Why can’t WINZ do the budgeting for beneficiaries?

Green MP Jan Logie has highlighted that many families cannot get food grants off WINZ unless they reduce their costs, increase their income or get budgeting advice. I understand that if a third grant is applied for, budgeting advice must first happen before they get it.

The issue here is that WINZ can actually do their own budgets for beneficiaries, instead of referring people on to other budgeting agencies who have long waiting lists. Legally, WINZ case managers can do draft budgets to see if there is a need, and meet that need on the spot by either a special needs grant or other temporary assistance.

The trouble is that many WINZ Case Managers don’t know how to do a draft budget, and the ones that can are unwilling to do so.

To merely say “get budgeting advice” or “reduce your costs” is just lazy stuff from Case Managers who have an obligation to assist needy beneficiaries.

Read more »

Posted in: WINZ

Nice pic

Read more »

Some amazing social media stats

source All labels are clickable and lead to new stats.

Read more »

Posted in: social media

Labour and the Maori vote

Now that David Shearer is Labour leader, one of his top priorities is to win back the Maori vote. Labour has five Maori MPs. Only one holds a general seat, she is fairly new -and one is brand new.

Recent strategies include putting Maori too low on their list (Mahuta-Coyle, Davis) and selecting non Maori in general seats. So really, Labour has to do better than to rely on one or two Maori seats primarily held by long-term MPs with the odd token Maori selection in a general seat.

How about doing what National has done - select good Maori candidates in safe general seats, instead of having them contesting Maori in seats that they have no show. For example, it was a mistake putting Deborah Mahuta-Coyle against Simon Bridges in Tauranga as her main competition was the NZ First vote. Tauranga was second only to Epsom as Labour's worst electorate performance. Also NZ First got 14.9% party vote, Labour got 15%, whereas Nationals party vote in Tauranga was almost the same as in 2008 - more than 54%.

In terms of winning the party vote for Maori, Labour will have to reverse the increase in party vote in the Maori seats to National Greens and NZ First, get more people to vote in rural areas and promote the Maori electoral option.

Read more »

Posted in: Maori

Conservative Party official thinks deaf people should not be MPs

post has been updated

Kevin Campbell is the campaign manager for the Conservative Party. Prior to the election he was very happy in using Facebook to promote the party and most comments were of a political nature. But after the election he appears to have closed ranks after something he posted that many found offensive. Incidentally I was told by a Conservative Party candidate that they were not to use social media during the campaign.

Campbell questioned whether new Green MP Mojo Mathers, who is the world’s fifth profoundly deaf MP, should even be an MP as she didn’t have all her “faculties” - and only people who have all their faculties should be MPs. In other words, because she is deaf, she is unsuitable as an MP. Mathers became an MP after special votes were counted and I think she is perfectly suitable to be an effective MP.

I was one of many who pulled him up on this. Just after I did this, my comment was deleted, I was defriended, and Campbell changed his profile picture. He has now taken the post and all its 30 -odd comments down after he reiterated that there was nothing wrong with what he said, adding that because Mathers was also a Green MP she, by definition can’t be effective.

If this is reflective of the attitudes of the Conservative Party, I`m appalled. While Campbell may comment how he wishes in a free and democratic society, he should be expected to be taken to task if he publicly promotes opinion that most find unacceptable rather than wimping out and deleting stuff after an outcry.

update Just to let you know that Kevin Campbell has since e-mailed Mojo Mathers a personal apology which she has accepted.

update2 NZ Herald has the story here, which (of course) doesn't mention any blogs as the source.

Read more »

Posted in: election2011

Why charter schools won’t lift student achievement

Stuff reports

Prime Minister John Key is defending the introduction of charter schools under a deal with ACT despite National never campaigning on it, saying "that's MMP for you, isn't it?"

No, it’s not. National didn’t need Act to govern. It chose to govern with Act and incorporate charter schools under a deal. I wonder if that was discussed at the “cup of tea”? I guess Key is a little annoyed that Supplementary Member is not going to be our electoral system and we have spent millions on a referendum to get no change.

However, under Supplementary Member, Banks would have still been in parliament, and National would not have needed Act to govern either, but could choose to. I think National probably would have governed with Act under Supplementary Member, so to say “That’s MMP for you” is disingenuous.

What we need to do is lift student achievement. The choices are charter schools and National Standards, both of which are opposed by the education sector. Why?

They don’t lift student achievement. National and Act want to lift student achievement in charter schools but what will happen is that charter schools will select brighter students – perhaps from the highest decile schools in the area, or the higher performing students in low decile schools - to attend their schools, as they get extra funding for current rates of achievement, hardly benefiting the poor and struggling students who miss out.

Neither will it benefit the brighter students at these charter schools, as they are already achievers at the schools they currently attend.

But the Government will be able to say what a success charter schools are, while the lower performing students who charter schools were designed to assist remain in the low decile schools and end up failing NCEA level 1.

I`m really glad my kids go to a high decile school.

Read more »

Posted in: education

What the Labour Party list 2011 should have been

I think this list is a much better list than we had going into the election. It would have given Labour three new list MPs, and three quality MPs who lost their jobs would not have. I have stopped at Number 40 and assumed that Labour's vote would have been higher had this been the list. I`m sure most of you agree it is a much better list, taking into account those who were likely to win their seats. Of the top half, nearly a third are women, nearly a third are Maori - and a fifth aren't even current MPs.


1. David Shearer
2. Grant Robertson
3. David Parker
4. David Cunliffe
5. Clayton Cosgrove
6. Jacinda Ardern
7. Kelvin Davis
8. Shane Jones
9. Parekura Horomoia
10. Andrew Little
11. Stuart Nash
12. Moana Mackey
13. Nanaia Mahuta
14. Deborah Mahuta-Coyle
15. Jordan Carter
16. Sue Moroney
17. Trevor Mallard
18. Phil Goff
19. Annette King
20. Damien O'Connor
21. Maryan Street
22. Carmel Sepuloni
23. Charles Chauvel
24. Su’a William Sio
25. Clare Curran
26. David Clark
27. Chris Hipkins
28. Rick Barker
29. Brendan Burns
30. Ruth Dyson
31. Phil Twyford
32. Carol Beaumont
33. Michael Wood
34. Darien Fenton
35. Stephanie Chadwick
36. Rajen Prasad
37. Raymond Huo
38. Iain Lees-Galloway
39. Josie Pagani
40. Kris Faafoi

Read more »

Posted in: election2011

Party lists

Don’t you think it is a little strange that, of those who head their political party’s respective lists, one has resigned from his party, another has resigned as leader for the backbenches, and another is not leader - nor has he joined three of his colleagues in parliament. Two further parties have just their top-ranked person in parliament, and another party's top-ranked candidate was not even in Parliament immediately before the election, but now is.

First time that’s happened immediately after an election.

Read more »

Posted in: election2011

Election top fives

Good
Increase in Green’s party vote with some good new candidates
Peter Dunne winning Ohariu
Higher than expected Conservative vote – practically ensuring National did not get a majority
MMP being retained and reviewed
Government looks likely to be quickly formed

Not so good
James Shaw missing out as Green’s vote wasn’t high enough
NZ First getting back into parliament
68% turnout – worst voter turnout since the 1880s.
The cup of tea affecting the election result
Banks getting Epsom

Weird
The election night Labour and National tie in Christchurch Central
NZ First flatlining on 6.8 percent for the entire night
The Conservative Party more than doubling Act’s vote
34 percent of voters voting for change filling out referendum papers incorrectly
Green Party vote was nearly more than Labours in Wellington Central

Read more »

Posted in: Election 2011

Why Peter Dunne won with an increased majority

Well, I have been saying for a while now that Peter Dunne will win Ohariu – and win with an increased majority.

Peter Dunne not only won Ohariu with an increased majority, he increased that majority by more than 50 percent and won 39 percent of the vote. While National’s Katrina Shanks’ vote dropped to her lowest in three elections,( as did the Greens’ constituent vote) Labour’s Charles Chauvel got 315 more votes than he did in 2008- but Dunne got 925 more – and that’s with a lower turnout.

Chauvel conceded before 10pm, but has yet to ring Dunne – in fact he has yet to ring Dunne to concede the 2008 election. He also came second in 2005 and contested an electorate in 1990. I heard that a reporter tried to get in to Chauvel’s electorate party only to be told she was not wanted.

However United Future’s party vote dropped and I recon the party would have got more had the tea tape controversy not assisted NZ First. In fact the electorate vote dropped too, perhaps reflecting the fact that only 65 percent bothered to turn up to vote – the lowest since about 1884. But it wasn’t the low turn-out or any “deal” between National and Dunne that won the seat for Dunne – more people in Ohariu simply want Dunne as their MP. Dunne had a 10 point plan for the electorate, the other candidates did not. Dunne has a firm grip on the electorate – even amongst the increasing number of people who party vote Green. Fewer voted Labour too – the party vote dropped to 26 percent from 32.8 percent, despite Labour campaigners being the most visible in the electorate.

It appears that some Dunne voters, tiring of the incumbent voted for Chauvel as there was no way Katrina Shanks was going to win, but more former Shanks voters voted for Dunne – with many staying at home. An increasing proportion of those who voted Dunne party voted Green instead of Labour. National also got a good showing - 49 percent of the party vote.

It is clear that Chauvel is the wrong Labour candidate for Ohariu. He has lost three times in a row, despite Labour's footsoldiers campaigning increasingly harder. If Labour wants to win Ohariu, Dunne would either need to retire, or Labour would have to select a candidate that more people will vote for – and who wants to represent his electorate a little more than Chauvel does.

Read more »

Posted in: charles chauvel,Peter Dunne

MMP

Vote MMP.

That is all.

Read more »

Who I`m voting for

One blogger has encouraged us to advise who we would be voting for this election.

I live in the Ohariu electorate. Yes, the electorate that Peter Dunne has been holding for 27 years. In 2011 I am giving my both my electorate vote and my party vote to someone and some party other than I did in 2008.

We have four MPs in our electorate in Parliament. Greens’ Gareth Hughes just wants the party vote. Nationals Katrina Shanks wants the electorate vote, but none of her parliamentary colleagues want her to have it. Charles Chauvel wants the electorate vote and so does his parliamentary colleagues. United Future’s Peter Dunne doesn’t have any parliamentary colleagues and will be out of Parliament if he loses his seat – so he needs to win. Irrespective if Chauvel wins, he makes it to Labour’s front bench anyway. Hughes and Shanks will also be in Parliament on the list. So, in terms of who represents me as electorate MP, it’s down to Labour’s Charles Chauvel and UnitedFuture’s Peter Dunne. There’s about 1000 votes in it.

Peter Dunne will be getting my vote. He lives in the electorate,unlike the other three, he knows the electorate and at meetings he has best explained what he will do for the electorate if he is successful. He has a 10 point plan. He has been the most publicly visible MP in the campaign and can work with the incoming government.

The party that will get my vote has run a good campaign. It has concentrated on policy, as opposed to personality or scandals. It has good policies on welfare, education, employment, and wants to address inequality.It will also work with the incoming government. It has some good new candidates, particularly Holly Walker and James Shaw. So the Greens will be getting my party vote this year.

I`m not sure how many Dunne voters will vote Green this year, but there you go. There`ll be at least one. And I`ll be voting for the fairest voting system we have – MMP.

Read more »

Posted in: election2011,MMP

Don Brash wants to decriminalise smack

Act leader Don Brash is calling for the decriminalisation of smacking.

He says prohibition of smacking hasn't worked, and policing it costs tax payer dollars and clogs up the court system.

He told Big News there are other ways to restrict the use of smacking.

"It's estimated thousands of New Zealanders smack on a fairly regular basis, many are persecuted every year, and thousands of tax payer dollars is spent to police this law," says Mr Brash.

More here.Full speech here.

Read more »

Posted in: smacking

In Australia, Catholic priest accused of rape was named in parliament

A Catholic priest is seeking to clear his name after being accused in the Australian parliament of raping a trainee priest 40 years ago.

Adelaide priest Monsignor Ian Dempsey was named by Senator Nick Xenophen under parliamentary privilege last week as the alleged rapist of former Catholic priest John Hepworth, who is currently primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion.

“For four years allegations have been outstanding that priest Ian Dempsey raped John Hepworth, and that church leadership has failed to make appropriate inquiries into this matter,”

Dempsey said he had “absolutely not” had a sexual relationship with Hepworth, and may make a statement in the Senate to clear his name.

In a letter to Xenophen, Dempsey accused the senator of smearing and denigrating his reputation.

“I have a reputation for honesty and integrity. I am innocent of these allegations for which you used parliamentary privilege to name me.”

“You did not even bother to find out about any matter relevant to this case except from one source, John Hepworth. You never contacted me.”

Hepworth told the Church of the allegations in 2007, but Xenophen told parliament that Adelaide Archdiocese vicar-general Monsignor David Cappo failed to properly investigate.

Cappo denied allegations were investigated inappropriately, and resigned his appointment as chair of the Australian government’s new Mental Health Commission.

Hepworth said he broke from the Catholic Church because of rapes by three priests, two of whom are deceased.

Read more »

Posted in: Catholic

Nearly half those who come off the dole don’t get jobs

Last month the Minster of Social Development announced that more than 6,700 New Zealanders went off welfare and into work in July 2011.

I was curious, so I asked the minister’s office if that meant that everyone who went off the unemployment benefit in July went to work. I was told that was correct.

I have now found out -via the OIA - that this is now incorrect and have also been told that the Government has no idea as to whether the work was full time or not. Paula Bennett says, “Some of the trends we’re seeing are more full-time jobs, more women in work, increasing wages and more hours for workers.”

Yet she has no idea whether how many full time jobs are secured by those off benefits. Many may well be on short term or part time contracts (like doing work associated with the Rugby World Cup) and end up back on the benefit shortly after.

What Bennett didn’t say was that in July, 7496 left the unemployment benefit but only 4213 went to work. So 44 per cent of those who came off the unemployment benefit in July did so for reasons other than work. Most started full time study, probably because they couldn’t find a job.

I also sought to find out why benefits were being paid to those who were not supposed to be getting benefits after 7400 benefits were cancelled after beneficiaries failed to reapply for their benefit after 12 months.

According to media reports

Half of the people who were now off it did not reapply. Of the other half, 2000 were already in work, 1400 had left the county, were in study or failed the work test.

Prime Minister John Key said it could be assumed those people were in work. But 300 of them had failed a work test and were on a stand down period, 365 had entered study as they could not get a job. A third of the 1400 had left the benefit for reasons other than stated. Around 230 had left New Zealand, but WINZ was not prepared to tell me how long each had received a benefit before leaving without charging me. Nearly 400 were cancelled for “other” reasons which WINZ simply could not tell me.

Of the 7400 benefits cancelled, WINZ does not know why half (3698) didn’t reapply – nor could they tell me how long they paid benefits before cancelling. Some may have simply left the country.

But there is a pattern. Just half those who leave an unemployment benefit get work. Meaning that when the workforce increases, a good proportion of the increase is from those who were not previously receiving the unemployment benefit.

Read more »

Posted in: unemployed,WINZ

Gay marriage in Australia

Over the past few weeks there has been an interesting debate in the Australian Parliament over marriage equality.

Just to recap, in September last year, the Greens reintroduced a Marriage Equality bill in Parliament, but in November Parliament couldn’t agree to a conscience vote on the issue and there was no way a party vote would progress the bill. PM Julia Gillard opposes marriage equality.

So the Greens got a motion through the House that meant MPs had to consult their constituents. The response was interesting for several reasons: Most MPs oppose gay marriage, most Labor MPs support gay marriage ( even though its official policy reflects Gillard’s position) , most Australians support gay marriage – the latest Roy Morgan poll on the issue had it at 68 per cent - but, of the MPs who reported back to Parliament after the consultation, most stated that their constituents did not support it.

Labor has its annual conference in December and a conscience vote among Labor is being discussed to avoid party in-fighting at the conference. Yet, as 2/3rds of Aussie politicians oppose gay marriage( but 2/3rds of the public support it), it remains to be seen whether such a conscience vote in Parliament on gay marriage – if it ever happens any time soon - is a vote reflective of an MPs own conscience or the collective conscience of constituents' they polled and represent.

Anyway, here's a story on an Australian Catholic politician who, along with his constituents, supports gay marriage - yet his party and his church officially don't.

Read more »

Posted in: gay marriage

9/11 -what I was doing

I expect to be hit by a deluge of emails on 9/11 stories overnight, as part of the monitoring I do, but as a journalist have not written any 9/11 stories for two reasons: I haven't been assigned any and I cant be bothered finding any.

Many people knew what they were doing when they found out about 9/11 - as they did when Princess Di died and as they did when they found out that Elvis Presley died. To me, these were the three most significant " what were you doing when..." events.

Churches and media outlets world wide are 9/11ing. Its full on with sermons and stories. Its hard to believe that the terror was 10 years ago. So in the spirit of 9/11( because it is 9/11 today in the US) I`ll recall what I was doing on the day. It was a working day and I was in my car on the way to work about 8am - I was a journalist for a community newspaper - and I turned on the radio. All I heard was high pitched urgent commentary and that was the first I knew of 9/11. It didn't take me long to realise that something significant was happening in the US, but I had no idea of its significance.

It wasn't until I got to work and sat myself in front of the TV for the next two hours - as the rest of the office did - and took in the tragedy. I managed to write a few stories and then rushed home to get the TV on and it was on pretty much constantly.

And those images wont go away any time soon.

Read more »

Posted in: 9/11

Wellington drivers to be refunded thousands of dollars of parking fines

The Wellington City Council is to waive and refund thousands of dollars of parking tickets to motorists after wardens and council contractors blatantly ignored Council policy in issuing parking infringements.

I first wrote about it here.

According to information released through the Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act, parking wardens ignored policy in issuing $10,860 worth of tickets at clearways in the past two years. Most were issued in one street since July 2010 when a covert “dash-cam” - a Council vehicle with a camera - was introduced. This dashcam has taken thousands of photographs of up to six parked cars in one frame – that’s up to $360 per frame for the Council if unchallenged.

According to the Council’s parking manual [not online], infringement notices are “not issued…until six minutes after a (clearway) restriction begins, or within six minutes of when the restriction ends”. Yet in the past two years, 181 were – including people parked for a matter of seconds, still in their vehicles. The Council’s manual also states that “when the person in charge of the vehicle is present, then he or she in the first instance should be moved on”.

But instead hundreds have been covertly ticketed; most of the 181 were ticketed from the dash-cam in the past year, three-quarters actively targeted in Bowen Street moments after parking.

I asked Parkwise Manager Denis de Groet why his staff were repeatedly breaching council policy. "I'm not going to tell you," he said.

After the decision to photograph cars within this six-minute “grace” period, another decision was made to again ignore council policy, and spend ratepayers money by getting 154 vehicle registration checks, posting tickets to all registered owners – many of whom simply paid up.

As a direct result of my request, the Council’s Parking Services Manager, Colleen Thessman told me that $5100 (excluding legal costs) will be refunded to 85 vehicle owners as their tickets should not have been issued or enforced in the first place. An additional 16 tickets ($960) - about to be enforced through the courts or currently in the court system – will be waived. In addition, 76 vehicle owners - most parked in Bowen Street, had to go through the arduous process of successfully appealing tickets they should never have got in the first place.

I was one of these 76. I was told I was “considered to negatively impact on the safety and congestion around our city” after parking for 30-45 seconds without even turning my car engine off. I wrote to Thessman who told me that, despite the council’s policy, my ticket would not be waived - and to request a court hearing if I refused to pay. So I wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive - and later got the ticket waived, interestingly, a few days after I sent my OIA.

In Bowen Street, parking wardens have historically hidden among roadside bushes out of sight of motorists, emerging within the six minute “window” to ticket unsuspecting drivers who locked and left their vehicles. Other drivers drove away to avoid being ticketed –and Parking Services managers told me that as a result, the Council was unable to generate enough money – hence the dash-cams.

Now, drivers, realising that they are at parking spaces minutes early, quickly vacate- only to be pinged $60 from the impeccably timed dash-cam.

Yet Colleen Thessman claimed that the council had no idea that Council policy was being breached– despite my photographic evidence to the parking warden contracts manager as early as last year. I asked a couple of weeks back whether owners of other vehicles in my “dash cam” photo would similarly get their tickets waived or refunded – Thessman said no, they wouldn’t.

This week she changed her mind.

Read more »

Posted in: Wellington City Council

Key pushes the minor party vote at the expense of National candidates

Last week there was a rumour that Phil Goff asked his front bench if he should resign as leader. Goff has denied this and said today ”I think you`ll find that that spin has its origins in the National Party”.

Earlier today John Key emphatically denied that this came from the National Party, saying that National has “no interest in the Labour leadership”.

However, while Key is interested in speaking at conferences of minor parties – fronting to Maori Party and Act conferences, and, today, the United Future conference, he has no interest in debating their leaders on TV, but wants at least two of them to win their seats - in Ohariu-Belmont and Epsom - and is therefore encouraging supporters to list vote National – but split their vote.

While some New Zealanders what to be informed on minor party policies, Key thinks that this should not happen while he shares the TV screen, saying today “it wouldn’t do a lot about informing New Zealanders”.

So informing New Zealanders about minor parties is somewhat pointless to Key. Does he expect National to govern alone? The TV3 poll came out today showing the Greens on their highest ever polling of 9.3 percent - in fact their polling is way higher than NZ First, United Future, Act, Mana and Maori parties combined. The Greens would have nearly a third of the number of seats that Labour would have, and Labour just under half what National would have. Labour would likely lose six seats if the election were held today. Mana would get two seats if they win an electorate seat. National could govern alone – but may choose to include Peter Dunne as part of the government, if he wins his seat, as is likely.

Read more »

Posted in: Election,John Key,National

Key may have minister from a minor party even if National were to govern alone

I attended my first political party conference today for two reasons: One it was just down the road from where I live, and Prime Minister John Key was there.

John Key has lived in Peter Dunne’s electorate. Key and Dunne obviously have a good relationship, and will continue to do so after the election. Key said Dunne has done an “excellent job” as a minister in a complex portfolio. At the stand up after Key’s speech, he said even if National governed alone, conversation lines will still be open with “all minor (parliamentary) parties like Act and United Future.

I asked Key if his relationship with Dunne, who is associate Minister of Health and Revenue Minister, would change. His first word in his reply was no. Nor did he rule out a leader from a minor party –like Dunne in UnitedFuture –from having a ministerial role in a situation should National govern alone.

That would be a first.

Key said any minor party ministerial roles would depend on what expectations minor parties had in ministerial roles – but it is pretty clear what Dunne’s expectations are.

It is clear that Key obviously wants Dunne back in Parliament. Gossip among the press gallery is that Dunne is in danger of losing his seat – and would have lost it in 2008 had the Greens and Labour tag-teamed. Key was asked by reporters if his invite to the UnitedFuture conference was to drum up support for Dunne. He laughed that off, as expected, and said his standard line that it is up to the people of Ohariu who they give their candidate vote to but National will be running a strong party vote in the electorate.

That said, Key sees Dunne as someone who he sees as a like-minded person whom can work through sensible compromises. As long as Dunne has a reasonable chance of being elected in Ohariu-Belmont, the National candidate will be told to run a strong party vote campaign, and be told their entry to parliament depends on their list placing. National will hope its supporters will split their vote.

At the conference, Dunne also announced changes to child support, including the reduction in the number of nights a year used to determine shared care being reduced from 40 percent to 28 percent of nights. Child support payments will be deducted directly from the paying parent's wages.

Read more »

Posted in: John Key,Peter Dunne

Wellington Mayor picks and chooses in answering the “burning questions"

Wellington Mayor Celia Wade Brown did the equivalent of a #Goffchat today at the Dominion Post. The DomPost, in advertising the event said “Got a burning question for the mayor?” I thought I’d ask a question.

The chat started at 1pm so I asked my question at 12.50pm as soon as the site opened.

It wasn’t addressed. So I got someone else to ask it. It still wasn’t answered. The Mayor was picking and choosing which questions she would answer.

So what ”burning questions” were actually answered? Questions like what the mayor’s favourite cafe is, and what her favourite TV show is. She was asked who of Hilary Clinton or Julia Gillard was hotter – actually, perhaps that is what they meant by the “burning question”.

She was asked to rank the four main centres, but didn’t – just saying Wellington was number one. She was asked what she can do about the trains running on time, she said it was the Regional Council’s responsibility.

She was asked if she regretted biking out to see Hilary Clinton at the airport, she raved on about being one of a few “cycling mayors of cities” - without naming the actual cities.

Even the Dominion Post got to ask its own question – and that was of the few serious questions that were adequately answered.

She said having American Ambassador, Swiss Ambassador and others join her on a bike to Work ride was one of her top five achievements as Mayor. Ratepayers would be wanting more than that, surely.

Perhaps I should have asked her if she mounts her cycle on the left side or the right side. I’m sure that will be a burning question for some.

She may have even answered it. I`m sure she would have said the left side.

Read more »

Posted in: Celia Wade Brown

Snowing in Wellington: A once in a lifetime event

Read more »

National’s welfare policy is hot air on a cold day – it won’t happen

National’s plan to get tough on 16-18 year olds will not happen – and listening to John Key defending the policy on Morning Report today I suspect Key actually doesn’t even believe that it will be implemented the way he would like. I don’t think it will be implemented properly at all – because most things can be done without a policy change and they are just not being done now.

What would help is if the Government was as loud on the desirability of intact stable two-parent families as they were on waving a stick at teen beneficiaries whom nobody wants to employ or train. Perhaps he could ask why WINZ has put these teens in the too-hard basket, along with those who have been receiving a benefit for 10 years.

Young sole parents would be required to be in work or training – but there are not enough work or training opportunities for the ones that have not got themselves pregnant or dropped out of school.

There are between 8500 and 13,500 aged 16 and 17 not in work, training or education – and of those about 4000 are on benefits. The policy costs at least $20m a year to implement, (that’s about a few hours of borrowing). That’s $5,000 per person if each person was assisted in the first year. If only a third were assisted that’s $15,000 a person – and that’s if they are not back on a benefit after three months because there is no job follow up.

Not even a third will be assisted. The policy won’t be targeted properly, therefore it won’t be implemented correctly. This policy is not about getting people into work or training - it is about getting few people off benefits without saying how that will happen, who is going to do it, how it will be implemented and if it will be evaluated. If a vulnerable pregnant teen was supported by her parents and didn’t need a benefit, do you think the WINZ or any other government funded group will help her find training or a job?

No they won’t – even though, legally, any teen 16 and over can register with WINZ as a job seeker and should get training opportunities if they want to skill up or get a get a job – even if they are not receiving a benefit.

All the significant matters – direct crediting power, pre-loaded payment cards, budgeting advice, obligation to look for work or be in training, training on literacy and numeracy, can be done now. If John Key thinks the current system is “abandonment” this that perhaps reflects the government’s attitude to these people – abandonment, with nice words.

My earlier blog post on this topic is here.

Read more »

Posted in: unemployed,WINZ

Key's speech to the National Party conference

At today’s National Party conference, John Key flagged some changes (some of which weren't changes) he hopes will prevent 16-17 year old's going onto the unemployment benefit. Instead they will have jobs, education or training – and receive a copy of “Playground Battle” from the feelers, as it has the song “Stand Up”, the theme song from the conference.

Actually, they`ll miss out on the feelers – and the training incentive allowance. Some will miss out on most of their benefit too, as it will be put on payment cards that can't be used on cigarettes and alcohol( which they can't legally buy anyway). If they study part time, perhaps if they get accepted in a tertiary institute in a few years, they won’t get $1000 course-related costs, like I did when I was studying.

The Government is going to amend the Privacy Act and the Education Act to require schools to reveal when 16- and 17-year-olds leave during the year, and share this information between the Ministries of Education and Social Development. That is because it has no idea where 16-17 year olds have come from – mind you the MSD has no idea when people leave the country either and are paying thousands each week to ex-pats who they think are in NZ, but have never checked.

The government will also fund community and other organisations to provide comprehensive and concentrated support.

In fact the Government has been doing this for years through programmes like Training Opportunites – but while funded for training, it is measured on employment outcomes, so the policy design wasn’t the best as if they were fully trained and didn’t get work the outcome was less positive. But it is very similar to what Key announced today. Government funding would go to organisations to 'transition' in to work or training, perhaps by building skills or training, but assessed on employment outcomes.

The implication is that these teens do not have a competent adult in their lives to manage their money and to assist them to get ahead in life. So these support providers in community groups will be these competent adults, and in some cases will pay their bills from their benefits and help them get into education, training and work – or the Ministry of Social Development will do it.

Actually, the MSD can pay money for bills for young people directly out of benefits - So why isn’t it?

Further, young people who are receiving these payments will have clear obligations, for example; to attend budgeting or parenting programmes.

WINZ offers budgeting advice. Why aren’t these young people being referred to it? Why is National announcing policy that, in part, it can implement now, but isn’t to a significant degree?

Key says “you measure a society by how it looks after its most vulnerable. You also measure a society by how many vulnerable people it creates”.

Obviously, the more vulnerable people a society creates, the harder that society has to work to look after its most vulnerable. But if “competent adults” are to be place alongside vulnerable teens, God help us if these people are WINZ case managers or similar.

Key said we can’t continue to give young beneficiaries money and trust they will do the right things with it. That approach has not worked.

So can we trust WINZ case managers to do the right thing for all vulnerable teens on benefits, and offer budgeting advice, training opportunities, and bill payments out of benefits?

No policy or legislative change is necessary – just the ability to implement and evaluate it - and tweak it further. It appears they are doing the latter only.

Read more »

Posted in: National,unemployment,WINZ

Why is the Government paying benefits to those who have left the country?

About 7400 are no longer receiving benefits after failing to reapply for their benefit after 12 months and the government is saying it is a $3.5m saving. ( update its a $9.5m saving now ). According to media reports:

Half of the people who were now off it did not reapply. Of the other half, 2000 were already in work, 1400 had left the county, were in study or failed the work test.

We don’t have any idea how many were studying or how many failed the work test as the Prime Minister didn’t say and nobody appeared to ask him.

But a lot of people must have been were getting benefits they were not entitled to - like the 1400 who had left the country, and WINZ apparently had no idea that they had left the country. It’s their job to have an idea.

If thousands didn’t reapply, should they have been getting it at all? Some were in work, some had left the country. If they had left the country three months earlier, who is the benefit being paid to before it is cancelled? If they were in work, are the overpayments going to be recovered?

In such cases, while WINZ should be told if there are changes that affect benefits, shouldn’t case managers be keeping tabs on their ”clients” to ensure they are paying correct entitlements, and cutting off benefits shortly after they go to work/overseas – not months later.

John Key said it could be assumed that the people who did not reapply were in work. Yet he has no idea how many of those who did not reapply were in prison, studying, formed a new relationship, or had left the country.

So this is not a $3.5m (or $9m) “saving” – this is merely $3.5m saving less overspending, less an undisclosed amount of unrecovered overpayments paid before the benefits were cancelled.

Read more »

Posted in: unemployed,WINZ

Inside the mind of the confused Jordan Williams of Vote for Change: "I believe that democracy is not about representation"

Jordan Williams is not opposed to voting for MMP in certain circumstances

Last time I looked, we lived in a representative democracy, that is to say, a type of democracy in which citizens delegate authority to elected representatives. These representatives sit in a House of Representatives and democratically represent us. We democratically elect them.

But don’t tell former Green Party member Jordan Williams that. The spokesperson for anti-MMP group Vote for Change thinks that democracy is about something other than representation, namely accountability, and he explained it to us briefly at a meeting tonight. At least, he tried to.

Basically he thinks that MMP is about representation and First Past the Post is about accountability – and given that the Supplementary Member electoral system is so similar to FPP, he thinks that it is about accountability too, and therefore democratic, but we are not sure to what extent because Supplementary Member has ugly list seats that he thinks are the “fundamental flaw of MMP”, but not SM.

Williams thinks list seats are so bad, he says that “a vote for MMP is a vote for shutting down debate” despite the fact that it Is a vote to opening up the debate as to what type of MMP system we would like.

But he thinks democracy is about accountability, which is why he likes First Past the Post, says he prefers Supplementary Member, and thinks that a select committee system under these two electoral systems – essentially a rubber stamping exercise - is about accountability – as in unbridled power.

So it is no wonder that Vote for Change, which now has just five supportershas not decided on which electoral system it is supporting, even though most prefer Supplementary Member.

It has a spokesperson that is supposed to oppose MMP, but the confusing thing is that, despite opposing MMP, Williams says if there was a referendum at the 2014 election between MMP and STV ( Single Transferable Vote) he may even vote MMP (the system he says shuts down debate) even though STV ( a system he refuses to debate benefits of) has no list seats. Williams is undecided. “I don’t know which way I’d vote,” he says.

Read more »

Posted in: MMP,referendum,STV,Vote for change

Political play with playcentres

Education Minister Anne Tolley said today that there is no risk to Playcentre funding, following the release of the independent ECE Taskforce report.

Many of those involved in Playcentres have been kicking up a stink, since the report was released on 1 June, saying that they will be losing up to 70% of funding as per the taskforce report.

Tolley said last month such claims were scaremongering, but didn't say why. Perhaps she didn't know why. So why she waited until today, more than two months after the ECE report was issued, and four days before consultation ends, to issue her media release is beyond me. Perhaps it was because John Key said on the radio that he has no idea why the taskforce recommended Playcentre funding should be cut.

Yesterday in Parliament, Tolley was asked whether Playcentre funding cuts will be ruled out. She didn’t appear to know.

She was told today that they are ruled out. Submissions to the ECE Taskforce close on Monday, but many have already submitted that they did not want Playcentre funding cut. Bit of a shambles all round, really.

Read more »

Posted in: Anne Tolley,playcentre

The Green Paper for Vulnerable Children: we can talk about child abuse now. But don't do anything about it just yet..

The governments response to child abuse is clear: have a chat about it until 28 February 2012 when submissions to the Green Paper close. I’ve now read it. Have read most of it before. Several times.

Here’s some extracts:

Government isn’t afraid to challenge itself and openly debate these issues with New Zealanders to find solutions that will help our children.

When is the open debate going to start? Am I allowed to play? The Minister says it is the “single most important debate we can have”. We should have had it years ago but we were more interested in debating whether we should smack our kids.

To achieve the best results for vulnerable children, New Zealand needs strong leadership, stability, accountability and long-term commitment.

But that has got to translate into action, not smiling and waving.

Getting good services for vulnerable children may not need new money but a more effective targeting of money already in the system and a commitment to invest in programmes with a sound evidence base

This is a “hot air” statement.

We may be spending on programmes and services that are not based on sound evidence or delivered effectively. When Government implements new policies, they need to be evaluated

So if they need to be, why the conscious refusal to evaluate?

The Government wants all children to receive the services they, and their families and whanau, need to thrive, belong and achieve. However, some children and their families and whanau do not receive essential child services for a variety of reasons. For example, their parents may not know where or how to access services, there may be a lack of appropriate services available, they may not be able to access services, or they may not want to engage with these services.

Or because the service providers do not communicate the services that the needy need to be advised of, and that’s okay by governments.

The Government wants services delivered to children, and their families and whanau, to be readily accessible, acceptable and appropriate.

And you know what, it has absolutely no idea how this should be done effectively.

This Green Paper is to National what the anti-smacking legislation was to Labour – an ineffective bandaid over a growing problem.

Minister Paula Bennett says child abuse has to stop. So, can we do something about it, then rather than adding some new ideas to previously rehashed ones that were ignored by governments.

Instead, getting National MPs to do media releases that all say the same thing with the same quotes and comments in an attempt to be seen to do something about child abuse is a bit like all those Labour MPs who smiled and nodded in unison behind Phil Goff when they wanted to do something about Goff's leadership and Labour's poor polling.

Read more »

Posted in: Green Paper

Our hungry kids - and our selfish parents

Was watching this programme on Campbell Live where a beneficiary on $529 a week was spending not much more than $100 a week on food and didn’t have enough to feed his three kids. He didn’t send them to school some days because he couldn’t give them lunch as he had no food.

Yet not all parents who fail to give their kids breakfast are that hard up. I have kids. They get breakfast every day. They go to school and come home and tell me that many of their classmates don’t have breakfast.

It’s not that their parents can’t afford to give their kids breakfast, it’s just that they leave for work at 7.30am and drop their kids off to school and don’t want to get up earlier to give their kids breakfast.

So the kids miss out. And the parents no doubt have breakfast at work. This is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that schools have to feed these kids when their parents either get Working for Families payments or are earning enough to get them over the cut-off threshold.

For parents who are on low incomes, it’s tough. Its even tougher on a benefit. But you can feed your kids porridge at about $50 every three months if you buy it in bulk. The biggest cost is the milk. If parents don’t want to do this for their kids to ensure they don’t miss out on breakfast – it’s called budgeting - there is something wrong with them. For those on benefits you can get a food grant from WINZ which will pay for nine month’s worth of porridge.

Kids should not go hungry because of parent’s poor choices. But they do. It is those parents who don’t have a choice that should get the assistance – such as the man on Campbell Live. Because he deserves it. In fact, if a lot more parents cared for their kids like this dad does,and fed their kids breakfast before work, our kids would be better off. But this man didn't appear to be applying for the assistance that is available from WINZ. He should.

And he doesn't eat porridge. But he does both need and deserve more support - and its good that he is getting it.

But none of it is from the government - its to make up for his substandard benefit income.

He even got a heater to heat his house. I'm so pleased.

Read more »

Posted in: beneficiaries,unemployed,WINZ

www.electionresults.co.nz is here

Political journalists, activists and junkies now have 24/7 access to New Zealand's most accurate forecast of the 2011 election result, following today's launch by New Zealand's online predictions market, iPredict, of this site on election results. It’s edited by Ian Llewellyn, a former press gallery political reporter for The Independent business weekly and the NZPA, and powered by the iPredict market. iPredict is owned by Victoria University.

The latest forecasts are here. Interesting that Peter Dunne has a higher percentage chance of retaining his Ohariu-Belmont seat than Auckland's Nikki Kaye has of retaining hers, and the Maori Party may get three seats. Also National is twice as likely as Labour to win New Plymouth.

Read more »

The story behind Hannah Tamaki's bid for the Maori Women’s Welfare League presidency

There has been a lot of coverage about Destiny Church pastor Hannah Tamaki’s bid to be the president of the Maori Women’s Welfare League (MMWL), which at the end of May had 2850 members.

This post outlines that payments for 921 new MWWL subscriptions were paid through a Destiny Church- affiliated taxpayer-funded Urban Maori Authority, in a failed attempt to get the maximum votes for Hannah Tamaki’s presidency bid.

The 10 branches were formed just hours before several Maori MPs were asked for Whanau Ora funding at the same conference - for the very fund that the MMWL subscriptions were subsequently paid from.

Tamaki’s mother was a member of the MWWL, and Tamaki herself is not only a member but is the president of the Wahine Toa branch. This branch is one of three affiliated to Destiny church through its Urban Maori Authority, Te Runanga A Iwi O Te Oranga Ake. This UMA was given $850,000 for government contracts for social services, but the funding has now dried up.

As the Church cannot secure contracts for social services, Tamaki probably decided that becoming president of the MWWL may do the trick and secure contracts, but she needed the votes. There were 1100 women at Destiny’s annual conference on 4 June, and 921 of them - including Winston Peters' mother sister - were signed up to the League through 10 different newly formed branches all at the same time. All had between 91-93 members. A branch has to have 91 financial members to secure the maximum of 10 votes for the Presidency – so 90 extra votes for Tamaki out of 430 votes. A branch of 90 has just 5 votes, and a branch of 10, 1 vote.

However all membership fees, totalling more than $9200, were paid by one inter-bank transfer by Destiny Church – through Te Oranga Ake, who got their funding from the taxpayer. It appears however that all members were invoiced and have apparently paid their MMWL fees to Destiny Church.

So it was clear that this Destiny conference setup was done to stack votes for Hannah Tamaki’s presidency bid by well over 25 per cent , just as it was clear that Maori MPs were invited to the same conference on the same day to secure Whanau Ora funding.

However none of the 10 MMWL branches were financial as at 30 June, the date the ballot papers were sent out for the presidency, missing Tamaki’s name. Tamaki took the League to court as her name was removed, and it was revealed that the 10 branches subscriptions were paid from 1 July 2011. So while members in the new branches cannot vote, the three financial members affiliated to Destiny church can – and the court has decided that Tamaki’s name will be on the ballot paper, one of eight candidates.

Tamaki has pledged to resign from her pastoral role at Destiny should she win, and also to donate her entire presidential salary to the league.

Read more »

Posted in: Destiny Church,Maori Womens Welare League

The politicians have spoken on Ohariu-Belmont

It is clear that one of two people will win Ohariu-Belmont (my electorate) in 2011- Labour’s Charles Chauvel or United Future leader Peter Dunne, just like in 2008. But it always was clear.

While a competent MP, Gareth Hughes from the Greens will not win, and is campaigning for the party vote. Many National Party supporters prefer Peter Dunne over Katrina Shanks, so Shanks has no option but to campaign for the party vote.

So, if you are a Green supporter, you have been advised to vote for Chauvel, if you are a National supporter, Peter Dunne. Katrina Shanks, who is currently 55 on the party list, was so out of touch that she did not even realise a deal was done by National to have their supporters vote for Dunne.

The thing is, Hughes is quite happy to ask his supporters to vote for fellow list MP Chauvel, but Shanks is not so happy that her supporters are being told to vote for Dunne. She think’s Dunne is desperate. Chauvel, meanwhile says that he doesn’t particularly like such deals saying that voters don’t like being told what to do. He is saying that because he knows that the National-Dunne deal is indeed a Dunne deal and he will not be the local MP.

Chauvel said he will be running a "time for a change" campaign – apparently in April. So far we’ve heard nothing in the electorate about that,( he's too busy focusing on the important issues). However he did say I`ll be satisfied with having my voice heard on the things that matter to me”.

Those in Ohariu-Belmont want to have candidates voices heard on things that matter to them.

John Pagani writes that any voters who wanted to be represented by Mr Dunne would have supported him in 2008. Goff says Dunne is irrelevant. Chauvel calls Dunne a faceless party boss, but it is Dunne who goes to the school fairs, and sticks around to talk to people, while Chauvel just pops his head in and takes off after spinning the raffle wheel. Shanks on the other hand, pops in to a school fair and can’t remember the name of the school when she leaves.

Yet the word on the ground is that lots of people deserted Dunne because of his support of the Labour Government. Many didn’t like Dunne’s support or Labour or his position on the anti-smacking legislation and voted Shanks, who also supported it.

This time around those on the right have got no reason to vote for Shanks, and no reason not to vote against Dunne.

Finally, anyone visited http://charles2011.co.nz here?

Read more »

Posted in: charles chauvel,Gareth Hughes,Katrina Shanks,Peter Dunne

My Mummy’s a criminal

I often get a bit tired of hearing about the smacking debate, but just thought it was newsworthy that a website Protect Good Parents went online today.

Administered by the Family First Lobby, it features a video which I’ve embedded here with a bit of a commentary. It features five families that were criminalised as a result of the anti-smacking law and comments on a review by psychologist Nigel Latta, a review that the government has claimed is evidence that that the anti-smacking legislation is "working", because nobody has been criminalised.



Provocatively entitled My Mummy’s A Criminal this 30 minute video aims to show that people were getting investigated, arrested, prosecuted and hassled by CYFS for smacking their children. It shows interviews with smacking parents and how CYFS failed to follow its own procedures in investigating alleged smacking.

One family faced around 15 charges of abuse. It went to court. The lead juror was appalled she had to use her jury service time – almost four weeks - to preside over such a case, only to acquit them of all charges in 25 minutes. The juror says:

I was embarrassed…. I was so embarrassed to be a New Zealander. This poor wee girl that has fallen in love and married her man, ends up in what should be the happiest time of her life being tortured. Who really was cruel.

However, CYFS did not respect the acquittal as this family still do not have their children. There has been no contact for more than two and a half years - that’s eight months after their acquittal.

Another family was having difficulty with one of their children so they went to CYFS for help, but the parent was told the problem was with him - he had an anger problem.

Another parent poked her son with a pen. While that is not really “smacking” it does seem that it is something pretty trivial to get arrested for, and then put in a police cell. After appearing in court four months later, this parent was discharged without conviction because the judge said the pen was used “in a manner which was tapping a child on the back of the hand”.

One family got their kids taken away from them after alleged abuse caused by smacking and later received an apology from CYFS for the way they were treated. Their case was given a “critical” rating, a rating given to cases of rape or broken bones, and normally requires removal of children within 24 hours. Yet their kids weren’t taken away from them until three days later. They are now trying to have incorrect facts about their family in the Latta report [PDF] reviewed.

John Key was asked in 2009 whether a parent who smacked a child on the leg in the back of a car would get arrested. His response?

Well, I don’t think you could get arrested for that.

The video showed an interview of a person who was apparently convicted - not just arrested - for doing just that, although details are rather skant.

The video also mentions the Latta review [PDF] . One of the parents claimed that the review incorrectly states that their daughter was sexually abused; this family is alleging four breaches of CYFS procedure that were hidden from Latta. Another part of the report says that one parent was convicted of assault when he in fact was not.

Lawyer - and Labour Party candidate for Carterton - Michael Bott says the Latta review was a rubber stamping exercise.

Prime Minister John Key also features in the video, as does Labour leader Phil Goff. In 2009 Key said:

If you lightly smack a child, you shouldn’t be prosecuted, and you certainly shouldn’t be investigated. If the law doesn’t work and people do start getting arrested, or start getting prosecuted, I will change the law.

In 2008 John Key said

if we start seeing… good parents being hauled before the courts – then I’m going to do something about it.

John Key was handed a copy of the video on July 8.

Meanwhile latest figures show that 64 children have died while in the care of Child, Youth and Family over the last 10 years. A third were recorded as suicide.

Read more »

Posted in: Family First,section 59

New video released tonight: Smacking parents get CYF’d and hauled before the Courts

The other week when I was at the Family First Forum, a video was screened that featured a few couples who have been hauled before the courts after being charged with assault after they smacked their kids.

The 30 minute video and associated website is embargoed until midnight tonight and as I have been given advance copies of both I`ll be blogging about them when the embargo has lifted, and will be embedding the video in full.

When I saw the video, it reduced some to tears at the unjust treatment given to smacking parents by authorities.

Some parents have had their kids taken away from them, others still haven’t had them returned. I spoke with one couple who are featured in the video and may blog about their story later, but the video also features legal counsel for one of the families – who so happens to be a Labour candidate for the 2011 election – and a lead juror who presided over a smacking case she considered should never have gone to trial.

The website also features an article in this Investigate magazine which casts doubt on the thoroughness of this Nigel Latta review on smacking.

Anyway, if you have or have had strong feelings or opinions on the section 59 smacking debate, you`ll want to watch this video, no matter what side of the debate you are on.

You`ll get your chance from midnight tonight, when I blog it. The video will either make you angry at the treatment given to these families or annoyed that the treatment has been exposed in video form for the very first time.

Read more »

Posted in: section 59

Dodgy Grab One promotion

I get the Grab One offers in my in-box regularly, and as a lover of coffee I was interested in the $20 for 10 Regular Mojo Coffees at Pure Espresso (value $44). We have one in the suburb in which I live. The promotion says:

Pay just $20 for 10 regular mojo coffees at Pure Espresso and indulge in a taste that will please you over and over again. Make a quick stop before work"

In order to have a taste that will please you "over and over again" the implication is that you can use the promotion to make 10 quick stops before work.

Wrong.

The conditions say that this offer can only be used in one visit. Who is going to either drink 10 coffees or have 9 mates in a cafe for a quick stop before work in the suburbs? The place doesn't look like it fits 10 people.

Wonder how many people will get this? So far 37 have.

update Have made further inquiries, apparently the offer can be "used" on one visit - and that "use" on the first visit is to get a coffee card, which can be used in nine subsequent visits. Pity the ad was so badly worded, and that there is no mention of a coffee card.

Read more »

Posted in: grabone

Why are minor party Maori ministers within Cabinet so important to Maori?

A Horizon poll –of fewer than 500 – indicates that Maori do not want the Maori or Mana parties to enter a National Cabinet. They’d rather them enter a Labour cabinet or support a government on an issue by issue basis- as opposed to entering government under the Maori Party's current arrangements.

It’s quite clear that Mana will not have a presence in a Labour Cabinet after the election, if Phil Goff is to be believed. But it is unlikely that any Mana or Maori party MP will be a Cabinet minister whoever is the government after the election.

The Horizon media releasesays that just 16.1% of Maori want the Maori Party to again accept Cabinet seats in a National led Government, 43.5% in a Labour led Government. Again? There has never been any ministers of support parties in Cabinet - including the Maori Party.

Fewer Maori want Mana to accept cabinet seats. Only 9.7% want Mana to accept Cabinet seats in a National led Government, but 38.7% in a Labour led one. It is unclear how many wanted them to accept Cabinet posts – indeed, or to refuse Cabinet posts - irrespective of whoever is the government.

Notwithstanding the agree to disagree procedures, I really wonder why so many Maori are so keen to have their minor parties accept Cabinet posts, along with the associated collective responsibility - particularly given the implosion and loss of support of minor coalition parties with Maori Cabinet Ministers. Just 2.8% of Maori surveyed would prefer the Maori Party to govern with ministers outside of cabinet (our current arrangements), with less than 2% stating likewise for the Mana Party.

Around a third wanted each party to offer support to the government on an issue by issue basis. However there was no breakdown of the split on offering support to a Labour-led government as opposed to a National government as the question wasn’t asked.

The best chance of Mana and Maori party MPs have of being ministers is outside of Cabinet. It looks like many Maori who support these two parties are going to be unhappy after the election.

Poll results are here.

Just as an aside, I wonder how many would like the Mana and Maori parties to do a pre-election deal. Because those who do will be disappointed too. It won't happen. Both parties will do their own thing - and no doubt attack each other.

Read more »

Posted in: Cabinet,Mana Party,Maori Party

Goff and Key talked to Family First – but didn’t say much

I attended a forum by the Family First lobby in Auckland yesterday, predominately to hear how John Key and Phil Goff would respond to questions from Family First’s Bob McCoskrie.

I came away wondering why their answers were so non-committal given that both leaders’ offices were sent a full list of questions beforehand, of which I have a copy. So rather than getting sprung, they had plenty of time to prepare answers to uncomfortable questions on the usual Family First topics; same sex adoption, euthanasia, child prostitution and parental notification for teen abortions. As both got the same questions they could have even shared notes.

Both were asked about marriage and family. Key said that marriage was a partnership between two people, and commitment was the key to a successful marriage.

Goff also said it was between two people- with legal safeguards built into that.

When pressed about the gender of these “two people”, Key was asked whether he’d vote for a gay marriage bill.

“That’s something I’d have to think through,” he said.

Pretty non-committal, really.

Goff’s response to a similar question on #Goffchat on Twitter wasn’t much better. ”Labour supported civil unions, when National opposed them. Not intending to make further changes”.
So that’s an “I don’t want to tell you”, from Key, and an “I don’t want to progress this”, from Goff.

Key was then as asked whether he thought the safest place for a child to be was in a marriage relationship. His one word answer: “Yes”. Goff said the gender of parents was irrelevant to good parenting. He said that a stable supportive and healthy environment ( to bring up kids) was his bottom line.

“It’s not the gender of parents, but the ability for parents to provide a stable loving environment – what would be different about parenting if it was biological?”

So that’s a “yes” from Key, and a “not necessarily” from Goff.

When asked if life starts at conception or later on, Goff said, “ 12 weeks, 20 weeks, who is to say?

Key said, “Well, you certainly hope it is before the first Plunket visit” - another throw-away line. He wasn’t asked when he thought the first Plunket visit should be, but instead he was asked whether parents should be notified should their teen be considering an abortion.

“In my view for the most part yes, unless there is a very very good reason, I think parents should be told”.

Goff said while it was desirable for counsellors to encourage a girl to talk to her parents, “would a girl confide in a counsellor if she thought that the counsellor would go directly to her parents – my guess is that she wouldn’t”.

So that’s an “I don’t know and don’t particularly care” from both Goff and Key on when life starts. It’s a "no" from Goff on parental notification - and a "sort of yes" from Key.

They were also asked whether they believed in God and faith. Instead, both gave answers on what they didn’t believe in.

Key on God: “I wouldn’t describe myself as atheistic or agnostic, I live my life by Christian principles, I live my life to help others. I can’t tell you what happens the moment you die”.

But he then said “I do think you have a spirit that moves to the next…..” but he then stopped abruptly, perhaps realising he had just said he didn’t know what happened in the afterlife, which in a way makes him a bit agnostic.

That response was similar to what he said in 2007, that is he said what he doesn’t believe, rather than what he does. He said then “I’m not deeply religious, and I don’t believe in life after death.” He said his stock answer in 2006,also.

Goff’s response was similar: “I`m not an atheist. I don’t believe in the afterlife. I`m a person of faith – born and bred a Roman Catholic, and my life has been shaped by the Christian values I was brought up with.”

Later, Key also said he ”might support” laws on same sex adoption, and told conference delegates that the government may adopt National MP Sam Lotu-Ii’ga’s
Moneylenders (Licensing and Regulation) Bill [PDF] to address loan sharking.

Among the final comments from both:

Goff: “It’s too easy to be a plastic politician”.

Key, on personal attacks in the House: “Frankly, I think Pete Hodgson is a loser”.

So the two leaders did their best to say… well not much, hoping that they`ll get some votes out of it.

Instead both got standing ovations.

Read more »

Posted in: Family First,John Key,Phil Goff

Heather Roy wastes $10,000 of taxpayers money

ACT MP Heather Roy is constantly complaining that the Labour Party is wasting a lot of time debating a bill in parliament that is ahead of her own bill on student associations, on the Order Paper. The bill aims to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997. However, as Roy often notes, Parliament coats $450,000 an hour to run, and she is sick to death of Labour's filibustering on a bill to prevent her own one passing.

So what does Roy do? She asks a series of questions in Parliament about the Royal Society on Members Day - at question time. Her questions and associated responses took 7.16 minutes of Parliaments time and we learned... well nothing at all really.

As well as wasting questions in the House that others could have answered instead, the time cost the taxpayer nearly $53,000.

What a waste.

Read more »

Posted in: VSM

Doing your nut

Idiot /Savant has just done his nut about the Chief Executive of the Department of Conservation telling a select committee that there will be no job losses in his department the day before announcing that 100 people will be losing their jobs.

Green MP Kevin Hague , who was on the committee, says he believed MPs were entitled to a more "careful and direct" response to their concerns.

It sounds like CE Al Morrison has misled the committee – on purpose. Idiot/Savant is calling for him to be sacked.

I’m not - and here’s why.

Firstly, Morrison knows how to answer questions. As a former senior journalist of both the (now) Dominion Post, and Radio New Zealand, he knows how to ask them too. He was asked whether any science positions would be lost. He replied he was not in a position to say.

Apparently, he still isn’t. So calls that Morrison misled the committee arose from him simply answering a direct question put to him. What is wrong with that?

In my experience some of the questions of select committee representatives are either misguided or pointless. Some are even patsy questions that give them the answer they already know. Some are worded in a way that does not give them the answer they desire. They are not "careful and direct" questions – and this appears to be another one of these.

If the member wanted to find out about job losses generally, the question should have been worded that way. It wasn’t. So why should Morrison be sacked for simply answering the question put to him?

However if any of the 100 jobs were science jobs, he has misled the committee, and he has lied to the media as well.

Read more »

Posted in: Al Morrison,Conservation,No Right Turn

VSM bill won't be passed before the election

Students will continue to get freedom to choose – at least when they enrol this year for summer school and early next year - whether to opt out of student association membership or remain members (as opposed to having to decide whether to join) as it looks like the VSM bill, which would make student association membership voluntary, will not be passed before the election in November.

Act MP Heather Roy, who is to quit parliament at the election, looks like she’s been filibustered. Filibustering is when lots of speeches are made in parliament on a bill for a great length of time to delay passage of dodgy legislation. Like the VSM bill.

Phil Goff has said Labour will filibuster right up to the election if it has to.

Today was Members Day. As Roy’s bill is a members bill, it can only be debated every second Wednesday, which is Members Day. Tonight after parliament finished, Heather Roy – who was on House duty for her party so had to be in the House for Members Day - drowned her filibustering sorrows by listening to Radio One – a station owned by Otago University Students’ Association, under threat because of her bill.

Because the government refuses to adopt Roy’s bill, it is a Members bill. However there is a bill called the Royal Society Amendment Bill which is taking up a lot of time. This bill has 21 clauses and they are up to clause 11. Each clause can be debated for an hour – so that’s around 10 more hours to be debated before the third reading, which itself would take a couple of hours - and then there are two more local bills due back from committee to take precedence on the Order Paper.

Yet time will run out as there is not enough hours of Members Day time before the election even if the Government doesn’t take urgency.

The bill won't go away - it can be picked up by another member after the election. Labour is hoping that it will have less support after the election. Meanwhile, a bill that amends the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, by incorporating the humanities into the objects and functions of the Society; changing the name of the Academy Council to the Academy Executive Committee; amending the standard for the election of Companions of the Society; and amending the election process for Councillors of the Society ( ok, that`ll do), has been very good for students.

Given that the bill may not be passed before it commencement date of 1 January 2012, or when students enrol for 2012, perhaps it is time for Heather Roy to pull the bill so that other bills can be debated and passed on Members Days. After all, it costs $450,000 an hour to run Parliament and pulling the bill would only assist in passing legislation, thus using the time more effectively. Makes sense, really.

However, the current filibustering is a much more effective use of time than passing the VSM legislation that nobody except a handful of politicians and their rag-tag bunch of supporters want. Nearly all of these supporters won’t even be attending university from 2012.

Read more »

Posted in: VSM

Children in poverty

According to reporting from Simon Collins:

22 per cent of all children live in poverty
One in six European children
One in four Maori children
One in three Pacific children

What percentage live with both parents who are married to each other?
What percentage of those who live in poverty have also been abused by their caregivers - and of these children, what proportion are living with both their mother and their father under the same roof?

Will the Maori Affairs Select Committee, who is to conduct an inquiry into the wellbeing of Maori and Pacific children, even bother to ask these questions?

Read more »

Posted in: poverty

What’s happening with the public education campaign on the voting system

As most will know, the Electoral Commission is charged with letting people know about the upcoming referendum on MMP and have done a nationwide mailout on the basics of the four voting systems up for grabs, videos and TV ads. As is always the case, vested interest groups are providing their slant – the most prominent being the Vote for MMP and the Vote for Change groups.

The media and blogosphere have been involved also, with a mixture of fact and misinformation. Graeme Edgeler has been offering a fact-checking service to correct any misinformation.

Some of the discussion is ambigious – for example Vote for Change spokesperson Jordan Williams says he supports a fair electoral system –particularly not a system like MMP where MPs come in off the list after losing their seat – while personally supporting an alternative to MMP that does just that, while at the same time refusing to say what his group publicly supports.

While much of the discussion is political punditry, the voters in Te Tai Tokerau and Taumaranui probably couldn’t care less provide they get their benefits each week. It is these people that are unlikely to vote and it is these people that are to be communicated with via a public communication campaign so that they can make an informed decision and get out and vote..

Yet the main thrust of the Electoral Commission’s campaign will not kick in until six weeks before the election – that’s three months away and right in the middle of the Rugby World Cup final stages. What happens if people believe that if they vote for MMP in the first referendum question it is pointless voting for one of the four alternatives in the second question? What if they don’t want to keep MMP and vote for First Past the Post in the second referendum question because they’d rather have fewer list seats in parliament, or because they’d rather see a reformed version of MMP and don’t know it may be reviewed – or believe it will be reviewed by the government, or reviewed without public input. What if they voted Supplementary Member on the understanding it will be close to a 70/50 list/electorate split - believing it to be a good middle ground between FPP and MMP?

What it will come down to is informed people such as Edgeler, and hopefully the Electoral Commission, to fact check inaccuracies, miscommunication and misinterpretation - but will these messages get through to the wider public in time to make an informed decision come election day?

Read more »

Posted in: MMP,PV,referendum,STV

On opposing an electoral system

I quite like MMP. And I believe that, in an open democracy, people should be allowed to support MMP, or oppose it - and join related groups. Running a campaign or standing for office, however, is a different matter and background checks are often done.

Martyn Bradbury’s outing of Alex Fogerty, a founding member of anti-MMP group Vote for Change, as a man who has supported white supremist websites in the past, is a case of googling a whole bunch of members of a group that is on the other side of the political fence to dig dirt and publicise it – purely because of their political beliefs. It’s the sort of stuff we have come to expect from Pete Hodgson.

I was aware of Fogerty’s links. I can use Google too. I just didn’t think it was worthwhile publicising these links.

Fogerty, who has links to the National Party, has now been told to resign from Vote for Change. He had no role in the organisation apart from signing up as a founding member. Bradbury incorrectly maintained he had an “active” role. While his name has been deleted from the Vote for Change Website, he is still a founding member and his name is on the documents on the Company Office's website. [ update So is former Waitakere mayor Bob Harvey but he has resigned as well - but is still listed as a supporter on the Vote for Change web site.]

Dunedin North’s Labour candidate David Clark is more shocked that Fogerty is Facebook friends with Dunedin-based National list MP Michael Woodhouse. (They are not now). He wants an explanation. Presumably he’d like to know why Fogerty is facebook friends with Ceila Wade-Brown also, and the rest of his friends.

It’s fair to say I abhor white supremist views, and disagree with Fogerty’s opinions on most things, but I still maintain he should be able to voice political opinions on an electoral system and join groups that encompass these views.

However groups such as Vote for Change that know they are to receive media attention should ensure that their founding members withstand public scrutiny.

The Campaign for MMP has not commented on this – they’d rather play the ball, not the man.

Read more »

Posted in: MMP

Upgrading our currency

Bank notes are to be updated and available on 2014. Stuff reports

The Reserve Bank will soon start a project to upgrade New Zealand's bank notes, opening the door to a redesign and, possibly, new faces adorning the currency.

A poll on the Stuff website of potential candidates quickly made the late comedian Billy T James the favourite, ahead of military hero Willie Apiata, running legend Jack Lovelock and opera diva Dame Kiri Te Kanawa.

I thought I`d offer my options:
$100 – The queen mother – she may be dead but she lived to over 100

$50 – Allan Hubbard – to remind us of the 50 fraud charges he is facing

$20 - Edward Te Whiu - to remind us that as a 20-year old, he was hanged for murder

$10 – Dick Taylor, who won the 10,000 Christchurch Commonwealth Games in 1974

$5 - Five-member band Blindspott.

While we are at it, let’s also revamp our coins:

$2 coin. – The New Plymouth $2 shop – the country’s first, and it is still open.

$1 coin – Buck Shelford, for obvious reasons

$.50c - We could go international here and go for 50 cent.

Thoughts?

Read more »

National Standards: The government is listening – but only to people who say what it wants to hear

Today, more than 300 schools handed their charters to the Ministry of Education without National Standards information because they believe setting targets for student achievement using National Standards will produce unreliable information. They were supported by the NZEI. All 300 must be processed within 25 working days, as per section 63A of the Education Act 1989.

Coincidentally, there seems to be a bit of a scrap between the NZEI and the government's National Standard’s Advisory group - a group set up to give the sector a voice and provide feedback to the government on the implementation of National Standards.

The group released its latest report after this month's meeting - and included many recommendations.

One was that “the Minister should be invited to approve the launch of a carefully managed process of review of the standards themselves alongside the current monitoring and evaluation of implementation”.

The NZEI responded that while the education sector was saying that the standards were flawed, it was significant that the National Standards Advisory Group was saying that they need to be reviewed.

Not so, responded Professor Gary Hawke, who heads the group. He said that rather than an admission that the standards needed to be reviewed because they were flawed, they were more about beginning to explore “ how continual improvement might be extended to the way the Standards are stated”.

So it’s all about the language - how how certain teachers express how things are done.

Rather than talking to schools that are representative of the sector, the group appears to be only listening to certain schools - called “ leading schools” - who undertake National Standards-speak. These schools claim National Standards is successful, as teachers say they are able to “diagnose where gains in student achievement are available”. The advisory group can then provide palatable advice to the Minister.

Meanwhile the NZEI would rather express things in language other than National Standards and so the two groups are talking past each other.

The schools’ Boards of Trustees and teachers just want the best for their students whatever the Ministry tells them to do. But in correspondence with the Ministry, many are couching language in National Standards terms for fear of reprisal.

Meanwhile in the classroom, most are doing what they have always done, because they recognise that National Standards – however carefully managed - makes no difference to student achievement.

But you won't hear that advice from the advisory group.

Read more »

Posted in: National Standards

More on that referendum on the voting system

Sometimes I wish I was a journalist, even if it was to clarify answers given by Jordan Williams. Well I am a journalist, but not for radio or TV.

Also, just to clarify, there are two questions in the referendum on the electoral system, to be held at the general election.You will be asked whether you want to retain MMP or change to another system. Then you`ll be asked which of four other voting systems to choose from should voters opt for change.

You can answer both questions, or one question – i.e you can answer the second question even if you don’t answer the first one, and vice versa. That’s important. If MMP is kept, it will be reformed, the second question will become irrelevant and there`ll be no 2014 referendum.

Vote for Change are banking on there being a referendum in 2014 between MMP and the favoured alternative. Spokesperson Jordan Williams was on TVNZ today. He said:

NZers should tick to change the system this election, so we actually get to see what this reformed MMP would look like. .. It would be a disaster if NZers vote to keep MMP and we hand the power over to the politicians to reform it.

Two points:
1. Politicians will not be reforming MMP – the Electoral Commission will. The Government will decide whether to adopt its recommendations.
2. There is no guarantee we will “actually get to see what the reformed MMP will look like” if we tick to change the system as the government may not hold a 2014 referendum.What if the government decides to stick with the the chosen 2011 alternative for the 2014 election should a majority decide to ditch MMP? MMP will be gone.What if the alternative system is chosen in 2014? There’s a better chance to see MMP reformed (and sooner) if we tick to keep it in 2011.

So in sum, if MMP is retained in 2011, it is after that we will get to see “what this reformed MMP would look like". If it is not, the favoured system as voted in the second referendum question should run off against MMP in a referendum in 2014. If MMP loses again, we don’t get to see MMP reformed, if MMP wins, we do.

If you want to see MMP reformed, vote for it in 2011.Got that?

Read more »

Posted in: FPP,MMP,PV,referendum,SM,STV

Voting for electoral system change

Peter Shirtcliffe may be 80, but he has a lot of say in this new anti MMP “Vote for Change” group, and spokesperson Jordan Williams is merely helping him along a bit.

The group's rules show the committee has just two people: spokesperson Jordan Williams and Peter Shirtcliffe. However Simon Lusk is also involved.This committee holds office until the next Annual General meeting of the society – usually held in May - six months after the election. Perhaps it`ll be a post-mortem on the referendum – that’s if the group has not already been wound up.

If members want to call a special general meeting it can be up to four months before it is held, but if Shirtcliffe and Williams want to hold one, they can do so within 14 days of a committee meeting.

The group’s founding members include Peter Shirtcliffe, Aaron Hape, Annabel Young, Chris Parkin, Emma Daken and Michael Bassett – most signed up by Jordan Williams – all who support one of two electoral systems. The good news about this group is that anyone can apply to join. The bad news is that the couple on the committee can remove any member, or refuse any prospective member, for pretty much any reason – like intending to vote for change to STV. Their decision is final. Only certain "votes for change" are permitted.

Now back to the electoral systems and the possible review of MMP. The “Vote for Change” group believes the review process is flawed as it is up to the politicians to “fix” MMP. Furthermore they’ve said that those who support a review of MMP are really admitting that MMP is “flawed”.

On Morning Report, Williams said that his group is about discussing “what of the four alternative” electoral systems should replace MMP. Yet the group refuses to discuss the benefits of Preferential Voting and the STV systems.

So in reality, the group is about “which of two alternative” electoral systems – First Past the Post or Supplementary Member - should be preferred, with the result being Supplementary Member, as decreed. Those who support any other system could be deemed as acting “contrary to the aims of the society”, as their vote for change is not what Williams and Shirtcliffe propose.

As both Williams and Shirtcliffe have come out in support of Supplementary Member (SM), if other members disagree with an impending announcement to support the SM electoral system, because they support First Past the Post, will that affect their membership, will they be coerced to support SM - or will they be told to shut up.

Read more »

Posted in: FPP,MMP,referendum,SM,STV,Supplementary Member

Vote for Change – to what?

A new anti MMP campaign has gone online today. It’s called Vote for change – a group that wants a fairer electoral system than MMP. But it is unclear what they want to change to as they have not endorsed a particular alternative to MMP.

That is because some of its founding members can’t agree on whether they like the First Past The Post (FPP) or the Supplementary Member (SM) electoral system.

So what do they want?

We want an electoral system that provides certainty for voters, rather than forcing Kiwis to wait for post-election negotiations. Vote for Change wants governments to be held to what they promised, not what parties manage to negotiate in coalition agreements.

It appears they want a government without a coalition and haven’t thought through how their support for either FPP or SM assists governments to be held to what they promised. It’s also clear that they don’t want MMP

MMP allows List MPs who have been voted out by their local electorates to sneak back into Parliament on party lists.

So they don’t particularly like a lot of list MPs – if they want a reduction of list MPs they`ll support Supplementary Member, in the hope that a one party government can be formed

Under MMP, MPs need to listen to party bosses to keep list rankings, instead of listening to their electorates.

That won’t change with Supplementary Member, as those who rely on list places will be listening to their bosses more so they don’t miss out altogether, let alone worry about where on the list they`ll be ranked.

Like I said, this group have not specified a decision on which electoral system to support. The group says that once they have a “substantial membership base Vote for Change will announce its decision” - a decision to support the Supplementary Member system.

Read more »

Posted in: MMP,referenda,SM,Vote for change