Kiwiblog

Alasdair Thompson writes in the Herald:

Auckland Airport is issuing more shares to fund its purchase of airport company shares in Cairns and Mackay, Australia, and the mayors of Manukau and Auckland say their councils will use ratepayers’ money ($28.66 million) to buy their extra allocation of them.

This means that every ratepayer in Auckland and Manukau has been forced to fund a speculative investment in two Australian Airports. Madness.

I asked Mr Brown about this recently, and his answer was he wants Manukau city to control the airports shareholding because it’s a “strategic” asset. He quoted a former Manukau mayor, who apparently used to say “it’s a licence to print money”. He made no attempt to compare the return on his ratepayers’ investment in the airport with the returns or benefits from investing in risk free core public infrastructure.

John Banks agrees with Mr Brown. He too wants his council to buy more shares in the airport to keep its level of control over the airport’s ownership. Mr Brown’s subtext was that most of the people who will vote for him like public ownership of businesses such as airports and ports and don’t like private ownership of them.

But this is like saying most people don’t like private ownership of businesses, even though it is business that provides the jobs, products and services, and dividends and taxes that pay for the jobs and services of the public sector. We say that where the private sector is happy to take on risk let it do so and let government regulate monopolies and control of “strategic” assets.

Could not agree more.

Very disappointed in two first reading votes case last night by the National Party.

The first was against the bill to allow a separate youth minimum wage (went down 5-117). Not only is this a u-turn from the previous position (National voted against Labour abolishing them in 2008), but it is bad public policy. The record high youth unemployment is partly due to young unskilled workers having been priced out of the market.

I wouldn’t be so annoyed if National was voting against it after it had been to select committee. But by voting it down, they are saying we don’t even want to hear the pros and cons of whether having a separate youth minimum wage could help get more young people into work.

The second bad vote is the party vote against the bill to allow New Zealanders to vote on whether or not they wish to be be a republic.

I’m really pissed off that they made it a party vote. National has had an authoritarian streak to it recently, where they are whittling down the number of issues MPs traditionally are not whipped on. They even want to remove conscience voting on alcohol. There are MPs in National (and many party members) who support NZ becoming a Republic, and they should have been allowed to say so.

And what is even more galling, is that National voted this down at first reading. I’m not advocating that the bill (in its current form) should have been voted into law automatically. But if National had allowed it to go to select committee, it would have allowed the public of New Zealand to submit on how they think the decision on republic vs monarchy should be made. That would have been an invaluable exercise.

National has denied us all the right to have our say – both on youth minimum wage rates and on our head of state.

I don’t have a problem with a party voting down a bill at first reading when they are ideologically against it (ie do not expect National to support a bill that made unions compulsory) or it seeks to reverse Government policy. But with most other issues, they are worthy of sending through to a select committee, so the public can have their say on them.

My thanks to the Labour (excluding Jim Anderton), United Future  and Green parties that supported the Republic Referendum bill, and supported allowing the public a say.

Well, its Spring time in Kuwait  (or what passes for Spring over here - read warmer weather, thunder storms, dust storms and surprisingly heavy rain) and there must be something in the air, because while driving to and from work the other day I was hit on no less than three times.  Given the restrictions on socialising between the sexes in this part of the world, the locals have developed new and rather inventive measures for finding love.

The most popular of these seems to be cruising Gulf Road (six lanes, but not quite a highway) in your pimped out car (think an Escalade with an Armani logo in Swarovski crystals) until you spy a likely prospect, then chasing them along at speeds of up to 120km, till you finally box in your prey at a traffic light, where you can proceed to ask for a cigarette, a phone number, or, for the very bold, a date.  It’s wretchedly annoying, because not only can there be some rather dangerous driving (evasive manoeuvers), but frequently two cars full of fellas will settle on either side of a single carful of ladies and mosey along while chatting, which blocks the road for the rest of us who have places to go and people to see.  

I will admit to going on a traffic light date once, but the guy made such an effort it would have been rude not to.  He caught me by surprise singing along to the radio at the top of my lungs and asked where I worked.  I was so surprised I answered, thinking nothing of it.  My firm has no website and the phone directory here in a maze, so I figured it was reasonably anonymous, but somehow he found the number and called me at work, so I eventually agreed to meet him for a (non-alcoholic) drink at my favourite sheesha bar. 

As it turns out, Khaled was a very pleasant chap, with pretty good English- he was perplexed to learn that asking out a random stranger wasn’t so common, and asking out a stranger at the traffic lights unheard of, and wanted to know how Westerners managed to date, which got me thinking about how to meet a man.  I couldn’t help thinking of a friend at home who’s lamenting the lack of suitable partners on the market.  Is organised dating, like speed dating, really that different to meeting someone at the traffic lights?  How about a blind date?  At least you have a friend in common with that I suppose.

Paul Quinn’s private member’s bill to ban all prisoners (rather than just those serving terms of greater than three years) from voting passed its first reading by 63 votes to 58.

National and ACT voted in favour. Labour, Maori, United, Greens and Progressive against.

It has been referred to the Law & Order Select Committee, which will hear submissions on it. I would be interested to find out how many prisoners actually do vote, and how many are eligible to vote.

Gerry Brownlee had fun in the House reading out extracts of Labour’s brand survey masterminded by Clare Curran.

[UPDATE: Watch the video of the House and especially the death stare from Clare Curran as Gerry mocks her brand survey. It's at 1:16.]

I didn’t realise that when Labour said it wants to show the electorate it has changed, it did not mean new policies, or a new frontbench, but a new logo and brand.

The full survey is here – Labour brand survey.

The first questions asks people to tick what values should be associated with Labour from the following list.

Enduring
Futuristic
Clever
Friendly
Practical
Classic
Excellence
Different
Honest
Vibrant
Professional
Feel good
Reliable
Bold
Unique
Dedicated
Conservative
Inspiring
Creative
Edgy
Positive
Out there
Consensus
New Zealand
Heritage
Trusted
Sober
Innovative
Integrity
Pacific
Non-confrontational
Caring
People
Fresh
Dependable
Approachable
Cheeky
Artistic
Colourful
Funky
Ordinary
Maori
Diverse
Distinctive
Sophisticated
Unusual
Memorable
Environment
Passionate
Dynamic
Cool
Modern
Happy
Retro

They have missed out the 31 words in the BSA survey!

Then people are asked to describe Labour in six words or less. Gerry’s retort was that he only needs one word to describe Labour. Sadly Standing Orders would not allow him to share that word.

We await seeing Labour’s new logo in the fullness of time.

iPredict has three stocks on the outcome of the 2011 election, being which party will the Prime Minister come from after the election.

Most of last year the price for PM.2011.NATIONAL has been around 65c, but I noticed recently it is ow up at 80c, suggesting the market thinks National’s re-election is 80% likely.

The price data since the 2008 election is below:

As one can see, the sentiment in favour of a National victory has increased significantly so far this year, and in the last ten days has jumped 5c to over 80c.

Now people might say an 80% chance of National winning is about right. But in fact the market is saying the chances of National winning is around 85%, when you discount the use of money.

When a contract does not pay out for a while, the price of the stock reflects the cost of money, so even if something is 100% likely, people won’t pay 95c for a stock which pays out in 18 months, as the 5c gain on 95c investment is less than they would have got in the bank. This is why stocks with no chance of occurring such as John Key stepping down as National Leader this year are trading at 5c instead of 0c.

So what is the market really saying are the odds of National winning the next election. If you invest $80 you get $100 back in 20 months time. Now if you can (for no risk) put that in a bank account and get 8% per annum which is $11 over 20 months. So risk free you will get 91%. So effectively the premium for the possibly that National may not win is 9%.

So if we looked at it in terms of odds, National is 10:1 favourite.

If you think Labour has a better chance than 1 in 10 of winning the election so Phil Goff becomes Prime Minister, then you should sell PM.2011.NATIONAL or by PM.2011.LABOUR.

No Right Turn blogs:

The Human Rights Act absolutely prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in employment. It is illegal to refuse to offer someone a job on the basis of their race, colour, or ethnic or national origins. It is illegal to even ask an applicant for details which might indicate an intention to do so. Because of this, all newspapers now carry prominent notices in their employment sections warning that they will not accept advertisements which appear to seek to employ people only of a certain race or gender.

So I was quite surprised to be pointed at this ad from Candle ICT on TradeMe, which clearly and repeatedly states that the position is open only to Maori:

As part of an initiative to kick-start the IT careers of Maori graduates, we are seeking up to 30 graduates to take part in an internship project which will see you learning the in’s and out’s of being a successful business analyst. [...]

These internships are open to all Maori graduates nationwide with training being held in Wellington and Auckland…

(Image here in case they take it down).

This indicates a clear intent to discriminate on the basis of race. It would not be acceptable to advertise a position as open only to Pakeha, and it is not acceptable to advertise a position as open only to Maori. Any racial requirement in employment is unlawful discrimination.

I first saw the ad being twittered last night. I am also amazed Candle ICT let such an ad go up. You expect HR firms to know the law.

I note the ad has now been removed.

Eric Crampton blogs:

New Zealand is blessed with one of the cleanest value added taxes in the world, our GST. Every new good is taxed at 12.5% (likely to rise to 15%); the tax provides about a fifth of national tax revenue. …

A fun Australian case, via the Centre for Independent Studies daily email update, ideas@TheCentre:You wouldn’t usually expect to find baking recipes in court judgments, but Justice Sundberg of the Federal Court in Melbourne made an exception recently. In doing so, he demonstrated how overly complex Australia’s tax rules are.

Take 67.5% wheat flour, 20% water, 8% olive oil, 2% sea salt, 1.5% yeast, and 1% malt extract. Follow the instructions in Lansell House Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCA 329, and what you get is either bread or a cracker.

At least that was the question Justice Sundberg had to answer. A small food importer from Melbourne had been importing Perfetto Mini Ciabatte, an oven-baked Italian flat bread that only culinary philistines – or the Australian Taxation Office – could mistake for an ordinary cracker.

Australian tax law has kept lawyers and bureaucrats busy for a long time over this mini ciabatta. Basic food stuffs are exempt from GST, but other foods are not. Thus, bread does not attract GST but crackers do.

The food importer thought he had a clear case when he claimed tax-free status for his mini ciabatta. He had even flown in Italy’s leading bread expert Giampiero Muntoni to testify in court. Signor Muntoni holds an EU certificate that entitles him to certify whether a product is a bread or a non-bread item for value added tax purposes in Italy. To this infallible bread pope it was clear that if the ingredients are that of bread, if it looks like bread, and if the Italian tax authorities classify it as bread, it must be, well, bread.

This was not good enough to convince an Australian court, though. Justice Sundberg noted that mini ciabatta cracks like a cracker; it’s sold next to crackers in Australian supermarkets; and a chemical analysis revealed similar gluten and protein content as that of crackers. In conclusion, he upheld that GST had to be paid on it.

It would be easy to find this issue ridiculous, but actually it is symptom of what is wrong with our tax law. It is incomprehensible that there should be different taxes for, arguably, very similar products.

Tax lawyers would do very well if we start introducing exemptions.

Three editorials on the UN Declaration. First the Herald:

When the previous Labour Government was confronted with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, it quailed.

The potential political backlash, rather than the practical outcome of signing a non-binding document, was uppermost in its mind.

At its behest, New Zealand joined a group of only four UN members opposed to the declaration. It was a nonsensical state of affairs for a country whose record on indigenous rights is far superior to the vast majority of those who had signed up. …

If New Zealand does certain things differently to the ideal scenario alluded to by the declaration, that is of no great practical consequence. The focus should be on its record on indigenous relations, which places it in the international vanguard.

The work of the Waitangi Tribunal, which since 1975 has served as an effective sounding board for iwi to relate their stories of land loss, has been an integral part of that.

New Zealand has always spoken from a position of strength on matters of indigenous rights because it comes closer than most to meeting the aspirations espoused in the UN declaration.

Signing that document was, as Dr Sharples suggests, a small step but one that has symbolic value domestically and internationally.

There may, indeed, be no practical impact. That does not mean, however, that grasping this nettle was not worthwhile.

So Herald very supportive.

The Press:

The Maori Party chalked up another victory this week with the announcement that the Government will support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Although this decision is largely symbolic, support for the declaration had been a long-standing goal of the party and a source of friction between it and the previous Labour-led administration.

From a political perspective, support for the declaration makes sense for both the Maori Party and National. The Maori Party can add this to a growing list of policy concessions by National, including retaining the Maori seats and flying the Maori flag on Waitangi Day. In addition, the hated foreshore and seabed law will be repealed and the Maori Party’s flagship Whanau Ora policy will be introduced.

For National, these concessions have the effect of tying the Maori Party closer to it and creating the prospect that a support relationship between the two could endure past this term. In particular, it creates a point of difference with Labour, which justified its position as one of just four nations to oppose the declaration in 2007 by saying that it was at odds with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal framework. …

There is a risk that the declaration could be the basis of future attacks on this nation’s human rights record. But New Zealand governments have shown themselves capable of shrugging off previous criticism from bodies such as the UN Commission on Human Rights.

It might be argued, as Labour has done, that there was little point in endorsing the declaration if it would have no practical effect. It is, however, a symbol of New Zealand’s support for indigenous peoples across the globe.

And it was always incongruous that the vast majority of nations, many of which have appalling human rights records compared with New Zealand, voted for the bill, and that this nation did not.

Two in favour.

The Dom Post:

Recognising blah blah blah, affirming waffle waffle waffle. As a contribution to the human rights canon, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples leaves something to be desired.

It reads like a 48-page wish list assembled by a committee, which is exactly what it is – a committee which debated the merits of additional clauses, full stops and commas for 22 years. Drafting began in 1985, but the final wording was not approved by the United Nations General Assembly until 2007.

Heh sounds typical.

However, its drawn-out conception is not a reason to oppose it. Nor is its verbosity. The declaration is a flawed document – an assemblage of truisms and platitudes that imposes no obligations on signatories but contains fishhooks for nations that try to honour it.

It is actually to the last government’s credit that it declined to endorse a document it knew it could not implement. Amid the verbiage are a handful of articles that confer rights on indigenous peoples that are denied to other citizens. They include the right to veto government decisions and reclaim ownership of traditional lands – a right that, in New Zealand’s case, could be interpreted as covering the entire country.

New Zealand does not need to pay lip service to unworkable statements to demonstrate its good intent. …

However, there is value in restating the special status of Maori as New Zealand’s indigenous people, acknowledging the importance of Maori culture, affirming the Treaty of Waitangi’s place as New Zealand’s founding document and acknowledging the historic injustices suffered by Maori.

The negotiations between the Maori Party and National have enabled the Government to do so in a way which does not expose it to accusations of bad faith.

New Zealand’s declaration of support explicitly reaffirms the legal and constitutional frameworks that underpin the legal system and notes that those frameworks define the bounds of New Zealand’s engagement with the UN declaration. In other words, New Zealand law takes precedence over the declaration.

A momentous occasion as the Maori Party has suggested? Perhaps not, but a welcome opportunity to remove a source of friction between Maori and the Government and to put New Zealand back in the international mainstream. Of the four countries that initially opposed the declaration – New Zealand, the United States, Australia and Canada – only the US now stands outside the declaration. Australia changed its position last year and Canada has said it will do so.

Luke warm, but broadly supportive.

The ODT focuses on volcanic fallout:

If there is a lesson to be learned – again – from the billowing clouds of volcanic ash in the skies over Europe, it is the latent power of nature.

In 1783, the eruption of the volcano Laki in Iceland lasted for about eight months.

The effects of the layers of dust it threw into the atmosphere have been linked, among other things, to the failure of crops in France, and subsequent famine.

The fallout, Dr Stephen Edwards of the Department of Earth Sciences at University College London told the London Observer at the weekend, may have been one of a number of factors that led to the French Revolution. …

The interruption to normal service is costing the airline industry alone almost $NZ500 million a day, according to a conservative estimate by the International Air Transport Association.

The knock-on effects to a world economy just beginning to witness the signs of a fragile recovery from the recent recession, could be considerably amplified beyond the immediate consequences of cancelled flights.

Quiz here. 28 seconds.

The Dom Post reports:

War veterans are angry that Peace Movement Aotearoa is running a white poppy fundraiser just a day before the annual RSA red poppy day street appeal.

Veterans’ Affairs Minister Judith Collins said the white poppy appeal was “incredibly disrespectful to those who served their country”.

“Peace Movement Aotearoa should be ashamed of themselves,” she said. …

Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association chief executive Stephen Clarke said the organisation was concerned at the intrusion. Red poppies had been sold every year since 1922 to raise money for veterans’ welfare services. It raised $1.4 million last year.

It was a clear case of “trading off” on the red poppy brand, Mr Clarke said.

However, PMA co-ordinator Edwina Hughes defended its white poppy appeal and the timing. Her organisation was not competing with the RSA. There was nothing to stop people wearing red and white poppies together.

This is scummy parasitical behaviour.

PMA have every right to raise money. They even have the right to raise money the day before ANZAC Day.

But using a white poppy, the day before ANZAC Day, is designed to con people into thinking that it is somehow linked to the RSA poppy collection. The colour change by itself is not distinguishing enough.

In effect PMA, is stealing money from the RSA, so that rather have the money go on assistance to veterans, their widows and children, it goes to:

One of the first scholarships was awarded to Victoria University student Marianne Bevan to fund a visit to East Timor to study militarisation, violence and gender issues in the country’s recently established police force.

That is fine for those who wish to fund such stuff, but I suspect many people who buy a poppy the day before ANZAC Day will assume it it going to the RSA.

PMA should apologise for their behaviour.

My laptop is six months past the three year anniversary, which is when I normally get a new one.

I was waiting for Windows 7 to come out, so I could avoid Vista. From all accounts Windows 7 is a big step up from Vista, and considerably faster.

So now the decision is whether to wait for Office 2010, or not. I’m using Office 2003.

The Waikato Times has a report on Office 2010

But I’m keen to hear from anyone who has used their beta versions. Is it worth waiting until June or July for?

Stuff reports:

A senior Iranian cleric says women who wear revealing clothing and behave promiscuously are to blame for earthquakes.

Wow something else to blame Britney Spears for.

“Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media.

“What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble?” Sedighi asked during a prayer sermon on Friday.

“There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam’s moral codes.”

To spare Hong Kong from destruction, we need to hope Cactus Kate converts to Islam.

The Herald reports:

Maori Party MP Hone Harawira says the Government’s support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People is more than just symbolism and it will be used to further claims of self-determination by iwi.

And Act Party leader Rodney Hide launched a stinging attack in Parliament not just on the decision to back the declaration but on Prime Minister John Key, calling him “naive in the extreme” to suggest it would have no practical effect.

It is very clear that he declaration has not status in law, and it has no legal effect.

However I would not go quite so far as to say it will have no practical effect. I am sure Iwi and others will use in advocacy on various issues, and it may have some “moral” effect – just as other non binding UN declarations can have some moral effect on decision making.

The UN recently reviewed NZ’s human rights records and recommended we do not introduce tasers. Now that excited the Greens and they used that to argue that we should not fully introduce them, but the Government has happily ignored the UN on this issue.

Labour leader Phil Goff said the National-led Government was trying to marry together forces that were totally opposed to each other.

“What we are seeing is the impossibility of balancing out the interests between the Act Party, the Maori Party and the National Party.”

He denounced the secrecy surrounding the announcement and said the Maori Party had been “duped”.

It is no secret the ACT Party and Maori Party disagree on many issues. But one doesn’t need them to agree, just as Winston and Jim Anderton didn’t agree on much (apart from the fact they both should have been Prime Minister).

The travel plans were kept secret – and the announcement made yesterday at 4.45am in New York.

Mr Key defended the secrecy yesterday, saying he hadn’t wanted to steal Dr Sharples’ thunder.

The intention was to make this a big thing for Dr Sharples, and it is a significant win for him. However Ministers should not be doing secret overseas trips, unless to dangerous war zones.

I also regard it as bad political management that ACT found out through the media. Under “no surprises” they should have been told in confidence.

The Herald reports:

Vodafone’s new Talk plan for pre-pay customers has raised a red flag for the Commerce Commission on whether mobile termination rates should be regulated.

In February, the commission recommended Communications Minister Steven Joyce accept Vodafone and Telecom’s proposal as an alternative to regulation on the basis the final undertakings would address its competition concerns. The proposal is to reduce rates to 6c per minute by 2014.

But Vodafone’s new Talk pre-pay plan, launched last week, has raised questions whether an industry solution will hinder smaller companies.

The Talk plan offers customers 200 minutes on its network and to landlines for $12 a month on certain pre-pay plans. This works out to about 6c a minute.

It costs 89c per minute to call a Telecom phone from a Vodafone phone. The current termination rate between the networks is 14.4c.

2degrees chief commercial officer Bill McCabe said Vodafone’s new plan made it 15 times more expensive for a Vodafone customer to call a 2degrees phone than to call its own network.

Telecommunications commissioner Ross Patterson said it was the commission’s initial view that the Vodafone Talk plan may be material and have the potential to affect the basis for its recommendations in the final report.

Joyce said: “I wrote to the commission to ask them their view on whether Vodafone’s new Talk Add-on offer to its prepay customers is material to the decision on mobile termination access services. They replied that it may be the case.”

Vodafone’s move may be one of the more stupid commercial decisions in recent times. The Government is days or weeks away from making a decision on mobile termination rates. The Commerce Commission was split 2 to 1 on its recommendation not to regulate, so it is a close call.

And then Vodafone comes out with a plan which absolutely undermines their commercial offer on termination rates. They set a retail price for on-network calls which is half the current wholesale termination rate between networks and will be higher or equal to the termination rate even in 2014, under the commercial undertakings.

If you asked me to sit in a room and think up a stunt that is most likely to push the Commerce Commission and Government away from accepting the commercial undertakings, and towards regulation – this is what I would come up with.

The fact the Minister has written to the Commission and said “Does this changes things” and that the Telco Commissioner has already said “Yes” is significant – especially that the Commissioner was one of those who voted not to regulate.

If the Government does now decide to regulate, they only have themselves to blame. I’m amazed they didn’t hold off any pricing changes until after the Minister made a decision.

Simon Power has announced:

Justice Minister Simon Power has written to the lawyers representing David Bain in response to a claim for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. …

Under Cabinet guidelines adopted in 1998, the category of claimants who are eligible for compensation is limited to those who have had their convictions quashed on appeal without order of retrial, or who have received a free pardon. To receive compensation eligible claimants must establish their innocence on the balance of probabilities.

However, at the same time as adopting those guidelines, Cabinet decided the Crown should have residual discretion to consider claims falling outside the guidelines in “extraordinary circumstances” where it is in the interests of justice to do so.

“Mr Bain’s claim falls outside the guidelines because he was acquitted following a retrial. However, it is open to him to meet the extraordinary circumstances test,” Mr Power said.

Claims under the Crown’s residual discretion are assessed on a case-by-case basis.  At a minimum, and consistent with the Cabinet guidelines applying to eligible claimants, a claimant must establish innocence on the balance of probabilities.  But for claims that fall outside the Cabinet guidelines something more is required that demonstrates that the circumstances are extraordinary.

This is quite significant. Even if David Bain qualified under the guidelines, he would still have to establish his innocence on the balance of probabilities.

In my opinion, that test in itself is a considerable hurdle. There is a large difference between saying there was reasonable doubt over whether David did it, to saying that you think it is more likely Robin Bain was the killer, than David Bain.

But Bain has to go beyond even balance of probabilities. That is the minimum test he would face. As he is outside the guidelines, he has to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances on top of innocence on the balance of probabilities.

As I have said before, I look forward to a QC being appointed, investigating the case, and reporting his or her opinion on the balance of probabilities as to whom was the killer. But before that can happen, a process for establishing what qualifies as extraordinary circumstances needs to be developed.

Finally an agreement for party central.

Looks a lot better than the earlier designs.

Whale Oil has blogged a summary of a 24 page story in Investigate, with a large number of allegations by a Jevan Goulter against various Labour MPs and others.

These are not anonymous allegations – Goulter is making them himself under his name. However that does not mean they are overly reliable, and are the gospel. In fact Ian Wishart himself concludes the article by saying:

As for the abuse of trust, did Labour abuse its trust in looking after a troubled 14 year old badly, or did Jevan Goulter abuse the trust of a political party who’d taken him under their wing?

At several points through the article, Wishart reveals that Goulter’s story is incorrect or exaggerated, and my personal take is that there is a lot of bragging there. It does not mean everything he has said is false, but I would caution people not to assume everything he has said is true.

Also in one section he says:

As for Phil Goff I probably had more to do with his daughter, who worked for a Government agency when Labour was in. Her name is Samantha. She was just stunning, she was beautiful when I met her, she was really hot. And I was like, ‘Piss off, you’re not his daughter?’ And she was, so we used to go out and have dinner and lunch quite a bit. Phil was a, I think he was a bit of a nobody then.

Now Phil Goff does have a daughter whom, umm could be seen to fit that description. However her name is not Samantha. If Jevan really was going out for meals with someone “quite a bit”, you think he would correctly remember their name. So again, does not help the credibility.

He makes allegations of sexual harassment against Tim Barnett. And some time later his partner (Mika) asked Barnett to pay $25,000 as compensation for Javen’s mental health. To my mind that is close to blackmail

Barnett makes the reasonable point that as a prominent gay MP pushing the boundaries of social legislation he was careful, like Caesar’s wife, to be above reproach, and not to be alone with people in situations that could be misconstrued.

There are no witnesses to the allegations so it is a case of he said vs she said. As someone who worked in Parliament for eight years, I got to hear a lot of gossip about a lot of MPs. You get to know which ones screw around and are sleazy. I don’t recall at the time any suggestion of inappropriate behaviour from Tim Barnett, and to the contrary he seemed very committed to his partner, Ramon. Without witnesses, I do not regard the allegations as credible. There are other MPs I would be more sceptical of.

Another allegation I find lacking in credibility is this:

INVESTIGATE: Michael Cullen?

JEVAN: I know he smoked it at the annual – I think it was the Christchurch Labour conference with Annette, but I don’t think Annette had it. I couldn’t be honest and say I saw her smoke it.

INVESTIGATE: But you did see him?

JEVAN: He had it in his hand, yes. I just remember him having it, it was passed to him by one of the young Labours.

This is in reference to cannabis use. It is quite possible Dr Cullen, like many NZers, has used cannabis at some stage. However to think the Deputy Prime Minister would openly smoke cannabis at a labour party conference – and in front of dozens of Young Labour activists is frankly incredible. I just don’t think it happened, and if that did not happen, I doubt some of the other allegations about cannabis use.

Not everything can be dismissed though. It seems very clear that some Labour Party MPs did lie about whether or not they knew Javen. The most blatant fib came from Lianne Dalziel, who confessed it online:

And yet…within five minutes of making the call to Dalziel’s office, Investigate received a phone call from Jevan, “You’ve just rung Lianne? She’s just sending me a Facebook chat apologising for denying that she knew me”.

This is what Dalziel said to Goulter:
“I owe you an apology. Ian Wishart has just contacted me and I’m afraid I said I didn’t remember you. I feel so guilty. All I’ve said, I told him you were a Facebook friend, so I knew ‘about’ you.

I hope this doesn’t affect what he is writing about you.”

Considering Lianne lost her ministerial job for not telling the truth, this doesn’t help her credibility.

The person who comes out of this looking very wise and sensible is Jacinda Ardern:

Young Labour were always very angry towards me, they didn’t like how I got to do what I wanted. Jacinda Ardern, who’s now an MP, she was my biggest hater….

But then I’m getting drunk and Jacinda comes over and rips the glass of wine out of my hand, ‘You can’t drink in here, you’re only 15!’

‘Yeah I can drink in here, it’s a private function, you’re not my mum, piss off’, and I got really verbal with her, I really didn’t like her.

So I walked over to Helen and I said,‘Jacinda’s just said I’m not allowed to drink. Am I allowed to drink or not?’ And Helen’s exact words were, ‘Of course you are, this is my house.’ I said, ‘I’m only 15’. And she said, ‘It’s my house’.

So I got my glass of wine and I started boozing up again. Jacinda just went off her nut. Now, Helen was drunk that night, in my view. Helen was drunk and she gets to the point when she’s drunk where people just take her away.

I think a number of Jacinda’s colleagues may rue that they were not as cautious around Jevan as she was. Jacinda’s actions look very prudent to me.

Incidentally I am also unconvinced of Helen Clark being drunk, and having to have people take her away. It’s not exactly an image that fits the former Prime Minister.

So overall I find the allegations lacking in credibility in significant areas. Having said that though, I think there are some lessons for Labour in the perils of letting a 14 year old run riot through Parliament and the party. He should have been in school in Christchurch.

As I have said before, I am a big fan of encouraging young people to get involved in politics. But I never encourage school age people to get significantly involved. Your school years should be a time of fun and learning, plus one often lacks the maturity to cope with “adult politics”.

That is not a universal rule. One friend of mine got involved at age 15 or 16 and went on to become a highly valued parliamentary and ministerial staffer. [UPDATE: Said staffer has e-mailed to say they are not highly valued but in fact under paid and over worked ]

But I also recall the 1993 election night when I allowed a 14 year old Young National to attend the election night HQ function, as a “results chalkie”. There was of course an open and free bar and I failed to supervise properly with the end result being the poor girl vomiting up in the boardroom, and then collapsing unconscious on the floor as she had never drunk alcohol before. I had to decide whether or not to take her to A&E or home, and had to deliver her still unconscious to her parents, who quite rightly were less than impressed. I visited the next day to check she was fine, and the parents were blaming her more than they were holding me responsible, but in the end I was the one responsible as the adult and still feel some remorse about it to this day.  Similarly, I suspect some Labour MPs are regretting allowing Jevan to spend so much time at Parliament, at functions at Premier House and the like.

Peter Cresswell discusses copyright and says copying without permission of the owner is theft:

Make no mis­take, copy­ing with­out the per­mis­sion of the owner is theft–-no mat­ter how many sappy sugar-coated dit­ties you hear to the contrary.

I don’t think theft is the best word for it, but I agree it is illegal. PC notes however:

The way ACTA proposes protecting intellectual property–by going through people’s bags, laptops and MP3 players at airports; by holding ISPs responsible for what their customers do; etc.–-is hardly in accordance with the principle of property rights they purport to be upholding.

He says this violates the very principles they want to protect.

What I found most interesting is this comment by Eric Crampton on the post:

Strength of copyright protection has never been an absolute: it’s varied in duration and scope over the years. There’s a Laffer curve that operates in copyright as well: zero protection and fewer things will be produced, but too strong of protection and nothing is produced either.

Eric is right. Copyright is not an absolute right. It is a manufactured right that is about a balance of rights. Eric explains:

Let’s take the extreme case over on the right tail of the distribution. Every musician using a chord must pay a royalty to whomever invented that chord, then must pay another royalty to whomever came up with the chord sequence they’re using. Think much music gets produced under that regime? Nope. It’s too costly to produce anything new.

Another example is the right of a newspaper to quote something. If a politician writes on their Facebook page “I think the top tax rate should be 90%” they own the copyright to that statement. Would anyone want a society where it is illegal for a newspaper to report that statement, as they do not have permission of the owner?

Take it to blogs. Suppose copyright didn’t just protect the expression of an idea, but also the idea itself. Would you ever post anything, given fear of being sued by someone who’d previously come up with some idea you’d thought was original to you? Would Landes and Posner sue me for basically restating their argument in the first paragraph?

Spot on.

If you grant those two cases, then the optimal degree of copyright isn’t infinite. The optimal degree isn’t zero either. I’m reasonably convinced that we’ve pushed too far to the right on this curve: the costs of copyright in impeding new creation, at current legal levels of protection, exceeds the benefit of higher returns for those things that are created. And, I’d argue this is mostly due to Disney who earns more off its back catalogue than out of new production. The period of protection is too long, harm is done by excessive protection on orphaned works, and insufficient scope is given to fair use.

Copyright is for a specific term. If it was not, then every school in the western world would probably have to pay royalties to the great great great great great great great great grand nephew of William Shakespeare.

Eric makes a fair point that copyright protection is for too long a period. In the UK protection is for 50 years after making a sound recording, while in the US it is 120 years after creation.

Personally, I’d sooner see copyright abolished in favour of a solution through private contract where folks use creative commons to designate the strength of protection they’d like applied to their own works, but where also we’d deem the extant corpus of common culture (Grimm fairy tales, etc) only being available for commercial use if the folks making the film, book or whatever applied a duration of protection no greater than 20 years or so, helping to rejuvenate the commons from which they drew.

I am a big fan of Creative Commons which makes it easy for creators of works, to set their own terms and conditions of use.

Last week a courier delivered a fairly large batch of documents to me, from the Ministry of Justice. They were all their internal papers on the latest electoral finance reform, which I had requested under the OIA. There were a couple of deletions (which I may appeal to the Ombudsman) but what they did deliver has revealed what reform packages were considered by the Government, and hence what we might have got.

This table shows the positions of the five main parties (more than one MP) on some of the key issues.

The Government put great weight on having consensus amongst parties, in contrast to the Electoral Finance Act. Effectively the Labour and Green parties were given a veto over any changes from the status quo. This meant that that changes I personally would have liked to have seen, did not occur.

On the issue of the taxpayer funded broadcasting allocation, National and ACT supported allowing it to be spent on any medium (not just TV/radio) and allowing parties to purchase their own broadcasting time. Labour and Greens opposed this

Views on the donation disclosure limit ranged from $1,000 to the status quo of $10,000.

Labour and the Greens supported a cap on the amount one donor can donate. The Greens advocated $35,000.

In terms of the party spending limit, the Greens supported adjusting it for inflation retrospectively (which I support). National oddly had no position on this. Labour wanted inflation adjustments to apply from 2008 onwards only, and ACT suggested a limit of $1.50 per person (which I also support).

National and Maori Party supported a 3 month regulated period. Labour and Greens a six to seven month period (from 1 May) and ACT a period of around four weeks (from Writ Day).

National and ACT did not support a spending limit for parallel campaigners. Labour supported a spending limit, but did not say what. As they advocated a $100,000 threshold to register I presume a fairly high limit. The Greens wanted a low threshold to register and a $120,000 spending limit. Maori Party supported some limit.

Simon Power put up five options to Cabinet. They were:

1. Consensus Package – changes which all or almost all parties supported
2. Comprehensive Package – a full reform package which includes reforms supported broadly by parties on the right (broadcasting liberalisation, higher spending caps) and reforms supported broadly by parties on the left (spending limits for parallel campaigners)
3. Parallel Campaigning Package – a left leaning package which is the consensus package plus more regulation of parallel campaigning
4. Broadcast Reform Package – a right leaning package which is the consensus reform package plus liberalisation of the broadcasting regime.
5. Status Quo

Packages 3 and 4 were politically untenable. The left would attack Package 4, and the right would attack Package 3.

The comprehensive reform package, as it had aspects supported by both left and right, could have been politically feasible. I don’t know if it would have been supported by both sides, or attacked by both sides, so I guess in the end the Government went for the safer consensus package of limited change.

A matrix showing the salient aspects of each package is below:

The comprehensive package would have seen the taxpayer funded broadcasting allocation able to be spent in any media, and parties able to buy their own broadcasting time (so long as under an overall spending cap).

The spending caps would have increased by inflating adjusting back to 1995.

Parallel campaigners would have a spending cap of $500,000 but be able to purchase their own broadcast advertising.

Before the Electoral Finance Act, I would have quite happily supported a reform package based on the comprehensive package. The third party spending cap of $500,000 is four times higher than the EFA, and the other gains (higher spending caps, ability for political and third parties to buy broadcast advertising) more than compensate for this.

The EFA, partly because of the malignant way it was negotiated in secret, and the hypocrisy that the Government was trying to clamp down on taxpayers spending their own money, yet exempt parties taxpayer funded parliamentary spending from the campaign cap, generated great hostility to the idea of third party spending caps. I helped lead that hostility.

In a post EFA world, I am not sure even a $500k spending cap would not face significant public resentment. It would have been widely supported before the EFA, but as a trade off to the other liberalisations may have been a package worth pursuing.

One other interesting revelation from the OIA documents, is that the consensus package originally included a lowering in the donation disclosure limit for parties from $10,000 to $5,000.  This was absent from the final package announced publicly, so Cabinet presumably did not support that.

The Herald supports proposed student loan changes:

Either way, it is clear that the Government, having declined to do away with interest-free student loans, must find ways to reduce the cost of the scheme.

t has to do this, first, because an alarming 41.5 per cent of the Government money placed in tertiary education goes directly to students as loans, allowances and interest subsidies. That is more than double the OECD average. Also, Mr Joyce, like other ministers, must find savings in his portfolio for this year’s Budget. This year he took a first step by proposing that student loans should be conditional on students’ success. That was reasonable, if only because it moved the loans into the same territory as living allowances to students on age, income and residential criteria, which are not available to those who failed more than half their course the previous year. In the same vein, new residents already have to wait two years for a student allowance or a welfare benefit. There seems no reason for student loans to be different, and good reason for them to be aligned. …

If any exception is to be made to the proposed stand-down period for student loans, it should be for refugees. Most, by dint of their status, arrive in this country with virtually nothing. The scheme provides those who wish to study with a degree of independence. Clearly, refugees are not comparable to the new residents who Mr Joyce suggests swoop on student loans as soon as they arrive, whether or not they are committed to their studies or to New Zealand. In effect, signing on for tertiary courses provides them with funding denied them by the two-year benefit stand-down.

I agree that the two year stand down for new migrants should exclude refugees. Refugees are admitted for humanitarian reasons, not economic reasons.

The Dom Post talks terrorism:

Hence, terrorist threats to Olympic and Commonwealth Games are not just an attack on the athletes, or host countries, but an attack on international fellowship – an attempt to stop nations and peoples co-operating and getting to know each other.

The reasons for the weekend bomb blast outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bangalore, venue for an Indian Premier League cricket match, are not yet known, but the amateurish nature of the devices that injured 17 people suggests it may have been the work of disaffected locals rather than al Qaeda, which early this year warned international competitors to stay away from the World Hockey Cup, the IPL tournament and the October Commonwealth Games in New Delhi.

But, whatever the case, Commonwealth governments and sporting associations are doing the right thing by not being panicked.

And the ODT supports safer driving measures:

Something must be done about youth driving.

The statistics are oft-quoted but they bear repeating because they lie at the heart of the Government’s move, among other things, to raise the driving age to 16.

Take comparison with Australia: New Zealand drivers in the 15-19 age group suffer an average of 21 deaths a year for every 100,000 of population, compared with Australia’s rate of 13.

Further, young drivers between the ages of 15 and 24 in this country comprise 16% of all licensed drivers but in 2008 they were involved in around 37% of all fatal crashes and 38% of all serious injury crashes. …

Road crashes in fact are the highest single killer of 15- to 24-year-olds and the leading cause of their permanent injury.

Broadening out the international comparisons, 15- to 17-year-olds in New Zealand have the highest road death rate in the OECD and 18- to 20-year-olds the fourth highest.

The Government’s moves in the area of youth driving are widely supported as long overdue.

The Press reports:

Lives and property could be put at risk after a Christchurch firefighter was banned from helping his volunteer brigade, a fire chief says.

Sumner Volunteer Brigade chief fire officer Alan Kerr said he was “riled” that a young firefighter had been told he was no longer allowed to volunteer after becoming a full-time paid firefighter.

“It’s unfortunate. A situation could occur where lives or property could be put at additional risk because we are down a man,” Kerr said.

The Sumner brigade struggled to find volunteers as most residents did not work in the area during the day, he said.

Most New Zealanders regard our volunteer fire fighters as community heroes. The professional fire fighters union sees them as scabs, and the hatred goes back decades.

In their ideal world, their would be no volunteer firefighters. Every town or community in NZ, no matter how small, would have a paid unionised fire fighting service – even if they only got one call out a year.

New Zealand Professional Firefighters’ Union president, Steve Warner, said the decision was made last week to decline the firefighter’s request to remain a volunteer mainly because of conflicts with rank.

Volunteer brigades such as Sumner – which came under the Christchurch Fire Service jurisdiction – often attended the same jobs as paid city crews.

A situation could arise where a paid firefighter could hold a higher rank in their volunteer brigade, Warner said.

If paid and volunteer brigades were to both attend an incident, the firefighter in his volunteer role may take command over his official superior, he said.

Note the “could”. Also note that this bogus concern is trivial. You can simply have a rule that if paid and volunteer firefighter are both in attendance, a volunteer firefighter does not take command if they are also a paid firefighter of lower rank.

Kerr said he could understand that a rank clash, from the union perspective, was a valid problem, but that was not relevant in this case.

The firefighter was young, did not hold any position of rank, and would not have been sent to jobs outside Sumner, he said.

“If any paid firefighter is willing to put the time into their community, he should be allowed to,” Kerr said.

As I said, the concern about rank is bogus. The union is maintaining its decades long hatred of volunteer fire-fighters and does everything it can to overcome them. Their hope is that if volunteer brigades fail due to lack of volunteers, then the union can take it over as a paid station.

The Herald on Sunday story on North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams comparing himself to Jesus (and General Custer) has just made the Drudge Report.

The embarrassment has just gone global?

How big is the Drudge Report?

The largest US newspaper, USA Today, has a circulation of 1.9 million copies a day. The New York Times has a circulation of around 900,000 a day.

The Drudge Report received 23.3 million visits in the last 24 hours.

So millions of people will now have read about Williams comparing himself to Jesus and posting photoshopped photos of the Local Government Minister as Hitler on Facebook.

Thank God there are only six months to go.