Fairfax asked me a couple of weeks ago for some views on the year ahead. I didn’t quite realise that it would be presented in such an immodest way, but anyway their summary of what I said is:

Well John Key managed to surprise me and most other people, and has done a quite significant reshuffle, with a substantial rejuvenation of the Ministry.

Those leaving the Ministry are:

• David Carter to become Speaker
• Kate Wilkinson
• Phil Heatley

Kate and Phil have performed well in their portfolios, and their departures are not sackings. It is simply the reality I talked about this morning that you need rejuvenation.

Promoted direct into Cabinet is Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye who has become Minister of Food Safety, Civil Defence and Youth Affairs and Associate Minister of Education and Immigration. She will be the youngest female Minister in National’s history.

Senior Whip Michael Woodhouse becomes a Minister outside Cabinet as Minister of Immigration, Veterans’ Affairs and Associate Transport.

Simon Bridges moves into Cabinet from outside and gets more grunty portfolios of Labour and Energy.

Oh and as expected Nick Smith moves back into Cabinet as Housing and Conservation Minister. Paula Bennett is made Associate Housing.

Nathan Guy as expected gets Primary Industries and Jo Goodhew Associate.

Chris Tremain pciks up Local Government Minister.

And in a very good move Steven Joyce is put in charge of Novopay, and fixing the problems there.

The caucus will need to elect a new senior whip, but I can’t imagine any reason whu junior whip Louise Upston won’t succeed to that – so the focus is probably more on who from 2011 may step up to become junior whip.

I’m delighted that the PM has been bolder than expected, and effectively brought forward what I thought would be a year end reshuffle. And I’m looking forward to the new Ministers making a difference in their new portfolios.

Big thanks to Phil and Kate also for their service.

Amelia Wade at NZ Herald reports:

Top New Zealand economist Gareth Morgan is launching a campaign to eradicate domestic cats.

Dr Morgan has set up a website calledCats to Go, where he calls the animals sadists and natural-born killers that destroy native wildlife.

SPCA chief executive Bob Kerridge called the scheme “hare-brained” and offensive.

He understood Dr Morgan wanted people to stop buying new cats and to not replace pets when they die.

“People consider cats to be a member of the family. So he’s trying to, quite frankly, take away the civil liberties we all have to choose who we want in our home.”

What a fruitcake campaign. Absolute nuts. Why not also offer a toaster to every family who has one child only, as children are also bad for nature.

You should read the site – it is hilarious. Chapters include “Your domestic cat is not innocent” and he imagines a world without cats:

Imagine a New Zealand teeming with native wildlife, penguins on the beach, Kiwis roaming about in your garden.

Yes getting rid of cats will lead to kiwis in every garden, and penguins on every beach!

This is so nutty, I’d withdraw any funds I have in his KiwiSaver scheme, if I I had any there. I also like this FAQ:

So are you suggesting that I just go out and have my cat euthanised?

 Not necessarily but that is an option.

So Morgan isn’t saying you must exterminate your pussy – just that he would like you to.

Fairfax asked me late last year to look at my horoscope for 2012, and comment on if it came true. I regard astrology as being about as reliable as Winston Peters, so my comments were:

I thought my semi-neurotic workaholic mode was due to the fact I hate being bored. But it seems it was the retrograde influence of the transit of Mars. Personally I enjoy retrograde influences but am unsure whether Mars can explain the fact I have been neurotically workaholic for the last 23 years. If so, Mars has a lot to answer for.

I’m more happy with the fact that Neptune was responsible for me not settling for anything less than my true soul mate. Sadly, excess alcohol has proven this wrong on several occasions this year. I can’t say that I am convinced that Saturn was responsible for my relatively frugal 2012. I tend to blame the rather large mortgage I have with the BNZ.

I think I can honestly say I have not read a horoscope for a couple of decades!

Stuff reports:

Angela Buchanan made headlines in fall 2012 after admitting to concocting an elaborate scheme to coerce a female friend into having sex with and marrying her. Buchanan had recently discovered a pre-cancerous lump in her breast, and her close friend went online to figure out how to help her. In an online medical forum, the friend met a gynecologist named “Doc” who claimed to know Buchanan. “Doc” said that the best way to help Buchanan was for the victim to have sex with her, because “special hormones” produced during sexual activity could help treat breast cancer. The friend took Doc’s advice and slept with Buchanan.

Good God.

My expectations are that David Carter will be nominated and elected as Speaker, and that Nick Smith will be reappointed to Cabinet. This is not based on inside knowledge but the well telegraphed signals from the Government.

Apart from some minimal portfolio shuffling, I don’t expect too much else to change. That is because your major reshuffle doesn’t tend to happen just a year after an election. There are two sort of reshuffles – forced and voluntary.

A forced reshuffle occurs when you get a vacancy due to a Minister resigning. Normally it is due to a scandal (Dyson, Dalziel, Smith, Wong) or sometimes due to a good thing (becoming Speaker). The focus of the reshuffle is to replace the Minister and tweak things a bit.

A voluntary reshuffle is when the PM wants to significantly freshen the ministry, both in personnel and portfolios. This occurs after each election to some degree, but after your first term, will normally also occur mid-term.

It is difficult to win a third (let alone a fourth) term when your lineup looks much the same as what you won your first term on. Hence, even if there are no major performance issues, it is always important to bring in fresh blood so to speak.

The logical timing of any voluntary reshuffle is around the end of the second year or start of the third year of a term. This is when seat selections start to get underway so means that if the PM indicates to a Minister they won’t be in Cabinet if re-elected, the Minister can decide whether or not to retire from the House also, and not seek re-selection. They may go onto the backbench for their final year in the House.

So as I said my expectation is this reshuffle will be quite minor, and most likely just see Nick Smith replace David Carter. But I would expect that late 2013 or maybe very early 2014, to see a more significant reshuffle – with say three or four personnel changes.

A complicating factor could be if Tim Groser does win the WTO DG job. This will be known in May, and would mean another forced reshuffle. The PM would then have to decide whether to do just about minimal one, or bring forward a more major one.

Paul Harper at NZ Herald reports:

The man who murdered New Zealander Emily Longley has reportedly been beaten up in jail and had his cell torched, after he pinned up photos of his victim in his cell and bragged about receiving fan mail.

Good to see even prisoners have a sense of decency.

Elliot Turner, 20, was sentenced to life in prison with a 16-year non-parole period for strangling Emily Longley, 17, in Bournemouth, England, in 2011.

Doesn’t sound like he is very remorseful. I hope the UK Parole Board keep this in mind one day.

According to the Daily Star, Turner had plastered photos of Emily on the walls of his cell at HMP Swaleside in Kent. He also reportedly spoke about the day he would be released and return to his life of “champagne, Bentleys and birds”

If I recall his parents spoilt him rotten and even helped cover up his killing. I suspect they are the ones promising him how good life will be once he is out.

A source told the paper that Turner, the son of a millionaire jeweller, had bragged to fellow inmates about fan mail he had received from women before Christmas. It was after this he was attacked by some of the inmates.

The source accused Turner of reporting the attack to staff at the category B prison, which was followed with Turner’s cell being torched.

“Turner is a gobby little prick who has had it coming for some time,” the prison source told the paper.

A gobbly little prick. What a concise character description.

news.com.au reports:

Police launched an investigation into the group, who call themselves Muslim Patrol, after footage emerged showing the men in vigilante mode, the Daily Mail reports.

In one scene the men are heard calling white women ”naked animals with no self-respect”.

In another scene, the men snatch alcohol from people in the street saying it’s ”evil”.

The group has filmed its antics and uploaded videos on YouTube.

The most recent video was uploaded on Sunday.

Shot on a mobile phone, the latest footage shows a number of men shouting ”this is a Muslim area” towards white Britons.

Scotland Yard says it is investigating.

The Muslim Council of Britain has condemned the group.

It’s only a couple of idiots, but they do a lot of damage with such actions. I hope the Police catch and identify them. It would be wonderful if they do not have permanent residency ad can be deported. They should move to a country that does have sharia law, so they can be happy there.

The Israel Democracy Institute have developed an election compass where you can see which parties in Israel are closest to you, if you were an Israeli voter.

I ended up in the bottom left quadrant, fairly near Kadima overall but slightly to the left of Labor on the horizontal axis (peace, territories, security, religion) but slightly more centrist than Likud on the vertical axis (economy, welfare, human rights, law).

Hat Tip: Tim G

Graeme Edgeler blogs:

I read David Farrar’s post on the secrecy with which the New Zealand Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal conducts its hearings, and, like David, was disturbed with what I read in Kathryn Powley’s Herald on Sunday article. The Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal doesn’t just claim a power to suppress sensitive information, but rather has rules which automatically suppress all information, instead allowing people to seek official permission before publishing particular information.

David observed that “…the rule should be repealed or amended. If the Council won’t do so, then the enabling legislation should be amended.”

My first thought was to comment in agreement with his general observation: secrecy should not be the default position. My second, to point out that his proposed solution of amending the enabling legislation was excessive, when you could just ask Parliament to vote to disallow, or amend the rule – it’s the rule, not the primary legislation, that is the problem.

For some reason I thought the power of regulations review was about regulations made by Cabinet or core Government departments. But it seems not. So Graeme has taken action:

So instead of just writing a blog post, what follows below is a complaint I sent to Parliament’s Regulations Review Committee yesterday evening.

Any member of Parliament can move a motion to amend, or disallow a regulation, but the Regulations Review Committee is empowered to inquire into subordinate legislation, and a successful complaint to that Committee is a good way to get the rest of Parliament to take notice of your concerns. It operates on a more consensual basis than ordinary select committees, but the individual members of the Committee (currently three National and two Labour), have a special power that other members of Parliament don’t have. If one of them moves a motion of disallowance, the House has to vote on it, or the motion succeeds.

So if one or more members of that committee move to disallow the regulation, then it will be automatically disallowed unless the House schedules time to debate the motion.

It will be very interesting to see what happens. Will the Teachers Council amend their rule before the Regulations Review Committee considers the rule?

Matt McCarten writes:

Let’s face it, Coca-Cola markets sugar syrup mixed with water to teenagers, rotting their teeth, giving them spotty skin and making them fat.

This was the very point that the Coke CEO was making. Coke is responsible for 2% of the average person’s daily calorie intake yet are blamed for obesity.

On the fat issue, a Gallup poll found soda drinkers were not fatter than non soda drinkers.

Few pre-teens and teenagers can resist that siren call. It helps that once the sugar addiction kicks in, it can be as strong as tobacco dependency.

Liking something is not an addiction. I love it how it is never a person’s choice. It is always an addiction. One day we’ll read about clothing addictions, toy addictions, unning addictions etc.

A bottle of Coke a day will each month add more than a kilo of lard around a customer’s belly unless they can burn it off by putting in a run of 14 hours. No wonder obesity in our children is skyrocketing.

Let’s check that. It takes around 9,000 calories to put on a kg. Standard coke is 43 calories per 100 ml, so you need to drink 21 litres of coke a month or 700 mls a day.

But if you drink diet coke or coke zero, then you can drink lots more. It is 4 calories per litre, so if you drank a litre per day it would take over six years to put on a kilo of weight.

But regardless you tend to burn off 2,000 calories a day. What is important is your total calories consumed and exercised.  I’ve lost 21 kgs and I drink lots of diet coke or coke zero.

Milk is 600 calories per litre, or around 400 calories per 700 mls to compare it to Matt’s coke equation. Drink that much milk a day and you’ll put on even more weight than coke.

Blaming coke for obesity is like blaming “society” for child abuse. It ignores the role of the individual.

The Dominion Post editorial:

As Action on Smoking and Health spokesman Michael Colhoun noted, the ”scream test” is a good indication of how effective any initiative to reduce smoking rates might be. This holds that the louder the tobacco companies squeal, the greater chance of the measure having the desired result.

Actually that’s a stupid statement and a stupid test.

Let’s say the Govt passed a law saying that there will be a special company tax rate in NZ for tobacco companies – 95%. They would scream loudly about that, yet it would not reduce smoking by one person.

Why don’t we focus on effectiveness, not hatred.

New Zealand’s three main tobacco companies have also hinted at legal action to halt the move.

The Government should not be deterred by that threat.

Australia’s High Court last year rejected industry claims that the introduction of plain packets across the Tasman amounted to theft of intellectual property, the main argument used by tobacco companies.

There is still a WTO case on this issue, but I agree that legal issues should not be a major consideration (unless there is advise such a law would clearly breach treaties we have signed).

A report on plain packaging from Germany’s Berenberg Bank last year described it as ”the most material outstanding threat” to the tobacco industry and said that it was expected to have a big impact on preventing young people from taking up smoking.

A report from a bank?

I am skeptical that plain packaging will reduce smoking rates. If there is evidence that it would make a significant difference, then I think there is a case for it.

As I have said many times before, the Government should trial plain packaging. So there is a control to trial against, the best way to do this is a geographic trial where the same policies, laws and taxes apply in both areas – with the sole exception of plain packaging only applying in the trial region. The trial region could be as large as say the South Island.  Over say three years you’d compare the change in smoking rates in both areas.

If plain packaging was shown to be effective, then NZ would be lauded around the world for doing a proper trial, which produced conclusive proof that plain packaging was effective. It would be implemented in dozen of countries within years.

If the trial showed plain packaging did not affect the smoking rate, then NZ could focus on policies that are effective such as the excise tax.

Olivia Carville at The Press reports:

The Government should turn a blind eye to illegal migrants working in Christchurch’s rebuild because the city needs all hands on deck, former high-profile politician Don Brash says.

Brash, a past leader of both the National Party and ACT Party, believes officials should focus on rebuilding the city rather than hunting down unlawful workers.

“I want local and central government to show more urgency on the rebuild of Christchurch and if that means taking a lenient attitude toward people whose immigration status might not be up to scratch, in the peculiar situation which Christchurch faces, I would be all in favour of that,” he said.

I wouldn’t advocate employing people with no right to work in NZ, but what the Govt could do is allow those here illegally to gain a work visa if they are willing to work in Chch.

However, his controversial comments have been slammed by the city’s migrant agencies as “gutless”.

Patrick O’Connor, the co-director of Peeto, Christchurch’s Multicultural Learning Centre, labelled Brash’s suggestion as “anti-New Zealand”.

“It is totally hypocrisy coming from a man who was the head of ACT (which is an acronym for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers). If he is so mindful of protecting the rights of taxpayers in New Zealand, how can he turn around and advocate for illegal migrants who evade tax?” O’Connor asked.

I don’t think Don is saying they should be employed under the table, rather than they be allowed to work legally despite not being entitled to be in NZ.

Brash posted: “I have to say that I couldn’t give a damn about so-called illegal workers helping to rebuild Christchurch . . . If I had somebody helping to rebuild my home after almost two years of waiting for anything to be done, I wouldn’t care what their immigration status was.”

Brash, who now lives in Auckland, grew up in Christchurch and told The Press he was frustrated to hear his retired sister, who has been living in a caravan since the February 2011 earthquake, would not have her house repaired before Christmas.

“My feeling is, if this were war, everybody would be saying: ‘Look, we want all hands to the pump and if anybody is willing to work hard to help that’s fantastic.’

If we do not have enough people to fill up the jobs available, then we should make it easier for people to work here.

Note that there is a new feature which may be useful on threads with lots of comments.

At the bottom of each main post is text which says “You can skip to the end and leave a response”.

If you click on this it will take you to the bottom of the comments for that thread.

A commenter posted this to general debate, and I thought worth sharing wider. Incredible footage. Can’t totally blame the locals for putting the boot into the wannabe assassin. At least he didn’t get shot.

It seems he tried to fire twice and the gun jammed. Chilling.

Sorry – late posting today – Kokila

Kings of the Gym had its premiere at Circa last night. It was fabulous fun, with some stand out acting.

The play is set at decile 2 Hautapu High School, and pokes lots of fun at education bureaucracy, political correctness, Destiny Church and even Novopay gets the odd mention! The set was very authentic, with even the fluorescent tube lights in the office reminding you of your own school days.

Ginette McDonald plays Viv Cleaver, the school principal. The principal, referred to as Cleavage by the PE HOD Laurie, is a politically correct bureaucrat who is obsessed with improving the NCEA grades and making sure her friends in the education bureaucracy think highly of her. It is a tribute to McDonald’s skills that she doesn’t just make Cleaver a caricature – but actually turns a pretty unsympathetic character sympathetic.

McDonald has some comic gold lines, and is just superb.

Paul McLaughlin portrays his character perfectly.  Laurie drives Cleaver mad. He mocks the curriculum and files it in the bin. He states how the PE curriculum mentions well-being 73 times, and winning just once – to stress it is not important. His idea of a class is to play soccer. He’ll often delegate the ref to someone else so he can watch TV and bet on the TAB.

But Laurie is a likeable rogue, and his kids all love him. In fact one of them has become the 2nd teacher in the department, and has seemingly thrown away any ambition and his degree, to be a mini-Laurie. That is Pat, played by Richard Dey. The chemistry between Dey and McLaughlin helps make the play so excellent. The looks they give each other, the hassling, and especially Laurie’s expression when he finds out the girl Pat likes is already engaged. Many comic moments.

You never see the kids on the stage, but they are used to humanise the characters. Cleaver and Annie are horrified that the Vietnamese student is called “Chopsticks” by Laurie, despite he fact that is the name he prefers. He is so good at soccer he is told he must play left footed. Laurie also tells the kids they must have at least three girls on each team, otherwise the boys will win. Hilarious, harsh judgement calls.

But Dougal is the student you hear most about. If he scores a goal, it is worth five points as Dougal has Downs. At first you think such statements are so insensitive, but you later hear how he helps Laurie after school stack up the gym equipment (even though Laurie can do it quicker by himself) and realise behind the gruff, Laurie is hugely protective of Dougal.

Acushla-Tara Sutton plays Annie, the student teacher. At first she is just an over eager high achiever who insists on goals for every class. She is also a top sportswoman, and on the verge of making the Silver Ferns. But the real tensions comes when it emerges she is a born again Christian, and a member of Destiny Church (they don’t call it Destiny in the play – but it obviously is). The real tensions come when in biology class she refers to there being two schools of thought on where humans came from. She also sets up a church youth group, and has some of the students make purity pledges.

The play isn’t mocking of Christians, or the church. In fact she plays tribute to how they helped her, and the real message of the play is about tolerance.

There are some great one liners such as how pregnancy and STDs are the only two areas where the school over-achieves, and a line by the principal about how if one particular female student abstains for even a week, that will reduce the chlamydia rate. Many laughs through the whole play. The first half was a bit more tense at times, while the second half which had the big plot twist and the eventual happy ending had more of those laugh out loud moments – not the dignified giggles – but the forced laughter as it was so hilarious.

Kings of the Gym was a terrifically funny play which made for a great night’s entertainment. Dave Armstrong has produced a very New Zealand comedy that has near universal appeal.

Tony Wall at the SST reports:

The Jewish community has taken pity on one of the youths who desecrated graves at a cemetery in Auckland with Nazi symbols – causing worldwide outrage – and is even offering to pay his university tuition fees so he can turn his life around.

Robert Moulden, 19, pleaded guilty to a charge of intentional damage in the Auckland District Court last year and will be sentenced next month. His co-accused, Christian Landmark, 20, has pleaded not guilty and appears in court again on Tuesday.

More than a dozen headstones in the Jewish quarter of the Symonds St Cemetery were vandalised with images of swastikas and expletive-ridden anti-Israeli messages on October 19. It is proving incredibly difficult to remove paint from the porous headstones, which date back to the 19th century, and the repair job could cost as much as $50,000.

Moulden is a beneficiary, lives in a hostel in central Auckland, and says he has no family support. He has gone through a restorative justice programme with members of the Jewish community, has been taught about the Holocaust and has even gone to one member’s house for a Friday night Shabbat dinner.

The chairman of the Jewish Council of New Zealand, Geoff Levy, confirmed that during a restorative justice meeting offers were made to pay for Moulden to attend engineering courses at AUT University.

“When we asked him what he wanted to do with himself he expressed a desire to follow engineering if he could,” Levy said. “We’ve given this young man a chance to respond to the offers, and we’ve appointed someone to liaise with him to see whether he can be helped, or wants to be helped.

“He’s going to have to want to do something himself. If we can help him, we’re happy to do that. But it’s got to be consistent with realising the damage he’s done, paying the price that society demands of him and making sure it will not happen again.

“Hopefully we can provide him with support, mentoring and assistance in getting an education, so that he will be able to make the best decisions next time when faced with a choice.”

If this occurs, that is an excellent outcome.

Kirsty Johnston at Stuff reports:

Crime will rise if gay couples are allowed to marry, says the head of the country’s victim lobby group.

Sensible Sentencing Trust leader Garth McVicar has submitted to Parliament that changing the law to allow same-sex marriage will be yet another erosion of basic morals and values in society which have led to an escalation of child abuse, domestic violence, and an ever-increasing prison population.

Oh dear. Garth is quite entitled to his views on the issue, but linking same sex marriage to child abuse, domestic violence and increasing prison numbers is bizarre – to put it mildly.

People claimed the same thing in 1986 when homosexual law reform occurred. They were wrong. I predict that once same sex marriage is allowed, the only impact on society will be a few more couples will be married.

Kathryn Powley at HoS reports:

A physical education teacher at a Christian school has admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old student – one of 11 teachers found guilty of serious misconduct last year whose actions have been permanently suppressed.

The New Zealand Teachers Council has posted a warning advising the public and media it is illegal to publish details of disciplinary proceedings.

The warning is based on a little-known blanket suppression rule that has never been enforced, and is more draconian than the rules used by the criminal courts and most disciplinary bodies.

The Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal has suspended the PE teacher’s practising certificate for three years, and has ordered him to tell prospective employers of the offence if he returns to teaching.

However because of the new warning we can’t report his name. Nor can we report his school. Strictly speaking, the Herald on Sunday shouldn’t be reporting the misconduct and suspension at all.

Teachers Council (Conduct) Rule 32(1), set in place under statute in 2004, means nobody may publish any details of a tribunal decision. That means any reports you’ve read in newspapers or seen on television are against the law.

Media organisations were unaware of this rule until late last year, when the crystal-clear warning was posted on the tribunal’s website.

“No person or organisation may publish any report or account of a hearing, publish any part of any document, record, or other information produced at a hearing, and/or publish the name, or any particulars of the affairs, of any party or witness at a hearing.”

That means communities may not be told about the two teachers found guilty of physically abusing students last year, another one found to have sexually abused a vulnerable student, six teachers who were found guilty of theft or fraud, one who tried to get a gang member to “cap” her principal, not to mention the PE teacher in the inappropriate relationship.

Some of these teachers were struck from the teachers’ register last year, others were allowed to return to the classroom – but the community is barred from knowing about any of them.

Herald on Sunday editor Bryce Johns wrote this week to the tribunal’s chairperson, Alison McAlpine, urging that action be taken to amend this rule and others.

I agree, the rule should be repealed or amended. If the Council won’t do so, then the enabling legislation should be amended.

The tribunal’s rules mean all hearings are held in private and all parties are anonymised, unless the tribunal approves an application otherwise. Anybody may apply to the Disciplinary Tribunal for the PE teacher and his school to be named.

Lind said the reason for strict rules around publishing was because key witnesses were almost always children or young people who had been through a traumatic event. Anonymity was one way of assuring parents and innocent children they could come forward.

But Lind said he would support a change that allowed the council to impose suppression orders case by case, instead of details being suppressed automatically.

That is how it should be. Secrecy should not be the default.

Tomorrow Barack Obama gets sworn in for a second term as President of the United States.

43 men have served as President of the United States. Of the 43:

• Elected twice, served full terms – 12 (including Obama)
• Elected once, defeated – 8
• Elected once, died in office – 5
• Succeeded to office, retired – 4
• Elected once, retired – 4
• Succeeded to office, re-elected – 4
• Elected twice, died in office – 2
• Elected, defeated, elected – 1
• Elected four times, died in office – 1
• Elected twice, resigned – 1
• Succeeded to office, defeated – 1

Worth noting that many of those who retired after one term, wanted to stand again but failed to gain their party’s nomination. However some were genuine retirements.