Kiwiblog

One can only laugh at this report in the Nelson Mail:

On a second subsequent call to the communications centre, Cradock told police he was being raped by a wombat at his Motueka address, and sought their immediate help.

He called police again soon after, and gave his full name, saying he wanted to withdraw the complaint.

“I’ll retract the rape complaint from the wombat, because he’s pulled out,” Cradock told the operator at the communications centre, who had no idea what he was talking about, Mr Stringer said.

“Apart from speaking Australian now, I’m pretty all right you know, I didn’t hurt my bum at all,” Cradock then told the operator.

One can only imagine the reaction of the 111 operator.

Mr Stringer said alcohol had played a big part in Cradock’s life. However, defence lawyer Michael Vesty said alcohol was not a problem that day.

If it wasn’t alcohol, I hope it was drugs.

As one can imagine this story has been repubished widely in Australia!

The popular former Auckland University lecturer Paul Buchanan has won $66,000 in damages for his unjustified sacking, but the Employment Relations Authority has not ordered his reinstatement.

As many people said at the time, the university over-reacted to his intemperate e-mail, and have now been found to have acted illegally. They seem to still be in denial over this claiming the decision to sack him was upheld.  Could someone explain to the VC that they would not be paying $66,000 damages if their decisision had been upheld. Not ordering reinstatement is a different issue to whether the sacking was upheld.  It was not.

It would be a good outcome if Dr Buchanan found employment again in a NZ university. He was an expert in his area, and his departure remains our loss.

No wonder church attendances keep dropping. The main NZ churches are campaigning for the 1991 benefit cuts to be reversed.

While it is true that Labour have never reversed them, it is idiotic to be so backward looking.

And they even rubbish their own arguments:

Mr Kendrew is now a volunteer budget adviser in Wellington and said even working families on low incomes were struggling with recent price increases for food, petrol and other essentials.

Okay so a non-benefit family in 2008 is finding life tough due to *recent* price increases, and the Rt Revs think the answer is linked to a change in benefit rates 17 years ago.

“I’m dealing with a family at the moment with an income of $680 a week, paying $300 a week in rent.

Well income related rents for state houses means they should pay no more than $170 a week. If they are not in a state house, then the solution seems obvious.

NZPA reports:

Two senior staff in New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters’ office have left in quick succession.

Mr Peters’ senior private secretary Graham Harding is leaving tomorrow after only telling most office staff last week that he was departing.

His departure after 12 years with Mr Peters follows the recent exit of senior advisor Ernie Davis.

Mr Harding told NZPA that he could not commit to another three years of work following this year’s general election.

Asked if there had been a falling out between Mr Peters and his senior staff, Mr Harding said he would not comment on his departure, saying Mr Peters was the only person commenting.

Other staff also referred questions to Mr Peters.

NZPA understands that Mr Davis had been planning to leave for some time though Mr Harding’s decision had come out of the blue for most staff.

There may be nothing to this, but it unusual to leave this close to an election. In fact there is almost an unwritten parliamentary rule that if you want to move on, you do it before election year or very early in the year.

Ernie Davis is somewhat more advanced in years than Graham and not sure I would read too much into his departure. Graham leaving is a surprise, and does seem to have happened quickly.
I actually regard Graham Harding as a bloody good guy, and a very loyal trooper.  He has been with NZ First for well over a decade – first as a candidate, and later as Research Head and other senior roles. Despite the varying relationships between the parties over the years he has always been very friendly and easy to deal with.

I first met Graham when he was involved with the Labour Party, but also head of the Police Association. He spoke to a law & order forum at a Young Nats conference in the late 80s I think, and was full of common sense.

NZ First also lost MP Brian Donnelly, who was their Campaign Chair. So they will be going into the election with quite a turnover.

Some members of the local Chinese community are protesting about what they see as biased coverage of what is happening in Tibet.

They may have a point.  Indeed there are a number of reports which have not been well publicised about sole violence from ethnic Tibetans.

But at the end of the day, the blame for the faults in any coverage lies with the Chinese Government for banning media from being able to be in Tibet and report first hand what is happening.

If a Government does not allow journalists to verify first hand the claims of that Government about who did what, then it should be no surprise that their claims are not given much weight.  Plus let us be brutally frank – the Chinese Government has a history of lying. Now in this case they may actually be telling the truth, but unless one can verify it, then it is like the little boy who cried wolf.

Some astute analysis by Paula Oliver in the Herald:

Dr Cullen is arguing his tax cuts will meet four carefully worded tests he has thrown into the media – they won’t require borrowing, they won’t exacerbate inflationary pressures, they won’t lead to greater inequality and they won’t require cuts to public services.

But the fact is that when taxes are cut by any amount, however big or small, that amount automatically becomes money that could have been used for something else.

I am bemused as Dr Cullen tries to almost con the country that he has invented a special sort of tax cut which is magically immune from affecting borrowing, inflation or spending priorities.

Paula Oliver correctly notes it is all about priorities and opportunity cost.

Now I am a supporter of a balanced approach to spending and tax. As the economy grows, and the tax take grows, I advocate you put some of it into extra spending and some of it into tax relief. Labour for eight years has been almost 100% into extra spending and 0% into reducing personal tax. ACT seem to be currently advocating 0% into extra spending and 100% into reducing tax. I’ve left the savings side of things out of it for now for simplicity sake – just focusing on spending and tax relief shows the contrast.
Now getting back to Paula’s article, both Labour’s and National’s tax cuts will not require borrowing, in that NZ has a surplus which is more than large enough to cover a reduction in tax. But if one had no tax cuts at all, then the surplus would be larger and debt would fall.  So Dr Cullen trying to pretend his tax cuts are somehow immune from being part of a trade off is silly.

Now again I support a balanced approach. When debt was like it was in 1990, the priority was getting it down. Hell we were near bankrupt and facing massive deficits. But debt today is incredibly low, and almost non existent in terms of net debt. So as long as the structural operating surplus (OBEGAL) remains positive (I personally advocate a 1% of GDP surplus, after provision for Super Fund contribution), it doesn’t matter if gross debt flucutates up and down a bit over the years to reflect capital investment etc.

When I read that Foreign Ministers could not get an election timetable out of Fiji, but are hopeful there will be one next month, I am reminded of Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Each time he goes for it, Commodore Lucy pulls it away!

Talking of Fiji, The Press reports a complaint from Fiji Solicitor-General Christopher Pryde regarding a recent interview on Radio NZ regarding Fiji. While I am far from a fan of the Fiji administration, I would not assume their complaint is without merit. I understand there were a reasonable number of straight out factual inaccuracies in the interview.

Dr Cullen is reported today as saying size doesn’t matter and less is best. So it must be what you do with your tax cut that counts, rather than how big it is.

Of course those are are “smaller” always claim that.

I would argue that the other issue is how often you use it.  Once every nine years is not as satisfying as having them more regularly.

Colin Espiner reported in The Press that a Roger Payne tried to get an injunction to stop National’s Selwyn selection, but failed.

Now a friendly lawyer has kindly sent me a copy of the court judgement. I don’t think I have ever seen a case tossed out so thoroughly and succinctly. Some quotes from Justice Panckhurst:

Mr Payne was nominated for selection as the National Party candidate for
Selwyn. Nominees must gain support at electorate level, after which the nomination is forwarded through the divisional office and onto the national office. Recently Mr Payne was advised that his nomination had not been approved by the National Executive. Reasons were not given for that decision. …

Upon considering the papers it was immediately apparent to me that the legal basis of Mr Payne’s challenge was unspoken. In particular he did not refer to the rules of the National Party and did not, therefore, identify the requirements upon the Executive in relation to the approval, or not, of nominations. …

In short, I am satisfied that there is no serious question to be tried, absent a basis in the rules to suggest that the decision of the National Executive was unlawful. …

 However, for these reasons, I do not find that there is a basis for injunctive
relief.

A copy of the Injunction Ruling in pdf form is here.

Now I have no first (or second) hand knowledge of why the Board vetoed Mr Payne, but I do know some of his background.

He contested the National selection for Rakaia in 2002 against four other candidates, with Brian Connell winning the seat.  I can’t recall at which ballot Payne was defeated but almost certain it was not the final one.

Now anyone who puts themselves forward for selection as a National Party candidate signs (I think as a sworn declaration) that if they do not win the nomination they will support the candidate who does win, and more importantly that they swear they will not stand against the National candidate for another party or as an independent, or even support another candidate.

As the election results for 2002 show, My Payne then broke his solemn sworn statement and stood for Christian Heritage in Rakaia. There is no bigger “sin”within a party than losing an internal selection, and then going off to stand for another party.

I don’t know on what grounds the Board refused Mr Payne’s nomination. but I do know that having once broken your written word in a previous selection, and having stood against the National candidate, I would never ever trust that person to be allowed to seek a candidacy again.  In fact I would decline them even being able to rejoin the party.

Note I am not talking about the situation where people swap between parties without having sought and lost a nomination.  I am referring explicitly to the situation where people break their sworn word about not standing  in the election they sought the nomination for, if they lose the selection.

So Mr Payne should not be surprised he was not deemed suitable to be a candidate. If you crap on a party and break your word to it, why on earth would you think they would even consider you being a candidate.  Note I am offering my personal view on the situation here – again I do not know why the Party’s Board made their decision.

Was in at the dentist last week. No fillings, but a bit of general cleanup to be done so an ultrasonic device was used which is meant to be highly effective.

The problem is it also sprays water into your mouth, so you  get a vacuum tube to suck up the water.  But it isn’t that easy always as the water can build up and you sometimes end up with a submerged feeling.

At the end of it, my dentist asked me how it was, and I think I offended her when I replied that I now understood why people want to ban water boarding!

The list of major 2008 candidates has been updated, and it now includes hyperlinks to a website or blog for the candidate. Thanks to Carl H for his help in converting my excel file to some neat HTML.

If you have the names of any missing candidates, please let me know. And if a candidate has a website I am not linked to, send that through.

National has two more candidates. Hekia Parata was selected a couple of days ago as National’s candidate for Mana. And I was at the selection meeting last night for Rimutaka where Richard Whiteside won a three way battle. Richard is one of those rare creatures in politics – a small business owner. Amongst his various endeavours, he owned for around a decade what is now called the Speights Ale House on Tinakori Road in Thorndon.  Richard has firsthand experience of what it means to invest your own money into a business, and the environment needed for small businesses to succeed. He’s also been involved with local environmental issues – specifically the toxic sludge from the Hutt based Exide factory.

National has also announced the names of the five candidates seeking the nomination for what should be the very safe Selwyn seat.  They are:

• Amy Adams
• Alex McKinnon
• Dugald McLean
• Todd Nicholls
•  John Stringer

I know, or have met, four of the five candidates over the years.  It will be a hard fought contest, and I suspect it will go to all four ballots on the night.

I blogged previously on how gruelling the National Party selection process can be with 60 delegates to meet and impress. Well Rakaia is even worse for the candidates. Not only does it stretch out over a couple of hundred kms, but they have sought and been given permission to have universal suffrage for the selection meeting. That means that instead of 60+ delegates voting, over 700 local members (who have been members for at least six months) can and generally will vote.  So I predict a lot of travel over the next couple of weeks as the candidates get around Canterbury.

The Muldoon toby mug which I temporarily possessed after helping my team win a Muldoon era quiz night, is up for auction on Trade Me by its owner.

This is a great item. I have never seen another like it. It would look especially good in a National MP’s office, but also would be a guaranteed talking point on any mantlepiece.

A smart National electorate chair would buy it, and then re-auction it at the annual conference!

The DPMC House Prices Unit has calculated that a couple on the average wage would need to save $122,000 before they can afford a mortgage. And for a single person it is $170,000.

And again that is the deposit – not the mortgage!

The Herald reports that the Westpac consumer confidence index has it a 10 year low at 96.5. The previous low was 94.2 in June 1998.

A net 19% of respondents say they are worse off than a year ago.  Remember it was a year ago Dr Cullen cancelled the tax cuts he promised as people were not grateful enough for them.

The Pew State of the Media annual report has an interesting section on how journalists descibe their political leanings compared to the population.

• Conservatives – 8% of journalists vs 36% of US population
• Liberals – 32% of journalists vs 19% of US population

This explains the New York Times et al.

I have to say I am impressed with BNZ’s netguard card. I had put off getting one for my Internet banking because I thought it would be one of the clunky electronic gizmos which flashes a new code every minute.

But it is just a credit card sized card with a 7×7 matrix on the back with a letter or digit in each square. They prompt you for three squares each time you login, which is very quick to do.  Hardly a hassle at all, and definitely more secure.

The chance of someone guessing the right responses on any given login is 1 in 46,656 (36^3). And the chance of guessing your entire card is 1 in 36^49 which is 1 in 1.81×10^76.

The other cool thing lately is that Google Calendar now has a plugin to sychronise with MS Outlook.  This means I can let people view my busy/free times in Google, have appts synchronise with Outlook (where I make most of my appts) and have them also transfer to my Blackberry to remind me of the appt when on the road.

The only bad thing is discovering this may have cost me a Blackberry. I have been looking for a way to synchronise Google Calendar and Outlook for months and tried every setting there was. So I casually remarked to one of my staff that if she could discover a way to do it, she’d get the Blackberry she had been pestering me for. By pure coincidence, Google had earlier that day released their Outlook plugin, and it was a front page link from Google Calendar.  So she is insisting I owe her a Blackberry for her two minutes of work.

Boris Johnson is leading Ken Livingstone by 12% in a recent poll.  That is amazing as Livingstone was regarded as unbeatable at one stage.  The election is on 1 May 2008.

National is warning that proposed changes to building consents, such as one consent for a development, may lead to “ticky-tack” suburbs with identical house designs.

While it is a fair criticism, I have to say that overall I find the proposals by Shane Jones to be a move in the right direction.

Especially welcome is the proposal to change the regulations so that minor alterations – such as moving a window, door or toilet – no longer required a building consent.

The devil is in the detail, but the Jones proposals look to be the first serious move to start reducing consent costs, after eight years of increasing them. Better late than never, and I think the changes are worth supporting.  That of course depends on the exact details.

It is now two and a half years since parliamentary parties illegally spent taxpayer money on their election campaigns. Labour, National, ACT and the Greens have paid the money back in full.

United Future still owe around $50,000. They have paid back over $100,000 so far.

NZ First are still to pay back a cent. Their actions scream contempt for taxpayers as they delay, delay and delay.

Audrey Young blogged at the beginning of the month that the pressure needs to go on NZ First.

I agree. And on United Future to finish their payments. It has been nine months without even a further part payment.

Candidates for NZ First and United Future will have a very rough time at public meetings if they do not pay it back.

The Press reports on Abbas Nazari who was one of the Tampa refugees accepted into NZ in 2001. He could not speak English then, but has now come third in the national spelling bee. That’s a great success story.

The February Migration statistics show an accleration in the rate at which people are fleeing New Zealand.

7,406 people left NZ for good last month.  That is a massive 1,850 people a week or 255 people a day.  Yep everyday one of those 767-300s which fly out internationally was full of people not planning to return.

Net migration to Australia has increased dramatically in the last four years. In the year to Feb 2004 net migration to Australia was only 10,623. For the year to Feb 2008 it was  29,586. Net migration to Australia has tripled in four years.

What is also interesting is not only are more New Zealanders leaving, less are returning. In the Feb 2004 year 39,483 NZers left – this has increased by 17,500 to 56,932 in the current year. But some NZers return. In Feb 2004 year 27,539 people returned.  In the year to Feb 2008 only 22,849 returned. The net migration of NZers (those with NZ citizenship) has increased in four years from 11,944 to 34,093.

Tim Donoghue at the Dom Post has got hold of Labour’s list rankings for the Northern Region. Somewhat disappointing to see they are once again protecting all their incumbent MPs by ranking them ahead of any newcomers, no matter how talented.  But even that may see some List MPs fall away.

The average of the polls have Labour getting 42 seats. They currently have 31 electorate seats and it is not unreasonable to assume they will lose two Maori seats and five general electorate seats so assume 24 electorates and 18 List MPs. Where I note likely to win a seat, this is not a prediction or a concession. It is an assumption for this scenario.  Things can and will change in a campaign.

Now let us look at their Northern List:

1. 1. Helen Clark* -likely to win seat
2. 2. Phil Goff* – likely to win seat
3. 3. Chris Carter* – likely to win seat
4. 4. David Cunliffe* – likely to win seat
5. 5. Shane Jones* – 1st list spot
6. 6. Judith Tizard* – likely to win seat
7. 7. Mark Gosche* – 2nd list spot
8. 8. Lynne Pillay* – likely to win seat
9. 9. Ashraf Choudhary* – 3rd list spot
10. 10. Darien Fenton* – 4th list spot
11. 11. Dave Hereora* – 5th list spot
12. 12. Louisa Wall* – 6th list spot
13. 13. Sua William Sio – likely to win seat
14. 14. Raymond Huo – 7th list spot
15. 15. Phil Twyford – 8th list spot
16. 16. Hamish McCracken – 9th list spot
17. 17. Carmel Sepulone – 10th list spot
18. 18. Kelvin Davis – 11th list spot
19. 19. Michael Wood – 12th list spot
20. 20. Kate Sutton – 13th list spot

Now how many winnable list places would there be in Northern Region? Well generally their population is 1/3 to 1/4 of the total country, so if it follows population, one might expect four to six List MPs getting through from Northern.

So at this stage (and Labour has yet to combine the regional lists into a national list) Jones, Gosche, Choudary and Fenton look fairly safe, while Heroera and Wall are marginal, and the chances of a non MP making it in is remote on current numbers.

Choudary, Fenton and Heroera are not exactly high flyers. Despite Clark’s talk of more new blood needed, candidates like Phil Twyford look unlikely to make it in.

The Business Roundtable is seeking one or two interns for the next year.  If you have a passion for public policy issues, then the BRT can be a great place to work – they produce a staggering amount of research on various issues, and also bring over to NZ some world class speakers. The requirements are:

Applications should demonstrate a genuine interest in public policy, strong research and writing talents, excellent communication skills, strong computing skills and willingness to pay careful attention to detail. We are looking for fun people who are motivated, well organised and willing to work hard.

Details on how to apply are on the linked page.

Murray has been busy working on his latest trebuchet. I want one, preferably with wheels which I can roll down the road to Parliament!

Generally I have been pretty happy with how the demerits scheme has worked.  Ultimately everyone comments here at my pleasure, but the scheme has given some transparency around what sort of comments I regard as unacceptable. It also generally seems to work in providing an incentive for people to be less trollish once they have some demerits.

Not that I wish it to be an expect replica of the traffic demerits scheme, but I do wonder whether I should allow demerits to disappear after a period of time, so that someone doesn’t end up suspended one day for say five comments spread over four years which attracted demerits.

There seem to me to be two ways I could let demerits expire.  They are:

1. x months after a demerit was given, it expires
2. y months after the last demerit was given, all current demerits expire

My thinking is along the lines of x=12 if I implement (1) and probably y=6 if I implement (2). Feedback on these are welcome. I note most people who end up suspended do so for comments over one to two months.

Another issue is whether I should should ever reset people’s suspension histories, say after an election. So if someone had been suspended for two months prior to an election, and then after the election they were suspended again, it would be back to just one week instead of four months. In theory as I plan to keep this blog going for many years, some people could end up with year long bans etc. On the other hand I don’t see much merit in helping recidivist offenders