Kiwiblog

Was pleased to see the announcement from Simon Power that Telecommunications Commissioner Ross Patterson has been approved to return to work, after a stand down due to alcohol issue.

Patterson’s background made him very very well suited for his role as Telecommunications Commissioner, and most in the industry thought he was doing an admirable job. It will be good to have a full-time Commissioner again.

The Herald reports:

Labour MP Phil Twyford fears the new Super City will abandon leaky-house victims and escape claims worth millions of dollars.

Good to know Labour not accepts there is a problem. I recall first of all Goerge Hawkins doing nothing for months and years on end despite explicit letters telling him of the problem and urging action.

But most famously we had Helen Clark on radio declaring that it is not a big issue at all, and it was just the NZ Herald “banging on” about things. Yep she attacked the NZ Herald for covering the issue. Weren’t they the good old days?

The new Super City law says all assets and liabilities of the old councils will pass to the new structure, he said.

“But what about claims where liability has not yet been established but where, in the case of leaky homes, the construction and certification took place pre-Super City and under the old councils?” Mr Twyford asked. …

Mr Hide said the Super City law made it clear that the new council would assume responsibility for the rights and obligations of all the old councils.

On November 1 next year, when the councils are dissolved, all the rights, liabilities, contracts, entitlements and engagements of each existing local authority would become those of the new Auckland Council, Mr Hide said.

I think Phil should stick to promoting the rights of parents to vote on behalf of their children, instead of silly scare-mongering. Of course the new Council will have the same liabilities and responsibilities of the old Councils with regard to leaky homes. Did he think of talking to a lawyer before he talked to his press secretary?

Sometimes you have to just despair of Fiji:

A New Zealand man spent a “wretched” night in a Fiji prison cell after frightened residents and police raided his Freemasons meeting, suspecting witchcraft and sorcery.

The man, who didn’t want to be named, blamed “dopey village people” for the raid in which 14 members of the Freemasons Lodge of Lautoka were herded into police cars and jailed for the night.

I don’t know what is sadder – the ignorance of the villagers or the fact the Police took action.

Police also seized lodge paraphernalia, including wands, compasses and a skull.

Does sound a bit Harry Potterish, but having paraphernalia like that should not lead to you being arrested.

This is a few days old now, but the Gordon Campbell interview with Phil Goff is worth a read. Some extracts:

Hang around in the leadership of National or Labour long enough, and chances are you will become Prime Minister. Don Brash, Bill English, Jim McLay, John Marshall – in the last 40 years, you can count on one hand the major party leaders who haven’t ended up running the country, and they’ve all been Tories.

History then, would seem to be on Phil Goff’s side. Yet despite his long ascent – he was a Cabinet Minister eleven years before John Key joined Merrill Lynch – the public still seems to lack a strong sense of his identity.

That is an interesting comparison – a Minister 11 years before Key started work at Merrill Lynch. Goff by 2011 will have spent 75% of his post univerisyt life as an MP.

The point Campbell makes about not having a strong sense of Goff’s identity is basically the same as I made a few weeks ago – people want to know more about who Phill Goff is, and what he believes in.

Only part of this (admitted) image deficit can be attributed to the daisy chain of personas that Goff has gone through, each one with indefatigible sincerity, on his way to the top. From student radical to fervent Rogernome to faithful lieutenant of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, Goff has been a fount of boundless, and fairly imposing, pragmatism. He just never stops.

Goff voted to lower the top tax rate from 66c to 33c and then to increase it again to 39c. What does he really think the top tax rate should be?

Campbell: If you’re not an ideologue, people can still validly say that you’re something of a chameleon. You were a student radical, you became an enthusiastic Roger Douglas supporter, and now you’re mainstream centre left. Does Phil Goff have an identity problem ?

Goff : No. Was it Keynes who said that when accused of changing his position he said ‘Yes, the facts disproved what I used to do, so I changed my mind.’ What do you do ? I think that’s a very appropriate response. My value system, I don’t think, has changed a great deal. Go back and read my Youth Reports, as president of the Labour Youth Movement, to conference.

A chocolate fish for the reader who can find and send me those reports!

Yeah, I’ve changed some of my ideas. Muldoon helped me a lot. He changed my idea of wage/price/rent/profit fixing, rather than allowing the market to determine these things. And protectionism. I don’t believe those things as a means to an end anymore. I also believe that in the current crisis the concept of the self regulating market – which I have never promoted as a concept, myself – has equally been disproved. The truth lies somewhere in between. I believe in the market mechanism, but I don’t believe the market mechanism provides fairness, as an outcome. Nor does the unregulated market always provide the outcome you’re looking for

Nice that Muldoon was good for something.

Campbell : So back then, where were you when it came to the December 17, 1987 package that caused such a ruckus in the Lange government ?

Goff : I wasn’t in the notorious photo, you might recall. I was pretty much focussed on the portfolio responsibilities I had.

Avoiding the question of how he voted in Cabinet on it.

Campbell : So to be clear – on the social outcomes, you thought that Douglas was wrong ?

Goff : I have never wavered from my view – and I ended up as Minister of Education, inheriting Lange’s portfolio, ironically – or from Fraser’s view, that the goal of your education system is to ensure that every child, regardless of what part of the society he or she comes from, can achieve to their full potential.

This is from the Education Minister who introduced non-trivial tertiary fees for students?

Campbell : So in what ways would a Goff government differ fom what we got from the last Labour government? Presumably. it would be more than Helenism with a Y chromosome.

Goff : I was entirely comfortable with what the last Labour government did. As I say, there were a number of things with political implications that we misread. I think we misread what the impact of section 59 would be. It wasn’t that the decision was wrong – it was that decision was always liable to be heavily exploited [to argue] that this is a nanny state government. I’m not sure that the positives we created…(pauses) I voted for the change, and don’t apologise for voting for that change. It has not done what the opponents of it said it would do.

In other words, we did nothing wrong.

The Waikato University mag Nexus has a couple of interesting articles on the stoush over the thesis, entitled Dreamers of the Dark: Kerry Bolton and the Order of the Left Hand path, a Case-study of a Satanic-Neo-Nazi synthesis.

Some interesting aspects:

They indicate that the process entailed several different reports with various authors. Deputy Vice-Chancellor Doug Sutton, who was in charge of the review, recommended that the thesis be downgraded from First Class Honours, although he said it still deserved a passing grade.

Additionally, Sutton said that because supervisor Dov Bing had “well known and longstanding views against Neo-Nazi groups,” there was a possible conflict of interest.

van Leeuwen and key staff involved with the thesis were also barred from viewing some finished reports. van Leeuwen became so frustrated with the process at one point during this year that he sought legal advice on suing the University.

The disagreements led to the secretary of the Tertiary Education Union, Sharn Riggs, sending a letter to Professor Crawford, saying that Waikato University staff were talking of withdrawing from postgraduate supervision because their jobs were not safe, and that Sutton’s reports impinged on academic freedom.

It sounds there are some unresolved issues.

If you have a spare quarter hour, you may find this public lecture by Chris Finlayson on Treaty Settlements interesting. The intro etc takes around three minutes, but then gets into the substance.

Hat Tip: Tumeke

This is an actual advertisement, not a parody. I’m sorry but who came up with the line “the bells of socio-economic freedom”. It’s hilarious.

The Press editorial is on the election of the Lange Government 25 years ago:

The election of former Labour leader David Lange on July 14, 1984, was followed by the whirlwind of Rogernomics, and few sectors of society were not affected by the changes wrought by his fourth Labour government before its implosion during its second term. With New Zealand today facing challenging economic times, as it also was in 1984, it is timely to reflect on the legacy of those turbulent years.

Critics are adamant that much of Rogernomics was unnecessarily brutal. There is no doubt that for those who lost jobs, notably in the public sector and in manufacturing, and for farmers these were harsh times. But the vast economic problems inherited by Labour left little option but the reform programme which Labour drove through.

Well there were other options, but they were bad ones. I’d hate to think what would have happened if Muldoon had been re-elected.

During the Lange years and the first term of the subsequent National government many of the economic fundamentals taken for granted today were put in place. These included a public sector made more efficient through corporatisation, more flexible wage bargaining, a robust banking system and some of the most aggressive subsidy and tariff slashing policies in the world.

This set the scene for export-led economic growth, not just of the traditional farming commodities but in newer sectors such as information technology and high value clothing.

The importance of those economic fundamentals has been reinforced by the fact that they are enabling New Zealand to weather the worst of the current global recession better than many other nations, and they leave this country well placed when the economic downturn does end.

I’ve never heard a protectionist explain how NZ managed to have the lowest level of unemployment in the OECD and also the lowest level of tariffs. Tariffs do not protect jobs in the long-term – they keep resources in inefficent areas of the economy.

Colin Espiner reports:

Prime Minister John Key has asked Crown lawyers to help the Government get out of the new folic acid food standard.

Yesterday, Key asked Crown Law to find ways to free the Government from its legal obligations to implement a requirement that folic acid be added to bread from September.

Pleased to see the PM get involved. It is highly desirable to get an out before September.

And Martin Kay has good news:

New Zealand has effectively been given the green light to axe rules forcing bakers to add folic acid to bread from September.

The office of Australian parliamentary secretary for health Mark Butler told The Dominion Post it was New Zealand’s call whether to proceed with the trans-Tasman standard, agreed in 2007.

“Whilst the Australian Government will maintain a keen interest in what New Zealand decides, decisions on New Zealand standards are the responsibility of the New Zealand Government. As permitted under the [food] treaty, New Zealand has opted out of the joint standard and so their standard is nothing to do with the Australian Government.”

That sounds encouraging. If the Ausies are not going to get upset, what is the issue?

AP reports:

China’s Health Ministry has ordered a hospital to stop using electric shock therapy to cure youths of Internet addiction, saying there was no scientific evidence it worked.

No kidding.

Chinese psychologists say symptoms of Internet addiction include being online more than six hours a day – playing games and looking at pornography rather than working or studying – and getting angry when unable to get online.

Well I’d say most Kiwiblog commenters fit that definition

Shuyun said it was only part of the overall program to treat patients, which also included medicine and psychological counseling. Patients are charged 5,500 yuan ($NZ1290) a month.

You pay $1,290 a month to get electrocuted? Man that is the best cyber scam yet.

The Herald reports:

Auckland’s Combined Beneficiaries Union has lost its Government funding, leaving unemployed Aucklanders south of the Harbour Bridge without a state-supported advocate despite the deepening recession.

I find it amusing when I see titles such as a Beneficiaries Union. I wonder what they are going to do if they don’t get Government agreement on an issue – go on strike?

The union’s grant of $66,000 a year was cancelled in April because of what Social Development Ministry client advocacy and review manager Zoe Griffiths said were “serious concerns with its financial management”.

She said an independent audit by Deloittes found the union showed “poor judgment in using public funds in reimbursing private expenditure”.

Sounds fair enough. Personally I am not a fan of funding such groups anyway. Don’t get me wrong I support funding community law centres who don’t get political, and just support people who need an advocate etc. But taxpayers fund a huge number of groups who then use that money to publicly lobby for even more money.

The decision means that the only two beneficiary advocates in Auckland still funded by the ministry’s $260,000-a-year Citizens Support Fund (CSF) are north of the harbour – Homebuilders Family Services in Warkworth and the Beneficiaries Advocacy and Information Service at Glenfield.

I’ve never heard of those groups and that is how it should be. they just get on with the job of assisting individuals needing an advocate. It is when such groups use their taxpayer funding to be a public lobby group that I have a problem.

To give some balance to the debate, here are some extracts from a PR from the Coalition of Parents of Children with Spina Bifida:

• Folic acid does not cause postrate cancer in humans. The negative studies referred to involve extreme levels of folic acid fed to rats. Levels humans would never consume.
• UK has approved folic acid fortification – the delay is because they are still deciding on the best vehicle ie bread or flour (including pastries/biscuits etc)
• Neural tube defects (NTDs) are more common and deadly then meningitis
• 14 babies were born with NTDs in New Zealand last year. Specialists know this number should be quadrupled because many NTD affected babies are aborted and these are not recorded in the birth register. NTD miscarriages are also excluded.
• The level suggested is not the full 400mcg RDI but it works (US data since 1998 implementation) in reducing the number of NTD births, and has been proven to reduce heart disease and stroke, colon and stomach cancers, congenital heart defects in babies and onset of Alzheimers.
• Folic acid is a b-group vitamin necessary for healthy cell development and is comprehensively proven as beneficial for general health
• The Bakers Association, including president Laurie Powell, have all agreed to the proposal many times during face to face meetings over the past 10 years. Sue Kedgley has also pledged her support as long as organic bread was not fortified
• National and Labour MPs over three successive governments have agreed to this proposal – often unanimously
• This is the most important preventive health initiative since iodised salt to prevent goiter and the rubella vaccine.

And to balance that, a PR today from the Association of Bakers:

A day after Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson all but accepted that the new folic acid food standard should go, she has now seized on an unpublished study as conclusive proof that her plan to mass-medicate every New Zealander is safe. …

Her turnaround appears to follow statements by Professor Murray Skeaff, of Otago University, regarding his attendance at a conference in Prague at which an as-yet unpublished pooled analysis of all the randomised control trials of folic acid to date were revealed. We welcome the entrance of Professor Skeaff to the national debate on this important issue. However we note this respected academic has changed his mind from his previous view that “mandatory folic acid fortification would represent an uncontrolled clinical trial with all New Zealanders as participants”.

Professor Skeaff previously got to the nub of the whole issue being debated when he asked, in a research paper in 2003: “Preventing even one case of spina bifida is a priceless relief for the afflicted child or family, but is the prevention of four cases of spina bifida each year sufficient justification for accepting the risks of exposing four million people?” …

Her plan to dose every loaf of bread simply to provide folic acid for pregnant women robs New Zealanders of freedom of choice and her own officials have confirmed to her that there will be “unknown effects” of such a widespread medication plan. It’s the exactly the kind of nanny state intervention in their lives that many kiwis thought would change with the new Government.

Kate Wilkinson’s plan to dose every New Zealander is an experiment – an experiment that very few New Zealand voters want. We welcome the Minister’s continued commitment to a review of the standard but suggest it should take place before – not after – its implementation.

Strong views on both sides.

For those who like Japanese cusine, I can recommend a new restaurant.

The Shonobi Sushi Lounge is next to the old Original Thai Restaurant at the corner of Vivian and Tory streets. Had dinner there on Sunday night – their second night of business.

The dishes were first class, and very reasonably priced. If you go along, I recommend you try the Ruapehu Rocket – divine.

Make sure you are good with chopsticks – they have no cutlery available, even if you are uncoordinated with the sticks!

I was with friends of the chefs, so it might not be typical, but the service was very friendly and good.

Definitely a restaurant I’ll go back to. Japanese is probably my second favourite cusine after Italian.

Simon Power has released a proposal for the review of s92A. One can give feedback on the proposal until Friday 7 August.

The Proposed Approach: Summary

Phase 1- First Infringement and Cease and Desist Notice Procedure

Where a RH considers on reasonable grounds that there has been online copyright infringement of one or more of its works, RHs may invoke the section s92A procedure by sending a first infringement notice to an ISP. The notice will contain sufficient details to allow the ISP to identify the subscriber
concerned. This notice must then be forwarded by the ISP to the subscriber. If there is further copyright infringement by that subscriber, a RH may send, via the ISP, a cease and desist notice. The subscriber will have an opportunity to reply to either notice by way of a response notice directly to the RH with their name and contact details attached. Upon receiving a response notice, a RH will be required to accept or reject it and inform the subscriber accordingly.

There will be issues here of who do you define as an ISP and a subscriber, and also quite importantly do ISPs get their costs covered for looking up who was at an IP address at a particular time, and passing a notice on. But the principle of the ISP passing on the infringement notice to the subscriber seems sounds to me, so long as costs are resolved.

Phase 2- Obtain Copyright Tribunal Order

Where a RH considers on reasonable grounds that there has been further (repeat) copyright infringement by a particular subscriber after a cease and desist notice has been sent, and the subscriber concerned has been provided with an opportunity to respond by way of a response notice, a RH may apply to the Copyright Tribunal to obtain an order requiring the ISP to provide the name and contact details of the alleged copyright infringer (the subscriber).

This seems appropriate. It should be an independent body such as the Copyright Tribunal that should have the power to order contact details of an alleged infringer. This is similar to how a court can order an ISP to name a customer if needed for a court case such as defamation.

Phase 3- Copyright Tribunal

A RH may then register an infringement complaint with the Copyright Tribunal which will ensure that the infringement complaint complies with requirements in statute/regulation. A RH may then notify the subscriber that an allegation of repeat copyright infringement has been lodged against them. The subscriber will have an opportunity to respond to the allegation and to elect to proceed to mediation. The Copyright Tribunal will be convened unless agreed otherwise.

The Copyright Tribunal, in addition to available relief by way of damages, injunctions, account of profits or otherwise, may consider ordering a subscriber to pay a fine or an ISP to terminate the subscriber’s internet account.

I like the ability for mediation. Again this looks a significant improvement on the original which has ISPs deciding who was guilty.

However there are still aspects I am uncomfortable with. I am not convinced that termination of Internet access is an appropriate penalty in a world where the Internet is so critical. No other offence or infringement has this as a sanction. Even extremely serious offences such as trading child pornography, doesn’t have a penalty where a Judge can order your Internet cut off. They send people to jail, and fine them.

I do support the option of a fine, rather than merely damages.

Also have queries around the cost of filing a complaint with the Tribunal (what will it be), and what the total cost of the regime would be, and comparing that to the benefits of this regime.  If MED have some ballpark estimates, it would be good if they could share this.

Also of considerable concern is that the ISPs are still piggy in the middle to some degree. When you get into the fine print of the proposal, you see ISPs are required to still record infringements notices against customer accounts etc and work out when they expire. Now this means an ISP has to reconfigure their CRM database. For some of the bigger ISPs, this could well cost them over $500,000 to do. Over the entire industry of 100 ISPs, the cost on these businesses could run to many millions of dollars. Will there be reimbursement for these costs? Is a recession a good time to be forcing extra costs on these businesses?

This is definitely a big improvement on the original s92A, and the Government should be praised for that. But there still remains significant questions about whether this is the best way to help rights holders combat copyright infringement.

That’s my initial take. I imagine I’ll have more to say once I’ve had more time to consider the detail.

BERL have done a fuller response to the criticism of their study. An extract:

BERL freely accept comment and debate on our publicly released reports. The project brief for this study was focussed on providing detailed information on the costs of alcohol and other drug abuse to New Zealand society. Measurement of benefits was clearly outside the scope of the project. We cannot accept criticism for not covering issues that were outside the project’s terms of reference.

This raises to me the question of why the hell did the Government spend $135,000 on a report that won’t be of great use for decision makers, as it deliberately ignores benefits. I’m not angry at BERL – I’m angry at the Ministry of Health and ACC for wasting our money.

Crampton and Burgess have done a detailed ten page response to BERL’s response. First they note:

Prior to corrections, we had found net external costs of $146.3 million. Our adjustments produce a net positive figure for alcohol consumption: net external annual benefits totalling $37.8 million, an overall adjustment of $4,832 million from BERL’s original estimate. However, given the margin of error in work of this sort, we would regard both our initial figure and our corrected figure as suggesting external costs roughly equal to collected tax revenues.

It is worth noting that our adjustments were made without access to BERL’s calculations, our request for access declined by BERL on 15 May on grounds of protecting intellectual property. We provided BERL with an early draft of our paper seeking comment in case we had erred in our reverse-engineering of their figures; now, nearly a month later, they have raised objections leading to an adjustment totalling only $36 million. We not aware of any substantive errors that remain in our critique; we welcome additional feedback.

They also look at the issue of benefits being excluded:

Regardless of the terms of reference, BERL’s treatment of benefits in their report is integral to their headline costs calculation. As BERL correctly points out at page 173 of their report, private costs can only be counted as social costs if there are no offsetting private benefits:

BERL’s treatment of private benefits adds $2.2 billion of private costs to their headline costs for alcohol. Plainly, and regardless of the scope of the RFT, BERL’s treatment of benefits is material to their method, directly affecting their measurement of the costs of diverted resources, and more subtly affecting all of their other cost measures.

It does sound like BERL is trying to have it both ways. Crampton/Burgess compare drinking to skiing:

Consider, by analogy, skiing: a risky, but enjoyable activity.
If we wished to count the “social costs” of skiing and wanted to include all of the costs borne by those skiers who broke their legs while skiing, we would need to weigh those costs against the benefits enjoyed by all of the skiers who made it down the slope without accident. Alternatively, we could consider only the external costs of skiing. Counting all of the private costs as social costs by virtue of an unsupported assumption that gross benefits are zero does not provide a useful cost figure.

And this is the crux. If you ignore benefits, you can find any activity has horrible costs. If you ignore benefits, it would be logical to conclude that skiing should be restricted or banned.

And their conclusion:

BERL has chosen not to defend its economic cost report on grounds of economics. Instead, BERL’s main strategy has been to attack the personal values and world view of its critics. BERL’s use of analogies suggesting our personal acceptance of murder and drink driving are in the nature of personal smears. BERL disingenuously continues to allege that our results hinge on perfect rationality and perfect information, in spite of our repeated rebuttals of that point. Their complaint that benefits are out of scope and beyond criticism is obviously incorrect: their treatment of benefits is the basis on which private costs are included alongside external costs. BERL’s treatment of benefits defines the methodology.

And finally:

Most seriously, BERL has not explained what policy makers can do with a cost report that by BERL’s admission has no policy relevance absent benefits. Without this explanation, we are left to observe that the methodology used by BERL produced very large headline cost figures, their report repeatedly mischaracterised those costs as welfare measures, that these costs were misinterpreted by at least one group of policy makers and BERL did not to our knowledge make any attempt to correct this misinterpretation until after our critique of their work was released and picked up by the mainstream media. It is this non-response by BERL that motivated our review.

Identifying a use for BERL’s report on the important issue of alcohol misuse is a matter that remains unexplained

Hopefully the next time the Ministry of Health and/or ACC has to front up to a select committee, an MP or two can ask them that exact question. And ask for our $135,000 of taxes back.

Was sad to learn that the Hon Bill Young passed away overnight.

He was the MP for Miramar from 1966 to 1981, and was 95 years old. Up until fairly recently he was a familiar figure at National Party meetings. One daughter Annabel was also an MP, and Rosemary and Nicola were both also involved in politics.

He was Minister of Works and in the Muldoon Ministry and later High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. He also served in WWII in North Africa.

My thoughts are with his family and friends.

1. Bryce Edwards summarises a study of the television coverage of the 2008 election. It’s disappointing how little focus on policy there was.
2. Claire Trevett’s unofficial John Key’s Pacific Diary is a great read.
3. The Dim-Post suggests Phil Goff needs to give a speech repudiating their nanny state legacy. I hope Goff doesn’t take his advice.
4. Trevor Loudon reveals the new President of the NDU used to be a Young National!
5. Toad thinks private income protection insurance is the same as being on the dole. He gets savaged in his comments section, and Whale responds here.
6. Tony Milne ponders opposition politics.
7. MacDoctor blogs on obesity and how an obese parent makes a child six to ten times more likely to be obese. So regulating school tuck shops is not the answer. An excellent post.

I personally believe that the IPCC is basically right with its conclusions that, if nothing else changes, ever increasing levels of greenhouse gases will lead to a rise in global temperatures. It is pretty basic science.

I think there is uncertainty about the “if nothing else changes” because we don’t know for sure how the rest of the climate system reacts to the increased warming from greenhouse gases – does it exacerbate the problem (as IPCC thinks) or does it mitigate the problem (as some believe). On issues such as this, there is little hard data – it is mainly forecasts and theories.

Overall I think prudent steps to reduce emissions is sensible. However the notion that if we do not act with a few years the world is doomed is hysterical scaremongering – the IPCC itself forecasts an increase in sea levels by 2100 of only 19 to 69 cm.

The Herald reported on a recent consultation meeting on what our emissions target should be. And I just detest those who try and demonise those with a contrary viewpoint. It is like modern day witch burnings – but without the fire.

In another moment of silliness, electricity consultant Brian Leyland – seemingly the only climate change sceptic in the room – was heckled by Mr Lee, the man who was supposed to be keeping the meeting in order. “We have a flat earther here,” he joked.

Great. The so called neutral chairman insults and denigrates someone who has taken the time to turn up and have their say. What fucking arrogance.

For a minute it seemed Mr Leyland might have a saviour – climate scientist Jim Salinger protested that the sceptic should be given his chance to speak.

But seconds later Dr Salinger, too, put the boot in, comparing his opponent to a Holocaust denier. “And I can say that because of my ethnicity.”

No you can’t. You should be ashamed of yourself to compare someone debating forecasts and predictions of future climate change, to neo-Nazi racist hate filled Holocaust deniers. If you do not know the difference between a massively well documented and witnessed historical event, and forecasts and predictions of future change, then you are stupid or malicious.

Most people in the packed meeting room at the Hyatt Regency hotel had turned up to say they supported Greenpeace’s target of cutting emissions 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 – likely to be considerably bolder than what the Government ultimately commits the country to.

Of course the Government will not commit to 40% by 2020 – they are not suicidal. This is barely ten years away, and as we are already 20% or so over 1990 levels, it is really calling for a halving in a decade.

Now half of our emissions come from agriculture. So if a Government was stupid enough to sign up to 40% reduction by 2020, it would either need to totally eliminate agricultural emissions (which can only be achieved by shooting every cow in NZ) or totally eliminate non-agricultural emissions – yes in just a decade every power source that emits carbon would need to be replaced. Or some combination of the two.

You think 8% unemployment is tough. You just try and reduce our emissions by 50% in a decade. And think how proud we will be with 20% unemployment but hey we reduced our contribution to global emissions from 0.2% to 0.1%. But in the meantime China (which will not sign any reduction agreement) has doubled its emissions. I would have to check but I think the weekly growth in China’s emissions is more than our 50% reduction would be.

Again, I support reducing our emissions – both for reasons of trade, but also to contribute to reducing global emissions. But the 40% target by 2020 is simply not achievable without a huge reduction in output – or in other words a massive reduction in income levels and employment.

We all had fun using the referendum question generator to create parodies.

Now what people may not be aware is the Electoral Commission Enrolment Centre filed a takedown notice against the site allowing you to create a parody, as Orange Man is their intellectual property.

New Zealand doesn’t have a specific exemption for parody and satire, so if they had proceeded, the site could have been forced to close.

Most people would agree the Electoral Commission Enrolment Centre should of course be able to take action if a person is using Orange Man to impersonate the Commission Enrolment Centre , or make people think it is a real notice on behalf of the electoral agencies. But most people can work out that a question such as “Should gingas be exterminated by 2011″ is not a real referendum.

Thankfully a compromise has been reached, where in return for explicit reference of the crown copyright, I understand the Electoral Commission Enrolment Centre has withdrawn its objections (which is good of them).

It does highlight though the need for good intellectual property law that both rewards the owner of intellectual property, but also protects fair use and free speech by allowing satire and parody.

Hat Tip: No Right Turn

The Boardroom CEOs also rate the Government:

The New Zealand Herald’s Mood of the Boardroom survey shows the Key Government has won wide support from leading NZ business leaders with 76 per cent saying it is “providing sufficient economic leadership for New Zealand.” That view is reinforced by the adjoining survey of Business New Zealand’s membership which found 73 per cent of SME respondents agreed.

Not too bad considering the recession.

“Key has the political standing to take the country into his confidence and chart a sure-footed strategy to break out of our lacklustre and declining performance,” said a company chair. “But the Government is too timid and needs to take a strong lead.”

EMA (Northern) chief executive Alasdair Thompson believes the Government is not yet showing enough economic leadership. “The y need to build a constituency for change and sell it”.

I would agree with some of that. I think the response to the recession has been sound with am improved credit rating, and a path back to surpluses.

But there is still a lot of work to be done around increasing productivity growth, which is the key to closing the gap with Australia.

Others like Solid Energy’s Don Elder are more optimistic. Elder accompanied Key to China on his first State Visit as Prime Minister. “The US and Europe are still in the doldrums,” says Elder. “But we’re now seeing demand [from China] pick up – which will spark confidence in investing.”

I met my financial advisor yesterday and we one of the things that struck me was the performance of investments in China compared to elsewhere – it has had amazing performance. And I think the US economy is not through the worst, so Asia-Pacific is going to be vitally important to us.

But many believe English’s first Budget should have set out a more robust deficit reduction path. This concern that the Government is “slipping into cruise control” mode is borne out by the fact that 63 per cent want the Government to take a “more aggressive approach to getting expenditure (and the Budget deficit) down quicker.”

I would not be averse to that either.

Thirty per cent of CEOs responding to the Herald survey rank the level and effectiveness of Government expenditure as the most important single Government-related issue. Other issues include: Infrastructure – ranked highest by 18 per cent; Auckland (16 per cent), regulation (14 per cent, tax rates (7 per cent), savings (5 per cent) and the ownership of major central Government assets (6 per cent).

I could not agree more on the level and effectiveness of Government expenditure being of vital importance.

The Key Cabinet’s hesitance to take tough decisions on spending issues plays into how some CEOs rate individual Ministers in the economic team. “English is held back by his conservatism, which apparently also applies to cutting Government expenditure,” says the EMA’s Thompson. “(Gerry) Brownlee likewise. (Simon) Power is good but is restricted by National’s ‘do nothing ‘policy on state-owned enterprises. (Steven) Joyce is excellent. A great solution for Waterview.” Joyce is clearly a rising star within the Key Government, ranking just below English in CEOs’ eyes.

Nick Smith was criticised over the Resource Management Act reforms (“there was very limited thought on how they might work in practice, they went through a very poor select committee process and then have stalled as Smith tries to work out how fix all the stuff-ups he has made … a classic case of more haste, less speed”).

I’ve also heard pretty major criticism of the RMA reforms – and not from greenie groups but from business and sector groups. It sounds like there is a lot of work still to be done there.

“The Prime Minister currently appears to be carrying too much of the load himself,” cautions a tourism boss.

“There is a perception that if something is going to get done, and if the bureaucratic barriers are to be overcome it needs the PM’s personal engagement.”

This is often correct. A response to the s92A issue only happened when it hit has radar.

Also of interest are the survey results on the economic team:

1. Bill English – 74% above average and 4% below average = 70% net approval
2. Steven Joyce – 67% positive, 5% negative = 62% net approval
3. Tim Groser – 51% positive, 12% negative = 39% net approval
4. Simon Power – 51% positive, 13% negative = 38% net approval
5. Gerry Brownlee – 16% positive, 24% negative = 8% net disapproval
6. Nick Smith – 22% positive, 31% negative = 9% net disapproval

Sadly I couldn’t make the annual Mood of the Boardroom in person, but the Herald reports:

Stop making “petty hits” on the Government and come up with innovative solutions to aid New Zealand during these difficult economic times.

That sums up the blunt message from chief executives to Labour leader Phil Goff and finance spokesman David Cunliffe.

Just 26 per cent of chief executives responding to the Mood of the Boardroom survey believe Goff and Cunliffe have done enough to challenge the Government’s economic performance to-date.

Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce chief executive Michael Barnett believes Labour has missed an opportunity to “throw out the big dreams and challenges” when they are needed by a market facing uncertainty. “As an opposition they would have had to deliver but could have pushed the Government for more innovation and vision.”

“Skills and education would be a good subject for Labour,” adds EMA (Northern) chief executive Alasdair Thompson. “But they have to tackle poor performance, not just protect teachers’ unions.”

That would be a welcome step.

Goff’s pursuit of disgraced former Cabinet Minister Richard Worth put him back in the political spotlight. But CEOs aren’t that impressed. “Labour was distracted with the Worth affair – forget playing the man and make a meaningful and real contribution.”

“I have no idea what they are doing. No policy. They are just mud rakers.”

I think most in Labour would now agree Goff handled it badly.

“Ritual bleating about possible privatisations means they exploit the ignorance of some voters whilst not offering any meaningful solutions to our overseas borrowing problems,” says a finance chief. “They dumb-down the debate”

I think Labour have a real problem with the 2011 election. The crown accounts will still be in deficit, and debt projections still negative. Is Labour really going to go into 2011 promising to borrow more money to indebt future generations? Or will they promise tax increases? Or will they commit to the same fiscal parameters as the Government – but instead propose spending more in some areas and less in other areas?

Labour since the election has implicitly committed to billions of dollars of extra spending. At election time they will have to put forward an alternative budget where people will be able to see how much extra debt or tax they are promising.

Kate Wilkinson got a pretty tough grilling on Q&A yesterday as she was in the unenvious position of saying she thinks the compulsory medicating of bread with folic acid was wrong, yet she would not or could not stop it occurring due to our treaty with Australia – the best being offered is a review in October.

It is true that it is much easier to decide not to do something, than it is to pull out of a decision after it had been made by a previous Government – especially when it deos involve a treaty with a friendly Government. But the transcript shows the difficulty of trying to say we think this is a bad decision, but can’t stop it:

KATE The science is actually light on it.  I agree with what the Irish are doing, I’d have to say I agree with what they’re doing.

PAUL Well then do it.

KATE That’s why I’m doing it – the first opportunity I’m taking it and asking for a review.

PAUL I’m sorry you’re gonna put folic acid which may give me prostate cancer again, into my staple food, the bread, and then you’re gonna&

SUE And then review it.

PAUL And then review it, so you could be threatening the health of this nation.

Ouch.

KATE If you drill down into those studies though you’ll find that they’re not that qualitative or quantitative and it is a bit light.  Now if we can get a review through the Ministerial Council it’ll be done in three months.

PAUL Oh so we have three months of possible poisoning.

Holmes was very worked up on this issue.

PAUL Forgive me Minister, I read yesterday in researching this that is some link between excessive folic acid and prostate cancer.

SUE That is right.

PAUL And you are gonna put that in my bread?

SUE But Paul it’s the stupidity of this, that the Minister accepts there are these health risks.

KATE Yes she does.

SUE But she’s saying we have to do it so we’re eating up for Australia, we’re going to be forced because of some trade relationship with Australia, surely we should put – public health issues should be paramount, not some diplomatic relationship.

Never good when you let Sue Kedgley answer on your behalf

Worth remembering this, from NZPA:

Former Food Safety Minister Annette King said when the decision was made that it was “a triumph for humanity and common sense”.

I think this may become a bigger and bigger issue as September gets closer. If I was in Government I would be looking very hard at how to get a decision on this before the scheduled meeting in Australia. Surely one can get the agreement of the Australian Ministers by e-mail or something to allow New Zealand to suspend implementing the folic bread addition due to health concerns.