Kiwiblog

Rodney Hide has announced:

The Minister of Regulatory Reform, Rodney Hide, said the 2025 Taskforce was charged with recommending ways to improve productivity in order to close the income gap with Australia by 2025.

“The establishment of the taskforce was a key component in the ACT-National confidence and supply agreement, reflecting the importance we place on working to close the income gap with Australia,” Mr Hide said. “That income gap is one of the reasons we lose so many talented, hard-working New Zealanders every year.”

The Taskforce will provide an initial report in October 2009. Mr Hide said that report will identify the policy settings and changes that will deliver the productivity growth necessary for a stronger, more prosperous economy. Further progress reports will then be provided in 2010 and 2011.

The five-member 2025 Taskforce will be chaired by Dr Don Brash.

“Dr Brash is ideally suited to this role, with his wide experience of economic policy,” Mr Hide said. He was Governor of the Reserve Bank for 14 years, and an important motivation for his entering politics in 2002 was the widening income gap with Australia.”

The other four members are yet to be selected. Mr Hide said ministers are considering potential candidates with strong expertise on the New Zealand economy and public policy.

I have no doubt Don will identify measures that will increase productivity growth. And I have no doubt that because it is Don, Labour and the Greens will oppose it automatically. Their wails have already begun.

The big question, is will the Government act on the recommendations of the Taskforce? Closing the gap with Australia was a major major plank for National at the last election. I think voters will understand that dealing with the effects of the global recession has been the immediate challenge, but certainly will want to see a firm work programme by the time of the next election. The gap won’t reduce by itself.

One of my friends who managed to get herself knocked up (well okay it was to her husband) has a fundraising event for her preschool. If you live in Wellington and like Michelle A’Court, the comedy and dessert evening is tomorrow night (Wedneday). Details:

PAUATAHANUI PRESCHOOL FUNDRAISING EVENT

COMEDY & DESSERT EVENING

WEDNESDAY 22 JULY 2009

Our next fundraising event is now all set and it’s going to be a cracker! We’ve persuaded New Zealand’s best female comedian to head to little old Pauatahanui – Michele A’Court will be here to entertain us on Wednesday 22 July 2009.

They say laughter is the best medicine, especially in the middle of winter so tell all your family and friends and make it an extra special night out.

Tickets for the show, a delicious dessert and tea/coffee are only $35.00
The venue is the Lodge at the Inlet, 182 Paekakariki Hill Road , Pauatahanui, Wellington.
Guests are welcome to arrive from 7.00pm, to be seated no later than 7.45pm.
Beer, wine and non-alcoholic beverages are also available to be purchased.
(Proceeds to go towards a new teaching kitchen at Pauatahanui Preschool).

For further information including tickets, please contact Celia Horner on (04) 235-8110 or jchorner@xtra.co.nz now!

MICHELE A’COURT

Six-time winner of the NZ Comedy Guild’s Best Female Comedian Award, Michele A’Court has successfully made a living, raised a child and paid a mortgage for more than a decade as a professional stand-up comedian and corporate entertainer.

Whether it’s on stage, television, radio, or in print, Michele has an ability to find just the right way to reach her audience. She is in demand not only as a comic, but also as a social commentator on radio, television and in print.

Her international experience as a stand-up comedian includes shows at comedy festivals in Edinburgh , Melbourne , Adelaide and NZ – shows which have dealt with the war on terror, national and international politics, life, love and laughter. Michele also performed for the troops in East Timor in 2001.

In 2008, Michele was awarded “Spirit of the Festival – Wellington ” at the NZ International Comedy Festival. Her show, “The Lady Bunch” was nominated for Best Local Show, and is now in demand throughout the country.

Michele is also the Lead Columnist for “Your Weekend”, the magazine distributed with Wellington ’s Dominion-Post, the Christchurch Press and the Waikato Times. Michele’s original career was as a journalist and she relishes the opportunity to write each week on current social issues.

She is also a regular TVNZ’s “Breakfast”, Radio NZ National’s “The Panel” with Jim Mora and “9 to Noon” with Kathryn Ryan and Te Radar.

The Business Roundtable has published a paper by Lindsay Mitchell on “Maori and Welfare. It isn’t necessarily BRT policy, but published to encourage debate – which is excellent. We need more, not less, policy debates.

Mitchell has found that Maori were not always over-represented in negative statistics:

One of the few areas for which long-term Maori statistics were kept is crime. At the turn of the nineteenth century, Maori (defined as people having half or more Maori ancestry) made up 5 percent of the population. In 1898, 22,752 charges
were heard before magistrates and only 2.3 percent were against people of the “aboriginal native race”.

And this situation continued for many decades. Then:

By 1957, the Maori share of offences tried in the Supreme Court was 18 percent, but in just five years it climbed to 23 percent.5 In 1959, Maori made up 25 percent of the boys admitted to the correctional Owairaka Boys’ Home in Auckland. By 1969, the proportion had risen to 70 percent, and by 1978 it was 80 percent.6 By 1961, the Maori arrest rate for 15 year-olds and older was almost 5 times the non- Maori rate.7 Young Maori migrating from rural to urban settings were no longer
under the control of their elders. Young urban Maori increasingly joined emerging groups such as the Mongrel Mob and Black Power.

She quotes James Belich:

People avoid crime, not primarily because it is illegal, but because of the disapproval of those that matter to them – in the traditional, rural Maori case, the kin group.

Lindsay goes on to make a link to welfare policies being responsible for some of the problems, especially the DPB. A not inconsiderable number of Maori have said the same at various times. Now many will disagree with Lindsay, but I suggest you at least read her report – it is only 40 pages.

Mitchell states her view on welfare:

There exists an extreme view that the state has no role at all in welfare provision. It is not one I share. Nevertheless, the state should limit its involvement to that of providing a safety net of last resort. Self and family responsibility must come first. Middle class welfare – the provision of cash or services to those who can afford to meet their own needs – must be avoided. Welfare reforms that deter people from behaving in detrimental ways because there is no perceived risk should be made with those basics in mind.

I broadly agree with that proposition. Welfare should be trgeted at those in genuine need. It should not be dished out so families can buy a nicer ipod.

Lindsay then makes six recommendations:

1. replace the DPB with temporary assistance only (max one year);
2. replace state-funded unemployment benefits with private unemployment insurance;
3. tighten eligibility for sickness and invalid benefits;
4. consider assistance-in-kind and income management as stop-gap measures only;
5. consider privatising income support delivery to improve efficiency and incentives and allow for Maori ownership;
6. consider empowering employment entrepreneurs, and increased use of loans and opting-out as features of a future safety net system.

I do support reforms along the lines of what Clinton did, with a maximum time you can spend on a benefit. They have been a huge success. I think restricting the DPB to one year only though is impractical. Recommendations 4, 5 and 6 are worth exploring. The status quo is not exactly producing great results, and we should be open to looking at can we get better outcomes by doing it differently.

This is where I am a bit disappointed by the Government’s response:

Prime Minister John Key had not read the report yesterday but said it sounded “pretty draconian”.

Social Development and Employment Minister Paula Bennett said none of the ideas were on the agenda for the Government.

It would be nice if the response was that while the proposals were not current policy, we will at least read and consider the report, and respond to it after due consideration. As I said, the status quo is nothing to be proud of.

The headline on Stuff:

‘There are no pixies printing cash’ Key tells Labour

Says it all really.

The Herald editorial:

More fundamentally, most New Zealanders recognise their country must play a role in the escalating war against the Taleban. If the conflict is lost, Afghanistan will again become a bolt-hole for terrorism.

It is not just about Afghanistan.

There are good reasons for heightened New Zealand involvement at an early stage. This is looming as a defining time in the struggle. The Americans, with Iraq now much less of a distraction, have poured 20,000 more troops into the country, sparking major new offensives against the Taleban in the south and east. Most encouragingly, the Obama Administration has insisted on a new strategy, which places less emphasis on tracking and killing Taleban fighters and more on protecting Afghans from the insurgents.

The change in strategy seems very wise.

The Americans had some success with this strategy in Iraq, but Afghanistan is far more complex, if only because the Taleban, largely composed of members of the Pashtun tribes, is so well integrated. Even striking deals with more-moderate Taleban leaders will prove far from easy, given the international coalition’s emphasis on human rights and gender equality.

And the Pashtun are very nationalistic, only really uniting against foreigners.

Nonetheless, this is not a struggle that New Zealand can shirk. Sending the SAS has nothing to with currying favour with the White House. It is about the way Afghanistan provided a training ground for worldwide terrorism. Last week’s bombing in Jakarta reinforced the fact that every effort must be made to prevent that happening again.

Also, this is exactly the sort of combat the SAS has trained for. And from all accounts are very proficient at.

I was too young to remember the moon landing, so like many don’t really comprehend how historic it was. It would have been a day the entire world was watching.

In my own lifetime, I regard the bringing down of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Empire as the most monumental, and not sure they will be eclipsed.

Much of the commentary on the 40th anniversary has been how little has been achieved since 1969. I do hope in my lifetime we will see someone walk on Mars, and maybe even a permanent base on the moon.

The NZ Herald reports sound words from the Treasury Secretary:

In a speech to government department chief executives in Wellington yesterday, Treasury Secretary Mr Whitehead said the public service needed to move out of its traditional comfort zone and take some risks to ensure it delivered services as cost-effectively as possible.

“There is a stark alternative to mobilising ourselves as public servants. If we don’t rise to the challenge and make real progress, change will occur – but it will be done to us rather than by us.”

Absolutely. To be fair some CEs have risen to teh challenge.

The Government’s edict was for better services without spending increases – and Mr Whitehead said nothing should be off the table to try to lift the productivity of the state sector.

Options included contracting out more services to the private sector, merging administrative services with other departments to lower costs and cutting projects despite the possibility of staff cuts.

I am interested in the merging of admin services.

If you add quangos to core departments, we now have 250 or so public sector CEOs. It also means we have 250 IT systems, 250 payroll systems, 250 HR systems etc etc.

I would advocate creating around a dozen sector super-ministries. One for the justice sector, one for the social services sector, one for health sector etc. You might still have different agencies within that super ministry, but they would all use the same IT, HR, payroll systems etc. And there would be just one CEO over them all who is in charge of strategy and ensuring the whole sector works together.

You see this in the UK where the Home Office is in charge of all law & order – corrections, police, courts etc etc.

In the speech, Mr Whitehead says “tough decisions” are needed. Staff numbers working in the core bureaucracy had grown by 44 per cent since 1999 – a far greater number than those affected by recent redundancies.

Mr Whitehead told the government departments more savings would be sought through the “line-by-line” reviews of spending that have become a regular part of the Budget process.

So trying to reduce costs won’t be a one off exercise, but an annual event. Excellent.

Stuff reports on a strange case:

A Wellington man who hit his nephew on the head with a sofa cushion has been committed for jury trial, charged with assault on a child. …

Though no injury was found on the boy from the alleged assault with the small decorative cushion and she said did not see the actual attack happen, it was “definitely not” just a pillowfight, she said.

The boy’s mother admitted she had used physical violence to discipline her son in the past. …

Speaking from behind a protective screen shielding him from the accused, the boy told the court the pillow-hit had not really hurt and he felt no ill-will toward his uncle.

The boy said he had been hit on the top of the head and was not sore afterward.

During his appeal to the presiding Justices of the Peace to have the case dismissed, Mr Knowsley repeatedly asked whether he was dreaming.

“It is almost bizarre you can hear repeated admissions that the child has been repeatedly hit by his own parents but that this is going to a full jury case. Frankly, it’s preposterous,” he said.

It seems strange this is going to court when the boy has said the cushion didn’t really hurt, caused no damage, and he has no ill-will.

After re-confirming his not guilty plea, the alleged attacker was remanded on bail to an address in Wanganui, though his bail conditions stated he was not allowed to drink at all or have any contact with his sister’s family.

There is obviously bad blood between the brother and sister. But I would have thought you would just tell the uncle not to visit anymore and/or get a trespass order, rather than prosecute your brother for throwing a cushion at your kid.

The bail condition of not drinking suggests there may be more to this than meets the eye. It will be an interesting case when it does go to court.

John Armstrong writes:

The political furore over putting folic acid in bread is not confined to arguing the scientific merits of putting folic acid in bread.

It is about much more than that. It is an argument about the morals of mass medication. That raises all the connotations of “nanny state” knows best .

And no one is against people being able to buy bread with folic acid added to it. But why should every male, and every female aged under 16 or over 50 be dosed with folic acid, when the main benefit of it can not apply to them, and there is some uncertainity about risks.

Her handling of this hot potato has been lambasted largely on the back of a less than impressive performance on TVNZ’s Q&A programme the Sunday before last. Wilkinson seemed woefully under-prepared for the bombardment she received from interviewer Paul Holmes and the Greens’ food safety campaigner, Sue Kedgley. …

While making it clear she was looking for a means for New Zealand to escape its transtasman obligations, she looked like a minister hostage to the advice of her officials and seemingly powerless. Her solution that the decision to mix folic acid into bread be reviewed after its introduction may have satisfied legal considerations but it seemed somewhat farcical.

There were three basic positions you could take. One is you are against compulsory addition of folic acid in bread and are not going to let it happen. Another is you think it is a good thing to have folic acid added to bread and defend that decision. The third is that you are against adding folic acid to all bread, but won’t or can’t stop it happening. That is the worst position to adopt as it is saying I agree it is wrong, but I’ll let this bad thing still happen because I am powerless. It is a lesson for other Ministers.

Exit Wilkinson. Enter the Prime Minister. The Government will release a discussion document tomorrow with three options – deferral, rejection or the status quo. But Key has already said he prefers deferral, bringing the matter to a close. If this is another example of Key’s brute pragmatism, there are also lessons for his Administration.

The reason Key is so popular, is he is always getting involved and sorting out problems like this one, the old s92A etc etc. But over the longer term, the Government as a whole needs to be seen as performing very well – not just the Prime Minister.

Labour’s unwavering backing for folic acid in bread might have meant the issue was dead in terms of parliamentary politics. However, it has turned out to be very much alive politically outside the Beltway.

And Labour still back the mass medicating of folic acid. This means it may be an issue in the 2011 election as Labour will effectively be campaigning on their plans to make folic acid compulsory in bread. The review of the decision is timed for just a few months after the 2011 election so parties will be expected to have a position.

NZPA report:

A messy court battle over the estate of the late Sir Edmund Hillary has been averted after the intervention of Prime Minister John Key’s office.

Mr Key said the Hillary family’s dispute with Auckland War Memorial had been resolved amicably after his staff mediated a resolution.

There are risks when you intervene in a private dispute, but it is good to see the intervention has led to a good result. Further fighting between the Hillary children and Auckland War Memorial Museum would have been a sad legacy for Sir Edmund.

Sir Ed’s son, Peter, told Radio New Zealand it had been a “pretty painful” process and he felt “somewhat indebted” to Mr Key for helping both parties sort it out.

A win-win-win.

The deed of agreement is online and quite interesting.

The Herald reports:

The number of fatal crashes on Auckland roads has risen sharply after a two-year lull, and police say cellphone use is partly to blame.

Okay. Now I am open to that observation being correct, so what are the stats:

Fifty-four people have been killed this year in the region – just one down on the toll for the whole of 2008 and seven fewer than in 2007.

So crashes are definitely up.

Crash investigators say they have anecdotal evidence that more and more motorists are talking and texting on cellphones while behind the wheel.

Why give us anecdotal evidence only? Every crash is recorded and likely factors also recorded. Surely someone can produce stats for the first six months of the year in Auckland and give us hard data.

I get suspicious when I see stories like this, with no hard data behind them.

Mr Macdonald had also noticed an increase in pedestrians killed crossing the road while talking on the phone.

So will the Police advocate talking on a phone while outdoors be an offence?

Sergeant Stu Kearns of the Waitemata serious crash unit said his staff obtained warrants to search cellphone records whenever practical.

“I think it is a good practice in crashes where serious injuries or fatalities [occur] that you get a warrant to check cellphones.”

An excellent idea. The more data we have on the cause of crashes, the better decisions based on that data will be.

Roading policing staff have also spotted motorists applying make-up, reading newspapers or maps and engaged in amorous activity while behind the wheel.

Which is why I prefer a law targeting all driver distractions.

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said a ban on hand-held phones in cars was inevitable, but would be met with reluctance.

“The problem with the public is that they want everyone else banned from using a cellphone but not them and it won’t stop them from getting upset when they’re issued with a ticket for doing it.”

Or it might be they are aware of the scientific evidence that banning hands free phones are as “dangerous” as hand held phones. I have a hands free phone so any ban won’t affect me, but I think it is a tokenistic response. One should either ban all phones, or (preferably) have a tougher law dealing with all distractions. Targeting hand held phones only is unlikely to make much of an impact in my opinion.

For those in or near Epsom,Rodney Hide is having a public forum at 5.30 pm on Friday 24 July. The guest speaker is Bob McCoskrie on why you should vote No in the referendum.

It is at the Mecca Cafe, corner of Nuffield Street and Remuera Road, Newmarket. A cash bar will operate.

I despair for the people who will see the cute Greenpeace ads on television about how we need to cut our carbon emissions 40% by 2020, and say you should text your name in support. They fail to point out what sort of country we would live in, if anyone was insane enough to agree to such a goal.

On NewstalkZB I described it as this:

First you would have to stop all transport emissions. So all cars and buses are gone. Then you would have to stop all electricity emissions. So NZ would have no cars and no electricity. But even that would not be enough to get emissions in just a decade to 40% below 1990 levels. You would have to hire gangs of vigilantes to hunt down any cows they can find and shoot a decent proportion of them.

Now you may think I am exaggerating. But not really. No one should think one can cut greenhouse gas emissions by around a half in just a decade without a massive impact on NZ society. Hopefully someone somewhere has hired some economists to work out what the consequences and costs would be of such a dramatic reduction over such a short period of time.

Colin James looks at what the reduction should be:

Advocates of a 40 per cent reduction from 1990 levels have been crowding Smith’s meetings. Opponents of a 40 per cent reduction say that would cripple the economy (though their models exclude unpredictable growth possibilities). John Key has said the economy must trump the environment when the two clash. So 40 per cent is most unlikely.

Too right.

On the most recent (rubbery and constantly changing) computations, New Zealand will more than meet its Kyoto commitment for 2008-12 of net emissions at the same level as in 1990 because, although our gross emissions are around 23 per cent above 1990 levels, enough trees were planted in the 1990s to offset this (though forest owners might claim some of those credits and taxpayers would then have to buy matching foreign credits).

The recession has also helped. We emit less when business is slack.

The 1990 tree plantings are projected to keep our net emissions around 1990 levels until 2016. But from then the trees start to be harvested and by 2020 our net emissions are projected to match our gross emissions — 41 per cent above 1990. After 2020 the figure soars.

So Colin correctly points out that if no changes are made our emissions in 2020 will be 41% above 1990 level. So if we were to follow Australia and say we will get emissions down to 5% below 1990 levels by 2020, that would be a reduction from 140% to 95% – still a massive reduction.

So to get to 40 per cent below 1990 levels in 2020 we would have to cut by around 60 per cent compared with going on as we are (“business as usual”) — or buy a swag of credits offshore, which may be very expensive if other rich countries are also buying for their “responsibility” targets. Or, some argue, we could plant masses of trees, starting now.

So a 60% reduction over the business as usual scenario. And now look at our emissions profile:

1. Agriculture methane 30%
2. Transport 20%
3. Agriculture nitrous oxide 16%
4. Stationary energy 15%
5. Electricity generation 9%
6. Industrial processes 6%
7. Waste 2%

So as I said, let us say we get rid of every car and bus in New Zealand. We all walk to work, video-conference, cycle or take the solar powered train. That takes out 20%. Only a third of the way there.

Then we decide to join Great Barrier Island and survive off solar power. We close down all the power plants and turn off the electricity supplies. It’s candles for warmth in winter. That gets a another 9%. 29%.

To get to 60% we also really need to wipe out those agricultural methane emissions by shooting every evil cow we can find. That gets us to 50%. Yes I know it will mean no more dairy exports. In fact we may even need to import our milk and butter, but hey we will have met our target.

There is an upside though. Our incomes will all drop by thousands of dollars as we wipe out the agricultural sector. And it is tough having less money to spend. But as cars would have been outlawed, and there will be no electricity bills, as we have no electricity, then that should allow you to survive the drop in income a bit easier.

Now of course technology may make the job easier. I certainly hope so. But consider how much of an impact technology can have in just a decade. By 2050 I think technology will have allowed us to make much more significant reductions. But 2020 is not far off, and even if within a few years someone does work out how to stop cows emitting methane, it would take many years to produce and roll out the technology.

Cactus Kate blogs approvingly of a speech Barack Obama gave to the NAACP where he told parents to put away the x-box:

So last night we had the Obama speech/sermon to the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). Most of the first part of the speech was dreadful, about how he was going to spend more of mostly the white man’s money. Being at a coloured convention he received a thunderous applause for every trillion he stole.

But then Obama turned it all on the audience. He was brilliant. I think he wrote this part of the speech himself.

“Government programs alone won’t get our children to the Promised Land,”

“We have to say to our children, ‘Yes, if you’re African-American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher, Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that someone in a wealthy suburb does not.’

“But that’s not a reason to get bad grades, that’s not a reason to cut class, that’s not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands and don’t you forget that.”

“I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers,” Obama said. “I want them aspiring to be a Supreme Court justice. I want them aspiring to be president of the United States.”

Only a black President could give that speech.

Kate goes on to say:

If only we could have an effective co-President who made sound fiscal decisions

I agree. A lot of what Obama has done I have no problems with. His fiscal policies though are an unmitigated disaster (yes even worse than Bush and he was crap fiscally) and I think will lead to another US crash when they start printing money to pay the bills.

A short clip of part of the speech. He even urges parents to take action if their neighbour’s kids are misbehaving – including smaclking them!

Bryce Edwards does another of his fantastic summaries of a chapter of a book reviewing the 2008 election. This post is on how the newspapers covered the election.

North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams is auctioning off spending an hour and a half with him in a flight simulator, to raise money for charity.

Naturally Whale Oil wants to win the auction, and he is fundraising to help him win. So any donations will both benefit the charity – Westpac Rescue Helicopter, and also means the Mayor and Whale get locked up together in a small enclosed cockpit. That has to be serious entertainment.

The bidding is currently at $200 and Whale has already raised $255 so his chances are looking good.

Chris Trotter fires with both barrels at Phil Goff. This is significant as Chris endorsed Labour in 2008 and was seen wearing a Labour rosette.

LISTENING to Radio New Zealand-National’s “Focus on Politics” yesterday evening, I was incensed and depressed, but I can’t honestly say surprised, to hear Phil Goff dismiss Labour’s founding objective – “the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange” as “nineteenth century history.”

It got worse, with Phil adding ideological insult to historical injury by declaring that the modern Labour Party believed “a well-functioning market system is the most effective and efficient way of organising an economy”. Yes, he was willing to “recognise market failure”, but only to the extent of ensuring “an adequate level of regulation”. …

Let’s begin with his glib dismissal of the “socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange” as “nineteenth century history”.

It was, in fact, only at the Labour Party conference of June 1951 that the socialisation clause was deleted from Labour’s aims and objectives.

The dropping of the socialisation clause did not, however, mean that the Labour Party constitution was purged of any and all references to its socialist beliefs and objectives. Even today, the Party’s constitution declares, as one of its foundation principles: “Co-operation, rather than competition, should be the main governing factor in economic relations, in order that a just distribution of wealth can be ensured.”

And among its objectives one can still read of Labour’s determination: “To ensure the just distribution of the production and services of the nation for the benefit of all the people.”, and “To educate the public in the principles and objectives of democratic socialism and economic and social co-operation.”

It looks like Trotter knows the Labour Party constitution better than Goff.

Trotter argues:

A capitalist economy, unmodified by the ameliorating reforms of a politically organised working class, will always fail to deliver for the overwhelming majority of the population. That’s because capitalism is intended to advantage the few at the expense of the many, and can only lead to the political domination of society by “elites at the top”.

To guarantee that the economy works more effectively for the majority, it is necessary to challenge the idea that private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange leads to a fair and equitable society. It has been Labour’s historical mission to lead that challenge, and to play a decisive role in the struggle against capitalist ideology.

The history of the past century has made me extremely wary of mounting that challenge primarily by the application of political violence and repression. My preference is for the principled and peaceful promotion of social-democratic ideas throughout the population – for making socialists of conviction rather than socialists by compulsion.

Certainly, that means the journey will be slow, and there will be occasional reverses, but it most emphatically does not mean that we can ever afford to give up the challenge; put an end to the journey.

If it is your view, Phil, that the quest for democratic socialism should be dismissed as something belonging to “nineteenth century history”, then I say: “The hell with you!”

And, to the members of the NZ Labour Party I say: “Find yourselves a new leader.”

Last week Tumeke blogged a snapshot of all the twitterings about a a possible tsunami threat to New Zealand.

Now by coincidence I know a little something about tsunami warnings. Not because I am omniscient, but because I attended a briefing for media organisations a couple of months ago by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. And I have been waiting for an opportune moment to share my learnings.

You can read for yourself the handout we got at the briefing.  The key thing for me is this:

Basically you can almost ignore any warnings that comes from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre. Generally the warnings they generate are automated. They are not saying there is a tsunami, let alone it may hit NZ. A warning gets generated on fixed criteria, such as an earthquake of a certain maginute within a particular area. The PTWC warnings are not designed for the general public, but for government agencies.

The MCDEM gets notified of any PTWC warning, plus receives its own data from Geonet. They then decide what risk, if any there is to NZ.  Most of the time there is none. They will then issue one of three statements:

1. No tsunami threat to NZ
2. Potential tsunami threat to NZ
3. Tsunami warning – threat to NZ

So unless the warning has come from MCDEM, it is just an automatically generated warning from PTWC. NZ gets around one of these a month, and none have ever eventuated in the last few decades.

However there may be times that a tsunami is generated locally. Or in other words it will hit within 30 to 60 minutes, not hours. If one is generated locally, then it may hit before an official warning is possible. These are the warning signs for people in coastal areas:

1. experience a strong earthquake (it was hard to stand up)
2. experience a weak earthquake lasting a minute or more
3. observe strange sea behaviour, such as the sea level suddenly rising and falling
4. hear the sea making loud and unusual noises or roaring like a jet engine

If you observe this, move inland and to higher ground promptly.

I suggested to MCDEM that they should look at having an official Twitter account. Twitter can pass on an official warning quicker than almost any other medium through retweeting. And I think many would subscribe to such a Twitter account – even if it very rarely will have anything to say. They seemed to think this was a good idea, and I got the impression it may happen at some stage. It may also have the benefit of people not over-reacting to PTWC alerts.

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

The Government will soon launch a Productivity Commission designed to run its ruler over key sectors in the NZ economy and advise on initiatives that might ultimately help bridge the income gap with Australia.

The proposal for a Productivity Commission has grown out of the post-election agreement National and Act made for a “high quality advisory group” which would be tasked with the challenge of investigating how NZ would close the income gap with Australia by 2025.

I think a productivity is one of the most important things we can do, for increasing long-term growth. The Australian equivalent is one of the reasons they have done better economically – for them reform is not just something that happened in the 1980s, but has been an ongoing work programme under Hawke, Keating, Howard and now Rudd.

One of the first initiatives for the new Productivity Commission should be to examine why New Zealand has so many ports.

Ports productivity is a major issue – for both exporters and importers – given NZ’s distance from markets. Just two NZ ports have agreed to transparently provide benchmarking data to overlay on the Australian Productivity Commission’s benchmarking studies in this area – other ports declined to participate.

Given the fact that Australia is New Zealand’s biggest export market, it is important to get ports’ efficiency increased.

That does sound like a good first project.

It is still unclear who will chair the commission.

Minister for Regulatory Reform Rodney Hide favours former Reserve Bank Governor and now company director Don Brash.

Economically my views are very close to Don Brash. From an economic point of view, I think he would do a great job.

But, and this is a big but, the sucess of the Australian Productivity Commission is that it has been supported by both the Coalition and the ALP. Sure they don’t agree with every recommendation, but they recognise its importance and don’t try and demonise and undermine the Commission.

Getting NZ Labour to support a NZ Productivity Commission will be difficult enough. However Goff and Cunliffe are more moderate than Clark and Cullen, and I hope they will be constructive towards it. Just because it will sometimes recommend unpalatable reforms is not a reason to silence or marginalise it.

And this is where politically having Don as inaugural Chairman may be inadvisable. It would almost guarantee Labour’s opposition to it. And in most cases I wouldn’t care about that. But I have heard multiple times that the success of the APC comes down a lot to the bipartisan support for it.

The Australian Productivity Commission’s work programme gives some insights into the type of issues that the New Zealand commission could be invited to examine.

The Australians are examining the relative performance of the public and private hospital systems looking into comparative hospital and medical costs for clinically similar procedures.

It is examining Australia’s anti-dumping system, executive remuneration, the contribution of the not-for-profit sector and gambling.

They all look interesting topics. I would be most interested in a study of gambling from an economic point of view.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key has given the strongest indication yet that New Zealand’s elite SAS troops will be sent to Afghanistan despite Government misgivings about the increasing numbers of American and European casualties from the escalating war against the Taleban.

Now Helen Clark sent the SAS to Afghanistan three times. Despite this, I predict there will be a huge outcry from the left when John Key does the same. Not just the Greens (who since 2001 have at least been consistent – they wanted the Taliban left in power and just asked nicely to behave better) but I predict many unions will condemn the deployment also.

What will be interesting is what Goff does? Is he going to advocate that New Zealand should snub the Obama Administration after him and Helen three times sent in the same SAS to keep Goerge W Bush happy?

Clare Curran floats four copyright ideas:

Education about copyright is very important. Government has an important role to play and copyright education should become a part of the school curriculum and be integrated right through our education system. A public education campaign is also needed for people to understand that protecting the rights of people who create content is important.

I’ve got no problem with that per se, but would caution that education campaigns can become own goals. The nasty messages that get played at the start of videos usually result in derisory laughs.

When consumers can easily and reasonably purchase all the films, TV shows and music they want legally online, then an education campaign on why people should only do legal downloads etc would be useful. But if the only way someone can view a TV show is to grab it from a bit torrent network, then no amount of education will change that.

We should enable people to access the information/material they seek. And consider introducing a licensing fee attached to internet service provider (ISP) connections. This fee would then be collected and distributed by an external agency amongst copyright holders.  In order to work, it would need the buy in of all ISPs and rights holders. It would likely be focussed on New Zealand copyright content first.

I think the future is going to be some sort of bulk license fee, paid through the ISP. Something alone the lines of $15/month for all the music you want.

However such a licensing fee should be a voluntary agreement between Internet users, their ISPs and rights holders. I would be very against an additional fee being imposed on all Internet users regardless of whether or not they wish to download material. A 75 year old occassional web browser should not have to pay for the 19 year old who downloads scores of songs a month.

Establishment of an independent rights agency to distribute fees and rule on disputes.  We still need an enforcement regime and a rights agency could also have the power to investigate and adjudicate on copyright disputes and alleged infringements aka the Section 92A model. However, I am of the view that internet disconnection is not a viable option. It simply won’t work and will drive hard core copyright infringers more underground. Financial penalties are more likely to work.

I agree that that financial penalties are a more appropriate penalty for infringers. I think it is excellent Labour appear to be ruling out supporting legislation that has Internet termination as a penalty.

A commitment to protect NZ content first. It’s our heritage, and the people who create NZ content must be able to make a living from their work and have that work valued.

Can’t really debate that one, as it is one of those apple pie statements such as “Education is good” which doesn’t mean a lot.  But I do think Clare is missing a few key words. It should be “must be able to have the opportunity to make a living from their work”. No-one is guaranteed the ability to make a living from their content. Otherwise us bloggers would be earning a lot more!

The Press editorial is hard hitting:

The flouting of convention that the Chief Justice’s address on penal policy represents is such that it is very hard to see any other explanation for it except that it was a preparation for resignation from the Bench. Even then, her observations were something that would have been more properly delivered after she had left rather than before.

The Chief Justice has effectively declared herself in opposition to the policies endorsed by voters at the last election. Any decisions she makes in future will be tainted with the fact she has entered the realm of partisan politics, and the respect for her decisions will be greatly lessened.

Once appointed, judges hold their positions until they reach retirement age. It is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to sack them and they are answerable to no-one. These provisions are designed to ensure that their judgments are given without fear or favour, and in particular that they are free from political interference.

The other side of this arrangement is that judges loyally apply the laws passed by Parliament and refrain from inserting themselves into political debate. These conventions are now hundreds of years old and have stood the test of time better than any of the alternatives tried in other jurisdictions.

Departure from them risks compromising the integrity of the justice system. The Chief Justice’s address crossed the line between what is proper under this convention and what is not.

And the Chief Justice said herself, she knew her speech would provoke a reaction.

The Chief Justice speaks with the authority of her high judicial office, although it should be remembered that that does not give her any particular expertise in penal policy. It would also be interesting to know what her attitude would be if any judge whose views differed from hers were to make his or her opinions publicly known.

Indeed. Is it open slather for Judges now? Can other Judges give speeches demanding Parliament impose longer prison terms?

Unlike judges, politicians are answerable every three years for their opinions and actions on political topics. Like anyone else, judges are free to enter into these political debates if they wish to do so. But if they do wish to do so they must be answerable for the policies they advocate. They cannot do so from the privileged position they occupy on the Bench.

The real danger is that Elias may use her position as head of the judiciary to impose her personal views that sentences should be much shorter, regardless of what Parliament says. We have already seen the Court of Appeal consistently knocking a few years off non parole periods in a couple of cases.

Phil Goff’s latest plan is to borrow more money from overseas, so that people can get the dole – even if their partner is earning a million dollars a year.

I prefer welfare to be targeted towards those who are in real need. I fully accept that if a family has both parents earning say $100,000, then it is difficult if one of them loses their job. Their spending has to adjust. But at the end of the day they still have a family income of $100,000 and that is not the priority for welfare.

Labour seem genetically incapable of coming up with any economic proposal that does not involve borrowing more money to spend more money. As an example Fitch Ratings recently put NZ on negative outlook and said:

Against this backdrop of external vulnerability, more aggressive restoration of public finances through fiscal prudence will be needed to raise the national savings rate to counter weak private savings.

So Fitch have clearly said the Government needs to spend less, and borrow less or we will have a credit rating downgrade. And what is Labour’s response to this:

“National’s problem is that many of its policy changes so far go in precisely the wrong direction. Cuts to KiwiSaver and the Super Fund deferrals in particular will worsen the crucial savings gap,” David Cunliffe said.

So Fitch warn against excessive public borrowing, and Labour’s response is to advocate borrowing an extra $3 billion a year!!

As I said they seem genetically incapable of coming up with any solution, apart from borrow and spend. No matter what the problem is, their solution is always the same.