A group of New Zealand’s leading political pollsters, in consultation with other interested parties, have developed draft NZ Political Polling Guidelines.

The purpose is to ensure that AMRO and MRSNZ members conducting political polls, and media organisations publishing poll results, adhere to the highest “NZ appropriate” standards. The guidelines are draft and comments, questions and recommendations back to the working group are welcome.

This code seeks to document best practice guidelines for the conducting and reporting of political polls in New Zealand. It is proposed that the guidelines, once approved and accepted, will be binding on companies that are members of the Association of Market Research Organisations (AMRO) and on researchers that are members of the Market Research Society of New Zealand (MRSNZ).

The code only covers “political polls”, which for the purpose of the code are polls that related to public votes such as national elections, local body elections and parliamentary referenda. This is in recognition of the fact that reporting of polls may have an impact on how people vote.

For each issue, the code details, where appropriate: 

• Best practice for the market researcher conducting the poll
• Best practice for the market researcher in reporting results
• Best practice for the media in publishing and commenting on results

It is intended that the code assist politicians, political scientists, journalists and members of the public to be confident that political polls do in fact largely represent the opinions of the wider public and are a guide as to likely voting behaviours if an election were to be held at that time.

The development of the guidelines is in recognition of the fact that reporting of polls can have an impact on how people vote. Inaccurate polls, or polls that are interpreted and reported inaccurately, can impact on voting attitudes and behaviours and thus influence the democratic process.

It behoves all members of the polling and media communities to treat polling responsibly. Reliable polls (rather than informal surveys) require a high degree of rigour. These guidelines are designed to ensure that rigour is understood and applied.

The guidelines have been developed in the light of the European Society of Market Research (ESOMAR) international guidelines. ESOMAR is the global authority on research best practice and both AMRO and MRSNZ are ESOMAR members. It is recommended that those interested also read the ESOMAR /WAPOR guide to opinion polls and published surveys.

 NB: The term “must” indicates a requirement, while the term “should” indicates recommended best practice.

The guidelines also include a proposed easy reference guide for media:

1. If possible, get a copy of the full poll report and do not rely on a media release.
2. The story should include the name of the company which conducted the poll, and the client the poll was done for, and the dates it was done.
3. The story should include, or make available, the sample size, sampling method, population sampled, if the sample is weighted, the maximum margin of error and the level of undecided voters.
4. If you think any questions may have impacted the answers to the principal voting behaviour question, mention this in the story.
5. Avoid reporting breakdown results from very small samples as they are unreliable.
6. Try to focus on statistically significant changes, which may not just be from the last poll, but over a number of polls.
7. Avoid the phrase “This party is below the margin of error” as results for low polling parties have a smaller margin of error than for higher polling parties.
8. It can be useful to report on what the electoral results of a poll would be, in terms of likely parliamentary blocs, as the highest polling party will not necessarily be the Government.
9. In your online story, include a link to the full poll results provided by the polling company or state when, and where, the report and methodology will be made available.
10. Only use the term “poll” for scientific polls done in accordance with market research industry approved guidelines, and use “survey” for self-selecting surveys such as text or website surveys.

It is important to stress that these guidelines are a draft only, and the pollsters are keen to get feedback from interested people. Specifically suggestions for possible other requirements, amendments to proposed guidelines or even removal of a specific point.

Please send any comments, questions and submissions on the guidelines to pollingguidelinesgroup@amronz.org.nz.

The date listed as the closing date of 1 March is incorrect. Feedback is still welcome, and it is planned in May to hold public consultation meetings in Auckland and Wellington.

Note that I was a member of the working group that developed the guidelines, as were representatives from UMR, Ipsos, Digipoll, Reid Research and Colmar Brunton and the MRSRZ President and AMRO Executive Director.

The Herald reports:

Cardinals have elected Argentine Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as the new pope to lead the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, overcoming deep divisions to select the 266th pontiff in a remarkably fast conclave.

Bergoglio is the first ever pope to come from the Americas and the first from outside Europe in more than a millennium. He chose the name Pope Francis I.

Pope Francis is 76 years old, just nine years younger than the Pope Emeritus.

He has been a Cardinal for 12 years. It is speculated he was the “runner up” to Pope Benedict in the last conclave.

It will be interesting to see the style he adopts as Pope, the issues he focuses on, and especially how well he does at sorting out some of the corruption in the Vatican.

Latin America is home to more Catholics than any other continent. I imagine the news of a Latin American Pope will be a cause of much celebration there.

It seems to me that there were two major factors that led to the problems at Solid Energy. One was the fall in global coal prices, and the other was the borrowing to fund alternative energy projects which haven’t led to a return.

In terms of the first, I’d be very keen for an MP to ask John Palmer and Don Elder some questions along the lines of:

• What global price for coal was used each year in your 2008 to 2012 business plans as the projected price?
• For each of the following years, what was the worst case scenario that was used for global coal prices, and how did that compare to the actual price?
• How often did you update your business plans and revise the assumed coal price?
• Did Solid Energy undertake any hedging – why or why not, and at what level?
• Were the decisions on alternative energy projects contingent on a certain level for the coal price? If no, why not?
• What was the company’s risk management strategy around a coal price slump?

These are not gotcha question, which I suspect some MPs will try and do. They’re questions that would actually help us understand why the company has got into so much trouble.

It will be interesting if Labour attack John Palmer, considering what Trevor Mallard said when he appointed him Chairman:

“John Palmer is widely regarded and respected as one of New Zealand’s leading governance practitioners,” Trevor Mallard, SOE Minister, December 2006, announcing Mr Palmer’s appointment as chairman of Solid Energy

We also have Helen Clark on Don Elder:

The PM did however point out that Solid Energy’s CEO Don Elder had assisted in turning around a struggling enterprise into one that was now greatly benefiting the NZ taxpayer. – Scoop in 2007

Also of interest is what Trevor Mallard said about the influence of the Government on Solid Energy’s operations:

“If we’re doing planning going forward we’re making sure that we do have both security [of supply] and a good mix of renewables then it’s easier to influence that with ownership as well as with general regulation,” Trevor Mallard on AGENDA, TV1, June 2007, speaking about Solid Energy

And if you want a great reasons for why the Government should not be the owner:

“Well I think in some areas for example Solid Energy would do some investment in research in renewables for coal and in gasification and carbon sequestration in a way that a private sector company wouldn’t.” Trevor Mallard on AGENDA, TV1, June 2007

For example the money wasted on biofuels. Even Damien O’Connor complained about it in August 2012:

Hon Damien O’Connor: Why should miners in Huntly and on the West Coast lose jobs to save money for Solid Energy, when the company has wasted millions of dollars on a biofuels project that has failed, and now threatens to destroy the high-value vegetable oil industry in New Zealand?

It was pointed out:

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the point that was being made was that the biofuels obligation was created by the previous Government

And in case you don’t believe Mr Joyce:

The Dom Post editorial:

Given the paucity of talent within Labour’s ranks and the divisions within the party, Mr Shearer’s desire to restore a supporter to the front bench is understandable.

The public, however, may well have different priorities when it comes time to assess Labour’s fitness to operate the levers of government.

Ms Provost’s investigation found no evidence of corruption, but it did find ample evidence of poor judgment on the part of the former associate minister of immigration.

A harsh summary is not corrupt, just incompetent.

She found Mr Jones acted hastily before he was in possession of all the relevant information, did not consult either police or the Immigration Service despite knowing both were investigating Mr Liu, and failed to document the reasons for his decision.

Immigration and citizenship cases are fraught with danger for ministers because the final say on cases rests with them and because those making representations on behalf of applicants are often their parliamentary colleagues.

It is easy for the perception to develop that it is not what applicants offer New Zealand that is important, but who they know.

Especially when the applicant boasts to the Department that he is mates with MPs, insists on a quick decision despite officials telling him they will recommend no.

In those circumstances the best protection for ministerial reputations and New Zealand’s reputation as a country free of corruption is for the decision-making process to be properly documented.

Mr Jones’ failure to record why he ignored official advice to reject Mr Liu’s application and his failure to even document under which section of the Citizenship Act he granted Mr Liu’s application brought his reputation and that of New Zealand into disrepute.

As Mr Jones observed, officials were also criticised by the auditor-general for failing to adequately brief the minister and assuming he understood his responsibilities. Fair enough. It is as important for them as it is for ministers to follow proper process.

However, having explained their concerns about Mr Liu’s dual identity and the fact he had been red-flagged by Interpol, they had grounds for thinking the minister would put the integrity of New Zealand’s citizenship ahead of his impatience to be done with a vexatious case.

The question voters may want to ask themselves ahead of the next election is would they employ someone with Mr Jones’ impetuous nature to run their company. If not would they trust him to run a government department?

The great carpark tax debate is one of those issues where any government will take a hammering (like PC lightbulbs and shower heads) and where any opposition should be having a field day.

Already, one of National’s support partners, Act, has come out against it and the Maori Party probably won’t be far behind.  Ministers are already distancing themselves.

So, can Labour make the most of it?

Well, when the tax was first proposed, Labour’s then Revenue Spokesman, the Rev. Dr David Clark, was quick to see the politics and attacked it.

Then, on Monday, when the bumper-sticker campaign against the tax was announced, current Revenue Spokesman, David Cunliffe, called it a “catastrophe”.

But, this morning we learn in the Herald from Cunliffe’s rival David Parker that Labour hasn’t decided what to do on the tax.

It’s a bit like asset sales.  They make lots of noise, but seem unable to articulate what they will do differently and are unable to speak with one coherent voice.

Audrey Young at the NZ herald reports:

Labour leader David Shearer won’t rule out supporting Winston Peters’ policy of buying back Mighty River Power shares at cost if they form the next Government. …

Mr Shearer said, “We won’t rule it out but we won’t rule it in either.” Labour would not be able to make any commitment on it before an election.

Incredible. They are saying we might confiscate your private property but we’re not going to tell you whether we will or not before the election.

No Right Turn is outraged, saying it is “spineless chickenshit” behaviour.

A friend and his wife are staying with me. They are back in NZ for a couple of weeks from the UK.

Was very amused to hear of their interaction with Immigration NZ at Auckland Airport.

The Passport Officer noticed he was a returning Kiwi, but his wife was not. She commented that he had been away for a while and asked if he would be having a Kiwi Mince Pie now he is back.

He replied in the affirmative, and she then turned to his wife and asked her if she would let him have a pie when he is in New Zealand, explaining it is the Kiwi thing to do.

She then went one step further and told the wife that in fact she was making it a condition of her entry into New Zealand that she would let him eat a pie while in New Zealand.

My friend was pleased enough with this assistance from Immigration New Zealand, but even more delighted when the Passport Officer became even more supportive and further declared to his wife that her entry conditions now included letting him do whatever he wanted to in New Zealand and asked her to verbally assent to these conditions, to which she did – to his great delight.

I doubt there are many countries where you can have that sort of humourous banter with government officials. It would never happen I suspect in the UK, but it did reflect our very Kiwi humour – gently hassling. And it actually made for a great welcome into NZ (for him anyway!) from the usual boring dross of immigration queues.

Long may it last.

I suspect the only people upset with this exchange will be the humour-impaired or the anti-obesity coalition that keeps trying to get pies banned!

A mole has leaked to me a couple of strategy documents from Labour and Greens on the referendum they have just purchased with our money. The documents are embedded below, and they show the extent of taxpayer resources used to purchase this referendum.

CIRs are meant to be about the public being able to send a message to MPs, not MPs using taxpayer funds to relitigate an election result. Some key revelations:

• They aimed for 400,000 signatures as they knew a fair proportion would be found to be invalid.
• At the 300,000 mark the Greens collected 150,000, Labour 105,000 and Unions 40,000. The Greens are the ones who used taxpayer funding to hire petition collectors.
• Labour pledged 30 hours per week staff time from their taxpayer funded budget
• Greens were using their permament taxpayer funded staff to co-ordinate
• The unions had a paid national co-ordinator
• They refer to unions gathering “car loads” of organisers and activists to travel to areas
• For their day of action, Greens said they will committ five full-time staff – presumably all taxpayer funded, if Labour does the same. That’s 10 taxpayer funded organisers.
• A list of unions to pressure to do more, including PPTA, NZEI, Nurses Organisation – minority shares in power companies of course being key education and health issues!

It is very clear that there has been very few ordinary citizens involved in this petition – mainly a legion of taxpayer funded staff and union staff.

Asset Sales Petition Strategy Docs

Questions for Oral Answer 2pm – 3pm

Questions to Ministers

1. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government’s financial position?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
3. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Police: What trends have been seen by Police since laws were changed in 2009 to combat illegal street racing?
4. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being very poor and 10 being outstanding, how does he rate the Government’s performance on job creation?
5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, in relation to drought-stricken farmers, that “I wasn’t referring to climate change. It’s just that if it turned out that there was a succession of droughts, there’s no amount of government assistance that can offset that effect on farming’?
6. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress has been made with the Government’s Apprenticeship Re-boot?
7. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: By how many dollars has the gap between New Zealand and Australian average weekly wages grown since December 2008, based on the methodology tabled by Hon John Key on 28 July 2010?
8. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does he intend to take any action about the failure of SkyCity Auckland to prevent access to the casino by people with gambling problems as recently reported in the media?
9. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Is he confident that the Government’s initiative to provide Better, Sooner, More Convenient health care is meeting his expectations, if not, why not?
10. ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister for Land Information: How much of New Zealand farmland is foreign-owned?
11. Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Associate Minister of Health: What progress has been made in reducing infections in intensive care units?
12. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: What specific actions, if any, does Auckland Council need to take to avoid Government intervention, given his reported statement that “the Government would use the reformed RMA to intervene in Auckland”, if Auckland Council doesn’t change its planning practices?

Today there are four questions from National on issues ranging from the Governments Finances, Boy Racers, Apprenticeships and Infection rates in Intensive Care Units around the country. Labour are asking five questions to ministers ranging from Confidence in Ministers, Job Creation, Wages between New Zealand and Australia, Health Targets and Auckland housing issues.

The Greens, Maori Party and New Zealand First are each asking one question on issues ranging from Climate Change to Sky City Casino and Land Ownership

Today’s pasty of the day goes to question 11 from Dr Jackie Blue on infection rates in Intensive Care Units.

Budget Policy Statement 3pm to 5pm

Today Parliament will be debating the Budget Policy Statement 2013 and Treasury’s Half-Year economic and fiscal update which has recently been reported to the house via the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Private and Local Orders of the day 5pm – 6pm and 7.30pm to 10pm

1. South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill – 3rd Reading – Hon Chester Borrows – 4pm to 4.45pm

This bill would allow for the South Taranaki District Council to transfer ownership of the Cold Creek Rural Water Supply Scheme to back to the community via creating a co-operative called Cold Creek Community Water Supply Limited which would allow allow them to look after the scheme that provides water to around 7,620 hectares of land  in the Pihama/Te Kiri area in South Taranaki.

At the 2nd reading of this bill the vote passed by 102 to 16 with the Greens, Mana and the Maori Party voting against this bill.

2. Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill – Committee Stage – Chris Auchinvole – 4.45pm to 6pm

This bill was created to amend the Habas Corpus Act 2001 as a result of a report produced by the Law Commission in 2007. In addition, it gives Judges more room to move in regards to the issue of Habeas Corpus applications.

At the last reading of this bill the vote passed by 112 to 7 with New Zealand First opposing the bill. Denis O’Rourke voted against this bill on the grounds “it is a nonsense bill”  (Quote from Denis O’Rourke, 2nd Reading, Hansard)

3. Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill – 2nd reading – Dr David Clark – 7.30pm to 8pm

This bill creates the ability to Monday-ise both Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day so that if these public holidays fail on a weekend day then you would be able to claim the public hoilday on the following Monday.

So far this Bill has been supported by all other parties other than National and Act, however is expected to pass tonight as National will not be exercising there power of Veto on this bill.

4. Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill – 2nd reading – Louisa Wall – 8pm to 10pm

This bill is designed to amend the Marriage Act 1955 to allow for a change to section 2(1) to allow Marriages to be conducted between 2 people instead of the status que of between a Man and Women.

For a record of who voted for and against during the first reading please click here and scroll to the bottom of the page

In Parliament yesterday:

But we heard about the issue of Lesley Longstone and I just want to raise that with Chris Hipkins who has been particularly interested in that issue. I want to take him back and remind him of when he was Victoria University Student Association President and what he said back then about a $42,000 package to get rid of a former vice-chancellor. I quote from the New Zealand Herald in 2000: “Victoria University Students Association President Chris Hipkins said while he did not like the idea of paying people to go away it was money well spent.”

What a change of tune from Mr Hipkins. I am sure that quote will be remembered when he next expressed outrage over a contractual payout.

The latest Food Price Index is out and food prices dropped this month. What I tend to focus on in the long-term change in prices.

In the last four years (Feb 2009 to Feb 2013) food inflation was 7.6% and fruit and vegetable prices went up 9.5%. That is equivalent to annual food inflation of 1.8% and fruit and vegetable inflation of 2.3%.

For the four years prior (Feb 2005 to Feb 2009) food inflation was 20.8% and fruit and vegetable prices went up 22.1%. That is equivalent to annual food inflation of 4.8% and fruit and vegetable inflation of 5.1%.

Shane Cowlishaw at Stuff reports:

An embalmer who was forced to counsel the grieving father of a suicide victim has been denied ACC cover because it was not the only harrowing incident of her career.

The woman, who cannot be named, was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2009.

Her routine job involved collecting the bodies of people who died naturally, but occasionally she would be called to police scenes such as murders and suicides.

In 2007 she attended a scene north of Auckland where a young man had hanged himself.

The police and victim support were unable to get his father to release the body, so she sat and talked with him, eventually persuading him to help in getting his son on to a stretcher.

But a police officer then threw the rope on top of the body, causing further distress to the father.

The woman continued to work as an embalmer until 2009, when she resigned and lodged a claim for mental injury. She was shocked when ACC declined it.

Under section 21B of the ACC Act, a claimant can seek cover for a work-related mental injury that is not linked to a physical injury.

However, it must be related to a single traumatic event, and ACC argued the woman’s condition was the cumulative effect of a number of sad or distressing events she had had to attend.

I’m glad to see this decision, because what makes ACC less sustainable is the way it has inevitably expanded from its core role, which was to provide income to people who injured themselves while working – while they recovered.

It was never meant to be  general counselling service for the entire country.

I’m not trying to be unsympathetic, but if you choose to be an embalmer (I could never ever be one) then it is highly likely you will see a lot of dead bodies including homicide and suicide victims. And yes it will be traumatic – but it is not an accident.

Toby Manhire has put together at The Listener an amusing collection of photos of MPs with their youth wings at university campuses around the country.

There has been a real revival in recent years of students getting involved in politics, through their youth wings. I don’t know the numbers for the other parties but understand the Young National signed up 1,500 members over the course of Orientation Week. That’s more members than some parties have in their entire membership!

Labour said in January 2011:

Election Will Be A Referendum On Asset Sales – Goff

Mr Goff said Prime Minister John Key had made this year’s election a referendum on whether New Zealanders wanted to see their most important strategic assets sold.

Labour and the Greens are using taxpayer funds to try and relitigate the election result. As the Labour Party Leader said, the 2011 was to be a referendum on asset sales. It was the most debated policy of the campaign with 11 months of campaigning about.

I do look forward to seeing media asking David Shearer if he agrees with his predecessor that the 2011 election was a referendum on asset sales.

Well done Inventory2 for finding this gem at Keeping Stock.

Stuff reports:

A pre-asset-sale study in 2011 for the Government had highlighted over-optimistic coal price assumptions and questionable alternative fuels investments, which led ultimately to changes to the board and management, he said.

O’Connor said the previous government had supported Solid Energy as a sustainable business that was looking into alternative developments, while National saw it solely as a cash cow which could help it fund tax cuts.

Very nice of Damien to claim credit for the alternative developments which of course failed, and led to the increased debt. Solid Energy did not borrow money to pay dividends. Dividends come out of profits. Debt is used to fund “developments”.

This reinforces for me why the Government should not own commercially risky trading enterprises. If people want to fund “alternative developments” they should do so voluntarily as direct shareholders.

Stuff reports:

Stephanie Cook has announced she will not stand again for the Wellington City Council in October.

Cr Cook, a veteran of local politics, has represented the Lambton ward for 18 years.

She is retiring to run a bed and breakfast on a lifestyle block in the Tararua Ranges.

First elected in 1995, she holds the social affairs portfolio under Mayor Celia Wade-Brown.

Under Mayor Kerry Prendergast, she was one of the leading opponents of the inner-city bypass project.

Aligned with the left of city politics, she was a member of the Greens until 1999 and then stood as a councillor for the Alliance.

Stephanie’s retirement opens up god good opportunities in Lambton Ward for aspiring Councillors. It is very difficult to beat incumbents as name recognition is very influential on voting behaviours – unless the incumbent is very unpopular. So having a retirement of an incumbent is the best opportunity for aspiring new Councilors.

The results of the Falkland Islands referendum are just in. The question was:

Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?

There are 1,672 adults eligible to vote. 1,517 votes were cast which is a 90.73% turnout.

There was one invalid vote. Excluding that there were 1,513 yes votes and three no votes. That is a yes vote percentage of 99.80%.

The Argentinian claim to the islands is flimsy – their period of sovereignty was a total of two months – from December 1832 to January 1833. It is also worth noting that on three occasions the UK offered to take the dispute to mediation with the International Court of Justice. Argentina has declined every time.

The right to self-determination is the key issue for me. The residents are mainly descended from families who have lived there since the 1830s. This is their home, and their only home.  Their wishes must remain paramount.

Bernard Orsman at NZ Herald reports:

Brown claimed space for 15,000 homes but now concedes just 2000 sites ready.

Auckland has 2000 new sections ready to build houses on, says Mayor Len Brown, who last month claimed there was enough land for 15,000 homes.

As debate grows about housing and land supply in Auckland, Mr Brown is no longer claiming the city has enough new land to build 15,000 houses “right now”.

Instead, he is saying there is capacity for 15,000 homes on ready-to-go greenfield land in areas such as Flat Bush, Takanini and Hobsonville, but only 2000 sections have reached the building stage.

That’s a big reduction, in fact an 87% reduction.

Councillor Dick Quax said Mr Brown had proclaimed to all who would listen that Auckland had 15,000 sections ready for houses to be built on “right now”.

“The mayor is now having a big helping of humble pie as he acknowledges that there are just 2000 sections ready for construction to begin.

“What this means is Auckland runs out of land to build on in May,” Mr Quax said.

The latest admission, he said, showed just how dire the land supply was and an acknowledgement the council had got it seriously wrong.

They have.

Auckland has a higher urban density than every major city in Australia. Moving the urban limit outwards is just common sense. Town planners don’t like it, because they want everyone to comply with their views on where people must live to make their job easier. But frankly I think the rights of home owners trump the rights of town planners.

The Auditor-General has reported their findings into the decision by Shane Jones to grant Bill Liu citizenship against official advice. This is a matter of discretion for the Minister so it never has been about whether the decision was legal.

Here are some extracts from the report:

Mr Barker acted properly in deciding that he could not make the citizenship decision for Mr Liu, but we do not consider it was wise for him to have signed the letter – at least in that form. We appreciate that the letter was one of many pieces of correspondence that a Minister has to deal with in the course of a busy week, and that it related to procedure rather than any substantive decision. Nonetheless, it created an impression that Mr Barker would be taking a personal interest in Mr Liu’s file. 

Mr Barker would have been better either to amend the letter to make clear that he would not be personally involved in the file or to arrange for someone else to sign the letter.

It is worth noting that signing a letter on an issue regarding someone you had a personal connection with, was sufficient grounds for Nick Smith to resign as a Minister. Of course Barker was defeated at the 2008 election.

Mr Jones had significant concerns about the advice he was given, but did not take steps to clarify that advice with other officials. He also knew that both the New Zealand Police and Immigration New Zealand were still actively investigating Mr Liu, but did not consult those agencies before making his decision. In keeping with his usual approach for ministerial decisions, he wanted to make a final decision.

A serious mistake.

He did not record the reasons for his decision, and Mr Liu’s advisers were notified of his decision before the Department was notifed.

That is appalling. Liu got told before the Department was even told! This shows he had special access.

This effectively deprived officials of an opportunity they might otherwise have had to correct the misunderstandings on which Mr Jones’ decision was based.

I still can’t believe he told Liu before he told his own department.

One recommendation is:

We recommend that the Department of Internal Affairs and the Minister record the reasons for any significant decisions they make on citizenship applications, particularly when the decision involves a departure from normal policy or procedure. 

Recording the reasons for decisions is important to ensure transparency. It also provides an important protection if  concerns are raised that the decision has been made for an improper purpose. 

This has always been my major criticism of Jones. If you are going to go against a recommendation, a semi-competent Minister should do a file note and state why.

Now Jones did produce a three page file note to the Auditor-General. But because it was not attached to the official files, and not recorded in any official way, it is impossible to know if the file note was written at the time, or written some time later after the story blew up. The fact that the DIA official involved states the file note is inaccurate in parts damages the credibility of this claimed file note. The whole purpose of a file note is to attach it to the file.

We recommend that a Minister considering making a citizenship decision against the advice of officials should explain their reasons, and give officials the opportunity to respond, before finalising the decision. 

Although ultimately the decision is for the Minister to make, this additional step would give officials the opportunity to confirm that the proposed decision is within the terms of the Citizenship Act 1977 and is not based on any misunderstanding of relevant policies or the facts.

And it goes without saying don’t tell the mate of your mate before you tell your own officials.

Some interesting stuff also on the Cunliffe decision:

The advice provided to Mr Cunliffe by officials, in particular the advice provided by the senior legal adviser in August 2007, conveyed, in reasonably strong terms, that it was open for the Minister to revoke Mr Liu’s residency. We were told that Immigration does not usually provide advice that strongly advocates that the Minister should make a particular decision. The strongly worded advice on this occasion was not common.

In other words, it was not a marginal call in the eyes of the Department.

In our view, this decision was made in an appropriate way. It represented a sensible way in which the difficult decisions arising from unproven allegations could be addressed. The reasons for the Minister’s decision were made clear, and were formally recorded on the file in the way that was understood. 

Also, although the Department’s effective recommendation was not being followed, the decision-making process shows that Mr Cunliffe addressed the issues with considerable thought and care. There was no evidence of favouritism or that the Minister made the decision for improper reasons.

And this is the key difference between Cunliffe and Jones. Cunliffe documented his decision. This sounds a minor thing, but as the AG says is very important. When there is no reason given, and the person is a donor to your political party, then how can we know it was not because Dover told his mate Shane that this guy was a donor and they should look after him?

The detailed conclusions around the decision are:

We acknowledge that Mr Jones gave considerable thought to Mr Liu’s application, and that, in his view, it was important to make a decision reasonably promptly. 

However, in our view, he made his decision too hastily and without ensuring that he had a full understanding of all the relevant information. In particular, Mr Jones either did not understand or did not accept the Department’s advice that neither section 8 nor section 9 of the Citizenship Act were applicable.

A Minister who made decisions based either on ignorance or refusal to listen.

In our view, given that he knew there were ongoing investigations by Immigration and the New Zealand Police, he should also have consulted them before making his decision, as the Investigator’s note of the first meeting suggested he was intending to do.

Absolutely.

We also consider that Mr Jones should have recorded his reasons for authorising the grant of citizenship. He was making a decision against the Department’s recommendation, and the basis for his decision and reasons for departing from normal policy would not have been obvious from the papers. Indeed, on the face of the decision-making papers, it was not even clear under which section of the Citizenship Act he had authorised the grant.

Shane Jones is incredibly talented, but also notoriously lazy and sloppy. He has the potential to make a significant contribution to NZ Politics, and may get that opportunity to do so again as a frontbencher for Labour. But to succeed, he is going to have to make sure there is never a repeat of a situation like this.

A guest post by Tom Haig of the PPTA on the issue of whether charter schools should be covered by the Official Information Act:

Funny how history turns out eh? Back in 1977 a young Labour MP took on Muldoon, promoting a ‘Freedom of Information Bill’ to challenge the principle of the ‘Official Secrets Act’ which meant that, unless otherwise specified, all state information was kept secret. That Labour MP was Richard Prebble, and in 1982, following his first attempt five years before, the Official Information Act overturned the Official Secrets Act. Fast-forward 36 years, and Prebble’s parliamentary heir is hastily scrabbling for reasons why the OIA should be undermined to promote the politically expedient project of charter schools. 

One of the aspects of the Bill introducing charter schools that attracted a lot of attention at Select Committee was section 158X which would grant them exemption from the Official Information Act and Ombudsman Act. Three justifications are put forward for this, and I don’t believe the Richard Prebble of 1977 would have had a bar of any of them.

The first reason, advanced in the Cabinet papers describing the establishment of charter schools is to ‘avoid vexatious and costly complaints’. This is a terrible argument. Firstly on the practical side – yes, addressing OIA requests can take time and effort, but organisations are allowed to bill for their reasonable costs. Secondly, if this is allowed to stand, shouldn’t every government department mired in scandal be allowed to opt out for just this reason? Finally, charter schools would be within their rights to refuse to answer frivolous or vexatious requests, and if the Ombudsman agreed it was a worthless request then they’d be able to throw it out.

The second justification is that exemption is consistent with the status of the sponsor as a community organisation. This is problematic, as it’s about the type of organisation providing the service, rather than what the service is. By extension, this could mean that if the government was to contract out all variety of services to community or private organisations the extension of OIA coverage would shrink. Locking up core state services in contractual agreements with private providers is risky for numerous reasons; this is certainly one of them.

The third justification is that charter schools are analogous to early childhood or private training providers, which are not subject to these acts. However, there’s a glaring difference between these sort of providers and schools – and that is the aspect of compulsion.  As a ‘classic liberal’ party, Act should be well aware of this distinction – protecting citizens from the power of the state is after all one of their main concerns. Students have to go to school, while going to early childhood education or tertiary is a choice, and as such the role of consumer is quite different from that of a child at school.

So what would it mean for students and families at charter schools if they’re not covered? For one thing, the OIA and Ombudsman Act provide important protection in regards to decisions made about them, by giving them access to the reasons for those decisions, which the Privacy Act does not. Similarly, students and their families, or teachers at the school, or the wider public, will have no automatic right of access to the school’s policies, which could lead to decisions made by school managers seeming arbitrary and unfair.

This issue of making school policies public had some coverage recently following cases of schools not allowing students to take same-sex partners to their balls. In 2011 Blogger Matthew Taylor wrote to secondary schools around the country asking for their policies on this, a request which threw a number of school principals into a fluster.  As they do in such situations, some brought this concern to the PPTA, and we advised them that they should give the information – it’s a perfectly reasonable request and there’s no good reason not to make it public.

I’ll finish with a quote from the Ombudsman’s submission to the Select Committee:

“Clause 158X of the Education Bill runs the risk of creating a state funded schooling regime which is shrouded in secrecy and is unaccountable. This is likely to hamper the ability of partnership schools to achieve their central goal of achieving better outcomes for students. Applying the Official Information Act and Ombudsmen Act to partnership schools will assist partnership schools in exercising their statutory functions, enhance transparency and accountability, bring New Zealand into line with international models and avoid the constitutional anomaly inherent in the current Bill.”

Removing this clause won’t make me support charter schools. But if they’re going to exist there’s no good reason that they should be shrouded in secrecy. And if the more ideologically consistent members of the Act party were to search their scruples carefully, I suspect that they would agree.

Personally I’m not convinced by the arguments for charter schools to be excluded from the Official Information Act and Ombudsmen Act, and think that as they are primarily taxpayer funded they should be included in both Acts. I hope the select committee recommends changes to that effect.

Stuff reports:

One of the men accused of raping a 23-year-old woman on a Delhi bus found dead in jail. …

The alleged ringleader in a gang rape and murder case that sparked outrage across India, Singh was found dead in his prison cell on Monday, once again putting the New Delhi slum he used to call home in an unwanted spotlight.

This is a pity. I think more good would have been done by having him stand trial, and the country and the world hearing what happened.

Authorities in New Delhi’s Tihar jail said Singh hanged himself before dawn. His father rejected that explanation, saying he believed his son was murdered.

“He confessed about his mistake, then why would he commit suicide? He was prepared for any punishment the government would have given him,” Mange Lal Singh told reporters in his home in the slum.

His mistake???

I think we are starting to see how attitudes can be passed on from one generation to the next.

Legal experts said Singh’s death does not undermine the prosecution’s case against the other accused, which was largely based on DNA evidence and the testimony of the rape victim before she died and her friend.

Good.

Andrea Vance reports at Stuff:

The Government has rescinded its threat to veto the Mondayisation bill, which seems set to pass tonight.

That would be most surprising as members’ bills are only debated on every second Wednesday and today is Tuesday,

The private members bill, introduced by Labour MP David Clark, is up for a crucial second reading and looks to have the numbers. It would give Kiwis a Monday off when Waitangi Day and Anzac Day fall on a weekend.

National had rejected the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day) Amendment Bill. Last year Finance Minister Bill English said the Government would use a financial veto to oppose it.

However, speaking from Brazil this morning, Prime Minister John Key said it had now decided not to exercise that power.

The “lineball call” decision was made at a caucus meeting three weeks ago.

That is the right decision. The financial veto should only be used on bills which have a fairly significant financial impact such as the paid parental leave bill. But the impact on the Crown finances of four extra days off every seven years is minimal. Arguably in fact there is no financial impact – just a small drop in work productivity.

Key conceded the cost would largely be borne by the private sector and wasn’t a “huge” bill for the Government.

“It’s a hard cost to quantify because there is a whole lot of factors you have to take into account…we pretty much reserve the veto for government expenditure.”

Most private sector employers aren’t really too worried by this bill either. We budget for employees to have 11 public holidays a year. The fact that some years they only get 9 or 10 isn’t something that employers get excited over.

We Mondayise pretty much all other holidays, so including Waitangi and ANZAC Days just means w are being consistent.