Kiwiblog

“Through the guidance of family and friends he connected with the values of community and altruism at a young age. His commitment to school and sports teams over the years instilled in him an unrelenting hope for unity, observing that so much more can be accomplished when we work together…. speaking on the night of his election he declared that “This time must be different, this time we must take our conversation to more youth than ever before, knowing that we can be shapers of history not just in a few decades, but right now.”

Is this autobiographical quote from:

1. Winston Churchill
2. Keith Holyoake
3. Barack Obama
4. the 18 year old Auckland Chair of the Young Nationals

The ODT reports on the compulsory membership OUSA:

The Otago University Students Association wants broadcast media to sign a censorship contract before attending Ori10 concerts.

The annual orientation event starts tomorrow and upon requesting media passes to cover it, Dunedin’s Channel 9 production manager Luke Chapman received a media release form.

The contract contained clauses banning broadcast of footage “showing severe intoxication . . . including, but not limited to vomiting, concussion, fighting, individuals receiving medical attention, and sexually explicit material”.

Oh how wonderful. Instead of having events with no vomiting, fighting or injuries, OUSA just wants to ban the media from showing such activities.

TV3 reporter Dave Goosselink compared OUSA’s attempts at controlling the media to the Fijian Government.

He had never signed a contract to attend orientation events before and said the station never intentionally chased drunk people.

TV3 had never seen a contract like it and he believed one had never existed in New Zealand.

TVNZ One News editor Paul Patrick said he would not sign a contract.

“If they don’t want us to cover orientation, we won’t,” he said.

When he first saw the contract, he “thought it was a joke”.

And universities are meant to be bastions of free speech!

The Dom Post reports:

Twenty-five years after New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy was debated at the prestigious Oxford Union, our prostitution laws are taking centre stage.

The Prostitutes Collective national co-ordinator, Catherine Healy, will enter the debating chamber in England next week, to argue that prostitution should be legalised.

Squaring off against her will be a top British policeman and a conservative American lobby group.

Incidentally, prostitution was legal in New Zealand before the Prostitution Law Reform Act was passed a few years ago. It was solicitation, not prostitution, that was illegal.

Prostitution is fully legal in only around two dozen countries – Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey, Lebanon, much of South America, and the eastern states of Australia.

John Armstrong writes:

Those arguing John Key’s soaring approval ratings give him licence to live a little dangerously and implement some necessary but unpopular policies are forgetting a few things.

Despite a personal high of 58 per cent as preferred prime minister in last week’s Herald DigiPoll survey, right now Key’s reluctance to run down the vast political capital he has accumulated is understandable.

Implementing the Maori Party’s flagship Whanau Ora programme and settling the foreshore and seabed imbroglio could both end up exploding in his face any time soon.

Add to that volatile combination a less than popular rise in GST. Thursday’s TV3 poll revealed a 74 per cent rejection of an increase in GST from 12.5 to 15 per cent.

This negative sentiment switched dramatically to 45 per cent against and 52 per cent in favour when the rise was compensated by tax cuts.

This is no surprise.

On the same day the TV3 poll was released, Bill English was hosing down expectations that the top tax rate will drop from 38 to 30 per cent.

The finance minister indicated the top rate may fall to 33 per cent, while company tax may be cut from its current 30 per cent, especially if Australia drops its rate below that level.

This seems the smarter option. Cutting the top personal rate to 33 cents in the dollar rather than 30 cents will disappoint some higher income earners in National’s camp, but it will not impact on those earning less than $70,000.

The latter comprise the great bulk of taxpayers. It was going to be extremely difficult to persuade them a bigger reduction for a relative minority earning $70,000-plus was justified, given the impact of a hike on GST at the lower income end of the scale.

It was good timing that iPredict yesterday released some stocks on what the top tax rate will be next year.

The top tax rate should never fo course have increased from 33%. Cullen just wanted to punish the rich pricks. He didn’t need the money.

Politicians are now responding to rising public expectations that state entities justify their existence.

The result is a power shift from the state to its citizenry. Take Sweden’s public health system as an example. Patients have guarantees that if they are not treated within three months by their local health authority, they can go to a private hospital and the local health authority picks up the bill.

The Government here is a long way off adopting that kind of model. But this is clearly the direction in which National wants to head.

What a sensible policy Sweden has!

In 2008/2009 we had 517 bottles, so 581 is an impressive 12.4% increase in consumption. I put it down to no election to interfere!

The average guess was 538, and I went for 533. The highest guest was Richard on 551.

Of minor interest is both corks and stelvins increased. Corks went up by 35 and stelvins by 29.

Charlie Brooker on how to make a news clip. It is spot on.

It is inevitable that a future Labour Government will include the Greens, as they no longer have Jim or Winston to rely on. So with that in mind, let us look at what the Greens say their health priorities are:

1. In retrospect I have to confess that our decision to fund 12 months’ treatment with Herceptin was sheer irrational populism, and today I’m announcing that we will never do it again. In the same spirit, our repeal of the healthy school food guidelines and cutting funding to Healthy Eating Healthy Action projects were entirely about ideology rather than health, so we’re reintroducing them because we are quite concerned about chronic illness.

So their number one health priority is to provide a shorter period of treatment to women with breast cancer. I can’t wait for No 2.

2. Rather than making the grand gesture of a massive programme to build new operating theatres and contracting out surgery to the private sector, Government has today announced a programme of regionally (rather than locally) planning the best and most efficient use of our existing theatres, specialists and resources.

And their number two health priority is to have fewer operating theatres. This just gets better and better. Vote Green and we promise less treatment for women with breast cancer and fewer operating theatres.

3. I think we’ve had enough of committees, reports and endless restructuring, so rather than commission yet more I am going to require DHBs to work together and help each other whenever this is in the interests of most New Zealanders.

Their third health priority is that they are going to send a memo out to DHBs telling them to work together better.  Such vision.

4. It is inadequate and unacceptable for us to set lower health targets for Maori and to continue to tolerate health inequalities. The performance measures I am setting for DHBs will focus on raising Maori health status to the same level other New Zealanders enjoy, and DHBs will perform to this standard (or they’re all fired!)

This one is so crazy, it has me laughing. The Greens are going to sack every District Health Board in New Zealand unless they can get Maori health status to the same level as non-Maori. Are they going to supply pixie dust to help them do the job?

It is an interesting insight into the mind of those on the hard left. They really believe that the reasons for the disparity between Maori and European has nothing to do with culture, genetics, environment, family and personal decisions – but is all the fault of the DHBs, who will be sacked if they can’t fix it.

5. In order to improve the position of those people with the poorest health, Government will be requiring all Government departments and crown entities to work together at a local level to identify people in need and to proactively offer services to improve their lives, and will be funding PHOs to take a lead role in this process.

So number five health priority is to send out a memo to Government Departments asking them to work better at helping people with poor health.

6. There is not enough money now to provide all of the health services that New Zealanders expect, and this will be worse in the future. Consequently Government is reorienting our health sector spending to focus resources in the areas proven to have the greatest impact on population health status, public health programmes and primary care, and as Minister I will also personally lead a national conversation with New Zealanders about how we best make decisions about how we should allocate limited resources in secondary and tertiary care.

And their final health priority is to have a conversation about umm health priorities, with an eye towards reducing secondary and tertiary care.

So in summary these are the Green’s six priorities for health:

1. Reduce the amount of treatment for women with breast cancer
2. Reduce the number of operating theatres
3. Send out a memo to DHBs saying work better together
4. Sack every DHB in New Zealand if they can not magically bring Maori health status up to the level of non-Maori
5. Send out a memo to Government Departments to say be nicer to people with poor health
6. Try and convince NZers to have less money spent on surgery and hospitals.

Oh I am looking forward to a future Labour/Green Government. It will be such fun.

I blogged on Monday about a 400 level law course at the University of Auckland called LAW495 Colonialism to Globalisation. The lecturer is incidentally a fervent supporter of one party rule in Cuba.

Anyway Chris Trotter writes about the course in the Dominion Post, and people may be surprised at his comments:

An interesting course” were the words Kiwiblog’s David Farrar used to describe Colonialism to Globalisation – an academic paper offered by the Auckland University’s law faculty.

Knowing Mr Farrar’s political leanings, it was with some trepidation that I activated the hyperlink embedded in his posting. My strong suspicion (instantly confirmed) was that my Kiwiblog host was not drawing his visitors’ attention to this course purely on account of its academic merits.

A swift perusal of the course description told me all I needed to know. Here, as I feared, was a particularly stark example of what I call “self-loathing Leftism” – that self-critical mode of Left-wing analysis which takes “the politics of victimhood” out of its more familiar context in the anti-racist, feminist and gay rights movements, and extends it to the whole world.

The result is as predictable as it’s banal: an “Avatar” world of Goodies versus Baddies and Nature versus Technology, in which the holistic philosophy of innocent and virtuous indigenes crashes into the murderously exploitative intentions of malignant and rapacious colonisers.

The Avatar analogy is a very good one. What I would be interested to know, is whether anyone who has ever done the course has managed to get good grades, while disagreeing with the world-view of the lecturer.

Anyway, back to Chris Trotter. Chris is an avid student of history, and picks apart some problems in the course description:

Just take a look at the opening sentences of Colonialism to Globalisation’s course description: “In the late 15th century, imperialist Europe emerged intent on exploring and possessing the New World. Fast forward through 500 years of colonialism, capitalism, slavery, industrialisation, genocide, and international law and greet the 21st century in all its paradoxical glory.”

There’s so much wrong with this statement that it’s difficult to know where to begin. For a start, there was no such thing as “imperialist Europe” in the late 15th century. The only entity worthy of such a description was the empire of the Ottoman Turks – whose steady expansion into southern and central Europe was halted only at the gates of Vienna in 1529. …

Let’s start by listing the things he left out: the Renaissance; the Reformation; the Enlightenment; the American and French Revolutions; the exponential growth of scientific knowledge and technological expertise; the expansion of democracy; the abolition of slavery; the emancipation of women; the defeat of totalitarianism; the birth of the United Nations; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Minor minor achievements.

We can only assume that Mr Attar’s justification for bracketing “capitalism” with “colonialism” and “slavery” is because he sees it as being emblematic of the West’s lust for conquest and its colonists’ pathological need to demonstrate racial and cultural superiority.

But to hold up capitalism as a purely Western construct is to engage in precisely the same ethno- centrism his course condemns. For most of human history it was the manufacturers and merchants of East and South Asia who controlled the global economy.

And they projected their reach and protected their profits no less ruthlessly than their Western counterparts.

I think Chris should enrol as a student in the course. The debates between lecturer and student could be worth You Tubing!

This week’s Dispatch from St Johnnysburg for NBR 24/7 is on Labour. A couple of extracts:

Labour have had a good couple of weeks.

First of all, something has happened to Phil Goff over the break. He has come back a far more relaxed and engaging politician. Yes, his party’s supporters may still pine for Helen, but over time they may appreciate a less polarizing leader.

And on the tax issue:

Labour has been making waves on the GST issue. As the Government has yet to detail its tax package, Labour is doing it for them. They assume that the top tax rate will be dropped to 30c, and a pliant media report their scenarios that Telecom CEO Jack Paul Reynolds will get a tax cut of $150,000 a year and Joe Average will get a few dollars a week.

National needs the debate on tax to be about the macroeconomic effects – the desire to increase the incentives to work, to invest and to save and to reduce the incentive to borrow and consume. If the debate becomes one of simply who gets how much, they will have problems.

I conclude by saying the next set of public polls will give some idea as to whether the public have started to tune into what Labour are saying.

Colin Espiner writes:

Regional councils charging late fees for rates payments are about to get some of their own medicine.

Environment Minister Nick Smith has outlined details of “financial incentives” for councils who fail to process resource consent applications within the statutory 20 days.

Under the changes, which the Government wants in place by July, councils that are up to a week late in processing a resource consent must provide a discount of 25 per cent of their fee. A further 5 per cent discount will be added for every week the consent is delayed, up to a maximum of 80 per cent.

An excellent initiative. Councils, like most organisations, respond to incentives. The threat of reduced income should lead to greater efforts to process consents within the legal time period.

Two independent reviews have just been released. The first is of the Far North District Council, and has found they have overcome most of their long-standing previous problems, and no intervention is needed.

But a very different fate is recommended for Environment Canterbury (the Canterbury Regional Council):

The Review Group has therefore come to the conclusion that an entirely new institutional approach is needed for the management of freshwater in the Region.  This will involve a fundamental reform of the structure of decision-making within the Region for all freshwater-related matters.  The Review Group recommends that the Government create a new Canterbury Regional Water Authority (CRWA) to assume all water related responsibilities in the Canterbury Region. This recommendation reflects the fact that issues associated with water management in Canterbury will be enduring and will therefore require the full and on-going attention of a specialist body.

So first they recommend they lose their most important function – water management.

But further:

The Review Group therefore recommends that the existing council be replaced by a temporary Commission as soon as practicable under special legislation.  This Commission will give ECan and the Region breathing space to allow the CWRA to be soundly established.

In other words, sack the Council.

The Government is going to consider the recommednations, before responding.

NZPA report:

The Gisborne region is “clap capital” of the North Island, according to latest figures on sexually transmitted diseases, with Hawke’s Bay not far behind.

Surely not? New Plymouth should demand a recount.

The NZ Herald thinks the Government is timid:

We need to build opportunities for people to invest and to invest safely, said Justice Minister Simon Power in his response to the Capital Market Development Taskforce report. That was a statement of the obvious, given the shortage of high-quality investment opportunities, which, among other things, has promoted an unhealthy zeal for the housing market. The Government should, therefore, be seizing every chance to ensure such investments are available. Regrettably, it has chosen, instead, to replicate the timidity evident in its recent tax reform proposals.

A core taskforce recommendation was that the Government should sell off minority stakes in state-owned enterprises. This would provide mum-and-dad investors with the sort of investment that proved hugely popular when the likes of Vector, Contact Energy and Auckland International Airport were fully or partly floated. It would also provide a major boost to the New Zealand stock exchange, which has suffered from a large number of delistings over the past few years.

I am a big fan of selling off minority stakes. National’s 2008 election policy prohibits this for their first term, but I will be disappointed if they do not have a more flexible policy for their second term.

The Dominion Post wants an end to taxpayer funded electioneering:

Mr Power, or the select committee considering his proposals, should insert in the new law a clause banning the use of public funds for implicit as well as explicit political purposes. Politicians are entitled to research policy and to communicate with constituents, but they should not be allowed to use public money for electioneering.

I think the Dominion Post is being impractical here. I am all for banning taxpayer funded publications during an election campaign, but the Dominion Post’s proposal would make almost all parliamentary communications illegal. If the Opposition proposes an alternative budget to the Government, that has an implicit political purpose. 99% of what Parliament does has an implicit political purpose. Minority reports of Select Committees for example.

The Press considers the safety of attending the Commonwealth Games:

Our Government is considering what security it would provide in New Delhi in October but ultimately this is India’s responsibility and therein lies a problem. Despite reassurances about athlete safety, there remain major doubts about security services there.

They could not prevent the Mumbai attacks, even though the two opulent hotels targeted should have had tight security, given previous attacks in the city.

And the delays in gaining accreditation to our New Delhi high commission of a police liaison officer, as revealed by government papers which showed top-level concerns over safety, do not inspire confidence that security is an absolute priority.

Besides, even if security has been tightened it is difficult to provide protection against determined suicide bombers.

Indian authorities do not like to be embarrassed by foreign criticism of their security services. But it would be far more embarrassing if nations or individual athletes refused to compete there or, even more humiliating, if a prestigious event such as the Commonwealth Games were shifted elsewhere.

I have visions of athletes running the 1500m in bullet proof vests!

The ODT talks wildlife smuggling:

Hopefully, the incident where Manfred Bachmann was caught in Christchurch this week with 16 rare jewelled geckos inside plastic pipes in his backpack is itself a rare case of wildlife smuggling.

Hopefully, the New Zealand leg of the several-billion-dollars-a-year trade in protected and endangered species is minuscule.

And hopefully New Zealand authorities can stamp out any incipient trafficking.

It will be interesting to see what sentence he gets.

Today’s photo is somewhat motivated by the premature and sudden death of my colleague John Thorbjarnarson (Crocodile Specialist Group)

I liked the photo because of the effects of the reflection of the river in the early morning, and that it is not a crocodile basking on a bank.

As always, clicking the image will bring up a larger version.

My God, what a band of precious wee souls there are when it comes to Radio NZ. The country is recovering from a massive recession, and the Government is borrowing $240 million a week just to pay the bills. So not surprisingly, Radio NZ has been told they have to live within their budget and won’t get more money.

A former Labour Party press secretary sets up a Facebook group to Save Radio NZ and 3,000 lemmings rush to join up. You would think the Government was planning to close it down, rather than merely telling it to live within its budget.

Of course Radio NZ would like more money. So would every state agency and business in NZ, and every household. Businesses all over NZ have had to endure a reduction in revenue over the last two years. Many of them would love to have had their funding guaranteed to not decrease, as Radio NZ has.

The tens of thousands of households who have had someone lose their job, know how hard it is to cope with a drastic reduction in income. They also would love to have a guaranteed non decreasing income.

The rest of the state sector have been told that there are no increases for general operational expenses for some years to come. Many of them have admirably managed to come up with plans to reduce costs, but not outputs.

Adding to the hysteria, we have this quote:

Ms King said it would be like living in a Third World country if National Radio had to shut down between midnight and 6am.

What effing elitist nonsense. Go jump on a plane to Haiti and tell them how NZ empathises with their situation, as gasp horror we may not be able to listen to a Radio NZ host at 4 am in the morning.

As I have said before, I am a fan of National Radio. I am glad the Government has not cut its funding. But while the Government is having to borrow $240 million a week just to pay the bills, I am damn sure not going to advocate that Radio NZ be getting a funding increase. Radio NZ is part of New Zealand. We just lost $50 billion in a recession. That means there is less money for everyone, and they can damn well play their part by living within their budget.

The Herald reports:

Facing a sceptical public and an implacable opposition, United States President Barack Obama insisted the US$787 billion ($1.1 trillion) financial stimulus plan signed into US law a year ago had been worth the money.

Marking the anniversary with a renewed effort to show the everyday benefits of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the President predicted it would save or create 1.5 million US jobs this year on top of 2 million last year.

But what happened?

A nascent economic recovery is threatened by continuing high unemployment, which stands above 10 per cent, and the unpopularity of the first stimulus package is complicating efforts to pass a second “jobs bill” that is currently under negotiation in Congress.

Unemployment is around 2% higher than what Obama said it would be if the stimulus package was not passed. And they are surprised that a second borrow and spend package is not popular.

A recent poll found that only 6 per cent of Americans believe it has created jobs.

And they are insisting on a second package!

As Helen Clark was appearing at the same time in a different select committee, the total number of media at Justice & Electoral was one – from Select Committee News.

There were eight written submissions, and three of us also made oral submissions. We all supported having the Electoral Commission as an Officer of Parliament, and/or having a requirement for any appointments to have widespread parliamentary support.

The Committee indicated they were favourably inclined to the notion that the requirement the Minister of Justice not consult other parties over any appointments to the Electoral Commission, should be strengthened to gaining approval from most of the other parties (myself and Andrew Geddis suggested approval from leaders of parties representing 75% of MPs and 75% of the parliamentary parties should be the level required).

They also indicated they are seeking further advice on whether the Electoral Commission should be an Officer of Parliament, like the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General. The Ministry of Justice seems to have been rather anti this in their background papers, and I felt the pros and cons had not been adequately investigated. It is pleasing that the Committee may do so.

So I’m pretty confident we will not end up with a situation where the Minister of Justice can unilaterally appoint the person who runs our electoral system. For scare tactics I joked about the possibility that Simon Bridges as a future Minister of Justice (but I accidentally called him Simon Power which confused people) could appoint me as Chief Electoral Commissioner – and how I am sure Labour MPs would want to get to have a vote on that

Looking at the written submissions, those calling for the Commission to be an Officer of Parliament (rather than appointed by the Minister of Justice and accountable to him or her) include the former CEO of the Electoral Commission, a former long-term staffer of the Commission, the former Labour Party General Secretary (Mike Smith), Professor Andrew Geddis, the NZ Law Society and myself. Now I’m not sure there are a lot of electoral issues we would agree on between us, so I hope our collective submissions agreeing on this point, have had some impact.

Trans-Tasman makes an interesting observation in their newsletter today:

Readers of Trans Tasman, an educated lot, will know the Aesop Fable of the Tortoise and the Hare. The two were in a race and the hare got so far in front he took a nap. The tortoise plodded on past him.

National looks like trying to transform NZ’s economic reform
progress – in the past we’ve been a bunch of hares – doing sudden bursts of reform and then taking a nap. This time, National is planning on being a tortoise. This was implicit in its initial response to the economic crisis it found on its desk in November 2008. Previous Govts, faced with similar crises, have tended to panic and push every policy button available.

They have usually been shortlived Govts, and they have tended to put NZers off the whole idea of systematic economic reform until it is forced upon them.

We got more tortoise-like behaviour last week, with John Key’s opening statement to the House. A series of headings, it initially looked underwelming, and the more superficial commentators pronounced it as excessively timid.

The implications of some of those headings, on tax as well as on things like education reform and resource development, are now sinking in. Now people have taken the time to think about them, they look more progressive than they looked at the time.

I agree with the sentiments here. Pushing through reform that merely results in a new Government at the next election that reverses that reform, is dumb.

Australia has been a pretty good example of continuous reform, rather than just in the odd spurt of activity. And the PMs statement did have a significant amount of good stuff in it.

My concern though is that pre-election commitments to not touch WFF, Student Loans etc, crown assets, Superannuation, will block significant reform. Now I don’t advocate a change to these policies in this term of Government, but I do hope for the 2011 election National will have a less restrictive manifesto.

The NZ Herald wants the MMP referenda held earlier:

There appears to be no reason the final referendum could not have been held a year or so after the 2011 general election if the first found a majority wanting change. A new system, if favoured in the decisive vote, could then be used in the 2014 election, rather than waiting as long as 2017.

I disagree. The first referendum is likely to have a low turnout, if not held in conjunction with an election. We found this out in 1992.

I do think there is an argument for the second referendum (if needed) to be held before 2014.  As that will be a simple referendum that will change the electoral system if change is voted for (the earlier referendum is only about if there is a second referendum, and what that is), I think that would achieve a very high turnout even if held separate to an election.

Also, without an election at the same time, the public would be more turned into the pros and cons of the two choices. A change of electoral system si so important, that it almost deserves to have its own debate, not cluttered up with a general election.

So my growing preference is the first referendum in 2011, with the election (to maximise turnout), but have the second referendum in 2012.

If the 2012 referendum votes for change, I am not sure one could implement it in time for the 2014 election, due to boundary changes. But one way you could deal with that is to have the Boundaries Commission (which should start work in late 2011) to prepare boundaries for both options, which would allow them to be finalised in 2013.

The Dominion Post compares Kiwirail to Fawlty Towers:

Kiwirail is to the transport industry what Basil Fawlty is to the hospitality trade.

It treats its customers as impediments to the smooth running of its business.

Current management can be excused responsibility for the creaking trains and dilapidated tracks in the Wellington region.

They are the consequence of 40 years of neglect by public and private owners of the rail system. But KiwiRail bosses cannot escape responsibility for the way customers are treated.

If they are not left waiting on the platform for services that have been cancelled, they are shut in trains that have mysteriously stopped part way into their journeys. Either way, they are kept in the dark.

Who would have thought a subsidised monopoly would give bad service?

The Press examines the electoral finance reforms:

The Government’s proposed new electoral finance system is a mixed bag.

Compared to the Labour’s now repealed Electoral Finance Act, which was a knee-jerk reaction to the covert 2005 Exclusive Brethren advertising, it gives greater freedom for lobby groups to conduct parallel campaigns.

But the new regime has swung too far towards a laissez-faire approach and does create the danger that money could play too great a role in New Zealand politics.

The most unwelcome feature of the new regime would be the absence of advertising spending limits for lobbyists, who are technically but confusingly known as third parties. The preceding legislation imposed a cap of $120,000.

Although few lobbyists came close to this limit in the 2008 election, the lack of a cap might tempt interest groups from across the political spectrum to spend up large in an effort to influence future campaigns. It is also inconsistent with the position of political parties which do have a spending limit. …

But it is also important for voters to know how much lobbyists have spent. In this respect the registration requirement provides only partial transparency, as lobby groups will not have to submit returns on their advertising expenditure.

I don’t have a problem with those who register, disclosing their total spend. That can be something the Select Committee looks at. I prefer transparency to restrictions.

But the Government decided not to amend the taxpayer funded broadcasting allocation system for political parties. Worth further thought is allowing parties to spend their allocations on advertising in newspapers, not just in the broadcast media.

Sadly Labour and the Greens opposed reform of the broadcasting allocation.

The ODT reflects on Michael Swann:

Last week, the people of Otago were served a timely reminder of white collar crime with the sentencing on additional charges of convicted fraud Michael Swann in the High Court at Dunedin.

It will be recalled that Swann was sentenced last year to a nine-and-a-half-year prison term for defrauding the Otago District Health Board of almost $17 million between 2000 and 2006.

On Friday, he was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment – concurrent with his present term, meaning that he will in fact serve no extra time behind bars – for accepting $755,000 in bribes from long-time friend and business associate Robin Sew Hoy.

Makes you wonder the point of the additional prosecution!

I didn’t blog previously on Woman’s Day outing Ali Mau, as frankly I thought it was distasteful and didn’t want to publicise it further. I did comment on the Journz mailing list which discussed the issue, as follows:

I think the decision to out Ali Mau is regrettable, and part of a slippery slope which points the wrong way.

I accept that if someone is in the public eye as a celebrity, then who they are dating will make the media. But when that information doesn’t just reveal who they are dating, but a sexual orientation that is not yet public, I think it should not be published unless there is hypocrisy etc. I prefer people to reveal their own sexual orientation, not have the media do it for them – especially when they may have children etc. Her kids may now have to put up with teasing at school from classmates that their mum is a lesbian.

If Ali was going to come out anyway, then it is a different matter, but as Dean said I would not want to be an editor approving such a story unless I was certain.

A few people have said they broadly agreed with my stance.

Now since then Ali has hit back at Woman’s Day with force, as reported here by Stuff:

High-profile Television New Zealand presenter Alison Mau has struck out at a magazine editor she says hired a “creepy” paparazzi photographer to stalk her children, friends and family.

Today, on TV One morning show Breakfast, Mau addressed her recent tabloid coverage during a regular slot on the show dedicated to reviewing the weekly New Zealand gossip magazines.

Holding up the latest issue of Woman’s Day magazine – opened to a story titled “Alison Mau’s sleepover” – Mau questioned when the magazine’s editor, Sarah Henry, would leave her family alone. …

Mau then said some people had said she was “fair game” because of her public profile.

“But, here’s my question, now that they’ve run this story, I have a question for Woman’s Day editor Sarah Henry and her offsider Catherine Milford.

“Perhaps you’d both be kind enough to let me know when this, when this kind of thing, will stop?

“Just give me an idea when the dogs will be called off and me, my friends and my family can go about our business without having creepy guys in Corolla station wagons following us around?

“I hope that’s a fair question, if you’d like to comment at all, being our breakfast viewers, or pose the same question, drop us a line or send it direct to Sarah Henry at Woman’s Day, she’s on shenry@acpmagazines.co.nz”

The TV show then ran Henry’s email address on screen.

And below is the video of the Breakfast show:

Now I have no problem with Ali striking back. In fact I admire her for doing so, and all strength to her. Woman’s Day deserve to be called out for what they did.

But I do have an issue about whether TVNZ should be assisting Mau with her campaign. They not only flashed the e-mail address up on the Woman’s Day editor on screen (would they do that for anyone else) for people to fire hate mail off at, they also covered the story on Close Up that night. And again, I ask if they would have done that, if one of the protagonists didn’t work for them.

So again to be clear, I have absolutely no issues with Ali Mau hitting back, and wanting to use whatever opportunity she has. Good on her. But I do think TVNZ needs to be cautious about its role in this.

Rather pleased to read that Google has donated US2 million to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not great for current controversial issues (such as climate change or George W Bush) but I find it invaluable in many many other areas. I use it many times a day

The Herald reports:

Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman is considering sacking the Radio New Zealand board if the public broadcaster cannot shift to a new business model in an effort to save money. …

Among options floated to save money were moving out of its Auckland premises, seeking commercial sponsorship for Concert FM, scrapping its $200,000 advertising budget or shifting back to an AM frequency, except in Auckland, which would save $750,000.

I think that National Radio provides a good service as a public broadcaster. While at times I may have issues over the lack of political diversity amongst hosts and guests, I am overall a fan of National Radio, and think we would be poorly served without it.

However Concert FM is another matter. I don’t see a need for taxpayers to provide classical music for free over the airwaves. There are now numerous ways where lovers of classical music can access it.

So why not sell off, or disestablish Concert FM, rather than just seek advertising for it. That would leave Radio NZ to focus just on National Radio, with increased resources.