The NZ Initiative writes:

Nick Cater, Chief Opinion Editor at The Australian newspaper, thinks that a new ruling class is threatening New Zealand’s tradition of egalitarianism.

The New Zealand Initiative is bringing Nick Cater to New Zealand to launch his book The Lucky Culture on 15 July in Wellington, 16 July in Auckland and 17 July in Christchurch.

The Lucky Culture and the rise of an Australian ruling class, published by Harper Collins, is a bold and provocative book about Australia’s national identity and how it is threatened by the rise of an aspiring ruling class.

This controversial book has been launched by former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, Australian Labor Treasurer Chris Brown, and is being launched in Queensland by Australian Prime Minister, The Hon Kevin Rudd, on Friday.

Being launched by both John Howard and Kevin Rudd – that is impressive!

The controversial new book argues that since the 1970s a new tertiary-educated class of people have emerged. Cater claims that they form ‘a new ruling class’ who genuinely believe that they are better equipped, intellectually and morally, to tackle the problems facing society. Their views are now shaping public debates from climate change to poverty alleviation, genetic engineering, aspiration and even the notion of progress itself.

Though his book is written in an Australian context, many of Cater’s observations have resonance in other countries, including New Zealand. And his questions are as relevant here as they are on the other side of the Tasman: Are we witnessing the emergence of an exclusive political class with little experience outside of university and politics? What does this mean for our social and political debates? And are we losing our egalitarian spirit?

I think this is very relevant for NZ. We are seeing more and more MPs who have no life experience outside student politics, working in Parliament and then becoming an MP.

The book launch details are here.

The Waikato Times reports:

Hamilton voters will get to decide in October whether to quash a controversial tribunal decision that last month ended fluoridation of the city’s water supply.

The council has voted 7-6 for a referendum at the October elections, with the wording of the referendum to be decided at a special meeting early next week. The decision includes a request for a voluntary spending cap to prevent the referendum being skewed by any district health board information campaign.

It is good they have voted for a referendum. But having the DHB tell the truth about the scientific research around fluoride is not skewing the referendum. It is balancing it.

Ken Perrott at Sciblogs notes:

 I communicated with all the councillors asking them to support a referendum and was shocked at the response of a minority (3). This was rude (extreme in one case), accused me of being involved in some sort of internal political infighting, and discounted any reply I made to their claims on the science of fluoridaiton. In effect these 3 councillors seemed to think that the “science” stories they got from the activists groups was of higher value than any comment made by a scientist. Not just me but also other people expressing concern and those on the District Health Board and Ministry of Health teams.

I hope voters are made aware of which Councillors voted against a referendum.

Calwatchdog reports:

The radical feminists are on a roll. They continue to make gains in their attempt to make “man” and “men” officially unacceptable terms in government.

The latest weird politically correct idea to make it into legislation seeks to remove alleged “gender bias” from the language — at taxpayer expense. Using the word “man” is no longer allowed.

Washington state is now actively replacing “gender bias” words with new gender-neutral references, and requires the use of such words as “handwriting” instead of “penmanship,” “signal operator” for “signalman,”  ”fisherman” with “fisher” and  ”freshman” with “first-year-student.” There are no more “journeyman plumbers”; now they are “journey-level plumbers.”

I’m not sure what a “journey-level” is. This ridiculousness proves that gender-neutral language is ungrammatical, and not allowed in AP Style. How will I write?

And further:

When I was in college, I worked at a grocery store as a “box boy,” also known as a “bag boy.” During my two-year stint, the offensive term was changed to “courtesy clerk.”

“Nearly 3,500 Washington state code sections, out of a total of about 40,000 have been tediously scrubbed of gender bias, although most involve adding pronouns ‘she’ and ‘her’ to augment the existing ‘he’ and ‘his,’” the Huffington Post reported recently.

Washington’s Legislature,  controlled by Democrats, recently passed the bill outlawing these manly words and ordered the state’s law books to be painstakingly edited to reflect the new man-free law.

According to the Huffington Post, Washington is the fourth state to eliminate gender “bias” from its official lexicon. Florida, North Carolina and Illinois preceded Washington.

Some think this is a proper use of lawmakers’ time, and taxpayer money because of their belief that we must eliminate gender “bias” from the language.  ”Nearly 3,500 Washington state code sections, out of a total of about 40,000 have been tediously scrubbed of gender bias, although most involve adding pronouns ‘she’ and ‘her’ to augment the existing ‘he’ and ‘his,’” the Daily Mail UK reported.

I recall when I was on the Otago University Council the OUSA SRC passed a resolution demanding the university rename Chairmen of Departments, Chairpersons. I told the SRC they could pass what they wanted, but I wasn’t going to undermine my credibility on Council by wasting their time with such trivia. It wasn’t that I was against a name change, but that it ranked around 99/100 on my list of priorities after lecturer assessment, fees, facilities etc etc.

The HoS reports:

A young woman was refused the birth control pill because she had not yet done her “reproductive job”.

Melissa Pont, 23, said her family practitioner, Dr Joseph Lee, would not renew her pill prescription, instead lecturing her on a baby’s right to live and on using the rhythm method, an unreliable family planning technique that involves having sex only at certain times of the month.

That’s appalling.

I’m all for the right of doctors not to be involved in abortions, on conscience grounds. But to refuse a patient contraception as you think she should be reproducing is appalling behaviour.

The NZ Medical Association said doctors can refuse treatment in non-emergency situations if their beliefs prohibit it – but they are required to refer the patient to another doctor.

Lee was initially reluctant to do that, Pont said, and she was concerned other women in her situation might not have had the confidence to argue back.

Prospective patients should be aware that if you see Dr Lee he may refuse to help you, so best to see another doctor.

Lee, a doctor at Wairau Community Clinic in Blenheim, stood by his views and actions. “I don’t want to interfere with the process of producing life,” the Catholic father-of-two told the Herald on Sunday.

Lee also does not prescribe condoms, and encourages patients as young as 16 to use the rhythm method.

Teen pregnancy might be a girl’s “destiny”, he said, and it was certainly not as bad as same- sex marriage.

Oh Good God. He wants 16 year olds to be getting pregnant, because it was their destiny.

Most Catholic doctors have no problems at not letting their personal beliefs interfere with their jobs. Sadly Dr Lee is not one of them.

The only circumstances in which he would prescribe the contraceptive pill would be if a woman wanted space between pregnancies, or had at least four children.

“I think they’ve already done their reproductive job”.

Hear that women? Don’t stop at three!

A reader e-mails in:

I was wondering if you could ask your legally qualified readers if they could shed some light on a recent series of bizarre decisions by the High Court. That court twice ruled that smoking bans for criminals in prison were illegal. The judge in the latest case (5 days ago) also said that the smoking ban prisoners was “inhumane”.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10894606

Meanwhile in a decision released yesterday the High Court ruled that a smoking ban for mental patients in hospital is legal.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbhea/422965313-waitemata-dhb-wins-smoking-battle

Ok, so the High Court is saying that if you commit a crime and are sent to prison then it is inhumane to stop you smoking. But if you suffer a mental illness through no fault of your own and are hospitalized then it is perfectly legal for the hospital to stop you smoking.

Can somebody please explain to me how these decisions are even remotely consistent, let alone fair?

A fair point!

Phil Kitchin at Stuff reports:

A Wellington couple lost $1.3 million after their financial adviser exhorted them to pour money into a start-up business he claimed couldn’t fail – but did.

Any claim a business can’t fail should be laughed at, especially a start up.

The couple, who were close to retirement, were persuaded to invest the money to recoup another $1.5 million they had already lost in failed finance companies.

So they wanted a 100% return on investment, and thought it was guaranteed? Do they believe in the Easter Bunny also?

I’ve made a huge return on buying into Xero at the IPO. But I knew it was a start-up and might fail. Hence I only invested the amount of money I could afford to lose.

McPhail also recommended recouping their losses by investing more heavily in a start-up, Zeroshift – an opportunity he said was unlikely to be replicated “in our lifetime”. His “worst estimate” was that they would at least triple their money.

If McPhail did say that, then they could have a case. Was this in writing?

McPhail told the Sunday Star-Times he had “every sympathy” for his former clients and regretted the losses they suffered – but rejected an attempt to blame him for the losses.

The couple knew Zeroshift was a start-up company which offered big investor profits if successful, but success was not guaranteed.

He said he had cautioned against buying more shares at one stage because of Zeroshift’s lack of liquidity and uncertainty about when it would be publicly listed.

This is a he said, she said type case. But regardless of what McPhail may have said, it is unwise to invest a huge proportion of your wealth in just one company – especially a start-up. The higher the possible return, the higher the risk.

The Herald reported:

New Zealand’s education system has been treading water and its students will lose out in the global race for the best jobs unless change is embraced, a visiting expert warns.

Andreas Schleicher has been dubbed “the world’s schoolmaster” by international media – and he advises a shake-up of New Zealand’s system.

The German scientist and statistician is a pioneer of using hard data to analyse what was traditionally thought of as a “soft” subject, previously dominated by tradition, theories and ideology.

The change in approach helped him become one of the world’s most influential education experts.

It’s depressing that some parties and unions spend so much energy fighting against the Government and parents having some standard data. There is huge power in data. Even more depressing that they are now boycotting a tool that will help improve moderation and consistency.

A parent questionnaire which ran with the PISA test was used to see what factors were most important in terms of test results.

It found that parents showing a consistent interest in a child’s education is the most important factor in raising his or her achievement.

“It is not the hours of homework that you spend with your children, it is not about the degree that you have,” Mr Schleicher says. “It is simple things – when parents ask them every day at the dinner table, ‘How was school? What went well? Did you have any difficulties?”‘

Good advice.

New Zealand must deploy its best teachers to the most challenging classrooms, Mr Schleicher says. Data clearly show the highest performing countries prioritise and target the quality of teaching.

Overseas examples include Shanghai, which topped the 2009 results, where vice-principals at successful schools can only become principals if they show they can turn around one of the lowest-performing schools.

What a great idea.

Mr Schleicher supports National Standards data as a way for educators to identify success and failure.

The standards are descriptions of what students should be able to do in reading, writing and mathematics as they progress through levels 1 to 8, the primary and intermediate years.

Their introduction has been controversial, with opponents saying they will lead to “league tables” of schools, and give parents the false impression that a school can be judged by its results alone. “I can see the challenges,” Mr Schleicher says.

“But in the dark all schools look the same, and all students look the same.

“Unless you have some light to illuminate the differences, there is very little you can do about it.”

Absolutely. Some data is better than no data.

How is this for bad luck turned good. Arrive at Bellagio Casino and Hotel around 1 am. We get the swipe card for our (standard) room and head up there. I swipe the door open and in front of me is a half naked woman getting changed. Profuse apologies, and we head back to reception rather grumpily to tell them they issued us a room that was already occupied.

They are most apologetic and arrange a new room for us. We get up there to find it is a 29th 1500 square foot floor suite!!!

The main bedroom.

The living area. There’s even a bar just put of sight.

The view from the room on the 29th floor.

Another view of the main living area.

Goes without saying we are rather happy. Is going to be a great three nights and days here.

This is the wreckage of the plane that crashed last week at San Francisco Airport. I’m in transit here, and it is very visible from the terminal.

Trans-Tasman has a useful item on NZOG and Pike River:

NZOG has been named in last week’s Greymouth District Court decision of Judge Jane Farish as a party capable of contributing to the orders for $3.4m in fines and reparation, since Pike River Coal’s husk, in receivership, has nothing like enough in kitty to pay its fines.

Even though NZOG was in the process of quitting its unfortunate experiment in underground coal mining when the Nov 2010 blasts occurred, and even though Pike had already chewed through half of a $25m credit facility from NZOG by then, the Wellington-based oil and gas explorer gave the destroyed company access to the balance of those funds to tide it over. It also contributed $1m to a crisis fund and, perhaps most tellingly, allowed unsecured creditors – an array of third party, often West Coast contractors who faced potential ruin – access to $7m in claims NZOG might legitimately have had first dibs on. Pike River’s bank, the BNZ, took no such generous action.

This is a point worth making. NZOG have already gone well beyond what they legally had to do in helping families, suppliers and the wider community.

NZOG received an insurance payout of $42m on its losses from holding a 29% share of the illfated venture in which 29 miners died. One could even argue the company should treat the remaining $110,000 compensation per family as chump change, cheap at the price to preserve NZOG’s social licence to operate and to prevent more mud more sticking to the politically contentious oil and gas industry. NZOG may yet decide this is it’s best bet. Yet the company has every right to feel aggrieved by Judge Farish’s as yet unpublished decision. NZOG was neither a party to nor a called witness at the Pike River prosecution. The company was not named in the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the disaster as a culpable party.

Again a key point.

Now, with the written judgment not due for another week or so, NZOG is in a no-win holding pattern of saying it can’t respond without seeing the judgment. It’s not even clear there’s a right of appeal for NZOG. Another question arises – why just single out NZOG? Some 13.1% of Pike was in the hands of two Indian coal companies, Saurashtra Fuels an Gujarat NRE Coke, both attached to billionaire families, neither of whom has uttered so much as a public word of condolence to the Pike families. If NZOG is judged in the court of public opinion to owe the Pike families more, then why not every other out-of-pocket shareholder?

A fair point.

Stuff reports:

Te Ururoa Flavell has been elected co-leader of the Maori Party, replacing long time leader Pita Sharples.

No-one voted against Flavell in a vote at the Maori Party’s annual conference in Whakatane today.

An MP for Waiariki since 2005, Flavell was the only person nominiated in the vote, which took place at the annual conference in Whakatane today.

An emotional Flavell fought back tears as he thanked about 300 party members for electing him.

“I want you to know that i am up for this…I will give it my all.”

Flavell had been engaged in a long running powers struggle with Sharples, who announced earlier this month that he would stand down as party co-leader at this weekend’s conference.

Naida Glavish has also been elected president of the party, replacing Pem Bird, who announced recently that he would not stand for re-election.

An advisor to the Auckland and Waitemata district health boards and the New Zealand Police, she is a former commissioner of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. She is chair of Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua.

Glavish earned fame as the “kia ora lady” when in 1984 working as a phone operator at New Zealand Post she was demoted for answering the phone with the now widely used phrase. After controvercy she was returned to the role and allowed to continue to answer the phone with kia ora.

Congrats to Flavell and Glavish. Now the leadership issue has been settled, they have a foundation they can build on. Their party vote support remains at three times the level of Mana. I don’t think there is any prospect they won’t be back in after the next election. The question is how many seats will they have. They could even gain a list seat if they lose an electorate seat.

Audrey Young writes:

At the start of the week, I would have put his chances of surviving at 80/20. Now they would be closer to 50/50.

I still have money on him seeing out 2013, as I don’t think they want to risk Cunliffe as Leader. However if those wanting a change do a Rudd type destabilisation, it may force the caucus to act.

The coverage of the whole “man-ban” issue has exposed the party’s fundamental flaws: its factions, the tensions between the caucus and the party, and the perception that the party is overly concerned with issues of identity.

Amid the leadership issues, there has been a serious debate internally in Labour this week about the wisdom of Maryan Street promoting her euthanasia private members’ bill.

Labour is terrified it will be drawn out of the ballot.

I hope it does. This law reform is badly needed and overdue.

Would the party go with the candidate that could get them closest to Government but risk further disunity in the party, Cunliffe?

Or would it risk going with the lower profile deputy, someone less likely to get them into the Government, someone with less public appeal (nothing to do with him being gay) but more likely to unify the party?

This is the Robertson dilemma. He might be ready but is the public?

Don’t rule out Little!

But replacing Shearer with either Cunliffe or Robertson would be as risky as the move was to put in Shearer.

In the event of failure, the party could be forced to contemplate a second leadership contest closer to the 2014 election with a wild card such as Shane Jones, Little or even back to Goff as leader were Robertson or Cunliffe unable to steer the party away from a disastrous result akin to Bill English’s in 2002 of just over 20 per cent. None of these scenarios is out of the question.

I think going back to Phil Goff is an excellent idea. Please do that.

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

New Zealand notched another historic world “first” this week in its relationship with Greater China with the signing of the Taiwan free trade deal. Have you heard about it yet?

Forging the deal with the politically isolated island will enable our dairy, beef, kiwifruit and apple exporters to gain greater access to what is already New Zealand’s 12th- largest trading partner. John Key also launched the Asean strategy, which was well overdue given the ink on that particular deal is long dried. …

For political reasons – China’s sensitivity over “One China” – the Taiwanese deal goes by the humungous title of “Agreement between New Zealand and the separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu on Economic Co-operation (Anztec)”.

It’s an extraordinary mouthful.

But New Zealand can’t simply sign a straight-out free trade agreement with Taiwan, because mainland China already has one with us and while New Zealand has a closer economic partnership with the special administrative region of Hong Kong, in China’s eyes Taiwan is a mere province.

Key is correct to say the deal is “momentous on a number of fronts”.

Not only is New Zealand the only country in the world to have a free trade agreement with all parts of China – Hong Kong, Taiwan and the mainland; it is also a good opportunity for our exporters as bilateral deals with South Korea and India are still way down the pipeline.

It is a coup to be able to get an FTA with both China and Taiwan.

The drum out of Wellington is that the deal was signed at a low-key ceremony at the local university to avoid upsetting Beijing. But who (seriously) believes that the ink would ever have been applied without Beijing’s tacit approval.

New Zealand’s trade negotiators, led by former diplomat Charles Finny, deserve congratulations.

Pity our politicians couldn’t break out the champagne in public – but they have secured another deal where some of New Zealand’s competitors can’t.

The benefits to NZ of FTAs has been huge. As a remote trading nation, they are our lifeblood. Very sad that two parties in Parliament consistently oppose them.

The Independent reports:

A new survey for the Royal Statistical Society and King’s College London shows public opinion is repeatedly off the mark on issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration. …

– Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent – so the public conception is out by a factor of 34.

– Immigration: some 31 per cent of the population is thought to consist of recent immigrants, when the figure is actually 13 per cent. Even including illegal immigrants, the figure is only about 15 per cent. On the issue of ethnicity, black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent.

–  Crime: some 58 per cent of people do not believe crime is falling, when the Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that incidents of crime were 19 per cent lower in 2012 than in 2006/07 and 53 per cent lower than in 1995. Some 51 per cent think violent crime is rising, when it has fallen from almost 2.5 million incidents in 2006/07 to under 2 million in 2012.

– Teen pregnancy is thought to be 25 times higher than the official estimates: 15 per cent of of girls under 16 are thought to become pregnant every year, when official figures say the amount is closer to 0.6 per cent.

Among the other surprising figures are that 26 per cent of people think foreign aid is in the top three items the Government spends money on (it actually makes up just 1.1 per cent of expenditure)

One of the challenges of politics is that perception often trumps reality.

Unite Union has said:

Unite union will be holding a protest outside Lunn Avenue McDonald’s at 1pm today Friday, exposing racist and discriminatory hiring policies, that harm both migrant workers and local people desperate for jobs say Unite Union organiser Joe Carolan.

“There is huge unemployment of Maori, PI, Pakeha and other groups in Glen Innes, yet seven new hires this week in McDonald’s Lunn Avenue all come from only one ethnic group, the same ethnic group as the anti union store manager. …

“Our local delegates are Fijian Indian and Maori and they are furious that there is not even one other worker from another ethnic background. They will be joining supporters from the local community at a picket outside the store today at 1pm.”

So the union is complaining that McDonalds has hired Fijian Indians. Personally I think employers should be colour blind and hire the best people for the job, regardless of their ethnicity.

Maryke Penman at Stuff writes:

A woman who couldn’t afford a sperm donor advertised for a man to father her child – and is now raising her daughter on the DPB.

The father, who visits three time a week, does not have to pay child support.

Sperm donors, even through a private arrangement, were not liable, Inland Revenue said.

I agree sperm donors should not be liable, but to my mind a sperm donor is someone who is not involved with the child at all, and is simply just a donor. Why should the taxpayer be funding his child for him? He should be paying child support.

She couldn’t afford the expense of a professional sperm agency and says arranging it herself was the last resort.

“My first choice would have been to do it the traditional way, get married, the white picket fence and the whole shebang.

“But I had been single for about 12 years and my biological clock was ticking.”

So she laid out the terms of her request online and awaited a response.

She compiled a shortlist of eight candidates who had the attributes she wanted, including eye colour, height, health background and a good IQ.

“I met with them all one by one in a very public Starbucks. Most were just ordinary, decent guys just wanting to share the love of having a child,” she says.

“I told myself if there was a mutual attraction then we would do it the old-fashioned way.

“I was single so what the hey but if not then it would be the old turkey baster or syringe.”

It was the last candidate who ticked all the boxes, she says.

The woman fell pregnant six months later.

Which sounds like they did it the old fashioned way. So again, that doesn’t sound like a sperm donor to me. It sounds like a father. I don’t think you should be able to contract out of your paternal duties.

If you want no liability for a child, then you shouldn’t know whom the mother or child is. It should be arms length. Otherwise you’re just a deadbeat dad.

An Inland Revenue spokesperson says sperm donors are not generally defined as parents under the Status of Children Act 1969 and are therefore not liable to pay childcare support.

But in this case he is clearly a parent. He visits three times a week.

David Shearer has said:

“Kiwi families have been hit with a triple dose of bad news in the last 24 hours, with petrol prices, power prices and food prices all jumping sharply,” says Labour Leader, David Shearer.

“Just in time for the school holidays, petrol prices went up four cents a litre to $2.26.9 for 91-octane.  That’s on top of the July 1 three cent increase courtesy of the Government hiking up petrol tax

Yes petrol prices have gone up – because the dollar has dropped 10% in the last couple of months. Now which party has been saying that the dollar is still far too high and the Govt should intervene to bring it even lower (and hence make petrol more expensive)? You’ve got it – Labour (and Greens and NZ First).

“The latest power price data shows domestic power prices rose by 2.2% in the last three months, which means the average household will pay an extra $50 a year. 

No it doesn’t. The electricity CPI was 1366 in Dec 2012 and 1368 in March 2013. That’s an increase of 0.1%, not 2.2%.

“And the cost of food rose by 2.1 per cent in June – 50 per cent faster than in June 2012 and June 2011.  In fact, it was the biggest single monthly food price increase since National pushed up GST in October 2010. 

Food prices vary greatly month to month. The sound comparison is food prices compared to a year ago as that takes account of seasonal variations. And food prices up just 0.6% higher than a year ago, which is historically a very small increase.

Interest writes:

Banks wouldn’t want to be involved in attempting to collect GST on goods bought overseas for less than $400 because doing so would be “incredibly complex”, Kirk Hope the CEO of bank lobby group the New Zealand Bankers’ Association (NZBA) says.

Hope told interest.co.nz that although he had some sympathy with the New Zealand Retailers’ Association argument about a level playing field, banks weren’t keen on being involved. His comments come after it emerged that three government departments have set up a joint working party to see whether GST could be levied on overseas purchases worth less than $400.

“We wouldn’t want to be involved in the collection of it because it’s very complex both to implement and administratively,” Hope said.

“And I think (Customs Minister Maurice) Williamson has pointed out that in fact no other jurisdictions have figured out how to collect GST on online transactions because it’s not as easy as the Retailers’ Association would have you believe.”

Yep the Retailers need to harden up.

I don’t know anyone who decides to purchase online because of the GST difference. They buy online because it is convenient and/or available.

If the concern is the 15% GST provides an incentive for people to buy online, then the solution should be to lower GST!

Hope also said a problem for banks would be not actually knowing where their customers were.

“A customer may be in a foreign jurisdiction on holiday. We don’t know where they physically are so if the transaction is booked on their credit card in a foreign jurisdiction, are they there physically? Are they holidaying or have they just brought something from that jurisdiction?”

If my credit card company charged me 15% GST on a purchase and got it wrong, I’d want their blood.

Former Press political editor Colin Espiner blogs:

If you are ever of a mind to stage a coup against your party leader – or your boss, or even your mother – there are two golden rules you must follow. 

1: Deny you’re planning a coup

2: See rule one

So true.

I thought it might be useful for readers who have had less experience with covering coups than Garner – or myself – to set out again a few basic rules of coup plotting. 

The idea is to destablise the leader first, to soften him or her up for the bloodletting to follow. This is normally done by having a word in the ear of a journalist you can trust not to dob you in. 

You do this for a number of reasons. Going public makes the leader’s job more difficult. It probably leads to a further decline in the leader’s popularity with the public. And it sends a signal to your colleagues that a plot to roll the leader is under way. 

What we don’t know is which of the many factions was behind it?

The third point is, as I emphasised above, that those involved will absolutely lie about it. Indeed, their dishonesty is expected and accepted by press gallery journalists. One of the first things I was told when I started in the gallery was that coup plots were the one time when MPs were expected to lie to journalists – and when it was considered acceptable for them to do so. 

The counterfactual – anti-politician Don Brash notwithstanding – is laughable. “Yes Mr Journalist, you’ve got me bang to rights. You’ve rumbled me. I am planning to overthrow my leader. I admit it. Righto, I’ll just go and give the party my resignation.”

So when all MPs deny it, it means nothing.

I am absolutely sure Labour MPs are plotting against Shearer. Why wouldn’t they be? It’s sheer self-preservation. Shearer’s personal popularity with the public is woeful. Most people have no idea who he is, and those who do know think he’s a shambolic, equivocal, spineless ditherer with the political nous of a first-term MP. 

Shearer is a lovely man. I’d let him babysit my kids without hesitation. But to date he has revealed neither the fortitude nor the authority to lead a political party – let alone be a prime minister. 

I doubt anyone would have ever said they’d let Rob Muldoon babysit their kids 🙂

What sealed it for me was when Shearer was asked why he didn’t put a stop to the “man ban” proposal when he first heard about it. He replied Labour was a democratic party, “and I can’t just bang my fist and get what I want”. 

Excuse me? Why ever not? Does Shearer honestly believe Clark ran Labour as a democracy? Flat hierarchies may work fine in NGOs like the UN but party politics is feral. The leader of the pack needs to be, at best, a benevolent dictator. 

Labour’s MPs know this. They are wringing their hands in despair. The window for rolling Shearer is open, but not for much longer. But when to leap, and into whose arms? 

Those are the only questions keeping Shearer in his job. 

I still think Shearer may hang in, because the large ABC faction can not risk Cunliffe winning a membership vote and becoming Leader. It would mean several long serving MPs would have to retire from Parliament – and they don’t want to.

If the caucus still elected the leader, the Shearer would probably be toast. But unless the factions can agree on a suitable alternative, and deputy, he may hang on.

Danyl McLauchlan blogs:

Wouldn’t it be weird if Shearer’s MPs weren’t plotting to replace him?

That’s a fair point!

Incidentally the Listener has a nice profile of Danyl and his new blog.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Speaker David Carter has asked the Privileges Committee to draw up rules setting out the circumstances under which information such as security access details can be released, after concerns were raised that such details were used without permission to track the movements of United Future’s Peter Dunne and Fairfax reporter Andrea Vance. …

Mr Carter dismissed a complaint by Green Party co-leader Russel Norman against the Prime Minister over the issue, but said Dr Norman’s complaint did raise serious issues that the Privileges Committee was best-placed to look into.

“The exercise of intrusive powers against members threatens members’ freedom to carry out their functions as elected representatives and the House’s powers to control its own proceedings and precincts without outside interference.”

He said the release of information relating to journalists working in Parliament also raised concerns.

“While the media do not necessarily participate directly in Parliamentary proceedings, they are critical to informing the public about what Parliament is doing and public confidence in Parliament. Actions which may put at risk journalists’ ability to report freely are a significant concern.”

However, Mr Carter said Parliament was also a workplace for Parliamentary and Government department staff, so access to such data also had to pay regard to the rights of employers and employees.

“I believe some common understanding is required to ensure that on the one hand, the functioning of the House and discharge of members’ duties is not obstructed or impeded, but on the other hand the maintenance of law and order and the ability to investigate and prosecute offences committed within the Parliamentary precincts is preserved.”

This is a good decision. Some clarity on this issue would be welcome. As I previously said, I thought the decision to access and release the swipe card details of a journalist was the wrong call.

A fairly rare private bill has been introduced to Parliament, the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill.

There are four sorts of bills. They are:

• a Government bill—a bill dealing with a matter of public policy introduced by a Minister
• a Member’s bill—a bill dealing with a matter of public policy introduced by a member who is not a Minister
• a local bill—a bill promoted by a local authority, which affects a particular locality only
• a private bill—a bill promoted by a person or body of persons (whether incorporated or not) for the particular interest or benefit of that person or body of persons

The particular bill is to amend the birth certificate of Rowen Sullivan to reinsert Diane Sullivan as her mother. Diane died when Rowen was 17, and her mother’s partner Doreen Shields became her guardian. When Rowen turned 18 she would have no legal relationship with Doreen (despite a lifetime of caring for her) so Doreen adopted Rowen. However this mean that Diane had to be removed from her birth certificate as her mother. This private bill seeks to put Diane’s name back on the birth certificate.

Most private bills are for organisations such as the Royal Society, Christ’s College, Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind etc. It is rare to have a bill for a natural person. In 1989 there was a private bill dealing with the estate of Ellen Eames, and closer to this in 1985 Parliament passed a law making lawful a marriage between Thomas Stockman and Rosalina Howe despite him being the half brother of her mother.

Also in 1985 we had the Longley Adoption Act and in 1982 the Papa Adoption Discharge Act.