This was on the news tonight. The video and audio are a little out of sync but the response is great.

Labour MP, Grant Robinson blogs on the continued use of urgency in Parliament (with a nice pun as the blog title) to ram through laws without following due process:

http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/10/21/a-state-of-urgency/

Parliament is now in urgency. That would be the fifth Parliamentary week in a row that we have gone into urgency.Perhaps its time to rename urgency as normalcy if this is the approach National is going to take. In all seriousness, while there is a place for urgency, and (before the right begin to howl) all governments have used it, this is getting beyond a joke.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the complex the hearings on the Emissions Trading Bill are taking place from 9am to 9pm each day, with some submitters given only a few hours notice of needing to submit and then being given a very short time to state their cases. It appears from media reports that National even tried to get the committee to agree to having all 184 people who wanted to submit in public put through in one day.

The excessive use of urgency and the rushed select committee processes should be of concern to all New Zealanders.  Apart from being anti-democratic, they open the door for bad and poorly considered law. There will necessarily be simple drafting errors but more than that Select Committees are either not getting a say or not getting enough time to properly scruitinise the Bills.

Earlier this year National put through the bill creating national standards for literacy and numeracy without a select committee process. In other words without giving parents, teachers, experts in the field the chance to have a say. Inevitably Anne Tolley has now had to delay the whole process to try to deal with issues that have come up since the Bill was passed. These could have been dealt with in a Committee.

This is completely unacceptable for a Government. Urgency has its place. When laws need to be passed urgently. Not as a political tool to stifle debate or the views from the government. I forgot to note in my earlier blog that the Benzodiazepine Ban was also passed under urgency in addition to inserted at the last possible moment. Tea Party time anyone?

As fast as I ask will National have the guts to move to a flat tax system they rule it out.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/2958390/No-flat-tax-PM

The Government will not introduce a flat tax system despite Treasury advice in support of one, Prime Minister John Key says.

The working group and Treasury were working on similar ides and the Government would consider a wide range of issues, he said.

Cabinet will discuss all those issues but “there’s not going to be a flat tax system”.

So what is the point in getting Treasury to consider all options and issues but ruling out one of the best ideas before cabinet has discussed it? A flat tax system is not some big scary monster, it is a simple system that just makes sense.

“We also need to make sure we put together a system that isn’t regressive and that is fair,” he said.

Finance Minister Bill English said the tax working group and Treasury were looking at “all sorts of models” but the Government was “certainly not considering a flat tax”.

Those looking at the tax system were told to “rule nothing out” and “by the looks of it they’re doing a pretty thorough job”, Mr English said.

So Treasury is not to rule anything out, but National can before even discussing it. And they want a fair system, but the most fair system of them all a flat tax system is rule out. Is National doing some double speak here?

Labour deputy leader Annette King said her party was opposed to a flat tax because it raised questions about what other taxes would have to be raised to cover expenses.

“But I have to ask every time Treasury puts out a suggestion they are working on, it is knocked back either by Mr English or by Mr Key.

“Why are they wasting taxpayers’ money with Treasury officers working away on policies they don’t intend to implement and they rule out every time they are announced?”

Labour have hit the issue on the head here. They may not support it, but at least they have the sense to wait and see what the all the issued considered are. This is a very bad move by National, they are trying to stop debate on a potentially controversial topic, but by doing so they are opening a can of worms and will piss off their more right-wing supporters (and probably Act as well).

Duncan Garner from 3News blogs today on Chris Carter’s travel costs:

http://www.3news.co.nz/Politics/DuncanGarnersBlog/tabid/1135/articleID/124372/cat/934/Default.aspx

Opinion: Chris Carter’s Globetrotting – $131,000!

Title says it all doesn’t it. $131,000. It is not a little bit of Money is a huge amount for one MP to spend.

It seems Chris Carter as a Minister had a total disregard for the public purse.

Yup.

We now know it was more than $131,000 in just six months. And that’s just the international travel!

So let’s look at where Carter went, who he took and what it cost.

In January 2008 he went to the UK between the 7-9 January and Spain from the 15-17 January. He took his partner Peter Kaiser. Airfares cost $7246.00. Other costs, like accommodation and meals came to $9,969.92. Did he have a European holiday in between appointments? What did he do on behalf of the NZ taxpayer? Who paid?In April he went to Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and China for 11 days. Again he took his partner Peter Kaiser. He also took his press secretary Michael Gibbs. Airfares cost $28,696.00 Other costs totalled $28,712.22. All up – that’s more than $57,000. I never knew South-East Asia could be so expensive.

To be fair Carter was representing the Prime Minister at the 2008 Asia-Pacific Interfaith Cooperation for Peace and Harmony Conference in Cambodia. He then went to China to join Helen Clark and Phil Goff for the signing of the Free Trade Agreement in Beijing. I was there too. I covered it. Why Carter, Kaiser and Gibbs were there continues to beat me. There were a lot bags to carry though. He and his party then went to Thailand and Vietnam for bi-lateral and portfolio visits.

He went to Australia in April for two days. No big deal right? But how come flights for him and a staff member cost $4526.00? Try and get a flight across the Tasman for that amount? Is he taking the piss? Did he hire the plane out? Who books this stuff?

Then in June Carter, Kaiser and his press secretary went to Chile and Peru for the week for the APEC Education Ministers’ meeting. The three spent more than $38,000 on airfares to get there and just short of $10,000 on expenses. $48,000 all up. But $38,000 on airfares is phenomenal. I do remember covering APEC myself in Peru at the same time – we flew economy class through the US to cut costs. We looked at flying direct, but going through the States was cheaper and we were in the middle of a recession and this was the only cost effective to do it. We actually had to take three flights – a leg through Miami on the way back to cut costs. The return flight cost TV3 just under $3,000.

So Carter’s bill tops $131,000. It is embarrassingly large, no one is questioning that.

Labour is doing only a half-arsed job defending him as well. There’s a lot of disquiet in the Labour caucus about Carter. He hasn’t been labelled the Minister for Overseas Travel for nothing. But I guess this just shows that Carter, and perhaps those who made his bookings, had a total disregard for the public purse. Perhaps it’s systematic within Parliament. If it’s someone else’s money, then who cares – that seems to be the prevailing attitude around here.

Parliament and Ministers and their staff need to get serious.Ordinary taxpayers work bloody hard for their wages. An overseas trip for most Kiwis is a privilege. Carter and all his colleagues across the board need to be reminded of that.

$131,000 in just six months is two and half times the average wage.

So when staff and Ministers are booking their next flights, remember who is paying.

Duncan sounds really pissed off towards the end of the article. And so he should be. He is the political news editor for 3News he sees these politicians much more than any other regular member of the public sees them. And good on him for being outraged. It is our Money that is be wasted on these trips. There are far cheaper ways to travel, sure MPs need to go overseas for events, but wasting thousands of dollars in the process is simply reckless. If an employee of a company did this they wouldn’t be an employee for very long.

Whale Oil is trying to expose the huge sums of money spent on travel by Labour MP Chris Carter: http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2009/10/07/show-us-the-diary-carter-show-us-the-diary/

Watching the 3News clip you just have to wonder how that much money can be spent on travel, it is beyond reckless spending it is just completely milking the system, why does anyone ever need to travel to Aussie in Business Class?

Hat tip to Whale Oil and a number of other sites on both the left and the right for this.

The video is very slick but I have to ask the question of the real power behind it. Showing what Labour delivered in the past is not going to get us into the future. Especially given all the things highlighted National have kept. So your real point is?

(oh and I hope Kiwibank go after them for copyright breach like the electoral enrollment centre did over the orange man.)

This wasn’t handled well by either side, but wow what a temper tantrum on leaving.

This is a summary graph of the political polls over the past three years. Look at the recent end. National is dropping. But so is Labour. Who is rising? The Greens and Act. What does that mean?

a) The minor parties matter!

b) A vote for Act or National will result in a right wing government. A vote for the Greens or Labour will be a left wing Government.

The choice is yours! This election is not all over. It is not a done and dusted result. It is wide open and your vote matters.

Rock the Vote. November 8 2008.

From: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10539439

With regards to the Maori Seats, Overhangs, 5% thresholds, electorate seats and United Future trying to take a line on removing them:

“United Future has been one of the more anomalous features of the political landscape since the introduction of MMP. In 1996 and 1999, Dunne carried his electorate, Ohariu-Belmont, but his party’s shares of the vote (0.9 and 0.5 per cent respectively) would not have seen it in Parliament otherwise; in 2002, United Future got eight MPs, partly by feasting on the remains after National’s massacre and partly because an electronic worm in a leaders’ debate responded positively to Dunne’s repeated intoning of the phrase common sense.”

…

“By the last election United Future’s boilover of support had noticeably cooled: the party got three MPs, one of whom has since defected. And in the latest Herald-DigiPoll survey, it is at the very bottom of the party-vote pile, on a paltry 0.2 per cent.

Right now, Dunne is the very last person in our politics who should be complaining about a party’s over-representation in the House on the strength of its showing in electorate contests. That same poll has Maori Party support at 2.4 per cent well short of what it needs to get list seats in Parliament, but some 12 times as much as United Future can muster. Dunne has always had a wildly inflated sense of his place in the scheme of things, as his tantrum on election night in 2005 famously demonstrated, but numbers like those should give even him pause for thought.”

This is MMP:

“The influence that the Maori Party may exert in the formation of the next Government will strengthen the argument of those who feel that, under MMP, small-party tails are wagging large-party dogs. But that does not, of itself, argue for the abolition of the Maori seats. NZ First, Act, United Future and the Progressives have all, at different times and to different extents, exerted influence disproportionate to their mandate. That is MMP.”

…

“There is an argument to be had as to whether a party-vote threshold, perhaps lower than the existing 5 per cent, should have to be crossed before local success can deliver a seat in Parliament. But the need for that discussion arises because of all the minor parties and the different demographics of their constituencies. It is not an issue raised by the case of the Maori Party alone.”

I personally think that the 5% rule should be removed and if you win enough votes to get a seat you get it. Or if this is going to bring too many “randoms” into parliament and create 12 headed monsters then make it 3 MPs like they do in some other MMP countries. (I also think no party should be able to get over 35% of the vote but lets not go there).

And from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10539435

“It seems strange that the media still promote poll results as if it’s merely a contest between National and Labour. It’s actually between a Clark-led centre left coalition and a Key-led centre right coalition. At present it’s too close to call.”

…

“Smith’s unguarded comments expose a nasty side of the Nats that won’t be lost on the Pacific Island and other migrant communities.

If the publicity of these comments even knocks 1 or 2 per cent off National’s vote it may be the difference between winning and losing, and certainly puts it at the mercy of the Maori Party.

It will make it harder for the Maori Party to convince its supporters that National has changed its spots and be considered a possible coalition partner. Maori voters overwhelmingly prefer Labour over National.

National’s post-election price to the Maori Party was always going to be high. Polls show the size of Parliament will increase to at least 125 seats and therefore make it almost impossible for National and its right-wing allies to get a majority without the Maori Party.

National would probably have to repeal the foreshore and seabed legislation and guarantee the future of the Maori seats for the Maori Party to risk its electorate base. It’s a big ask, of course, but after nine years in the wilderness I think the Nats would trade their grandmother if they had to.”

…

“Clark and Key understand that they are almost certain to have to deal with the Maori Party if they want to be prime minister. If we believe the polls, Clark’s best chance of keeping her job is if the number of MPs in Parliament is increased above 120 because of an overhang.

If that happened National and its allies would just fall short of a majority of MPs. This would only happen if the Maori Party won more electorate seats than its party vote percentage allowed. Ironically Labour’s slim chance to remain in government may happen if the Maori Party defeats it in the seven Maori electorates and National won’t repeal the seabed and foreshore legislation. How delicious.”

And ironically at the end of the day it could be Labour losing the Maori Seats that keeps them in power. Politics, nothing is ever clear cut.

From Kiwiblog comments:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_least_surprising_decision_of_recent_times.html#comment-498529

Over the last few months National have rolled out policies to gut the Resource Management Act, abolish the energy-efficient homes initiative and oppose energy efficiency standards, build more new roads at the expense of public transport infrastructure, allow foreign insurance companies to compete with ACC, undermine collective employment bargaining, strip workers of most of their employment rights for the first 90 days in employment with a small employer, require domestic purposes beneficiaries to look for part-time employment, and provide tax cuts that deliver very litle for those at the bottom of the income scale. All these run contrary to Green policy.

And which of them are about creating wealth? Allowing foreign insurers to compete with ACC, undermining employment bargaining, stripping workers of their emplyment rights, and National’s tax cuts are all about redistributing wealth – from those who have less to those who already have more”. Gutting the RMA might create more short-term wealth, but at what long-term expense?

The Greens gave an undertaking to indicate a major party preference to the electorate – we think that is only fair so people know what they are voting for.

Frankly, with the policies National rolled out, Labour could have unveiled no new policy and still would have been the Greens’ preferred choice I think. Of the 12 criteria the Greens assessed Labour and National against, National beat Labour on only one – fresh water quality – and that was only because this has deteriorated so badly under Labour’s watch, rather than because National has any policy that will improve it.

If only those blind people following populist speakers would for once listen to sound policy and debate.

The pain of having automatic advertising on site.

Edit: There are at least two ads:

First Section: Helen Clark cleans up John Key with facts and cutting straight through the spin. John Key tries to suggest the current economic crises is a result of Labour without realising that International Factors have a bigger influence. John Key will not stop cutting Helen Clark off and states to Mark Sainsbury that he will just keep talking louder unless he is given ability to talk – not a good look.

Section Two: No clear winner.. John Key maybe.

Section Three: John Key implies that we shouldn’t be a leader on Climate Change because we are only 0.4% of world emissions. Well ponder this… Why be Nuclear Free when we are only a fraction of the size of the world?

Section Four: Somehow they get stuck in 1981 Springbok Tour. John Key states he didn’t have an opinion gets eaten by Helen Clark.

Section Five: Education. John Key rules out universal allowances talks about standards. Doesn’t really get anywhere. Much like the rest of the debate. They should mute the mic of the person who isn’t speaking.

Section Six: I’m almost asleep. This is actually quite boring. They get hit by a question about smaller parties. I still think that it should have been everyone over two hours maybe.

Summary: So much for a debate. It was terrible. And didn’t help much. However, the You Tube idea was great lots of young people involved. I would give John Key the win… The smilling assasin.