Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Former Labour Prime Minister Mike Moore will be named today as NZ’s next US Ambassador.

Moore – who is also a former Director-General of the World Trade Organisation – was nominated by Foreign Minister Murray McCully for the top job.

He will be the second former Prime Minister to hold the role. Former PM Jim Bolger was seconded to Washington by Jenny Shipley after she ousted him as National’s leader.

This is a smart move. As a former WTO Director-General Moore has significant status, which counts in DC.

And with the slow progress towards a possible FTA, his skills and experience will be useful.

I wonder if Helen will congratulate him on his new job!

A very thoughtful piece from John Banks in the Herald:

Local boards must have the power, the influence, responsibilities and the budget to meet the needs of their residents and ratepayers.

The guiding principle of the council I would be privileged to lead at the end of this year is that local boards should be the people to deal with issues that relate to their local community.

This means Greater Auckland councillors can concentrate on the “big picture” while local boards keep their ear to the ground and look after the needs of their suburbs and neighbourhoods.

The subsidiarity principle – decisions should be made at the most local level possible.

For example, while listening to people’s concerns I have heard loud and clear that some communities are worried about the impact of off-licence liquor outlets. We need to give your local board the ability to decide liquor policy for your area.

If people in Manukau are worried there are too many corner booze shops, then the local boards should have the power to decide numbers and liquor licence applications.

If, say, Glenfield wants more wine shops or licensed cafes then, again, it’s the local board there that should decide.

I think that is good example. There shouldn’t be a nation-wide policy, or even an Auckland-wide policy on liquor licences. It should be a local decision.

Currently Auckland City community boards get money for local improvements (called Slips) that fund playgrounds, tree planting, public artworks and other projects that the boards choose to do. Those community boards also have modest discretionary budgets that let them fund community activities, charities and public events in their areas.

We need to expand on this system, the new local boards need bigger Slips and discretionary funding, so that spending in your neighbourhood is decided at the grassroots, not at the town hall on Queen St.

The local boards will need the authority and the budget to service the needs of their communities. A great example of this is where local boards in South Auckland have a policy of free entry to ratepayer-funded swimming pools. Elsewhere councils provide partially funded entry to pools.

It should be the local board that decides whether the pools are free or not. The Greater Auckland Council should establish a baseline subsidy as part of providing fair and equitable services across the region, and then the local boards should decide whether or not they top up the subsidy from their own discretionary budgets or spend that money on other priorities.

The whole city should not fund free pools in one area and not in others. Why should a retired ratepayer in Orewa pay for free pools in Manurewa when they can’t access them, even if they wanted to?

This is an important principle. The local community boards will have the ability to ask for a targeted rate if they want to provide extra facilities or services. And that is how they should be funded. You shouldn’t indeed have ratepayers in Orewa pay for free swimming pools in Manurewa.

Ratepayers will need to know who is seeking your money, for what purpose, how much and why. The local boards will need to be accountable and communicate directly with you through local papers and dedicated local board website pages.

I am talking about real grassroots democracy when it comes to how your rates are spent at a local level.

It is vital the Auckland Council staff support your local boards becoming a success.

That is why I want the performance of the new council’s chief executive to be assessed on his or her ability to deliver on local board satisfaction and effectiveness.

Satisfaction with the local boards will be a key success factor, so I like the idea of making them part of the CE’s performance agreement.

Cactus Kate has been doing homework:

I am STILL laughing that Chris “Koru Club” Carter of all people has been deported to St Kitts and Nevis for 10 days. For different reasons than most as I’ve spent a decent chunk of time on the Islands and with its current and former politicians during my time in the Caribbean.

Chris Carter is bragging that he’s going there to assist the elections. I must assist Koru Club in a sensible decision to cancel the trip immediately for his own safety. The safety ironically that he puts in danger by being so open and honest about his sexual orientation.

Has the man done ANY research on the place? Someone has a refined sense of humour sending him there that’s for sure. …

Male on male homosexuality is illegal there. Global Gayz website actually warns homosexual people against travelling there because of the laws.

The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) corroborates this information in its May 2008 report on state-sponsored homophobia and refers to sections of the Saint Kitts and Nevis “Offences Against the Person Act”:

Section 56

“The abominable crime of buggery” – up to 10 years imprisonment, with or without hard labour.

Oh dear. At least Chris will be safe in New York when he catches up with Helen. I’ve done some further research, and it seems the discrimination is still active.  Just a few years ago:

In March passengers on a gay cruise from Miami were barred from disembarking on Nevis, part of St. Kitts-Nevis, where a port official, according to the ship’s captain, told them gays were a threat to “national security.” Partly in response to those incidents, the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association, based in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., has started a campaign to “buy-cott” certain spots—encouraging gay tourists to direct their dollars only to gay-friendly destinations.

And the Flight Centre warns:

Nudity is not allowed on beaches and beachwear should not be worn in the towns or villages. It is an offense to wear camouflage clothing. Homosexuality is illegal.

So what do they have against camouflage clothing?

The Herald reports:

National and Act have agreed to pass a three-strikes law under which some killers will be locked away in prison without any chance of release.

Once an offender is convicted of a third serious offence, the judge will have to impose the maximum sentence for the crime.

For murder and manslaughter, the maximum is life imprisonment.

Murderers will actually face life without parole on their second strike – if convicted of murder. The second strike is the normal sentence with no parole. However the only sentence for murder is life. So if a murderer has one previous convictions for a serious violent or sexual offence, then they will get life with no parole (if both offences occur after this law has been passed).

Labour says the move is a gimmick that falls well short of what National was promising before the last election.

Labour, as usual, is wrong. National did not promise three strikes at all. This policy goes well beyond what National promised. It is a pretty major victory for ACT.

Crimes committed before the law is passed will not be covered, so it may be about eight to 10 years before the first offender is sentenced under the three-strikes law.

I think it is right, not to have the law apply retrospectively. But this is why it will take some time to have a full impact. But it may not be as long as the Herald says, as someone can get a first strike if convicted of indecent assault, even if not sentenced to prison. So they could end up on their second strike very quickly.

It is also worth noting that the original bill also allows a Judge to sentence, at their discretion, a murderer to life without parole regardless of strikes. So a Weatherston type murder can attract a life with no parole sentence, even though he he no previous offending.

Stuff reports:

The Maori Party says it is appalled by the Government’s proposals for a “three strikes” sentencing policy, which would see repeat violent offenders who kill spend the rest of their life in prison.

Not surprised, but they don’t get a veto.

I don’t normally report results of NZ Herald web polls, as they are unscientific. But it is still notable that a staggering 96% of respondents are backing maximum penalties on the third strike. This will be a very popular law, and I will be fascinated as to whether or not Phil Goff can convince his Caucus to vote for it.

Just got this e-mail:

Hello,

I’m interested in placing a promotional link on your page: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/kiwisaver_teething_problems.html.

The link would be for a website which offers cosmetic dentist New York.

I don’t have the biggest budget, but hopefully there is a reasonable price we could arrange.

Please let me know if you’re interested, and if not thanks for your time.

Thanks!

Kim Sommers
Better Link Advertising
1-800-764-8130

God I hate spammers!

John Key, Rodney Hide and Judith Collins have just announced an agreement to implement a version of ACT’s three strikes policy.

They key difference is that the third strike is not life without parole (unless the strike is for a homicide), but for the maximum sentence (without parole) for that offence. So if the third strike is an indecent assault, they get seven years (the maximum), not life.

This compromise is very sensible, and in fact near identical to what I proposed back in March 2009. Great minds think alike

The three strikes regime will only apply to serious offences, which generally are violent or sexual offences carrying a maximum sentence of at least seven years. The three strikes will be:

1. Judge decides term of imprisonment, and Parole Board can let out early on parole (near automatic at two thirds of a sentence)
2. Judge decides term of imprisonment, but no eligibility for parole
3. Judge has to sentence for maximum term for that offence, with no parole, unless doing so would be manifestly unjust

This will not affect a huge number of criminals, but it will mean the repeat serious violent and sexual offenders will not get released so quickly.

Also the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (currently before the Law & Order Select Committee) allows a Judge (regardless of which strike) to impose a sentence of life without parole on the worst killers – so a Clayton Weatherston (for example) would never be eligible for parole until he was old and infirm. This won’t apply to all murderers – just the very worst ones – the Bells, the Burtons, the Weatherstons.

On a process matter, I’m pleased to see the Government is recommending to the Select Committee that they reopen submissions to allow submitters who previously submitted, to submit on these proposed additions to the Bill. All too often the Government introduces major changes after select committee hearings, and then the public have a limited opportunity to have their say.

As I said, I’m very pleased with the agreement. It is a good win for ACT, and a good policy for the Government. Apart from the fact it will be very popular with the public, it is also the right thing to do – repeat serious offenders should be locked away for longer.

AAP report:

Google has agreed to take down links to a website that promotes racist views of indigenous Australians.

Aboriginal man Steve Hodder-Watt recently discovered the US-based site by searching “Aboriginal and Encyclopedia” in the search engine.

He tried to modify the entry on Encyclopedia Dramatica, a satirical and extremely racist version of Wikipedia, but was blocked from doing so.

Mr Hodder-Watt then undertook legal action, that resulted in Google acknowledging its legal responsibility to remove the offensive site.

Just as I don’t think Google should censor for the Chinese Government, they shouldn’t censor for anyone.

I’m not saying there should be no censorship – but it should occur at the hosting level. It is generally an offence to host material in a country where such material is illegal.

But global search engines should not be bound by national laws. I expect a search engine to tell me what material is available on the Internet.

But upon further investigating, it seems Google has removed links only for google.com.au. I have far less of a problem with that I have to say. Also they have only removed links to the specific page, not the whole site.

But still a slippery slope in my book.

The Dom Post reports:

Union restrictions on professional firefighters attending emergencies as volunteers on their days off is putting lives at risk, fire officers say.

This month the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union sent a tersely worded memo reminding members that joining volunteer stations in their spare time was “completely contrary to union rules”.

And if you refuse to join the union, life will be made very very nasty for you.

But a Wellington firefighter and former volunteer criticised the policy, saying it endangered lives.

Many firefighters who worked in city stations lived in small towns and just wanted to help their community, he said.

Working shifts, they were sometimes available for daytime callouts at understaffed volunteer stations.

“If the truck can’t turn out because they can’t get the numbers to get on it .. someone’s house could be burning down, someone could be trapped inside it.”

The union hates the volunteer stations. They see them as scabs.

Tomorrow Massachusetts votes for a new Senator, and it may be a Republican – a scenario almost unthinkable three months ago.

The last four polls have a lead for Scott Brown of 0% (a tie), 5%, 7% and 10%. They were all taken between 15 and 17 January so are recent.

What do the two main polling sites say. Here’s Nate Silver from FiveThirtyEight:

Under its original assumptions, the model now projects a very slight Brown edge, 49.3-48.7, which maps to a 55 percent chance of winning. Earlier today, it had given Coakley a 57 percent chance of winning. However, because the odds are under 60 percent, we still call this race a “toss-up” per our nomenclature, as we did before.

So Brown marginally more likely to win, but too close to call. Further Silver calculates that if you remove a controversial poll that had Brown 15% ahead, then he calculates Coakley has a 68% chance of victory.

At Pollster, Charles Franklin calculates:

But no matter how you slice the data, the only reasonable conclusion is that Scott Brown has moved from well behind to a lead somewhere between 4 and 11 points.

NZPA report:

Labour MP Chris Carter is to lead a team monitoring general elections in the Caribbean state of St Kitts and Nevis.

Mr Carter said Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma asked him to head the five-person team monitoring the January 25 election.

The last election in 2004 was plagued by allegations of corrupt practices.

The team would spend 10 days in St Kitts and Nevis. It would write a report on the election.

I would have thought Chris would be too busy, helping assess the situation in Haiti.

St Kitts and Nevis has a population of only 40,000 and 11 MPs to elect, so shouldn’t be too hard to monitor.  It is basically the size of a single electorate in New Zealand. By size – I mean population. In a geographic sense, it is tiny – only 100 square miles in area.

To make up for the massive amount of travel every day, to monitor the elections, the climate seems nice. Lonely Planet says:

There’s really no bad time to go to St Kitts and Nevis. The hot Caribbean summer contrasts with cool low-season deals at the resorts.

Winter days average a temperature of 81°F (27°C) while summers shoot up to a still ­respectable 86°F (30°C).

Now of course it is an honour to be chosen by the Commonwealth Secretary-General to spends ten days monitoring elections in the Caribbean. I just have one question. Does the Commonwealth Secretary-General pick monitors at random out of all the MPs in the Commonwealth, or do you like, you know, apply to be chosen?

The Herald reports:

As Prince William prepares to leave New Zealand, a poll of the Herald reader panel shows the 27-year-old in a neck-and-neck race with his father as the popular choice to succeed the Queen.

The survey – taken before the Prince’s three-day tour – found 33.3 per cent wanted Prince Charles to be the next monarch, with 30.2 per cent favouring William. But 29.4 per cent of respondents preferred a republic in the event Queen Elizabeth II died or abdicated.

The poll is a silly one, as the public don’t get any choice in who the next Monarch will be. There is no choice. There is no decision based on merit or suitability. It is based purely on the line of succession.

The Queen has made it clear she will never abdicate, and Charles has made it clear he will become King. So if NZ stays a monarchy, when might we expect Charles and William to become King?

• Queen Elizabeth II is aged 83. She is in excellent health. Her mother got to age 101, despite a rumoured high daily intake of alcohol. So we can assume QEII will make at least 100, so likely to reign until 2026.
• In 2026, Charles may become King at the age of 78. Now his father is currently aged 88 and also looks likely to reach 100, so no reason that Charles wouldn’t also – especially as they get the finest healthcare in the world. So Charles may reign until 2048.
• In 2048 Prince William would finally become King. Not as the charming young man who toured today, but as a 64 year old

This is one of the problems with a monarchy. They reign until they die.

The Dom Post editorial today says:

Green list MP Keith Locke has finally had his Head of State Referenda Bill, which he has waited seven years to have pulled from the members’ ballot, selected for debate by Parliament. It is to be hoped MPs will allow it to reach a select committee, so that those who feel strongly about retaining links with the British monarchy or electing a president as head of state can have their say.

Mr Locke believes strong arguments exist for change, “not least that we are now a confident, independent nation in the South Pacific. Having a head of state in Britain does not match who we are in the 21st century”. Monarchists disagree. They feel respect for Prince William’s granny, a woman who has dedicated her entire life to duty, unlike some of her offspring, and great affection for Charles’ and Diana’s elder son.

Though Parliament last considered our constitutional arrangements via a select committee inquiry only in 2005, it can do no harm to discuss it again.

The select inquiry was very wide ranging. Locke’s bill would allow New Zealanders to submit on what they think the procedure should be to make a decision on monarchy vs republicanism. For ultimately it is a decision for the people, not for politicians. The job of the politicians is to agree on a process to let the people decide.

UPDATE: Hopefully both monarchists and republicans can enjoy Cactus Kate’s letter home to the Queen from Prince William. Very funny.

AP reports:

In a synagogue visit haunted by history, Pope Benedict XVI and Jewish leaders sparred over the record of the World War II-era Pope during the Holocaust and agreed on the need to strengthen Catholic-Jewish relations.

Both sides said the visit to the seat of the oldest Jewish community in the diaspora was an occasion to overcome what Benedict called “every misconception and prejudice”.

Signs of the Jewish community’s tragic history were abundant, as the German-born Benedict stopped at a plaque marking where Roman Jews were rounded up by the Nazis in 1943 and at another marking the slaying of a 2-year-old boy in an attack by Palestinian terrorists on the synagogue in 1982.

Benedict defended his predecessor Pius XII against critics, telling the audience that the Vatican had worked quietly to save Jews from the Nazis during World War II.

Many Jews object to Benedict moving Pius towards sainthood, contending that the wartime Pope didn’t do enough to protect Jews from the Holocaust.

My conclusion is that Pius refused to speak up publicly, as he didn’t want to risk the Nazis and Fascists moving against the Church. Now this doesn’t make him a bad person – it was arguably a reasonable decision for the Pope to make.

But in my lay opinion, it should disqualify him from sainthood. Sainthood should not be bestowed when there is significant doubt.

Of course decisions on Sainthood, are decisions for the Catholic Church alone. But if they proceed, they should not be surprised that many will think less of the Church for such a decision.

The Herald reports:

High-profile blogger Cameron Slater is to launch a new anti-suppression lobby group called Shame.

Slater made the announcement this morning, several hours before he was due back in court for breaching suppression orders.

Shame, which stands for Suppression Helps Abusers Make Excuses, would lobby for a change in suppression laws, he told TV One’s Breakfast.

Slater said he was approached by a number of people, including Wanganui Mayor Michael Laws, to “affect change”.

“There’s a lot of support for my stance,” he said.

“The first day after I appeared in court I had 400 emails, a lot of them from victims as well saying we support your stance, we want to name the people who abuse us.”

You can join SHAME on Facebook.

Jordan Carter has a thoughtful post on what Labour must do to win the next election. Some extracts:

We lost in 2008 for reasons I have canvassed before – people thought we were focused on issues that weren’t important to them; we’d been in office for a long time; there was a recession; people had fallen out of love with our political style; some of our policies were not working out or were unpopular; and failures of political management added on top of this combustible pushed us over the edge.

That’s what we did wrong. The Nats also did things right: they really did move to the centre, and they selected a leader who people like. Actually, they *really* like him – for the time being anyway.

Jordan seems to be one of the few in Labour not in denial about Key.

That’s policy, in some areas, but it is also in the politics or statecraft of the party. For better or worse, the fifth Labour government was a baby boomer government. The political methods of the 70s and 80s were those which ran it: it was tightly managed and focused.

I get the sense though that people are looking now for something a little different. Some in Labour look at Key’s hands off approach and see a weakness. I see a strength. The rise of ICT, the end of “deference” towards authority, and growing generations of people who are as comfortable online as offline mean that a political party that is centralised and top down cannot really capture the public imagination.

These are wise words for National, as well as Labour.

What Labour must do is turn itself inside out. As we say “this is what we are hearing, what do you think?”, we also have to invite people in to join with us and help shape what we are doing next. We have to use the best technology there is to do it, as well as the traditional means of face to face and direct mail politics. We need to be the party that people see as grassroots based, and where they know that if they want to raise an issue or a concern, it will filter through to what our policy is and what our politicians are saying and thinking.

We have to do this if we are to be relevant, and if we want to win there is nothing more important than being relevant.

National in 2002 was not relevant. Labour in 2010 are not relevant. The challenge for Labour is can they become relevant by the end of 2011?

Poneke has done something very few people have done. He has read every single of the 1,000+ Climategate e-mails. He has a lengthy 4,500 word blog post on his findings. Poneke introduces it by saying:

This is the longest and most important article I’ve yet written for this blog and I make no apology for its 4600 words — more also than in any newspaper article. As a journalist, I believe the Climategate emails have exposed one of the most significant news stories of the decade. As the mainstream news media has so far barely gone beyond giving those who wrote them and their supporters time and space to deny their undeniable contents, I present here an extensive journalistic account of what they actually say in the context of the dates and events in which they were written, with full links to all the emails.

Now, for those who don’t know who Poneke is, or his background – he is not just a “blogger”. He has spent at least a couple of decades in journalism, and I think it is fair to say that he was regarded by many as one of the finest investigative journalists we have had. His work on the Peter Ellis case especially was peerless.

Poneke’s conclusions:

Having now read all the Climategate emails, I can conclusively say they demonstrate a level of scientific chicanery of the most appalling kind that deserves the widest possible public exposure.

The emails reveal that the entire global warming debate and the IPCC process is controlled by a small cabal of climate specialists in England and North America. This cabal, who call themselves “the Team,” bully and smear any critics. They control the “peer review” process for research in the field and use their power to prevent contrary research being published.

The Team’s members are the heart of the IPCC process, many of them the lead authors of its reports.

They falsely claim there is a scientific “consensus” that the “science is settled,” by getting lists of scientists to sign petitions claiming there is such a consensus. They have fought for years to conceal the actual shonky data they have used to wrongly claim there has been unprecedented global warming this past 50 years. Their emailed discussions among each other show they have concocted their data by matching analyses of tree rings from around 1000 AD to 1960, then actual temperatures from 1960 to make it look temperatures have shot up alarmingly since then, after the tree rings from 1960 on inconveniently failed to match observed temperatures.

The emails show that some of them at least concede in private that the world was warmer 1000 years ago (in the Medieval Warm Period) than it is today, but the emails also show they had to get rid of the MWP from the records to claim today’s temperatures are unprecedented.

They show Team members becoming alarmed and despondent at global temperatures peaking in 1998, then slowly falling to the present, while publicly trying to hide the fact that there was a peak and now a decline.

Revealingly, they show them even smugly nominating each other for prestigious awards, using factually wrong details in the information sent in nominating letters in support of the awards.

He looks at the peer review process:

AGWarmers parrot the mantra that their view is supported by learned articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and that peer-reviewed contrary views cannot be found. The Climategate emails conclusively show that the Team control the peer-reviewed literature, to the extent they “peer review” each other’s reports, and veto publication of research they do not support, bullying the editors and owners of scientific journals.

Worse, though, is the emails’ revelation that even material they put into the hallowed reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not peer reviewed, and knowingly shabby.

And the “hide the decline” trick:

What this is saying – and no amount of obfuscation can alter the fact – is that a 1000-year “global temperature” chart was created – fabricated – by using tree-ring proxy data from 1000 to 1960, then using actual temperatures from 1961 on, to “hide” the fact that the tree ring proxies showed a “decline” from 1960 onwards. There can not be a more blatant example of using apples and oranges to “prove” a point than this, and they would have got away with it if not for the Climategate whistleblower.

Poneke’s full post is a must read.  It is also the sort of journalism that should be in the mainstream media. Has any daily newspaper assigned a reporter to read all 1,000 e-mails?

The Dom Post editorial:

The never-ending litany of what human beings do to animals every year in this country makes the average person feel sick. But a group of people delights in the thought – and the act – of torturing animals, sometimes someone else’s pet.

If National’s Tauranga MP, Simon Bridges, is lucky, such persecutors will face greater jail time in future. When Parliament resumes, he will put into the members’ ballot a private member’s bill to increase the maximum penalty for wilful ill-treatment of animals from three, to five years’ imprisonment.

His rationale is simple. “A tougher penalty,” he says, “would … be in line with increasingly clear research that those who do serious harm to animals are much more likely to perpetrate family, as well as other violence. In addition, the research shows that psychopathic offenders, often as first offending, demonstrate a propensity for cruelty through abuse of animals”.

Mr Bridges is right. The FBI in the United States has recognised the connection since the 70s, when it analysed the lives of serial killers.

Such individuals have their wiring seriously mucked up. I can understand why people commit most crimes, but can’t understand how anyone can get pleasure from torturing animals.

It is to be hoped Mr Bridges has the luck of the Greens in having his bill chosen from the ballot. Or he might be able to persuade ministerial colleagues whose portfolios touch on the subject – such as Corrections Minister Judith Collins or Agriculture Minister David Carter – to sponsor his measure as a Government Bill. This initiative is overdue and such support would give it heft.

It will be good to see the penalties increased, regardless of how it happens.

The Herald reports:

Sixty-one per cent of people want the minimum wage lifted to $15 an hour, a Herald Summer Survey has found, weeks before the Government is to set the wage for this year.

The minimum wage is now $12.50 an hour, and the Cabinet is expected to decide within a fortnight whether to increase it.

61% probably support a minimum wage of $20 an hour is you asked them.

Trevor Mallard also blogs his support:

Kate Wilkinson would have got a report in October with options for a November Cabinet paper on lifting the minimum wage. In government Labour just about always made a decision before Christmas and there was always an increase effective from 1 April.

Each increase pushed up a relatively small but increasing group directly but a much bigger group indirectly.

I think it is time for the government to commit to $15 an hour from either 1 April this year, or 1 April next year at the latest.

There are a big stack of equity arguements in favour of the change. And it could be a good boost to the increasingly fragile recovery.

Business NZ  would squeal. But most employers know that lifting wage rates encourages investement in capital equipment and training to make their labour force more productive. It is all part of the movement to a high skill, high wage economy.

I am an employer. Trevor is not. In fact as far as I can tell, Trevor’s only jobs have been a teacher, an MP and a unionist. So when Trevor elects himself to speak on behalf of employers, this should be treated with the same degree of credibility as me speaking on behalf of Olympic atheletes.

You do not get to a high skill high wage economy by bankrupting companies that are not high skill and high wage.

At a time of rising unemployment, it would be stupid to have a massive 20% increase in the minimum wage. It would be particular devastating for youth employment. Already we have seen the abolition of the youth minimum wage which has had a devastating impact on youth employment levels.

The simple fact of the matter is that a 15 year old working at a department store (my first significant job) does not produce $15 an hour worth of value. And hell most 15 year olds don’t expect to be earning an hourly wage worth $30,000 a year fulltime. They are living at home, and want to just earn some spending money, and gain some work experience.

A move to $15 an hour would be inflationary also, which would mean higher interest rates, and again fewer jobs and reduced economic growth.

I’m interested in data on how many people actually earn the minimum wage, and how long they stay on the minimum wage for. I suspect most people on the minimum wage do not stay earning at that level for their working life. They gain experience and skills and become more valuable. That is my preferred way to get people off the minimum wage.

Does anyone know of any data about frequency and duration of people earning the minimum wage in NZ?

UPDATE: The survey cited by the Herald is seriously flawed, I can reveal. Not because it was an Internet based survey (even though that by itself makes it fairly self selecting), but because they gave respondents only three options – that the minimum wage should be reduced from $12.50, that it should stay at $12.50 and that it should increase to $15.00.

That is an appalling list of options, as it doesn’t allow people who support a smaller increase (say of 50c to keep pace with inflation) to say so. The Herald has done a disservice to readers by not making clear what the options were, when they report 61% back a rise to $15. That was the only option people were given for a rise.

John Ansell and Kenneth Wang are thinking big. They want to fly the silver fern flag over the Auckland Harbour Bridge on Waitangi Day.

And when I say “fly” and “over” I mean it literally. They want to have a chopper fly it over the bridge. Now of course a normal sized flag is hard to see up in the air, so their flag will be 10,000 square feet in size.

However making and flying a flag costs money – $20,000 in fact. But for those who want to change the flag, it is a great promotion and will get great media attention. So if you are willing to contribute towards the cost, email john@johnansell.co.nz.

And if you have a preference, for which fern design gets flown, if enough money is raised (pledges will be returned if not enough is raised), feel free to comment on John’s blog.

UPDATE:

Who knows what this is?Answer over the page.

(more…)

Rosemary McLeod writes in the SST:

PUT TOO much makeup on a 60-year-old woman and she’ll look like a man in drag. Such is the cruel fate of Irish politician Iris Robinson, a cosmetics queen who condemned gays while secretly bonking a mere slip of a boy. Her close-ups are a worry.

Iris was in “acute psychiatric care” last week after being forced to resign from politics, and quite likely costing husband Peter, First Minister of Northern Ireland, his career. I note this not to rejoice at her hypocrisy exposed, or revel in her distress, but to marvel at the many ingenious ways we make ourselves unhappy.

Eighteen months ago Robinson told the Ulster parliament that, “There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than the sexual abuse of innocent children.” Putting gays on a par with paedophiles naturally enraged the gays, but she was unrepentant. “What I say I base on biblical pronouncements based on God’s word,” she insisted. She is a born-again Christian but why gays would interest her in particular is anybody’s guess.

Whenever we see a “Christian” blathering like this, we know instinctively that personal disaster is on the cards. In this country, for example, there’s former Christian Heritage Party leader Graham Capill, also a former pastor, a former barrister and former police prosecutor, a father of 10 children, currently serving nine years for multiple sex offences, including rape, against three young girls.

Robinson’s hypocrisy was rather blatant. I’m not sure when God told her to sleep with the 19 year old guy, despite being married.

Normally I might point out Robinson is slightly the victim of differing standards. People react far worse to a 60 year old woman sleeping with a 19 year old boy than a 60 year old man with a 19 year old girl.

But then I remember that this woman claimed that consensual homosexual sex is “more” vile than child abuse, and my sympathy dries up.

NZPA reports:

Closing the gap with Australia and stemming the trans-Tasman brain drain is one of the Government’s main long-term aims but Labour leader Phil Goff said the reverse was happening.

“Australian employment figures have soared for the fourth straight month and the jobless rate has fallen to 5.5 percent, a full percentage below New Zealand’s unemployment,” he said.

“For the first time in more than a decade, Australian unemployment levels over the past six months are lower than New Zealand, with Treasury forecasts that New Zealand’s unemployment will continue to grow.”

Now it is true that unemployment is now higher in New Zealand than Australia, and this is not good. Unemployment is a lose-lose. Having able bodied people not working means we don’t achieve as high economic growth as we could, and it is bad fiscally as it means less tax paid, and higher welfare payments.

But unemployment tends to rise when economic growth falls away. Not straight away but normally with a lag of six to 12 months or so. So let us look at economic growth between NZ and Australia.

So why does Australia now have lower unemployment? Because New Zealand went into recession, and Australia did not. And no this was not a post credit crisis recession. New Zealand’s economy started shrinking in the first quarter of 2008, and kept shrinking until the second quarter of 2009.

Now people may be wondering who was responsible for the economy in the first quarter of 2008. Well a Phil Goff was an Associate Minister of Finance. So when Phil wonders why Australia now has lower unemployment than NZ, he doesn’t have to go far to ask how come.