Kiwiblog

What a silly story. It tells us nothing unusual.

Entered Eden Park during Thursday’s cricket international between New Zealand and Australia dressed as construction workers – wearing hard hats and reflector vests hired from a costume shop. Despite having no tickets or ID, the two reporters had unfettered access to construction areas and other restricted zones within the stadium

The getting in without a ticket is silly. Does the SST really think terrorists can’t afford to buy a ticket?

And the access to construction areas in a big yawn also. One could leave a bomb in a bathroom just as easily. And as I said yesterday, one could fake an ID given five minutes anyway.

I take it as a given that if someone really wanted to smuggle a bomb into a provincial rugby match, they could do so. The protection is that the probability of someone wanting to do so is miniscule.

If you really wanted to minimise someone getting a bomb in, you would have metal detectors, frisking of fans, passport level security for staff and contractors IDs etc etc. Now that level of security might be practical and justified for a Rugby World Cup match, but it is ridicolous for provincial rugby matches.

The Australian players are particularly concerned about security right now, following threats by al Qaeda against this month’s IPL tournament in India, and have demanded that rigid security be put in place before they take part in the tour.

And this is the key difference. The tour is in India. New Zealand is not India. India has a long history of violent rebels, of armed conflict, of lethal religious tensions, and in this case there have been specific threats.

If the Gore Liberation Front started shooting government officials, and threatened a campaign of bombings against rugby games, then I would expect security to change.

Took toy explosives and detonators, as well as alcohol, in a bag and on the body, into Waikato Stadium during the March 5 Chiefs-Reds Super 14 rugby game, with Red Badge security staff failing to search one reporter’s bag. He walked freely around all parts of the stadium, approached the Reds’ bench and shook hands with a team manager, entered the VIP corporate box area and spoke with boxer David Tua, got players including All Black Sitiveni Sivivatu to sign the bag containing the toy explosives and walked unchallenged through the players’ tunnel, getting within a metre of the changing rooms before finally being asked to leave by a security guard.

Oh wow. And one could also get within a metre of them at the after match bar the team goes out to. One could also get a fake bomb in a bag within a metre of the Prime Minister (no doubt their next stunt) at most of the many public engagements he undertakes.

New Zealand is not a country that has security based on paranoia. It is based on credible threat. I do not want to live in a country where I get x-rayed going to the local rugby match. Bizarrely, the Sunday Star-Times does.

The HoS reports:

According to a global survey on market research website onepoll.com, New Zealand women are the most sexually experienced in the world, with an average of 20.4 sexual partners in a lifetime, more than any other nationality.

Comedian Michele A’Court thinks the findings prove New Zealand women are more honest than those in other countries.

In the US, for example, some young women proudly proclaim their virginity, despite engaging in non-penetrative sex acts, she says. “Without making myself sound like a slapper, my initial reaction is that 20.4 doesn’t sound like a huge amount over a lifetime.”

20 is quite a bit more than Cactus Kate’s number and quite a bit less than Busted Blonde’s!

Society has changed massively in the last 30 years. Women used to not go to university, work for a few years, marry their first or second boyfriend in their early 20s and start popping out kids.

Now far more women than men go to university, and are career focused. I’d say the same proportion still want kids, but not until the early to mid 30s – and generally one or two only.

And this reflects in relationships also. As the baby age has got older, the marrying age has changed from 20ish to 30ish. And in that extra ten years of singledom, a couple of different bonks a year isn’t a huge deal.

Sexologist Dr Michelle Mars puts the result down to the failings of Kiwi blokes.

“New Zealand men aren’t very good at picking up women unless they’re really drunk. So what tends to happen is in New Zealand, women are just as likely to ask men to have sex as men are to ask women.

Heh, Australian women are even more, umm, assertive.

“While a lot of people would read that statistic quite negatively, I think it’s quite a positive. It’s more of a gender balance in people getting the kind of sex they want.”

Former gossip columnist Bridget Saunders, who is writing a book on bad sex, believes New Zealand women are “incredibly sexually active” and is worried by the trend.

“A lot of it is to do with the new ‘ladette’ culture,” she says. “It’s almost like wanting to be one of the boys, or to be more like one of the boys than the boys are themselves.”

One sees the ladette culture, in more than just the bedroom. Go to a rugby match – once they were 90% male spectators, and now there are huge numbers of female fans.

Society used to teach young men and women to have very different expectations in life. Women’s job was to get married and have kids, and men’s job is to get a good job and by the family provider. Men with multiple partners were studs and women were sluts. Men were seen as more suited to higher education, and women were not.

I think one of the best things about living in today’s world, as opposed to in the past, has been the increasing equality of women.  WWII started the cultural change, and it has been for the better – even if some people don’t like the fact that women are catching up to men in the bedroom stakes – not just the education and work stakes.

The Herald reports:

BRIAN TAMAKI’S INCOME:
$950,000 to $1.1 million

* Salary from Destiny Auckland: $200,000
* Salary from Destiny Rotorua: $148,500
* Pastors’ tithes: $100,000
* Speaking engagements: $150,000
* First Fruits: $350,000 to $500,000

Extras

* Profits of messages sold at
Destiny Church pay for $500,000 boat
* All 20 Destiny Church branches are encouraged to give at least $1000 to buy gifts for celebrations, including birthday, Christmas Day, anniversaries and Father’s Day.

Purely from a business point of view, you have to admire the set-up. Basically Arch-Bishop Brian has combined God and Amway to make himself rich.

I wonder how he decided on God to be his commodity?

The Press reports:

It is understood the newspaper had a reporter carrying fake explosives in a backpack and a dummy detonator on his body. It is believed the “bomber” was able to achieve access to restricted areas at the ground.

Of course he could. It was a provincial rugby match. I could probably do the same if you gave me five minutes with a colour printer and a laminating machine.

Sunday Star-Times managing editor Mitchell Murphy said critics should withhold judgment about the newspaper’s actions until the results of its investigation were revealed.

“Our investigation, which is a matter of significant public interest, was well planned and carefully considered,” he said.

There is little public interest in the fact that someone with a fake bomb could sneak into a rugby game. We don’t have armed guards and metal detectors at the grounds. The main purpose of security is to check for alcohol, not to x-ray and body frisk people.

Security should be proportional to the threat. For the Rugby World Cup one would expect higher security, as it is a potential target. Quite frankly with the aviation industry hysterically over-reacting with security, it’s nice to not have that same paranoia at our local rugby matches.

“We sought legal advice prior to commencing our investigation, and the journalists involved worked under strict protocols.”

He said the reporter carrying fake explosives had a letter outlining the investigation in case he was stopped, which would have prevented evacuation.

A letter!!! For fucks sake.  So does the SST believe that if Police come across someone in a restricted area, with what appears to be explosives, they should take no action because they have a letter with them, saying there is no threat.

I’d love to see the SST try that stunt at an airport!

“At no stage was the public at risk; nor did we break the law,” Murphy said.

It seems no law was broken, but the stunt was still moronic. Of course there was a public risk if their mock bombers had been discovered.

With the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand next year, stadium security needed to be first-rate, and the investigation had exposed flaws.

Oh what self serving crap. As I said, I have no doubt I could infiltrate a restricted area of a stadium with a bit of effort. Our stadiums are not designed to be like the Pentagon.

For the World Cup, you do expect a higher level of security, but even then, some common sense. Frankly terrorism related paranoia should not overcome common sense.

Associate Professor Jim Tully, who is the head of the Canterbury University journalism course, said the alleged action was “a silly piece of journalism”.

“It’s one thing to potentially test security measures pretty close to the World Cup, but doing it now seems pretty dumb because they’re unlikely to be in place,” he said.

The story could backfire on the newspaper by damaging its credibility, he said.

A story focused on security is quite valid. But giving people fake bombs just reeks of a PR stunt.

The Herald’s Diary:

The New Zealand International Arts Festival rolls into its final week. Among the virtuoso performances has been one by Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Chris Finlayson, although we are not sure he was supposed to have been the one performing. However, his chairing of an Arts Talk session with esteemed Russian-born conductor Vladimir Ashkenazy had the tongues wagging. To say the minister was well-briefed was an understatement. He had prepared no less than 25 erudite and highly detailed questions to put to Ashkenazy.

Here’s one example. “Once former British Prime Minister Ted Heath, an accomplished conductor, was asked whether he preferred conducting orchestras or chairing cabinet meetings. He answered ‘the former’ because orchestras have a unity of purpose, the players work toward a common goal, the output is excellent and they accept the leadership of the conductor. You have never been stuck in a Cabinet meeting but, thinking of all the orchestras you have worked with, is what he said about working with an orchestra been your experience? Did you know Ted Heath? Is it true of Italian orchestras that they are impossible to conduct?” And that was just the first question.

I’m surprised Chris only had 25 questions!

The Herald does a lengthy profile of Michael Jones:

Jones’ work has admirers at the highest level. Listening to him speak at last week were Prime Minister John Key, ministers Paula Bennett, Tariana Turia and Georgina Te Heu Heu and National’s sole Pasifika MP, Sam Lotu-Iiga. Key spoke later, in a similar inspirational vein. But it was Jones who spoke from the heart.

Key’s high-powered retinue made it clear he was redoubling the effort he made before the last election to get Jones to stand for Parliament on the National ticket.

Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey, who has watched Jones for 20 years, says he “could go very far” in politics if he chooses to.

He compares the great flanker to former Prime Minister Norman Kirk. “I have always felt their voice is similar, their phraseology, their quiet and forceful delivery,” he says.

“I think he’s an extraordinary New Zealander. I think he’s got another life. I think that life is saving New Zealand and I would just love to see him run.”

Jones is taking Key’s overtures seriously and is consciously stepping up to leadership.

Jones would be a massive addition to National’s ranks, if he chose to stand. Not because he is a former All Black (some say our greatest), but because he is has always been such an inspirational personality.  His record of community service is second to none.

Jones’ Christian moral values have always placed him on the right politically. He opposed Labour’s civil unions law and Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law, and fronted advertisements for Christian Heritage in 2002.

But he also grew up with Maori families in Te Atatu, learnt te reo Maori at university and spoke out against former National leader Don Brash’s attack on “race-based funding” in 2004. He warmed to National when Key took over and asked him to stand in 2008.

“I got to know John Key in that period and I liked what I saw, not only in terms of his leadership style. “I really sensed that his aspiration was to bring all New Zealanders forward, including Pacific people,” he says.

What would be interesting, is not just if Jones stands, but will he contest a seat? The two logical seats he might contest is Te Atatu or New Lynn.

New Lynn had National just 0.1% behind Labour on the party vote, but a larger 12% gap on the electorate vote. However I think it is fair to say Tim Groser was running a party vote campaign, not trying to win the seat personally.

In terms of ethnic profile, New Lynn is 58% European, 23% Asian, Pacific 12% and Maori 9%.

Te Atatu saw National marginally ahead in the party vote, but Chris Carter win the electorate vote by 17%.

However Te Atatu is even more ethnically diverse with 18% Pacific, 16% Maori and 17% Asian.

I think there is a very reasonable chance that Michael Jones could win either seat. Carter’s reputation has been damaged by the focus on his overseas travel, and he may of course retire. Cunliffe will not be retiring, but he has a smaller majority to defend.

NBR has a “The good, the bad and the ugly – NBR 24/7′s plays of the week”, It is behind the firewall and always a good and often amusing read.

I am sure they don’t midn me sharing one small extract from it:

The good

Bureaucrats are getting fired (slowly)

If you want to know whether a government policy is a good idea or not you usually just need to listen to the reaction of the Public Service Association and take the opposite view.

This week the PSA, along with the union’s Labour allies, was bleating about comparatively minor ($25 million) restructuring at the Ministry of Education as part of a wider plan that includes possibly merging some ministries.

Voicing vociferous opposition to any pen-pushers being shown the door they said (as if it was some kind of tragedy) that about 2000 public sector workers had lost their jobs since National got elected.

This was quite possibly the best news of the week: National has seemingly managed to sack 2000 bureaucrats without anyone (except Labour and the PSA) noticing.

NBR goes on to explain the difference between jobs that create wealth and those that use it up.

The Herald reports:

Former Government minister Roger McClay appeared in court today to face charges of obtaining or using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage.

The 56 charges relate to alleged offending involving $26,000 between November 2005 and December 2008. An additional charge was today withdrawn.

At Auckland District Court today, Defence lawyer Guyon Foley did not enter a formal plea but said that his client denied the allegations against him.

The former National Party politician was bailed to reappear in court on April 23.

It will be interesting to see the formal plea. I have no knowledge of the charges beyond what I read in the media. However based on those reports, the case seems to be one that is easily proven or disproven.

I take what is probably a final look at the Hollow Men e-mails in NBR 24/7 this week:

The illegal (and it was almost certainly illegal) obtaining of the e-mails, and their subsequent publication, had a major impact on New Zealand politics. They effectively forced Don Brash out of the leadership of the National Party, despite the fact National was ahead of Labour in the polls at the time.

It is very unusual for an Opposition Leader to resign, when his party is leading in the polls. And the Hager book based on the e-mails did not in fact have any smoking guns. However, Brash correctly judged that he would have been unable to make traction in the face of the book, and resigned.

If Brash had not resigned, it is quite possible National, under his leadership, would have gone on to win the 2008 general election, and while it is conjecture what policies a Brash-led government would have had, suffice to say that it is hard to imagine it being happy to borrow $240 million a week to fund interest free student loans and working for families.

And the usual conjecture on how they were obtained.

Brian Edwards blogs on the Prince Charles syndrome:

I assume Phil Goff would like to be Prime Minister of New Zealand. He has every reason to think he deserves the job. He’s served a lengthy apprenticeship, having come into Parliament in 1981, the same year as Helen Clark. And he’s had a distinguished career as an MP and Cabinet Minister. He’s highly intelligent and well-informed on a whole range of portfolios from Justice to Foreign Affairs. And he comes from good Labour stock.

Goff and his party are languishing in the polls at the moment, but their figures are actually better than Helen Clark’s and Labour’s were in early-mid 1996.

Labour in early 1996 dropped as low as 14%. But the overall left vote was pretty strong – with the Alliance and NZ First, they were around 50%.

Labour and Greens have no other potential partners on the left, except the Maori Party, which Labour keeps doing its best to alienate.

But it’s interesting to speculate what might have happened if Clark had not  called the coup leaders’ bluff and stood down. In every conversation I’ve had with Michael Cullen, he’s claimed to have had no interest in leading the Labour Party or being Prime Minister. So Labour’s new leader might well have been Phil Goff: 43, talented, hungry, going places.

Could Goff have won against Bolger in 1996? Quite possibly. A factor in Winston Peter’s decision to go with National in the country’s first MMP election may well have been his reluctance to serve under a woman Prime Minister. So he might just have gone with Labour, and Phil Goff would have achieved his ambition to lead the country.

A big factor in NZF going with National was the sheer arrogance of the Labour negotiators. A Goff leadership might have avoided making that mistake.

I also think Labour would have done quite a bit better in 2008, if Goff had been made Finance Minister in mid 2007.

Popular political wisdom at the moment has it that Labour will not win the next election. If that is right and if Goff’s personal rating as preferred Prime Minister has not significantly improved by then, he’s unlikely to survive long as Opposition leader after the election. In similar circumstances, Clark had 6 months to improve her poll ratings and did so spectacularly. Goff has at least 18 months and National’s social and economic policies will inevitably begin to erode the party’s huge lead in the polls well before then. So Goff is in with a chance, albeit a slender one.

Against him is a less easy, less engaging image than Key’s and a phenomenon which I like to call The Prince Charles Syndrome. Charles, the man who would be king, has simply been around too long. Kept waiting by a mother in excellent health and showing no inclination to abdicate, the once young and attractive prince has lost his appeal to his handsome and exciting son, Prince William.  Kept waiting by the hugely charismatic, if morally flawed Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, the dour Scottish son of a Presbyterian minister, may have suffered the same fate – around too long. And the same may be true of Phil Goff.

At the heart of National’s 2008 election win was the simplistic but potent belief that it was ‘time for a change’. John Key had been in Parliament only 6 years when he became Prime Minister. He was fresh and new and the electorate is giving him a lot of slack. We are still getting to know him.

When the 2011 election rolls around, Phil Goff will have been in Parliament for 30 years, kept waiting for twelve of those years by a woman who in 1996 also refused to abdicate.

So does Phil Goff deserve to be Prime Minister of New Zealand? I believe that he does.

And has he been around too long? Possibly.

I an normally very loath to make predictions about what party will win an election, or even a seat. Partly because of my day job, and partly because I know how quickly things can change.

I was very cautious about the results of the 2008 election, right up to and including election night.

However for most of the last year I have been saying that I do not think Labour will win the next election. Not because John Key is popular. Not because National is in its first term. But because, like Brian Edwards, I do not think voters will choose to elect as a “fresh face” someone who has been an MP since 1981.

Of course it can happen, National could implode. Some sort of event could cause the public to want a PM with 30 years experience in Parliament, rather than John Key. But it is a very hard sell, regardless of what Goff does.

The baby boomer generation did place a premium on experience in Parliament. Holyoake served 25 yars before becoming PM. Marshall served 26 years. Nash did 28 years. Kirk did 15 and Muldoon did 15.

Later on it was shorter. Lange did 7. Bolger 18, Shipley 10, Clark 18 and Key 6.

Even in the old days, 30 years was beyond the waiting period for Holyoake, Nash and Marshall.

Today people distrust more people who have spent their entire life in Parliament. It is, well uncool. Look around the world:

Kevin Rudd became Pm after only eight years in Parliament. Tony Blair took 1 years to be Leader and PM in 14. David Cameron may do it in 13. Even Tony Abbott is in only his 16th year. Stephen Harper made PM 13 years after he entered. Angela Merkel took 15 years.

Now this is not a hard and fast rule. But it is a sign of the massive challenge ahead of Goff, to convince voters that he is a Prime Minister to lead NZ into the future.

The Herald talks government funding cuts:

Predictably enough, Labour has tried to make a mountain out of the Government’s announcement of funding cuts in the Education Ministry. According to its education spokesman, Trevor Mallard, these will harm education quality because there will be less research and less teacher and curriculum development.

In reality, he is talking about a molehill. The ministry has been asked to make just $25 million in savings by 2012-13. That is a surprisingly small amount, which is being sought in the right area, rather than at what used to be called the chalkface.

All government-funded organisations are being told to cut costs because of the tough economic climate. Cue cries of anguish and alarm.

The key to achieving the savings without fulfilling the grim forecasts of these critics lies in targeting areas that will not disrupt a sector’s core responsibilities. Commendably, this is what the Government is seeking to achieve in both education and health, two of the leading recipients of its spending.

Labour has never met a spending cut they didn’t oppose.

The Dominion Post swipes at NZUSA:

The University Students Association is to be applauded for its egalitarian instincts. They accord with the New Zealand ethos.

However, the association, long a training ground for Labour Party apparatchiks, would enhance its credibility if it spent less time bleating about the cost of university studies and more focusing on the quality of the education on offer.

It makes a habit of engaging its mouth before its brain. The most recent instance occurred on Tuesday when co-presidents David Do and Pene Delaney issued a statement condemning new Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce, the Government’s tyre-kicker-in-chief, for saying that from 2012 a percentage of the state funding provided to tertiary institutions will be linked to their academic performance and for adding that he’d also like to restrict student loans to students who pass their courses.

David Do is a former Chair of Princes St Labour.

Here is a newsflash for the association: the quality of the education available to its members, and students at other tertiary institutions, has gradually been eroded over the past couple of decades by underfunding and a bums-on seats-policy that rewards institutions according to the number of students enrolled rather than their performance.

The Government does not have a magic pool of money into which it can dip to make up the shortfall. It is effectively borrowing $200 million a week to maintain existing levels of public services, debt that will eventually have to be made good by the the association’s members and generations yet unborn.

If improvements are to be made to the system, the money has to come from within the existing tertiary education budget. Mr Joyce is doing exactly what the association should be imploring him to do – looking for poor-quality institutions and courses so that money can be redirected from them to institutions and courses that provide value for money.

He is proposing to do the same with students. Good on him. Every student who is not turning up to class, repeatedly failing or using a student allowance or loan to subsidise a lifestyle that has nothing to do with study is wasting money that could otherwise be used to provide a better education for students motivated to make the most of their opportunities.

The association should forget about trying to score political points and focus on advancing its members’ real interests. Students should ask themselves whether they would rather buy a clapped-out jalopy with a wound-back odometer for $25,000 or a modern, reliable warranted vehicle for $35,000.

Mr Joyce knows the answer to that question. It is to buy a quality vehicle that will stand the test of time. The same holds true for education. Forget cheap; think quality.

A wonderful editorial.

The Press talks immigration:

Graven on a tablet within the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty in New York is the poem with the famous words “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses”. The latest immigration policy development in New Zealand is somewhat different to this. The new temporary retirement immigration category is more a case of New Zealand being given and welcoming elderly migrants, provided they have enough money to invest here.

Under this scheme foreigners aged at least 66 years can move to New Zealand on an initial two-year permit if they have good health and character, agree to invest $750,000 here, have an income of $60,000 and $500,000 worth of assets.

By international standards the financial criteria for coming here are not huge, which might encourage a reasonable uptake. But even if this did occur the amount which must be invested is also comparatively modest, which suggests that the scheme might not make the contribution to economic growth which the Government hopes would occur.

Rather than encouraging the wealthy elderly to come to our shores, the focus should be on promoting New Zealand as a migration destination for younger people with skills. This would help address this nation’s serious skills shortage and contribute more meaningfully to economic growth.

I don’t think it is an either-or. One can encourage both.

And the ODT focuses on regional rates:

A rare piece of good news emerged for beleaguered ratepayers this week: the Otago Regional Council draft annual plan shows no increase in the general rate. The ORC chairman points out it is a draft budget only, but nevertheless, how refreshing. Why can’t other councils do the same?

Indeed. Most businesses have had to contain costs, as have most households. Even the central Government is doing so. Local Government should follow.

Received this message:

I was sitting behind him in a National Standards meeting and he was using his touch phone to video and record ‘discreetly’ Anne Tolley, Sam Lotu-Iiga and other members of the publics questions and comments. We all realised he was doing it, and at one point Anne said something like “If you want a copy of the slides Trevor i’ll send them to you”.

If I was a parent genuinely concerned about what was going on, someone who cares about my children’s progress who comes along to one of these meetings I don’t think I’d want my voice to be used in the Labour party caucus- he’ll probably bring us segments in the house or try and table his phone.

I have to question whether this is the best use of time for a constituency MP- and the use of tax payers money for him to fly up to Auckland to ‘hold’ Carol Beaumont’s hand. Time that he could be using to solve cases in his community, perhaps teaching children how to read considering he’s so concerned. Concerned about children’s progress enough to spend recess here videoing a public meeting.

Speaks for itself. More strange behaviour.

Just received this press release:

A newspaper stunt at major provincial rugby games last weekend could easily have resulted in matches being called off and stadiums evacuated, Police Minister Judith Collins said.

Ms Collins was advised that a newspaper commissioned people to masquerade as terrorists who then gained access to restricted areas at Super 14 matches in Hamilton and Christchurch.

“The actions are unbelievably stupid and irresponsible. This stunt had the potential to result in games being called off and stadiums evacuated,” Ms Collins said.

“This would have caused not only great public inconvenience and cost, but possibly presented a risk to the safety of spectators.

“Common sense would tell you that running around a stadium dressed as a bomber has the potential to end very badly.

“If there had been panic there was the very real possibility that people – particularly the elderly, children and those less mobile – could have been hurt.

“Police are taking this matter very seriously.”

This is beyond moronic. The newspaper responsible is the Sunday Star-Times. I’ve often criticised the media for creating news, instead of reporting it, but this goes to a new low.

Ms Collins said security at major events is based on risk, and that security at a provincial rugby game will be much less than for a major international match.

“The only thing people masquerading as bombers will achieve is an unnecessary increase in security at considerable cost and inconvenience to the public,” she said.

“The last thing people want is the situation where people have to be body searched before attending provincial rugby matches.”

What were the SST trying to prove? Of course a suicide bomber could blow themselves and lots of other people up at a provincial rugby game.They could also blow lots of people up at a school rugby game, or the McEverdy Shield in Wellington.

I suspect their real intention was to scare monger about the Rugby World Cup. So their aim was to scare tens of thousands of people off globally from coming to New Zealand.

I’m pretty sure there will have been some laws broken by the people who posed as terrorists, but they should not be the ones prosecuted. The people who paid or commissioned them to do so, should face some consequences for such stupidity and malice.

Again I wonder what the SST saw as the end point for this. Do they want every provincial rugby game to have armed police officers, bomb checks, metal detectors?

I’ve blogged in the past on ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Readers will gear a lot more of this in the next month, because the next meeting of the ACTA negotiators is in Wellington in April.

There are two major issues around ACTA. The first is that the negotiations are secret, and this has even upset the EU Parliament:

Wary of the lack of openness surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), virtually representatives of the EU parliament have banded together, voting 663 to 13 in favour of passing a resolution that would require the EU Commission (who are the EU’s representative in ACTA negotiations), to share all information about ACTA talks, and to refuse to support any Internet disconnection penalty for online copyright infringement.

The resolution is very specific and blunt about the EU Parliament’s displeasure with the lack of transparency around EU ACTA negotiations, citing concerns over the “lack of a transparent process in the conduct of the ACTA negotiations”.

The second is the concern that ACTA may force countries that ratify it, to legislate for Internet disconnection for people accussed or found to have infringed copyright.

Now, all trade agreements are negotiated privately, but whether an agreement on copyright law should be seen as a trade agreement is a big issue – most IP agreements are not. Many countries would like to be more open about ACTA, but the rules of trade negotiations are that you need unanimous permission to agree to anything – including releasing information. So just one country, such as the US, can block the release of the draft text.

I’ve attended two meetings (in my role with InternetNZ) with officials from MFAT and MED, and have to say I am impressed with their willingness to engage, within the limits of what they can say. They have consistently said their position has been that ACTA should not require NZ to do anything beyond its current law (including the replacement S92A). However they can not tell us what has been proposed by other countries, and the concern is what pressure there may be to get an agreement in the final stages.

What the Government has done is asked for public submissions on “enforcement of intellectual property rights in the digital environment”. If you have concerns about ACTA, you should take a few minutes to make a submission and state what is and is not acceptable to you. Topics include:

• Liability of ISPs for third party infringement
• Safe Harbour provisions for ISPs and associated conditions
• Identifying Infringing Users
• TPMs (Technological Protection Measures)

Now despite the ACTA negotiations being secret, a draft text has been leaked. And, assuming it is accurate, it shows the New Zealand negotiators in a pretty favourable light – opposing some of the more undesirable aspects.

Nathan Torkington covers this in a blog post. His summary:

On the balance this bit isn’t too bad–New Zealand is a good voice for sanity in the negotiations.

I was pleased to see from the leaked draft, that the official position of the NZ negotiators, was very much in line with the informal indications they had given. It is ironic that we can only verify this, because someone leaked a draft.

Now as I said the next round of ACTA, and the round most likely to be discussing the Internet section, is in Wellington from 12 to 16 April. I am hoping the organisers will allow an opportunity for some sort of public forum or dialogue with negotiators, and this request has been made.

InternetNZ has organised a PublicACTA conference on Saturday 10 April, which will allow interested people to debate the issues, form positions, and report them to the main ACTA negotiations the following week.

And in a further announcement, the keynote speaker will be Professor Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa in Ontario. Michael is a real expert in this area, and a great advocate for balance in copyright laws.

I would recommend people attend, just for the chance to hear Michael. And if you wish to stay up to date with what is happening, I recommend this ACTA coalition site.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Mayor John Banks, a candidate for the mayoralty of the proposed Super City, has been uncharacteristically modest about his efforts to rescue a cat in a tree.

It is understood the kitten was part of a stray cat colony in Dove-Myer Robinson Park, Parnell, where Mr Banks is known to feed the animals.

He got a call late on Wednesday night from a constituent about the kitten’s plight and spent about two hours yesterday morning helping to rescue the animal.

But later, Mr Banks said he didn’t want to talk about it.

“I love cats. I am an animal rights activist. Thank you very much for the call. There is nothing more to say.

“I change light bulbs for elderly people, I unblock drains and I rescue cats.

“It is part of being the mayor of a super city. That is all I want to tell you. Have a great day.”

Heh, that is a funny story. John is a renowned pet lover, and I can just imagine him dropping everything to go help rescue the cat.

Mind you, I’ve never worked out how a cat needs rescuing from a tree. If they got up it, I’m pretty sure they can get down if they really want to.

The Herald reports:

An Auckland healthcare worker has been left “disgusted” after finding a maggot in her McDonald’s burger box.

Linda MacDonald, a mental health carer, had just finished eating an Angus Burger Combo, which she bought from the Pt Chevalier McDonald’s, when a colleague she shared the burger with pointed out something “wiggling” in the box.

The 59-year-old grandmother spat out her remaining mouthful and ran to the toilet to throw up.

“It was awful,” she said. “They offered me McDonald’s vouchers, and I told them: ‘No way am I ever going to set foot in there again’. The cheek of it – it’s so wrong.”

McDonald’s NZ boss Mark Hawthorne said he did not believe the maggot came from within the restaurant. It was dead when the company conducted tests. …

She says she cut the burger with a knife when she shared it with her colleague, but is adamant the maggot did not get there then.

There are many criticisms one can make of McDonalds, but bad hygiene is an unlikely one. It is not impossible of course, but they have a manual which is explicit on every single process, and management are trained to do nothing at all that deviates from the manual. This is bad for innovation, but good for consistency – which is their brand.

So I think it is unlikely the fault is with McDonalds, but do have sympathy for the customer concerned (my guess is the knife) as finding foreign material in your food is one of the most unpleasant experiences you can undergo. I had a Wellington shop prosecuted many years ago when I found a sticking plaster in my meal, as I was cooking it at home.  I chucked up the moment I realised exactly what was on the end of my fork. Thank God I had not actually eaten any – that would have been worse.

Apologies for anyone expecting a more regular display. I haven’t been around much on Fridays of late.

Here’s a shot of one of our native long-horn beetles:

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

Trevor posted at Red Alert:

My calculation is that the average residential rental property will inolve a loss of about $45 to the landlord v current depreciation arrangements.

(Average house price 416k but I’ve used median 360k. 2% depreciation = $7,200. 33c tax rate = $2,400 say $45 per week)

Can John Key guarantee that all families that rent their houses and get this increase as well as that in their GST will not be worse off.

Now Trevor has been slaughtered in the comments there for his basic errors, he has done a partial retraction:

Comments below have suggested that my estimate is high because I haven’t taken out land prices. Other emails have suggested that there are higher depreciation rates and that because a proportion of rented premises are apartments land is not quite the issue some suggest. I’m happy to use the property investors $34/week figure for the purpose of the discussion. The post goes to the principle.

Trevor retreats behind principle, after going on TV talking about his $45 a week figure. Shame on the media for running with it, without checking it out.

What are the mistakes Trevor made.

1. The no depreciation on land is the big one. The median house value is $360,000. Looking through the WCC property database, I would estimate this averages out to $190,000 building and $170,000 land. So Trevor’s figures are already out by close to 100%
2. The depreciation rate is 2% straight line or 3% diminishing value. For an exercise of this nature, SL is better in my opinion, so no problem there.
3. The other massive mistake Trevor has made is overlooking that the depreciation has to be repaid when the house is sold. The gain to the landlord is not the tax rebate on the depreciation, but the interest free use of that money for some years. Now that can still add up to a useful amount (as I calculated here) but way way less than the tax rebate itself.

So taking 1 and 3 together, Trevor may be out by literally a magnitude.

Putting aside Trevor’s faulty maths, how great is it to see Labour championing the cause of landlords to claim non existent depreciation? If Labour has a strategist in their ranks, he or she must be in tears at Labour’s inability to run a coherent message.

UPDATE: If you thing I have been harsh on Trevor, read Keith Ng at Public Address:

Of course, this means Trevor Mallard’s own back-of-a-napkin adventures were even more full of shit.

As he acknowledges in his update, he included land values, so he massively overstates the cost, and he didn’t even consider clawback. The curious thing is how his clearly, completely and massively wrong estimate ended up being in the same ballpark as the Property Investors Federation’s completely unsubstantiated figure…

Oh. Right.

Full. Of. Shit.

I love it how Labour have become shrills for the Property Investors Federation.

Just been told that Monteiths are giving away a free case of (24 stubbies) beer to the best commenters on blogs in the Ffunnell advertising network, that contribute to their Worth Talking Over site.

Their site grabs contributions from the various blogs, and puts them into speech bubbles, as a way of highlighting the debates. The site is very well done – in fact it pulls contents from blogs. from Twitter and even the old Usenet groups.

Anyway what it means is I get to pick a commenter who will get two dozen stubbies as a prize. Sadly I can not pick myself

If Expat can send me by e-mail their name, address, phone and a statement they are aged over 18 (this is a legal requirement), then they will get a pleasant delivery in a few days.

A Paulus Telfer has applied to the Electoral Commission, to register the logo below as the official logo for a 51st state party:

Yes that is 51 stars on there. Six rows, with half having nine stars and half having eight stars. The current US flag has nine rows, with five rows of six, and four rows of five.

Mr Telfer incidentally stood for Mayor of Christchurch and got 289 votes. Bob Parker won with 46,104.

Anyway I thought I would see if I could come up with ten reasons why we should become the 51st state of the United States.

1. We would now get to bully Australia
2. No more royal tours
3. Cheaper gas
4. The SAS would get the much cooler name of Delta Force
5. We would now be the possessors of the Olympic Gold Medal for Rugby Union
6. We instantly have an effective free trade agreement with the US
7. The ANZUS Treaty would then become the A’n'US treaty.
8. Just as one has African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, we would be Kiwi-Americans
9. No longer would need to fund MFAT
10. Someone earning NZ$100,000 (US$70,000) would pay 19.5% federal income tax instead of the average 29.5% currently imposed.

Labour yesterday announced a formal position on mobile termination rates:

The Government should put consumers first and regulate mobile termination rates to keep call costs down, Labour spokesperson for communications and IT Clare Curran said today.

“High mobile termination rates are a barrier to entry for new players in the market, which leads to less competition and higher prices,” Clare Curran said.

“While Vodafone and Telecom have now offered to lower termination rates by around 80 per cent, it still does not go far enough to reduce the major issues for new entrants.

I think it is a good thing that Labour have learnt from their mistakes, when they did a deal with the two telcos in 2007, rather than accept the advice to regulate.

Slightly amused that their formal policy stance comes just days after Clare had a whack at Matthew Hooton for implying Labour support the Drop the Rate, Mate campaign.

The Drop the Rate, Mate campaign also yesterday released their submission to the Minister, including some research done by Curia of 400 mobile phone users. Key findings were:

• Only 18% of respondents wanted the Government to accept the binding promises of Telecom and Vodafone, while 78% wanted the Government to regulate
• 79% agreed that Telecom and Vodafone are overcharging New Zealanders
• 85% agreed with the proposition that it should cost the same to call someone on a different network, as to call someone on your own network

The full results are here – EXCELTIUM MOBILE PHONE RESULTS MARCH 2010 PUBLIC.

Chris Barton in the Herald is not shy with his opinion of what the Government should do:

So far, you have to say, Joyce has played with an exceedingly straight bat. But it won’t be easy negotiating the quagmire of a split recommendation by Commerce Commissioners on mobile termination rates. Two argue for putting heads in the sand while one voice of reason says enough is enough – Vodafone and Telecom have had more than enough time to sort this out and have, time and again, shown they can’t be trusted.

Joyce will be familiar with the sordid last-minute deal stitched together between new mobile entrant 2degrees and Vodafone last year. While the public isn’t allowed to know about this venality, anyone who cares to can find it online (search under “NZ Cellphone racket”). It shows that Vodafone will move if it has a gun to its head. Joyce will also be familiar with www.droptherate.org.nz and www.fibretothedoor.co.nz – two campaigning websites where the public is helping the minister make up his mind.

Go there at once.

What fed-up consumers want minister, is Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry. For some of us, it’s so bad, we don’t just want Clint to pull out his .44 Magnum and ask whether the punk feels lucky. With Telecom and Vodafone, we want him to pull the trigger.

The challenge for the Minister, is how quickly can a regulated price be established, if he chooses to regulate. The undertakings would take place more quickly. However the likely regulated price would see prices by 2011 drop further, and remain lower.