It showed the Government’s original intention was not to include any Treaty clause at all in the new legislation covering the mixed-ownership model. On Tuesday morning, a sentence was deleted which said the Government was yet to form a final view “but, on balance, favours no Treaty clause”.

Not sounding much like an ‘elegant’ way through as the PM suggested. More like an awkward bulldozer. No wonder the Maori Party were so angry. And in terms of why, well, you heard it here first folks.

The draft also revealed that the main “harm” the Government considered would come from using section 9 was that it would put off institutional investors. It said those investors would not understand it, which would “create uncertainty and have a negative effect on investment in the companies”.

That’s right, follow the money.

And more generally the government’s claims about still having control over the assets are further undermined by another deleted paragraph.

The draft document shows other politically sensitive paragraphs were also deleted at the last minute – including references to the limited powers ministers would have over mixed-ownership-model companies, despite the Government’s majority shareholding, and the aim of the policy being to run them as private firms.

This is privatisation, pure and simple. Core infrastructure assets built up over generations by New Zealanders, currently owned by all New Zealanders are no longer going to be there for us. The handling of the Treaty clause has been a debacle but none of this should shift attention from the real process here- the loss to all of us of our assets.

And trying to understand the unexplainable is exactly where I find myself this morning, having just watched the footage of the PMs press conference (below) from yesterday as to why Section 9 of the SOE Act is such a problem in the future arrangements for the partiallly privatised energy companies. Obviously from our point of view the whole debate is somewhat irrelevant because the assets should not be being sold at all. But there is something going on here that needs a bit more study.

To refresh our collective memory, this is what Section 9 says

Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

John Key spends a huge amount of time in the press conference trying to explain to the press gallery that the reason this clause needs to change is that the private sector can not be bound the Crown’s obligation to the Treaty. He says a couple of times that the Crown will continue its obligations, but he simply can not bind the private sector with a “general” Treaty clause.

Notice anything about Section 9? It does not say ‘Nothing in this Act shall permit a state owned enterprise to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’. No, it only talks about the Crown. And isn’t that exactly what the PM says he is still trying to achieve?

It is very curious. As is the whole discussion the PM diverts to as to whether the Section is “symbolic” and “not relevant”. Rather than go through this, I would suggest folks just read Andrew Geddis’ take on this at Pundit.

So why the political gymnastics for a clause that actually only binds the crown anyway? Follow the money. The government is desperately trying to maximise the price for the assets it wants to hock off. It is selling into what might be the most depressed market it could ever sell into. The danger signals are all around. Anything that might look to a potential buyer like a negative will be of concern. An obligation to the Treaty will act like that for some buyers. Just as with the social responsibility obligations, which Mr Key says at the very end of the clip below he has no information as to whether it will continue. It won’t. The government is trying to maximise the sale value. Anything that impedes that is up for the chop.

An interesting Waitangi Day lies ahead.

It seems the government regard the Treaty clause as it is currently contained in the State Owned Enterprises Act that covers the companies on the block will be an impediment to sale. Pesky Treaty getting in the way of National’s plan to sell off our future! The easy response from the government of course is to just get rid of it.

This is going to cause major ructions among Maori, and rightly so. Another question for the government to answer is what will happen to the “social responsibility” clause that also governs SOEs?

an organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so

Will it survive in the new legislation for the assets that are being sold?

If it goes its clearer than ever that these sales are in fact privatisation. The rhetoric about the government keeping control of the assets is empty if the legislation that will govern them removes the protections that give all New Zealanders confidence that the assets are working in the best interests of the country. These will simply be private companies acting without reference to providing a social good for all of us.

These hui will be fascinating. Morgan Godfrey has already noted that support seems to be dwindling among iwi. I know for sure we will be putting pressure on National in Parliament and in the community to stop the sales. Interesting times indeed.

In the election campaign we have just had, the paying down of debt and the return to surplus were big issues. The “show me the money” moment was just one where John Key brandished his credentials to lead us to the promised land of surplus by 2014-15. It was a certainty, and it could happen even earlier. Yet, six weeks on, the dampners are on. Key now says its only a “reasonable probability”. Another $1 billion have been knocked off the forecast. Truth is little is different in the challenging global environment now from when the promises were made, except the PM is not campaigning any more, he is in office. Not for the first time he gave the public the message they wanted to hear about economic growth, but now its time to lower expectations.

The so-called State of the Nation speech from the PM yesterday was a dull and miserable affair. Gone is the brighter future we were all promised just a few weeks ago. What plan there is has at is centrepiece more cuts to the public service. Regardless of the wisdom of those, they will be a drop in the bucket of improving the government’s finances.

No one is underestimating the challenge in front of the government. But what’s happened to the sunny optimisim of our PM? Actually there is every reason to be optimistic about New Zealand’s future if the government is prepared to do things differently. The world has changed, will the government? There is opportunity to reset fiscal and economic policy, and make the investments that will support innovative growing companies, grow our skills base and ensure that everyone reaches their potential.

But there was none of that in the speech. Not just a lack of economic vision either. And as Pita Sharples (yes, he is a Minister in the government) points out nothing on dealing with poverty or inequality. Nothing on the issues that need to be dealt with to unlock the potential of thousands of New Zealanders.

It was a defeatist, sad and tired effort. A bit like an old joke.

I felt a real sense of sadness hearing the news of the death of Ben Hana, known to most Wellingtonians, and others as Blanket Man. Like many Wellingtonians I had a few conversations with Ben over the years. Early on in Cuba Mall when he used to talk a lot more, and more latterly when he enjoyed the sunshine in Courtenay Place, with less to say, but still a nod of acknowledgement.

Ben was a polarising person. For many he was an iconic figure, part of the unique and quirky Wellington. A number of people had close relationships with him, and supported him with gifts and food. The gift of an IPod a few years ago saw him rocking out even more in his own universe. For others how he looked and acted was affronting and challenging and they felt threatened by him.

He was the face of homelessness in Wellington. It is true to say that he shunned the idea of moving off the streets in recent years, and indeed of taking on much in the way of formalised help. He was beyond that, and wanted none of it. But this is a misleading view of the experience of the homeless. For most of the homeless in Wellington it is not such a choice, and indeed for Ben earlier in his life as things went wrong, and he became unwell mentally, and his addictions developed I am sure he would have liked and benefited from some more support and somewhere to call home.

Homelessness is not necessarily about sleeping on the streets, its about not having a stable place to live, to be your base. It is often associated with mental illness and addiction, and there is far too much of it in our city. A number of organisations, especially the Downtown Community Ministry do a great job supporting those who are homeless, but we are falling short.

We have a real shortage of emergency accomodation, affordable accomodation and accomodation for those with mental illness. The different agencies involved are getting better at working together to find solutions, but still need to be more coordinated and flexible if we are to truly address these issues. Its not just government either, the community has a responsibility too. Many private landlords will not take on those who have a history of mental illness. I will be continuing to advocate and organise on these issues in Wellington. This is a nationwide issue though, and I believe it merits a select committee inquiry, as Labour has pushed for in recent years.

For me the best memorial for Ben would be that we as a city and community come together to say that we will look after and look out for all the residents of the city. We will make it a priority to deal with homelessness and the issues that lie behind it. We will respect those who are homeless for who they are, and work with them to give them real choices that will address the issues that cause their struggles and put them back in charge of their own lives. RIP Ben.

For me it makes me think of Christmas Eves in Dunedin in my late teens and early 20s. Belting this out with friends before making the call on whether a candlelight service was really a good idea in the circumstances.

So this is for all my friends who I don’t see or talk to often enough- especially Alex, who can actually sing this and sound like Shane McGowan, in tune. Happy Christmas one and all.

It seems now that despite saying, as Tony Ryall did that “all the advice” is that this can be done, they did not actually ask their economic advisors in Treasury. Instead they relied on the advice of Ministerial advisors and some mates in the financial sector.

Now we only know this morsel of information because the Ombudsmen forced the National Party to release it. TVNZ has been fighting since August to get this information released. What the Ombudsmen has not done is force them to release the five briefing papers that they do have around the planned asset sales.

There are always judgement calls about releasing this kind of information. But the public interest in the days leading up to the election should dictate that the information is released. John Key has said he will take the election result as a mandate to sell our assets. Asset sales are the defining issue of this election, and the public of New Zealand deserve to have all the information when they make their decision.

It was great to see this sign when I popped into Astoria Cafe in Wellington earlier today. Good on them for making sure that their employees have the chance to go out and vote. Not everyone knows that there are legal requirements for employers to give employees time to go and vote if they are working on election day.

The relevant bit of the law is S162 of the Electoral Act. The guts is that if a person has not had a reasonable opportunity to vote before starting work the employer has to let them go from 3pm for that purpose, and they can not deduct their pay. If they have to be there after 3pm, reasonable arrangements should be made for the employee to be able to take the time to vote. Most employers are aware of this, and are flexible, but its important people know their rights. And the right to vote is one not to be messed with.

Also worth noting that advance voting is available around the country over the next few days if for any reason you are not going to be able to get to the polls on Saturday. The details are here, just click on your electorate.

More than 100 New Zealand children who died last year would probably have survived had they lived in Japan, Sweden or the Czech Republic, a new documentary shows….Last year, more than 25,000 children were admitted to hospital for respiratory infections. Doctors routinely treat cases of rheumatic fever and scabies – diseases now rare in Europe.

It is for these families that Labour has made eliminating child poverty our number one social policy priority. When it comes to avoidable hospital admissions (for issues like skin infections and respiratory illness) the National government has removed reducing them as a priority health target. This is wrong. They have increased by 5,000 between 2007 and 2010. The reason targeting these admissions is important is not only are they a proxy for how many children are in poverty, they are also an indication of lack of access to primary care as these infections should never get to hospital admission status.

Labour will restore the reduction of avoidable hospital admissions as a priority target. We will also make child health a priority by

• enrolling all children with a Well Child provider before birth so that we have continuity of care for all babies
• 24/7 free primary care for all under sixes (and we are funding this, unlike National)
• enhanced B4School Checks and a mop up service at school for those who don’t get them
• requiring District Health Boards to adopt child health implementation plans with nationally agreed measurable outcomes and targets that are monitored by the Ministry of Health.
• developing systems during pregnancy to identify children who are vulnerable, and then ensure that the relevant levels of support are in place to support and optimise parenting.
• strengthening the Health in Schools Programme, including social workers, starting with low decile schools, with the aim of expanding the programme to higher decile schools as resources allow.
• 10 year plan to improve access and affordability of dental care, starting with a package of free dental services for pregnant women.

And the rest of the Childrens Policy agenda that we have released. You can find all the details here.

This is an issue that it is already past time to take decisive action. National do not seem prepared to do it, Labour is.