$500 in the hand

Continuing improvements in ACC provide an opportunity for significant levy reductions to benefit businesses and households, ACC Minister Judith Collins says.

“The Government is confident that a decrease in ACC levies is sustainable and is allowing for a reduction of around $300 million for 2014/15, increasing to a reduction of around $1 billion in 2015/16,” Ms Collins says.

This follows a $630 million reduction in levies for households and businesses in 2012/13. . .

“The potential 2014/15 levy reductions would leave around another $300 million in the economy for businesses and families.

“The Government is currently working with the ACC board to review its funding policy, with the aim of improving the governance and transparency of the levy-setting process, while ensuring that it reflects the Government’s objectives for the ACC scheme.

“Already there is general consensus that the improved performance of the ACC scheme makes substantial levy reductions appropriate and sustainable. Therefore, I am signalling a likely further reduction from 2015/16.

“Final decisions on levies for 2014/15 will be made later this year, following public consultation.

“The future for ACC is bright and will be of significant benefit to households and businesses alike,” Ms Collins says.

I read somewhere, and can no longer find it, that the reduction in levies would leave around $500 a year in the average household.

That’s a certain $500 in the hand which is far better than the LabourGreen promise of a $300 saving on power bills about which there is no certainty except any gain would be cancelled out by an increase in ETS charges.

No consensus, no change

One of the arguments used to urge people to vote for a change in the electoral system was that it was the only way we’d get a second vote.

They’ve been proved right.

Justice Minister Judith Collins says since there’s no consensus there will be no change.

In November last year, the Electoral Commission released its review of the Mixed Member Proportional system, estimated to have cost $1.6 million.

It recommended dropping the party vote threshold from 5% to 4% and scrapping the “coat-tails rule”, which would stop a party that won an electorate seat bringing in extra list MPs unless it reached the party vote threshold.

However Ms Collins says the changes would have been significant, and can not be done without widespread support.

On the coat-tails rule, Ms Collins told Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report that five parties want to keep the status quo and three want it abolished, so there are major differences of opinion.

“Law changes in this country require 61 votes to get through Parliament. I don’t have 61 votes to bring forward the law changes suggested by the Electoral Commission. It’s as simple as that.”

It’s not just that law changes require 61 votes, it’s that major constitutional changes should either have the support of at least 75% of parliament or be put to the people in a referendum.

Had a majority of people voted for change in  2011 there would have been a review of MMP and we’d have got to vote between the modified version of the current system and the most preferred alternative next year.

A majority voted for the status quo, there’s been a review but there’s no consensus and so there will be no change before next year’s election.

It would have been better for the review to have been carried out before the referendum then we’d have all known exactly what we were voting for.

As it was some people who supported MMP might have supported it as it is and others as they’d hoped it would be after the review.

LabourGreen might decided to campaign on the issue and promise to implement the recommendations of the Electoral Commission.

But even if they win the election they won’t be able to claim a mandate for change.

They’ve put so much energy into saying National campaigning on the partial sale of a few state assets and winning the election didn’t give them a mandate, they won’t be able to claim campaigning on the electoral system and winning would give them a mandate.

So much for supporting women

Dame Susan Devoy got no support from the left-wing sisterhood when she was appointed Race Relations Commissioner.

Now the appointment of another woman, Dr Jackie Blue, to the role of Equal Opportunities Commissioner, is being labelled  cronyism.

Justice Minister Judith Collins is being accused of cronyism for appointing National MP Jackie Blue as the next Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner.

Opposition parties and the Council of Trade Unions are criticising the appointment, saying Ms Blue has supported legislation that disadvantages women.

“It’s yet another example of cronyism from the Government,” said Labour MP Sue Moroney.

“Hard on the heels of Dame Susan Devoy’s appointment as Race Relations Commissioner, the Government is fast turning the Human Rights Commission into a recruitment agency for its supporters.”

Both positions are part of the Human Rights Commission.

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei says cronyism is a legitimate description of Ms Blue’s appointment.

“It’s very unusual for a sitting MP to be appointed to a position like this,” she told reporters.

“Jackie Blue has voted for legislation that has harmed women… she needs to explain how she is going to undo the harm.”

These women can’t see past their left-wing bias to celebrate the success of another woman.

But Dr Blue does have the support of Breast Cancer Aotearoa Coalition (BCAC) which welcomes her appointment:

The Mt Roskill MP was instrumental in securing public funding for a twelve-month treatment programme of Herceptin for New Zealand women with HER2-Positive breast cancer.

BCAC chairperson, Libby Burgess, says Dr Blue’s actions in advocating for the Government funding of Herceptin demonstrate her commitment to women’s health.

“Dr Blue is a passionate advocate for New Zealand women and her drive to see that women with HER2-Positive breast cancer received life-saving treatment in the form of Herceptin was inspirational.

“She has a clear sense of fair play, a firm commitment to equality for all and a desire to see New Zealand develop as a better society. We firmly believe Dr Blue will fulfil her new role with the energy and dedication it deserves,” Ms Burgess says.

I’d take the view of an organisation which backs up its view with evidence over the politically motivated criticism by opposition MPs and the Council of Trade Unions.

Blue out, Paul who in?

National list MP Jackie Blue is to take up a new role as Equal Opportunities Commissioner in June.

Justice Minister Judith Collins said:

“The EEO Commissioner has an important role to play in championing EEO principles, issues and practices in New Zealand as well as appreciating their relationship to social, economic and labour market trends.

“Dr Blue is committed to human rights and equity issues and is currently the Chair of three cross-party groups in Parliament. I’m confident she will be a very capable Commissioner.”

Dr Blue has a Private Members’ Bill in the ballot seeking to protect young women from forced marriages. I hope another MP takes up this issue.

Dr Blue holds a BSc from the University of Auckland and gained her MB ChB from Auckland Medical School in 1983. She came to prominence in the medical sector as a pioneering breast physician and, in 1992, was a founding member of the St Marks Women’s Health Centre. Dr Blue entered Parliament as a list MP in 2005 and has since held a number of roles including membership of the Health Committee (2005 to 2008).

She is currently the Chair of three cross-party groups in Parliament – New Zealand Parliamentarian’s Group on Population and Development, Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians and Parliamentarians for Global Action. Dr Blue is also a member of the Justice & Electoral Committee and Deputy Chairperson of the Health Committee.

Her resignation from parliament will open the way for another MP.

The next person on National’s list is former MP Paul Quinn. If he chooses not to take up the vacancy the next one of the list if Paul Foster-Bell.

Devoy new Race Relations Commissioner

A Facebook post from Judith Collins congratulates Dame Susan Devoy on her appointment as the Race Relations Commissioner.

Unequivocal or not

Spot the difference in responses to New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser’s vitriolic attack on people from “Wogistan”.

Judith Collins was unequivocal:

Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Justice, and Minister Responsible for the Human Rights Commission, Judith Collins says comments by New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser are extremely disappointing and may cause international embarrassment for New Zealand.

“New Zealand values diversity and prides itself on being an inclusive society.

“Muslims in New Zealand are also a diverse community – it is simply appalling to profile people based on their religion, skin colour, country of origin, or a perceived stereo-typed ‘look’ as Mr Prosser has done.

“Mr Prosser’s anti-Muslim rant has let New Zealand down and as a Member of Parliament he should know better.

“New Zealand First Leader, Winston Peters, needs to do much more than to hide his MP – he needs to explain why Mr Prosser’s behaviour is acceptable to New Zealand First.

“The Office of Ethnic Affairs works closely with the Muslim community in New Zealand – a community that denounces terrorism and has vowed to work with authorities to counter any terrorism threat.

“We have a strong tradition of human rights in New Zealand. Our Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race and religious belief, and our Bill of Rights Act affirms the right to freedom of religion, including the right to hold views without interference.

“As far back as 1978, New Zealand ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which underlines the right to freedom of religion.

“I suggest Mr Peters and his caucus familiarise themselves with this legislation to avoid causing further embarrassment to New Zealand,” says Ms Collins.

Prosser’s leader, Winston Peters, made a very brief statement:

I have spoken with Mr Prosser regarding the Investigate magazine article.

He wrongfully impugned millions of law-abiding, peaceful Muslims.

Mr Prosser agrees that the article did not have balance, and does not represent the views of New Zealand First.

Peters would be the first to call for a government MP to resign for a statement far less damaging than Prosser’s.

However, he has been a strident critic of immigration and is no doubt careful about not alienating the supporters attracted by his xenophobic stance.

Labour’s Foreign Affairs spokesman Phil Goff was much firmer:

“Mr Prosser’s statement is unacceptable from an MP and he and New Zealand First should consider whether he has any future in politics,” Phil Goff said.

Labour leader David Shearer was somewhat more equivocal than Ms Collins:

David Shearer says Richard Prosser’s comments were “offensive and completely inappropriate” but wouldn’t say if he would stand him down.

A war of words on Twitter between Green co-leader Russel Norman and Labour MP Trevor Mallard point to problems with one of Labour’s potential coalition partners.

Maybe Shearer’s initial reluctance to take a stand on this was because any tension between his party and the Green Party increases Labour’s reliance on Peters and his party.

Or maybe it’s just another example of Shearer being quick to criticise but much slower to commit himself or his party to action.

Leadership requires the ability to be unequivocal when it matters, Shearer has yet to show he has it.

Review prompted by concerns with Bain report

Justice Minister Judith Collins says concerns with the report into David Bain’s claim for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment by former Canadian judge, Justice Ian Binnie show peer review is needed.

“After reviewing the report prepared by Justice Binnie in September, I was concerned with some aspects of it. With the consent of the Attorney-General, I received advice from the Solicitor-General on the report. Following this advice, I decided the report should be peer reviewed. I commissioned Hon Robert Fisher, QC to do this.

“My concerns are broadly that the report appeared to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts, and showed a misunderstanding of New Zealand law. It lacked a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions.

“This was not a decision I made lightly, but one that was absolutely necessary. Put simply, it would not be acceptable to make a recommendation to Cabinet based on a report that would not withstand the considerable scrutiny it would attract.

“I am very disappointed this peer review is needed – I think we would all agree that a timely conclusion to this matter would be best for everyone. But justice must be done – a robust and proper process is the only way to ensure a certain and final conclusion to Mr Bain’s claim.

“When the Secretary for Justice and I met with Justice Binnie in September, I made it clear to Justice Binnie there were concerns with the report he provided, and it would be peer reviewed.

“I also advised Justice Binnie the report must remain confidential and it would be premature to release it until after Cabinet had made a decision on Mr Bain’s claim.
“Since then, I have received from Justice Binnie, unsolicited, two further versions of his report.

“I will receive Mr Fisher’s peer review in the next day or so, which will be forwarded to Justice Binnie for his comment. When I hear back from Justice Binnie, I will take a recommendation to Cabinet on the next steps.

“Ultimately, this review will not have an impact on Mr Bain’s claim, apart from causing an unfortunate delay to the decision Cabinet will make,” Ms Collins said. . .

This is indeed unfortunate.

The retrial found Bain not guilty. That is not the same as saying he is innocent but it does mean the jury could not say, beyond reasonable doubt, he was the murderer.

The review is adding time and cost to an already lengthy and expensive process, but if there are concerns about the initial report, peer review is required.

Finlayson tops Herald’s ministerial rankings

Attorney General and Minister for Treaty Negotiations and Labour Chris Finlayson has number one spot in the NZ Herald’s ministerial rankings.

Audrey Young dubs him the Minister for results:

Chris Finlayson has emerged as one of John Key’s most valuable ministers in National’s second term. He has scored the highest rating of all ministers in my report card on the Executive prepared with colleagues in the Herald press gallery team. . .

Mr Finlayson is Attorney-General and Treaty Negotiations Minister. He is also Labour Minister since Kate Wilkinson resigned after the royal commission’s damning report into the Pike River disaster.

On the face of it, that may not seem a natural fit – and it may be just a temporary appointment until the next reshuffle. But Mr Finlayson’s skill set may be the right one to keep the job for the rest of the term. He gets results. He has a big intellect and has a good head for detail. But he is also emotionally intelligent, and was a good choice to send to the West Coast to discuss the report with the Pike River families.

His achievements in Treaty Negotiations are the most notable. Who would have imagined two years ago the Government concluding a deal with Tuhoe?

He doesn’t make a fuss but gets things done and the number of Treaty settlements successfully concluded is worthy of praise.

Health Minister Tony Ryall and Justice Minister Judith Collins scored highly as well. The Opposition has been able to inflict few dents on the Government in health, such is Mr Ryall’s control after four years in the portfolio. Labour has had three spokespeople over four years. . .

At the other end of the ranking was education Minister Hekia Parata.

Education is always a tough portfolio and always seems to be tougher for National ministers.

That is partly due to the strength of teacher unions which are ideologically opposed to the party regardless of the merit of its policies.

Let’s not forget that for all the bad press, the Minister has kept an unrelenting and much needed focus on improving standards, especially for that long tail of under achievers.

Then there’s the Ministry of Education which has obviously learned nothing from the debacle over school closures udner Trevor Mallard in the last Labour government’s first term .

Closing or merging schools is always going to be fraught. Doing it in Christchurch which was already dealing with so much after the earthquakes required extra sensitivity which it didn’t get.

How some of the really silly suggestions, merging Avonside and Christchurch Girls’, and Christchurch and Shirley Boys’ for example which even the minister admits was crazy,  was ever mooted, let alone presented for discussion, is difficult to understand.

And a ministry which says it didn’t gives schools information because it was too complex requires radical surgery.

The full ranking (in Cabinet order) is:

John Key – 7
Prime Minister, Tourism, SIS, GCSB

Bill English – 8
Finance

Gerry Brownlee – 7.5
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, Transport

Steven Joyce – 7
Economic Development

Judith Collins – 8.5
Justice, ACC

Tony Ryall – 8.5
Health, State-owned Enterprises

Hekia Parata – 3
Education

Chris Finlayson – 9
Attorney General, Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Labour

Paula Bennett – 7
Social Development

David Carter – 8
Primary Industries, Local Government

Murray McCully – 7
Foreign Affairs

Anne Tolley – 7
Police, Corrections

Jonathan Coleman – 8
Defence, State Services

Tim Groser – 8
Trade, Climate Change issues

Phil Heatley – 5
Housing, Energy and Resources

Kate Wilkinson – 4
Conservation, Food Safety

Nathan Guy – 6
Immigration, Veteran’s Affairs, Associate Primary Industries

Craig Foss – 6
Commerce, Broadcasting

Amy Adams – 7
Environment, Communication and Information Technology

Chris Tremain – 6
Internal Affairs

Maurice Williamson – 7
Building, Customs, Land Information

Jo Goodhew – 6
Senior Citizens, Women’s Affairs

Chester Borrows – 6
Courts, Associate Justice, Associate Social Development

Simon Bridges – 7
Consumer Affairs, Associate Climate Change, Associate Transport

Finlayson tops Herald’s ministerial rankings

The Attorney General, Minister for Treaty Negotiations and now acting Minister of Labour, Chris Finlayson is number one in the NZ Herald’s ministerial rankings.

Chris Finlayson has emerged as one of John Key’s most valuable ministers in National’s second term. He has scored the highest rating of all ministers in my report card on the Executive prepared with colleagues in the Herald press gallery team. . .

Mr Finlayson is Attorney-General and Treaty Negotiations Minister. He is also Labour Minister since Kate Wilkinson resigned after the royal commission’s damning report into the Pike River disaster.

On the face of it, that may not seem a natural fit – and it may be just a temporary appointment until the next reshuffle. But Mr Finlayson’s skill set may be the right one to keep the job for the rest of the term. He gets results. He has a big intellect and has a good head for detail. But he is also emotionally intelligent, and was a good choice to send to the West Coast to discuss the report with the Pike River families.

His achievements in Treaty Negotiations are the most notable. Who would have imagined two years ago the Government concluding a deal with Tuhoe?

I think this is well deserved.  He doesn’t make a fuss but gets things done. The number of Treaty negotiations successfully concluded is in deed notable

Health Minister Tony Ryall and Justice Minister Judith Collins scored highly as well. The Opposition has been able to inflict few dents on the Government in health, such is Mr Ryall’s control after four years in the portfolio. Labour has had three spokespeople over four years. . .

At the other end of the ranking, education Minister Hekia Parata scored only 3.

The education portfolio is always a tough one. That it is tougher for National ministers in part shows the difficulty of effecting change in the face of strong unions which are ideologically opposed to the party regardless of the policy.

In spite of that and opposition from teacher unions at every step,the Minister has kept an unrelenting and sorely needed focus on improving standards, particularly for the long tail of underachievers.

Her work appears to have been handicapped at times by the Ministry of Education which seems to have learned nothing from the debacle over school closures under Trevor Mallard in the last Labour government’s first term.

School closure is always emotionally fraught. In Christchurch in the wake of earthquakes there was even more need for great care. The announcement and some really silly suggestions, such as merging Avonside and Christchurch Girls’, and Shirley and Christchurch Boys’ was, as Hekia Parata herself says crazy.

The loss of more than 9,000 pupils and earthquake damage to school property necessitated change, and major change at that, but a Ministry which handled such a sensitive issue so badly and says it didn’t give schools all the information because it was too complex needs major surgery.

The Herald’s rank (in ministerial order) is:

John Key – 7, Prime Minister, Tourism, SIS, GCSB

Bill English – 8, Finance

Gerry Brownlee – 7.5, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, Transport

Steven Joyce – 7, Economic Development

Judith Collins – 8.5, Justice, ACC

Tony Ryall – 8.5, Health, State-owned Enterprises

Hekia Parata – 3, Education

Chris Finlayson – 9,Attorney General, Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Labour

Paula Bennett – 7, Social Development

David Carter – 8, Primary Industries, Local Government

Murray McCully – 7, Foreign Affairs

Anne Tolley – 7, Police, Corrections

Jonathan Coleman – 8, Defence, State Services

Tim Groser – 8, Trade, Climate Change issues

Phil Heatley – 5, Housing, Energy and Resources

Kate Wilkinson – 4, Conservation, Food Safety

Nathan Guy – 6, Immigration, Veteran’s Affairs, Associate Primary Industries

Craig Foss – 6, Commerce, Broadcasting

Amy Adams – 7, Environment, Communication and Information Technology

Chris Tremain – 6, Internal Affairs

Maurice Williamson – 7, Building, Customs, Land Information

Jo Goodhew – 6, Senior Citizens, Women’s Affairs

Chester Borrows – 6, Courts, Associate Justice, Associate Social Development

Simon Bridges – 7, Consumer Affairs, Associate Climate Change, Associate Transport

So much for consensus

Justice Minister Judith Collins has made it clear she wants to get consensus on any change to MMP as a result of recommendations from the electoral Commission.

The shameful ramming through of the Electoral Finance Act and its short life are a reminder of why any changes to electoral law should have more than a simple majority.

Labour obviously doesn’t care about that.

David Shearer said the party is going to introduce a Member’s Bill on MMP:

“Labour’s bill will deal with the most important recommendations made by the Commission. It will abolish the one electorate seat threshold for the allocation of list seats and lower the party vote threshold from 5% to 4%. It will also require the Electoral Commission to conduct a review after three general elections.

“This should not be a party-political issue. I will be writing to the Prime Minister offering to work with the Government to see these changes put in place.

It’s more than a little rich to talk about it not being a party-political issue when he’s writing off the government’s attempt to find common ground before it’s been given a chance.

So much for consensus.

No consensus, no change

Justice Minister Judith Collins is consulting all parties about the Electoral Commission’s final report on MMP and she wants to get as much of a consensus as possible.

I think it’s important that we have electoral reform of this sort of magnitude that has  . .. not just a straight majority in parliament but a very substantial majority in parliament. . . .

I well remember what happened when the Electoral Finance Act was rammed through . . . and I know that that caused a lot of angst in parliament and in the public. . .

She is right about both the importance of consensus and the angst caused by the EFA. The then Labour-led government didn’t have much support in or out of parliament but rammed it through anyway.

Electoral law is too important to be treated that way. It should be enduring and it is more likely to be so if it has broad support in parliament.

Wellington constitutional lawyer and former Vote for Change campaigner, Jordan Williams  says the government should reject the recommendations and stick with the status quo.

Unless the government can get strong support for changes that is good advice.

If there is no broad consensus there should be no change.

MMP report tabled

Justice Minister Judith Collins has tabled the Electoral Commission’s final report on MMP in parliament.

It recommends several changes including:

• lowering the party threshold to 4 per cent – but that this be statutorily reviewed by the Commission after three General Elections
• abolishing the one electorate seat threshold
• abolishing the provision for overhang seats, and
• that Parliament consider fixing the percentage ratio of electorate to list seats at 60:40.

I don’t favour MMP because it gives too much power to parties at the expense of poorer representation for people because electorates are too big.

These recommendations make no significant changes to that.

Crime prevention best

Quote of the day:

“. . . . My view has always been that if you can prevent crime it is the best thing you can do.” Justice Minister Judith Collins.

New chair, board members for ACC

ACC Minister Judith Collins has announced the appointment of a new chair and board members for ACC:

“My appointments today underline the Government’s commitment to genuine culture change, and will lead to a more balanced and comprehensive approach to the governance and operation of ACC.

“I am pleased to announce the interim Chair Paula Rebstock has been appointed to the position of Chair. Paula has served the Board well in an acting capacity throughout a challenging time for the corporation. She has demonstrated a commitment to culture change at ACC and will bring important continuity to the role on top of her broad experience in corporate governance and regulation,” Ms Collins says.

The new Board members are Deputy Chair Trevor Janes, Professor Des Gorman and Kristy McDonald QC – all appointed for three year terms. A fourth new Board member has been identified, to commence in early 2013, bringing the Board up to its full membership of eight. The appointment will be announced later this year, giving the person time to fulfil prior business commitments. The new appointees join existing Board members Jill Spooner, John Meehan and Jane Huria.

“The Government’s priorities for ACC also include maintaining a focus on levy stability and financial sustainability, providing high quality services for claimants and clients, and ensuring the early resolution of disputes.

“Building on the strength of the existing Board members, the wide-ranging skills and experience of these appointees reflect our priorities. We now have a strong Board to lead ACC as it embarks on a new era of service for all New Zealanders,” Ms Collins says.

The old board turned around a dire financial position but solving other problems which have dogged the corporation require a culture change which is best achieved with some new people at governance level.

Age stays same now change attitude

Now that a majority of MPs have voted in favour of keeping the purchase age of alcohol it’s time to concentrate on measures which will change the attitude to alcohol abuse and misuse.

Justice Minsiter Judith Collins says:

“Our Alcohol Reform Bill aims to drive lasting change to our drinking culture, and has a wide range of measures to reduce alcohol-related harm in our families and communities.

“I am very pleased to be leading this Bill through Parliament. This is the first time in more than two decades that any Government is acting to restrict rather than relax our drinking laws.

“But, we can’t do it alone. We all have a role to play in shifting our drinking culture, towards more moderate and responsible alcohol consumption,” Ms Collins says.

She’s right, Parliament can change laws but a culture change requires a change in attitude.

Drunkenness isn’t attractive or funny or clever.

The behaviour it leads to can be and often is dangerous to the drunks and others in their vicinity.

Alcohol has a place as a social lubricant but it must be in moderation, regardless of the age of the drinker.

Is this what no-change voters wanted?

The Electoral Commission is recommending small changes to MMP :

The one electorate seat threshold for the allocation of list seats should be abolished.

• The party vote threshold for the allocation of list seats should be lowered to 4%.

• Candidates should continue to be able to stand both in an electorate and on a party list at general elections.

• List MPs should continue to be able to contest by-elections.

• Political parties should continue to have responsibility for the composition and ranking of candidates on their party lists.

• The provision for overhang seats should be abolished for parties that do not cross the party vote threshold.

• On the basis of current information it would be prudent to identify 76 electorate seats (in a 120 seat Parliament) as the point at which the risk to proportionality from insufficient list seats becomes unacceptable. New Zealand is unlikely to reach that point before 2026.

• The gradual erosion of list seats relative to electorate seats risks undermining the diversity of representation in Parliament. Parliament should review this matter.

The lower threshold would make it easier for smaller parties to enter parliament without winning an electorate.

Proponents of this will argue that it makes parliament more representative. However, I question how representative a group which requires only 500 members before it can register as a party really is.

Lowering the threshold also increases the tail-wagging-dog ability and increase the possibility of less stable governments.

Taking away the ability for parties which win a seat to bring in other MPs in proportion to their vote decreases proportionality. However, as this is one aspect of MMP which most people object to, it is likely to be one of the most popular recommendations.

Removing the provision for overhang seats caps the size of parliament at 120, reducing the number of list MPs if a party wins more electorates than it’s entitled to by its party vote.

These are small changes which won’t bring big improvements to MMP.

Justice Minister Judith Collins is encouraging people to comment on the proposed changes.

Submissions on the Proposals Paper close at 5pm on 7 September.

The Electoral Commission will then consider this feedback and report back to the Government by 31 October 2012 with final recommendations on whether any changes to MMP are necessary or desirable.

I wonder if the public would have voted against change had they known this was what they were likely to get?

Crime fighting action plan

Justice Minister Judith Collins launched an action plan to reduce crime and reoffending today:

“We’re focusing on six key areas, with a series of specific actions under each. We’re going to target high-crime locations, provide strong support for people at risk of repeat victimisation, improve interventions for vulnerable youth, reduce the availability of alcohol, increase availability of alcohol and drug treatment – both in prison and in the community – and invest in reintegration and rehabilitation for offenders.

“We’re throwing the weight of the justice sector – 22,000 staff and a budget of $3.8 billion each year – behind these targets. They are particularly ambitious given the reductions already gained, as continuing to reduce crime will get more difficult every year.”

Ms Collins says the plan is about locking in success and keeping crime falling.

“2011 saw the lowest crime rate in thirty years. Resolution rates continue to increase, and even violent crime – which had been rising – has stabilised. But for a victim of crime, that one crime is too many. Even on top of recent gains, achieving these targets will mean 112,000 fewer crimes between now and 2017 – and thousands fewer victims.

“We know a lot about crime – where it tends to occur, who it tends to affect, and the underlying factors that contribute to criminal behaviour. We’re taking what we know and turning it into comprehensive action across the justice and wider social sectors,” Ms Collins says.

The facts:

• Location is one of the strongest predictors of crime – particularly property crime, such as burglary, vehicle theft and shoplifting, which makes up two-thirds of all crime.
• 6 per cent of adults experience 54 per cent of all crime – this small group are victimised five or more times.
• The earlier a person begins offending, the greater their odds of reoffending. 17-19 year olds appearing in the adult court system for the first time are 2.3 times more likely to reoffend if they have a youth court history.
• 51 per cent of crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol and other drugs. Alcohol is implicated in 35 per cent of apprehensions for assaults, 18 per cent of apprehensions for sexual assaults and 49 per cent of apprehensions for disorderly conduct.
• Over 60 per cent of prisoners are unemployed prior to imprisonment and 90 per cent of prisoners have high literacy needs. Unemployment is also very high among offenders serving their sentence in the community. 65 per cent of sentenced offenders have a drug or alcohol problem.

The government has  set goals for the public service in five key areas, one of which is crime reduction.

Prime Minister John Key said:

“By 2017 we want to see the crime rate reduced by 15 per cent, the violent crime rate by 20 per cent, the youth crime rate by 5 per cent, and the reoffending rate by 25 per cent.

“These would represent meaningful results for New Zealand – 112,000 fewer crimes, 19,000 fewer violent crimes, and 1500 fewer young people appearing in court over the next five years.

Reducing crime has social and economic benefits.

Even people who aren’t directly affected as victims of crimes or through relationships to criminals are better off with safer homes and communities.

A separate initiative is the expansion of social workers in schools.

Extra Social Workers in Schools (SWiS) will begin in schools as the next term starts this month says Social Development Minister Paula Bennett

“The first fifty additional social workers will cover 95 schools in Northland, South Auckland and Hawke’s Bay, starting in the third school term.”

Minister Bennett announced the expansion to SWiS to all decile 1-3 schools last year, with coverage planned to increase from 285 to 673 schools.

‘’We said we’d phase the extra social workers in and these are the first 50 of 149 extra SWiS workers,” says Mrs Bennett.

“School staff can be the first to notice when something isn’t right with a child and with problems increasingly complex and difficult, qualified social workers are needed to address these issues with children and families.”

“Protecting children is an absolute priority and we need enough qualified social workers focused exclusively on children to do that,” says Mrs Bennett.

Helping children in need is worthy by itself and also as part of crime detection and prevention. Some children’s problems occur because they are victims of crimes. Regardless of what causes the problems, troubled children are more likely to have learning problems and therefore less likely to get work when they leave school which in turn makes it more likely to commit crimes.

It won’t be cheap but it is far better to spend money on the causes and prevention than on dealing with crime and its consequences.

 

New priorities for ACC

In the clouds hanging over ACC it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that the corporation was in a dire financial situation just a few years ago.

Thanks to hard work by the board and management that is no longer the case but there is no doubt there are other problems facing the corporation, particularly in its dealing with claimants.

ACC Minister Judith Collins aims to solve  those problems with new priorities:

“New Zealanders rightfully expect to be able to trust in ACC and its integrity and for ACC to ensure entitlements are delivered transparently and fairly to those who need them.

“Our new priorities set out key initiatives, measures and targets to ensure ACC meets the highest standards of best practice and service for its clients, and achieves outcomes that are consistent with the spirit of ACC’s pioneering objectives.

“A critical priority for ACC is to promote and rebuild the trust and confidence of Kiwis in the scheme it manages on their behalf. Privacy and information security is also a priority and I expect ACC to improve its practices and culture in this area.

“For claimants with a genuine need and a right to support, ACC must follow a fair process for assessing their eligibility and ensuring they receive fair entitlements.

“I expect ACC to be sensitive, responsive, and provide an excellent and timely service that reflects best practice and to minimise the number of disputes proceeding to review and litigation.

“ACC must achieve outcomes that are consistent with the letter and spirit of the legislation, while still preserving public trust and confidence,” says Ms Collins.

Among the Government’s new priorities for ACC are for the Corporation to:

• improve public trust and confidence
• improve management and security of private information
• maintain a focus on levy stability and financial sustainability
• provide high quality services for clients, and
• ensure early resolution of disputes.

The theory of a no-fault ACC system is the envy of many other countries.

The new priorities ought to ensure the corporation’s practices restore the trust that has been lost and that it does the job it is supposed to do, fairly and in a timely manner.

Collins paying own way

Confession time – when I heard that Judith Collins was suing Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little and Radio NZ for defamation I wondered if it would be better to let the matter drop.

Such is the low esteem in which most politicians are held, it’s not easy for them to prove their reputations have been damaged and I thought the suit was a waste of time and money.

But Stephen Franks has changed my mind:

Such plaintiffs serve the public interest in upholding the integrity of public debate. If there is no sanction for lying in the exercise of free speech, a kind of Gresham’s law may prevail. The person determined not to lie may be destroyed by the colour and effectiveness of ever bigger lies.

It’s very easy for MPs to insult someone’s integrity but that doesn’t make it right. It could be seen as a form of bullying and the best way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.

They are probably hoping she’ll back down, but she’s said she’s continuing with the defamation case and she’s using her own money to do so.

Even if the Cabinet manual allows for public funding of law suits of this nature, I don’t think it would be the best use of scarce funds and am pleased the Minister will be paying her own way.

Meanwhile in Cabinet . . .

Faces of the day:

Photo borrowed from TV3′s:  Cabinet’s female trio take on Key’s boys.