Kiwiblog

Up until now I had not blogged on the Everest debate, partly because my view was somewhere between the two camps of “There was nothing one could do” and “Inglis should have tried anyway”.

However the SST editorial on the issue, pretty much reflects my own views.

It is wrong to single out Inglis; he could not have saved Sharp by himself. But it is also wrong to exempt him from blame. Inglis, and the 39 other mountaineers who did not stop to help the British climber, made the wrong decision.

And later:

Inglis, to his credit, sensed there was a problem. He stopped, radioed for advice, and seems to have worried about whether he was doing the right thing. A sherpa offered aid. But who knows what could have been done if all those passing mountaineers had shown solidarity with David Sharp?

Matthew Hooton, in the SST, labels Parekura Horomia as “possibly the most incompetent person ever to have held a ministerial warrant in New Zealand”. He may be right, but for my money George Hawkins was definitely a contender also.

Hooton goes on to conclude that Labour’s lack of talent comes from the fact they have used their party list to protect incumbent MPs, ranking them all at the top for the last few elections. You do this to avoid short-term pain, but it causes long-term pain.

National has had a varied record over the years in regards to does it protect MPs by placing them high on the List. In 1996 and 1999 the Government had majorities of one, so National couldn’t afford to upset an MP with a low list ranking as they could bring down the Government. There was no formal decision to place all MPs in winnable spots but that is just the way it turned out.

In 2002 then President Michelle Boag made it very clear there would be no list protection for some MPs, and effectively encouraged electorate challenges also. This did result in gaining new MPs such as Don Brash, John Key and Judith Collins but caused a huge amount of friction and resentment in the Caucus and wider party.

In 2005, for the first time, National puts all of its 25 MPs seeking re-election in the top 30 spots. The rationale was that clearly National was going to get at least 40 MPs, so as there was no question of being able to get some new talent into Parliament why go out of the way to offend some MPs by having them receive lowish rankings?

Many were concerned that this may set a bad precedent for the future, and it was seen as a one off. It will be most interesting to observe what approach National takes at the next election. I believe it is essential to avoid the problems that Labour has with its lack of talent, and not have incumbent MPs given protected positions on the list.

Of course ten of the new MPs, got there by winning seats off Labour (or Winston) so they will be hoping not to have to rely on a list ranking to get back in.

As even the most ardent Labourite finds it difficult to argue that tax cuts are not affordable with a $9b surplus (well not with keeping a straight face) they often point to the forceasted surplus for the out years and exclaim that it is going to shrink to $3.5b, so hence tax cuts are not affordable.

Leaving aside for one second the fact that Dr Cullen can make the out year forecast surplus be anything he wants by changing the level of unallocated future expenditure (which is a massive $9.9b slush fund over three years), we should look at whether surpluses turn out larger or smaller than forecast.

Taking the OBERAC, the underlying surplus, I have examined every OBERAC projection and outcomes for the years 2001 – 2010, as reported in the DEFUs and BEFUs since 2000.

In the 2000 BEFU the OBERAC for 2002/03 was forecast as $2.7b. It turned out to be $5.6b.

The 2000 BEFU forecast the 2003/04 OBERAC to be $3.2b. It was $6.6b.

The 2001 BEFU forecast the 2004/05 OBERAC to be $3.6b. It was $8.8b

The 2002 BEFU forecast the 2005/06 OBERAC to be $4.2b. It looks to be $7.0b

So next time a Labourite claims future surpluses will not be large enough for tax cuts, just think yeah right!

As even the most ardent Labourite finds it difficult to argue that tax cuts are not affordable with a $9b surplus (well not with keeping a straight face) they often point to the forceasted surplus for the out years and exclaim that it is going to shrink to $3.5b, so hence tax cuts are not affordable.

Leaving aside for one second the fact that Dr Cullen can make the out year forecast surplus be anything he wants by changing the level of unallocated future expenditure (which is a massive $9.9b slush fund over three years), we should look at whether surpluses turn out larger or smaller than forecast.

Taking the OBERAC, the underlying surplus, I have examined every OBERAC projection and outcomes for the years 2001 – 2010, as reported in the DEFUs and BEFUs since 2000.

In the 2000 BEFU the OBERAC for 2002/03 was forecast as $2.7b. It turned out to be $5.6b.

The 2000 BEFU forecast the 2003/04 OBERAC to be $3.2b. It was $6.6b.

The 2001 BEFU forecast the 2004/05 OBERAC to be $3.6b. It was $8.8b

The 2002 BEFU forecast the 2005/06 OBERAC to be $4.2b. It looks to be $7.0b

So next time a Labourite claims future surpluses will not be large enough for tax cuts, just think yeah right!

Damn.

I was reading through the Members’ Handbook of Services (part of the Police files released under the OIA) and noticed the section on funding of Parliamentary Parties, so decided to calculate how much each Party in Parliament gets.

The Leader’s Office gets $50,000 plus $57,176 per MP who is not in the Executive (as Ministers get huge budgets of their own).

The Party group gets $20,000 per MP for research and the Whips Office. In practice this is normally combined with the Leader’s Office to give a total budget at the Leader’s discretion.

Then each MP gets support funding of $59,500 for electorate MPs and $37.900 for list MPs. Smaller parties tend to add these to the overall party pool, but the larger parties with multiple electorate seats don’t tend to pool them and each MP spends it on rent, postage and advertising in their local area.

Therefore what I will calculate is three figures:

(a) Party Funding, being the Leader’s Office and the Whips/Reseach budget
(b) MPs Funding being the total of the MPs support budgets for that party
(c) Total Funding

These are shown in order below:

National $3,754,448 $2,488,800 $6,243,248
Labour $2,422,224 $2,564,600 $4,986,824
NZ First $533,056 $265,300 $798,356
Green $513,056 $227,400 $740,456
Maori $358,704 $238,000 $596,704
United $224,352 $135,300 $359,652
ACT $204,352 $97,400 $301,752
Progressive $70,000 $59,500 $129,500

If one looks at total funding per MP, we have:

National $130,068
Labour $99,736
NZ First $114,051
Green $123,409
Maori $149,176
United $119,884
ACT $150,876
Progressive $129,500

Now bear in mind these are meant to vary, You are meant to have more money per MP if you have more electorate MPs or are a smaller party. Likewise you are meant to have less money per MP if you have MPs in the Executive as they get their own funding.

Total support funding for Vote Ministerial Services for the 29 Ministers is $26.2 million so on average $1 million per Minister.

Everytime I think UK MP George Galloway can’t get any worse, and he does.

He has said the assassination of Tony Blair would be morally justified.

Hat Tip: Andrew Dodge

Juha wondered why I have kiwiblog.co.nz as my URL or address, rather than something using my commonly known name of DPF.

He found out the hard way

Incidentially at some stage in the next week or two, kiwiblog.com will also resolve.

A good article in The Telegraph on all the anti-capitalist forces out there.

Peter Cresswell often uses shall we say colourful language to describe those who breach or advocate breaching property rights, and did so earlier this month with Annette Presley from CallPlus.

Ms Presley has taken offence and her lawyers have written to PC asking him to remove the offending item, or she will be forced to consider her legal remedies.

The NZ Herald political week that was reveals that Michael Cullen joked about delivering the budget stark naked, but that he was worried the Dominion Post would repeat last year’s Budget headline: “Is that it?”

Reliable reports from the Newmarket Business Association though suggest that the Dominion Post would still have run this year’s headline of “Huge Surplus”

I often ponder on the extent of anti-Americanism in NZ, and elsewhere. It is so bad some people have been trying to compare the US to North Korea in another thread.

Some of it is inevitable as the sole super-power, and some of it reflects the current Government.

But I wonder how much of it is because people highlight certain local laws (which are daft) and many people take this as indicative of the country as a whole, as if this is what the majority of Americans want if they can get their way.

As an example No Right Turn reports:

In America, it’s a different story. Oh, they have the same rise in de facto couples that we do – but they’re unhappy about it. So unhappy, that some regressives are even attempting to ban de facto couples with children from their towns in an effort to “protect values”. Sometimes it really does seem as if they’re ruled by the Taleban over there…

Now don’t get me wrong. The town council of Black Jack are nutters for trying to force de facto couples with kids out of town. But portraying this as some sort of “American” thing is incredibly unfair.

This has happened in one town – Black Jack. It is tiny – a population of 6,792. It is incidentally is also 71% African-American so trying to paint this as part of the GOP Religious Right is well, an unlikely mix.

What do we think people overseas would think of NZ if every day the idiocy of every small town or local official got reported as representing NZ?

Also there is no doubt that a legal challenge to the bylaws will get struck down as unconstitutional in time.

I’m not saying don’t report stupidities from the US (or any place) but trying to portray the majority of America as a religious Taliban is what fosters anti-Americanism. Yes there are some religious nutters in the US, but America is a very diverse country with diverse people.

I’m glad to see NBR follows my annual count the corks competition. From today’s issue:

IN tray
The National Business Review – 26 May 2006 : 20-03

What are the events that helped to define New Zealand? In conjunction with National Radio’s competition, In Tray proudly presents a listing of the top events that have shaped our nation and made us the special people we are today.

Maui’s Discovery Year Zero: A mythic – or was she? – Polynesian tribal figure fishes up a new country from the sea. She then removes her snorkel and establishes herself as ruler in perpetuity of the country she later names “New Zealand,” or The Land of the Long White Crowd. According to most historians, this is the point at which the BC, or “Before Clark” years ended.

Signing of the Treaty 1840: Te Tiriti o Waitangi or “the Treaty of Waitangi”, a groundbreaking document envisioning equal “partnership” between the native Maori and the English colonists, is signed, paving the way for the modern, bicultural New Zealand state. Although ignored for successive generations, the document once again assumed centre stage during the term of the fourth Labour Government. As a result, New Zealand is now internationally admired for having the most enlightened cultural policies and impressive race relations that have ever existed in known history.

Katherine’s Tea Party 1888: Katherine Mansfield Beauchamp is born into a socially prominent Wellington family. After leaving the country forever, she produced a number of short stories that have gone on to enchant generations of readers with their vivid recreations of Thorndon garden parties in her beloved Wellington suburb, the joys of family life in Wellington, and totally hot lesbian encounters.

Suffrage Day 1893: New Zealand gives women the vote. Hone Sharples and his grandson Pita boycott the ceremony.
China Calling 1945: In an unknown province of China, little Wing Ping is born to peasant rice farmers. Later the young farmboy emigrates to New Zealand where he anglicises his name “Winston” and eventually becomes an iconic foreign envoy.

Birth of the Enz 1971: The beloved rock band Split Enz begins life at the University of Auckland after Tim Finn teams up with friends Mike Chunn, Robert Gillies, Phil Judd and Noel Crombie, and from the following year the band becomes a fulltime occupation. The group has a striking visual presentation, impressively intelligent Kiwi style and writes a number of compositions in the late 1970s and early 1980s which most observers now agree are among the greatest songs of the past century.

No Nukes! 1985: The fourth Labour Government refuses to allow nuclear-powered or -armed ships into New Zealand waters, a policy that New Zealand continues to this day. The iconic legislation, which had the effect of prohibiting US Navy ships from visiting local ports, also set the international scene for the eventual fall of the Berlin Wall 1989, the collapse of the old Soviet Union 1991 and the production of a number of deeply fascinating documentaries, generously funded by New Zealand On Air, about how the world would be a much better place if only the Kiwis were in charge.

Birth of the Web 1993: The National Centre for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, along with Wellington-based blogger David Farrar, release the Mosaic web browser version 1.0, and by late 1994 there is growing public interest in the previously academic/technical “internet.” By 1996 the international movement is in full swing. The internet’s New Zealand founder later launches his own annual “Count The Corks” competition on his weblog.

Mother of the Nation 1997: The loved Joan Bolger is replaced in the nation’s hearts by Burton Shipley as the country’s “First Spouse.”

Cry Freedom 2006: Accompanied by scenes of wild jubilation, the jailed activist and civil rights leader Donna Awatere Mandela is released from prison. Amid the triumphant reception given to her and husband, Wi-nnie, the iconic politician calls on the New Zealand government to dismantle its apartheid system and allow free and fair elections.

Ouch. This is Parekura defending himself in Parliament yesterday:

Mr Horomia had himself described advocating for Maori as “tiresome,” she said.

But he added, Maori were “great people” and “we do love them irrespective of how they make us feel”.

Imagine if a National MP spoke about Maori like that?

Geri Halliwell has named her baby girl Bluebell Madonna Halliwell.

Once the girls grows up, if she kills her mother I am sure a jury qould acquit her on the grounds of provocation for such a name.

Scoop has a lengthy essay and photos from three students who visited North Korea. One of them is the AUSA International Affairs Officer.

Read all about their moving scenes:
* wearing suits as a sign of respect and laying flowers at a 30 metre statue of Kim Il Sung
* Observing the “reverence the people of North Korea have for the

Some of the suppression orders have now been listed and media can now report that Clint Rickards, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum have been charged with and are facing trial over alleged sexual offences against another woman.

If commenting on this, please remember the following:

(1) There are still suppression orders in place over various details about this case and other cases. Please do not break those orders here, or speculate on them. In other words please only refer to *facts* in the public domain.

(2) Also resist pronouncing guilt or innocence in advance of you know a trial which hears the facts.

Generation XY provides us with ten further examples of new language, Labour wants us to use, and their translations:

10. Unaware = Lie.

9. Unfamiliar = Incompetent.

8. Targeted = Bribed.

7. Working for families = Large family (Polynesian) subsidy.

6. Reevaluated = Dead.

5. Empowered = Androgynous.

4. Education = Leader

If the Maori Party wins all eight or nine Maori electorates at the next election, yesterday may be the day people will point to as the reason why.

The only thing worse tha reading about Horomia’s admission that he put in no bids for spending, is watching him on TV.

I can just see the Maori Party adverts now:

“Labour took in $8.5 billion more than it spent in 2006. And how much extra money did Labour’s Minister of Maori Affairs ask for?”

Swap to video footage of Parekua saying “I asked for nothing” and “Because my CEO told me we had enough”.

Absolutely damning.

Look personally as a fiscal hawk I’d give Ministers payrises if they ask for less or the same money than the year before. But I am not the target audience here.

Most Maori are still less well off than others in terms of health, education and income etc. I suspect the notion of a Minister who doesn’even try to get some more money to help ‘them will go down very badly. I mean Pita Sharples doesn’t tend to grandstand too much, an for him to call for Horomia to resign says a lot.

The other bad look, is Horomia looks to be a George Hawkins type Minister. One who doesn’t lead his Department but just rubber stamps what they do.

I believe Labour will now have to replace Horomia as Maori Affairs Minister before the next election. Their problem is they haven’t been spoiled with choice. Mind you to be fair to Nanaia Mahuta she has been doing better than expected and could be a possibility.

A copy of the paper presented to the recent Labour Party Conference on political language has ended up in the public domain, and I’ve been sent a copy. I tried to upload it but it is too large. However if Scoop put it online I will link to it.

UPDATE: Whale Oil has put it on his blog. Ta.

Some highlights:

* How National set the agenda in 2005, not Labour
* The media don’t create the message, they run with it
* The need to come up with a new set of phrases such as “We’ve made mistakes” (would pay to see Helen say that one)
* How to position National as the “enemies of the people”

Heh.

Normally it is in Asia that MPs actually start physically hitting each other, but now the Czech politicians have got in on the act with a former Deputy PM speaking from the podium, then leaving it to whack the rival Health Minister in the head, and then they start brawling.

A BBC story is here and even more fun the video is here.

Well I thought she gave a good, very smart address. Some key lines which stuck with me:

* We argued against unbundling, everyone knows that, but it is now the reality and we accept there is broad public support for it. We want to move forward

* We are not going to turn back time, we are not going to be obstructive, we are not going to mount any rearguard actions, we are not going to fight old regulatory battles and we are not going to hide behind legalistic arguments

* Are working towards a *more* independent wholesale service. Some will be sceptical, but this is not mere window dressing

* Is upset that one reason given for new rules was Telecom’s allegedly obstructive approach to UBS as team worked really hard to deliver

* Future is telcos providing IT, entertainment and information services, fixed and mobile convergence, more mobile broadband, more use of WiMax for last mile connectivity

* In summary are committed to this new direction, will play by the new rules, will be open and will be true to our word – the start of our new way of life

As I said overall a very good and smart speech. Yes of course I have skepticism, but the speech provides a benchmark to hold Telecom against in future. It hit the right tone.

The part that concerns me is where Telecom senior mgmt can’t honestly see where they went wrong with UBS. The commercial rollout had numerous problems and the request for a regulated service was met by Telecom FUD and finally even trying to injunct the Commerce Commission. This was the tipping point for many.

Also I do wonder how one translates the desire for openness with the refusal to give out information on contention ratios at various exchanges. Perhaps someone should now request these again and point to their CEO’s speech.

It is going to be an interesting next 12 months.

UPDATE: And just after I blog this, it comes out Telecom have been getting website hosts to take down the very funny spoof of their latest advert. Idiots – this will only increase readership of it. A copy not yet down is at Morph Blog.

United Future MP Gordon Copeland is suggesting that the Telecom employee who received and photocopied the telco cabinet paper should be investigated by the Police.

This has got me thinking. You see there is an MP in Parliament who boasts every week that he is in possession of stolen e-mails from Don Brash. And let us have no mistake – they were stolen. It was the equivalent of having someone break into a filing cabinet (think Nixon in 1972) and take copies of confidential letters.

So why has National not called the Police to recover the stolen e-mails?

Please note I am not suggesting the MP who currently has the stolen e-mails had any part at all in their theft – I am sure he didn’t. He is like the Telecom employee – they were just handed to him or sent anonymously in the mail. But why are there not questions in the media about the ethics of continuing to possess and use stolen documents?

The Government has announced a review of regulations and red tape surrounding business.

The problem is not identifying the issues – there have been numerous reports and reviews in the last few years on this. They have largely all been ignored and not implemented by the Government.

However to be fair, there is a new Minister now in Lianne Dalziel and she is regarded as being somewhat more in touch with business needs than say Margaret Wilson was, and more able to influence Cabinet than John Tamihere was. So Dalziel may be able to achieve something useful, and I hoep she does.

Fran O’Sullivan writes on this issue also.