Kiwiblog

There is something about cruelty to animals and children that just makes my skin crawl when I read about it. The Herald reports:

An 18-year-old has been jailed for two years after dragging a goat tied to the back of his car along the road until it died.

Kurt Sharp, 18, pleaded guilty to a charge of wilful ill-treatment of an animal causing death, as well as a raft of burglary charges.

Judge Roy Wade, in the Pukekohe District Court yesterday, sentenced Sharp to two years’ imprisonment. He said that a lighter sentence of home detention would send the wrong message.

Sharp tethered the goat to the towbar of a car in Waiuku, forcing it to run behind it. When the goat could no longer run, the animal was dragged behind the vehicle for about 2km.

What scum. I’m glad he got a jail sentence,not home detention.

Simon Power has just announced the appointment of David Henry as the Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission:

David Henry has been appointed Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission for a term of one year, commencing 2 June 2009, Justice Minister Simon Power said today.

The one year term is because they are reviewing the agencies.

Mr Henry is a former senior public servant and more recently has worked as a management consultant. He was the Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department from 1988-1995, Commissioner of the Y2K Readiness Commission from 1998-2000, and Chief Electoral Officer from 2000-2006.

Henry was fearless as Chief Electoral Officer – he is the one who told Labour that their pledge card was an election advertisement and needed authorising, and that he also would recommend to the Electoral Commission that it be treated as an election expense.

Despite Labour being the Government of the Day and vigorous lobbying from Labour, he refused to back down in his interpretation and duly referred them to the Police.

I have no doubt he would be equally fearsome with a National Government.

In terms of expertise, a former Chief Electoral Officer can hardly be beaten.

The Herald highlights a story from the Observer:

Fathers who have daughters will shift their political views left while those who have sons will become more right-wing, a British study has found.

No wonder China is becoming more free gradually!

Researchers from the Warwick and York Universities found that the more daughters there were in a household, the more likely their father was to vote Labour or the centre-left Liberal Democrat.

In an unpublished paper that has been submitted to an economics journal, Professor Andrew Oswald and Dr Nattavudh Powdthavee said: “This paper provides evidence that daughters make people more left-wing, while having sons, by contrast, makes them more right-wing.”

Fascinating. So maybe this eugenics stuff is worth considering

John Roughan on Saturday had an excellent post on the benefits of competition:

Twenty years ago a visit to a wine shop was not much better than a prowl around supermarket shelves today. There was a limited range of popular varieties, some priced to clear.

You made a selection with minimal assistance and knew from bitter experience not to try anything unfamiliar, particularly if it was red.

Twenty years ago, when Parliament passed a law allowing wine to be sold in supermarkets, everybody supposed it would spell the death of the wine shop. So much for supposition.

I have a nearby supplier these days who has noted what I like, knows my modest price preference and, more often than not, has a new vintage to recommend. Invariably, it is superb.

This is key – not all competition is price based. It is service based also.

Here’s to him, here’s to all the customers that keep him solvent, here’s to supermarkets that force him to compete on service, here’s to the Sale of Liquor Act, 1989.

Bravo.

I mention this because the liberal liquor laws of the late 20th Century are in imminent danger of reversal. The sale of alcohol from supermarkets, the proliferation of suburban liquor stores and the lowering of the minimum purchasing age to 18 are blamed for under-age and binge drinking, domestic violence, even armed robberies.

And much more no doubt.

I don’t know if higher prices will deter binge drinking and other sins. The researchers assure us it will. Nor do I know whether wine shops will continue to offer an assiduous service if supermarkets can no longer advertise today’s price differentials.

What I do know is that the benefit competition has brought for consumers like me is unlikely to figure in the decision. The benefits of competition seldom attract social research.

Eric Crampton has already analysed some of this research and found that it only looks at costs, not benefits. Any decisions on alcohol should be made on a rational basis.

Stuff reports:

MPs Shane Jones and Parekura Horomia attended the march but stopped off at McDonalds before carrying on their way.

Must have been a very tough march!

I was babysitting my niece Sabine last week, and when it is time for bed, she always brushes her teeth. Not quite being tall enough to see in the mirror, she climbs up onto the basin, and sits there cleaing her teeth. An irresistable photo!

I’ve been reading a fascinating book – Mudslingers – the 25 dirtiest political campaigns of all time.  It covers US campaigns only – would be interesting to do a local NZ version.

Anyway the part I enjoyed most was the purported speech made a 1950 Senate primary for the Democratic nomination by Pepper’s rival:

“Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper before his marriage habitually practiced celibacy,”

Heh.

It is purported that this speech was delivered in small towns all over the state, but this has never been proven, so it may be an urban legend.

Pretending to be from TVNZ, Jono from The Rock rang a pig farmer and started harassing him. The result? They’ve smashed their record for the most swearing in a call.

Listen to it here.

Roger Kerr writes:

Remember the claims about New Zealand’s “Wild West” sharemarket when the Labour Government came to office in 1999? It was languishing, so the story went, because of insufficient regulation.

New Zealanders lacked the confidence to invest in publicly listed companies. The story was always nonsense. …

Undeterred, the Labour-led Government brought in new, poor-quality regulation on takeovers, insider trading, information disclosure and much more. It was urged on by the Securities Commission, the NZX and others. The collapse of Enron and WorldCom gave a new impetus to regulation. In the United States, a key response was the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation.

This seems to be universally recognised as an over-reaction that damaged the New York market. Many of the proposals for new regulation in New Zealand were resisted by the business community and informed commentators. …

So did Labour’s policies of more regulation work?

In 1999, the total value of listed companies in New Zealand stood at around $55 billion. By 2008 it had shrunk in real terms (deflated by the CPI) to $31 billion.

As a percentage of GDP, it shrank from 51 per cent in 1999 to 22 per cent in 2008.

And the aim was to increase confidence in investing. But wait, did all countries have a decrease like this?

Although Australia’s market capitalisation has also fallen relative to GDP (from 105 per cent in 1999 to 82 per cent last year) with the recent decline in world sharemarkets (which of course also affected New Zealand), it has grown by 10 per cent in real terms since 1999. That compares with the 44 per cent decline of our market.

Guess not.

I am puzzled as to why this is a story:

A Horowhenua farming couple are outraged that Telecom is paying them a pittance to lease land for a transmission tower.

Wendy and Mark Rolston say instead of the meagre $199.36 a year they are getting, they should be paid around $10,000.

Sites usually net landowners at least $5000 a year, telco experts say.

At first you do wonder about it.

The farm’s previous owner struck the lease on January 12, 1988 for just $150.

That edged its way up with inflation over the years to a princely $180.11 by late last year and the lease came up for renewal in January this year for a further 21-year term.

Okay so they brought the farm knowing what the lease was worth up until 2009.

Via David Shaw of DTZ property consultants in Wellington, Telecom initially extended an offer to increase payments from $180.11 to $3000.

“My client Telecom New Zealand is prepared to offer you a revised rental of $3000 plus GST per annum for the microwave site on your property at Arapaepae,” he offered the Rolstons on January 23.

The couple wrote back, rejecting that and seeking $10,000.

Shaw in turn wrote back last month withdrawing the $3000 offer because Telecom had decided to stick to the original $199.36.

Now here is what I don’t get. The 21 year lease has expired. This means they can now kick the transmitter off the farm in the absence of a new agreement. So just do so if you don’t think Telecom will pay you enough.

I can’t see what Telecom has done wrong here.

Brian Fallow in the Herald looks at why we now have a debt problem:

Over the past five years, government spending has increased by 50 per cent – twice as fast as the economy or tax revenues have grown.

Even in the same budget as which Dr Cullen finally gave tax cuts, he still increased spending by $4.5 billion. He didn’t even leave enough money for his Super Fund contributions – and that was before the flobal recession.

But now tax revenues are falling as the recession lays waste to the tax base. Treasury secretary John Whitehead says it will be some time in 2011 before the level of economic activity is back to where it was in 2007.

So three or more years of no extra income, yet the continual spending increases give us a huge deficit and debt problem.

This would see gross government debt double by 2013, relative to the size of the economy, and in the absence of a policy response climb to over 75 per cent of GDP by 2023. That is where it peaked in 1987; only by 2023 there will be the added pressure of baby-boomer pressure on health and superannuation costs.

This is what the situation would be under Labour. Labour have condemned basically every saving National has made, and just demanded more and more spending.

Whitehead in a speech on May 15 spelled out what that level of debt would mean. It would be $49,000 for every man woman and child in the country: “A family of four would basically have another mortgage of close to $200,000″.

$200,000 debt for a four person family. Not much of a future.

“But as we see it the most effective way the Government can begin to get on top of expenses is by reducing the spending allowances for future Budgets, currently set at $1.75 billion for the 2009 Budget and increasing by 2 per cent a year in each of the next three Budgets.”

Over four years that provision is a cumulative $18 billion in new spending. “We expect the Government to halve those spending allowances,” Purdue said.

Reducing the provision is sensible. In the late 1990s it was only $600 million a year. At $600 million a year then over four years it is only $6 billion as opposed to $18 billion.

The Herald will be updating coverage of the Hikoi here.

I find it ironic that several of the Mayors will be joining the Hikoi. If they were so in favour of Maori seats, why did they not have them created on their existing Councils?

And while I have no problem with the Hikoi overall (the right to protest is vital), it would be useful to have greater clarity about what exactly is being demanded.

Is it to have one or more seats elected by people on the Maori roll only, or is it also to have one or more seats directly appointed by local Iwi?

The original Royal Commission proposal was highly flawed. I blogged on 31 March:

Three Maori Councillors for 90,000 persons on Maori roll is one per 30,000. Ten Ward Councillors for those on general roll of 1.28 million is one per 128,000.

So even if you accept there should be Council seats reserved for those on the Maori roll and/or mana whenua, the Royal Commission proposal gives four times the voting strength by allocating three seats. The correct number, it seems to me is one seat.

Some may say 3/23 is 13% and that is close to the Maori population of 11% of Auckland. But that overlooks that those on Maori roll also get to vote for the ten at large seats. The correct comparison is population on Maori roll vs population on the general roll in the wards.

So does Phil Goff and Labour support what the Royal Commission proposed, even though it gives those on the Maori roll four times the voting strength of non-Maori?

There has been talk about the lack of Maori on Auckland local bodies. And I can appreciate the concern. But has there been an analysis measuring the success rate of Maori candidate and non-Maori candidates? Is the problem more that non many Maori have stood for office in Auckland? I don’t know – but would like to see such an analysis made available to the select committee.

Finally a prediction. We keep hearing that only white people in Remuera can win an at large seat (a nice form of reverse racism). I dispute that. If John Tamihere and WIllie Jackson stand for an at large seat, I reckon they would bolt in.

Melissa Lee finds a defender with Michael Laws:

MELISSA LEE is a racist, apparently. We know this because the collective intelligence that is the Auckland University Students Association has passed a motion to that effect. And who are we to argue with the moral priggishness of undergraduate students?

Apparently the National Party candidate for the Mt Albert by-election demonstrated her preference for the hooded white sheet despite being Korean by opining that a new motorway might inhibit the activities of South Auckland criminals.

At no stage did she identify the ethnicity of such criminals. Nor did she mention that she was parroting the exact same sentiments as publicly espoused by a senior Avondale police officer some three weeks previously.

But it matters not. The Auckland University Students Association a collection of onanists and lefty liberals (generally the same thing) has spoken. And they would know a racist when they see one. Because they automatically hate anyone or anything blue.

Not just Aucland University students. A number of Labour MPs have also called her racist, which I have found appalling. Lee deserves criticism for trying to suggest a motorway would greatly impact crime, but it is ludicrous that one can’t refer to high crime levels in South Auckland and have people tar you as a racist.

David Shearer himself said on television that crime is higher amongst migrant and polynesian communities as they have higher unemployment rates. Now Shearer is right, but he does not get smeared as a racist.

And who knew that South Aucklanders were their own ethnic group? When did that happen? I have naturally assumed that the place is an ethnic melting pot comprising Pakeha, Polynesian, Maori, Asian and just about all others. When did they start inbreeding to the point that science or at least the Auckland University Students Association regards them as a distinct culture?

Indeed.

UPDATE: Brian Edwards also criticises the students:

How tragic that the Auckland University student body can think of no better way to express disagreement than to boo, shout down and abuse a speaker. If Melissa Lee’s comments about South Auckland were stupid and offensive, they were outdone by the Hitler moustache and the word ‘racist’ scrawled across her photograph. As it happens, Ms Lee made no reference in her earlier remarks to any race, so the presumption that the ‘criminals’ she was referring to must be Maori or Pacific Islanders comes entirely from them. I would have thought that makes them the true racists.

But where did the students get their inspiration from to call Lee a racist? The Labour Party Caucus no less.

NZPA reported:

Labour MP David Cunliffe said in Parliament yesterday Ms Lee was “worrying about brown people coming up your motorway and invading the good white suburbs of Mt Albert”.

And in this PR from Labour, Lee is called “bigoted”.

The HoS reports:

Mike King’s manager sought thousands of dollars from the Pork Board after the comedian was dropped from its television campaign – and after King had been alerted to pig-farming concerns.

Documents show King’s manager was corresponding with the Pork Board as late as March, just two months before the screening of last weekend’s Sunday documentary, in which King turned on his former employer and exposed what he called “callous” and “evil” pig-farming conditions.

People are going to be very suspcious of the timings and motivations.

Pork Board executives say the figure of around $50,000 was raised in a telephone conversation between Steele and its marketing manager Hadleigh Smith.

The request went to the board in February, and was rejected.

King said his manager’s request for recompense was “news to me” and asked who had told the Herald on Sunday about it.

That’s a very dedicated manager who seeks money on your behalf without telling you.

By coincidence, I’m quoted twice in the HoS this week.

The HoS did a number of stories on MPs expenses, and quotes me:

Kiwiblog’s David Farrar this week acknowledged MPs’ legal entitlement to claim up to $24,000 in Wellington accommodation expenses, but questioned the moral propriety of the way some did it.

In particular, he objected to the practice of MPs using their parliamentary superannuation scheme to buy a house, then renting it back to themselves – allowing themselves to claim $24,000 when their mortgage interest payments would amount to far less. “It’s a conflict of interest, you’re effectively landlord and tenant,” Farrar says.

They also did a story on Paula Bennett.

BENNETT’S SUPPORTERS love her for her Westie chutzpah and outrageous sense of humour – when Labour MP Annette King berated her for giving Grey Power the brush-off, leaving them with an impression that “a loud laugh will solve all the questions put to her”, Bennett emitted a loud laugh.

Says Waitakere Mayor and former Labour Party president Bob Harvey: “The West has taken a shine to her. They like her style; she’s brown and fun and she understands the job. I think they’re prepared to forgive if a person is genuine and good.”

And later on talking about the Rankin appointment:

Kiwiblog’s David Farrar agrees the Halaholo omission was a lapse of judgment, but argues the Rankin omission was valid and even tactical. “It’s probably best not to tell the Prime Minister stuff like that: it’s not relevant, and it also protects him if he’s asked ‘Did he know?’.”

The Herald reports:

There were 18,380 abortions in New Zealand in 2007. The rate (20.1 abortions per 1000 women in the 15-44 age group) is high compared to other countries, putting us on a par with Australia, the United States and Sweden.

Unlike those countries, we have what has been described as “one of the most restrictive pieces of abortion legislation in the Western world” – contained in the Crimes Act and the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act passed in 1977.

Yet despite our draconian law – abortion is a crime unless it is authorised by two certifying consultants – we have one of the highest abortion rates in the world. What gives?

On June 9 2008, High Court Justice Forrest Miller gave voice to what some had suspected for some time – there is “reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants” in New Zealand.

We effectively have abortion on demand, even though the law says an abortion should only be granted if there is physical or psychological harm by not having one.

Despite his “powerful misgivings about the lawfulness of many abortions”, Justice Miller notes that “Parliament appears untroubled by the state of the abortion law” and the previous calls for reform have gone unheeded.

Most MPs can think of nothing worse than an abortion law debate. Personally I think it may be necessary to change the law to reflect the practice.

Meanwhile in New Zealand, despite both factions being clearly unhappy with the state of our abortion law, and Justice Miller’s concerns that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended, our politicians speeches are much shorter.

“The Government has no current plans to reform the abortion laws,” says Justice Minister Simon Power in reply to the issues raised by Justice Miller.

There are some arguments for doing nothing – the law, despite being outdated, does actually allow women to get abortions, even if they do have to go through a cumbersome, some say demeaning, process that sees most of them granted an abortion because of the danger to their mental health.

On the other hand, the law is doing the opposite of what it set out to do – to provide restrictions on abortions. As Right to Life argued before Justice Miller, the effect of the law is that “New Zealand has abortion on request.”

The irony of the situation is that both factions in debate actually agree on one point – the law is an ass.

Nevertheless, I doubt we will see any change.

The Herald does a lengthy article on David Shearer.He won’t be unhappy with it.

Simon Power has released the issues paper on the topic of electoral finance.  It’s 70 pages long, so good weekend reading.

I will blog next week in detail on it, and critique it. I encourage people who remember the horrors of the EFA to take an interest, get involved and participate.

At this stage mark down these dates for the public forums:

Wellington

Tues 9 June 1730 – 1900 Rutherford House

Auckland

Mon 8 June 1730 – 1900 Copthorne Hotel, Auckland Harbour

Christchurch

Thu 4 June 1730 – 1900 Christchurch Convention Centre

Submissions on the paper close Friday 26 June.

Have your say, or you risk losing your say (again).

Rodney Hide has named the five members of the Auckland Transition Agency. They are:

1. Mark Ford, Executive Chair. CEO of Watercare Services Ltd since 1994 and Chairman of ARTA since 2007.  Previous roles have included CEO of Auckland Regional Services Trust and CEO of NZ Forestry Corporation.
2. Miriam Dean, Extensive legal experience, appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2004.  An experienced mediator and arbitrator with strong governance experience.
3. John Waller, Chartered accountant with change management expertise.  Chairman of the Bank of New Zealand and adviser on many successful restructurings.
4. John Law, Extensive Auckland region local government experience, including seven years as Mayor of Rodney District Council (2001-07).
5. Wayne Walden, Experienced company director and manager, with extensive governance experience. Former Chair of Maori Television (2003-08).  Affiliated to Ngati Kahu and Tai Tokerau.

They have a huge job ahead of them, merging eight Councils together, 6,000 staff and $28 billion of assets.

NZPA reports:

National Party candidate Melissa Lee says second place is the best she can hope for in the upcoming Mt Albert by-election. …

Ms Lee today told Radio New Zealand she expected to lose and hoped she could come second. …

“I think my chances are fairly good. It’s been 63 years in the hands of Labour, so you know I wasn’t expecting to romp in and actually win this,” Ms Lee said.

Asked if she thought she could come second she said she was hoping to.

“It would be really fantastic if I nudge in a little further as well but I am not expecting to win. It was always going to be a hard battle.”

While no doubt truthful, this is a serious error of judgement. A major party candidate should never state that they do not expect to win – well not in a by-election anyway.

If one wants to manage expectations, then you let others do that for you. But again a major party candidate should not ever say they do not expect to win.

There are many reasons for this. To take just a few:

1. How the hell do you expect party volunteers, colleagues, and your campaign team to keep campaigning, when you have said you don’t think you can win. This is a winner takes all by-election – there is no party vote up for grabs.
2. Just as seriously what message does send to your voters? This can be a seriously self-fulfilling prophecy – National voters will not bother to vote if they think there is no purpose in doing so.
3. It effectively concedes despite three weeks to go. The Labour candidate had just himself had two rocky days himself and was showing vulnerabilities. A lot can happen in three weeks.
4. It encourages the minor parties to cannibalise your vote – you have said you don’t expect to win, so they will try and grab anti-Labour voters off you with more vigour.

I actually regard this as a bigger blunder than the South Auckland crime remarks. They at least were said in the heat of a public meeting. This was said in a radio interview where some lines should have been pre-prepared. Acceptable lines would be:

• “Labour have held this seat for 70 years and it is a tough challenge, but I don’t think any party can take the voters for granted, and I’m want to make sure they have the chance to elect a National MP”; or
• “This was Labour’s safest seat and not been held by National before, but I want to win the seat and I would never pre-judge what the voters will decide”

There are many ways you can indicate that it is unlikely you will win, without stating you don’t expect to win which is a real no no.

UPDATE: NZPA now report:

National Party candidate for Mt Albert Melissa Lee says she does want to win the by-election, despite earlier saying she was hoping and expecting to come second….

Asked directly if she expected to come second she answered: “yes”.

Ms Lee said she was talking about the media expectation, not her own.

“I am not in this game to lose,” she said.

NZPA put it to her the radio interview er did not discuss media expectation around her chances, but asked her for her own opinion.

“I think it was a case of I am expecting to come second, at least,” Ms Lee said….

It was always going to be a tough battle, but she would not be missing out on spending time with her son if she thought there was no chance of winning.

“I am not putting in all these hours and putting up with media trying to come second, I am not. I am trying to win this damn thing.”

It would have been better if this is what was said initially.

The Herald reports:

A Thai plasterer has told a jury she did not tell the truth to a government-ordered inquiry considering allegations against Taito Phillip Field.

Jinda Thavichit told the High Court in Auckland she did so because Field wanted their stories to the inquiry to be consistent and she wanted to help Field.

Of course he did.

Mrs Thaivichit, who had set up a Thai Labour Party branch in Mangere, had a reasonably close connection with Field, whom she and many other Thai nationals called “Big Dad”.

She made statements in a document in front of a lawyer that she had organised some painting and plastering work done by Thai workers on properties owned by Field, and that she had made payments to some of the Thai workers.

However, she told prosecutor David Johnstone today that she did not do the organising and that she did not make some of the payments which she said in the document that she had.

Mrs Thaivichit also said in the statement that Field let her stay at his property in Church St, Otahuhu because she couldn’t pay rent, when the truth was that she and her family were trying to avoid immigration authorities and Field wanted to help her.

She said she signed the document because Field asked her to, and “because I thought I would like to help Big Dad”.

Big Dad indeed. And how many other people joined Labour after Big Dad helped them out by getting his mate the Minister to waive the rules for them?