Kiwiblog

The Daily Mail reports:

Two government advertisements which use nursery rhymes to warn of the dangers of climate change have been banned for exaggerating the threat.

Commissioned by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, the adverts are based on children’s poems Jack and Jill and Rub-A-Dub-Dub and assert that climate change will cause flooding and drought.

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) ruled the adverts – which attracted 939 complaints – made exaggerated claims which went beyond mainstream scientific consensus.

The proponents of man-made global warming are basically their own worst enemies. If they didn’t feel the need to over-state the position and scare-monger, then there wouldn’t be such a backlash against them.

The news that the UK Government’s own advertisements were so unbalanced, as to be banned, will just drive thousands more people towards the view that it is all a crock of shit – even if it is not.

The Herald is not a fan of money for the All Whites:

John Key said the money given to New Zealand Football would help it capitalise on the All Whites’ qualification for the World Cup finals and promote the game domestically.

More specifically, he mentioned the hiring of a temporary media manager, the revamping of the NZF’s website, a series of soccer fun days, and the identification and training of talented 17 and 18-year-olds.

None of this bears a skerrick of analysis, not least because NZF will receive a $10 million windfall payment from Fifa, the game’s governing body because of thanks to the All Whites’ qualification for the finals.

That will be supplemented by the host of sponsorship opportunities opened by New Zealand’s second appearance on football’s biggest stage. It also follows close on the heels of a US$1 million ($1.4 million) payout from Fifa for the All Whites’ participation in last year’s Confederations Cup. In sum, that money has put NZF’s previously shaky finances on an even keel.

Have to say I agree more with the Herald.

The Press looks Trans-Tasman:

Although former deputy prime minister Sir Don McKinnon has said that at some point a merger is inevitable, current Prime Minister John Key says the debate is pointless, as a merger is simply not going to happen.

Clearly, opposition to New Zealand losing its status and identity as an independent sovereign nation would be a formidable barrier to merging with Australia in the short to medium term.

It is more likely that this prospect will be seriously debated when both nations consider whether to move from being constitutional monarchies to republics – and there appears no huge groundswell for this to occur in the near future in either country.

In the meantime, the priority should be continued efforts to harmonise the two economies, including further developments that will bring a common border, a common currency and more consistency in our tax systems. On the latter front, there could, of course, be developments in this year’s New Zealand Budget.

I commented on Radio NZ that I might support NZ joining Australia, if each of our islands could e recognised as a state. This would allow us to gain control of the Australian Senate

The Dom Post opposes funding elderly daytrippers:

By all accounts the SuperGold Card has been a godsend for the elderly. Pensioners who have not ventured far from their homes for years are using the free public transport component of the card to visit family and friends and generally get out and about.

The card has proved particularly attractive to elderly residents of Auckland’s Waiheke Island and their contemporaries in Auckland who fancy a harbour cruise. Pensioners, or rather the Government on their behalf, spent $2 million on Waiheke Island ferry travel in a 12-month period. That’s 11 per cent of the $18m spent on the scheme in total.

Undoubtedly the scheme has been good for the elderly, not to mention Fullers, the ferry company that operates the Waiheke service. It is effectively receiving a $2m subsidy from the Government for services that were already running.

The transport operators have been the real beneficiaries. Because it is for off peak travel only, it means that they have merely soaked up unused capacity, and not led to any extra services.

In other words, the transport operators are getting $18 million a year for providing the same services at much the same cost. The subsidy level of 75% is ridiculously generous, and I can only presume that whomever negotiated it, also negotiated the KiwiRail sale.

However, there is a question to be asked about whether the Government should be subsidising the discretionary travel of elderly daytrippers while it is rationing healthcare, stinting on teacher pay and putting the squeeze on Government departments.

Of course not. It’s obscene we spend $2 million a year on the wealthiest elderly people in Auckland to go to and from Waiheke etc. But once a subsidy is in place, it is politically lethal to remove it.

Quotable Value puts the median value of a three-bedroom house on Waiheke Island at $650,000. Just because the owner of such a home wishes eventually to pass that property on mortgage-free to his or her heirs is not a reason for a Porirua mum, living in rented accommodation and working nights to put food on the table for her children, to subsidise the pensioner’s discretionary travel.

The Government has aptly read the political winds. Working New Zealanders and their children are the losers.

Absolutely.

The ODT looks at youth offending:

While the 156 offences involving shoplifting might be considered nothing out of the ordinary, what should the community think of the nine assaults with a weapon, the single instance of threatening to kill, the five caught in possession of cannabis, the 34 arsonists? These all involved older – but still primary school-aged – children, and there were among them those with severe behavioural problems.

Yet efforts by the police youth services, schools, Child, Youth and Family and parents have led to a decrease in the number of very young offenders.

Ten years ago the numbers were twice those of the past year, which surely reflects the subsequent success of co-ordinated intervention.

Even so, it is a disturbing reflection of modern society that more than 700 young children were considered sufficiently delinquent to justify police apprehension for criminal offences.

Longer this week, and a couple of tough ones. Time was 49 seconds.

The NZ part of the World Internet Project has released their 2009 survey results. Some interesting stats:

• 83% of NZers are Internet users, 6% are ex suers and 11% have never used it.
• 83% of home users are on broadband
• 93% of users use the Internet at home, 68% at work, 24% at school or uni
• 6% of Internet users connect through their mobile phone for more than an hour a week
• Half of all users have been online for less than ten years.
• Around half the households have more than one computer connected to the Internet
• Market share is 52% Xtra, 16% Telstra-Clear, 9% Slingshot, 9% Vodahug,
• 60% satisfied with Internet speeds, 23% are not
• 65% rate the Internet as an important source of information, over TV 55%, newspapers 53%, radio 44% and libraries 45%
• More respondents say they use the Internet to visit religious and spiritual sites than say they visit sexual sites. I think respondents may be fibbing about that one, based on known traffic stats!
• 19% of users read blogs regularly and almost 40% have read a blog sometimes.
• 48% of users belong to a social networking site
• Of social networkers, the most frequently used network is Facebook on 75%, and 18% Bebo.
• 25% of users have made friends online and 56% of them have gone on to meet them
• 45% support government funding of universal Internet access, and 31% oppose.
• Asian NZers have highest user rate, with 97% using the Internet
• 88% of Internet users in main cites are on broadband, and in rural NZ it is 67%

The Dom Post reports:

Women are being prevented from taking part in a two-day conference on male suicide rates.

The conference, with more than 100 participants from around New Zealand, features male-only guest speakers.

Wairarapa suicide prevention coordinator Barry Taylor said women were excluded to encourage men to take responsibility for their own mental health. “Men’s mental health has been a hidden subject over many years. Part of the problem is that they don’t talk about their feelings and they don’t ask for help.”

Mr Taylor said some women had asked to be part of the conference but were told no.

How silly. I’m all for a focus on men’s health, but banning women from attending a conference on it, is as silly as banning men from a conference on women’s health. Doctors and professionals tend to be of both genders.

1. The story would not have made both TV channels if the MP didn’t respond by accusing two of his own (wannabee) constituents of being bad parents. A response to the blog post of “I don’t recall it quite like that but I regret if any offence was taken” would have killed the matter. A Helen Clark apology where you say you regret any offence is often the best way to kill a story.
2. It is hard to take the moral high ground about MPs should not have such relatively trivial stories blogged about them, when Labour MPs on their own parliamentary blog are running a story about a National MP text messaging during some road opening.
3. It is a fact of life that as an MP you should be polite in all your encounters with the public – the example I always give to candidates is that being an MP means you can no longer give someone the fingers if they steal a carpark from you or cut in front of you in traffic.
4. With a story like this, it is not about “winning” the story, but not having it as a story at all. Even if 60% of people back you, and 40% do not, none of the 60% who back you are going to then vote for you because of it, while it is quite possible a fair segment of the 40% minority may be put off supporting you.

The Herald reports:

The Government will not be supporting a bid to host the Commonwealth Games in Auckland, Prime Minister John Key said today.

Mr Key said the 2018 games would come with a price tag of nearly $600 million.

The Government share of that was to have been half. …

And Stuff:

“The Government had considered the value from tourism spin-offs and a rise in the country’s profile but decided the losses outweighed the gains.

“The economic loss was so great that we just couldn’t justify it.”

Key said the Government’s support of the Rugby World Cup was different. “The Rugby World Cup has a big cost in terms of investing in stadiums but not in terms of the actual running of the event. The Commonwealth Games it was largely an operating loss for running the event.”

It would be easier to just burn half a billion dollars of bank notes than host the Games.

As reported in the media, two ISPs (Watchdog and Maxnet) are now using the Government’s Internet filter, so it is live and operational. It looks like the three big ISPs – Telecom, Telstra-Clear and Vodafone will also start using it later this year.

In this post I want to go over why the filter is a bad thing, but also the steps DIA has gone to, to make it less of a bad thing.

I’m going to do it in reverse order, and start with the steps DIA have taken, to make it “less bad” before I then turn to why it is still “bad”.

1. It is voluntary, not compulsory. However having the filter in the first place means that a future Govt could seek to make it compulsory, if they feel not enough ISPs use it.
2. Its scope is child pornography only, not all objectionable material, or other material such as terrorism related sites (which Australia plans to block)
3. DIA have entrenched the scope, being just child pornography, in both the contracts with ISPs, and the contract with the software licensee. In other words the Government can not unilaterally expand the scope of this filter. This is especially welcome.
4. DIA have put in place an Independent Reference Group, to monitor the scheme and verify that sites blocked are all within scope etc.
5. The filter will not just block a website (as in the UK) but bring up a page telling someone it is being blocked, and allowing them to anonymously “appeal” the blocking, if they feel the page or site should not be blocked.
6. The filter is not one based on keywords, but on actual sites checked regularly for child pornography content. The level of false positives should be very very low.
7. The technical design of the filter is well done (for a filter) and most http requests will not go through the filter.

So I do give credit to DIA for their efforts to mitigate the negatives effects of a filter. However that does not mean, it goes from being a bad thing to a good thing. Here are the key reasons why I think the filter is still a bad thing:

1. It causes the Internet to lie – it breaks the Internet. The filter means that a user’s request to view a particular page gets diverted and they get a false response. Now, this may be done with the best of motives, but it does fundamentally break the Internet.
2. It sets up a principle that rather than prosecute people for illegal material upon the Internet, you block portions of the Internet that may contain illegal material. This is a bad principle.
3. It is almost inevitable that other government agencies will, over time, want to add more material to the filter to be blocked. Now DIA have set it up so they can’t just add it to the DIA’s filter, but once you have one government filter, it is easier to set up a second. An example of this comes from this UK story a few days ago, where some peers in the House of Lords propose that as ISPs there already operate a filter for child abuse sites, they could also easily add onto it sites which breach copyright. One could also imagine some agencies wanting sites that breach suppression orders filtered, and if the Electoral Finance Act had endured, maybe someone would advocate sites that illegally offer an election opinion be blocked. This is a very very slippery slope.
4. The filter is run by a Government Department, not by an outside organisation such as in the UK. I think DIA did it themselves as they had the capability to do so, but again I think it is an unhelpful precedent to have the Government itself running a filter.
5. It may result in a false sense of security about access to child abuse images being blocked. Only websites will be blocked and most images are traded in chat rooms and peer to peer.
6. As a centralised filter (the best filters are those people apply to their individual connection) it may introduce a single point of failure for much of the NZ Internet, as outlined here on Tech Liberty.

InternetNZ has a position paper on the filter, which is a useful resource.

The filter is now operational, with two ISPs. I suggest people talk to their ISPs about whether or not they plan to use the filter or not, and what your views as customers are.

The Law Commission has been consulting on possible changes to the Official Information Act.

I’ve become a semi-regular user of the Official Information Act, using it to get background papers and reports on policy areas I am interested in. The OIA was one of the best things the Muldoon Government did.

However it doesn’t work as well as it can. A dedicated government agency can delay releasing information for up to a year. You are meant to get it with 20 working days, but agencies can transfer requests (resetting the clock), give themselves a time extension, and also refuse requests forcing you to go to the Ombudsman. They do a good job, but by the time they have investigated, and made a decision, many months can have gone by.

Very rarely an agency will lie – we saw this with the Labour Department under Labour, when the Immigration Service actually lied to the Ombudsman’s Office over the existence of a report. This is incredibly rare.

Anyway a lot of information about what the Government is considering, never comes out under the OIA – because no one asked for it. And you can not ask for information too generally – such as all reports about primary health or all memos from the Ministry of Education. You need to be quite specific.

I propose that for certain high level official information, the onus on release be reversed – that the Government automatically release the information even if not asked for. Now this could not apply to all official information, as there is too much, but it could apply to information that makes Ministerial level.

My proposal would be:

That all papers and reports considered by Cabinet and/or a Cabinet Committee be automatically placed on the Internet within six months.

The specifics would be:

1. By having the cut off at reports that go to a Cabinet or Cabinet Committee, the DPMC could be made responsible for implementing it.
2. By having a set time period, it gives the Government a bit of breathing space to consider reports and make decisions (such as the Budget) before publication. This would not prevent people from applying under the OIA to gain something earlier.
3. Departmental and Ministerial staff would know that their reports are 100% guaranteed to become public, so would take appropriate care with said papers.
4. Parts of reports could still be blacked out under the OIA, but be appeal-able to the Ombudsman.
5. It would provide a unique look at the entire work programme of the Cabinet and its Committees.
6. If a media organisation asks for information under the OIA, they often try and sensationalise any story based on it, as they have to show something for their effort. If the info is automatically made publicly available, then news worthiness will be the main criteria (I hope)
7. It would result in more transparent and open Government

BoomTownPrat blogs:

I had a great weekend in Auckland. The most wonderful Pixies on Friday with exceptional friends and then a couple of days with family et al.

Now I have a beautiful and very patient wife and three children, the children are 4, 3 and 2! Travelling is not easy, but I am of the firm belief that practice makes perfect. We travel often and prefer to fly as it is quick. With my work I also fly frequently, as does my wife. We therefore use Koru and Gold Elite to our advantage and when we fly we are seated up the front of the plane. That’s the way it works. I have been loyal to Air NZ and as a result,a 1 or 2 row seat, on a domestic flight is a benefit. With my family my flights are paid with post tax income.

I am also a row 1 or 2 person.

Tonight the 1900 flight to Wellington (Home) was busy. I sat down in row 2 EF with my daughter and my wife, daughter (1D), and son (1F) sat in front of us. Behind me in 3F (Chauvel) and friend in 3 E. Pause to get the picture. So most of my family are in front and Mr Chauvel is to my right and behind in Row 3. I can hear most of what he says though the middle seat gap as can my 3 year old in 2 F

The flight takes off, my kids make a bit of noise. The usual kid stuff, no one blinks( except a muffled rumbling behind …..seat 3F) My kids can perform, you may have heard them! But tonight they were fine. The odd squawk a few yells and disagreements but nothing that your average person on a short domestic flight could dismiss undercover of an insipid tea, a packet of crisps and a magazine.

Not 3F (MR CHARLES CHAUVEL LABOUR LIST MP). 20 minutes into the flight I hear the first, hissed,,,,,”Will you just shut up!” This I think was directed at my 2 year old in row 1. I hear it well given my position. I think he doesn’t realise that that object of his ire has a father directly in front.

I’ve once or twice asked a child to be quiet, and always ask politely. Yelling shut up at someone else’s kids is unwise for anyone – let alone an MP.

40 minutes a more vocal…..”Will you just shut up!”

At this point I got angry and sarcastically told my kids to be quiet as there were very important men behind us who needed their peace.

We start to land when my 2 year old gets some ear pain and cries. A bit like a baby, not to intense. At this point 3F lets out his true feelings and prejudices as he turns to his friend in 3E and says……..” I DONT KNOW WHY THEY LET THEM UP THERE”

God forbid parents with kids are now allowed at the front of the bus plane.

Anyway, here is the irony:

Some Points to Mr Chauvel in 3 F.

The “them” you refer to, is me, the voter.

I vote in Ohariu.

I paid for my seat….did you?

Those children you despise, will probably pay for your superannuation.

And Lastly Mr Chauvel in 3 F, I pay your salary, I would prefer it if you and your friend did not verbally abuse my 2 year old in front of my 3 year old.

I have no reason to construct this. This is what happened. This is how a Labour front bencher acted in public, when his party is on 30% in the polls, when the accusations of “out of touch” are still ripe and the electorate is still trying to digest the “many but the few” mantra.

I suspect the numbers of voters in Ohariu that Charles has alienated is far more than the father and mother. Imagine how many of their friends and neighbours will be told the story over the next two years.

The Herald looks at the Iraqi elections:

Iraq’s national elections were some distance removed from the type of poll associated with a smoothly functioning democracy. They were conducted amid an intimidating campaign of violence, and in the aftermath there have been accusations of fraud.

Even now, only partial results are available because of disorderly vote-counting. Yet the pluses of the election far outweigh the negatives, especially in indicating that Iraq may be ready to turn its back on years of sectarian strife.

The results announced so far show the Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, edging ahead. His State of Law coalition leads in seven of the country’s 18 provinces. …

If a coalition is cobbled together relatively quickly, it will clear the way for the smooth pull-out of more American troops by the end of August, and a final exit by the end of next year.

The new government will have its hands full preserving Iraq’s fragile security, continuing to resolve its sectarian tensions and repairing shattered public services.

But, at the very least, this election marks a promising start. Iraq has defied the many doomsayers by moving further along the road to democracy and reconciliation.

It is going to be fascinating to see what Iraq is like in 2020. Will it still have major sectarian violence and terrorism, or will it be a relatively well functioning democratic state?

The Press talks football:

The Wellington Phoenix football team has provided one of the sporting highlights of the past year. For the club to have made the A-League playoffs for the first time, and to have got within one match of the grand final, was an achievement all New Zealanders can be proud of. As Phoenix coach Ricki Herbert has noted, this has been a breakthrough season for the club. It also augurs well for the 2010-11 season.

Although the dream run ended on Saturday night, thanks partly to a handball goal by a Sydney player, the Phoenix’s successful season helped to heighten public interest in football, as shown by the crowds of up to 33,000 that the team attracted.

Maybe the Warriors would do better if they were Wellington based also

The Dominion Post talks league tables:

One thing is for sure in the wake of the publication of Health Ministry statistics comparing the performances of 80 primary health organisations.

Total Healthcare Otara, the PHO with the poorest record of immunising two-year-olds, will be taking immediate steps to improve its performance. Public ignominy is a powerful motivating tool.

So it should be. The release of the data highlights yet again the benefits of comparing the performance of organisations doing essentially the same job, whether they operate in the health sector, the education sector or any other area. Not only is the information useful to decision-makers and the public, it is also useful to the organisations themselves. As Helen Rodenburg, the chairwoman of a clinical quality board that oversees four PHOs in Wellington, told Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report yesterday, before the publication of the data, PHOs did not know how their performance compared with those of similar organisations in other parts of the country.

The primary teachers’ union, the New Zealand Educational Institute, should take note.

This is exactly why the NZEI is so opposed.

Of course there are limitations associated with the way the data is collected. Of course it is important to compare like with like and, of course, it is important to consider the different environments in which schools operate. Just as a PHO in Wellington City could be expected to outperform a PHO in Porirua on many measures, so children at a decile 10 primary school in Khandallah could be expected to perform better in tests than children at a decile 1 school in Cannons Creek. The children in wealthier neighbourhoods are more likely to come from homes in which English is the first language, there is space for a dedicated homework area and the shelves are stacked with books.

But instead of flatly rejecting the introduction of national standards as the NZEI is doing, it should be devoting its energies to ensuring the tests measure something useful.

NZEI be constructive? Sure, and Satan has this nice little ski chalet for sale.

The ODT focuses on investor migrants:

The Government is rightly taking a hard-headed look at the domain – New Zealand is not so wealthy as to be able to offer refuge to thousands of migrants who bring little other than “diversity” to their new country, but neither should it push these policies so far that, in effect, the prize of New Zealand citizenship is being sold to the highest bidder.

There are, after all, many values – honesty, pride, diligence, community-mindedness, intelligence, aspiration, entrepreneurialism among them – besides an already accumulated wealth that will colour the future contribution of any migrant, including those in the new parent and temporary retirement categories, to his or her adopted country.

Dr Coleman and the National-led Government are evidently determined to implement immigration policies that pay.

The ambition is laudable, but wealth is relatively easy to measure, other desirable qualities less so.

The Dom Post reports:

The man who kidnapped, tortured and brutally murdered Lower Hutt schoolgirl Karla Cardno will remain in jail for at least three more years.

Paul Joseph Dally has already served 20 years of a life sentence but the Parole Board considers him too dangerous to be freed.

In its latest decision, issued yesterday, the board took the extra step of making a three-year postponement order, meaning Dally will not be eligible for parole again until 2013 except in exceptional circumstances. He had not even begun to rehabilitate, the board said.

Dally kidnapped 13-year-old Karla in May 1989 as she cycled to her Lower Hutt home. He then raped and tortured her in his nearby home, watching from the window as her frantic family searched outside.

Later he drove to the Pencarrow Coast, near Eastbourne, where he smashed her skull with a piece of driftwood and buried her face-down, naked and still alive, with her hands bound. Her body was found several weeks later.

The decision quoted a “chilling” psychological assessment given to the board, saying Dally showed “a high degree of relationship to serious and violent recidivism”.

If life without parole had been available as a sentence back then, Dally would be a perfect fit for it. The Parole Board has correctly judged that Dally shows absolutely no sign of rehabilitation, and is not letting him out.

It is a pity that they have to go through the farce of a hearing every three years, when life without parole would have meant the victim’s family don’t have to put up with the case hitting the media again, every time he has a parole hearing.

I don’t advocate life without parole for all murders, but it would have been appropriate for Dally’s killing of Cardno.

The Herald reports:

League tables showing which primary health organisations (PHOs) are doing best – and worst – at meeting community health needs have been released by the Ministry of Health for the first time.

The tables, to June 2009, ranked how well general practices are doing at immunising 2-year-olds, detecting and following up diabetes patients, assessing the risk of heart disease, breast and cervical cancer screening, flu vaccinations and other key health indicators.

Information ranking the top and bottom five PHOs for meeting targets across the health indicators were released to Radio New Zealand under the Official Information Act.

One league table showed PHOs in the Hutt Valley, Wairarapa, Wellington and Hawke’s Bay at the top for immunisation, exceeding the target of an 85 per cent immunisation rate with rates of up to 93 per cent.

The bottom of the table were PHOs in Counties-Manukau, Northland, Bay of Plenty and Waikato with rates as low as 32 per cent.

This got me thinking that if the health sector unions had the same ethics as the education unions, they would be out there encouraging doctors and nurses to refuse to immunise children, unless the Government promised not to collate the data on immunisation rates.

The Wanganui Chronicle reports:

Parent Stephanie Mills said the new standards were totally untried  and had been developed in  three months without involvement from the community and teachers.

By pure coincidence a Stephanie Mills is the NZEI Communications Director.

Do you suppose they could be the same person?

And why then does the Wanganui Chronicle not mention this rather pertinent fact? Were they not told, or did they just think the public don’t need to know?

9 pm this Wednesday on TVNZ7 or live at the Backbencher.

• Amy Adams, National
• Darien Fenton, Labour
• Keith Locke, Green

Topics include whether to ban smoking (good luck with that one) the Super Gold Card.

Grahame Armstrong in the SST writes:

THE GOVERNMENT is putting the finishing touches to its package of tax cuts and is now confident that low and middle income earners will have more money in their pockets – even after paying a higher GST.

The Sunday Star-Times understands the government has settled on lowering the tax rate for those earning between $14,000 to $48,000 – which represents the bulk of wage earners – from 21% to 19%.

The May budget is also expected to lower the tax rate for those earning up to $14,000 from 12.5% to 10%.

The Star-Times also understands the government will, in one hit, lower the top rate for those earning more than $70,000 from 38% to 33%, rather than doing it gradually.

So that would give up three tax brackets – 10% for low income earners, 19% for middle income earners and 33% for higher income earners.

What would be the reduction in income tax for people at various income levels:

• $26,000 – 13.8% or $590
• $30,000 – 13.1% or $670
• $40,000 – 12.1% or $870
• $48,000 – 11.6% or $1,030
• $70,000 – 6.4% or $1,030
• $100,000 – 9.2% or 2,530
• $150,000 – 10.8% or $5,030

That is pretty well targeted. Those on the minimum wage get the largest percentage increase, and everyone earning under $50,000 a year gets a double figure percentage drop in the tax they pay. And in fact, with WFF, many of these people are net tax recipients anyway, not net tax payers.

What would be the fiscal cost?

• Dropping the 38% rich prick rate  to 33% – $500 million a year
• Dropping the 21% to 19% – $780 million a year
• Dropping the bottom tax rate from 12.5% to 10% – $820 million a year

So total foregone revenue is $2.1 billion.

Now how much extra GST might people pay. Let us assume that on average people spend 90% of their after tax income, and that the GST increase of 2.5% will lead to an average price increase of 2.0% (as estimated by Stats NZ). What is the impact at each income level:

• $26k – $391 more GST and $590 less income tax = $199 better
• $30k -$448 more GST and$670 less income tax = $222 better
• $40k -$590 more GST and $870 less income tax = $280 better
• $48k -$704 more GST and $1,030 less income tax = $326 better
• $70k – $969 more GST and $1,030 less income tax = $61 better
• $100k – $1,304 more GST and 2,530 less income tax = $1,226 better
• $150k – $1,862 more GST and $5,030 less income tax = $3,168 better

So it does indeed look like no one would be worse off (even if you assume 100% of after tax income is spent).

Obviously those at the top tax brackets do best in an absolute sense, but they are also the ones most likely to be property investors, and may in fact end up worse off overall. Also worth remembering two that half of the 100 wealthiest people in NZ do not actually pay the 38% tax rate, so will not in fact benefit from its reductions – they will just not need to operate through their family trust.

I have no idea if this is the package the Government will go with, but it looks pretty workable, and affordable. Most of all, it is not meant to be about just the redistribution of any changes, but the large benefits to the economy of increasing the incentives to work, save and invest and reducing the incentive to borrow and spend – plus the shifting of incentive for investment income from property to other areas.

I never thought I would be thanking US entertainment IP lawyers, but hopefully they have managed to kill off the Wellywood sign planned by Wellington Airport.

The airport claims it thinks it has the legal rights, but really why on Earth would they spend their monopoly income on fighting a legal battle to erect a sign that is hated by the local population.

The anti-Wellywood sign facebook group is already over 13,000.

Danyl noted a few days ago:

Not only has everyone I’ve spoken to objected to the sign, every guy I’ve spoken to has speculated about destroying it personally. I don’t think it’s a keeper.

This has incidentally also been my experience. I was at a bbq on Sunday, and the discussion turned to how to destroy the sign, if it goes ahead.  Some of the ideas were:

1. A small group going in at 2 am with axes.
2. A one person assault squad with petrol and matches. Some concern over nearby bush though.
3. Just announce on the Facebook group a date and time to demolish it, and see how many thousand people turn up. The Police won’t be able to arrest 4,000 people, and can you imagine the pressure it would put on to have the sign removed, if say 500 Police had to hold off 4,000 locals trying to destroy the sign.
4. Get people to register for a flash mob, and then one day tell people to meet up at the sign in 45 minutes. It could spread very quickly virally.
5. Some sort of aerial assault – maybe a hook and grapple tied to a helicopter and just pull the thing out of the ground, and dump it in the ocean.
6. Pour acid over the foundations to weaken it, and see how many days it takes to collapse. Could possibly even get an iPredict market going to predict the day.

The best alternative suggestion I have heard, is to have a massive giant weta on the hills. Not only are Wetas endemic to New Zealand, it would be a more appropriate way of celebrating the film industry that has built up around Weta Workshop etc.

Lots of tourists would ask about the giant weta they saw flying in, and one could tell them about they can visit the Weta Cave, and how scores of the major Hollywood films have their special effects and more done here.

Frankly though, anything would be better than an imitation Hollywood sign.

The Herald talks about respect for the Police:

Mr O’Connor’s approach is even more problematic. He says a lack of guilty verdicts in the District Court had shown society and criminals that insulting the police is acceptable. It has also made the police reluctant to charge people for low-level offending using the legal provisions. “Cases show that it’s something police are expected to put up with, but it shouldn’t be,” says Mr O’Connor. His response is essentially a zero-tolerance policy that would see people shouting obscenities at the police convicted for insulting behaviour.

This raises several problems. The first is that the courts are merely reflecting societal mores in their approach to such offending. Obscenities do not have the same impact as they did, say, 30 years ago. Nor are the police alone in feeling that respect for their authority has dwindled. The teaching profession, for example, suffers from the same ailment. When it applies a zero tolerance approach, it means large-scale suspensions and expulsions.

That is as misguided as a policy that would burden overloaded courts further with low-level offences against the police for little gain. Zero tolerance does not work because its inflexibility leaves no room to deal with an out-of-character indiscretion or suchlike. Its approach to minor misdeeds is also far more likely to create a climate of fear than engender respect.

I think there is some linkage between the fact that people can now call the Police c**ts to their face, and that some of those people then also go on to assault them.

The Press focuses on irrigation:

The selection of two irrigation schemes among the four winners of a competition to find projects with a long-term potential capacity to make a significant contribution to the Canterbury economy demonstrates the significance of the appropriate use of its water resource to the region.

The fact that both schemes are extremely contentious shows also how arguments over the use of the resource are unlikely to be quickly resolved.

But if the judges are right, that these schemes are among a handful in Canterbury with the capacity to generate $100 million of revenue for Canterbury within five years and $1 billion or more in revenue within 10 years, it is obviously very important that the decisions that are reached on these projects are the right ones.

There is precious little else on the economic horizon with such potential.

I should get more excited about water issues in Canterbury as I know they are important, but frankly I don’t.

The Dominion Post looks at science funding:

In short, the Government appears to have heeded OECD criticism in 2007 that the public science system was unduly fragmented, as well as Sir Peter’s advice.

Science might be finally emerging from the shadows, its non-sexy status having long been reinforced by an often scientifically ignorant public, suspicious of the work many scientists do – take, for example, widespread distrust of genetic engineering, despite the public good it might do.

Thus, science is so often in the headlines for the wrong reasons.

Not last week, though. Then, two Wellington scientists were awarded the inaugural Prime Minister’s Science Prize for their research into the multimillion-dollar field of high-temperature superconductivity.

Both work for Industrial Research.Its chief, Shaun Coffey, says public-sector investment in the scientists’ endeavour has not only been repaid in terms of their work’s contribution to the economy, it has also positioned New Zealand “at the forefront of a new industry that is set to revolutionise the way electricity is used and distributed”. He knows the challenges ahead, however.

All eyes will be on the budget, as it has been made clear this is one of the few areas to get extra funding:

The ODT looks at the proposed tertiary education reforms:

Recent Cabinet decisions relating to funding for higher education and research suggest the Government is serious about its objective of raising knowledge standards and building a solid base for public and economic benefits from progress in science.

These are not easy decisions to make from a political perspective, since if they deliver hoped-for benefits they will do so only in the longer term.

There are few votes in such policies and it is to the Government’s credit that it is not afraid to embrace long-term goals for the greater good. …

The Government is in effect offering financial incentives for institutions tied to the improving educational performance of their students, which suggests that institutions with an aspirational goal of excellence, such as Otago university, can only benefit.

The Business Roundtable is hosting the Big Social Issues Debates, with top university debaters competing and debating the big issues.

The heats are from 15 to 18 March at various schools, and then two semi-finals and a final.

The first semi-final is Thursday March 18 5.30 pm at Mac’s Brewery on Taranaki Street, Wellington. The topic is “Our Police Ought to Be Armed”

The second semi-final is Tuesday March 23 5.30 pm at the Gus Fisher Gallery, Shortland Street, Auckland. The topic is “Our Liquor Laws are a Licence to Swill“.

The grand final is Wednesday March 24 5.30 pm at the Academy Galleries on Queens Wharf, Wellington. The topic is “We Should Look to the State for Moral Guidance“.

They should all be top debates, and well worth attending. There is no cost to attend but do RSVP by phone 04 471 8203 or e-mail.

The Taranaki Daily News reports:

Labour Party top-dog Andrew Little could step forward for a tilt at the New Plymouth electorate seat in next year’s national elections.

Mr Little, the party’s president and touted by many as a future Labour leader and prime minister, has refused to rule out the possibility.

“It’s certainly no secret I want to get into Parliament next year,” he told the Taranaki Daily News yesterday.

“As to how I do that, or where, I’ve made no decisions.”

He said he hopes to have made a decision within the next two or three months and wouldn’t rule out running in New Plymouth.

This is no surprise. The fact that Labour did not open nominations for New Plymouth at the same time as the other seats they lost, was obviously to keep options open for their President.

Andrew can of course just place himself at No 3 on the list, and be assured of entering Parliament that way. However a seat is almost a pre-requisite to becoming leader.

The city electorate is often viewed as a swing seat come election time and in 2008 National candidate Jonathan Young squeaked in past Labour’s 15-year encumbent MP Harry Duynhoven, with the tightest margin in the country – just 105 votes.

Mr Little has strong personal and family links to New Plymouth, having grown up here.

It was a very tight contest between Young and Duynhoven, but that is not the same thing as being a marginal seat between National and Labour.

While the electorate vote margin was only 0.2%, the party vote margin was a whopping 19.1%. Now nationwide the party vote margin was 11%, so 19% is a huge amount.

Harry Duynhoven had 13% of National voters, voting for him as the candidate. Will Andrew Little attract 13% of National voters?

It is a difficult decision for Andrew. His four main options are:

1. Stand for Rongotai, with Annette King going list only, allowing Annette to retire easily if Labour lose in 2011.
2. Stand for Hutt South if Trevor decides to retire in 2011 to become a full time blogger
3. Stand for New Plymouth.
4. Stand list only

No 1 is what I would go for if I was Andrew. There are rumours that Darren Hughes may seek that nomination though, and Annette is very good mates with Darren and would probably support him. It is also possible Annette will want to keep her seat, as many would see her going lost only as an indication she is not confident they will win the election.

No 2 depends on whether and when Trevor makes a judgement call that Labour are unlikely to win in 2011. He has said he doesn’t want another term of opposition. But I think Trevor still thinks the Government is on the verge of collapsing and is looking pretty comfortable where he is.

No 3 is Andrew’s for the taking. But the big negative is that he may lose, and lose big – which would not help him with his leadership aspirations.

No 4 is the default fall back option. As President, he would receive a massively high rating. But no one has yet become Prime Minister without not just a seat, but in fact a safe seat,

The Herald reports:

Parliament’s health committee is considering whether parents should be offered cash incentives to have their children immunised, or even have benefits withheld if they don’t without good reason.

Committee members were in Canberra last week looking at several issues including how Australia had dramatically improved its childhood immunisation rates and will report to Parliament on its trip.

Chairman and National MP Paul Hutchison said 91 per cent of Australian 2-year-olds were now fully immunised against little more than 50 per cent 10 years ago. In New Zealand the rate is about 75 to 80 per cent.

That is an impressive increase in Australia. The rate in NZ is highly variable. Probably close to 100% in some areas, and under 50% in others.

Australia’s success had been been achieved with a seven point plan, including some measures such as a childhood immunisation register which is already in place here.

However, Dr Hutchison said he was particularly impressed with the effectiveness of cash incentives for families and health professionals in increasing immunisation rates.

Parents of 18-month-olds who had received all required shots received a A$125 ($163) cash payment. Another payment was made to parents of fully immunised 4-year-olds.

Other measures included requirements at some schools and pre-schools for children to be fully immunised before they could be enrolled.

I instinctively don’t like the idea of paying parents to do something they should do anyway, but you know if it works, it would be worth it for the savings in health.

However what would be good is some research into what has most contributed to the lift in rates in Australia – is it the cash payments or is it the requirement in some schools to be immunised to enrol?

Sideswipe discovers that John Key also starred in Galaxy Quest!