Houston, we have a winner.

Case Number: 2291 ALLAN GOLDEN AGAINST THE DOMINION POST

Background 
The column published on September 1, 2012 discussed the impact of US astronaut Neil Armstrong’s moon landing and compared his achievements to those of cyclist Lance Armstrong, who had been stripped of his awards that same week because of drug cheating. 

Complaint 
Mr Golden said the column was untrue because the moon landings did not happen and it was improper for The Dominion Post to suggest otherwise. He claimed that the columnist and The Dominion Post editor knew the moon landings were a fiction and they were propagating “false propaganda”. 

He said the column breached six Press Council principles, including accuracy, fairness and balance. He also cited principles covering children, discrimination, subterfuge, conflicts of interest and corrections.

Oh dear God. This complaint must have had the Press Council and the Dom Post staff in hysterics. Sadly they have to treat it is as a valid complaint. I’d be tempted to just ask the complainant for proof the moon landings were faked, but I suspect he would have then never stopped corresponding.

It is widely accepted that Neil Armstrong did land on the moon and The Dominion Post’s column is reflecting many reports over many years that have assumed the moon landings to be fact. Mr Golden believes the reports to be propaganda and The Dominion Post a willing vehicle for that propaganda. 

The difficulty for the Press Council is Mr Golden has not supplied any evidence to convince it that the moon landings did not happen – except his own opinion.

I don’t think the fact of the moon landings really is an assumption.

Press Council members considering this complaint were Barry Paterson, Tim Beaglehole, Pip Bruce Ferguson, Kate Coughlan, Chris Darlow, Sandy Gill, Penny Harding, Keith Lees, John Roughan and Stephen Stewart.

That’s five minutes of their lives they’ll never get back.

Mr Allan Golden appears to be a serial complainer. I’ve found three other Press Council complaints and a BSA complaint. The BSA complaint was about a TVNZ news item that referred to the price of gold in US dollars rather than NZ dollars! Another BSA complaint from him is here. Of and a Press Council complaint here alleging a Fairfax conspiracy.

The Houston Chronicle reports:

Masked gunmen publicly shot dead six suspected collaborators with Israel in a large Gaza City intersection Tuesday, witnesses said. An Associated Press reporter saw a mob surrounding five of the bloodied corpses shortly after the killing.

Some in the crowd stomped and spit on the bodies. A sixth corpse was tied to a motorcycle and dragged through the streets as people screamed, “Spy! Spy!”

No doubt the evidence was carefully considered in a fair trial.

Witnesses said a van stopped in the intersection, and four masked men pushed the six suspected informers out of the vehicle. Salim Mahmoud, 18, said the gunmen ordered the six to lie face down in the street and then shot them dead. Another witness, 13-year-old Mokhmen al-Gazhali, said the informers were killed one by one, as he mimicked the sound of gunfire.

They said only a few people were in the street at first — most Gazans have been staying indoors because of the Israeli airstrikes — but the crowd quickly grew after the killings. Eventually several hundred men pushed and shoved to get a close look at the bodies, lying in a jumble on the ground. One man spit at the corpses, another kicked the head of one of the dead men.

“They should have been killed in a more brutal fashion so others don’t even think about working with the occupation (Israel),” said one of the bystanders, 24-year-old Ashraf Maher.

One body was then tied by a cable to the back of a motorcycle and dragged through the streets. A number of gunmen on motorcycles rode along as the body was pulled past a house of mourning for victims of an Israeli airstrike.

Funnily enough, Hamas brutally murdering Palestinians gets far fewer headlines, than Israel missile strikes killing Palestinians.

UPDATE1: A Hamas official has criticised the killings, or at least criticised “The way these collaborators were killed and the images after their death …”. 

UPDATE2: Egypt has announced a truce between Israel and Hamas. This is a good thing. Now if Hamas could just drop their objective of destroying Israel, then a durable peace for land settlement could be contemplated.

The Dom Post reports:

Motorists may still have to pay a toll to use Transmission Gully.

Excellent. Those who use roads should pay for them.

The New Zealand Transport Agency was granted permission yesterday to pursue a public-private partnership for the $1.3 billion 27-kilometre, four-lane road planned between Linden and McKays Crossing north of Wellington.

Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee says construction could start in 2014, a year earlier than expected, and be completed in 2020 if a private company built the highway.

A 2014 start would also be excellent. The Greens have made it pretty clear they want Transmission Gully scrapped, and Labour’s position on the road is unclear. If there is a change in Government in 2014, it is possible that we’ll never get Transmission Gully. But if actual construction starts in 2014, that maximises its chance of being completed.

Jane Clifton writes in the Listener:

Like a dozen plotters before him, David Cunliffe has today paid the price for believing, against all historical precedent, that he could mime his disloyalty, and not get into trouble because he didn’t actually utter the naughty words out loud.

For all that his supporters, inside and outside the caucus, are insisting that he did nothing wrong, he really and truly did the coupster’s equivalent of waving his knickers at disembarking sailors. He followed several of the bog-standard, by-the-numbers steps taught in Coups 101, to the point that he might have studied at the knee of Maurice Williamson, Brian Connell or Richard Prebble.

1. You make speeches with tacit but heavily coded inferences that if they made you the leader, you would introduce kick-butt policies that the incumbent is too gutless/politically unsound/incompetent to contemplate – carefully omitting specifics.

2. You tickle up edginess among the many anxious party supporters who are panicking at what they perceive is a lack of progress in the party’s profile and poll fortunes.

3. You agree to a live TV interview on the morning of the party’s annual conference debate about the rules for electing the leader at which you conspicuously avoid expressing support for the leader.

Jane is right that DC did play a bit too cute at times with his speeches and his failure to appear more supportive of Shearer. However as Jane notes, this demotion is different to other ones:

It was easy enough for past perpetrators of disloyalty like Chris Carter, Brian Connell and Maurice Williamson to be dogboxed. At the time of their treacherous outings, they weren’t particularly valuable contributors to the big picture – or even useful low-profile Cinderellas. But the backbenching of Cunliffe is a massive loss for Labour. …

Of course, the uncomfortable corollary to Shearer’s no-brainer decision to dogbox Cunliffe is that the wider party is by no means of the same mind as the caucus. The flavour of decision-making at the weekend’s conference made this very clear. This remains both a risk for Shearer and an opportunity for Cunliffe. A lot of the party activists have bought the line that Cunliffe is the party’s criminally unrecognised saviour, and what they will doubtless see as his crucifixion today will intensify Cunliffe’s support base.

I’ve been thinking about how this all came to unfold. The catalyst was Cunliffe’s lines at the Labour Party conference, and this got me thinking.

Why in God’s name hadn’t all Labour Party MPs been given clear talking points about what to say regarding the leadership, for the conference?

I mean, the main focus of the conference was about the rules for electing the leader.  Did no one think that a journalist or two might ask some questions about where MPs stand on the leadership? Did the fact several bloggers and commentators on the left called for Shearer to go not ring a bell in the Labour Leader’s office that maybe some journalists will ask questions?

It is an absolute failure of political management that someone very senior didn’t make sure that all Labour MPs had very clear instructions on what to say if the media ask them how they will vote in February. And most of all, an absolute failure that someone had not sat down with David Cunliffe and negotiated acceptable wording for him. Cunliffe may have been ambitious, but if some lines had been negotiated in advance I believe he would have kept to them. MPs know a failure to stick to an agreed position is political death.

Some may say that is being wise with hindsight. That’s nonsense. I’ve been a parliamentary staffer through several coups. I’ve seen press secretaries spend hours negotiating exact wording of positions with MPs so they can keep their future options open (No aspiring leader ever wants to give a Shermanesque denial that they will never ever stand for the leadership) but minimise any speculation that they are seeking it now. I saw this negotiated with Bill English when Jenny Shipley was leader. I also saw (more from a distance) the negotiations when Don Brash resigned involving Key, English and Brownlee. By being pro-active on it, it meant that leadership changes were relatively orderly.

Even the stupidest political staffer should have worked out that it would be a good idea to negotiate exact talking points with David Cunliffe (in fact the entire Labour caucus) before the conference. And even if the Chief of Staff somehow overlooks this most basic step, then surely the Deputy Leader (who used to be H3) or the Chief Whip (also an experienced former staffer) should have thought of this.

All they had to do was give to caucus a set of acceptable lines to be used in case people asked about the February vote. If they had, then this sacking may not have happened.

So it begs the question. Was the failure to do so incompetence or deliberate?

Stacey Kirk at Stuff reports:

Nowhere in the Gaza Strip is safe from Israel’s “terrifying” bombardment, a New Zealander living in Gaza City says.

Speaking via Skype while military drones could be heard hovering over her house, freelance journalist Julie Webb-Pullman said it was an “absolutely terrifying” place to be. …

She said yesterday a group of people were targeted by an Israeli drone which killed a nine-year-old girl and her brother.

“It’s a crime against humanity what’s occurring, kids are being targeted, [Sunday] alone 31 people were killed – 10 of those children, six were women and five were babies and toddlers,” she said.

“They are not military targets, they are civilians. Israel is committing war crimes plain and simple.”

Now I am not suggesting the views of Ms Webb-Pullman should not be reported, as she is able to report first hand.

But surely the media have an obligation not to present her as a disinterested freelance journalist!

She is a long-standing political activist for the communist regime in Cuba, the revolutionary leftist Zapatistas, and the Kia Ora Gaza and NZ Palestine Human Rights Campaign. She disputes that Israel even has a right to exist as a legitimate state, and people can judge this statement for themselves:

New Zealand’s Prime Minister might have his own personal reasons for choosing to forget such behaviour and welcome a Zionist embassy in New Zealand

This is short-hand for those Jews stick together.

Now again I am not in any way suggesting no one should be reporting what Webb-Pullman says. What I am saying is that merely describing her as a freelance journalist, and the implication of neutrality is grossly misleading and does readers a disservice.

All three major daily editorials say the early leadership vote was a mistake made under pressure.

The NZ Herald editorial yesterday:

… if he imagines the vote will see off a challenge from David Cunliffe he is already disappointed.

A more experienced leader would have dismissed any suggestion he should try to “call out” a challenge with an early vote. When a leader wins – as usually happens the first time – the question does not go away. It merely leaves the party divided and ensures the discontented faction will choose its moment to make another bid.

The Press today:

If David Shearer wishes to retain the leadership of the parliamentary Labour Party he should put aside any thoughts he may have for a surfing holiday this summer.

Yesterday, he obtained the support of the party caucus in a wholly unnecessary vote of confidence that he called. He also demoted his rival, David Cunliffe. His problem, however, is not his support in caucus but rather that in the wider party.

Since the weekend, Shearer’s supporters have been talking up his performance at the conference and it is true that the keynote speech Shearer gave on Sunday went down well amongst the faithful. But the bar had not been set very high. Preaching to a roomful of one’s most committed activists (and those who turn up for conferences are by definition the hard-core of the party) is not much of a test of a leader. Furthermore, no-one has ever doubted Shearer’s capacity to read a fully scripted, exhaustively rehearsed speech. It is his performance off the cuff that is the worry.

The performance at the post caucus press conference was not impressive and would have done little to reassure the doubters.

Because a leadership vote in February is mandatory, Shearer’s call for a vote of confidence yesterday was unnecessary. He was driven no doubt by the urge to be seen to do something. He also might have hoped he could put the question of a challenge behind him. Shearer, and his caucus supporters, want the matter over, but it is unlikely anything before February is going to end it.

There are 76 days to go before the real vote.

The Dominion Post editorial:

David Shearer has been reconfirmed as leader of the Labour Party. Given that even his caucus critics declared in advance their intention to vote for him that is hardly surprising.

However, far from being the resounding victory claimed by Mr Shearer’s cheerleaders, yesterday’s caucus vote served only to lay bare the deep divisions within the party. Those divisions are between the pragmatic, centrist MPs such as Phil Goff, Annette King and Trevor Mallard who have installed Mr Shearer as their standard bearer, and the wild-eyed idealists who forced a rule change through the party conference at the weekend enabling caucus malcontents to force a leadership vote in which party members and unions will have the final say.

It is more than about the leadership.

The reason Mr Shearer has not scrapped some of Labour’s sillier 2011 election promises is now apparent. Labour is in the midst of a power struggle between those who recognise that spending promises have to be paid for and those who do not understand that capital and skills are mobile. Increase taxes beyond a certain point and both will depart for greener pastures.

Neither yesterday’s vote nor the demotion of Mr Shearer’s putative challenger David Cunliffe to the backbenches resolves the question of Labour’s leadership. The real contest, if there is to be one, will come in February on ground not of Mr Shearer’s choosing.

Then, just 13 or 14 of Labour’s 34 MPs will be able to force a party-wide vote if they choose to.

If a party-wide vote is triggered, I don’t think Shearer would contest it. How could you? Imagine how hobbled you would be in the House having to take on the PM, while fighting for your political life. If a vote is triggered in February, then I’d say it would be Cunliffe vs Robertson.

The Hobbit haters are out in force, determined to smear Sir Peter Jackson and the film.

The Associated Press reported:

 Animal wranglers involved in the making of “The Hobbit” movie trilogy say the production company is responsible for the deaths of up to 27 animals, largely because they were kept at a farm filled with bluffs, sinkholes and other “death traps.” …

Sir Peter has responded on Facebook:

The Hobbit production has always instituted swift and immediate investigations in to any concerns of any kind over the treatment of animals under its care.  A prompt and thorough investigation into the recent unsubstantiated allegations by the American organisation, PETA, in to the ‘hobbling’ of a horse during the making of The Hobbit was undertaken.  No evidence of such a practice was found to have occurred at any time.  Further, the production contacted the owner of the horse concerned who provided the following statement:  “I am 100% happy with the return of Shanghai and his condition. In the term that he was leased he was picked up and returned to me two times. On both occasions there was not a mark on him and he was healthy and happy. He has shown no signs of ill-treatment. I would not hesitate in leasing him to the movie again.” 

 To date, the only horse wranglers whose treatment of animals fell below the production’s standard of care seem to be the two wranglers who have chosen to level this new  accusation on the eve of the premiere of the first Hobbit film and who were dismissed by the production over a year ago.  Reports of their actions are documented in several written statements dating back to October 2011.

Dr Julia Bryce, Vet:

“From December 2010 till July 2012, this practice was the primary Veterinary care giver for the horses and livestock in the care of “Three Foot Seven”.

During this period we were consulted promptly in cases of injury and illness. We were also consulted routinely about ongoing veterinary care and preventative medicine.

If referral was required to a specialist clinic or Massey Equine Clinic, this occurred promptly.  As occurs in normal practice there are incidences and injury which may result in an unfavourable outcome and others that recover completely; like the young goat who fractured a front leg but recovered completely after 6 weeks in a cast and hospital rest, or the rooster who spent two weeks at our clinic with a foot infection. 

These and other animals in the care of Three Foot Seven Limited received the best available treatment to ensure their recovery, their welfare and return to good health was paramount to those in charge.  At no time were we concerned about the welfare and on-going treatment of animals under our care.”

Joy Gray, farmer:

“I was appalled to hear of the wild claims being made in the media by PETA.  I and my family own the farm which the Hobbits used to train their animals.  Myself, my manager, my children and grand-children saw nothing to make us uncomfortable or give us cause for concern. We all had totally free access to all activities at all times. In fact, the animals were wonderfully looked after, being well-fed, well-housed, and well-treated. As both farmers and dedicated horse people ourselves we would have stood for nothing less. I myself ride horses, all my children rode competitively and now my grandchildren ride.

I was involved in Pony Club for many years and was District Commissioner for the Wellington Pony Club. My manager was totally aware of all that was happening with the Hobbits and he is outraged at these false claims.

And Jed Brophy who played Nori:

“As an actor and animal trainer who has worked on large scale productions here in New Zealand, in particular The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and more recently, The Hobbit, I am flabbergasted to read this morning of the accusations levelled at the production by PETA. With a production as large as The Hobbit, filmed over such an extensive period the care of the animals used in filming was exceptional. The entire time we were on set, and when we were training with the animal wranglers employed to look after and train the animals for filming, I observed no mistreatment – in fact the opposite is true.  …

I feel that there is a certain amount of personal vindictiveness levelled at the production from individuals with their own agenda.  As is often the case in these situations, organisations will leap at the chance to gain publicity for their cause without seeking the truth.  Being an experienced horseman and having worked as a wrangler and rider in the past, I would not have allowed myself to be a part of any production that knowingly employed unsafe practice in the workplace in this way. I can say with absolute certainty the production went out of their way to treat animals with the upmost respect and care.”

Basically it seems a couple of horses died after falling down a ledge. It’s sad, but it is a world away from mistreatment.

Photo from Geonet.

Enjoy – captions below. Normal rules.

Motella blogs:

Afternoon sunstar over Mitre Peak, with toi toi flowers in foreground. Milford Sound, Fiordland. New Zealand landscape photography by Sarah Sisson

Welcome to another Wednesday Wallpapering.

This week we are off to the comparatively incomparable Milford Sound.

This splendid image was made by my equally splendiferous wife Sarah and the experience was a memorable lesson in the meteorological impact of large slabs of granite.  Before we entered the Homer tunnel on the Te Anau side, we were considering ‘chaining up’ as  snow was settling rapidly on the road – we popped out of the tunnel on the Milford side to be greeted by this pristine day, it was an other-worldly experience.  This image features as February’s pinup in our 2013 Calendar.

Free Wallpaper Download

You may download the large version of today’s image from this link:  Password = freewallpaper

Of course it is also available as a not so free print on our website.

See you next week!

Cheers – Todd

[www.sisson.co.nz] [blog]

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Shearer is refusing to rule out sanctions against David Cunliffe’s supporters, after winning unanimous backing at a crisis caucus meeting. …

Mr Shearer said he had no plans to demote any of Mr Cunliffe’s backers, thought to number fewer than 10 by yesterday.

“I want to sit down with them and see where they are going in the future. I have no plans at the moment, but that will be done in my own time if that was to come.”

Party sources expected a reshuffle to be announced before Parliament resumed on Tuesday.

It is understood Mr Shearer is balancing the need to further stamp his authority with the requirement to reunify his caucus.

The reshuffle is going to be a challenging test for Shearer – in some ways more challenging that Cunliffe’s demotion.

Numerous commentators and editorials have pointed out that Labour as a whole has not been greatly effective. The recent front bench ratings by the Herald showed that. At a minimum two of his front benchers are not performing anywhere near well enough to justify staying on there.

But if Shearer actually does a reshuffle based on merit and ability, then he will increase the number of disaffected MPs in caucus. And just a couple of MPs may be needed to make the vote in February 2013 a toss-up.

Hence my conclusion is Shearer will not rock the status quo very much. He’ll do a couple of promotions based on the sacking of Cunliffe, but will in the main leave non-performers alone.

Also this article by Tracy Watkins is revealing;

What would it take to quieten Camp Cunliffe after Labour’s pro forma backing of David Shearer? An olive branch, and preferably with the heads of Trevor Mallard, Annette King and Phil Goff skewered on it. …

Mr Shearer was perceived as having been anointed by the ABC – Anyone But Cunliffe – club, whose key members included Mr Mallard, Ms King and Mr Goff. …

Those three are seen very much as the controlling bloc in caucus, backed by their former staff members – Robertson, Ardern and Hipkins.

If this is Shearer’s last reshuffle, then keeping them on will be signalling that they all plan to stand again and will be senior Ministers in a future 6th Labour Government, just as they were in the 5th and even the 4th!

From coNZervative.

Matthew Backhouse at NZ Herald reports:

Air NZ customers will also be able to book preferred seats, for a cost, allowing them to choose seats with good locations, extra leg room or more personal space.

Ms Hosking said 70 per cent of customers could already select their seats for free, and the new service would allow the rest to pay to select a seat in advance.

The Air NZ website has details.

If you are flying domestically then it costs $5 to select a seat, or $10 to get a superior seat. Not clear what a superior seat is.

International flights to Australia or the Pacific see the preferred seats increase to $20.

Long haul international flights will cost you nothing to select a standard seat, $30 for a preferred seat and $75 for an exit row seat.

From a market point of view, this makes sense. The exit row seats are highly valued, so people will pay more for them.

What I would like is to be able to pay to guarantee no one sits next to me on a long haul flight, so long as the flight is not full.

At the time of the leadership election in late 2011, a couple of people in Labour both said they hoped that the result of the election would see Cunliffe not just fail to gain the leadership, but also out of Parliament. Since then we saw the backbiting to Duncan Garner about him, and finally he has been been sacked from the shadow cabinet.

So the question is, is there a path back for him?

Let’s look very carefully at what David Shearer said:

“David Cunliffe is a talented MP and it is possible there is a road back for him. But I would like him to take the time to reflect on his ability to play a part in our team. 

The phrasing is significant, I believe. It does not refer to Cunliffe’s desire to be part of the team, but his ability. That clearly suggests that Shearer, and the old guard, do not believe he is capable of being a team player.

Hence my conclusion is that Cunliffe has no realistic chance of rehabilitation under the current leadership.

The comments by his supporters on his Facebook page may not help his case. A few examples:

• Dont worry we want your actions in the future. Lets see where the polls take David Shearer for what he has done today.
• He will be the electorate MP for life but Shearer might try for a UN post after he loses the next election.
• Stick with it. If Shearer was an intelligent and competent leader he would not have reacted in the manner that he has.
• I told you, your time was 12 months prior to the last election to make your move. You needed to do it then. Because this has played out in the media it is unhelpful and it maybe too hard to recover. I agree that you are the better choice. I wish you the best of luck.
• Alas but jealousy has no cure my good friend. You are smarter, brighter, more popular and are by far more suited to both the leadership position and the front bench. Labour’s problem is that it lets a bunch of insecure, out of touch, incompetent puppets run itself, thus not realising what’s good for it even when told by the grass roots. Shearer is an embarrassment and each time he is heard or seen I cringe. How the freak is he expected to lead us to a 2014 victory?
• Helen was a good public speaker. She was a dominant and capable figure. She listened to the electorate, the public and so on. Ratings aside, does Shearer have any of that? I think not.
• Labour just lost their best bet for a win at the next election
• it seems that Labour still has to learn that this whole loyalty and ambition thing runs both ways. the naked ambition and disloyalty by the ABC crowd to keep their own jobs, while not doing them, must have blinded them to the reality that only they seem unable to see.
• Labour has now degenerated itself as a gaggle of gays, lesbians and unionists. They appear to be in self-destructive mode.
• I can’t see Party supporters raising funds for Shearer. Costs a lot to run an election, to spread the word and to get people to transport voters to the polling booths.
• The Labour caucus for the most part are a bunch of muppets. Shearer looks pathetic & weaker than ever now.
• Patience is a virtue David, bide your time, DS will never be PM
• While I thought Shearer was going to be the better option a year ago, I’ve lost all sympathy for him following his beneficiary-bashing speech
• The entire caucus is then a bunch of sheep out of touch with what NZ needs, David Shearer will never be Prime Minister because he is not the right leader for NEW ZEALAND.
• I have been a Labour Party member since 1984, I have not paid my membership this year, mostly because I don’t quite like where the leadership of the Labour Party is going.
• A demotion to the backbenches??…..that’s got to be coming from a pretty spiteful, insecure place Mr Shearer!
• As I see it, if we want a democratic, left-wing, Labour Party to fight for the future of New Zealand, then between now and February, those members who care need to make sure that the decision in Febuary is the right one.

These are all comments on the Facebook page of the Labour MP for New Lynn. The comments at The Standard are even more heated. Some highlights:

• Having voted Labour for my whole adult life I have just moved my support to the Greens.
• On TVOne just now Shearer came across as the sort of bully who terrorises his family in the home but is all smiles and nice guy on the outside. Acts tough with his kids (caucus) but is an utter wimp with powerful adults. I’ve voted Labour all my life. No more.
• Shearer has just made a mortal enemy of many of the members and supporters.
• Shearer’s arrogance takes one’s breath away. I voted Labour for well over 50 years. Never again! I am now with the Greens all the way.
• So much for unity the Dunedin youth chairman has quit the party and more have told me they will follow.
• It’s absolutely imperative that people thinking of leaving remain in Labour, and support Cunliffe for February, as well as working on any waivering support. Otherwise Labour will wither and die, under the current strategy and leadership.
• Shearer looks like exactly what he is, a puppet that is being manipulated by Mallard and the media. The sooner he is gone along with Mallard and co the better!

The activists seem split between two strategies. Half say they are quitting Labour, and half are saying they want to rejoin to vote against Shearer next year if they get the chance.

UPDATE: As expected David Cunliffe has been sacked from the shadow cabinet, being removed from the front bench and his portfolios. David Shearer was unanimously backed in caucus and optimistically claims Labour is now totally united behind him. Never mind so many of his colleagues are keeping their position reserved for the real vote in February.

In tribute to the wonderful pre-election Cats that look like David Cunliffe page, here is the updated cat that looks like David Cunliffe following today’s caucus meeting.

We also have these photos taken just before the caucus meeting.

And the final photo was taken during the caucus meeting!

David Fisher at NZ Herald reports:

The security review into problems at the public computer kiosks run by the Social Development ministry raised identical problems to those exposed by a blogger 18 months later.

Keith Ng’s discovery of private information sitting on publicly-accessible hard drives was an almost exact match for the April 2011 report by a security company hired to find problems.

The security-assessment.com report found the connection between the corporate computers and public kiosks – planned for MSD offices across the country – was dangerous.

“This lack of separation means that the kiosk terminal has the same level of authority and access as corporate MSD employees.”

It went on to say it created an “inherent level of risk as it could allow for a member of public to gain access to MSD network resources and services”. …

The type of information at risk was also revealed in the April 2011 security report. It raised concerns about medical information, drug testing results and recorded calls to MSD’s helpdesk as being openly available.

It recommended taking “urgent” action to restrict access.

“A malicious user with access to the operating system of the kiosk is able to gain access to sensitive information kept with the MSD network including medical and drug test results,” it stated.

The review into the problem, released three weeks ago, showed senior managers were not told about the problem.

The April 2011 report was ignored until Mr Ng revealed the holes in MSD’s system.

The staff who were aware of this report and did nothing, clearly must be goneburger – subject to natural justice.

But that does not mean more senior managers are exempt. They may not have known of the recommendations in the report, but were they aware of the fact a report was commissioned? Or were they totally in the dark as to the fact there had even been an issue with the kiosks?

And even if they were totally in the dark, then the question for the senior managers is whether they had a risk reporting framework in place, which required risks such as those identified in the security report to be recorded in a risk register which is reviewed by senior management. If they did not have a comprehensive risk reporting framework in place, then they should consider their own positions.

It is possible that MSD did have a comprehensive risk reporting and mitigation framework in place, and the four staff involved just ignored it. If that is the case, then liability may stop with those staff directly involved. We won’t know until the disciplinary processes are concluded and the full report on what nothing happened is released.

Vyonne Tahana at NZ Herald reports:

What a teachers’ union knew about paedophile James Parker in 1999 is being investigated, as is an email that is critical of the woman who raised the issue. …

“The NZEI field officer received all her news from Jamie and from Jamie supporters,” Ms Lovatt Davis said.

“The report from his girlfriend was not an allegation of sexual abuse. It was a story she told that seemed to need an investigation and a reminder to Jamie to guard his professionalism. I believe he used our discipline meeting [with the NZEI field officer] to accuse me of taking an embittered girlfriend’s vicious story too seriously. Once they had reunited, she saw no need to pursue the story.

“I would suggest that NZEI field officers are not drawn directly from the wider community. The field officer should be an impartial person, free from the town gossip. In Kaitaia the gossip ran against me and pro Jamie. She bought it all and dressed me down in that meeting. Both of them did. It was very unpleasant.”

Yesterday a spokeswoman for the NZEI said an investigation was under way. Asked whether it would look at what the union knew about the allegation surrounding Parker in 1999, she said: “NZEI is conducting an internal investigation into the comments made by Ms Lovatt Davis.”

Not sure how rigorous their investigation will be, considering the comments made by their legal services director:

It is also conducting a separate investigation after the union’s legal services director, John Robson, accidentally emailed the Herald about who Ms Lovatt Davis might have dealt with.

“Field officers don’t have schools so it may be that Ms L-D was in fact not referring to an NZEI staffer, and maybe a principal with some kind of profile as an NZEI activist. I’ll keep you posted.” Regarding Ms Lovatt Davis, he also said: “She was the bane of [lawyer] david [sic] Martin’s life and in our joint view, one or two sandwiches short of the proverbial.”

In response Ms Lovatt Davis said: “If their chat is about me you can see how easy it is for a paedophile to present himself as having the full complement of sandwiches for the proverbial. They can enjoy the knowledge that together they chose not to believe a creative teacher and to favour a child molester. So even now NZEI fails.”

So Lovatt Davis was one of the few to raise concerns about Parker being a pedophile, and the NZEI response is to denigrate her as being “one or two sandwiches short of the proverbial”.

Nice to see they take this issue so seriously.

Simon Collins in NZ Herald reports:

Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce told a Herald series on job/skill mismatches, which began yesterday, that he would direct the university to take more engineering and science students if it did not do so voluntarily in response to funding changes.

This year’s Budget lifted funding for engineering by $42 million, or 8.8 per cent, and for science by $17 million (2 per cent), while funding for all other subjects was frozen.

But Auckland vice-chancellor Stuart McCutcheon told the Herald that the increases were paid as a bulk fund and the university did not have to put it all into engineering and science.

Ummm. Do I have this right? The Government gives Auckland University some extra money for engineering and science (because we have skill shortages in those areas) and the university thinks it can just take the money, and spend it on the Arts Faculty???

A Pacific community leader has warned of a “Pasifika uprising” if the Government goes through with a threat to force Auckland University to take more engineering students, which may cause redundancies in other faculties.

Rev Uesifili UNasa, the university’s chaplain and head of Auckland Council’s Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel, said the move threatened Pacific participation in the university, which was concentrated in faculties such as arts and education.

“I’m very disturbed by the threat from minister Joyce. I can see a Pasifika uprising on this threat,” he said.

Wouldn’t the better thing be to encourage more Pacific students into science and egineering?

Another Pacific leader at the university, Dr Airini, head of the School of Critical Studies in Education, said more Pacific students needed to be recruited into engineering and science. “Mr Joyce is right. We do need to see that profile of Pasifika people in engineering. We also need to see that profile in education. It’s not an either/or, it’s a both/and,” she said.

“This is actually about New Zealand’s workforce development. We need to see a Pasifika presence in all of these areas because Pasifika are actually a big part of our younger population that will be essential for driving ahead NZ Inc’s future.”

A much more sensible view.

The Dom Post editorial:

Labour’s real problem is that it has failed to present itself as a credible government-in-waiting. That is partly due to the insistence among many grassroots members that it swing even further to the Left, instead of chasing the Centre voters who decide elections. As a result, Mr Shearer has been slow to jettison losing policies, such as last year’s promise to extend Working for Families tax credits to beneficiaries.

As long as policies like that remain on the table, Labour will continue to alienate too many voters. Infighting and disunity does nothing to help its cause.

Policies such as their Lotto housing policy don’t help their credibility much either.

Watch this video of Labour List MP Sue Moroney make it very clear that she is only voting for Shearer today, and will consult her members over who to vote for in February. She will not be alone. She refuses to ever say she will keep backing Shearer – just that she is always loyal the leader. That is code for “up until the point he or she goes”.

The video is front interest.co.nz.

Also watch this video of David Parker calling David Cunliffe’s actions at the conference “destructive”.

It is going to be a brutal caucus.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key will play ‘wing man’ to US president Barack Obama this morning, as the pair push for a Pacific trade pact to be completed. …

Obama will lead the TPP meeting this morning and then look to New Zealand to make an ”intervention,” Key explained.

“Our message [is] there’s a real opportunity to complete the Trans Pacific Partnership. It won’t happen without goodwill, give and take and shove from the leaders.

“This is our opportunity to get it over the line… there’s a lot to be gained.”

Sticking points include intellectual property rights and agriculture.

”It’s easy to identify the big issues…but then there is potentially a pathway through. I don;t think it has to become a lose lose situation. In the end New Zealand would never sign a deal unless it was in our best interests. We might have to give a little bit on one or two of those areas.”

I would love our exporters and especially our dairy sector to get US trade barriers lifted against them.

I don’t want NZ to agree to anything which changes our intellectual property laws – they already reflect a hard fought balance and compromise. I also want NZ to reject effective trade barriers such as bans on parallel  importing.

I understand to get a deal that compromise is needed. But that doesn’t mean any compromise is a good compromise. The Internet is hugely important to our future, as a geographically isolated nation. Agreeing to something which would introduce greater liability and uncertainty to Internet providers and publishers is not in our best interests.

The US needs the TPP to occur more than NZ does. It is of strategic importance to the US. With NZ, it is more a “very nice to have” in terms of trade access. We already have trade deals with China, Australia and many countries in Asia. Don’t get me wrong – I’d like a TPP which lowers trade barriers with the US, and other signatories. But I am skeptical of the US track record on meaningful concessions on trade barriers (The US-AU FTA was disappointingly weak) and a TPP along the lines of the US and Aus FTA would not be worth doing.

The Herald reports:

Trade Negotiations Minister Tim Groser, who is also in Cambodia, described the launch of the RCEP as “a wonderful symmetry between the two” for New Zealand.

While there was the chance of tension between the two deals, it had not been set up like that, he said.

“Our policy is we will dance with anybody provided they are prepared to engage in a high-quality FTA.

“It’s not like a cunning ploy but you can see quite clearly the possibility of creative tension.

“If RCEP just goes round in circles and TPP goes forward, it will put pressure on RCEP – equally the other way round.”

I like the way Groser thinks. While the timing is not deliberate, we can use the RCEP negotiations to put pressure on the US to be more flexible on the IP chapter of TPP. All NZ has to do is stay firm on its current negotiating position, while the US sees RCEP making progress. I’m confident they’ll then see the merits of a less dogmatic IP chapter and then we get a high quality TPP – a win win.