Kiwiblog

First the Herald reports:

American Eric Hertz, who moved to New Zealand from Washington DC to become 2degrees’ chief executive nearly two months ago, said he had glanced down at the Google Maps function on his phone when he drove into a stationary vehicle at an inner-city Auckland intersection. …

Mr Hertz’s phone was in a hands-free cradle, and always is when he is in the car.

This would not be covered by the change in law mooted by the Government.

And in another Herald story:

National’s Hunua MP Paul Hutchison has been dobbed in for reading while driving on the Auckland motorway and his attitude is it’s a “fair cop”. …

Dr Hutchison said it was him yesterday and thanked the reader for reporting him.

“Anyone who dobs someone in for driving unwisely is doing their public duty and that’s fair enough. Caught red-handed – or blue-handed,” he said.

He had been “frantically” going from one meeting to another on the Auckland governance issue.

“If I was driving unwisely I shouldn’t have been and I will endeavour to correct my ways,” he said.

I note this also will not be covered by the law change.

This is why I prefer a general law on distractions while driving, rather than picking on handheld cellphones only.

Next week I am going to try another experiment with the comments for two or three days. As with the last experiment, I do not intend to change my commenting policy in the near future, so don’t worry overly. Any future  changes will be well signalled and discussed.

What I am interested in is seeing what happens, when I try different things.

For three days next week (Monday 28 to Wednesday 30 September), comments will only be allowed under people’s real names – except in the general debate.

I will give people a one comment warning in case they forget.

Now, if you do not want to post under your real name, then just don’t comment outside the general debates for three days.

If you do want to comment during those three days and are not already commenting under your own name, then there are two easy ways to do so:

1. Login as normal and go to your Profile Page. Enter your first name and last name and click Update Profile. Then go up to “Display name publicly as” and select your name and click Update Profile again.

   Note that it probably will be possible for people to link your previous comments, to your name (as it shows no of comments for the user) , so do not do this option if this is undesirable

2. Just register a new username. Normally the system will not allow you to use the same e-mail address, but I have turned that off, so just set up a new user account under your name. You will then have two accounts you can use in the future as you wish to.

The reason I am doing this experiment is to examine two things:

1. Is there a reduction in trolling, abuse and flaming if people are commenting under their own name.
2. How much of a reduction in number of comments occurs

Again this is for just three days, and general debates during that time will remain open to all.

And before someone asks, no obviously I won’t know in some cases if you are using a fake name. But on the other hand, I may know!

Generally profane language from Prime Ministers can land them in trouble. But when they use it against their own colleagues, I suspect the public is far more approving. The details are:

The factional leaders had gone to see the Prime Minister in his Parliament House office to object to government plans to slash MPs’ printing allowances from $100,000 to $75,000 a year. The decision was in response to a report into parliamentary perks by the Auditor-General.

According to sources present, Mr Rudd said: “I don’t care what you f—ers think!”

Even better, he swore at MPs protesting against his reducing their perks. Definitely a poll bump on the way.

He then went on, singling out Senator David Feeney declaring, “You can get f—ed”, before asking, “Don’t you f—ing understand?”

I suspect the Senator now does.

For those interested, there is a public meeting in Waimakariri tonight, about the anti-smacking law. Details:

Monday 21 September, 7.30 p.m.

St. Bede’s College

Performing Arts Centre

210 Main North Road, Papanui, Christchurch City

SPEAKERS INCLUDE
John Boscawen, ACT M.P.

David Garrett, ACT M.P.

Larry Baldock, Leader of the Kiwi Party and Referendum Organiser

Bruce Logan, Founder of the Maxim Institute and ex School Principal

I first heard about this widely reported poll on Twitter, from Public Address:

Poll: A third of conservatives believe Obama could be the Antichrist. 18% are certain he is: http://bit.ly/2WY48F

My tweet back was:

lunacy but you forgot to mention in same poll a third of dems think gwb knew of 911 attacks in advance.

And PA:

Yes, that’s in the link. But IMO, believing Obama to be the Antichrist is orders of magnitude more weird.

And my response:

have to agree. In fact thinking anyone is the antichrist is pretty far gone.

Anyway I’ve thought a lot more about the poll. It has been widely reported as proof that a large segment of the US right are deranged. So it got me interested in finding the full poll results.

The first thing I notice, in the poll of 500 New Jersey residents, is that it is an automated telephone poll. This means the respondents push buttons on their phone, they are not speaking to an actual person.

So immediately I am suspicious that many of those responses may be in jest. Hell, if I received a recorded voice saying

“Do you think Murray McCully is the Anti-Christ? If yes, press 1, If no, press 2. If you’re not sure, press 3″

well once I’d stopped laughing I’d be pretty tempted to press 1 or 3

Now is there any proof for my theory many voters may have been taking the piss.  Let us look at the crosstabs. Overall 8% said yes he is, and 13% were not sure. And the shock figure was 18% of conservatives said yes he is, and 17% were not sure

• 5% of those who voted for Obama in 2008 said he is the Anti-Christ and a further 5% said they were not sure
• 6% of moderates said Obama was the Anti-Christ and 13% were unsure
• 6% of Democrats said Obama was the Anti-Christ and 7% were unsure
• 24% of Hispanics said Obama was the Anti-Christ and 18% were unsure
• 11% of African-Americans were unsure if Obama is the Anti-Christ
• 24% of those aged under 30 said Obama was the Anti-Christ and a further 18% were not sure

The last stat especially reinforces my suspicion many were taking the piss. Does anyone really think over 40% of under 30s do not know if Obama is the Anti-Christ?

So more under 30s and more Hispanics said Obama was the Anti-Christ, than conservatives did. But that is not such a sexy headline.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am sure there are some conservatives who think Obama is the Anti-Christ. And they are scary. But is it a very small minority of the conservative movement, or as much as one in three as the poll headline suggested? I say the former.

And some other unusual results:

• 31% of 2008 Obama voters think Bush knew of the 911 attacks in advance
• 4% of 2008 Obama voters want to eliminate the Federal Government, as do 6% of McCain voters
• 21% of Democrats do not think or are not sure if Obama was born in the US
• 11% of Republicans think Bush knew of the 911 attacks in advance
• 6% of Democrats want to eliminate the Federal Government, and only 5% of Republicans
• 50% of African-Americans think Bush knew of the 911 attacks in advance
• More Hispanics and African-Americans said they want to eliminate the Federal Government than Whites

My conclusion would be that one should be wary of using automated phone polling for controversial statements. People are far more willing to push a digit on a phone for something they do not believe, than actually tell an actual human being the same thing.

One of the issues discussed in reviewing MMP, is whether or not the current 5% threshold should be reduced or even eliminated. I thought it would be interesting to look at what the results of the five MMP elections would have been, if there was no threshold, or it was reduced.

In 1996, having no threshold would have seen the Christian Coalition gain five seats and the Legalise Cannabis Party two seats.

A threshold of 2%, 3% or 4% would all see Christian Coalition gain seats, but not the ALCP.

This would have changed the Government. National and NZ First formed a Government with 61 seats out of 120. With no threshold they would only have 58 seats and would need three more seats to govern.

This would mean either a formal confidence and supply agreement with ACT would have been necessary (and would ACT have supported a Government with Winston in it) or more likely with the Christian Coalition.

In theory one could also govern with both the ALCP and United, but as United is very anti drug liberalisation, this is highly unlikely.

The 1999 election would have seen three more parties gain seats with no threshold. Christian Heritage gets three, ALCP one, and Future NZ one.

The Government formed was Labour/Alliance with support from the Greens. That combination would not have changed, reducing from 66 seats to 63.

No threshold for the 2002 election would have seen four extra parties in Parliament. Christian Heritage, the Alliance, Outdoor Recreation would have got two seats each and ALCP one.

This would have changed the Government. There was a Labour/Progressive Government with support from United Future that came to 62 seats. With no threshold it would be 59 seats.

Labour at 49 seats would need an extra 12 to govern. The simplest combination would be for them to have gone in with Winston who had 12 MPs. If he was ruled out, then a Greens, Progressive and Alliance combo on the left would be possible but unstable. To stay with the relatively centrist United Future would be difficult as even with Progressive and Outdoor Recreation they would be one seat short.

Less change in 2005. No threshold would have seen Bishop Tamaki get a pet Destiny MP, but the four party governing combination would still have had a slim majority.

No threshold in 2008 would have seen Winston and followers retain five seats, the Kiwi Party get one seat and the Ben & Bill Party get one seat.

The four party combination would still be able to govern with 65 seats instead of 69. However the Maori Party did not choose National over Labour. It was National or nothing.

The natural CR grouping of National, ACT and United Future has only 60 seats out of 122. You need 62 to govern so even one seat from the Kiwi Party would not be enough at 61.

Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori Party and Progressive would total 60 seats.

So the Ben & Bill Party would have held a potential balance of power. They could either go with the centre-right or force a new election due to a hung Parliament.

I doubt many New Zealanders would back abolishing the threshold. Personally I support going to a 4% threshold which is what the Royal Commission recommended.

UPDATE: Chris Bishop has sent me a copy of a paper he did for his an LLB Hons class on the 5% threshold, titled Representation vs Stability. A copy is here – The 5 Percent Threshold in MMP – Representation v Stability. Note the paper was written in an academic and private capacity.

One amusing thing I noted from it, is that ACT was the only party that voted in 2000, when MMP was reviewed, to abolish the electorate waiver. If the electorate waiver had been abolished, they would have lost representation in 2005 and 2008.

After presenting arguments for and against a threshold, Chris concludes that the principled arguments for representation outweigh the pragmatic arguments for stability. I disagree. Chris said:

Concerns about “instability” are over-stated. By definition, minor parties in Parliament with few seats have as much as power as they do seats (in other words, not very much). The New Zealand electorate does not tolerate minor parties attempting to exercise disproportionate power over major parties.

There are two arguments against this. The first is that Chris sees power too literally as merely votes in Parliament. It is a well documented reality that a minor party able to play major parties off against each other can gain power well beyond their voting strength. They can gain a veto on any controversial legislation, due to the adversarial nature of our Parliament where the main opposition party will not help the Government out often.

The other weakness in the argument is the assertion that the electorate does not tolerate minor parties exercising disproportionate power. This overlooks that very very small parties do not have to care about most of the electorate. So long as they can use (for example) fear and hatred to whip up enough resentment so 1% of the country votes for them, they don’t have to worry too much about the fact 95% of the electorate hates them. So long as they keep their 1% happy, they can be as unreasonable as they want to be if they hold the balance of power.

In light of the Government’s fibre to the home proposal, there seem to be three distinct paths forward for Telecom. They are:

Structural Separation

If Chorus is sold off, then Chorus would be in a very strong position to effectively gain most of the $1.5 billion on offer, by partnering with the Government to set up many of the regional fibre companies – or even one national fibre company.

The likely sucess in gaining most of the $1.5 billion would increase the value Telecom would get by selling Chorus. Also Telecom might not have to sell all its shareholding in Chorus – it could, I beleive, still retain a minority stake as an investment.

This would leave Telecom with its wholesale and retail arms. They would probably immediately have most of the current obligations imposed on them, such as equivalence, dropped.

With much reduced capital expenditure needs, and a cash inflow from the sale, Telecom should be in a position to increase the dividends it pays.

The downside will the inability to leverage the advantages of also owning the existing infrastructure. They’ll be paying an outside company to utilise their lines – the same as everyone currently has to do to Telecom. They will also be more at the whim of the market. If they lose market share to competitors, they won’t have the compensation of the fact the competitors are still paying them access fees.

Infrastructure companies tend to be safer, but have lower dividend returns. Competitive companies are a more risky investment, but can produce higher returns.

Participate as a minority partner

If Telecom do not structurally separate, then they are deemed a “partner” that owns a retail operation. This does not preclude them in any way from full participation in one or more local fibre companies (or even to still propose they be a partner in a national fibre company).

The key restriction is that will not have the right to appoint a majority of Directors to the Board of the LFC, and the Chair of the LFC Board must be agreed unanimously by all shareholders.

I’m not sure how important control of the Board of an LFC will be to Telecom. The initial partnership agreement with CFH setting out terms of investment and how extensive a fibre build will be is arguably the more important factor.

It is quite possible Telecom could decide to participate and invest in one or more LFCs. This will also help protect their investment in current legacy assets.

Do not participate

The third option is for Telecom not to bid to be a partner for any LFCs, or they do bid and are unsuccessful.

If this is the path chosen, then Telecom will be in a fairly strong position to ask for some of the current requirements imposed by operational separation to be removed. There would be issues over timing, of course.

It is likely Telecom would not undertake any more major infrastructure investment (such as further cabinetisation or further upgrades to VDSL2) beyond their current commitment of $1.4 billion. This would save them money in the short term, and in the long term they would become a customer of the LFCs for their higher speed products.

Telecom could do quite well relieved of the need to keep rolling out faster and nearer infrastructure. For many of their customers, the current speeds will be adequate for some time.

It is possible that they might keep up an aggressive investment programme to try and compete with the local fibre companies, and even drive them out of business. That would be a very ballsy call though, considering the firm policy of both major political parties is that the future fibre infrastructure must be open access and not part of a vertically integrated monopoly.

Telecom’s decision is going to be one of those really big ones – on much the same scale as which mobile phone technology to go with. The wrong call can cost a lot of money. The senior staff and board have an unenviable task looking at their company, considering its strengths and weaknesses, and deciding on the best path forward.

I attended most of the Forum on the Family Conference on Friday, in Auckland, as I was speaking in the afternoon on blogging and social media.

A few amusing anecdotes from the conference. Chatting to an MP at morning tea with Madeleine Flannagan, who introduced herself as the author of the No 1 Christian Blog in New Zealand. I quipped that must make me the author of the No 1 hedonistic blog

There were speeches from both the Children’s Commissioner, and one of the Families Commissioners. Both were well received – better so than a year ago I suspect!

The afternoon session I found the most interesting as you had Phil Goff speaking, then another speaker, and then John Key. It was the first time I had seen Goff and Key speak in the same place.

I have to say I think Phil Goff spoke very well. It was not the most naturally friendly audience, and he generally handled himself skilfully. I’d partly forgotten how competent he is, due to a couple of errors of judgement since becoming Opposition Leader. He was a very safe pair of hands as Foreign and Trade Minister, and was also a pretty good Minister in the 1980s.

In fact the thought that came to mind, watching him, was that if he does become Prime Minister one day (which I think is unlikely) he will be a fairly competent one. I don’t mean I’ll at all like his policies, but he would be up to the job (something Lange sadly was not).

Goff handled the numerous questions on the anti-smacking law quite well, and also got quite ballsy with a couple of questions. He said he wished people would get as worked up about child abuse as they do about how to spell Wanganui. But most ballsy was in response to a request to have an independent appeal board against CYFS decisions. Goff said CYFS, while not perfect, is not the problem in New Zealand. It is the families who abuse and kill their kids, or allow it to happen.

So overall a good performance from Goff, and he gets kudos for accepting the invite. But, and there is always a but, the rating would be even higher if he had not been followed by John Key.

While Goff delivered a prepared speech well, Key spoke pretty much off the cuff and managed to engage the audience very effectively. And he got even more vigorous questioning over the anti-smacking law, but really interacted with the questioners. He gave examples, didn’t use sound bites, and I thought really connected. That is not to say people agreed with his answers, but it was a impressive performance. The example he gave was captured by the Herald:

Responding to another question from Mary Paki of Otara, he quoted a school principal in his electorate who told the parents of a Samoan boy in his school report that the boy needed to behave better.

He said the boy’s father went to the principal’s office the next morning and told her: “You don’t tell me how to discipline my child.”

To reinforce the point, the father brought the boy back later and asked him to lift his shirt to show “welt marks and blood running down the kid’s back”.

“That has got absolutely nothing to do with section 59 [the parental discipline law] except to say that we have to send a message through some communities that actually there is a big, big difference between a light smack and violence,” Mr Key said.

“That is why the Maori Party got on the phone [after the referendum] and begged me not to change the law.”

I’m not a fan of the law, and support the Boscawen Bill. But I’ve been waiting a couple of years for someone to make the argument that Key did – that some people or communities do not know the difference between an acceptable light smack and violence. This is one of the few arguments for the Section 59 repeal that I think had merit. It had to be balanced against the greater uncertainty it would give good parents under the law.

Ironically though that argument worked best for Bradford’s original bill – to simply repeal Section 59. That would have had the virtue of simplicity and would have meant a clear message could be sent. But the version of the law that got passed is far from simple. It in fact still allows an undefined level of reasonable force in numerous circumstances.

A couple of other people I spoke to said much the same as what I thought. They were impressed with Goff’s speech, but then were slightly less impressed after Key’s speech.

I’ve seen Key speak a few times now, and then do Q&A. He has a rare ability to really engage with the questioner, and basically comes over as someone who talks with you, not at you.

My own presentation seemed to go down well. In a fit of good timing, I was able to talk about the ACORN scandal in the US as a great example of how the Internet has empowered individuals to make a difference. 20 year old Hannah Giles, and one other, managed to basically destroy ACORN by capturing on video the widespread condoning of illegal activities such as under-age prostitution.

The Washington Times editorial made a good point:

Do you think your tax dollars should be used to help those who want to open a house of prostitution and illegally bring underage girls into the United States as “sex workers”? As you may have seen on television over the last few days, the taxpayer-funded ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has been doing just that.

Who exposed this latest bit of corruption at ACORN? — The FBI? The local police? A congressional investigating committee? The mainstream media? No, no, no, no. It was a 20-year-old-girl named Hannah Giles and a 25-year-old law student and investigative journalist named James O’Keefe.

The results of their expose has been ACORN has been dumped by the Census Bureau and the Senate voted 83-7 to stop funding them and the House voted 345-75 to do the same.

The Times reports:

South Africa’s sports ministry today called for the sacking of the country’s top athletics administrator after he admitted that he lied about two gender tests carried out on Caster Semenya.

Semenya, 18, won the women’s 800 metres final a month ago at the world athletics championships in Germany, but questions were immediately asked about her husky voice, muscular frame and other apparent male characteristics.

South Africa’s outrage, which until Saturday had been directed at the foreign media for daring to question whether Semenya’s gold medal had been won legitimately, today swivelled heavily towards Leonard Chuene, president of Athletics South Africa. …

Mr Chuene admitted that he had ignored the advice of ASA team doctor Harold Adams to pull Semenya from her event before Berlin. He also made the extraordinary allegation that he met with IAAF commissioners before Semanya’s world championship gold medal run and that they had suggested to him that she fake an injury to withdraw from the race and thus avoid all the worldwide publicity that would inevitably follow if she won. …

“It is slowly emerging that she has been abused, deceived and shamefully exploited. She was sent to race by men and women who knew that serious questions were being asked and probably could not be satisfactorily answered, but whose lust for gold trumped any concern for her well-being.

This is the tragedy. The 18 year old has had to face global humiliation, which could have been avoided if the South African officials has not done a cover up.

Cheune’s labelling of media scrutiny as racist is exposed as a deplorable playing of the race card to cover up his own lies and manipulation.

Several readers have alerted me to a Google warning about possible malware on Kiwiblog. I have had the same warning myself.

I have asked my ISP to check things out. It is possible that we have been reported as unsafe due to another site in the same netblock.

If you think Kiwiblog is safe, and want to turn the warnings off, you can do so under security options. I have done so as it was preventing me from editing comments.

I’ll update as I learn more.

UPDATE: There was some malware through a weakness in the Ajax Comments plugin. It has been upgraded which should prevent a recurrence. Bloody criminals.

The Herald has some details of the deal:

• TiVo is launching in early November.
• Telecom will take an unspecified share of the $899 cost for a set top box and offer its customers free broadband for downloads of movies and unspecified free advertising-funded content.
• It will take no share of TiVo’s income from pay per view movies so income will dry up while it has an ongoing cost for free broadband for TiVo content.
• Telecom says it owes consumers more details of the TiVo offer before they pay $899 for a set top box.
• It would not disfranchise customers, though would not rule out changes.

I think this is a very smart move by Telecom. While I am a very happy MySky customer, I understand TiVo is even more advanced in terms of functionality. And the ability to legally download movies on demand is the future.

Bernard Hickey blogs:

Here’s the problem: local government is growing at least five times faster than the rest of the economy. Those costs are being passed on directly to ratepayers in the form of rates, fees and fines that are growing at least four times faster than prices elsewhere in the economy.

The latest Local Authority Statistics released this week showed council spending nationwide rose 10 per cent to $6.21 billion in the year to June from the previous year.

Total revenues collected rose 6.8 per cent to $6.15 billion, which meant the collective council budget balance slumped into a deficit of $56 million. That will eventually be reflected in higher debt.

To put this growth in spending and rates into context, our economy contracted 1 per cent in the year to March in real terms and was flat in actual terms unadjusted for inflation. So how are all these revenues raised? General rates nationally rose 7.8 per cent to $3.33 billion in the year to June, while water rates rose 10.3 per cent to $263 million. Fees and fines rose 10 per cent to $376.6 million. Meanwhile the Consumer Price Index rose only 1.9 per cent in the year to June.

Generally rates should only increase in line with population growth and inflation in my opinion. When rates are growing faster than overall economic growth, the situation is not sustainable in the long term.

The main interview on Q+A was Education Minister Anne Tolley. I thought Anne did well (as did two of the panelists – the PPTA President obviously not such a fan).

PAUL Let’s talk about that shortly. But 200,000 New Zealanders a year go to night classes to improve themselves. Grown up people – that’s a helluva lot of people to annoy for 13 million dollars.

ANNE Well 124 million dollars will still be spent in adult and community education. What I’ve said is we’re going to focus on literacy, numeracy, language, foundation skills – those courses that will lead on to employment. We’re still in an economic recession, there are people out there, particularly young people, who are the most vulnerable, they are the most likely to lose their jobs and the least ones likely to get jobs.

PAUL Yes, but night classes in schools of course as adults – migrants, refugees adults trying to improve their lot – the strugglers.

ANNE Some of them are, some of them are hobby courses courses like belly dancing, ukulele playing. We’ve got courses like pilates and yoga – I’ve attended those classes myself. The average age of people attending those night classes is about 46. What we’re saying I had a half billion debt from the previous government to find in tertiary education what we’re saying is we’re going to put those tax dollars into supporting our young people through the recession.

PAUL I understand. Go to those classes again, Minister. Some of those classes might have been questionable – belly dancing, Cook Island drumming, cheese-making, folk art for beginners – but there were also book-keeping basics, English as a second language, learning Mandarin

ANNE Yes, English is important, language classes will remain as I say

I think Labour are deluding themselves that this decision is unpopular. The protesting are mainly the providers. Most of the 200,000 understand we are in a recession.

Recent polls in the UK have found from 70% to 80% of the population support spending cuts to reduce the deficit. I doubt it is much different here. NZ Labour is trying to appeal to 20% to 25% of the population only.

They then had Labour List MP Jacinda Ardern and National Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye on, to talk about how they were finding being MPs. Some extracts:

PAUL Do you get a thrill from that as well from helping?

NIKKI Absolutely. I mean I think my point is that the part I enjoy the most is being in the community and in my electorate actually with my constituents and Ive had some pretty hard cases as well, theyre people whove asked for drugs to be funded and you know that actually theyre not going to be funded.

PAUL Of course, you are both MPs but you are a constituent MP, youve got an electorate (Nikki) and youre a list MP (Jacinda). Does that give you more mana do you think with your senior colleagues that you do have a constituency?

NIKKI I think it was a pretty big win and there are often times when you can talk on an issue and you really know youve got the people behind you in your electorate I think there is something there in that.

PAUL As a list MP, and a young list MP at that, are you made to feel a bit lesser than say a constituency MP?

JACINDA No, not at all I think that part of is that because we accept that this system that uses list MPs, MMP, has made our parliament look more like New Zealand so list MPs are an important part of doing that. Now me personally, I would love to represent a constituency one day

I think Nikki is right that electorate MPs are often in a stronger position as advocates.

Interestingly Jacinda said that she is not ruling out standing in Auckland (in 2008 she stood in her home seat of Waikato), maybe even standing against Phil Twyford for the Auckland Central nomination.

PAUL Is your generation, people of your own age, more likely to have friends across the political divide than say the, are you likely to be less tribal?

NIKKI Well I think Ive built some good relationships on both sides of the house and I think it depends on the politician. I mean, thats the way that I work. I sort of see it as a bit of a sports match, you go in and you fight for what you believe in but then youre able to come off and treat each other with dignity and respect.

JACINDA I would agree with that, I think that that is important. I dont know if tribal is quite the right word , I do believe what I believe strongly, Ive got a really strong values set but I am willing to look at new ideas and new ways of doing things and if that involves the other side then it does. But I still think that there are certain things that I wont compromise on.

Jacinda tended to not reject the ideological label, as much as Nikki did. And that probably reflects the fact Jacinda is more ideological. But I don’t mean that in a bad way. Most successful politicians have a mixture of ideology and pragmatism, and the differences between them are more shades of grey than black or white.

PAUL What are the mistakes? Tell me your one mistake, because you told me a story once about a fellow who came to you with a problem and you did the political spiel and told him what the law was blah blah blah and what did he say to you?

NIKKI He said to me, and you know I think its that whole thing about, theres a whole of politics stuff that happens in Wellington but when you get back to the community people want to know how decisions affect them&.

PAUL&What did he say to you&

NIKKI ..and he said to me you seem like a very nice lady but youve just told me a whole lot of stuff that just means nothing to me and & but we actually ended up going to the pub for a drink and, but what I realised was actually that people just want to know how the decisions are going to affect them, theyre not that interested in the politics.

PAUL Youve got to stay real, is that what youre saying?

NIKKI Thats exactly right.

I thought that was a great example of the difference between people caught up in politics regularly (the beltway) and most New Zealanders who are focused on how decisions affect them, rather than debates about politics.

Frog Blog has written about a site which has around 100 FAQS on scepticism about climate change.

This is an excellent way to deal with an issue. I’m not saying I agree with all the responses, but it is a very effective style to list each claim, and the response to each claim.

Now the responses are not conclusive. For example the response on how Kyoto will only lower temperatures 0.1 degree is pretty weak. Really it is just saying we have to start somewhere. Nowhere is there any analysis that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Likewise the article on China and India not playing their part is weak also. Firstly it is out of date as China is now a bigger emitter than the US. Secondly it only deals with an extreme case of should the US do nothing, because China and India have no targets. That is answering the wrong question. The right question is can one be successful at reducing overall emissions without China and India. The answer is probably no.

But the overall format is good. What would be good is to have another site that responds to some or all of the articles on the Grist site. Debate is good.

Whale Oil has a useful new feature called Tenderwatch.

His latest find is one from SPARC asking people to tender to develop a report on the value of sport and recreation.

Whale believes that SPARC should be able to produce such a report themselves.

I wonder why we need such a report at all.

I mean we all know what it will say. That if people play more sport and exercise more, this will be good for the NZ economy due to spending on sporting events, reduced health costs etc etc.

Every sector in NZ commissions reports like that to “prove” how valuable they are.

Now I don’t mind private bodies commissioning such research. For example it is quite appropriate for the NZRFU to commission research on the economic value of hosting the Rugby World Cup, to persuade the Government to contribute towards it.

But SPARC is a government agency. It appears to be using taxpayer money to commission research to say the Government should give even more money to SPARC. We may be paying to lobby ourselves.

Bryce Edwards continues his excellent summaries of chapters on the 2008 election campaign, with one on NZ First.

Also people will be interested in a draft of an article on how the Electoral Finance Act impacted on third parties last year.

Michael has avoided the “h” issue in his SST column and insteads talks welfare:

LAST week 70 NGOs – mostly voluntary and welfare agencies – met in Auckland to declare war on child poverty. But not in the Cameroon nor Colombia, Niue nor Nicaragua.

In good old New Zealand.

According to their later communique, chaired by Barnardo’s chief executive Murray Edridge, more than 220,000 Kiwi kids live in direct poverty as a result of their parents being dependent upon a welfare benefit. And because the value of a benefit “is way below the poverty level”, the NGO summit demanded an immediate increase, plus tertiary training incentives, and the provision of breakfast in all decile 1 and 2 schools.

The best thing is for a parent to move off the welfare benefit and into the workforce. New Zealand has a huge fiscal deficit and the notion that we can afford to pay people more money to not work is madness. We need more people in work.

“We want our kids to be barristers, not baristas!” declared chairwoman Ani Pitman. They didn’t want them doing “menial jobs”.

All that is wrong with New Zealand, the welfare system and NGOs was probably summarised in that last point. Better to be on the dole than in a menial job. Better being a criminal defender than a skilled worker. And if none of these options are immediately at hand then just give us more money.

Almost any job will make you better off than being on welfare. And not just about the money. I’ve worked as a cleaner to earn $1.99 an hour.

This calculated and continuing attack on the taxpaying workers of this country demands reply, not simply to respond to the silly sophistry of this latest gimme summit, but because it refuses to address the real cause of all child deprivation in this country: their parents.

There is not one child in this country who should be going to school without breakfast. If there is, then that is a mandatory call to CYF. Clearly, the parent or parents are unworthy of the name.

Similarly, if the welfare benefit is not enough to house, feed and clothe your kiddies then there are two possibilities. First, the parents in the equation are smoking, drinking, gambling or huffing the taxpayer money intended for their children. Or, second, that their boyfriends are. Either way, it is testimony of child abuse and neglect, not child poverty.

Laws over-generalises here, but his point is basically sound. There are times when a family does get hit with an exceptionally large one expense such as a medical or dental bill. However there are grants and loans from WINZ to cover such situations. The welfare system does not give a life of luxury, but it is certainly enough for the vast majority of families on it to give their kids breakfast. Breakfast does not cost a lot. it is about priorities.

Except for those permanently incapacitated by injury or mental illness, the welfare benefit is a bridge. From independence to independence, not from sob story to lifestyle. That the summit NGOs don’t get this is the reason why NGOs exist: to create a need and then to amplify it.

And for those permanently incapacitated, I don’t think we do enough.

Yes, it’s true that New Zealand has more unskilled labour than we have jobs. But even those unskilled and I use my council’s litter and graffiti teams as an example perform valuable community service. They are probably of greater value to my city than the entire legal fraternity. But, according to the summit, these are unworthy and menial occupations.

Heh. Poor lawyers. Always picked on.

This country’s welfare system does not deliver poverty. Rather it rescues people from it. It is generous on any international scale and probably to a fault. And it is neither the cause nor the solution of our country’s underprivileged, undernourished and underloved children.

That exclusive responsibility rests with the people who brought them into the world, and the people responsible for their ongoing “care”. This country has too many crap parents. End of story. Until we start facing that reality, we will continue to blight the lives of those we most profess to care for.

Hard to disagree with that conclusion, even though I am sure many will try.

The SST reports:

Attorney-General Chris Finlayson has made a scathing attack on lawyers, saying he wants “incompetent” members of the profession to foot the bill for unjustified costs if they string out court cases.

Technically that is a scathing attack on incompetent lawyers, not all lawyers.

Finlayson, the country’s chief law officer and the government’s main legal adviser, said the community had tolerated for too long the gamesmanship of lawyers, to the detriment of clients, the courts and justice.

He is considering giving judges the power to impose financial penalties on bungling lawyers who waste time and create unwarranted court costs. Finlayson believes this was needed to compel lawyers to act in the interests of a “just, speedy and inexpensive” justice system.

Wow that will be as popular amongst some lawyers as pork at a Bar Mitzvah.

In a speech to the New Zealand Bar Association on September 12, Finlayson said most legal education courses in New Zealand were considered a joke and the time had come to lift standards. The audience of lawyers, at Wellington’s Holiday Inn, greeted with audible gasps his more frank comments.

Chris does not mince his words.

Finlayson said the courts were clogged because “the overall standard of the bar, and particularly the criminal bar, is not high enough in New Zealand”.

“Too many lawyers practising at the bar are incompetent, or worse, and there is no proper means of assessing their competence or requiring them to be properly educated.

“We’re breeding a class of barristers who don’t even know how to address the court, much less know how to cross-examine, write submissions and act in a professional manner.”

Finlayson said he wanted to change court rules to ensure lawyers did not use the “discovery” of documents and evidence to go on fishing expeditions and delay cases. He believes giving judges the power to order a lawyer to pay costs will ensure professional standards were upheld. He will consult the legal fraternity before taking a submission to cabinet, but he supports “some way where an associate judge or judge can impose a modest cost order on lawyers for wasting time and imposing unnecessary cost”.

Well I think the Judges will like it!

Finlayson said it was a tragedy some lawyers were letting down the entire profession. “Not only are they [lawyers] incapable of doing pro bono work, being law reformers and teachers, they can’t even get the basics right.

“We have tolerated them too long. Something needs to change. We cannot, as a profession, tolerate those who, whether wilfully or not, undermine the system and cannot co-operate in the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of proceedings. If litigation, both civil and criminal, has reached a crisis point in this country, it is at least partly because some in our ranks are simply not up to the job. Either they shape up or ship out.”

If Chris succeeds in implementing that in the legal profession, then I reckon we make him Minister of Education after that to do the same with the teaching profession!

High-profile criminal lawyer and QC Robert Lithgow said Finlayson was trying to boss lawyers around and that allowing judges to order lawyers to pay costs was itself a waste. “The parties and the lawyers will be arguing the fines and the `telling off’ when they should be focused on the real court case. You can’t impose penalties on someone without an appeal process.”

I suspect the extra time taken up by fines and appeals against fines, would be small compared to the reduction in delays due to this new incentive. It is all about having the right incentives in place.

John Marshall, QC, president of the New Zealand Law Society, representing 10,700 lawyers, said the society was developing a competency assurance programme, which was likely to include senior lawyers mentoring juniors.

As well as more training, from January 1, a barrister would need three years’ experience before practising under their own authority, or “sole”. A barrister now can practise sole immediately after graduating from law school.

Marshall said the issue of ordering lawyers to pay costs would be discussed when the law society next meets Finlayson in about 10 days, but it would affect only a small number of lawyers.

Interesting changes.

In the Sunday News we read:

A TVNZ in-house legal adviser helped shape the confidentiality agreement between Tony Veitch and ex-girlfriend Kristin Dunne-Powell over what was later publicly revealed as a domestic violence incident, a source close to the case has revealed.

When the scandal broke in July last year, TVNZ said they told Veitch it was a private matter for him and they would help him fi nd his own lawyer.

But Sunday News has been told the state-owned network’s legal adviser Helen Wild was involved in framing the agreement “on behalf of TVNZ’’, working alongside Veitch’s lawyers to “finalise the best possible terms for Tony’’.

The source said Wild met the then-sports presenter’s lawyers Richard Burrell and Willie Akel in the days leading up to the signing of Veitch’s $150,000 payout, and offered them written advice on the agreement’s wording.

Yet in the Herald on Sunday we read:

TVNZ is fuming over reports questioning some of its executives’ roles in the Tony Veitch saga and has reiterated its full confidence in them and chief executive Rick Ellis.

A report in another publication this week raised allegations that suggested TVNZ executives may have originally been more fully aware of the Veitch assault allegations than publicly acknowledged.

This included an allegation that Veitch signed the Kristin Dunne-Powell confidentiality agreement in a second-floor TVNZ office – well before the case ever became public – and that this took place in front of company representatives.

Last night TVNZ spokeswoman Megan Richards said the confidentiality agreement was not signed in the TVNZ lawyer’s second-floor office. “Nobody at TVNZ had any part in the negotiations concerning the confidentiality agreement.”

So how do you reconcile that? Let’s go back to the Sunday News article:

TVNZ spokeswoman Megan Richards said yesterday: “Nobody at TVNZ was involved in any of the negotiations between them (Veitch and Dunne-Powell).

“The only statements we made at the time remain true, accurate and very careful statements of TVNZ’s understanding at the time.”

My reading of this is TVNZ is using near Clintonian definitions to cover up. They are interpreting negotiations as being only between Veitch and Dunne-Powell’s teams.

But if a TVNZ lawyer was sitting in the back room advising the Veitch team as to what to agree to, then that means they are effectively part of the negotiations – just behind the scenes.

TVNZ’s denial is missing the point. The public don’t care about the difference between advising the negotiating team and being part of it. The core issue is were TVNZ staff involved in the confidentially agreement in any way, despite the public statements it was a private matter for Veitch and did not involve his employer.

The HoS reports:

Alcohol watchdogs are calling on the Government to fast-track drink-drive reforms after a Herald on Sunday test showed adults could consume almost a six-pack of beer and still beat the breathalyser. …

Two adults – one male and one female – drank several bottles of beer and still tested under the limit during a controlled test at Pukekohe Park.

However, instructors rated their driving after having the drinks as “very aggressive” and “not safe”.

This is such a beatup.

First of all they do not tell us how many bottles or cans were consumed, how big the bottles were, what strength the beer was, over what time period was it consumed, was there food also, and how big or small the people were.

One can not make any sort of meaningful conclusion without that information.

The crash statistics show that most fatal accidents involving alcohol, had the driver at around three times the legal limit. These are the people that should be targetted, rather than hundreds and thousands of law abiding New Zealanders.

On average only one fatal crash every six months has the driver with a blood alcohol limit of between 50 and 80. Lowering the limit will do very very little to lower the road toll in my opinion, but will result in many more people being prosecuted.

UPDATE: I’ve been told the print edition of the HoS has much more info, spread over three pages, and this covers many of my criticisms about the test. I’ll go buy a copy later today.

Had to laugh reading a recent Q&A transcript:

PAUL:  But what is he doing?   Is he handing the Progressives to Labour, is that what he’s doing?

MIKE:  There’s nothing to hand across – except this.  There’ll be 38 activists who’ll want to go on the party list, who’ll want jobs in head office, in the leader’s office and they represent frequently the most unpleasant and the most unattractive side of the left.  And they will burrow in – they’re the chardonnay socialists who use the word mate because they think workers use it, and then they go to their vineyards and call each other furtively “comrade”.   They are not pleasant and they are not votable.

It will be interesting to see how many Progressive activists get places on the Labour List. In the meantime Jim keeps claiming extra salary and funding by pretending to be a party leader.

I doubt the SPD in Germany appreciate this implicit endorsement:

AL-Qaeda has warned Germans to change their government in the September 27 election, saying they will face a “bad awakening” if they do not, according to two intelligence monitoring services.

Germany was also told to withdraw its 4200 troops from Afghanistan or face being attacked at home, the US-based groups said.

In video footage a man identified as Abu Talha the German, and speaking in German, says that if Chancellor Angela Merkel is re-elected, “bitter times await the Germans,” according to IntelCenter and the SITE Intelligence Group. …

He appears to suggest that if German voters do not heed his warnings, Al-Qaeda will act within a fortnight.

The SDP candidate for Chancellor is actually the Foreign Minister in the grand coalition Government, so I doubt there will be a huge change either way.

Labour proposed amendments requiring the new Auckland Council to have a Pacific Advisory Board and an Asian Advisory Board.

Personally I think it is weird that Labour wants to dictate to the Auckland Council how it consults with ethnic communities, as if it doesn’t trust Aucklanders to be able to work this stuff out for themselves.

But my question is why they have only sought to legislate for a Pacific advisory board and an Asian advisory board? Why have they not championed a South African advisory board? New Zealand has 42,000 residents born in South Africa, and it is well known many of them live in Auckland. More New Zealanders were born in South Africa than in Tonga, Fiji, Korea, and the Cook Islands.

So why is Labour not fighting for South Africans in Auckland to have an advisory board? Is it just they have not reached a certain population threshold? Will they try and introduce a law to create such a board when their population does reach a certain threshold?

Or maybe they could just trust the new Auckland Council to work out how it liaises and consults with the many ethnic communities of Auckland. You see without Phil Twyford telling them how to do their job, they might decide to do things differently. They might realise Indians and Japanese don’t always like being lumped in together, and create separate boards for each. Or they might decide you don’t needs boards at all, and just need regular meetings between Councillors and ethnic community groups. Or they may organise a couple of forums a year open to all such groups.