The Manawatu Standard headline:

 Shearer worked while claiming sickness benefit

Alas about a shearer, not Shearer 🙂

The Social Service Providers Aotearoa Inc have got Treasury Secretary Gabriel Makhlouf speaking on Living Standards and Equity: Understanding the Issues and Debunking the Myths in Auckland on Thursday 22 November at midday.

He is speaking at the Waipuna Hotel, 58 Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington and attendance is free for SSPA members and a gold coin donation for anyone else.

If you want to attend, e-mail SSPA.

I’ve heard Gabriel speak before and he is an engaging and interesting speaker. The topic sounds interesting.

Richard Meros was the creative force behind – On the Conditions and Possibilities of Helen Clark Taking Me as Her Young Lover. I blogged in 2008:

When I first heard about this play, I thought I would rather play lawn bowls than go see it. But then just as the season in Wellington was ending, I started to hear good things about it. …

I was pissed off I missed seeing it. But then it opened in Auckland. So I extended one of my trips to Auckland to stay on for it. And it was fucking hilarious. Don’t be mistaken by the title into thinking you will not enjoy this is you are right of centre. There were National MPs in the audience laughing as hard as anyone.

So while past performance is not guarantee of future success, I have high expectations for his latest work – especially as Arthur Meek stars again. The video above gives you an idea of what it is about.

The play is on at Downstage from Thu 22 November to Sat 1 December. Downstage are offering a discount for Kiwiblog readers. If you book your tickets online, then use the discount code “Kiwiblog” and you get each ticket $5 cheaper. This means you can get adult tickets for some nights for only $35.

Jane Clifton writes at Stuff:

Nick Smith even detailed how he and Government colleagues had helped the “coupsters” find the plot meeting, as many had wandered round Bellamys lost. David Cunliffe had arrived looking like the Messiah in search of his apostles, so Dr Smith said he had given him directions to the private room. He had also assisted Jacinda Ardern.

“You grunted through a mouthful!” she contradicted him.

“You can’t even organise a proper coup without help from National MPs,” Dr Smith crowed.

Most helpful was “Nasty”, Mr Finlayson, who used his general debate speech to assist Labour MPs’ appreciation of their own history.

With several having attended a conference last weekend on the legacy of the late Labour prime minister Norman Kirk, he took the opportunity to correct the conference’s spelling of people’s names and several errors, and to remind them of some Kirk contemporaries whom they seemed to have “airbrushed out” of their retrospective, “including Roger Douglas, who was such a fine postmaster-general!”

The conference had been convened by the Fabian Society, which Mr Finlayson claimed was run by “a self-styled historian who runs a dairy in Mt Roskill”.

It had also been attended by Green MP Kennedy “I charge you with eco-cide!” Graham. “Lovely guy, just a shame he immatures with age,” Mr Finlayson sighed.

If they felt disrespected or patronised by Mr Finlayson’s comments, Opposition members had been reassured, during a question time exchange, about his motives. “I dwell in the land of high emotional intelligence!” he told Parliament with a theatrical flourish. “I speak from the heart.”

They probably dared not think what a Finlayson speech from the liver or spleen would be like.

The Finlayson speech is here. It’s wonderfully amusing.

Anna Leask at the Herald writes:

A week before JJ Lawrence was murdered, his aunt went to check on him because his father was concerned the tot was in danger.

She thought the 2-year-old was okay, never imagining that days later he would be killed by a man who had been subjecting him to months of abuse, including breaking his arm twice and forcing him to smoke dope.

Yesterday – exactly a year after James Joseph Ruhe Lawrence died from a blow to his tummy so hard that his pancreas and liver split in half – the man who had made his short life hell was found guilty of murder.

Joel Loffley began a relationship with JJ’s mother, Josephine Lawrence, last year. While in Loffley’s care JJ received two arm breaks – one left for days as Ms Lawrence was too drunk to seek help – and numerous other injuries.

Obviously the problem was the lack of a universal child benefit.

Loffley “played rough” with JJ and was seen making him smoke an asthma inhaler full of marijuana.

JJ was visibly terrified of Loffley, but could do nothing to escape.

One of far too many cases we have.

I will never understand such cruelty to children. I feel protective about kids and babies, that are not even related to me. So do 99% of us. It is the most natural thing in the world.

Keeping Stock blogs:

 When we blogged about the guilty verdict returned against Joel Loffley yesterday, regular commenter bsprout attempted to make a political statement saying this:

“It’s a pity that the government has only invested in the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff and have gutted all the initiatives that would stop these things happening in the first place”  

Looking beyond the fact that the measures proposed by Paula Bennett in her White Paper on Vulnerable Children (a far more wide-reaching solution than Labour, supported by the Greens managed in nine years) have yet to be fully implemented, we suggest that no political initiative could have prevented this. 

You can’t blame poverty either. As we recall, evidence was given at the trial that both Loffley and Ms Lawrence were receiving welfare benefits despite living together. Loffley supplemented his benefit by selling cannabis from the couple’s home. A lack of money did not cause JJ’s death. And bsprout should reflect on those ripping off the welfare system, especially those who think it is their “right” to do so. The money being paid out to welfare cheats would be far better spent elsewhere in the economy.

Their combined income was higher than many households. The problem was they spent it on cannabis and alcohol.

I hope it is a very long time until Loffley is out of prison.

Transtasman this week said:

Having demonstrated how not to have a leader of the opposition, the Labour Party is now demonstrating how not to have a coup to get rid of him. Watch and learn.

For the not having a leader of the opposition bit, the party has pretty much covered all the options this year, with only one exception: party leader David Shearer has never rounded on his party critics and told them to go and do something very difficult to themselves. His response has been more a hurt and injured look. This is novel, but it hasn’t worked. So now Labour, or some elements anyway, are endeavouring to get him to go quietly by using a Labour-aligned, anonymously written blog.

For those who have lives, it’s called The Standard, and it is written by Labour Party members who are also public servants, hence the anonymity. It’s mostly a poisonous waste of time, although if you want an insight into the thought processes of Labour-supporting public servants, it is quite an education.

All this meant was would be challengers David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson had to endorse their leader in public. It was a
highly qualified level of support.

Claiming they have “no immediate plans to challenge the leader” about as lukewarm as you can get.

I think some of the authors also work for unions!

Also worth listening to former Herald Editor Gavin Ellis on Radio NZ Nine to Noon. He says that The Standard authors were obviously used by factions in the Labour Party who want to see a change in the leadership.

And finally The Press editorial:

The loudest muttering against Shearer is being led by bloggers and columnists from the liberal Left. For the moment the caucus appears loyal, all possible contenders insisting they are 100 per cent behind him. That, however, should be regarded with considerable scepticism.

For a start, when Shearer got himself into a horrendous tangle with unsubstantiated allegations against Key over the Government Communications Security Bureau fuss, his colleagues took an awful long time to come to his defence. Further, if any plot to unseat him were going on, the plotters would obviously stay clandestine for as long as they could.

A factor inhibiting a coup is the lack of an alternative with predominating support. Of two possible contenders, David Cunliffe lost against Shearer last time and is widely regarded as too satisfied with himself by half and Grant Robertson is, for now at least, a Shearer loyalist.

It was lack of an obvious successor that kept Phil Goff in the leadership until the last election, but not many in Labour would regard that as an entirely happy precedent.

What surprises me is they gave Goff three years, yet some appear unwilling to give Shearer even 18 months.

Labour keep insisting a capital gains tax will lead to more affordable housing. In fact I suspect it will lead to an increase in house prices as home owners will not want to sell houses they have, so they do not get clobbered with CGT. If you reduce the supply of houses on the market, prices will go up. There may be some less demand also, but as we see in Australia any hope that a Capital Gains Tax is a solution to housing affordability is a myth.

The major cost is not the house, but the land. We need more land available for urban development. Simple.

Data from this site.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm -3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers.

1. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How many Modern Apprenticeships were being undertaken as at December 2011, and what percentage increase or decrease is this compared with December 2008?
2. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Health: Does the Government believe that it is acceptable that two out of three Māori and Pacific Island diabetics die from diabetic complications, compared to one in three Pakeha diabetics; and what actions has he taken to reduce the inequities in light of fresh predictions that by 2020 one in six Māori and Pasifika adults will have diabetes?
3. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on progress in lifting New Zealanders’ household savings and reducing household debt?
4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: Has the Government changed its position in relation to the recommendations of the Pure Advantage green growth reports given its rejection of Pure Advantage’s first report?
5. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister for Social Development: How will the new Child Protect Line, discussed in the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children, better protect New Zealand’s children?
6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Immigration: What assurances can he give that international criminals will not be entering New Zealand through the China Southern Airlines frequent flyer scheme?
7. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Associate Minister of Education: Does he take ministerial responsibility for the problems with the Novopay system; if not, why not?
8. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has she made in relation to the Community Environment Fund?
9. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Pure Advantage report released today that “green growth represents a huge opportunity for all Kiwis to prosper”; if so, what will he do to put New Zealand on a green growth pathway?
10. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Associate Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to ensure the ongoing provision of hospice services in our communities?
11. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements about manufacturing in New Zealand?
12. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Associate Minister of Transport: What progress can he report on the Government’s Vehicle Licensing Reform Project?

In today’s questions, National MPs are asking five, Labour four, the Greens one, the Maori Party one and New Zealand First one. Labour are asking about apprenticeships, the Pure Advantage report and education. The Greens are also asking about the Pure Advantage report. New Zealand First are asking about visitors’ visas, again, having used their one question yesterday on a similar issue. The Maori Party is asking about diabetes.

Patsy of the day goes to Mark Mitchell for question number 5; How will the new Child Protect Line, discussed in the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children, better protect New Zealand’s children?

Sitting Hours

Sitting hours for the House were extended and the House sat from 9 am to 1 pm today. This was for the third readings for the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Whatua Orakei Claims Settlement Bill.

Government Bills 3 pm – 6 pm

1. Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill – third reading
2. Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill – second reading
3. Legislation Bill – Committee stage (continued)

The Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill was introduced by Simon Power in 2010, as the then Minister of Justice. The Bill amends the principle Act to restore the rank of Queen’s Counsel (QC) and restrict eligibility for appointment to that rank, amend the provisions relating to a conveyancing practitioner holding non-voting shares of an incorporated law firm and require the power of attorney which a lawyer or conveyancing practitioner in sole practice must give to enable the donee to conduct the practice as an agent during any periods in which the lawyer or conveyancing practitioner is an undischarged bankrupt.

The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill was introduced to the House in May by David Carter. The sets about implementing the first half of the eight policy goals described in former Minister Nick Smith’s Bettter Local Government document.

The Legislation Bill was read a first time in 2010, introduced by Chris Finlayson. The purpose of this bill is to modernise and improve the law relating to the publication, availability, reprinting, revision, and official versions of legislation in a single piece of legislation.

Karl du Fresne writes:

I recently had what might be termed a clash of professional opinion with some of my fellow journalists. It was touched off by a newspaper editorial that took a whack at “enthusiastic amateurs” sounding off on such issues as climate change, vaccinations and fluoridation.

Everyone was entitled to their opinion, the editorial writer loftily pronounced, but not all views should be accorded equal weight. The views of people with years of study and experience behind them were worth more than those of non-experts.

A member of an internet journalism discussion group to which I belong applauded the editorial, saying she couldn’t agree more. “These amateur know-it-alls are a menace,” she declared.

I thought this a peculiar position for a journalist to take. I mean, aren’t we supposed to believe in freedom of speech?

Another member chimed in that the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s Garth McVicar should be added to the “list of nutters”. Then someone else suggested a couple of other names for what was shaping up as a blacklist: David Round and Lindsay Mitchell.

I am on the mailing list where this discussion occurred and I thought it interesting that the only names of people who should be ignored, are those associated with a centre-right view on controversial issues.

Mr Round is a University of Canterbury law lecturer who has written extensively over many years about Treaty of Waitangi issues. He dismisses the Treaty settlement process as a rort and a gravy train.

Ms Mitchell is a Wellington researcher who, in her own words, sets out to debunk the myths surrounding the welfare state, which she describes as economically, socially and morally unsustainable. Her voice is a courageous and lonely one, challenging the vast body of agencies, bureaucrats and academics with a common interest in propping up an unwieldy and seriously flawed welfare system.

What was immediately noticeable was the individuals dismissed by some of my fellow journalists as not deserving any publicity were, loosely speaking, all Right of centre.

I don’t agree with Lindsay Mitchell on all the welfare issues, but she is very well reserached. She has gathered a huge amount of data under the OIA.

In any case, let’s examine this question of “expert” versus “non-expert” a little more closely.

It was clear from the discussion that the word “expert” is generally equated with a university degree. In the climate change debate, you’re not considered credible unless you have a relevant academic qualification.

But in more than 40 years in journalism, I’ve come across any number of highly qualified “experts” whose opinions seemed to owe more to ideology than to academic credibility. Many academics are moralists by nature, always ready to lecture us on what they see as the world’s failings.

Whatever the subject – whether climate change or alcohol law reform, to choose two topical examples – they are inclined to cherry-pick the theories that suit their political leanings.

Exactly. Not one alcohol expert ever mentioned the fact that the prevalence rate of youth drinking had dropped 40% in the last five years.

I’m not arguing all opinions are equally valid. Absolutely not. But they should be judged on the quality of their research and argument – not on their degree status.

I got sent a copy of the e-mail below, which speaks for itself. The e-mail was not supplied to me by the author, and I have had no contact with him on this.

Dear Council members

I have recently received what some people might think to be the unsurprising result from having repeatedly raised questions about the integrity of VUW’s PBRF submissions: the threat of disciplinary action.

The background is as follows.  TEC’s removal of ‘R’ staff from the PBRF assessment, in order to undercut the widespread attempts by universities to manipulate their PBRF scores, has closed off one avenue for manipulation but others remain.  One of these would be to grant an employment contract start date before June 14 to a staff member who arrives after June 14 so as to ensure that the individual could be submitted for PBRF (especially if they are not coming from another NZ university, in which case the entire PBRF benefit from the individual would flow to VUW rather than being shared with the NZ university from which they came).  I think that any such behaviour would contravene the requirement to observe the “spirit” of the PBRF process and, since it would involve money as well as PBRF rankings, is much more serious.

Regrettably I have heard a number of rumours of this type of activity at VUW.  In respect of one such case, involving A of the School of XX, who came from overseas, I spoke to him on October 8.  Based on that conversation and some earlier information, I understand that his contract start date is 1 June and he arrived on 27 June and he is being submitted for PBRF.  During this conversation I also suggested to him that the 1 June contract start date may have been chosen by University management to manipulate the University’s PBRF score (and also improperly increase the money it received from government under the PBRF scheme) and therefore he might be an unwitting participant in improper activities.

You might wonder whether it is normal practice at VUW to start paying academic staff for a month before they arrive, and therefore no grounds for concern in this case.  However I understand it is not normal practice here and, in the experience of most of the people I spoke to on this matter (former Heads of School or those in a similar position to be aware of VUW’s practices), it is unprecedented behaviour.

You may also wonder whether this is mere quibbling over a ‘few days’ and therefore would not concern TEC.  However, since I have worked as an auditor, I can confidently state that auditors (reasonably) take a considerable interest in potentially manipulative dating of transactions close to accounting census dates and my discussions with TEC’s auditors (at KPMG) leave me satisfied that they take the same view in the present circumstances.

Despite these grounds for suspicion over A’s situation, I continued to collect further information on the general issue believing that I needed considerably more information before raising this matter with the Chancellor.  However, my hand was forced by the receipt on 16 October of the attached letter from Professor Buckle, PVC of Commerce, threatening me with disciplinary action and demanding certain information.  Evidently the letter was prompted by A discussing our conversation with Prof Buckle.  This letter and subsequent events have magnified my suspicions about A’s situation, as follows.

Firstly, in his letter, Prof Buckle did not deny any impropriety on the part of University management despite the suspicion of it.  If there is no impropriety, why would Prof Buckle fail to deny it and instead focus exclusively on the question of how I learned of A’s contract start date being 1 June and his arrival date being 27 June?  This looks like an attempt to ‘shoot the messenger’.

Secondly, in his letter, Prof Buckle demanded to know how I learned of A’s arrival date and he characterises this information as “private and confidential”.  The arrival of most new employees to a workplace is an event observable by many people and managers usually go to some trouble both to advertise their arrival and to introduce them to their colleagues.  Universities are no exception to this general pattern of behaviour.  Furthermore an examination of the staff list for School XX on the University’s webpage in late June (with a 20 June update date for the page) gives A a phone number that is actually the number for a School administrator, and the only other academic staff so treated are adjunct professors who are usually absent, whilst later versions record a phone number for A corresponding to A’s office.  These webpages alone suggest that A did not arrive until late June and they are publicly available information.  If there is no impropriety, and therefore no impulsive reaction at its discovery, why would Prof Buckle make the extraordinary claim that A’s arrival date was “private and confidential information”?

Thirdly, in his letter, Prof Buckle demanded to know how I learned of A’s contract start date and he characterises this information as “private and confidential”.  Implicit in this demand is the belief that some third party who was entitled to know the information, but not to disclose it to me or others, did so.  However there are a number of other possibilities, including A having disclosed it to me (which is the case) and A having disclosed it to someone else who then gave it to me, neither of which would presumably constitute an offence.   Furthermore one might have suspected that A’s contract start date was around 1 June purely on the basis that a University webpage was created for A on 30 May (the webpages have footers that note the date they were last changed).  If there is no impropriety, and therefore no impulsive reaction at its discovery, why would Prof Buckle have apparently forgotten that there are many legitimate channels through which information can be conveyed, leap to the conclusion that the channel was illegitimate, and threaten me with disciplinary action without first simply checking with me whether the channel was legitimate?

Fourthly, in his letter, Prof Buckle claimed that A arrived in his office in a “very distressed state”.  This is very strong language.  Perhaps it is true.  If so, it might be because A is an expert in XX (as is apparent from A’s University webpage) and quickly appreciated the potential damage to his professional reputation from being even an unwitting participant in improper activities.

Fifthly, in his letter, Prof Buckle threatened to subject me to some sort of disciplinary process.  Whatever the merits of that might be (probably minimal since A himself provided me with the allegedly private and confidential information about his contract start date), I think that Prof Buckle is seriously conflicted in threatening disciplinary action against me because the allegedly confidential information raises the suspicion of impropriety by himself.  If there is no impropriety, and therefore no impulsive reaction at its discovery, why would Prof Buckle have overlooked the obvious conflict of interest?

Upon receiving this letter from Prof Buckle, I passed it over to my lawyers and after discussion with them I sent the below email message to Mr McKinnon and Prof Buckle on October 19.  As you will see I offered to leave aside past events so long as a satisfactory process to deal with future concerns was implemented.  My lawyer also sent an email to both Mr McKinnon and Prof Buckle on October 23 referring to my October 19 email.  By Nov 5, neither I nor my lawyer received even an acknowledgement of receipt, let alone a substantive response to either email from either recipient.  I therefore emailed both Mr McKinnon and Prof Buckle again on November 5, pointing out the failure to respond, submitting a draft version of an email to Council, and inviting both of them to point out any errors of fact or interpretation by 10am on November 7.  I also copied this to A and invited him to point out any errors of fact or interpretation.

This email to Mr McKinnon and Prof Buckle finally produced a response.  On the evening of Nov 6 I received a reply from Mr McKinnon stating that my Oct 19 email had not been forwarded to him (with a subsequent email to my lawyer offering the same explanation for not having seen my lawyer’s email).  In his email to me Mr McKinnon stated that the issues here were matters to be “addressed by University Management”.  I am very surprised about Mr McKinnon’s explanation for not having received either of the two email messages, sent by different people and several days apart, and also copied to a another person (Prof Buckle) who might reasonably be expected to have discussed this with the VC and the VC in turn with Mr McKinnon.  Furthermore, I do not think that suspicions of impropriety by University management are matters to be “addressed by University Management”; the conflict of interest is stark.

In addition, on the evening of Nov 6 and shortly after Mr McKinnon’s email, I received an email from Prof Buckle, acknowledging receipt of my Nov 5 email (which has the Oct 19 email appended to it), denying any impropriety on the part of the University, and stating that he now proposed to deal “informally” with my conduct towards A.  Presumably this email constitutes the response from University management that Mr McKinnon referred to.  Remarkably Prof Buckle did not offer any explanation or apology for the delay in responding to my Oct 19 email.  I am left with the impression that he had elected not to respond to my October 19 email until my email of Nov 5 forced a response.  Furthermore, whilst Prof Buckle denies any impropriety by the University, he does not dispute any of the specific points raised in my Oct 19 email.  In particular, he does not dispute that A arrived on 27 June and that his contract start date was 1 June and that he has been submitted for PBRF (in any case, the first two points are implicitly conceded in the first two sentences of the third para of Prof Buckle’s letter).  In respect of Prof Buckle’s change of heart on the merits of a disciplinary process, this suggests that he now realises that his actions of October 16 were unwarranted but there is no apology, he still thinks that he has some quasi-judicial role to play, and he therefore still does not accept that he is conflicted.

In addition I now understand that University management has lodged an OIA request for my communications with TEC and their auditors.  Given University management’s concern with my possession of “private and confidential information” relating to A, it is rather ironic that they are seeking to obtain information about communications between parties that were clearly intended to be “private and confidential”, and the clear effect of any such OIA request would be to discourage University staff from providing information to TEC or their auditors (thereby undermining TEC’s legitimate efforts to actively seek out information from university staff). 

After my October 8 discussion with A I did not think that there was sufficient cause to contact the Chancellor or you.  As a result of events since then, I now think that there is.  These additional events include unwarranted threats that have now been retracted, conflicts of interest, systematic non-response to emails, the failure at any point to dispute any of the specific indicators of impropriety, actions undermining TEC’s legitimate efforts to obtain information, and the extraordinary claim that the arrival date of an academic at this University is “private and confidential information”.  I now believe that the circumstances relating to A should be investigated.  Even if you limit yourself to information from University management, the first two sentences of the third paragraph of Prof Buckle’s letter concede that the contract start date is 1 June and the arrival date is later in June.  Furthermore, anyone with a contract start date of 1 June is prima facie eligible for inclusion in PBRF; coupled with the fact that A’s CV is impressive, and that the University has a strong interest in its PBRF performance, one would further strongly suspect on this basis alone that A had been submitted for PBRF.

As you will see from my email, I refer to an additional case to that of A, and I have heard rumours of other such cases.  Quite apart from my actions, any activities of this kind that are occurring are very likely to be detected by TEC’s auditors anyway.  As a former auditor, I can confidently state that auditors (reasonably) take a considerable interest in potentially manipulative dating of transactions close to accounting census dates.  It would therefore be basic audit practice in the present situation to draw up a list of staff being submitted for PBRF whose contract start dates were on or within the few weeks  preceding June 14 (as per a review of the contracts) and who arrived after June 14 (as per an itinerary or air ticket).  Furthermore, TEC’s earlier public rebuke of universities for attempting to manipulate PBRF scores by hiding ‘R’ staff would have made their auditors even more likely to suspect that universities would attempt to manipulate the contract start dates of staff arriving just after 14 June.  So, if such actions are occurring, it would be naïve for University management to imagine that TEC’s auditors will not detect them (just as it was naïve for management to believe that all of the earlier activities concerning ‘R’ researchers that were detected by TEC would not be detected).  It is also highly damaging to the reputations of every staff member who becomes an unwitting participant in improper activities because there will be at least the suspicion that they perfectly understood what was happening (particularly if they are an expert in XX).

Despite all of this, my offer of October 19 to leave aside past events so long as a satisfactory process to deal with future concerns is implemented still stands.  I think this would be a much better outcome than an ongoing flow of accusations followed by a further public rebuke of universities by the TEC.

I would like to finish with some quotations from University management:

An employee’s obligations include “..a positive duty to draw to your employer’s attention the improper actions of another employee.” (Prof Buckle, Oct 16 letter).

“We require ethical behaviour in all our activities and interactions” (from the University’s Mission Statement at http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/about/working/missionandvalues).

 

Martin Lally

The issue is a pretty simple one. Does VUW arrange its employment contracts to state someone has started employment earlier than they actually have, in order to gain more funding via the PBRF?

Hopefully someone who can get answers to those questions, is asking them.

Remember those remits I posted yesterday, which are up for debate at the Labour Party conference this weekend. Well I made a mistake. I thought these were remits just put up by any old insane individual or small branch. But in fact these are primarily remits that have already been passed by a Labour Party Regional Conference, and in some cases are endorsed by the Party’s NZ Council.

In other words, these remits have widespread support in Labour! They are not just the odd lunatic individual. Can you imagine how bad the remits must have been that didn’t even make it this far?

Reading another document, I’ve discovered that the NZ Council has agreed to a 40% female quota for both candidates and office holders.

They go even further. A remit proposed a rule that no more than 60% of an LEC’s officers can be from a particular gender. The NZ Council has said the rule should be that at least 50% of LEC officers must be women. So it will be legal to have an LEC with 100% female officers but illegal to have one that is 60% male and 40% female!!

And even better Labour Auckland Central propose that if it is apparent the elections will not get at least 50% female officers, they must stop the elections and leave roles vacant. So if an electorate had no women standing for office, then they could elect no one at all!! Well done Auckland Central Labour.

Their gender quota obsession even extends to branches, saying that is a branch has more than one delegate to an LEC, at least 50% must be women. That means again there is no problem with 100% women delegates, but illegal to have five male delegates and three female delegates.

Unions are currently restricted to seven delegates on an LEC. Considering the size of an LEC is 14 to 30, this is a high proortion. But not high enough. The Dairy Workers Union is proposing that a union can get up to 14 delegates on an LEC – ie control.

One rare piece of good news. Their remit to make the policy platform binding on all Labour Party members in public office, is being changed so it is only binding on members who stand for Labour. This means Len Brown will not now face expulsion if he does something contrary to Labour policy.

In other fun news, Hutt South proposes male and female co-leaders and the NZ Council does not oppose this.

A reader has pointed out this speech on behalf of Tariana Turia:

2012 Tobacco-free Aotearoa Conference

Friday, 9 November 2012, 10:13 am

Speech: New Zealand Government

Hon Tariana Turia

Associate Minister of Health

Thursday 8 November 2012; 6.45pm

SPEECH

2012 Tobacco-free Aotearoa Conference

Banquet Hall; Parliament, Wellington,

[delivered on her behalf by Skye Kimura]

Skye Kimura is the National Tobacco Control Advisor for the Cancer Society, a partly taxpayer funded NGO.

Now I think the Cancer Society does excellent work, and I donate to them. I have no criticism of them for delivering a speech on behalf of a Minister.

But I do wonder about the appropriateness of a Minister of the Crown having an NGO deliver a speech on their behalf. I think it sets a bad precedent. Would you think it appropriate for Phil O’Reilly from Business NZ to deliver a speech on behalf of the Minister of Economic Development?

If Ministers can not deliver a speech in person, then it is normal for a backbench MP to deliver it, or even an official from their department. I don’t think NGOs should have any role in speaking for Ministers.

Chris Laidlaw writes in the NZ Herald:

There has never been much clarity as to Charles’ attitude towards countries like New Zealand – older Commonwealth dominions which are still ostensibly loyal to the Crown – but which are increasingly seeking their own identities out from under the old British cultural blanket.

An opportunity arose to talk to him about this when he visited New Zealand early in 1997.

A dinner had been arranged in Christchurch for him to meet a variety of outdoor-oriented people, mainly Canterbury farming grandees and captains of local agro-industries. I was included as a conservationist.

The conversation was not scintillating. Not even the best of Canterbury’s new pinot noir could liven it up, although I noticed the Prince of Wales was downing more than his fair share.

Pretty soon I was able to engage Charles in what amounted to a private conversation and I steered the subject round to constitutional matters.

Because he seemed to be particularly open and affable I asked him what his reaction would be if, as King, he was told that New Zealand wished to remove him as Head of State and become a republic. One eyebrow shot up. Had I gone too far?

“I take it you assume that will inevitably happen,” he replied, with just the hint of a wry smile.

“I do, and I support it,” I said.

“Well, to be frank, I think it would come as a great relief to all of us,” said Charles. “It would remove the awful ambiguity we have at the moment. It seems to me that it would be a lot easier for everybody if you all had your own completely independent head of state.

“I certainly never want to be dragged into any constitutional disputes in New Zealand or anywhere else. I simply can’t imagine how difficult it would be to be faced with having to dismiss a New Zealand Prime Minister.”

Prince Charles is right. It would be easier for everyone for New Zealand to have our own independent Head of State.

Jody O’Callaghan writes at Stuff:

They’ve been overpaid, underpaid and not paid at all – now one teacher has been paid for being in two places at one time.

In the latest round of Novopay botches, the relief teacher was paid for working at schools in Upper Hutt and Auckland on the same day.

The Upper Hutt school, which did not want to be named, joked that a classroom of children must have been left reading silently, while their teacher caught a plane to Auckland.

This week’s pay cycle gave one teacher thousands of dollars more than they were owed, when they were paid for 39 days, instead of 39 hours.

And Fergusson Intermediate School deputy principal Shirley Porteous, of Upper Hutt, was randomly demoted by the new payroll system, so she supposedly now owes Novopay $1500.

Teacher unions and Labour education spokeswoman Nanaia Mahuta are demanding a parliamentary inquiry into the Education Ministry’s system, which was introduced nearly three months ago.

The performance of the new payroll system does appear to have been not satisfactory. Having said that, have to be careful to make every single error a major story. I imagine the old payroll system would always have a dozen or so errors in it, out of 60,000 or so teachers paid. What I’d be keen to see reported is how many errors have occurred each pay period since it was implemented.

I do feel very sorry for those teachers and schools that have to cope with not being paid. Worse of all for them, there is nothing they can do about it.

That is why I have a solution. Bulk Funding. If we delegated salaries to every school, then each school would choose its own payroll provider (or do it themselves) and they could simply not use a company like Novopay, if there performance is not satisfactory.

UPDATE: A reader points out the contract with Novopay was approved in September 2008 by then Education Minister Chris Carter!

UPDATE2 I understand that in fact each pay period has around 100,000 pays from 2,300 schools and there are several hundred different pay rates and codes. This means that even a 99.9% accuracy rate will have 100 or so mistakes per pay period. Also what may not be known is that any staff member under paid or not paid by the central system, can and generally does get paid by the school out of their ops grant, so the staff member is not out of pocket. The Ministry then reimburses the school once the error is notified and corrected, So yes there are issues to be sorted out, but there shouldn’t be anyone out of pocket for more than a day.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

The political emperors have no clothes, stripped bare by a big-data wizard named Nate Silver who showed dispassionate maths was more reliable than pundit intuition and cherry-picked polls.

Silver, 34, a statistician who previously predicted the career trajectories of baseball players, accurately tipped 49 out of 50 US states (with the 50th, Florida, highly likely to be accurate as well as Obama is ahead with 97 per cent of the votes counted) and most Senate contests.

As right-wing pundits attacked him and his “voodoo statistics” for failing to see that the election was on a knife edge – and in the case of some conservative wingnuts, for being openly gay and “effeminate” – Silver held his nerve and for the entire election cycle maintained that the data always pointed to an easy Obama victory. …

Even after Obama’s dismal first debate performance, Silver’s probability of Obama winning never dipped below 61.1 per cent, rising to more than 90 per cent on election day.

I am a big fan of both Silver’s analytic skills, and his demeanour while under fire. He deserves a lot of credit.

It is worth pointing out though that all the major polling aggregation sites did very well as reported by Cnet:

But Silver wasn’t the only one to do exceptionally well in the prediction department. In fact, each of the five aggregators that CNET surveyed yesterday — FiveThirtyEight, TPM PollTracker, HuffPost Pollster, the RealClearPolitics Average, and the Princeton Election Consortium — successfully called the election for Obama, and save for TPM PollTracker and RealClearPolitics handing Florida to Romney, the aggregators were spot on across the board when it came to picking swing state victors.

So if you listened to the polls rather than the pundits, you were likely to be correct. Why then is Silver the new political celebrity rather than say Mark Blumenthal who does HuffPost Pollster?

I think it is partly because Silver was attacked by several prominent pundits before the election. Those attacks backfired by giving him not just accuracy but vindication.

The other reason is that Silver does a bit more than just aggregate and weight the polls. His extra tweeks may not make a huge difference but they are seen as useful by many.

In addition to picking the winner in all 50 states — besting his 49 out of 50 slate in 2008 — Silver was also the closest among the aggregators to picking the two candidates’ popular vote percentages. All told, he missed Obama’s total of 50.8 percent by just four-tenths of a percentage point (50.4) and Romney’s 48 percent by just three-tenths of a point (48.3) for an average miss of just 0.35 percentage points. HuffPo Pollster and RealClearPolitics tied for second with an average miss of 0.85 points.

This may change a bit as the final votes come in. It is worth noting also that Silver didn’t have a 100% accuracy rate with calling Senate races. Again this takes nothing away from his highly deserved reputation – just that even his model is not infallible  The strength of his model, as I see it, is that it learns from the past.

So what does Silver do to predict who wins. His exact methodology is secret (he has said he may reveal more over time) but he has detailed what he does for Senate races. My summary of it is:

1. Average the polls for that state
2. Give more recent polls a higher weight using an exponential decay formula
3. Weight by sample size so larger sample polls have more weight
4. Assign an accuracy rating to each pollster and weight those historically more accurate, higher. Exclude polls from very dodgy pollsters or polls released by parties. Note that many other polling aggregators also do steps 1 to 4. What is unique to Silver tends to be the later steps.
5.  Adjust the result based on the national trend, so if nationwide one party has dropped say 5% in one week, assume it applies to that state also.
6. Adjust the result based on observed “house effects” for pollsters. So if one pollster consistently has Democrats 2% higher than they get, then take 2% off their poll.
7. Adjust polls of registered voters as if they were of likely voters, based on the normal difference between such polls (Republicans do better with likely voters).
8. Do a regression analysis of the state based on their partisan voting index, their party identification, donations to candidates, incumbency status, approval ratings for incumbents, and previous offices a candidate has been elected to
9. Add the results of the regression analysis to the weighted average of polls, as if it is a poll.
10. Do an error calculation
11. Stimulate the election and report how often one candidate beats the other over multiple simulations

So Silver has a very sophisticated model. I think for presidential elections he also uses economic data such as GDP growth and unemployment rates. Over time as more and more data is gathered, his model should remain accurate or become even more accurate.

There will be times when it will be wrong, just as the polls sometimes get it wrong. No model can compensate if the election is very volatile and large numbers of voters change their mind or are undecided in the final few days. Events will always matter.

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports;

ACC Minister Judith Collins’ defamation action against Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little has been settled following a hearing in the High Court at Auckland today. …

In a statement today following their meeting, the three parliamentarians said they agreed “the leak of the email Ms Boag sent to the minister and forwarded on her instructions as the responsible minister to the chairman and chief executive of ACC raised an issue of serious public concern, and that Messrs Mallard and Little were entitled to question who was responsible for that leak”.

“The parties continue to differ over whether the comments made by Messrs Mallard and Little respectively on Radio NZ implied the minister falsely assured the House that neither she nor her office was responsible for the leak.

“Messrs Mallard and Little have confirmed to Ms Collins that was not their intention and wish to make that clear publicly that in the event such meaning was taken they regret it.”

In the statement, the three politicians said they would make no further comment.

If Mallard and Little had said that a few months ago they could have saved themselves a lot of money.

I enjoy being a regular guest on Radio NZ’s Panel with Jim Mora and initially was surprised at how many people would mention they hear me on it. Some taxi drivers even recognise me just from my voice. So I’ve always figured it must rate fairly well.

Just been told that The Panel is not only the number one rated talk hour in New Zealand (and has been for some time), it is the number one rated show on all radio for the 4 pm to 5 pm slot. It now ranks ahead of all the music stations.

I understand the latest survey has it with 162,000 listeners on an average weekday. That is pretty massive.

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

Humane initiatives in privately-run British prisons such as allowing inmates to spend entire days with their children have caught the eye of Corrections Minister Anne Tolley.

Mrs Tolley visited the Serco-managed Doncaster Prison in England last week to investigate programmes that could be implemented in New Zealand prisons.

Mrs Tolley was most interested in the Doncaster facility’s “Families First” scheme, which encouraged ongoing relationships between prisoners and their children.

“While we were there, there was a father who was bathing his 18-month-old daughter. She comes in once a week, and the two of them go through a normal parenting day. He has a day with his little one and he has done since she was born,” Mrs Tolley said.

“It’s to try and maintain those links, so they don’t miss the development of that child, so the child gets the benefit of a dad.”

This scheme was limited to 11 well-behaved fathers in the minimum-security jail.

So long as well targeted, seems a good idea.

To encourage new ideas the minister proposed exchanges in staff between Doncaster and Mt Eden. Many of the initiatives in Serco prisons were based on recommendations from frontline staff members.

Mrs Tolley said privately-run jails had the advantage of being able to trial new programmes without jumping through bureaucratic hoops.

A big advantage. Flexibility and innovation.

“I said to [staff], ‘So what’s your record of violence?’ And they looked at me as if I was nuts.”

Serco has introduced some of its initiatives at Mt Eden. It increased the number of visiting hours for inmates and attempted to make the visiting area as home-like as possible to facilitate family bonding and encourage rehabilitation.

Prison reform campaigner Roger Brooking said he had been concerned about Serco’s contracts in New Zealand because of their mixed record in the UK. But he was impressed by the culture change at Mt Eden prison, in particular the use of first names between staff and inmates.

The culture in our public prison service is not a very good one, if we are honest. In the past there has been torture, intimidation, theft, drugs and the like. Not to say all prison guards – by no means. But ask any insider, and they will admit the public prison service is not a healthy culture.

The private prison operators have an opportunity to set a different culture, which can actually improve outcomes. I despair that Labour and Greens are determined on ideological grounds to ban such initiatives regardless of how well they perform.

The Doncaster prison was the first British jail to be paid according to its results – it only received full payment if it reduced reoffending by 5 per cent.

This was similar to the proposed contract for the Wiri prison, Mrs Tolley said.

“If they don’t beat the results from the public sector by 10 per cent, there are financial penalties.”

Serco has had a patchy start in charge of Mt Eden prison but has improved its record on serious assaults and drug use in its second year.

Incentives tend to work.

The Herald reported:

Christchurch Boys’ High School headmaster Trevor McIntyre has resigned to take up an appointment as an executive adviser to the Christchurch Education Renewal Programme. …

Secretary for Education Lesley Longstone said Mr McIntyre had a long history of serving education in Christchurch.

“As executive adviser, Trevor will ensure the sector, parents and school communities have one of their own monitoring the integrity of the programme and facilitating the consultation process. He will act as a voice of the sector within the programme,” she said.

Mr McIntyre said he was privileged to be more closely involved with the Education Renewal Programme.

“I would like to be seen as someone who can support and advise both the Ministry and the schools through the changes that are taking place.

“I’m looking forward to be able make a greater contribution to education in Christchurch,” he said.

Mr McIntyre will also liaise with bodies such as CERA and the Earthquake Recovery Commissioner to ensure wider Christchurch rebuild issues were taken into account as the programme progressed.

This is a very smart move. An experienced respected principal is just the sort of person you want helping manage the change programme. He will understand the needs of schools, and should be able to progress things without rancor.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the Household Labour Force Survey is “the most rigorous form of measuring employment in the economy”; if so, what were the Survey’s results for unemployment for the last four quarters?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he still think his Government is “on the right track”?
3. MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in getting back to surplus and reducing future borrowing?
4. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development:Does she stand by all her answers to Oral Question No 9 yesterday?
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Immigration: Is he satisfied that Immigration New Zealand’s visitor visa processing system is robust and effective; if so, why?
6. MIKE SABIN to the Minister for Social Development: What further announcements has she made on the Children’s Teams, part of the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children?
7. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: Is he satisfied that the policy initiatives undertaken by his Ministry are adequately tackling the problem of unemployment; if not, why not?
8. DENISE ROCHE to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Was he referring to the SkyCity Convention Centre, which is the subject of an inquiry by the Auditor-General, when he told the House, “in relation to the International Convention Centre, they have sought to stop, which is the reason right now for 1,000 less jobs in this country”?
9. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Associate Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement “Yes I do have confidence in Novopay”?
10. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Corrections: What steps has the Government taken to protect communities from high-risk offenders?
11. DARIEN FENTON to the Acting Minister of Labour: When will he begin the process of consulting on the minimum wage for 2013?
12. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Internal Affairs: How many New Zealanders have applied for a passport online since the launch of the Online Passport Renewal Service?

Today there are five questions from Labour, four from National, two from the Greens and one from NZ First. There are also two Members Questions regarding the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill from Green MP Denise Roche.

Labour are asking on welfare reforms, Novopay, the state of the economy and twice on employment. The Greens are asking on employment and SkyCity, and NZ First are asking on visitors’ visas.

Patsy of the day goes to Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi for Question 12; How many New Zealanders have applied for a passport online since the launch of the Online Passport Renewal Service?

Private and Local Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm

1. Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill – second reading
2. South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill – second reading

1. Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill – interrupted debate on first reading
2. Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill – first reading
3. Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill – first reading

The Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill was introduced by Jacqui Dean and revokes the reservation of Part Lot 7, DP 6425 (the Palmerston Showgrounds) under the Reserves Act 1977 and vests ownership of the land in the Waitaki District Council absolutely.

The South Taranaki District Council (Could Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill was introduced by Chester Borrows and  seeks to establish a process by which the council may obtain the authority to transfer the Cold Creek Rural Water Supply Scheme to Cold Creek Community Water Supply Limited.

The Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill was introduced by Scott Simpson  and amends the Land Transport Act 1998 to broaden the circumstances where a positive evidential breath test is admissible evidence in a prosecution under the Act. Under present law a positive evidential breath test is not admissible in evidence if the suspect has elected to have a blood test.

The Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill will be introduced by Jacqui Dean and aims to encourage compliance with enactments administered by the Department of Conservation by increasing penalties to better protect natural and historic resources and protected wildlife. The main changes the Bill makes to the existing law are to both increase the penalties, and implement a consistent approach to penalties across the main enactments administered by the Department of Conservation.

The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill will be introduced by Metiria Turei. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the proceeds of crime spent in, and laundered through, casinos are returned to those from whom they have been stolen or acquired.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Labour is proposing to make future leadership contenders take a “behaviour pledge” to try to prevent messy cannibalistic attacks on each other during leadership races.

The change is among changes party delegates will consider at its conference this weekend following a major review of the party.

A change to give the party members and affiliated unions a vote on the leadership will include new rules under which a leadership contest is held – including a “behaviour pledge” for contenders and a spending cap on any advertising in a leadership contest.

Will the oath include angry bloggers trying to force the current leader out on your behalf?

The Herald editorial:

 Those calling time on Mr Shearer blame him for the fact that the present Government is clearly not on the wane. It has endured a difficult year. There has been the Dotcom saga, the setbacks over partial asset sales and the pokie deal, privacy breaches, the resignation of two ministers, not to mention the Prime Minister’s “brain fades” and occasional careless remarks. Yet National still polls at around 47 per cent, a dozen points ahead of Labour, and Mr Key seems as popular as ever.

Mr Shearer’s critics cannot understand this. They know there are only two explanations: either the Government is genuinely popular and they are out of touch with the country’s mood, or the mood has changed and Labour’s leader is failing to capitalise on it. Naturally they prefer the latter view but they are wrong.

This is spot on. Many of the critics are angry. They even blog proudly how angry they are. They detest John Key. They hate National. All their friends hate National also. They don’t know anyone who doesn’t hate National. So it is a huge mystery to them that National remains ahead in the polls. Hence someone must be to blame, and they have decided it is David Shearer. Never has the possibility dawned on them that they live sheltered little lives where their only friends are fellow political activists or unionists, mean they are not in touch with the majority of the country.

He was thrust into the limelight too quickly and he still sounds diffident. But his judgment on policy so far has been good. He appears to be a moderate, responsible decision-maker and a personality the country would like when Labour’s time comes. That cannot be said for some of his possible replacements. All he may need is time.

Shearer is moderate, and I think that is a strength. But party activists are not moderates.

Alpine tussocks from Waikaia Bush ‘Road’, Central Otago New Zealand. Photography by Todd Sisson

Howdy Kiwi-bloglings!

This one is a bit of a rule breaker – putting out of focus elements into the foreground of an image is usually a no-no and instant death knell for an image.  I am such a bad-ass rebel that I find myself doing it quite often, typically with poor results.  This one works for me though, as it creates a stark delineation between the pillowy soft foreground and the contrasty background.  As a bonus I have uploaded it in absurdly large format to keep kyotolaw’s retina Macbook happy 🙂

I noticed a couple of gear related comments on last week’s post, I thought I would respond here:

HDR – although we don’t employ HDR software such as photomatix we do extensively lean upon ‘extended dynamic range’ techniques to create more balanced exposures that retain a natural appearance.  We used to blend exposures quite a lot but we are finding that the latest generation of Nikon cameras combined with Lightroom 3 are delivering near HDR tonal range from a single exposure.  I have posted on this here  on my neglected blog.

Cameras: We use Nikon DX and FX bodies these days – the D800e is getting the most use these days.  Just to confuse things, we shot the Canon 5d mkii for several years (this was made on the 5dii) but have returned to Nikon upon the release of the D800.

If you have any further queries just contact me via the website.

2013 NZ Calendar

A reminder that our  2013 Calendar ‘South‘, featuring 12 of our most popular images – it is available exclusively from the webstore.

Free Wallpaper Download

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

Also available on our website as a canvas print.

See you next week!

Cheers – Todd

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

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reported:

Wealthy South Island iwi Ngai Tahu has split Maoridom by going in to bat for the Government against the Maori Council’s bid to thwart the partial asset sales programme, says the outspoken Labour list MP Shane Jones.

Some are furious at Ngai Tahu. They have dared to state their honest opinion.

But two months after Maori King Tuheitia’s national hui to promote a unified iwi approach to the issue, Ngai Tahu has supplied Crown Law with an affidavit in which it says any such rights would not be affected by the partial asset sales programme.

The affidavit from Ngai Tahu runanga’s principal adviser, Sandra Cook, says the iwi considered that it continued to have a full range of rights and interests in water as guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi.

“In Ngai Tahu’s view those rights and interests were not affected by the privatisation of Contact Energy in 1999.

“Nor does Ngai Tahu consider that its rights and interests will be affected by the proposed sale of shares in Mixed Ownership Model companies.”

The affidavit further undermines the Maori Council’s case by saying Ngai Tahu believed it was premature to resort to either the Waitangi Tribunal or the courts to deal with the issue.

It was an attempt to make the Maori Council more relevant.

Ngai Tahu is quite correct. The sale of Contact Energy has had no impact on the Crown’s ability to recognise water rights, and neither would the proposed part-sales.