Kiwiblog

Chris Trotter has blogged a scathing column on Labour called Labour’s nightmarish road trip: From “Broad Church” to “Shopping Mall”:

WHAT’S the matter with Labour? Why is it making so little impression on even its hard-core supporters? And can anyone explain why Labour’s strategists still believe it’s intelligent politics to have their MPs recorded, singing songs, on a bus, in the Tory-blue heart of Taranaki?

I don’t know whose strategy it was, but I’d like to buy them a drink

Even so, you would think that any political party planning a “Regional Road-Trip” might do just a little bit of “advance” work. Like sending someone to have a chat with Davey Hughes, the telegenic proprietor of the Swazi clothing factory in Levin. It’s really quite important to know how someone like Hughes is going to respond before your Leader, in front of a pack of amused reporters, asks him what he would like Labour to do for small business – and discovers it involves ripping the guts out of the Employment Relations Act.

That’s funny enough, and then the killer blow.

After all, how hard would it have been for the Labour Whip, Darren Hughes, to quietly sound out his Uncle Davey on the subject?

Ouch.

And while the newly-elected MP for Mt Albert, David Shearer, plays a mean guitar, what on earth were his colleagues thinking of singing Take Me Home, Country Roads and Hotel California? I mean – John Denver and The Eagles! Could they have possibly screamed “Hey everybody – we come from the 1970s!” any louder?

It could have been worse, I suppose. They could have been recorded singing Kumbaya and If I had a Hammer.

Brian Edwards blogs on John Key:

Recently I bumped into Paul Henry having coffee with his daughter in trendy Herne Bay. He’s really very nice when you meet him in person off the box. Or maybe it was the civilising presence of his very nice daughter.

Anyway, we got to talking politics, as you do. He was enthusing about John Key whom he’d interviewed that morning. ‘The thing about him,’ he said, ‘is that he just answers the question. You ask him a question and he just answers it. ‘

I’d formed precisely the same impression watching Key on television. He seems natural, unaffected, nice. There’s no sense of the wheels going round in his head as he searches for a clever, stay-out-of-trouble answer. Nothing obviously  Machiavellian. No evident side. ‘He just answers the question.’

I’m tempted to joke that his comms staff have tried their best to train John up to not answer the question, but they’ve failed

Sometimes I get a bit frustrated that John does answer pretty much anything media ask him. Hence we had the PMs views on the schoolboy rugby fight. I don’t really blame John for answering the questions, but do wish media would ask him more about policy issues and less about his view on schoolboy rugby fights.

I’m inclined to think that this is the real John Key, just as the niceness is the real John Key. I’m a Labour man from way back and I’m saying this – Key might just exemplify the core advice we give to all our clients: In your dealings with the media, be straightforward, tell the truth, admit your mistakes.

The John you see is the real John. Many media have commented to me that he hasn’t changed at all since becoming Prime Minister.

Trouble is, Key isn’t the government. If any one person is the government, it’s Bill English who doesn’t ‘just answer the question’. Ideologues never just answer the question. Ideologues always have a hidden agenda.

Edwards is correct that Bill doesn’t tend to just answer the question. Bill thinks carefully about his answers. He considers whether his answer is consistent with the past, and could it have ramifications for the future. Bill worries about consistency, precedents, ramifications etc. He sees pretty much every issue as complex (and they usually are)

Bill is not an ideologue. When he was Leader he pursued a very moderate agenda and when he was rolled by Don, the “ideologues” in Caucus were all very much in Don’s corner. And his record as a Minister was pretty much someone focused on what is practical, than the need for philosophical consistency.

This is why the Key-English partnership works pretty well. Neither of them are strongly ideological and Key’s spontaneity works well in the leadership role and Bill’s caution is well suited for a Finance Minister.

Key’s role isn’t unlike what David Lange’s role was – to be the palatable face of the government’s free-market agenda. His role is to be nice, just as Lange’s role was to be the lovable raconteur, the engaging comic, the avuncular Methodist defender of the welfare state. Nice, warm, not scary.

Key is and Lange was the frontman. Whether Lange knew it when he was first chosen as leader is open to question. I doubt that Key is so naïve.

I can see the picture that Brian is trying to draw, but I think the comparison fails. Yes John Key is the warm face of National. He is far more popular than National itself is. But he is not just a smiling frontman who leaves everything to his Ministers.

In fact his style has been more like Helen Clark’s. He intervens often in portfolios, sorting out issues when they begin to threaten the Government. He sorted out the S92A fisaco after no Minister wanted to touch it. He has over-riden his Defence Minister a couple of times. He got his cycleway of course. He also was intimately involved in big packages such as the Youth Opportunities.

I’d even venture an opinion that he may be even more hands on than Helen Clark. Clark would use Michael Cullen a lot to sort out the real thorny issues. So far Key has been doing most of it himself. He is also probably more engaged with coalition management than his predecessors.

So, as the Government slowly but surely rips the heart out of the welfare state, rewarding the rich and punishing the poor, Key’s job as frontman is to be the ultimate populist PM. His numerous U-turns on policy are a reflection of that. If he had an embroidered sampler above the desk in his Beehive office, it would read IF THEY DON’T LIKE IT, CHANGE IT.

Heh that is not entirely off the mark. John will do unpopular things, but sparingly and on his terms. And as I have said before he does not see a compromise as a sign of weakness. He comes from a commercial background where a compromise is normal. It is how deals happen.

The nonsense about ripping the heart out of the welfare state is Brian getting tribal. The Government is spending more money than ever on the welfare state. I wish it would take an axe to parts of WFF, but it won’t.

Despite all his protestations, I’m willing to lay odds that that will be the fate of the misnamed Anti-Smacking legislation. They really hate that.

People should read very carefully what he has and has not said. The reaction to the outcome will be very interesting.

The comments on the blog post are p very interesting, including one from David Lange’s widow – Margaret Pope who makes the case that Lange wasn’t just the smiling frontman that people now describe him as.

It is one of the things I love about blogs is that it allows people with direct relevance to a discussion, such as Margaret Pope on Lange, to easily add their contribution.

The Government yesterday announced some pretty significant changes to the governance of polytechnics:

Currently, Councils can have up to 20 members, but the Bill proposes that this be reduced to eight, to include four Ministerial appointees, the Chief Executive, one student representative, one member nominated by the Academic Board and one member appointed by the Council.

20 members is far too many for a governance board. It is no wonder there have been so many financial management issues (many polytechs have needed bailing out). Generally a board becomes less effective once it hits double figures.

University Councils are a bit different. With their role in academic freedom, it would not be sensible to reduce Councils to just eight members. And the reality is that University Councils actually play little role in actual governance. They tend to be just a rubber stamp for management.

Went to Pearl Harbour and over to the memorial on top of the wreck of the USS Arizona sunk on 7 December 1941. Around 1,200 died on board – almost all of their bodies still in the waters below.

The additional names on the ledge at the bottom left are those former shipmates on the Arizona who survived the attack, but have chosen to be interned with their fallen colleagues. Around 25 of them have done so, as recently as in 2008. I found that quite poignant.

The Arizona just under the water,

And the memorial from out at sea

The USS Missouri – the Japanese surrender marking the end of WWII was signed on board, with the legendary General MacArthur signing for the Allies.

The USS Bowfin

On board the submarine USS Bowfin. Could you imagine having to sleep on top of a torpedo!

The view from the Diamond Head Crater near Waikiki. Another highly recommended even though a hot steep walk up.

And in the other direction Honolulu from the Crater.

The crater itself from the lookout.

After that it was a quick meal in China Town (where a $6 soup was so large it could have fed a dozen people!) and then out to the airport. Once again upgrades came through so an easy flight back.

However very distressed when the reading lights failed and they were unable to get them working the entire flight. I was halfway through a great book and had to sit sulking in the dark for nine hours unable to finish it.

Am now trying to get used to 12 degrees instead of 32 degree days. Will take some time to reacclimatise!

The Dom Post reports on Labour’s legacy:

Thirty-five families with a household income of more than $150,000 are pocketing Working for Families cash.

Welfare should be for those on low incomes who need support to cover the essentials. Not to give rich people extra money because they choose to have some more kids.

Labour revenue spokesman Stuart Nash said families earning more than $150,000 were not the type envisaged for the scheme.

If there were abuses, then loopholes should be closed.

But Working for Families had lifted thousands of children out of poverty and it was the most effective income-redistribution policy “ever”.

Over-taxing New Zealanders so you can give them some of their own money back as welfare is now what I call effective. Well it is effective at turning more families into welfare recipients I guess.

Vernon Small writes on tax:

If it does not move, tax it. If it can move, try to tax it less. If Treasury used single syllable words, that is how it might define its view of revenue raising.

That’s a great summary. And if we want to have decent economic growth in future we do want a tax system that drives people and investment offshore.

Put simply, since people can leave or  go elsewhere – and so can investment  dollars – they should be taxed the least.

On the other hand, local consumption – which attracts GST – can by definition only happen here.

Similarly, stuff that is nailed to the ground is relatively immobile, though the investment dollars that build and develop it are slippery.

GST is also a lot harder to avoid than income tax.

Much has been made of ministers “leaving the door open” to a capital gains tax, but that has long been a poisoned chalice. More pertinent is the group’s request for officials to also look at land or property tax.

By coincidence on  the Auckland-Wellington leg of the flight back from Hawaii, I was seated next to a prominent economist and the pros and cons of a land tax was part of the discussion. It is an interesting area to look at (on the proviso that any new tax be matched by reductions in other taxes).

But the economic case for a tax on the unimproved value of land are intriguing – though it would require a big sell to property owners, especially older voters, some farmers and Maori who are asset rich and income poor (with high levels of equity in their properties) and would take the biggest hit from any consequent fall in property prices.

A small land tax could take some of the heat out of the housing bubble, with less need for interest rate hokes in future.

A small tax on land alone could fund a big move in personal tax rates.

A 0.1 per cent tax – $460 million on the $460 billion of privately-held land – would offset the lost revenue from cutting the 38 cent rate to 33 cents.

Starts to get appealing.

It would genuinely broaden the tax base, taxing foreigners who own property in New Zealand, and be likely to push more investment into areas other than property while helping curb a new housing boom.

The inevitable drop in property values would be a two-edged sword. Home ownership would become more affordable, and the extra impost would give owners of bare land an incentive to develop it.

It would arguably be relatively progressive, because wealthier people tend to have more valuable property holdings. And it would provide far more predictable revenue than a capital gains tax.

There is also a ready-made framework in the local-body rating system, to help keep compliance costs down.

I look forward to some of the economist blogs discussing the pros and cons of reducing income tax and instituting a land tax in a fiscally neutral manner. So far the pros seem pretty strong.

Even so, it is hard to make the leap of logic that would see National – the natural home of the landed – slap a new tax on the land beneath their voters’ feet.

It comes back to how seriously you want to close that gap with Australia.

While I have reservations over aspects of the EU, I love the fact they have a common currency and almost no borders. Hence I am a fan of New Zealand and Australia removing as many barriers as possible.

I don’t see much merit in political union (unless both islands gained statehood giving us more grunt in the Senate) but am persuadable on a joint currency etc.

The possible revival of the ANZACs could be hugely popular, as ANZAC Day on both sides of the Tasman becomes more and more hallowed by the public. The Herald reports:

New Zealand and Australian defence chiefs will soon begin discussions on setting up a joint Anzac rapid-response force.

The shape, size and operations of the proposed force – disclosed by the Herald in May – have yet to be considered, but Prime Minister John Key and his Australian counterpart, Kevin Rudd, believe the close ties between the two defence forces should be formalised in a new transtasman unit.

Whether it is practical or not has to be worked through, bu the principle is exciting. It may also give opportunities for NZ soldiers to serve on missions they previously could not.

Colin Espiner also reports on the travel plans:

Trans-Tasman travel is about to get easier, but passport-free visits are unlikely.

Travellers between New Zealand and Australia will be able to use electronic passport control and bypass queues for baggage screening from the end of this year, under changes to New Zealand airport arrangements announced by Prime Minister John Key in Canberra yesterday.

Electronic-passport kiosks, called smart gates, will be installed at Auckland International Airport’s arrival hall in December and in Wellington and Christchurch from the middle of next year.

The kiosks will be available to departing passengers in Auckland from late next year and in Wellington and Christchurch by mid-2011.

They allow travellers aged over 18 with an electronic passport containing a biometric chip to be able to scan their own passports and use facial-biometric technology to identify themselves and go to departure gates without going through immigration control.

Most New Zealand and Australian passengers arriving in New Zealand will no longer automatically have their baggage screened under changes announced by the Agriculture and Forestry Ministry.

I like self service kiosks. Air New Zealand has done a brilliant job with its technology and the e-pass and m-pass. Queues are almost a thing of the past. If this can be extended to security checks, all the better.

My latest Dispatch from St Johhnysburg for NBR is titled “The first wobbles”. An extract:

This week we have seen the first wobbles in the National-led Government’s stability. They are not big wobbles, but they are wobbles. And like all wobbles – they can go only one or two ways – grow into bigger wobbles until something falls off, or subside away. …

The concern is that an e-mail that was between MPs only was leaked to the media. That is a sign of a lack of discipline, and the public (and the polls) have a history of turning on parties than are undisciplined and fight in public.

As always, comments and feedback can be made at NBR.

Superb news. Heather Roy’s voluntary student association membership bill (now in the name of Roger Douglas) got drawn from the ballot today.

I’ll be doing a lot of posts on this topic as I have 15 – 20 years worth of research on the pros and cons of VSM.

The Young Nationals and ACT on Campus are excited about the bill being drawn, and no doubt will be campaigning hard for it to be passed.

Very appropriate that the man who gave New Zealand so many of our economic freedoms, may end up also being the person who give students the freedom to choose as individuals whether or not to join a student association.

While I was on a plane, Parliament voted 122-0 to send the abolition of provocation as a partial defence to murder bill to Select Committee.

I wonder what the vote would have been before the Weatherston trial? I supported it going previously, but there is no doubt Weatherston’s defence strategy acted as a major catalyst.

David Letterman had the top ten reasons Britney Spears should be made US President:

Britney Spears’ 10 presidential pledges:

1. I’d be the first president to wear eye shadow since Nixon.

2. We would only invade fun places, like Cabo.

3. Free pie for everybody!

4. My situation room would be a cabana at the Palms Casino in Las Vegas.

5. I’d lure Osama Bin Laden out of hiding with the irresistible scent of my new fragrance Circus Fantasy.

6. Every presidential news conference would feature costume changes.

7. If I was president America might have a more coherent fiscal strategy.

8. I would challenge US to put a nightclub on the moon by the end of the decade.

9. Three words: Vice President Diddy.

10. Finally the media would pay some attention to me!

Britney Spears would probably have a more coherent fiscal strategy than both Presidents Obama and Bush.

I’m tempted to quip Bryce likes to drink liberally when my credit card is on the table, but this is about his address to the Dunedin gathering of Drinking Liberally.

His topic was “What’s left in 2009 in New Zealand?”. It is too long to try and paraphrase but I found it very interesting. Bryce is a big fan of Bruce Jesson and quotes him often.

Former Energy Minister Barry Brill makes the case that the emissions reduction target of 10% to 20% is far far too ambitious:

The National Party campaigned on a promise to reduce our greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2050 – a cut of 46Mt (million tones of CO2-equivalent) from 2008 levels over a period of 40 years. But Mr Key now says his Government will aim to reach more than half the 2050 goal in just 10 years.

Because technologies to reduce agricultural emissions have not yet been developed, the most expensive and painful time to reduce gases will be in the early part of the 40-year period.

Brill is right. Technology will make it easier to reduce emissions later rather than sooner.

While we have undertaken a 10-20 per cent decrease from 1990 levels, the largest emitter, the United States, is aiming for a zero decrease – if their Senate approves legislation. Canada is targeting a 3 per cent decrease and Japan 8 per cent. Australia’s plans seem likely to be voted down by their Senate.

The 27 EU countries picked up a huge advantage from the choice of 1990 as the base year, but their combined goals looking forward are reductions of 15 per cent (mid-point). Russia is aiming at increases of 24 per cent. New Zealand outpoints them all by targeting forward reductions of 32-42 per cent.

This is quite key. When the Greens and Labour say NZ is a laggard by aiming for 10% to 20% under 1990 only, they are ignoring the fact that Helen Clark’s Government left us with emissions so high that the reduction from today to the 2020 target is one of the highest in the world. The 40% target the Greens promote is quite literally impossible to achieve. Even the Greens admit this – their plan involves us failing to meet the target and purchasing credits from overseas.

It gets worse – 20 per cent below 2008 levels equates to a 64 per cent per capita reduction in emissions from 2008 to 2020.

So, our country is a clear contender for the Gold Medal in the Copenhagen stakes. How embarrassing for all the industrialised countries that an agricultural country should lead the way.

If Labour and the Greens claim NZ is not doing enough, ask them why a 64% reduction per capita is not enough.

But the Prime Minister has assured us that the best available guess is that we’ll all be out-of-pocket by $27 per week per head by the end of the decade. This cost will start building up from now, and will continue forever.

This cost is appalling. Why aren’t we rioting in the streets? Even now, we can’t afford decent healthcare, education, prisons, so where will we find another $6 billion per year? How can a family of four find an extra $112 per week after tax?

The bill of $6 billion per year is more than 5 per cent of the country’s GNP. We are told we need to incur this cost because it will be good for trade in an indirect sort of way.

But the cure is worse than the disease when the cost is greater than all our earnings from meat and wool exports, or equal to 60 per cent of our annual dairy exports.

To be fair to the Government, the 10% to 20% target is not a unilateral commitment as I understand it, but dependent on an agreement with all major developed and/or emitting countries. And that is far from certain.

New Zealand’s promises in Copenhagen won’t have any material impact on efforts to change the world’s future climate. However, there will be endless meetings, where every country will pressure every other country to accept a bigger share of the burden.

Going into this sort of negotiation, most countries start with a low bid. Our Government’s tactics of tabling a massive opening bid – one we can’t afford – will have competitors scratching their heads. I predict it will become a case study in business schools and negotiating classes around the world.

I’ve made this point myself – our target is our opening bid. It is foolish to set it too high.

Hired a rental car for the last two days and we did a drive around the island.

I’m starting to love these convertibles so much I’m thinking of buying one. Just a shame not as many chances in Wellington to have the roof down.

The beach at Turtle Cove Resort on the North of O’ahu. I highly recommend this place. Just as good as Waikiki, but without the massive crowds.

The beach at Turtle Cove is not just great for sun and sand, but it also has coral and fish for snorkeling. Not as good as going out to sea, but not bad for by the shore.

And the resort grounds next to the beach at Turtle Cove. Next time I am in Hawaii, I think I’d spend two or three nights up here in the North rather than at Waikiki.

We then went to Waimea Valley, which has hectares of bush, flowers and birds.  This tree was huge as you can see from the person next to it.

You could make a fair bit of furniture from this bamboo!

At the end of the mile track was this wonderful natural pool with a waterfall going into it. Paradise!

Yes that is me under the falls. Bloody wonderful.

The Waimea Valley is a must see. We only had time to do the main path – there are dozens of side paths.

Now this is mega cute. The baby duckling walking on the lilypad. The ducklings were absolutely tiny.

And a peacock, in tribute to the Peacock Princess.

Ran out of time to see the Dole Pineapple Plantation, so something else for the next trip there. Did dinner back in Honolulu at a Mexican restaurant. The Margaritas were only surpassed by the food.

Trevor Mallard blogged on 15 August 2009:

The fact that they weren’t sent to prison because they are Maori just doesn’t seem right to me.

Nanaia Mahuta blogged on 18 August 2009:

To criticise the sentence on a matter of race is ridiculous

I don’t think Trevor was being ridiculous, as Nanaia labels him.

In fact I sometimes wonder if Trevor does not have a very cunning game plan. So cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a fox.

He has become the de facto Opposition Leader of the House and appears to lead their parliamentary strategy.Have a look at Parliament some time and you will see Mallard working with Hughes and the Whips to decide what to do.

He also seems to be in charge of their communications, and set up Red Alert without even telling Phil Goff about it.

He is going out of his way to mentor new MPs, and often is delegated to speak on behalf of the party on non portfolio issues.

And we now see Trevor positioning himself to appeal to non-core Labour voters with his blog on this issue.

Now maybe it is all a coincidence, but is it possible that Trevor is planning some bbqs over summer?

Trevor was widely seen as a leadership contender along with Maharey un until a couple of years ago. Suddenly within a few weeks Trevor was out of the running for punching Tau Henare, and Maharey bailed to academia. Phil Goff suddenly became the heir apparent despite never being Clark’s choice.

So is Goff there just to give Trevor time to rehabilitate himself?

How nice to see disagreeing parties acting maturely on the issue of Maori seats on the proposed Auckland Council.

ACT are firmly against Maori seats and Rodney Hide has said:

Mr Hide said he told Mr Key: “Just to be absolutely clear, you have got our support for supply and confidence but as a minister, as the Act leader, I couldn’t be responsible for introducing to the House a bill that would have reserve seats in it.”

And that is fair enough that you can’t expect a Minister to introduce a bill if they are opposed to a major section of it. But there is no NZ First type talk of walking away from Government if they do not get their way.

And the Maori Party are being equally mature:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said last night that she was disappointed at Mr Hide’s position but her party’s support for the Government would not change. “We always knew when we went into this arrangement with National that there would be issues that would take us right to the wire and this is one of them.

“But we have no intentions of withdrawing support for the Government and we have no intention of withdrawing our ministerial roles. That’s not what we went into the relationship for.”

It is inevitable that the Maori Party and ACT are not going to agree on everything, and that whatever National decides will disappoint one of them on this issue.

I believe the solution is easy, and has always been there. Parliament should not decide for Aucklanders whether or not to have Maori seats on the Auckland Council. The Local Government and Electoral Acts allows local voters to decide this by way of referendum. If Aucklanders wants Maori seats on the Auckland Council, they should petition for them (only needs 5%) and gain a majority in the referendum. Having Wellington impose Maori seats on Auckland is a very different issues to having Auckland decide for itself whether or not it wants Maori seats.

The Herald reports:

The acting head judge of the Family Court has called for gay and lesbian couples to be given rights to adopt children, just as a private member’s bill on the issue goes into the ballot for Parliament’s order paper today. …

He said the Adoption Act, which has not been fully reviewed since 1955, was outdated and unjustly discriminatory, breaching the Bill of Rights Act, the Human Rights Act and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Only married couples and individuals can adopt children under the act. …

It is interesting that an individual can adopt, but not a de facto couple.

My position on the issue of gay adoption, is that there should not be a prohibition on it, but that whether or not the prospective parents are of the same or different genders should be a factor in deciding on individual cases.

I do believe that it is important for a child to have both a male and female adult in their lives, and the ideal circumstance is that the prospective parents are a male and female married (or civilly united) to each other.

But that is only one of many factors that should be taken into account when deciding adoptions. Some of the others are length of relationship, job stability, income, criminal record, health, age etc etc.

I’m not sure how adoptions are currently decided but I do know there are many more people wanting to adopt, than there are babies made available for adoption. Hence I assume there is some sort of scoring criteria used to decide who gets priority – perhaps similar to the criteria used to determine eligibility to qualify to immigrate here.

So again I would not have a prohibition, but if two couples were equally “qualified” to adopt a child, I believe the best interests of the child are to grow up with both a father and a mother. Hence I also support a married couple having priority over an individual (note again individuals are not banned).

But there would be situations where a gay couple could well score “higher” on the scale of best able to provide a family to an unwanted child (and many gay couples already are parents). For example a gay couple who have been together for 15 years, are in excellent health, and earning high incomes would be better than a married couple who have been together only 18 months, with one parent not working due to illness and the other earning just $30,000 a year.

Really what it comes down to is treating each applicant for adoption on its merits, and making decisions purely on what is the best interests of the child. A prohibition on sexual orientation actually acts against being able to make a decision based on individual circumstances.

The Press reported:

A Christchurch tax worker fed up with his bosses has made a spectacular protest by driving his car through three plate-glass windows in the Inland Revenue building.

I do hope he gets made t pay the cost of repairs, so us taxpayers don’t have to.

But anyway the part I thought was really funny was:

Theobald posted the letter suspending him from work, written by a human resources manager, on the internet.

“Information has come to my attention which indicates that you may have intentionally driven a vehicle through Inland Revenue’s Christchurch building,” the manager wrote.

“I am concerned that your conduct may be inconsistent with the code of conduct.”

That is such an HR letter. Driving your car into the front of your workplace “may be inconsistent” with the code of conduct they are concerned.

Judith Collins continues to show very good instincts as a Minister. The Herald reported:

Police Minister Judith Collins says she will change the law if police and court staff fail to find a way of routinely making public lists of convicted drink-drivers.

The bureaucrats get so detail obsesses sometimes, they forget the big picture. They were basically saying a conviction is a personal private matter and should not be publicised unless a reporter actually happened to be in court during the hearing.

That was and is an outrageous view. Criminal convictions are not private matters. They are by their very nature public, unless a name is suppressed.

I actually think all convictions should be publicly available through a searchable database.

Her comments come after police yesterday rescinded a decision to stop releasing lists of convicted drink-drivers to media. The about-face came after Ms Collins met senior police staff on Monday and requested they re-examine the decision.

Requested. Ha. I bet you that is a polite word for it.

Police spokesman Jon Neilson said the issue of “ownership of information” was at the heart of the review.

As it stood at the moment, police laid charges with the court, but their involvement effectively ended with prosecution. The information belonged to the court, he said.

No convictions are not private property of the court. They are public information.

The afternoon before, sailing past the beautiful Nā Pali coastline on Kaua’i.

This was the sunrise over O’ahu as seen from the ship.

Honolulu

Then spent most of the day just chilling out. The cruise with all the day activities was great fun but quite exhausting. Later in the day went down to Waikiki.

The legendary Duke at Waikiki.

Waikiki is very crowded during the day. Even at night you can find a few dozen still swimming there at 10 pm.

The NZ Herald reports that National List MP Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is under Police investigation in relations to a job offer or offers he made to prospective immigrants before he was an MP.

It is excellent to see the Immigration Service referred the allegations onto the Police, and I await their findings with interest. There should be no sweeping under the carpet.

I have no first hand knowledge of the situation, so await the outcome of the investigation, or more information. I will point out that when these allegations first occurred, I said on 14 November 2008:

There are also the allegations against new National List MP, Kanwaljit Bakshi, that he offered jobs that did not exist to help immigrants enter. The allegations may well be baseless, but if John Key wants to set a different style to Helen Clark, he would do well to make sure there is an inquiry into them – even if just to ascertain the total number of job offers made by his new MP to potential immigrants.

And on the 15th of May 2009, I repeated my call for an inquiry, in response to  report that an Immigration Service staffer thought a witness had been paid off. I said it was “not a good look”.

Personally I have never had much trust in departmental inquiries, and would have preferred a fully independent inquiry with powers to compel testimony. But to be fair to the Immigration Service they appear to have been quite thorough in their investigation, considering they learnt enough to refer issues to the Police.

There will obviously be some speculation about whether Bakshi will remain an MP. Being investigated by the Police is never good for your political career. Again until evidence is known, I would not jump to any conclusions, but for those interested the next person on National’s list is Dr Conway Powell from Dunedin who is in position 59. Stephen Franks is next after that on no 60.

A few people have tried to portray the Government’s target of a 10% to 20% reduction over 1990 levels as some sort of half hearted wimp out. In fact it is right at the top of what is achievable without lunacies such as shooting cows.

Matthew Hooton pointed out in NBR how massive this target is:

The 10-20% target announced by John Key, Nick Smith and Tim Groser this week is far more radical than it sounds.  By 2020, under business as usual, New Zealand’s net emissions are forecast to be up 40% over 1990 levels.

This means the Greens’ 40% target cut over the 1990 baseline is in fact a 57% cut over the base case.  National’s 20% target would require a 43% cut.

In other words, National has offered up a proposed cut that is three-quarters of what the most swivel-eyed neo-Marxists in the Green movement have been demanding.

This is why Labour does not dare say what their target would have been.

Now NZPA report what Treasury says the target should be:

But Treasury recommended a target range with an unconditional target of 8 percent reduction on a base year of 2005.

This was equivalent to emissions 15 percent above the 1990 level because New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions increased 24.7 percent between 1990 and 2005.

So the Government has gone for a target of 10% to 20% below 1990 levels, when their official advice was aim for 15% above 1990 levels. So again, if an eco marxist tries to claim this target is some sort of wimpy sell out, go drop a cow on them. If anything the Government could be criticised for too ambitious a target.

Incidentally I would recommend people read Professor Sir Peter Gluckman’s summary of the issues on climate change.