parliament so that we all have confidence in it. It’s something the Australians did a few years ago when there was a crisis in their intelligence agencies, and they’ve had regular independent outside reviews going on. Now, we have the SIS at the moment. The SIS is about to look at its legislation, reform its legislation, and I think that we need to have that independent review before we get to that point.

SUSAN         Much made this week of the Prime Minister’s memory loss. You, of course, have had your own memory loss over that $50,000 US or more, how much was it?

DAVID          I’m not going to say. It’s my family business. I don’t talk about my savings online, but I do-

SUSAN         Tony Ryall said in the house it was a couple of hundred thousand dollars US. Is that correct, or is it more than that?

DAVID          I’m not going to say. It’s my family business.

SUSAN         Didn’t you lose your right for privacy around it when you forgot to declare it? When you broke the rules and did not declare it?

DAVID          No, I absolutely did not. I said that I made an error. I myself came forward and corrected that error. I took it on the chin and said ‘here it is’. And I expect that to be the standard by which all politicians operate if they do make a mistake.

SUSAN         That’s what John Key did this week. He said he’d made a mistake and he fessed up. Exactly the same scenario.

DAVID          I think what John Key was doing this week-

SUSAN         He came forward.

DAVID          No-

SUSAN         Yes, he did. He came forward and he said, ‘Actually, I’ve checked by records and I did call Ian Fletcher.’ He came forward.

DAVID          What he was doing this week was that he was deliberately trying to move opinion away from and deflect opinion away from his friendship and relationship with Fletcher.

SUSAN         Is your problem with this money- Is your problem with this more than $50,000 US in the bank, is your problem that there is so much money there that it would not resonate? You would not resonate? I mean, Michael Cullen very famously called John Key a ‘rich prick’. Are you, Mr Shearer, a rich prick?

DAVID          Look, I worked for my money working for the United Nations in Iraq. I put it in the bank. It’s my family’s savings. I didn’t put it on my pecuniary interest. I declared that and I came forward and I was honest about it.

SUSAN         And you were very well paid in that job, sometimes up to half a million Kiwi dollars a year.

DAVID          No, I think you need to do your research on that, quite frankly, Susan. But, look, working in Iraq, where we lost 25 people, there was a- people do get paid hazard money in those situations.

SUSAN         What’s the money sitting there for?

DAVID          Look, it’s my family- Look, people put money in the bank for any- Look, this is my private savings, my family’s savings. Do you ask John Key what he does with $50 million when he comes on to your show?

SUSAN         John Key actually does have scrutiny over his money all the time. There are reports about how much money he has; he’s on the NBR Rich List – all those sorts of things. So, yes, he does have the same sort of scrutiny.

DAVID          Well, I haven’t heard you asking the same sorts of questions-

SUSAN         I haven’t had him on the programme yet, but when I do, I will ask him. So, are reports that it’s around $1 million correct or incorrect?

DAVID          Look, I am not going to put a figure on it, and I resent the fact that you are asking me to reveal how much is in my bank account. Nobody needs to do that. I have done-

SUSAN         You do need to.

DAVID          I have done what I was obliged to do under parliamentary rules, which is to declare any account that had more than $50,000 in it. I did do that. I regret, obviously, not putting that on my pecuniary interests, and that’s where it stops.

SUSAN         So you’re not a rich prick?

DAVID          I’m- Obviously, as a New Zealander, I’m fortunate, but I’m not in the same league as our prime minster, no.

SUSAN         Tiwai Point – what would you do if you were in government?

DAVID          Oh, look, Tiwai Point needs to be negotiated. It obviously needs the government to have a look and see what it can do.

SUSAN         What would you offer, though? Would you be offering Rio Tinto some sort of extra funding to stay here?

DAVID          Oh, look, I think what we would need to do is take a look at what’s on the table, and I don’t know what’s on the table.

SUSAN         Nothing’s on the table. The government’s pulled it off the table, haven’t they?

DAVID          We don’t know how far apart they are. We’ve only just got indications about that. I think what we need to do, though, is look at the national interests about what this means to New Zealand, what it means to Southland, what it means to jobs. And at the moment the government is not in the business of creating jobs. There are jobs going and for Southlanders obviously they are very, very –

SUSAN         I think you could actually say that the government has played Rio Tinto pretty well on this. And the numbers – let’s talk about them. $250 million a year they pay for power. That’s about a quarter of what you pay for power, of what all of our viewers pay for power. They pay one quarter. They then return about $150 million. Effectively, we’re giving them a $750 million discount. Should they even be here? I mean, what are they really adding?

DAVID          Well, that was what they were set up for, obviously, and they were guaranteed that power for a long time. I mean, you have to play out what does it mean for jobs, what does it mean for the Southland economy, what does it mean for our current account deficit? But the bottom line is you would try to, obviously, secure a deal-

SUSAN         Really? Because those numbers I’m looking at there, there are other things you could do. The power could be in other uses.

DAVID          But you wouldn’t be going into a negotiation with a blank chequebook.

SUSAN         And the government hasn’t. They’ve walked away.

DAVID          Well, the government, what it did, was it was trying to-

SUSAN         The government put pressure on Rio Tinto.

DAVID          What the government was trying to do was actually get the sale of Mighty River Power across the line and reduce the uncertainty around the electricity price. That’s what it was trying to do, and that’s why it went into negotiations. Now, it went into negotiations with Rio Tinto aware that the government was wanting to do that. So it went in with one hand tied behind its back.

SUSAN         Well, they haven’t paid it one cent, which I think would be the public mood at the moment – no mood to give a lot of money to a foreign multi-national. One final question – there is some confusion around Labour, and I’ve been trying to press you during this interview about what you would do differently. So let me give you a specific example. You’re a 26-year-old woman. You’re living in Auckland. You’re earning $65,000 a year. You’re paying off your student loan. You’re renting. What would Labour do for this woman that National is not doing?

DAVID          Well, two things – first of all, we would have a healthy home guarantee to make sure that where she’s living, in the rental accommodation that she’s living in, is actually up to scratch; it’s both heated and it’s insulated. The second thing that we would do is we’re building 10,000 houses, affordable homes, a year, and that would enable her to have an opportunity to get on to the housing ladder. So there are two specific things that I believe that would help that case.

 SUSAN         Thank you for your time this morning.

DAVID          Thanks, Susan.

I like how Labour goes from condemning the Government for negotiating with Rio Tinto on Tiwai Point, to complaining they didn’t secure a deal.

A reader writes in:

The first time I became aware of the SST offender database was when we were gravely concerned about the attention and interest a 43 year old man had in an 11 year old family member. My suspicions and reasons to look for this information was based only on 2^nd-hand information and hunches that something didn’t feel right.  

 His name didn’t appear on the SST offender database back then as he had name suppression for 3 prior sexual offences against children and as such this information was prohibited from being made public. Our girl was his 4^th victim when he raped her before her 12^th birthday and I sincerely wish this offender’s name had not been suppressed and that it had been on that database when I looked first looked as we may have averted years of trauma and heartbreak.  

 Btw. His name is now on the database and he is serving a Preventive Detention Sentence … too late for us …too late for victims that preceded

Far too many children get assaulted or raped because their offender had name suppression for previous offences. Sometimes this is necessary to prevent the identification of the previous victims, but what should be suppressed is details about their relationship to the offender, not the identity of the offender.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust has a violent offenders and sex offenders database. It is a pity they have to provide this service. I think court convictions should be listed by the Government in a searchable database – subject to the clean slate legislation, and any name suppression orders.

Curia’s monthly newsletter is out. The executive summary is:

Curia’s Polling Newsletter – Issue 66, March 2013

 March saw just three political polls published in New Zealand – a DigiPoll and two Roy Morgan polls.

 The average of the public polls has National 11% ahead of Labour – 3% less than in  February. The seat projection is centre-right 58 seats, centre-left 60.

 Australia has Labor and Gillard’s ratings seriously tanking.  The Coalition has a two party preferred lead of 16% to 18%, and is projected to win three times as many seats as Labor in the September election. Gillard has only 26% positive approval and 65% negative.

In the United States Barack Obama’s approval rating is has dropped significantly by 7%.

In the UK the Conservatives are still 11% behind Labour and the UK Independence Party is now polling at the same level as the Liberal Democrats.

In Canada the Conservatives are on 31%, NDP 28% and Liberals 27%. Likely Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is already leading the Preferred PM polls.

The normal two tables are provided comparing the country direction sentiment and head of government approval sentiment for the five countries. New Zealand continues to top both by considerable margins.

We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on asset sales, constitutional issues, a four year term, Christchurch schools, same sex marriage, The Hobbit, cats, List MPs, and nuclear powered ships plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please e- go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.