Kiwiblog

Two interesting stories in the HoS.

The first is an in depth look at the Veitch media circus.

The second is a column by former Dominion Post Editor Tim Pankhurst, who broke the story.

Is there no limit to the central planning the Wellington City Council insists on imposing on us?

Bad enough to discover last year that the reason we have no shopping malls in Wellington, is because the Council has banned them. They don’t want competition for Lampton Quay. But their stalinist dictates go further:

Look at this article in the Dominion Post by City Councillor Andy Foster:

In the case of Rongotai, we propose that this should continue to be an area of mixed uses, including light industrial, services such as motels, and some retail, particularly “big- box” stores.

One thing the council is clear on is that we don’t want Rongotai to develop into another town centre. The Kilbirnie town centre is within walking distance, and the council has invested much public money in facilities such as the regional aquatic centre, community centre, library, and council housing to serve the eastern and southern suburbs.

These facilities work because they are in and around a town centre that has a strong retail core (supermarkets and high-street stores) and are easy to get to by public transport, walking and by car.

Long-standing international precedent shows that if we create another competing town centre in Rongotai, we are likely to undermine the viability of the Kilbirnie and Miramar town centres.

Arrrggh. So the Council has decided Kilbirnie and Miramar can get big shops, but Rongotai and Seatoun can not? I’ve got a better solution – let every business decide where they want to be located, and let the public decide if they will shop there.

This is why we are planning to carefully consider any proposals for “town centre uses” such as supermarkets and department stores in Rongotai.

For fuck’s sake. So the Council is sayign yes you can have a big Warehouse in Rongotai, but not a New World? They should butt out and let consumers have a choice.

The Herald reports some proposals from the Law Commission:

One of the issues for later discussion was the substantial gap between the taxes the country received from alcohol purchases, $795 million, and the estimated social cost of harmful misuse of alcohol of $5.296 billion.

“It does seem to me that the taxpayer should not be asked to shoulder as much of the burden as is currently being met from public funds,” Sir Geoffrey said.

“It does seem that the case for increasing the price of alcohol to ensure drinkers contribute more to the costs imposed on society is persuasive.”

He suggested increasing the excise tax would be appropriate.

The estimated social cost figure is no doubt exagerrated – they probably assume that a crime commited when drunk would never have happened if sober etc. But nevertheless there may be an economic argument to increase the excise tax. However if you increase it too much, you will just help the black market out. You also may push people away from drinking in bars (a more controlled environment) and into buying alcohol more cheaply from bottle stores, which is more likely to lead to binge drinking.

The legal drinking age should also be increased he said.

There is no such thing. Sir Geoffrey should know better. There is a purchase age and it should not be raised. A 19 year old should not be a criminal for buying a bottle of wine.

What they should do is look at whether there should in face be a drinking age, and if there should be an offence to supply alcohol to those under the drinking age.

There was an equally strong case for limiting the hours off-licences could be open.

“I do not understand why bars need to be open to 6am on a Sunday morning.”

People once said they should not be open at 7 pm. It is not for Sir Geoffrey to understand. If enough people want a drink at 6 am, then why not. Having said that, most bars now close by 5 am.

There was also a strong argument for lowering the blood alcohol from 80mg per 100ml for adult drivers to 50mg per 100ml.

No there is a very weak argument. A very small proportion of crashes involve a driver with blood alcohol between 60mg and 80mg per 100ml.

“For under 20-year-olds it should be lowered to zero regardless of licence status.”

This I agree with.

Labour still has no policy on what it wants for Auckland. Despite setting up the Royal Commission, they are now al over the place in terms of any coherent vision for the future.

Can anyone tell me their position on Maori seats?

Can anyone tell me their position on local Councils vs community boards?  They initially said they did not support local Councils as they were too large, but then complained when the Government listened and got rid of them.

Can anyone tell me whether or not they supported the unchanged recommendations of the Royal Commission?

No you can’t, as they have no policy apart from wanting no at large seats, as that will make it easier for them to gain power over the city.

But now in a fit of stupidity, Goff is calling for a referendum on the changes. Before I detail how unworkable this is, let’s hear what the Royal Commission itself said:

31.4 Nor does the Commission consider that a reorganisation proposal would be an appropriate mechanism for implementing the proposed reforms, despite the superficial attraction of using an existing statutory mechanism.1 The reorganisation process requires the review of any reorganisation proposal by the Local Government Commission, followed by consultation with stakeholders, the notification of a draft proposal, and public submissions. It also requires a poll of electors which, by simple majority, determines whether or not the proposal will proceed. Plainly, the complex and wide-ranging recommendations in this Report are not suited to this process;

So the Royal Commission itself said a referendum is only superficially attractive and is plainly unsuited to complex and wide-ranging recommendations.

The Royal Commission was of course right on this point. Referendums are suitable for simple singular propositions, such as changing the term of Parliament from three to four years.

The reform proposals have dozens of elements to them – one Council, an executive Mayor, local boards, composition of Council, powers of Council, powers of Board, ward boundaries, etc etc etc. What would people be voting on?

And is Goff really saying that he wants it to be a choice between doing nothing and the Government’s proposals? That there should be a poll, and if it fails then the status quo endures and all the work of the Royal Commission is wasted? Because a referendum is not something that allows you to modify a proposal, like a select committee process. It is a stop or go process.You don’t like the bathwater and indeed the baby goes out the window also.

Also consider the further practicalities of a referendum? What do you do if voters in six Councils vote yes, and one Council votes no? Do you then have a new Auckland Council with a big hole in the middle of it? Do you give veto power to the voters of the smallest Council that represents around 2% of the Region?

And let us remember the hypocrisy. Goff attacks the Government for changing some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, yet himself now demands the Government ignore one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission – that the reform is far too complex for a referendum.

Audrey Young writes:

There were good reasons for Key to downplay the byelection.

First is the historic improbability that National can win it.

Not only has it never held the seat since the electorate was formed in 1946, but in the 40 byelections in New Zealand since then, the party of Government has never taken a seat from an opposition party.

Indeed. And it is Labour’s safest seat. Yes the Clark factor may be gone, but nevertheless it is far from marginal.

In the aftermath of the English speech, we saw a hint of the debate Goff will mount through May and into the byelection: National’s reneging on the centrepiece of its election campaign, tax cuts.

Goff’s problem is that Labour campaigned so hard against National’s tax cuts that opposing their cancellation looks confusing.

Very confusing. And I look forward to hearing how high Goff would increases taxes in his alternative budget.

If finding the right issues weren’t enough, Goff has caused some internal disquiet as well by forcing Mt Albert favourite Phil Twyford out of contention for the candidacy.

And who wins the nomination will be interesting. Meg Bates has been endorsed by Dame Cath Tizard, Brian Edwards and Judy Callaghan – all people very close to Clark. And Bates worked for Clark. Then you have David Shearer who was hand picked by Goff and went to school with him. So the selection could be a clash between the Clark machine and the Goff machine!

He also faces internal disquiet over a possible shift to the right in policy _ fuelled by Clayton Cosgrove’s condemnation of a Maori rehabilitation prison on separatist grounds.

Labour’s own Pauline Hanson.

The Herald reports:

President Iloilo also issued a decree setting up the framework for a new court system and the appointment of judges, and sought to put Commodore Bainimarama’s rule beyond the threat of any further legal challenge.

Yesterday, the President honoured the commander for services to Fiji “of the highest order”, installing him as a Companion of the Order of Fiji in a ceremony at Government House.

The award was given for his “eminent achievement and merit of the highest degree, and service to Fiji and to humanity at large”.

Services to humanity at large?

This is like an episode of Southpark. Reaction to the call by a visiting Canadian Inuit for NZ to ban or change the iconic Eskimo lollies, has now become a diplomatic issue with the NZ High Commissioner in Ottawa having to wade into the row and talk down NZ reaction.

I am looking forward to a NZ Blame Canada campaign, as shown above, leading to the eventual cessation of diplomatic relations, and then of course war.

I am reliably informed the VUWSA Executive has decided that ANZAC Day glorifies war so they won’t be laying a wreath tomorrow. This is the body every student at Vic Uni is forced to join.  I bet you 95% of students would disagree with them.

Even worse I am told it is likely the VUWSA President will be burning a flag during the dawn service tomorrow.

Someone remind me again why National is continuing to force students to fund the muppets?

UPDATE: Sources tell me that due to her position, it is very unlikely the VUWSA President herself will burn any flag, but some of her comrades may do so. We’ll find out.

The satirical Dim-Post having fun:

Foreign Minister Murray McCully has vowed to fight a decision by the Liquor Licensing Authority to ban his office from selling or serving alcohol for up to five days. The ban follows a pre-dawn raid by police on the Cabinet Minister’s office in which a large number of underage and highly intoxicated persons were taken into custody.

The raid took place following numerous noise complaints from neighbours including Agriculture Minister David Carter and Attorney General Chris Finlayson who reported loud music, screams and alcoholic beverages leaking through the ceiling….

McCully has rejected the accusations, explaining that the teenage girls dispensing alcohol were senior advisers within his department and that they were performing their roles as outlined in their job descriptions.

‘It is the role of key staff within my office to dispense tequila and lime juice to the minister and visiting dignitaries as requested,’ McCully said. ‘Although it is not mandatory that they allow salt to be licked from their stomachs it is expected and will be noted in performance reviews.’

Heh heh heh – read the whole thing. I of course make no comment at all about the good Mr McCully’s hospitality

John Drinnan in the Herald looks at the Powershop advertising on Scoop and Public Address and Kiwiblog.

People may be amused to know that originally they wanted all three of us to be photoshopped as “Che Guevara“. I said that I didn’t think me dressing up as a left wing torturing and executing revolutionary leader would go down too well here, so they made me Uncle Sam instead

This week’s Dispatch from St Johnnysburg is online at NBR. Some extracts:

Bill English all but confirmed this week that the tax cuts planned (and legislated) for 2010 and 2011 will be cancelled.

They are a casualty of not just the global recession, but a victim of Michael Cullen’s “Scorched Earth” policy, otherwise known as his 2008 Budget.

Dr Cullen was gleeful in the hours after his final budget. He smirked and gloated that he had left no money for National. In fact he agreed in an interview with Gordon Campbell that his budget was a “booby trap” for National. …

You can reduce taxes if you keep spending under control, but Dr Cullen increased spending in his final budget by a massive $4.5 billion, at the same time as he also delivered (finally) tax cuts which when fully implemented would reduce revenue by around $3 to $4 billion a year.

Comments and feedback can be done over at NBR.

Oh how nice. Auckland University is going to make Helen Clark a Doctor of Laws.

To be truly appropriate, I think they should make it a retrospective degree!

Back on 16 April I blogged:

Mt Albert is already one of the strongest seats for the Greens. So how would they get Labour voters to vote for the Green candidate? Apart from the fact it won’t bring Judith Tizard back into Parliament?

You make two cases to the voters of Mt Albert:

1. It is almost impossible for Labour to be able to form a future Government unless the Greens are in Parliament. Former partners such as the Alliance and NZ First have disappeared and United Future and Progressive and one MP parties now. The Maori Party is currently very hostile, but even with the Maori Party, Labour without the Greens would need more votes than it has ever got before. Bottom line is Labour needs the Greens in Parliament.
2. The Greens need the safety net of an electorate seat. They are the only party in Parliament without an electorate seat. In two of the last four elections, they have just scraped in above 5%. If they drop below 5% with no electorate seat they are out of Parliament, and may never return.

Voters can grasp how to be strategic in MMP. They did it in 1996 in Wellington Central and 2005 in Epsom. No reason Mt Albert can’t do it in 2009.

So the Greens should go all out to win the seat. So who do they stand? The next candidate on their list, David Clendon, lives in (or near) Mt Albert I think, but he isn’t a heavy hitter. A by-election is like a mini general election in just one seat.

Normally I would say stand a co-leader.

Now I did then say that Norman is probably too associated with Wellington, but nevertheless think I get partial credit for predicting this story in the Herald today:

The Greens are showing Labour no mercy, with co-leader Russel Norman aiming to stand in the Mt Albert byelection, a move that will increase National’s chances of dealing Labour a humiliating defeat.

I would not rule out the Greens managing to win the seat. Look at these:

1. ACT came second to National in TKC in 1998 by only 988 votes
2. Alliance came very close second to National in Tamaki in 1992
3. Alliance came second to National in Selwyn in 1994 by only 428 votes
4. Social Credit won East Coast Bays in 1980 by 951 votes

Third parties historically do very well in by-elections, as people vote tactically. It will be very interesting to see some early polls in the seat. If they show Norman at over 15%, then I would say it could be game on.

Thanks to the kind generosity of Barrons, the blogmobile is returning for the Mt Albert by-election.

There won’t be as many kms to cover, but it will be a handy mobile office for Whale Oil and myself to blog on and report on the by-election, for the last ten days or so.

Plans are not finalised, but at this stage keen to do the following:

• Video interviews with all the candidates
• A special by-election quiz for visiting MPs
• Live blogging from Meet the Candidates meeting
• Daily vox pop with residents on a topical issue
• Cover major events
• Maybe spend half a day on the campaign trail with major candidates, and do a 20 – 30 minute summary?

As with last time, open invite for others to come on board for a day or more. Also ideas for coverage welcome.

After growing criticism of his massive spending programme, Obama has instrcuted agencies to find savings – of $100 million.

The chart from Silent Running illustrates nicely how small they are.

The Dom Post reports:

Former MP Taito Phillip Field knew it was illegal to accept payments for services and not only was he guilty of corruption, he tried to cover it up, the High Court at Auckland has been told.

Field, the MP for Mangere between 1993 and 2008 and an associate cabinet minister in his last term, has pleaded not guilty to 12 bribery and corruption charges and 23 charges of wilfully attempting to obstruct or pervert the course of justice.

Field’s trial involves seven properties, including his home in Samoa, in which he is accused of having mainly Thai plasterers, painters and tilers work for free in exchange for helping them with immigration problems.

I wonder how many of them also joined the Thai branch of the Labour Party which got established, and how much money they raised for Labour?

Mr Moore said that after media reported allegations against Field, prime minister Helen Clark set up an inquiry. Field publicly said at the time that he would co-operate.

“In reality Mr Field, far from co-operating with the inquiry, actually took deliberate steps to do the very opposite,” Mr Moore said. “Knowing that the police and other authorities would be watching the prime minister’s inquiry very closely, he arranged for false evidence to be placed before the inquiry.”

He got the Thai workers to lie and he created false invoices and receipts, Mr Moore said.

The alleged false invoices and receipts will be interesting.

I would tend to agree that David Shearer would now be the front runner for the Mt Albert nomination. David has a massive amount of respect for his aid work over the last two decades. And not as an administrator, but actually out there on the front lines making a huge difference to the life of many people.

Unless my memory fails me, David worked for the NZ Red Cross, when I was a head office staffer. Overseas relief workers, doctors and nurses like David would often give a talk and presentation to the staff when they returned, and it was a privilege to be able to hear furst hand about what they did. These missions were often dangerous, and can do so much good. Two or three people can supply water to tens of thousands of people made homeless etc.

Having said that, David has been out of the country, and local delegates may prefer someone who has been active in the electorate. But unlike National where the decision is made by 60 local delegates, Labour’s decision is made by a panel of just six people and seven votes with Head Office having three fo those votes. So if Goff has head office support for Shearer, it would be very very hard for anyone to beat him.

If he wins the nomination, I think he would be a hard person to beat in the actual election. His record of achievement and service would be very attractive to voters.

Other candidates are:

• Simon Mitchell, leftie lawyer – purchased paintergate painting so it could be destroyed
• Chris Tremewan, Auckland Uni academic
• Meg Bates, politics tutor, former electorate agent to Clark
• Glenda Fryer, City Councillor
• Stuart Prosser – no info on him – can anyone help?
• Farida Sultana – 2008 list candidate, a “lesbian Muslim”, very active in ethnic communities
• Rhema Vaithianathan, economic lecturer
• Helen White – ex EPMU lawyer (shares chambers with Mitchell)

UPDATE: Oh forgot to mention that the best thing about Twyford’s withdrawal is that on iPredict I made $503.26 on short selling Twyford stocks

Bill English has sent out his strongest signal that the future tax cuts will not be implemented. I’m going to cover the details of this at a later stage – for now want to look at the overall fiscal situation.

The Herald reports:

Mr English said without a change to the present spending track, preliminary Budget forecasts showed recurring operating deficits of more than $10 billion a year indefinitely.

“Most worrying of all, debt would continue climbing, with no sign of levelling off.”

At the predicted 2023 level, Crown gross debt would equate to about $30,000 for every New Zealander and it would force the Government to pay an extra $8 billion a year in interest costs than forecast in the October pre-election update, Mr English said.

This simply can not be allowed to happen. Every dollar extra in interest costs is a dollar less for health, education, Police etc.

Mr English said his Budget would allow for more spending than Labour’s last year.

But the rate of growth of Government spending in recent years could not be sustained, he said in a speech to business executives in Auckland yesterday.

Core Crown expenditure this year was expected to be $63.5 billion – up $21.6 billion or 51 per cent in the past five years.

He contrasted that to estimates that the economy had grown by just 23 per cent in the same time, and tax revenue by 24 per cent.

Cullen massively increased spending on the assumption that the economy would never falter. They intrdouced interest free student loans, KiwiSaver, Working for Families – and now there is not enough money to pay for them.

The responsible thing to do with a growing economy, is to have every year modest incraeses in spending, modest tax cuts and significant surpluses. Peter Costello did this. But for nine years we had massive increases in spending.

Labour leader Phil Goff said last night that Mr English was “softening the public up” to breach the basic promise National made in the election campaign last year – that people would be better off through tax cuts.

He said National had misled the electorate.

Labour would by now have not only cancelled their tax cuts (I will touch on this at a later stage) but would be copying UK Labour and actually hiking taxes in a recession with a new top tax rate of 50%.

I have been lucky enough (I think) to avoid the challenge of parenting so far. I stand in amazement at my friends who have become parents. It’s like having a new job where you don’t get any holidays for the frst 250 weeks.

One of my friends, Megan, who is a mother of two, has set up a site and service called Dream Parenting with Tracie, which offers sleep solutions. Megan writes:

I approached Tracie initially as a client.  My then two and a half year old son had a myriad of issues going on culminating in some nights of up to thirty wake ups, and good nights of ten or so.  Unsurprisingly I was worn out, grumpy, sad, still wearing a happy face but that face was beginning to slip.  I also had a six month old baby to care for.  My relationship with my husband was suffering as we had little time together, and we continued to try a number of techniques that just didn’t get the results we desired, or indeed needed.

Tracie turned us around… to the degree that my lovely son (now four) is one of those children that gives me a hug and a kiss, tells me he loves me and goes off to sleep.  The difference in his nature in the day-time changed dramatically as well and I have watched an anxious little boy transform into an outgoing and articulate wee man.

Tracie has also helped significantly with sleep issues I encountered with my daughter, completely different to my son.  I am happy to say we’ve addressed them all successfully.

I remember when Megan was having to get up every hour or so. The change has made a world of difference, so I’m happy to promote their service if there are other parents out there who are having sleep problems with their young kids. Most of their advice is available free on their site as age specific videos.

Had an amusing phone call with IRD yesterday.

Rang them up to activate my new IR File account (and kudos to IRD – I love what I can now access online) and the staffer did that for me. He then asked if there was anything else he could do, and I had a small refund owing to me from a few years ago (I lost the cheque they sent so it has been sitting there as a credit balance). So I asked if I could get the credit balance paid out.

As we were about to do that, I inquired whether it might be better to transfer the credit balance from my personal account to my company account. This would be beneficial in reducing net interest. As I am 100% owner of my company, this is meant to be possible.

The staffer then needed to look up my company in the Companies Register, to check this out and did so. Then he came back on the line having discovered it also owns and trades as Curia Market Research (my polling company). He informed me that he actually used to work for me as a pollster in the evenings.

Now that is a very small world – discovering the IRD staffer used to work for you. Unfortunately for me it also meant he could not complete my request as he was conflicted so I was transferred to another staffer (who was also very helpful).

The Greens should jump on this one:

Pamela Anderson wants to host a vegan cooking show in a bikini.

The former Baywatch actress would only star in another TV programme if she was allowed to don skimpy swimwear and film the series on a beach.

Writing on her blog, the 41-year-old blonde beauty said: “I’ve been cooking Vegan every day (myself) – experimenting – trying out new things – I still think I should have my own sexy/fun Vegan-cooking show?- maybe one day.

“Could always have Girls in bikinis cooking veggies on the beach. I keep getting crazy offers to go back on TV – I don’t think I have the passion anymore for it. What is TV these days anyway? Sensory overload – too busy living the dream… (unless I could do the veggie bikini BBQ show) – I just don’t think I could pull it off – no studio for me (sic).”

A vegan cooking show in bikinis on the beach. It can only increase votes for them.

Pamela is also developing an environmentally-friendly swimwear range.

She added: “Making board shorts from eco fabrics and bikinis – (in progress) – very easy rider bohemian lifestyle – can’t beat it.”

Maybe Pam can stand for them in Mt Albert?