Kiwiblog

Stuff reports:

New Zealand could be “rocked constitutionally” in a Waitangi Tribunal hearing starting today with the country’s largest tribe, Ngapuhi, arguing they never ceded sovereignty to the Crown.

The Northland iwi of 122,000 people will argue it was and still is a self-governing state within New Zealand.

They can argue what they like, and the Tribunal can agree or disagree, but it won’t affect the legal and political reality that they are part of New Zealand, and not a self-governing state.

If they want to start refusing health, education and welfare payments from the Government, then I’d take the claims more seriously.

Mr Piripi said Maori had occupied the area for up to 2000 years and had governed themselves for much of the time. The tribunal would allow them to reassert this.

2,000 years? Doesn’t sound like history is their strong point. Almost all scientific evidence points to around 1280 as the time of migration here. So that is 560 years of self-rule, not 2,000 years.

Had a very pleasant weekend at Solway Park, Masterton for the Nats LNI Regional Conference. The Saturday night dinner was a debate between a team of locals and MPs on the moot “That Wairarapa is the centre of the Universe”. I got to chair the debate which I enjoyed as it allowed me to crack a few jokes about MPs and Ministers. Beer expert Neil Miller did a masterly job as adjudicator with a clear win to the locals.

The locals team had a bit of assistance, as one of their team was the creative manager for Tui Breweries and halfway through his speech he had some Tui Breweries Girls enter the room, carrying suitably appropriate billboards backing his argument.

The conference overall was one of the largest I can recall. Around 230 attended the dinner, and it was at least 20% larger than the previous year, which was in Wellington. This is unusual, as normally the bigger city venues get the bigger turnouts.

I’m up in Hamilton next weekend, where I have to run a quiz night on the Saturday night for the CNI conference. Looking forward to that – I love quiz nights – especially when I get to set the questions.

Overall people in pretty good heart at the conference. In 2002 the region had only two MPs – Simon Power and Roger Sowry. Now it has ten MPs. It makes a huge difference when almost every seat has an MP – either electorate or list.

As always, there’s some disquiet over the coffee breaks over certain policies. This is always the case in Government. The media has focused on the Maori issues (DRIP, F&S Act etc) but for my 2c I thought the ETS was the more commonly questioned policy amongst delegates.

New Zealand does not have a drinking age. People often confuse the purchase age with a drinking age. Many do not realise it is entirely legal for a few dozen 14 year olds to drink vodka at a party.

And it is also not illegal to supply said vodka to 14 year olds. It is only an offence if you purchase the vodka with the intent of supply – something near impossible to prove.

I believe the misguided calls to change the purchase age, party come about because there is no drinking age, and people feel something has to be done about youth drinking, such as reported in today’s Herald:

A King’s College boarder died in his sleep at the weekend after drinking at a friend’s birthday party – the second tragedy to hit the prestigious school in four months.

Students will today wear white – the school’s formal uniform – to mark the death of 16-year-old James Webster, known to mates as “Webby” and described by his headmaster as a “wonderful boy and a great all-rounder”.

“The cause of death has not been determined. What is known is that he died in his sleep during last night. I don’t know the full details yet. I understand that he was at a friend’s birthday party earlier on the Saturday evening.”

An incredibly sad occurrence. However what happened would not have been prevented by making it illegal for a 19 year old to drink wine in a restaurant, or buy a six pack at the supermarket.

The Law Commission has advocated raising the legal drinking age to 20.

The Herald story has it wrong. There is no legal drinking age. There is a purchase age only. A change to the purchase age would have had no impact on what happened.

The Law Commission does recommend a new offence which “may” have helped:

Introducing an offence for any person to supply alcohol to a minor under the age of 18 unless that person is the minor’s parent or guardian or a responsible adult authorised by the parent or guardian and unless the alcohol is supplied
in a responsible manner. This means that any person legally entitled to supply a minor who then fails to supply in a responsible manner, including providing appropriate supervision, also commits an offence.

We don’t know if there were any adults at this party, but even the Law Commission’s proposals won’t cover all situations. If the parents were out, and the kids just raided the drinks cabinet, then what happened would still have broken no law.

Hence if one is to get serious about the problems of youth drinking, I think it is time to have a drinking age, not just a purchase age. It is daft to turn 140,000 18 and 19 year olds into criminals, because of 14 year olds drinking at parties.

So what do I propose. A two step drinking age.

1. That it shall be illegal for a child under the age of 16 to consume alcohol, and for anyone to supply them with alcohol
2. That 16 and 17 year olds can drink, but only in the company and direct supervision of their parents

One could argue about whether the age should be 14, 15 or 16. I have gone for 16 because it is consistent with the age young people gain many partial rights – to have sex, to drive etc.

I am open to persuasion it could be lower, but frankly I don’t think 15 year olds should be drinking alcohol. At 15 you should be able to have heaps of fun without the need for alcohol, which as we saw few can handle at that age.

Now some will say a drinking age law is impractical, and interferes with parents rights to introduce alcohol to their kids at an earlier age.

First I would argue that having a law which says under 16 year olds should not drink, will actually help many parents in giving them a reason not to allow under 16s to drink. But if they do allow them to have some wine at dinner, no one is going to call the cops.

A drinking age would allow the Police to break up parties of drinking teens on private property. If you are under 16 and drinking, you are breaking the law. And I think it is important the law places some responsibilities on the youth that breaks the law, not just on any suppliers.

The second part is that 16 and 17 year olds can drink, but only in the company of their parents. This is in fact more restrictive than what the Law Commission proposes. I think the Law Commission proposal will be ineffective as again it only targets supply, not consumption. In the absence of proof over supply, the Police can do nothing.

I think one can debate about whether drinking of 16 and 17 olds should be restricted to in parental company, or other adults. The trouble with allowing it to be with other adults, is the lowest common denominator sets the standards.

What do others think? Should there be a drinking age, not just a purchase age? If so, what should it be, and what exceptions (if any) should there be?

Have just read the full 31 page report of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner into Justice Wilson.

Two parts I found very interesting. The first is the observation that:

Turning to a consideration of Justice Wilson’s conduct in relation to the hearing of the Saxmere case in the Court of Appeal, I make this point: if the only subject of the complaints made about Justice Wilson’s conduct was his acts and omissions prior to and during the Court of Appeal hearing, then it would have been open to me to conclude that the matter should be dealt with by a reference to the Head of Bench (under section 17 of the Act) rather than by a recommendation that a Judicial Conduct Panel should be appointed (under section 18).

The comment reminds me a bit of Watergate. It was not the original offence that caused so much trouble – it was the cover up. Now by this I don’t mean to suggest Justice Wilson has done a cover up. But that it was his responses to the Supreme Court’s questions that have resulted in the recommendation of a JCP, rather than his handling of the original case.

A lot of publicity has been given to the letter from former Justice Ted Thomas. It is appropriate to point out that the JCC finds that in many cases he has facts wrong or over-egged it – he was relying on second and third hand info:

Mr Farmer has said to me that he does not accept the validity of much of what Sir Edmund presents as factual material. He says that Sir Edmund has drawn inferences and applied value judgments to what he had been told which were not warranted.

Now the recommendation was that a JCP be established, to go beyond the initial inquiry. So what does this mean. Let’s look at the Act.

The panel must have three members. One is a lay member. One must be a Judge or Retired Judge. And the third must be a Judge, a Retired Judge or a lawyer who has been practising law for at least seven years. The panel will be chaired by a retired judge or the most senior current Judge.

Also the Attorney-General must appoint a special counsel who will effectively act as a prosecutor as details in s28(2):

At the hearing, the special counsel must present the allegations about the conduct of the Judge concerned, and may make submissions on questions of procedure or applicable law that are raised during the proceedings.

And very importantly in s29(1):

Every hearing of a Judicial Conduct Panel must be held in public

There is a provision for parts to be held in private if there is a very good reason, but it is almost unthinkable that panel would meet in private.

The Panel also has the powers of a full Commission of Inquiry to compel witnesses to testify, and demand evidence.

I can’t imagine that Justice Wilson will want to go through what is effectively a public trial, and expect his conversation with the Chief Justice will lead to his resignation.

If it does not, it will be fascinating to see who is appointed to the panel, and to report on it.

As predicted, Jim Anderton has announced he is running for Mayor of Christchurch. His ticket will be “The People’s Mayor” – a slogan used by Dick Hubbard in Auckland.

It reminds me of the maxim about names of countries. Any country that insists in having “democratic” in its name, basically never is. And if they also have “people’s” in their name, they invariably oppress the people. Hence North Korea is called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Other examples were how Poland was called the People’s Republic of Poland from 1952 to 1990. Now this does not mean Jim is going to institute single party rule, it just is a reminder about how people use the term “people’s” when they wish to hide behind it. I suggest people chat to some former Alliance activists about how much Jim cared about involving them in decision making

He is insisting that if he runs, he will not resign as an MP, but do both jobs. Now I think one can reasonably assert it is possible to be, for example, a junior backbencher and a city councillor. Tough, but not impossible. But to assert that one can be Mayor of New Zealand’s second largest city, and also a party leader in Parliament shows what Jim really thinks of the people. The Mayor got paid salary and fees in the last year of $215,000 and Jim is maintaining that it is a part-time job.

Jim will in fact be a triple dipper. Because he will also be maintaining the fiction he is a party leader, and attract appropriate funding for that role. So what will be the total cost to the taxpayer of Jim continuing as an MP and party leader for a year, if he is elected. It is:

1. Salary $144,500
2. Superannuation $33,235
3. Personal Expenses $14,800
4. Leader’s Budget $164,320
5. Research Budget $20,000
6. Support Budget $64,260
7. Staff $158,500
8. Travel/Accom $73,827
9. Communications $13,942

That is a total cost of $689,384 or almost $700,000.

Now of course some of these costs would be incurred by a new MP, if Anderton wins and resigned. But the difference is he or she would not also be Mayor of Christchurch, and Parliament and his or her electorate would be getting more of their time in return for that investment.

No Right Turn blogs:

This is simply wrong, and Anderton’s offer to donate his salary doesn’t make it any less so. The people of Christchurch deserve their mayor’s full attention. Likewise, the people of Wigram and those who voted Progressive last election deserve their MP’s full attention. While Anderton says he can cope with both jobs, no-one will believe that, and if he is elected, someone will feel shortchanged. As for his misplaced sense of frugality, screw the money. It’s democracy, and you pay whatever it costs to deliver it.

But in addition to being wrong, its also stupid. Who wants half a mayor, or one with an eye on Wellington as well as Christchurch? Anderton has just given people a solid reason not to vote for him.

But the last word of Jim’s mayoral ambitions should go to a former Prime Minister – David Lange.In his book “My Life” he wrote of Jim’s bid to be Mayor of Auckland in 1974. Lange was also standing on the ticket:

“Like the other candidates, I contributed $50 to pay for an advertisement in the New Zealand Herald in support of the Labour ticket. When I opened the paper to look at our advertisement I saw a photograph of Jim Anderton and no mention of any other candidates. Here was a warning of much to come.”

Need more be said!

Maxim have released a comprehensive 102 page report on tax policy by Steve Thomas. Its aim is a tax system that maximises economic growth. It notes:

Growth is affected by tax, which is how the government raises its revenue to do the crucial things we need it to, like paying for a police force or a public education system, building roads and supporting the poorest when they need it.

However, when we try to take too much money out of the economy in tax to fund government spending, we risk undermining the very source of that revenue. Also, if government spending is misdirected or of poor value, then we hamstring the economy’s ability to produce what we need and the amount of tax the government is able to collect.

This relationship between tax and the economy therefore needs to be carefully considered. We need to design the tax system so that it allows the government to take the money it requires, while doing the least amount of damage to the economy and so too our potential prosperity.

This is absolutely right. It is a balancing act between economic growth and funding Government services. To take two extremes – an economy with tax rates of 95% would end up like North Korea, while an economy with tax rates of 5% would not be able to fund much in the way of defence, health or education.

Maxim propose a number of policies:

1. A two step personal tax rate system with a top rate of 27%
2. A corporate tax rate of 27%
3. Aligning the trust and PIE rates to the personal and corporate rates
4. Removing tax incentives for KiwiSaver
5. No land tax or capital gains tax
6. GST from 12.5% to 15%
7. An upper limit for central govt spending of say 30% of GDP
8. A benchmark for core govt expenditure on welfare of around 15% of GDP

For me the key thing is No 7. If one can limit spending as a percentage of GDP, then you get options around tax reform. Maxim note:

A 2001 OECD study found that about one half of a percentage point increase in government consumption (the expenditure to GDP ratio) could cause a 0.6 to 0.7% direct reduction in per capita output.

If we can limit spending so that over time it is under 30% of GDP, then there will be a very significant boost to incomes and jobs.

What I would like is both National and Labour to outline desired limits for spending as a percentage of GDP – then voters could choose between them. The limits probably need to be soft (non legislative) to take account of recessions etc, but a soft limit would still be a huge improvement over no limit.

One can get to a limit without massive spending cuts. If one can retain discipline over new spending so that it grows significantly slower than the overall economy, the ratio will reduce over time.

A very good report.I suggest people don’t just argue the recommendations but read the summaries of research about why such tax changes will be good.

A reader suggests they have found the reason ACT on Campus President Peter McCaffrey won’t cut his hair. He is trying to replicate Heather’s look.

People may be interested in what the British Parliament would look like if they had used proportional representation for the 2010 election, with a 1% threshold.

1. Conservatives 248 seats
2. Labour 199 seats
3. Lib Dems 158 seats
4. UK Independence Party 21 seats
5. British National Party 13 seats
6. Scottish National Party 12 seats

I suspect the thought of 13 British National Party MPs would be off-putting to many.

A lovely story in the HoS about the Bruntons:

When Michelle tells people about her brood of 17, “their jaws drop”. Then they ask if they have misheard. …

Twelve are at home when we visit: Jethro, 18, Anna-Marie, 16, Leah, 15, Harriet, 13, Deborah, 12, Jacob, 11, Zacharias, 10, Jimmy, 8, Ben 6, Zebulun, 4, Ethan, 3 and Julia, aged just 18 months.

Victoria, 21, was working at the family’s shop, and the other four – Sarah, 26, Joel, 25, Rebekah, 22 and Rachel, 20, – are married and have left home.

17 kids is amazing enough, but with no multiple births it is even more unusual.

Peter runs a hardware store, where several of his children have helped over the years.

“I had three daughters working and one day a guy thought he had been served by one girl – until he saw them all standing together!” he laughs.

The family gets some tax rebates if his store has a bad year, but generally they do okay. He goes fishing in the nearby Kaipara Harbour. The other week he caught 51 snapper “which will do 10 family meals”.

I can’t imagine how much WFF payments they are eligible for, but very impressed that they seem to be largely self sufficient. How many families go fishing to save money on meals?

The weekly grocery bill comes in at about $500, including 40 litres of milk and 20 loaves of bread.

They must need a truck to deliver it!

He says the family “are all caring and watch out for each other” and he credits his wife with being an amazing mother and teacher. She home-schools the children.

Peter says all the older girls can cook and there’s baking every Saturday.

Inside, there is no roster. Children just take up responsibilities as needed. Anna-Marie makes porridge in bulk every morning.

My God. Being a mother to 17 kids would be challenging enough, but to also home school them.

There are so many stories about dysfunctional families, it is nice to read this story about a family that seems to have it very much together, despite its huge size

No one does headlines like The Sun. The story starts:

A MAN aged 59 was squatting in a luxury home near the Houses of Parliament last night.

The squatter, named as a Mr Gordon Brown from Scotland, was refusing to budge from the Georgian townhouse in Downing Street, central London – denying entry to its rightful tenant.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

Meanwhile the Telegraph reports Gordon Brown ranted and threatened Nick Clegg during a phone conversation.

While the Guardian reports a Conservative memo on Europe may be a barrier to them doing a deal with the Lib Dems.

For my 2c, I am convinced David Cameron will be the next Prime Minister.

Kerre Woodham writes:

Was it his throbbing haemorrhoids or a brutal case of jetlag after the long flight home?

Whatever it was, something was riling Dr John Langley when he churned out his mean-spirited, nasty little attack on John Key.

I have wondered about this also. What was the motivation to submit an op ed attacking the Prime Minister in such personal terms?

Even if one concedes Langley thought Key made the wrong call, why would you communicate that impression through a public op ed, rather than privately?

Normally the reason people do op eds is that they want to change policy on some issue. However the chance of a re-occurrence where a PM has to decide between a trade mission and flying home for a funeral is incredibly remote.

Hence my only conclusion was that Langley’s sole desire was to damage the reputation of the Prime Minister – ie he was motivated to be partisan.

Langley accuses the Prime Minister of “scuttling back to New Zealand” and “abandoning an incredibly important mission”. The Prime Minister’s actions, said Langley, were “short-sighted and irresponsible”. On and on it went.

And yet surely Langley must have known that John Key was damned whatever course of action he chose.

Stay, and be accused of putting the almighty dollar before human life; leave the trade mission and risk disappointing the delegates – although I’m sure the Prime Minister never imagined attending a funeral service would have provoked such an ill-tempered response.

Langley is hoist by his own petard when he claims New Zealanders are unable to have adult conversations about important issues. He’s hardly showing how it’s done with this tirade.

It was a nasty little tirade – one his own employer has distanced itself from. It’s also one that would never have been written, I suspect, about the former PM if she had made the same decision.

I wrote in NBR last week that part of John Key’s popularity is he almost never attacks people. He responds to the issue, rather than attacks the person. And this is a good thing.

But there was a part of me wondering if you can be too reasonable. Key responded to Langley by merely saying he is sorry he is upset, but it was a call he had to make and even with hindsight, he thinks the right call.

I can just imagine Clark having delivered a stinging put down of Langley, accusing him of putting his own narrow business interests ahead of the country, and that she doesn’t need lectures on leadership from a former education dean.

I also know that behind the scenes the gears of Government would have started grinding to ensure that Langley’s firm had no future in terms of Government relations. Not just no future trade trips, but no access to Ministers, and an unofficial directive that they would not secure any taxpayer funding for any reason.

And this is why Langley would never have made such an attack on Clark. The fear of retribution. Sometimes you can be too much of a nice guy, if it encourages the Langleys of the world.

There may well have been a debate to be had about the long-term significance of trade and export versus a very personal desire to farewell colleagues but Langley’s intemperate response didn’t generate that.

The emotive, overwrought language chosen by this educator and his ascribing to John Key the most base motives for attending the memorial service of three young men he’d worked with and known personally says much more about Langley’s motives than it does about the Prime Minister’s.

Indeed.

1720: I have to drive to the Wairarapa so last update from me for a couple of hours at least.

1716: 100 seats to go. Cons 268. Lab 212. LD 42. Cons need to win 56/100 seats for a majority – this will not happen. If they get 46 though then they can govern with Irish support.

1708: BBC now predicts Conservatives 308 seats. Add in Unionists 8, Alliance 1 and the seat not being contested due to a death which is safe, and they have 318 seats in their corner, out of 446 (excluding Sinn Fein)

1658: BNP Leader Nick Griffin got 6,500 votes in Barking. Far too many, but well off even second place. Labour’s majority has gone up as many Conservatives and Lib Dems voted tactically against Griffin.

1652: Conservatives have 262 of 528 – almost half. But of remaining 121 seats, a fair few are strong Labour. Labour on 199 and Lib Dems 40. Not LD share of vote just 6% less than Labour.

1651: Greens win their first ever seat in Commons with Leader Caroline Lucas elected in Brighton Pavilion

1640: BBC has done formal projection that Conservatives get 306 seats. By coincidence that was exit poll projection also, and my one. If Conservatives get over 300, I think Cameron will be Prime Minister fairly quickly.

1630: Cons 241 and Lab and Lib Dems combined 228. Chance of majority all but gone. Now the focus is on Cons vs Lab/Lib Dem.

1601: Lord Ashcroft now speaking on BBC. I have fond memories of being entertained in Sydney on his super yacht. He is a very smart operator, and very funny guy.

1557: Sinn Fein do not take their seats up so in reality 324 seats will be a majority. If Conservatives do not get a majority (which I think is the case) what will be key is if Labour and Lib Dems combined can form a majority. If so, then Gordon Brown will offer anything. But if Lab/Lib Dems would also need support from a third or forth party, then I think inevitable Cameron will be PM. At this stage Cons has 223 and Lab/Lib Dem 203.

1554: Cons 220 out of 441 seats declared. But some strong Labour areas to come.

1545: Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has lost her seat of Redditch by a massive 6,000 votes. In her concession speech it was noticeable that amongst the people she thanked, she did not mention her husband. He infamously charged the taxpayer for porn films he ordered.

1525: Louise Bagshawe has won Bagley off Labour. She was in NZ recently promoting a recent book.

1519: Yay. A mate of mine, Chris Kelly, has won Dudley South with a huge 9.5% to win the seat off Labour with a 4,000 majority. Well done Chris.

1503: Over half the seats have declared (325/650) and seats are Cons 157, Lab 123, Lib Dems 23, Others 25. Vote share is Cons 36%, Lab 27%, Lib Dems 22%. I can not see a Conservative absolute majority but Conservatives should pick up more seats in second half as mainly English seats to go.

1439: Cons 122 to Lab 108 and Lib Dems 19. Cameron says Labour has lost mandate to govern. I do wish the BBC would do what US networks do and do projections based on safe seats not declared.

1404: Conservatives and Labour now tied on 76 seats each

1357: The Witney count has one person dressed as Boss Hogg and another as Jesus. Hilarious. This is Cameron’s seat and he has won it by a huge 22,000 majority.

1325: One seat just had 13% swing to Conservatives. Huge.

1315: Conservatives now picking up a few seats from Labour. Count is Lab 43, Cons 24, Lib Dem 4.

1248: Turnout in Tooting up 10%. That is good.

1247: Tooting had a big swing to Conservatives but Labour held it as Lib Dems voters went to Labour. Tactical voting like this may mean Conservatives do not do as well as exit polls project

1244: Best seat name so far has been “The Wrekin”. That would be great to say you are the “MP for The Wrekin”. Also amusing that the Conservatives held Christchurch.

1235: Gordon Brown has won his seat but the star was Derek Jackson on the Land is Power party who sent the entire time on stage with a raised clenched fist and wearing sunnies. He got 57 votes.

1204: The seat was a gain from Labour with a 9% swing.

1203: Tories finally win a seat.

Conservatives still yet to win a seat. I do wish they would stop treating the exit poll as holy writ.

Peter Robinson has lost his Belfast seat. He was the First Minister for Northern Ireland with the ad wife who was sleeping with a 19 year old. A huge 22% swing against him.

Sinn Fein has now won a seat and are currently the second largest party in the UK Parliament, according to Phil Lyth.

UPDATE: I’m going to blog in reverse order to normal and up do updates at the top of the post, not the bottom, so easy to see them. Now at Malthouse watching the results. Malthouse have provided free wireless which is great of them.

Am amused that the Conservatives are trying to talk Labour out of power on the basis of the exit polls with claims it is impossible Gordon Brown could continue on. As the Conservatives are yet to win a single seat, I think they are being rather premature.

I’m going to head down to the Malthouse for live viewing of results at 11 am. Use this thread for discussion etc as they come in.

So far just one seat has declared – for Labour.

The BBC exit poll predicts Conservatives will get 307 seats – 19 short of a majority. By coincidence a month or so ago I thought they might fall 20 short. I hope they make it, but 20 short is still a good guess.

The exit poll says Conservatives 38%, Labour 28% and Lib Dems 23%. 38% is the minimum I regard the Conservatives need to get an absolute majority. It could be close.

But it is all guessing. One of the fun things about FPP is that elections are far more unpredictable. Predictions based on uniform swings are rarely right as swings are not uniform.

The Herald reports:

The Judicial Conduct Commissioner says there should be further investigation into the conduct of Supreme Court judge Justice Bill Wilson in the long running Saxmere wool case.

The commissioner, Sir David Gascoigne, has received three complaints about Justice Wilson’s conduct in the Saxmere wool case.

Today he said there was no basis for dismissing the case.

However, he said he was unable to take the matter any further in a preliminary examination, and recommended a Judicial Conduct Panel examine the issue.

The recommendation would go to the Attorney-General.

Justice Wilson, in a statement released shortly after the commissioner’s, said he intended to speak with the Chief Justice early next week.

I have no doubt the Acting Attorney-General (Judith Collins acts on this issue) will agree to set up a judicial conduct panel.

I think the time has come for Justice Wilson to resign and return to practising as a lawyer. The Judicial Conduct Panel would probably hear most evidence in public, and would be effectively a trial of the Judge. That would be a very painful process to go through for him. His comments about talking to the Chief Justice indicate he must be seriously considering this.

Telecom has released a summary of the report into the multiple failures of their new XT network.

My two word summary is speed wobbles.

To quote the report:

1. The network failed because the network and supporting operations were not ready to manage the levels of traffic it experienced
2. Software issues contributed to network instability
3. Although the XT network was designed to initially provide planned coverage that matched the CDMA network the initial configuration of the XT network and, some network build issues, led to coverage variability
4. Some aspects of the network architecture are overly complex meaning that any faults are difficult to find and rectify
5. Immature operational management systems and process failures contributed to the impact of network issues.

No 1 is the big issue, and the rest to my mind seem to be just compounding factors.

This report should be the turning point for Telecom to start restoring faith in XT and its brand. You need a report pointing out the errors, so people think you are now capable of fixing them.

Of course if another major outage was to occur, that would be undermine the recovery of the brand in a major way.

Telecom have also released their third quarter results which are a bit stronger I suspect than expected:

Telecom New Zealand has today announced adjusted Earnings Before Interest, Taxation Depreciation and Amortisation (EBITDA) of NZ$1,336 million for the nine months to 31 March 2010, down 1.9% on the equivalent nine months in the previous financial year and in line with guidance.

The quarter contained a Southern Cross dividend of $14m, versus $40m in Q3 FY09.

While adjusted revenue for the nine months fell by 7.7%, to $3,936m, adjusted operating expenses fell faster, to $2,600m, a 10.4% decrease on the equivalent nine months.

The other big issue for Telecom will be the results of the fibre to the home tender.

A few hours after I blogged that Jim Anderton would be announcing before Monday his mayoral bid, he put out a release confirming that he will be announcing on Sunday.

Now on Sunday he will not just be talking about his Mayoral bid, but also his seat and his party. Here are my predictions for what he will say:

1. He is standing for Mayor, probably on the 2021 ticket
2. He will not resign as an MP even if he wins the mayoralty
3. The Progressive Party is over, and members encouraged to join Labour (which most have anyway)
4. The Labour candidate for Wigram in 2011 will be Megan Woods (failed Mayoral candidate in 2008). Of course Jim can not single handedly select Labour’s candidate but there will be some sort of deal around this in exchange, for Progressives merging with Labour

Anderton will try and claim he can be a major city Mayor and an MP, by donating one of his salaries to charity. But that is not the only expense. By claiming to be a parliamentary party leader he gains extra taxpayer funding of $100,000 for his office, and he gets paid paid an extra $13,500 salary.

As I blogged yesterday former Labour MP Kerry Burke may stand also, and former Alliance MP Liz Gordon is already a declared candidate. I suggest any aspiring Christchurch City Councillors speak to Liz (or any other former Alliance MP) about what life will be like if Jim is Mayor. Jim does not believe in collective decision making. He believes in Jim decision making. Jim is to democracy what the Pope is to sex – they both claim to support it, but only on their terms.

The SMH reports:

Kiwi motorists looking to take a drive on the dark side can now journey alongside Darth Vader.

TomTom, which launched the Darth Vader turn-by-turn voice skin for all of its GPS car navigation devices yesterday, said the release had been timed to coincide with International Star Wars day.

This is not new. I’ve had a Darth Vader voice on my TomTom GPS for at least a couple of years. Also got Austin Powers for when I get sick of the normal Noelle voice.

This is the Royal NZ Ballet as you may not have seen them before – Lady Gaga style with gaffer tape only.

Hat Tip: Stuff

The Herald reports:

The man who faked his CV to become the first boss of Maori Television believes his sentence was harsh compared with what has since happened to a public servant who falsified her CV.

Canadian John Davy served three months in jail in 2002 for falsely claiming he held a master of business administration degree, had worked for international organisations such as World Wildlife Fund and was a national fencing champion.

At his sentencing, Judge Phil Moran said Davy – who was caught out after a Herald investigation – was a “conman” and there was a clear need to send a message to others who might be tempted to do the same.

In March, Judge Bruce Davidson sentenced former Immigration Service boss Mary Anne Thompson to 100 hours of community service and fined her $10,000 for falsely claiming she had a doctorate from the London School of Economics.

The two cases are not the same.

Mary-Anne Thompson did falsely claim she had a PhD. But she has in fact spent several years studying towards one, and the claim of a PhD was not crucial to her getting the jobs she gained.

Davy was, as the Judge noted, a con-man. His CV was a piece of fiction with numerous fake entries and employers listed he had never worked for. His offending was clearly of a more serious nature than Thompson’s and the sentence reflected that,

Davy would never have been appointed CEO on the basis of his true CV. Thompson would have been appointed to the jobs she held, if she had omitted the claimed PhD.

We have a new venue in Wellington for watching the UK election results.

The Malthouse has said they can run BBC World Service on their TV, and very kindly have agreed to open an hour early at 11 am for us. So come along to 48 Courtenay Place between 11 am and 3 pm tomorrow (Friday) to enjoy and analyse the results over drink and food. 11 am is two hours after polls close so we should at that time be starting to see what the final result may look like.

I’ll still have my laptop along, so I can blog from the venue. Others should feel free to do the same, as they can be great for getting detailed results in some areas. Goes without saying that it is open to everyone – Labour supporters, Conservative supporters and even Lib Dem supporters.

The Press reports:

Former Environment Canterbury (ECan) chairman Sir Kerry Burke has resigned from Left-leaning political group Christchurch 2021, but he denies the move is intended to clear the way for an independent run at the Christchurch mayoralty.

Burke said he would decide next month whether to run against Mayor Bob Parker in the October local body elections.

He said Christchurch 2021 had become caught up in “narrow partisan interests”, and he hoped a more diverse political group would be formed.

“This should not be seen as a calculated means of opening up a run for the mayoralty,” he said.

In his resignation statement, Burke said Christchurch 2021 had “lost the breadth of opinion it contained a decade ago” and was “increasingly intertwined with parliamentary agendas”.

I suspect what has happened is that Burke has found out that Jim Anderton will be announcing he is standing for the Mayoralty this week (before Monday). Anderton will be endorsed by the 2021 group (Labour/Progressive in drag) and hence Burke needs to have resigned before that happens.

Anderton will be a strong contender against Bob Parker. However if Burke stands also, that may split the centre-left vote and keep Parker as Mayor.

Unemployment has fallen from 7.1% in December (was 7.3% before adjusted) to 6.0% in March, which is welcome news.

Always important to look beyond the headlines, to see what makes this up:

• Employment up 22,000 from 2,155,000 to 2,177,000
• FT employment up 26,000 and PT employment down 3,000
• Unemployment down 25,000 from 165,000 to 140,000
• Labour force shrinks by 3,000 but participation rate constant at 68.1%
• Unemployment rate goes from 7.1% to 6.0%
• Maori unemployment drops from 15.4% to 14.2%
• The jobless (includes those not looking or available for work) drops from 275,900 to 263,000
• The number of hours worked in the quarter up 1.7% seasonally adjusted which is 2nd largest quarterly growth since Dec 2004
• Underemployment (those wanting more hours) drops from 114,600 to 99,900

These can only be regarded as very good numbers. The fact it is FT job growth that has driven the drop is especially welcome. In fact checking through the HLFS data series, the increase in FT employment of 26,000 is the greatest (seasonally adjusted) quarterly increase in its history (started 1986).

Furthermore, the drop in both the number unemployed (25,000) and the unemployment rate (1.1%) are also both the greatest falls in the history of the HLFS.

I note youth unemployment remains very high at 25.2% for under 20 year olds. Again – the abolishment of youth rates has priced many teenagers out of jobs.

Now the HLFS is just a survey. A large one of 30,000 so with a small margin of error. It is quite possible this result is slightly exaggerated, and this may correct itself in June. But even with that in mind, it is still obviously a very good result.

Looking at the regional results, the rural regions seem to be doing best, but the industry results show the largest increase in employment has been in manufacturing, followed by wholesale trade.

A very good result as I say, but still a lot more work to be done. And let us remember that the Government can do its part to to help (or hinder) but primarily it is private sector employers who are responsible – they are the ones making the decisions to take on more staff, as they can afford to.