Kiwiblog

I fully support the decision to ban talking or texting on a cell phone while driving.  Driving is the single most dangerous activity most of us will ever do (with the exception perhaps of fighter pilots, not that there are any in New Zealand anymore.)  A terrifying number of our drivers seem to be of the linked delusions that:

 a) they are a better than average driver

b) driving only requires part of their attention at any given time

c) they are perfectly capable of multi-tasking, thank you. 

In the vast majority of cases, all of these assumptions are wrong.  Many people on our roads combine arrogance and incompetence with sometimes lethal results.  There are certainly many sources of distractions while driving but using a cell phone is rarely unavoidable.  If it really is vital, make a small investment and buy a hands-free gizmo or use the Blue Fang Face Blog-type set-up David P Farrar already has in his limousine.   

While the New Zealand research is a little light, international research is increasingly confirming that texting in particular is dangerous. 

An American study concluded “the risk [of texting while driving] sharply exceeds previous estimates based on laboratory research – and far surpasses the dangers of other driving distractions.  The new study, which entailed outfitting the cabs of long-haul trucks with video cameras over 18 months, found that when the drivers texted, their collision risk was 23 times greater than when not texting.  In the moments before a crash or near crash, drivers typically spent nearly five seconds looking at their devices – enough time at typical highway speeds to cover more than the length of a football field.”

One of the common arguments against the ban, made by David P Farrar and others around the blogosphere, is that there is already a law against driving while distracted though it is not really used.  That is true as far as it goes but my understanding is that the main reason it is not used is because of the difficulty proving causal effect.  For instance, the person may admit they were texting but deny that it contributed to them driving into a tree.  The proposed ban removes the burden of proving effect and focuses instead on the easily proved action of using the phone while driving.

I really would like to think that better use of the existing laws and a laudable public education scheme would make a difference but it won’t.  Too many drivers ignore what should be common sense every day.  A simple direct ban hitting them in the wallet and racking up demerit points is the best way to go.  If drivers really need to talk on their phones, buy one of the readily available kits which will let them do so legally.  After all, they can already afford a car.

There’s been such a massive amount of welfare bashing lately I have been thinking more about the comments that you have all been making. I haven’t answered many of them as, well how can you stoop to the level of the general comments population of Kiwiblog?

So inspired by all your hatred, up late last night contemplating life, love and Sky TV, I have had the greatest idea I think like ever in my life.

Yesterday figures were released that showed there are now 104,000 on the DPB. What we all need is an advocacy group to ensure our futures are catered for and under MMP we can have it. We are a strong, powerful voting block under MMP.

There were 2,356,536 list votes at the 2008 general election, so 104,000 votes (and of course INCREASING), we currently could vote a 4.4% block, just under the 5% threshold. To get to 5% we would only need 117,827 votes (just 13,827 more) and based on current growth in membership to Club DPB, can we can get there? YES WE CAN.

Then once we had our 6 members of parliament The DPB Party could use it’s minority balance of power to get sustainable incomes for not only DPB recipients but all beneficiaries.

I could think of no better leaders of The DPB Party than Natasha Fuller and Jennifer Johnston.

Democracy at its finest would be National or Labour having to grovel to DPB recipients to keep their bums in the Beemers.

Do you remember Helen Clark attacking the NZ Herald over their leaky homes coverage and claiming it was all a bit of a beat up, with the NZ Herald banging on about it needlessly.

NZPA today reports:

Wellington, Aug 18 NZPA – The bill for leaky homes is likely to top $11 billion a review found.

The news prompted Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson to meet with local government leaders yesterday.

He was tight-lipped about the meeting but Radio New Zealand reported the cost of leaky homes was up to $11.5b, from the previous estimate of $3.6b.

Bring back George Hawkins to fix the problem. Oh wait, wasn’t he the Minister who replied to builders informing him of the problem, that there wasn’t one according to his officials?

I noted yesterday that the woman driving the car next to us was applying mascara while driving the car.

Is the Government going to legislate to make this an offence also? If not, why not?

Vernon Small at the Dom Post writes:

More than 9700 families receiving Working for Families credits own rental properties and are using losses on them to boost the amount they get from the taxpayer.

Other recipients of the scheme, introduced to help struggling families, are using trading companies, sheltered within trusts, to pocket tax credits even though they are earning well over $70,000, a high-powered review of the tax system has found.

Ipods for everyone!

I’m gald to see some rationality going back into what ACC funds with the Herald reporting:

Visiting the physio will cost patients at least $10-20 each time, now that the ACC has decided to cut costs.

Of course the physio never was free. It was just paid for by ACC levypayers rather than those receiving the physio.

In March, Dr Smith said that the free physiotherapy service – which was introduced in 2004 – had got out of control.

Up to $8.9 million extra had been budgeted for free physiotherapy visits in 2004, but costs had gone from $58 million per year to $139 million this financial year. …

In 2008-09, physiotherapy cost levy payers $144 million. If this were to continue, that cost would reach up to $232 million by 2013 – a figure that is unaffordable for levy payers, the ACC says.

This is not surprising. If you make something “free”, demand for it increases massively. Very very few things should be “free”. A partial subsidy tends to be far more effective as even a small part charge will deter people from needlessly accessing the “free” service.

The projected increase in levies, if no changes are made, was around $25 a week extra ACC levy for someone on the average wage. Labour let the entitlements get out of control by constantly expanding them (it even includes suicide now!) and by paring some of them back it will stop the scheme collapsing under its own weight because there is no way workers would want to be paying 5% of their wages as ACC levies.

Dr Smith said since the service became free, the number of clients in higher socio-economic areas using the service had “occurred disproportionately”.

I am not surprised again. Would be interesting to see the data behind this though.

TV3 polled on who should replace Phil Goff as Labour Leader. Now I think Goff is safe until the election, but TV3 found:

1. 23.0% don’t care or know
2. 21.3% said no-one
3. 15.5% Annette King
4. 14.8% David Cunliffe
5. 7.6% Shane Jones
6. 7.3% Laila Harre
7. 3.7% Andrew Little

I think Andrew is most likely to take over after 2011.

They also report:

In a bombshell, former Labour MP Dover Samuels says that Mr Goff and his deputy should go.

“My message to the leadership, to Phil and Annette, is it’s time to step aside,” Mr Samuels says. “The retreads of yesterday have gone past their use-by date.” …

Mr Samuels it is not only Mr Goff and Ms King causing problems, he says people like Trevor Mallard and Pete Hodgson are to blame too.

What is interesting about this, is Samuels is from the right of Labour – as is Goff and King. This is not some partisan call.

And as I have blogged previously, Goff’s longevity has now become a negative in my opinion. I just find it hard to imagine the New Zealand public will vote in as Prime Minister of the sixth Labour Government a man who entered Parliament during the third National Government.

My husband has a very old basketball t-shirt he can’t bear to part with.  It says “You say it’s luck, I say you’re lazy.” I thought he just loved the colour and shirt but I’m beginning to believe it has more to do with his (and i suppose my own) attitude.

We’ve had friends in the past say things like “You’re so lucky because you met her/him” or “You’re so lucky you own your own home” etc etc.  Sure, we made some crap choices in pour lifetime but ultimately we made more good choices than bad.  And, sometimes we sacrificed in the short run for the long run benefit.

I’m sure some here will think I was born with a silver spoon and all that but I really wasn’t.  My parents did ok.  I think I had a pretty standard upbringing filled with public schooling, both parents working, and supportive parents who read to me at night and all that stuff.  Later, I was thrown out of school for suspected drug use, my parents divorced, some other family stuff, and I married a man that was a T-Coll drop-out turned receptionist.  I did go to university.  I did pretty well and I did get pretty good jobs – and for the record so did my husband.  He worked his way up a corporate, got an MBA and now owns his own businesses.

My point is that I just don’t believe in luck.  When a person realises that they are in charge of their life and they are the one that gets to make the choices and decisions; then that is the moment that that person becomes powerful (in their own right).  How do we teach that?  And, before anyone accuses me of beneficiary bashing I’m talking about so many people.  Being the victim, “luck did this to me” is alive and well in New Zealand.  Take some responsibility people.  To get ahead everyone has to work hard and yes, some do have to work harder than others.

So, next time you think you have to make a decision and you think there’s only one choice to make, look again, there might be a better one (it just might be a harder road).

As widely expected, the Government has announced it will be an offence to use a handheld cellphone while driving. I’m disappointed by this decision, especially by the lack of evidence it will be effective.

From November 1 it will be against the road rules for drivers to text or talk on a handheld cell phone while driving.

The change is part of the Land Transport (Road User) Amendment Rule and will see drivers using handheld mobile phones receive an infringement notice consisting of an $80 fine and 20 demerit points.

So answer five phone calls while driving, and your license may be gone. I’ve not got anything to worry about as my car stereo uses bluetooth to operate as a hands free device, but I can see a lot of people getting pinged. Ironically people will probably get pinged when it is safest to talk on the phone – waiting at the lights, rather than on a motorway, as the latter is hard to detect.

Transport Minister Steven Joyce says that driver distraction – particularly through the use of cell phones – is a real issue on our roads.

“There are a lot of other distractions while driving but handheld mobile phone use has grown to become a significant problem. The reality is we need to send a strong signal to all road users that it’s not on.

But why not action on the other distractions? Why not ban smoking in cars? Why not make it compulsory to have radio controls on the steering wheel to minimise the distraction of tuning the radio?

“Texting and driving, in particular, is a total no brainer.

Agreed and anyone seen texting while driving should be charged under the existing law.

Mr Joyce says allowing hands-free recognises that many business and trades people depend on being available on their cell phones for their livelihood, and that hands-free phones are less distracting to operate than handheld phones.

A number of studies dispute hands-free phones are less distracting. It is pleasing to see some recognition of the costs of banning some cellphone use in cars, but what we have not seen is a full cost benefit of banning hand helds only.

What I would like to see is projected benefits (lives saved and fewer crashes) vs projected costs (people having to buy hands free kits, fines, enforcement, costs to business of employees less contactable).

And for projected benefits I do not mean just an assumption that crashes where cellphone use was a factor will go from the current level to zero. I’d like to see the overseas evidence that a ban of the nature actually reduces the number of crashes where cellphone use was a factor – and by how much. Has the Government got this info? If not, why not?

Between 2003 and 2008, there were 482 injury crashes and 25 fatal crashes in New Zealand where the use of a mobile phone or other telecommunications device was identified as a contributing factor.

25 fatal crashes over six years is a fatal crash every three months on average. Now as I said above one can not assume that volume of fatal crashes will reduce to zero just because of this new law. I suspect most people will still answer their phone if it rings and is important. And many may just swap to handsfree phones also.

Let us be generous and assume the new law will cut the number of fatal crashes by 25%, where cellphone use is a factor. There is still the weighing up of whether it is appropriate to penalise three million drivers who have cars and cellphones for one less fatal crash every year. Is a reduction in the road toll of 0.25% worth the inconvience and costs of this law?

Maybe it is. I’m not 100% opposed. But I would like to see a proper cost/benefit analysis of the new law. I especially would like to see what the actual fall in crashes has been in overseas countries with similar laws. Does it actually decrease the road toll or does it just lead to lots of fines and demerits?

Was pleased to see in Stuff last week:

The deputy prime minister’s daughter was in the Wellington team that won the New Zealand schools’ debating championship final in Parliament today, arguing for a motion that goes against politicians’ instincts.

The Wellington Black team of Carlos Bowkett (Wellington College), Maria English (Samuel Marsden Collegiate School), and Jodie O’Neil (Chilton St James School) won the national final in a unanimous decision over Wellington Gold, affirming the topic “That citizens initiated referenda should be binding on government”.

I commented to Bill a few months back that one day it won’t be Maria getting described as Bill English’s daughter, but Bill getting described as Maria’s father.

Maria English, who was in the New Zealand schools’ debating team that won the 2009 world championships in Athens this year, was named as captain of the New Zealand team to contest the 2010 world schools championships in Qatar.

Also in the team are Nick Cross (Scots College), Jasmin Moran (Chilton St James School), Josh Baxter (Auckland Grammar) and Aria Newfield (St Cuthbert’s College).

Congrats to them all, and good luck.

While this website certainly covers a vast array of topics (from politics to lava formation and back), one glaring omission is sport.  Watching sport appears to play the same role in David P Farrar’s life as calculating the margin of error does in mine.  As a result, I have decided to pose a series of sporting questions:

Will Wellington rugby ever run out of ways to break the hearts of their long-suffering fans?

If Ian Bell and Jonathan Trott are the answer, what exactly is the question?

Are the Broncos really back or just teasing?

Is it so wrong to laugh at the fans booing Beckham – again?

Why is Murali still allowed to “bowl”?

Wouldn’t Wipeout be a better Olympic sport than women’s boxing?

Will the Phoenix ever be higher up the table this season?

Will Liverpool win another championship in my lifetime?

How many New Zealanders wearing Yankees caps could name two current players?

Did you know that joint highest one-day cricket score of 194* was just made by Charles Coventry?

Did you know that he plays for Zimbabwe and they still lost the game?

What exactly did the Perth Glory spend all their money on?

Would the sport of athletics survive if Bolt ever tested positive for drugs?

A tough one but is Scott Styris better-looking than Wayne Rooney?

Was the best call of the weekend the commentator who suggested that Auckland rugby players were not used to playing in front of crowds?

Why is Richard Boock getting more and more bitter each week?

Was Tiger always this whiny?

Do you believe in the new and improved “nice” Kobe?

Will Warney get Richie’s job?

The Herald reports:

Hundreds of state beneficiaries are receiving payments totalling more than $1000 a week.

The top 50 recipients face an audit of their entitlements ordered by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett. …

They include a couple with 10 children who get $1200 a week. Both parents have been on the unemployment benefit for more than 15 years.

$1,200 a week is their net income. This is equivalent to a salary of $86,000 a year or $1,657 a week gross.

It is likely over their time on the benefit, they have had the equivalent of over a million dollars.

90% of parents choose to restrict the size of their families to what they can afford. People make rational decisions on whether they can afford a third or a forth child. There is no simple answer, but most Kiwis would be aghast at paying two parents the dole for 15 years, during which time they have 10 kids. Now there may be something unique to their circumstances, but the fact they are on the dole not the sickness, invalids or dpb suggests something very wrong. How can anyone be on the dole for 15 years?

My final shore expedition was a 4 wheel drive tour of the backroads.

We were travelling through some deep grass, and you can just see over it this cow with a bird perching on its back.

We went halfway up Mt Wai’ale’ale – the wettest place on earth. A zoom shot of a tree.

And the basin we overlooked from near the top.

Then went to the Po’ipu beach park for a bit. This is a very popular beach on the South of the island. The surfing beaches however are up North.

And went along a private dirt track to this private beach where we had lunch

Further along the back roads, this tunnel is hewn through the mountain and is unpaved and unlit. They have a railway sleeper through it to guide traffic. The waterfall as you enter is quite cool.

The full results are on curiablog.

The two interesting things for me were Labour slipping below the psychological barrier of 30%, and Phil Goff still remaining in third place behind Helen Clark as Preferred PM.

The Herald on Sunday has alerted me to this blog post by Trevor Mallard. I have not been reading other blogs while on holiday so would have missed it. Anyway Trevor says:

I live in Wainuiomata. Like most smaller communities I know the extended Rawiri whanau, but not well.

These five people killed their niece. It happened over an extended period.

I accept that they almost certainly would not reoffend and prison may be an expensive waste of time. And there are too many Maori in prison.

But I am certain that a Pakeha exorcism that resulted in torture and death would result in a prison term – albeit not necessarily a long one.

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

Almost every blog on the right has said they agree with Trevor. Interestingly I have not yet seen much reaction from left blogs.

I was actually thinking of blogging how surprised I was none of them got jailtime, and I basically agree with Trevor that it is hard to imagine an exorcism by say a church pastor with the same results would not have got a jail sentence.

In fact one of Trevor’s commenters reminds us that Pastor Luke Lee got six years jail for an exorcism manslaughter in 2001. While the cases are somewhat different it is hard to reconcile six years jail with zero years jail.

MacDoctor notes that even defence lawyer Barry Hart has said the sentences are too lenient. MacDoctor says the sentence is absurdly lenient and intensely paternalistic. I agree.

Most former leaders are happy to leave their party to their successors. Muldoon was the famous exception to this, and Clark is looking it seems to join her ranks.

We already found out via The Listener that Clark is in regular, almost daily, contact with many MPs. She still has the party administration ferociously loyal to her, and now thanks to the NZ Herald we find out she is operating as a sort of party whip for former MPs:

Former prime minister Helen Clark pressured her former ministerial colleague Margaret Shields not to accept the title “Dame”.

But the former MP for Kapiti did not buckle, and this afternoon she will be invested as a Dame Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit. …

Helen Clark sent Mrs Shields a letter setting out why Labour had abolished the titles and saying she hoped she would not accept one. …

Helen Clark, now Administrator of the United Nations Development Fund, is in New Zealand on holiday but could not be reached for comment.

But she is understood to have been deeply disappointed that Dame Margaret and some others to whom her Government awarded high non-titular honours had accepted titles.

I’m staggered by this. To have the former PM writing letters to previous recipients trying to pressure them into turning down the titles is just so petty. You think she would have better things to do with her time.

As correctly predicted by several people who commented on my last post, the decision I believe which led to a degradation of Question Time and a decline in respect for the institution of Parliament was Speaker Wilson’s ruling that Ministers only had to ‘address’ a question rather than ‘answer’ it.

Let me start by making one thing perfectly clear.  There never was a golden age of Question Times where the opposition asked respectful, factual and logical questions and Ministers gave full, honest and truthful replies.  Muldoon basically resented any questioning while for Lange it was more a chance to show off his wit than answer the question. 

Crucially, it has never been a requirement that a Minister totally answer the question as it is put to them.  Questioners could not even insist on a yes or no answer even if, logically, it had to be one or the other.  Nuance, omission and obfuscation have long been common elements of the Question Time game. 

That said, Speaker Wilson’s ruling that Minister’s only had to address a question and, more importantly, that virtually any mention of the topic – no matter how tangential – counted as addressing it was a significant shift.  Ministers could repeatedly avoid any questions they wished. 

This was politically useful at a tactical level but it reduced accountability and produced unease in traditionalists on all sides of the House.  There was a marked increase in disorder at Question Time which in turn did nothing to improve the public’s already largely negative view of politicians.

The new Speaker, Lockwood Smith, has taken a radically different course.  He requires National Ministers to answer the question.  In doing so, he clearly risks alienating himself from National Cabinet members who had endured years of having Labour Ministers dodge their questions only to have the same tactic denied to them. For once, the political rule of “what goes around comes around” is not in effect.  This new approach is, however, the correct course of action and one which is needed to lift the reputation of Parliament as a whole.

There is no real doubt that Lockwood Smith would have undoubtedly preferred a Ministerial role.  He was an experienced Minister and enjoyed the cut and thrust of the Chamber.  He was an effective, if under-utilised, Parliamentary debater.  Having been given the role of Speaker he has thrown himself into it and transformed Question Time. 

It is now free-flowing, robust and, certainly compared to previous sessions, informative.  The new Speaker clearly knows Standing Orders and Speaker’s Rulings but most of his rulings appear guided mainly by common sense, some humour and a sense of fair play.  He will admit to mistakes and even openly makes calls to ‘even up the balance’ in the Chamber.  Adhering strictly to Standing Orders would result in constant stoppages as Members frequently break the rules through ignorance or, more often, by design.  Smith’s pragmatic approach looks to strike a balance and, in general, he is succeeding. 

The real test will be whether his approach alters when the Government is placed under genuine, concerted political pressure.  As a traditionalist, I certainly hope not.

AP reports:

Florida investigators say a man accused of downloading child pornography is blaming his cat.

Keith Griffin is charged with 10 counts of possession of child pornography after detectives found more than 1,000 images on his home computer.

According to a sheriff’s report Friday, Griffin told investigators that his cat jumped on the computer keyboard while he was downloading music.

He said he had left the room and found “strange things” on his computer when he returned.

You really have to laugh. That is either a very smart cat or a very depraved cat – or both!

The Herald reported:

“We’d only go down the private route if we thought we were going to get a more cost-effective service,” Mr English said. “So over the next 12 months or so we’ll see whether the publicly funded and run prisons can give us better management of the prisons and less escapes, if the other arrangements look like they will give us a worse service then we won’t go with them.”

Labour’s law and order spokesman Clayton Cosgrove said the jury was still out on whether private prisons offered maximum value for taxpayers’ money.

Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but this seems a less hostile tone to the private sector that usual for Labour. Cosgrove has just said the jury is out, rather than state an ideological hatred opposition to having the private sector involved. I’m hoping this is deliberate and this is progress.

The Timaru Herald reports:

The study, published in the Journal of the American Dental Association has suggested that gingers are more than twice as likely to avoid a visit to the dentist.

The research found redheads are typically more sensitive to pain and require about 20 per cent more anaesthesia during dental visits. …

We should breed them out. Don’t allow them to have children and we’ll have a better society.

Red hair gets its distinctive colour from the pigment pheomelanin. Gingers get their red locks from a mutation in a gene called melanocortin-1 receptor.

Proof gingas are mutants. And not the cool ones like Wolverine either!

We started the day with a drive up the Waimea Canyon. Sadly it was foggy and then started pouring with rain so we couldn’t see anything. A pity as the views are meant to be second to the Grand Canyon. Will keep that one for a return trip.

It is around the Waimea area that many films have shot, including Jurassic Park, Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Thorn Birds.

This is the Spouting Horn. Water shoots up through a submerged lava tube, accompanied by a very loud roar. It can reach up to 50 feet.

This is the photo in the guidebook of Wailua Falls. Looks lovely doesn’t it. Some people may think they have seen it before – the Falls appeared in the opening credits of the TV series Fantasy Island. We were very excited to drive to it, so we could swim under the beautiful waterfall.

However this is what the falls were like on Thursday, after some heavy rain. You really wouldn’t want to try having a shower at the bottom of them, would you? Well not unless you wanted to be on ACC for life.

So sadly no swimming under the waterfall.

These are the Opaeka’a Falls from above. You can kayak up to them if you have a spare few hours. If I ever return I’ll be keen to do that.

I was amused to see this sign. Presumably only one person is buried there!

After having failed to find any natural waterfalls to swim under, I happily settled for this one at the Outrigger hotel. Nothing like a back massage by waterfall!

We actually popped into the Outrigger for lunch only, but so loved their bar, their location (next to the beach) and their huge swimming pool we really didn’t want to leave. So I asked the hotel reception what the price would be to hire a room for the night (the ship was on Kaua’i for two days) just so we could chill out (and keep drinking the very nice cocktails) and then rejoin the ship the next morning.

However the hotel said their policy is to rent rooms for a minimum of two nights only. Now I can understand having that as a policy for bookings in advance, but it is damn stupid to turn down money when you have someone on your doorstep wanting a room overnight that is sitting empty.

As I offered money to stay and was turned down, I felt morally okay to spend the rest of the afternoon utilizing their swimming pool.

Eventually headed back to the ship around 6 pm.

This is a photo of the lava from the ship from the night before. With the naked eye it was much more spectacular than a long distance photo can show.

Did another snorkel out from Kona on Wednesday morning. It was deeper water than the previous two, but still lots of fish, turtles and coral.

This boat had a slide from the top of the catamaran into the ocean. Lots of fun after a couple of hours snorkeling. I probably spent another hour or so sliding into the ocean and just swimming about generally. The water was so nice I could have stayed in all day.

And a diving board also – not that many actually did dives from it.

The upstairs of the Cat. Downstairs was a bar!

Two little dolphins we saw on the way back.

I actually enjoyed this snorkel a bit better than the previous one. We were out deeper with more space, had better coral, and was a bit more of a party atmosphere on board. They even had arm wrestling competitions to win free drinks. I’d give it an A also.