Kiwiblog

I’ve just created blog polls for the front bench for the third time. Previous polls were done in March and May/June. Voting is open until Friday midday.

A bug has hit by polls plugin and it no longer allows multiple polls to be shown at once in the sidebar. So I have set it to show one of the nine polls randomly. Each time you reload it should show another one at random so keep an eye on the sidebar as new ones come up, until you have done all nine. No multiple voting in the same poll – I do log IP addresses and can detect this.

One of the reasons I am not a Labour fan, is the parliamentary wing’s role as lobbyists for their union supporters.

The unions have institutional membership and voting rights within Labour. You don’t see individual businesses let alone employer groups joining National and being able to block vote at National conferences and delegate selections.

Of course National tend to be more employer friendly, but it is very very rare in the case of a private sector industrial dispute that National will actually take sides. National rightly tends to think that is a matter for the employer and union to resolve.

But over on Red Alert we have seen a huge number of posts on behalf of the EPMU over the dispute between a Telecom subsidiary and the EPMU and affected contractors/employees. The fact the EPMU National Secretary is also Labour Party President of course mudies the water considerably.

We’ve had more posts on Red Alert on this industrial dispute than almost any other issue. Forget the global recession. A post on 3 August calling for Steven Joyce to do something was followed up on by a post on 20 August calling for the PM of all people to get involved and then again on 21 August and also on 24 August.

Labour have also asked two oral questions on this. They have the right to do so, but could you imagine the outrage if National MPs were getting up in the House urging action on behalf of (say) Carter Holt Harvey in an industrial dispute.

I prefer political parties to focus on laws and policies, not to be taking sides in industrial disputes unless it reaches critical levels such as a nationwide strike.

Matt Nolan at TVHE looks at the pros and cons of a common currency with Australia.

Benefits

1. Lower transaction costs.  As Aussie is our main trading partner this is a biggie.
2. Removes exchange rate risk for trade between nations, both in terms of relative prices and account reporting.
3. Prevents damage from exchange rate verring from fundamental level.
4. Makes trade protectionism more difficult.
5. Added I would also add that, in this case, having the Aussie dollar will reduce the risk premium we have to pay for credit

Costs

1. Can’t use monetary policy to compensate for region specific shocks – dairy price crashes and we can’t use a lower interest rate to help buffer the fall.  This is the primary concern.
2. Can’t use inflation to lower public debt – our monetary policy is now determined by Aussie.  However, we don’t do this so it doesn’t matter.
3. As fiscal policy is independent it can cause issues with splitting “seigniorage revenue“.  With a low inflation target this is not a biggie at all.
4. Speculative attacks prior to the union.

I have not checked myself, but understand it has been very rare for the NZ Reserve Bank to be increasing interest rates while the Australian RB is lowering them, and vice-versa.

Hence it seems to me the pros rather outweigh the cons.

Danyl has been leaked the proposed changes:

• Alter font of Section 59 amendment from Courier12 to Times New Roman.
• Establish designated ‘coffee houses’ in urban areas where children can be freely smacked without fear of police intimidation.
• Initiate second non-binding referendum to ask voters if they understood question in previous referendum.
• Key to meet with Sheryl Savill, the woman who initiated the referendum, listen to her talk for up to five minutes and look at no less than twenty of her cat pictures.
• Larry Baldock to negotiate law change with Sue Bradford on pre-condition that Bradford be confined within a pentagram and bound in a straitjacket and hockey mask throughout the talks.
• Key to address Families First meeting, stand at podium with shit-eating grin and demand to know who the fuck else they’re going to vote for.

Excellent satire, as usual.

Colin James writes:

Three interlocking principles underlie the group’s approach: tax should be fair, efficient and sustainable. Taxpayers should feel they are paying a fair share and everyone else is, too. The tax system should cost no more to run than necessary and should contribute to productivity growth. And it should survive over time with limited need of repair.

To meet these principles the structure should be coherent, should have integrity – there should not be incentives to avoid or minimise tax, for instance, by channelling income through trusts, as large numbers have done this decade – and should be simple to administer and comply with.

During the past 10 years tax changes have chipped away at coherence, integrity and simplicity. The top income tax rate was raised, Working for Families added complexity and high marginal tax rates for some, special rates were set for some long-term saving and KiwiSaver added more complexity.

In addition, aggressive bracket creep lifted the proportion of income ordinary folk paid in income tax. Add that many other countries, including those we most compare ourselves with, have cut some tax rates, notably on personal and company income.

Australia cut tax rates every year for the last eight or so.

Next, note the global movement of people, capital and finance. There is a strong argument for taxing immobile factors, such as land and spending, and not internationally mobile ones, such as company and personal income and investment.

Yep. The challenge is how you do that, without significantly disadvantaging people who have made decisions based on the status quo.

There was a chorus of complaints last week that raising GST would disproportionately hurt the less-well-off. And it would. But over their lifetimes, many less-well-off people increase their incomes. And in any case, the group argues, it is better to compensate the less- well-off through spending measures than by manipulating the tax system. But is the group exploring all options for broadening the tax base?

This is key. The tax system should be as simple and efficient as possible. If that creates problems for those on low incomes, then the welfare system is the better option to use, than having an inefficient tax system.

The Herald reports:

The Cabinet is expected to reject Maori seats on the Auckland Super City council today.

This is no real surprise. It is in line with National’s long standing policy, and the Government’s initial decision.

Blair M in comments in a previous thread suggested as a compromise a non-voting Councillor, and this is an option which I think could have been worth pursuing, and might even have application for local bodies beyond Auckland.

The Royal Commission proposed three Maori seats – two from voters on the Maori electoral roll and one appointed by mana whenua – the local Iwi effectively.

Now I have never been a fan of separate electoral rolls, despite the good intentions of those who back them. I think it is unhealthy long-term to have New Zealanders divided up into those with some Maori ancestry (no matter how small) and those without. Especially as long-term over a quarter of New Zealanders will have some Maori ancestry. It becomes arbitrary. And long-term I fear we end up like Fiji with the population split 50/50 and divided on our differences instead of united.

The idea of mana whenua representation on the Auckland Council holds greater appeal to me (and to the Maori Party it seems). Iwi are permanent entities that have historical and ongoing legitimate interest in what happens on their traditional lands. They do have legal rights under the common law, let alone any moral obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.

However allowing Iwi to appoint a voting Councillor runs contrary to democratic principles. You may have half a dozen Kaumata deciding on a Councillor who gets the same voting power as someone elected by 80,000 people. So I can’t support a voting mana whenua Councillor.

The compromise which I think would have been worth pursuing is the idea that local Iwi within a Council’s area can appoint a non voting Councillor. The Councillor has all the same rights as an elected Councillor – attend all meetings, speak on any issue, be paid a salary, request information from management – but in the (hopefully) relatively rare cases where there is a partisan vote split, they would not have a vote.

The members of the Iwi would have their voting represention done through the elected Councillors (whom they vote for like everyone else), but the Iwi as a whole would have the ability to have a voice at Council (not buried in a seperate Committee) to protect their interests as the original mana whenua.

One of the issues New Zealand has never really grappled with, is the constitutional relationship between Iwi and the Crown. It seems to me the idea of allowing each Iwi to appoint a non-voting Councillor onto their local authority could be a significant step forward.

Where a local authority has more than say three local Iwi, then perhaps you would require the Iwi to select just three representatives between themselves (or even two). So if there are two local Iwi, they each appoint a non voting Councillor. If there were six local Iwi, they would decide amongt themselves on two or three non voting Councillors.

The SST has an interview with Father of the Internet Vint Cerf.

Cerf was in Auckland and Wellington last week as the keynote speaker at a conference addressing an impending crisis in the internet’s infrastructure. In the next two years, the world will run out of internet addresses, necessitating a shift to an updated version of internet protocol called IPv6. It will have enough addresses for everybody in the world (China currently has only 22% internet penetration), as well as their phones, PDAs and whatever else they want to put online (Cerf knows of a guy who internet-enabled his surfboard). The impending scarcity will lead to an ugly scramble of grey markets and desperate, retroactive crisis management unless efforts are sped up to adopt the new protocol.

“It’s going to be messy,” he says. “I’m not looking forward to 2010.”

The latest projection is that IANA will allocate the last IPv4 block to an RIR in July 2011, and the RIRs will allocate the last block in May 2012.

Cerf is often asked to predict where technology will lead in the future; you need only to go back a decade to check his hit rate. In 2000, he wrote in Time magazine of a mobile device on the horizon that would combine a phone, camera, email, payment system and digital book, and would have a catchy name. He suggested Widget (Wireless Internet Digital Gadget for Electronic Transactions); seven years later, Apple plumped for “iPhone”.

His current predictions that the falling cost and rising sophistication of programmable devices will allow the internet to be widely embedded in inanimate objects, in our bodies, and in outer space are already starting to be realised. Cerf’s wine cellar is internet-enabled, sending him a text message when the temperature and humidity reach unfavourable levels. Cheap, passive computers, embedded in objects and activating sensors, will become ubiquitous, he predicts, leading to advancements in automated shipping and inventory control.

I like the Internet-enabled wine cellar.

Been meaning to blog this for a while, but kudos to the Law Commission for TalkLaw – their online consultation site.

They are currently consulting on the alcohol review and the privacy review.

Michael Laws writes:

IF THERE is one thing that Friday’s anti-smacking referendum will never influence it is those morons who believe that a corrective smack on a child’s bottom constitutes child abuse.

Indeed equating that to child abuse, is like equating an unwanted kiss on the cheek to sexual assault.

The country has rejected this absurd correlation.

Yet a few people remain in denial. In their fantwasy world a differently worded referendum would have got a different result from the 88% who said no. They are wrong. You could have removed the word “good” and at best 1% to 2% difference I would say. What makes me say that? There have been over a dozen polls done by multiple companies on the smacking issue over the years. Almost all of them have 80%+ disagreeing with the law. The referendum result is entirely consistent with what NZers have been saying for the last two years,

Those who deny the legitimacy of the result, are quite simply bad losers.

As all the child beatings and deaths of 2009 prove, the anti-smacking legislation has failed. It hasn’t stopped one beating, one abuse, one death. And it never will. You can’t reason with drugged, drunk, violent parents, acting out their inadequacy, with an act of parliament. If you could, we would all be living in Utopia. …

This simple fact has escaped the intellectual grasp of the “Yes” campaigners. It seems self-evident to me indeed to the entire nation but not to the zealots whose faith blinds them to reason. As an air-blown kiss is not a prelude to rape, neither is a corrective smack a prelude to Nia Glassie.

Exactly. And all but a few zealots get this.

Without question the best solution has always been and remains so that of the amendment that Whanganui MP Chester Borrows advanced within his caucus in late-2006.

It excused “transitory and trifling” disciplining and it is the genuine compromise that John Key should choose in response to Friday’s overwhelming result.

What many do not get is the Borrows amendment will actually provide greater protection to children. The current law doesn’t even define reasonable force for purposes of good parenting, preventing disruption etc. One might be able to use a horse whip legally under the Bradford law – so long as not for correction.

The Borrows amendment is absolutely the best way forward.

The Sunday News has a story on National Party President Peter Goodfellow, and the fact he is currently living with the ex-wife of fellow board member Scott Simpson, Desley Simpson.

They have majorly fucked up though with the photo they ran, which is of Scott Simpson and a former girlfriend, not Desley Simpson.

The story says:

THE under-fire National Party president has shacked up with the socialite wife of the man poised to succeed him if he is forced from the role. …

Now Sunday News can reveal that Goodfellow lives with Desley Simpson, the wife of Scott Simpson who is likely to fight for his job should he stand down.

I don’t want to get into great detail on this issue but it is important to note Desley and Scott’s separation happened well before Desley got together with Peter.This is not a case of a wife leaving her husband for a rival, as the story suggests.

The relationship is not secret – I doubt a single person at National Conference was unaware of it, especially as Desley was there at Peter’s side. Most people don’t think it is a big issue if someone’s ex-wife is now dating someone else in the party.

The two leading contenders for party presidency were Goodfellow and fellow board member Simpson.

Several well-placed National sources said that if Goodfellow, whose family is 16th on NBR’s 2009 Rich List with a wealth of $550 million, was to be moved from his position, Simpson would likely fight for the job.

As, could other board members.

Simpson told Sunday News he was aware his wife was in a relationship with the man who beat him in the race for president but was unfazed.

“My former wife and I separated four or five years ago and we have almost zero contact and that’s just the way it is.

So it isn’t really a love triangle. Desley and Peter got together around three to four years after Scott and Desley seperated.

The NZ Organisation for Rare Disorders has filed a complaint over TVNZ’s coverage of the Folic Acid debate. The complaint is here.

While I don’t support the addition of folic acid into bread, they may have a point about some of the coverage. The Q&A show where Paul Holmes was almost accusing Kate Wilkinson of giving people cancer could well have been over the line.

It will be interesting to see TVNZ’s response, and if not upheld the decision of the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Was interested to see this PR:

New Zealand’s leading business search directory yellow.co.nz is now available to the country’s estimated 20,000 iPhone owners with today’s launch of the Yellow iPhone app.

The Yellow iPhone app provides location awareness via the iPhone’s built in GPS, mapping and directions functionality courtesy of Google Maps and the ability to save businesses to your contacts and email search results to others. …

Features include:

• Full ability to search Yellow’s entire directory
• Local search via iPhone’s integrated GPS
• Find local businesses on the integrated maps
• Get driving or walking directions to any business via Google Maps
• Email  business details to friends & contacts
• Save your favourite searches for next time
• Add your favourite businesses direct to your iPhones contacts

The local serach vis GPS is what especially interest me. I think location based services over your mobile is the next big thing. I can see you walking past your local bookshop, and they’ll be able to text you and say “Hey if you want to pop in we’ve got the third book in that series you have already pucrahsed Parts I and II of – and we’ll give it to you 15% off”.

I hope Yellow work on a similiar tool for the Blackberry.

I was interviewed by Radio New Zealand about ACT’s stance on the Maori Seats. The interview was here.

There were in fact two interviews. The first I was not at all critical of what had happened. As I have said on this blog, I think it is quite appropriate that Rodney says he could not carry on as Local Government Minister if it means introducing a bill he does not agree with.

They then rang me back half an hour later and said that Rodney was now saying he would quit all his portfolios if the Government went with Maori seats. This appears to not be a correct interpretation of what Rodney actually said – I understand he said it would be up to the PM if he kept his other portfolios. On the basis of what Radio NZ told me, I said that a threat to resign all portfolios would be a significant upping of the stakes and unhelpful.

In a later part of the piece, they quote me saying that while ACT supporters may be pleased with Rodney’s strong stand, the way he has gone about it is somewhat disappointing. I want to make clear that was in relation to the reported comments to resign all portfolios, not the decision (made back in June) to relinquish Local Government if there were Maori Seats.

I am also quoted as saying “It is generally preferable that negotiations happen behind closed doors and without ultimatiums about resigning portfolios”. This gives the perception I am blaming Rodney for this issue going public. I am not.

As I wrote for NBR on Friday:

Act also suffers from the publicizing of the leaked e-mail. …

I think that is unfair on Rodney as he was not the one who leaked the National Caucus e-mail – I doubt he is that happy this has been made public.

I in no way think Rodney was responsible for taking this issue public. I have specifically pointed out they have suffered from it being made public.

I don’t know who leaked the e-mail, but as it was sent by a National MP to his colleagues, the logicial conclusion is it was a National MP or staffer. I doubt Rodney has hired Nicky hager to intercept the Nats e-mails

So in summary my position is:

1. I think it is entirely appropriate that Rodney has said he would not continue as Local Government Minister if he seriosuly disagrees with a Local Government bill or law proposed or passed by the Government
2. I think it was someone in National who leaked the Henare e-mail
3. I do think it would be a bad thing, if Rodney was threatening to resign all portfolios, rather than just Local Government, in relation to this issue. However it is not at all clear he has done so.

TVNZ say:

Guyon Espiner is in Sydney with the Prime Minister and will be asking him about Australia-NZ relations. Just how close does John Key imagine us getting? What’s in it for us? And what do we put at risk?

Paul Holmes will be interviewing David Kilcullen, one of America’s leading military advisers in Afghanistan and the author of The Accidental Guerilla. Paul will be talking to him live from Melbourne about the prospects for peace in Afghanistan and the sort of operations the New Zealand SAS is likely to be engaged in.

Kilcullen spoke to a CIS conference in Australia a couple of years ago. He is a real expert on Afghanistan and counter-terrorism and well worth listening to. Don’t expect to get a rosy view from him – he is very down to earth and realistic.

1. 1,420,959 – No to correctional smacking as a criminal offence
2. 1,053,398 – 2008 Vote for National
3. 935,319 – 2005 Vote for Labour
4. 838,219 – 2002 Vote for Labour
5. 800,199 – 1999 Vote for Labour
6. 701,315 – 1996 Vote for National

The Dom Post reports:

Labour has chosen unionist Chris Flatt as its new general secretary in a move seen as a win for the party and its union wing over the parliamentary leadership. …

The other front runner was Progressive leader Jim Anderton’s long-time adviser John Pagani, who it is understood was favoured by Labour leader Phil Goff.

WIth no disrespect to Chris Flatt, I’m somewhat relieved. Pagani is a cunning sod who could have been quite dangerous in the role.

The appointment also reflects the student association backgrounds of both the Labour President and General Secretary.

Andrew Little was VUWSA President and NZUSA President in the late 1980s and Chris Flatt was involved in Waikato Students Union in the late 1990s.

He was on the WSU Executive in 1995 and 1996 and stood for WSU President in 1997 on a pro compulsory membership platform, He lost to a Student Choice candidate. I think he was also a Labour Youth President in 1997.

Anyway congratulaions to Platt on gaining the job at the young age of 36.

AP reports:

A district attorney’s office spokeswoman says an ex-model found dead in a suitcase and missing her fingers and teeth was identified through her breast implants.

Spokeswoman Farrah Emami said 28-year-old Jasmine Fiore was identified using the serial number from her implants because detectives couldn’t use fingerprints or dental records.

Who knew breast implants have serial numbers!

The Herald reports:

A group of people who believe David Bain killed his family are launching a fight to prevent him getting any compensation or inheritance money. …

Mr Bain’s supporters, who say his father Robin killed the family members and then took his own life, have said they would seek compensation from the state for his years in prison.

But Justice For Robin Bain, formed from the Facebook group David Bain Is Guilty, is lobbying to prevent this happening.

The Facebook group is here, and a website here.

I think and hope the group is un-necessary as I think the chances of being able to prove David innocent on balance of probability (as oppossed to the inability to prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt) is remarkably small.

In fact I am doubtful that Bain will make an application through the normal channels, as this will lead to a QC producing a report which will make a judgement as to who is more likely to have killed the Bain family – David or Robin. And that will be a pretty damning report I suggest.

I suspect the Bain camp will claim the rules are unfair, and will launch a campaign for compensation to be granted without going through the normal process. I may be wrong of course – time will tell.

The Herald reports:

Options for changing New Zealand’s approach to smacking children will go to the Cabinet on Monday after New Zealanders voted by 88 per cent that a smack should not be a criminal offence.

Well it is good to see that the voices of 1.4 million New Zealanders won’t just be ignored.

It was muffled by a low turnout of 54 per cent, including 0.3 per cent who spoiled their votes, so even the huge “no” vote fell just short of half of the enrolled electors.

That is not a low turnout for a referendum not held with an election. The referendum that chose MMP for the run-off with FPP had only a 55% turnout. So it was only 1% less than the choice of electoral system.

Prime Minister John Key said in Australia – where he is on an official visit – that voters had said strongly that “they don’t want good parents to be criminalised for a light smack”.

Yes, but that is not just saying they do not want to be prosecuted and convicted. It is saying they do not want it to be a criminal offence.

His own view was that the law was “working as it is now”.

But on Monday, he would take to the Cabinet “options which fall short of changing the law but will provide comfort for parents about this issue”.

There will be a lot of interest in these. However I believe that the law should be changed. The reason is quite simple.

The criminal code is there to reflect the views of the public on what is and is not acceptable behaviour. And almost every provision in the criminal code would have 99% of adult New Zealanders say this should be a criminal offence. 99% say it is wrong to murder, it is wrong to rape, it is wrong to beat someone senseless, it is wrong to steal etc etc.

But here we have 88% of adult New Zealanders (who voted) saying this should not be a criminal offence. If Parliament does not heed the views of voters on this issue, then we have an awful precedent where Parliament is sits as rulers rather than servants of the people, imposing their private criminal code, rather than society’s.

I’m not an advocate that Parliament in every circumstance should do what public opinion wants. The referendum on the number of firefighters was a classic case. Economic issues can be similiar as the public can vote for cutting taxes and increasing spending without the responsibility of having to balance the budget.

But when it comes to our criminal code, I find it hard to offer up a reason why Parliament would insist on criminalising something that not only lacks majority support for being a criminal act, but in fact has massive and sustained opposition.

The public understand this issue. Hell, it has been debated for two to three years. They know exactly what they voted for. The percentage who spoilt their ballot papers was a miniscule 0.3%.

There is a simple solution to all of this. The Borrows/Boscawen amendment/bill. It will in fact provide greater protection to children (as it significantly lowers the level of acceptable force for non-correctional situations) but remove the insulting differentiation between smacking for preventing disruption and for correction.

The interim results are:

1,622,150 votes cast which I think is a 54% response rate. That is higher than most local body elections and pretty good for a referendum not held with a general election.

87.6% voted no and 11.8% vote yes.

A massive victory for common sense.

As a proportion of total enrolled adults, 47% voted no, 46% did not vote and only 7% voted yes.

Detailed results are here.

The three electorates with the lowest no votes are:

1. Wellington Central 62.1%
2. Rongotai 69.6%
3. Auckland Central 70.1%

I think it shows how different opinion is within those enclaves, compared to most of the country. Having said that even WC almost had 2:1 voting no.

The electorates with the highest no votes (all 92.6%) are:

1. Waikato
2. Clutha-Southland
3. Hunua
4. Taranaki – King Country

The number of electorates who in each band for the no vote are:

1. 60% – 65% 1
2. 65% – 70% 1
3. 70% – 75% 1
4. 75% – 80% 3
5. 80% – 85% 13
6. 85% – 90% 22
7. 90% – 95% 29

The turnout range varied from 32.8% in Tamaki Makaurau to 65.1% in Bay of Plenty.

Stuff reports:

The brains trust behind the new Hell Pizza campaign is a 19-year-old advertising student and his three friends.

Hell Pizza spokesman Matt Blomfield said they had brought in the four students from the Auckland University of Technology to revitalize the brand.

“All the advertising agencies are crap so we thought we’d let some kids have a crack,” he said.

That is such a Hell thing to say.

Advertising Standards Authority executive director Hilary Souter said today they had received one complaint, but more were likely.

Yeah I think that is a safe call.

Race relations commissioner Joris de Bres saw the humour in it but said: “Well I just hope their pizzas aren’t in as poor taste as their advertising.”

I’m impressed by such a sensible response to it. Recognise its bad taste, but not over-reacting to the humour.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

Doesn’t this bring back memories. Too good to be forgotten.

Five words that not even Tony probably thought might go together. NZPA has a fun article on his short reign:

Acting Prime Minister Tony Ryall celebrated his temporary promotion today with one of his infamous fashion ensembles — a black and white striped shirt with a clashing pink tie daubed with multi-coloured spots.

Can’t Kara do something about these?

Mr Ryall formally took over the reins of the country this afternoon when Deputy Prime Minister Bill English left for Australia to join three other colleagues more senior than Mr Ryall.

It is believed the first time someone ranked as low as five in cabinet has made it to the position of acting prime minister.

Unfortunate they all had to be in Australia to attend the rugby very very important trans-Tasman Ministerial Council meetings.

Mr Ryall will be tailed by diplomatic protection squad officers until Saturday evening, when Mr English returns to New Zealand.

Hmmn if Tony was shot, who would be Acting Prime Minister? It would be Nick Smith. Nick could do with DPS protection to handle the unruly locals in Nelson.

They will have to accompany him to a fund-raising event in his Bay of Plenty electorate, which he gleefully told party members was being hosted by the acting prime minister.

Mr Ryall has joked that, from next week, he would like to be referred to as the former acting prime minister.

That would mean more if Winston didn’t have the same title