Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Former Labour ministers Mita Ririnui and Parekura Horomia were sent 186 reminders and requests between them over their credit card spending, a Weekend Herald investigation has found.

Official figures made public this month show Mr Horomia, MP for Ikaroa-Rawhiti, was the most lax of all MPs. Between 2003 and 2008, officials had to send him 94 requests for receipts or reminders of the spending rules.

Close behind, list MP Mr Ririnui received 88 requests between 2004 and 2008, and four letters requesting more details of spending.

That is basically a reminder every three weeks, that got ignored. It’s not three strikes and you’re out – it’s 94 strikes and you remain on the front bench.

Meanwhile, Progressive MP Jim Anderton this week repaid more than $700 in personal expenses put on ministerial credit cards during a trip to Rome and Malaysia in 2008.

Mr Anderton said he was “deeply upset” the money had not been repaid immediately after the eight-day trip.

He had written a cheque for the outstanding amount after the trip.

“Inexplicably, the cheque was mislaid.”

Jim said it was outrageous to expect him to pay using two separate credit cards when checking out. The above shows exactly why that should happen – because them there is no chance of reimbursement cheques being “mislaid”.

Matthew Hooton in NBR pens the speech he thinks Phil Goff should have given. An extract:

I have told the worst offenders – Chris Carter, Shane Jones and Mita Ririnui – that they have no place in my Labour Party. I told them they will be demoted to the very back of Parliament, with no portfolio, and they will not be members of any cabinet I lead. Mr Carter said that, if I did this, he would resign. I told him that was a good idea. He has since resigned and there will be a by-election in Te Atatu.

National begins that campaign as frontrunner. They won the party vote in 2008. But we will fight hard, because Labour always fights hard for the people we represent.

As leader, I have invited the local Labour Party to find the best candidate – male or female, Maori or Pakeha, gay or straight – but I want a genuine Westie. I want someone who grew up in the tough streets, who knows what it’s like not having enough money to pay the bills, who started a small business, pays their workers well, has become a leader in the community, who coaches kids’ sport in the weekend. I want real Labour.

I like his ending also:

There will be room for Peter Dunne in my government to continue as minister of revenue.  I want the Greens involved in conservation and the environment.  And it is time for Labour and the Maori Party to put our differences behind us.  I apologise for Labour’s disgraceful behaviour over the foreshore and seabed.  We were wrong.  Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples were right.

A new era is being born out of the disgraces of the past.  The Helen Clark era is over.  The Phil Goff era has begun.

The full column is only in the NBR print edition.

If Labour do not mend bridges with the Maori Party, they probably won’t be able to form a Government. Without the Maori Party, Labour and the Greens need to win 62 seats to govern.

Stuff reports:

Green MP Russel Norman had a Tibetan flag torn from his hands by a member of Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping’s entourage when he arrived at Parliament today.

Dr Norman said he believed it was one of the vice president’s security guards.

Arriving in a convoy of around six vehicles with a police escort, the guards initially tried to shield the flag with their bodies and umbrellas before it was torn from Dr Norman’s hand with a member of the vice president’s entourage standing on it as the VIP was rushed through the front entrance of Parliament.

“I think it’s pretty outrageous that Chinese security can come to our country and push around an elected Member of Parliament simply because you’re standing up for democracy and freedom in our own country on our own parliamentary grounds,” Dr Norman said afterwards.

“I mean, the Chinese security guards, they elbowed me out of the way, they put an umbrella over the top of me and they took the flag out of my hands and trampled on it.”

With some blood on his hand following the scuffle, Dr Norman said he had never experienced such treatment on Parliament’s grounds, he said.

“We were roughed up, they grabbed us and pushed us around.”

The Chinese security guards obviously exceeded their brief, and there should be consequences for that. Unless Dr Norman was a physical threat to the Vice-President, they had no right to manhandle him. Keeping an embarrassing sign out of sight is not a legitimate reason.

We had much the same in Dunedin in 2008 when Pete Hodgson manhandled a protester who was holding a sign up behind Helen Clark, which the cameras could see. Hodgson was investigated for assault in that incident, and the Chinese security should also be investigated for assault.

Personally I think Dr Norman looks like a prize idiot when he acts as a lone protester rather than a party leader – but he has the right to do so.

NZPA report:

Dunedin student pub The Garden Tavern, known as Gardies, will close its doors for the final time this weekend after being sold to Otago University this year.

Up to 1500 people were expected to descend on the Castle St pub this weekend, with Saturday its last day of business, the Otago Daily Times reported.

A very sad day. May the scarfies farewell it in style.

Police-funded buses would transport students from North Dunedin to the central city to minimise the disturbance to residents, Inspector Dave Campbell of Dunedin police said.

What a very smart idea.

The Press reports:

Bitter ructions in the Customs Service over gay officers strip-searching male passengers have been revealed in a Christchurch employment case.

In a case before the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), two sacked frontline customs officers are fighting to regain their jobs at Christchurch International Airport.

Evidence shows officers at the airport were concerned about a gay customs officer, described as “flamboyant”, who allegedly sought more than his share of strip-search assignments and made lewd comments about male passengers.

The officer, who still works for the service and whose name is suppressed, also allegedly used recreational drugs.

The case has disclosed a Customs Service policy that bars the service from asking the sexual orientation of its frontline officers because of potential charges of unlawful discrimination.

Its legal advice says passengers are not entitled to know the sexual orientation of officers conducting strip searches at airports and ports.

This is an interesting issue. Is the sex or the sexual orientation of the officer doing the strip search more relevant? Should either be a factor? As I understand it you always get searched by someone of the same sex as you. Now why is that? Probably because of assumptions over sexual orientation?

Speaking for myself, personally I prefer not to be strip searched at all. If one has to be searched, then ideally an Eastern European female guard would be my preference

More seriously, I can’t say I would be worried about what sex they were, or what sexual orientation they were. What matters is how professional they are – that they don’t make inappropriate remarks, or search anywhere they are not required to do so.

However I can quite understand that many women do not want to be strip searched by male officers. They could well regard it as exploitative.

Maybe passengers should be asked if they have a preference for the gender of the officer to search them?

Senate Communications published this week a little study of MPs primary former occupations. They found that more and more MPs are professional politicians who have worked in Government only, and then into Parliament.

Senate kindly broke the data down by party, and I did the above pie charts, showing the breakdown by party. I think they tell a real story.

The Herald looks for details around the foreshore law:

Unease has been generated by Attorney-General Chris Finlayson’s statement that customary title is “an ownership title”.

This creates a considerable breach with the existing 2004 legislation, which vested the foreshore and seabed in the Crown.

Iwi and hapu whose claims succeed will receive a deed giving title to a coastal area.

They will not be able to sell the property or block public access, but they will have considerable control, including the ability to veto or initiate development, permit activities, and exploit non-nationalised minerals.

He says the compromise reached between the Government, the Maori Party and the Iwi Leadership Group means that, from the staging post of the public domain, there will be few awards of customary title by the courts or as a result of negotiation with the Crown.

That, says John Key, is because the threshold for the granting of such title is high.

Iwi and hapu applicants will have to show continuous and exclusive occupation of the area claimed since 1840.

A test the Court of Appeal said would be hard to meet.

The Dom Post focuses on health issues:

Decisions on health spending are among the most difficult of all those that governments face. They can literally be a matter of life and death.

There are no easy options. Though the public purse is not bottomless, the demand for health services is. There is always a new drug that can be bought or an extra treatment that can be added, always a demand for extra dollars to be spent.

In health, the issue is always where the line is to be drawn, the line that divides patients between those who get to have the state pick up the bill and those who are told that their health needs are their fiscal responsibility.

The line being debated at the moment is who should get bariatric surgery and who should not. The operation costs between $17,000 and $35,000, but has been shown to have dramatic effects on the morbidly obese, with patients halving their weight and with weight-related health problems vanishing along with the kilos.

There are those who will say that the obese have brought it on themselves, and because of that should not be a priority for health spending.

That is not an approach that is applied elsewhere in the health system. Smokers are not told their lung cancer will not be treated because they knew the risks and continued to smoke anyway. Those who spent their summers acquiring a deep mahogany tan are not told that the skin cancer that resulted will be left untreated. And drunk drivers and the thousands of others who injure themselves because they drank too much are not turned away from the hospital doors because they made the wrong choices.

But maybe they should be, to some degree. If you protect people from the consequences of their choices, then they may continue to make bad choices.

If a smoker is told their health insurance premiums will be an extra $1,500 a year because they smoke, that could result in many quitting.

The Press drills into the oil spill:

For BP, the scale of the disaster is such that it looks as though it will bring about the end of the company in its present form. Some estimates suggest that the rapidly mounting costs for the company from the fines and damages it will have to pay could reach $40 billion. Even for a company with annual sales of a quarter of a trillion dollars and profits last year of $17 billion, that is a huge sum to absorb. Already BP has lost half of its value on the sharemarket (incidentally hitting pension funds hard) and it is possible it will have to file for bankruptcy protection and reorganise itself in order to survive. Yesterday it cancelled its dividend (further hitting pensioners and others who are invested in it) in order to pay for a $20 billion fund to meet its present estimated liabilities. The costs are clearly going to spread far beyond the Gulf of Mexico.

The environmental scope of the disaster will not be known for some time. But if the Exxon Valdez could be described as the worst oil-spill disaster in the world, then this one is catastrophically larger. Exxon Valdez was in a remote, sparsely populated part of the world and while wildlife was devastated, the human impact was small. The Gulf of Mexico is just as rich in wildlife and is also, of course, heavily populated. Those people are now seeing their livelihoods, resorts and living areas destroyed.

They have been infuriated by what they saw as a somewhat insouciant response to the calamity by President Barack Obama. It was not helped by a speech he made on Wednesday, which although it gave a pledge that BP would be made to pay for all the damage it was responsible for, also told Americans a truth they have been unwilling to hear – that part of the problem is their addiction to oil-based fuels.

But the president is correct and his remarks apply as much to New Zealanders and others as they do to Americans. Consumers’ continuing addiction to oil have driven prospecting companies to take ever greater risks to meet that continuing demand. The demand itself remains high because those risks are not factored into the price they pay for petrol and other oil products. The Gulf of Mexico disaster emphatically shows that that cannot continue. Markets are already adjusting to this new reality. Consumers will have to do so too.

As oil becomes more expensive, other technologies will become more viable.

The Herald reports:

A Dunedin school and two in Invercargill are believed to have categorically refused to implement the Ministry of Education’s national standards.

The School Trustees Association has warned the schools’ boards of trustees they could be sacked if they do not back down.

They are among eight schools nationwide which have taken a stance against national standards, and NZSTA president Lorraine Kerr said the boards of the schools would face consequences if they continued to rebel against the standards “in much the same way there are consequences if we break any law”.

However, she said boards were unlikely to be replaced until at least next year when schools would be required to report data to the Ministry of Education.

There are over 2,000 schools in NZ, and the over whelming majority are getting on with the job of implementing national standards.

Personally I wouldn’t sack the boards of the eight refuseniks. That is what they want – to be martyrs. They are obviously more concerned with making a stand, that ensuring parents get more useful information.

Instead of sacking them, I would just reduce the operational grant to that school. If a school refuses to obey the law, well then they have effectively left the public system. Unfair to penalise the teachers, so keep paying them, but whack say 50% off the operations grant and freeze and capital expenditure approval. The board will then have to decide if they want to do what is best for the school, or continue to be amateur politicians. Also allow the pupils to enrol at any other nearby school.

Why should the taxpayer fund a school that refuses to obey the law?

The Herald reports:

The chairman of Solid Energy says at least part of the state-owned coal miner should be sold off to raise billions of dollars needed for new projects, including more mines.

John Palmer – who is also chairman of partially privatised Air NZ – said Solid Energy needed up to $10 billion in additional capital over the next five years, and should be partially privatised if National wins a second term in office.

That was the best way to provide the money, given the state of the Crown accounts, he told the Herald yesterday.

“I don’t think it makes a lot sense for the Crown to put several billion dollars into a company like Solid Energy where it can retain all of its existing ownership and leverage and external capital can provide the opportunities for growth. It’s very much a win-win situation.”

Solid Energy is not a monopoly like Transpower or NZ Post. It is not a utility- it is a competitive business undergoing commercial activities that are not guaranteed to be profitable.

If Solid Energy can not access extra capital, it will not be able to reach its potential, which may mean less tax revenue and less jobs in NZ.

But do we want the NZ taxpayer borrowing money to invest in Solid Energy, and assuming all the risk? I think Palmer makes a good case for that risk to be shared around.

The Herald reports:

TV3 and Television New Zealand have been punished following breaches of Parliament’s rules, including one cameraman entering and filming inside Labour MP Chris Carter’s suite of offices in his absence and without his permission.

Lockwood Smith withdrew parking entitlements for their networks in Parliament’s basement carpark after they failed to get permission to film in the corridor and stairwell. However he also noted a cameraman had entered an MP’s offices without permission – a clear breach of parliamentary rules.

This is a fair call. MPs are publicly accountable, but it doesn’t mean their offices are public space.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR
TO THE ELECTORAL LEGISLATION SELECT COMMITTEE
ON THE ELECTORAL (FINANCE REFORM AND ADVANCE VOTING) AMENDMENT BILL

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
2. I have over 15 years experience with the Electoral Act.  As a former parliamentary staffer I advised National Prime Ministers and Opposition Leaders on the Act.  I have been an electorate campaign manager and a national campaign staffer, requiring intimate knowledge of the Act. I also have blogged extensively on electoral issues.

   Executive Summary
   

3. I support the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill as it is an improvement upon the status quo.
4. I am disappointed that the bill does not go further in reforming our electoral finance laws. Specifically I believe that the broadcasting allocation needs significant reform, and the electorate spending limits are unacceptably low.
5. However I accept the wisdom of the Government’s position that no major changes from the status quo will be included, without widespread parliamentary agreement. Effectively the Government has given a veto to the Labour Party over what changes were included in the bill.
6. I believe it is highly desirable that there be widespread consensus on electoral laws. They should not be something for an incumbent Government to unilaterally change, as the ultimate prize in a winner takes all regime. For this reason, I somewhat reluctantly accept that there will not be broadcasting reform unless the Labour Party agrees to it – even though National and ACT who both support it could reform it by themselves.
7. It is my hope that the consensual approach taken by the Government, and specifically the Minister of Justice, is adhered to by future Governments. Just as a National-led Government has given the Labour opposition a veto over major reform, the implicit assumption is that a future Labour-led Government will do the same, and we will never be treated to a process such as we saw with the Electoral Finance Act.
8. I obtained cabinet papers relating to this bill from the Ministry of Justice under the Official Information Act. One of the options in those papers was a significant reform package which did reform the broadcasting regime and increase spending limits, but also imposed spending caps on parallel campaigners and lowered the donation disclosure limit.
9. That package is one I believe to be slightly superior to the consensual package that this bill is based on. It would have delivered two extra reforms that broadly speaking those of the right tend to have wanted (higher spending cap, broadcasting reform) and two reforms that broadly the left wanted (lower donation disclosure threshold, parallel campaigner spending cap).
10. I would urge committee members to consider a more significant balanced reform package, if it has concessions from both “sides”. For example while I am strongly against parallel campaigning spending limits, I would be prepared to compromise on that if it meant that the broadcasting regime was reformed to allow parties to buy their own broadcasting.

    Regulated Period
    

11. The proposed S3(B) defines the regulated period as starting the day after the default day, which will be three months before the last possible day an election can be held. There are exceptions for when an election is called early.
12. I believe it was the intention of the Government to avoid the problem of retrospectivity in the current law (which is highly desirable), but the solution they have come up with has consequences that would in most cases dramatically shorten the regulated period. This is because the last possible date an election can be called tends to be six to seven weeks after the previous election.
13. For example the last practical date for the next election is 7 January 2012. This means the regulated period would only start on 8 October 2012, and if the election was at the traditional late November date of 26 November 2011, the regulated period would be 49 days –almost half the normal three months. There was no policy consensus on shortening the regulated period like this.
14. The best solution to the issue of the regulated period would be to have a fixed election date, being the last Saturday in November every third year. This would allow the start of the regulated period to be known well in advance. It would also remove the tactical advantage an incumbent PM has in setting the election date, and stop snap elections on dubious grounds such as in 2002 and 1984.
15. If a fixed election date is not adopted, then I recommend two principles be applied to setting the regulated period. They are:
    (1) The regulated period should never be retrospective
    (2) The regulated period should, where possible, be around three months
16. I can testify with first hand experience the grave difficulties one can have as a campaign manager, when you do not know the start date of the regulated period until you are halfway through it. It is very important it never be retrospective. Now that it seems likely that the regulated period will also apply to the definition of MPs parliamentary advertising, I am hopeful this principle will be accepted.
17. I believe the law should be based on what will be the normal experience – an election held three years after the last election, hence the start of the regulated period should be two years and nine months after the previous election.
18. If an election is held early, then the regulated period should start from the day after the PM announces and gazettes the election date.
19. If for some reason the PM announces the date of the election more than three months before the general election (which may happen to avoid a by-election), then it should start from three months out.
20. Sometimes an election is more than three years past the previous election. This allows elections to move back to their normal November date, after an early election. In these cases the regulated period will be a bit longer than three months.
21. I have attached a table as Appendix A, which shows how long the regulated period was, or would have been, for every election since 1981 under the existing law, the bill, and my proposal. The average number of days in the regulated period under the bill is 64 days. The status quo is 92 days and my proposal 108 days.
22. This proposal can be implemented by amending the proposed S3B(5) so that it reads “default day means the day that is two years and nine months after the last general election”, and deleting S3C.

    Meaning of election advertisement
    

23. I propose two amendments to the exclusions from election advertisements in s3A(2).
24. I propose that s3A(2)(b) have the word “solely” replaced by primarily” in relation to the purpose of a news item being for informing, enlightening or entertaining readers. A test of “solely” is too restrictive and could result in newspaper editorials being classified as election advertisements.
25. I also propose that s3A(2)(e) have the words “on a non-commercial basis” deleted. The intent of the section is to exempt people such as bloggers from being required to register as a promoter for merely stating their personal views. The test of “personal political views” is sufficient in my opinion to exclude someone being paid to promote someone else’s views. The additional requirement of non-commercial is not defined, and could catch a blogger such as myself who receives a modest amount of advertising income through their blog

    Candidate’s Election Expenses
    

26. The limit on candidate election expenses should be set high enough so that a candidate can effectively communicate to the voters in their electorate, and low enough to stop a candidate from being able to gain an unfair advantage through dominating the local media.
27. My experience in 2005 is that the limit of $20,300 is far too low to allow a candidate to do even basic communications with the voters. It is less than 50c per adult in the electorate. Excluding GST it will be only $17,650 or around 40c per adult – not even enough to send a single direct mail letter.
28. This is hugely disadvantageous to candidates standing against incumbent MPs, as the incumbent has the benefit of parliamentary profile and resources.
29. I would urge the committee to ask officials to obtain specialist advice on what would constitute a reasonable electorate campaign for three months. For example it could be two direct mail letters, two unaddressed pamphlets, six quarter page ads in community newspapers, 50 hoardings, and one billboard. The spending limit should be set based on empirical costings at a level to allow the agreed upon activities. That limit should then be inflation and population adjusted.
30. If the committee is not wanting to empirically cost what an electorate campaign should consist of, at a minimum I would ask that the limit be increased to take account of inflation since 1993. That would move the limit to $29,000.

    Party’s Election Expenses
    

31. I note the limit for political parties has also not increased significantly since the early 1990s, despite inflation of 27% and population growth of 14%.
32. I support the proposal to inflation adjust the limit going forward. I believe it would be prudent to also population adjust it. Campaign costs do increase with population.
33. I also believe that it would be beneficial to increase it to take account of the inflation and growth since 1994. This would suggest a limit for a party contesting all electorates of $3.5 million.

    Liability for political parties
    

34. I would ask the committee to consider allowing political parties to be held liable for breaches of the Act, not just individuals such as party secretaries.
35. The current law has, in my opinion, encouraged disregard for the law, by making sure those liable are kept in the dark about certain bank accounts and trust funds. We saw this reported in 2008 with regards to the NZ First Party where the poor old party secretary was in the gun for donations and transactions she knew nothing about.

    Donations
    

36. I am pleased to see the requirements for parties to disclose their total amount of donations, in bands, as this will give greater transparency. I was one of those who proposed this during the policy review.
37. It would be desirable to make clear in the proposed s6A that the “total amounts” to be disclosed in bands are the total amount of money donated, not the total amount of donations made.
38. The current law on donations was only put in place in 2008, and has yet to go through a full electoral cycle. I think it would be premature to make conclusions on its adequacy or inadequacy until we have the benefit of a full cycle to review. It would be useful to have a full review after the 2011 election.

    Parallel Campaigners
    

39. The requirement for those who spend over $12,000 on election advertisements to register with the Electoral Commission is a useful transparency measure. The Electoral Commission should ensure it has full contact details of an individual representing the promoter, including their full name, address and phone number.
40. I do not believe there needs to be a spending cap on promoters. Apart from the fact it would be trivial to get around, it may actually encourage higher spending campaigns as a cap can become a target – as it has for political parties.
41. The public, assisted by the media, have shown themselves very capable of deciding how much value to place on an expensive advertising campaign funded by particular individuals or groups.
42. Sometimes there may be sound public policy reasons for a promoter to spend a lot of money on election advertising. If for example a political party passed a law confiscating property off a group of citizens. They may have had the Government rob them of $100 million of assets. They should be entitled to spend say $200,000 to campaign against the party that did that.
43. Take another scenario. What if the Crown confiscated land or property rights off an Iwi, as they have done in the past. That Iwi might want to campaign against the party in Government which stole their land or property rights. Do we believe it would be a good thing to prevent an Iwi from campaigning against a party that legislated away its rights?

    General
    

44. I was one of the “overseas experts and interested parties” who met in Wellington on 14 May 2010 to consider improvements to the bill. A joint submission was filed on our behalf by Andrew Geddis. I endorse the recommendations made in that submission..
45. I think the process lading to this bill has been excellent, with both a discussion paper and a proposal paper, and then a bill. I would urge this to become the standard process for future electoral finance reform.
46. While not a major focus of mine, I do support the provisions allow advance voting without needing to justify why.

In summary I urge the Electoral Legislation Committee to recommend the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill be passed, with amendments as proposed.

David Farrar

Just finished this submission. Now working on my electoral finance one. Curses they both close today.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR
TO THE COMMERCE SELECT COMMITTEE
ON THE COPYRIGHT (INFRINGING FILE SHARING) AMENDMENT BILL

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
2. I appeared before the Committee in 2007 on the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 where the removal of S92A of the principal act was advocated, and agreed to by the Committee. It was later reintroduced at the Committee of the House stage.

Executive Summary

1. I support the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Bill as a huge improvement on the current S92A of the Copyright Act.
2. I believe the provisions allowing for suspension of a person’s Internet account should be deleted as an unproportional response, and a bad precedent.
3. There are a number of other desirable amendments to the bill, which would in the main be considered technical improvements.
4. I urge the Committee to try and obtain quality research on the level of economic damage caused by personal non-commercial file sharing, and whether the proposed tribunal regime is justified in terms of the taxpayer investment into its costs

   The overall bill
   

5. I congratulate the Government, and especially Commerce Minister Simon Power, for his response to the problems highlighted by S92A.
6. The policy consultation and development process was robust and inclusive, and the policy outcome as laid out in this bill is generally well balanced. This was reflected in the unanimous support for this bill at first reading.
7. The critical features of this bill are
   * that the law will no longer presume guilt upon accusation
   * ISPs do not have to act as a judge in any disputes
   * rights holders gain the ability to send notices to alleged infringers
   * users have their privacy protected
   * ISPs can charge a fee to reflect the cost of processing and data matching infingment complaints
8. * That any tribunal action can only happen after ongoing alleged infringing

   Suspension of Internet Access as a penalty

9. I appreciate that the bill has considerable safeguards around the provision to allow suspension of an Internet account – specifically that the power is reserved to the Court, not the Tribunal, and that the circumstances in the proposed s122O(3) must be taken into account.
10. However I believe that it would be a very bad precedent to pass a law which has suspension of an Internet account as a penalty.
11. The Internet is a utility, much like power, water, and phone. It has become essential to many New Zealanders, and in fact the Government itself requires certain transactions to be done online, such as company annual returns.
12. If someone grows cannabis plants in a heated glasshouse at home, we do not give the courts the power to suspend their electricity account for six months. We charge them for the offence.
13. If someone sends a threat by fax machine to the Prime Minister, we do not give the courts the powers to suspend their phone line for six months. Instead we charge them for the threats.
14. Even with other highly undesirable activities on the Internet, we have not given the courts the power to suspend or terminate an Internet account. Many would agree the worst material on the Internet is child pornography. If someone is convicted of trading in child sexual abuse pictures, they may get sent to jail, or fined. But the court does not have the power to suspend or terminate their Internet access.
15. For what is a civil, not even a criminal, offence of copyright infringement, a punishment of Internet access suspension is grossly disproportional.
16. While it is unlikely to be used often, it would set a very unhealthy precedent.
17. I recommend that the Committee delete the proposed sections122O and 122P. Also a consequential deletion of S122Q(2)(e)

    Other Amendments
    

18. In s122Q(4) the date “31 September” should be replaced with “30 September”
19. Also in s122Q(4) I would propose that rather than require ISPs to publish compliance statistics on their own websites, it would be more useful for the purpose of analysis to have them submit the statistics to a government agency (probably MED) and have the statistics published in one central location.
20. A number of other technical amendments are detailed in the submission by InternetNZ, and I endorse those proposed changes.

    Research on economic damage
    

21. At the 2007 select committee hearings, I recall music industry representatives talking about how the failure to pass that law would lead to artists like Bic Runga having to flip burgers at McDonalds so she can earn enough money to live on.
22. Some rights holders produce reports stating that the economic damage is in the billions, assuming every single download of a “work” is a sale that would have otherwise occured. This ignores the fact that many downloaders “try before they buy”, or in other words download to see if they like something, and if they do then purchase it legally. This is not to condone such acts, but to point out that the assumptions over economic damage are unwarranted.
23. In Australasia, the most recent stats (from the Int Assn of the Phonographic Industry) show that music revenues are up 3.5% (physical sales down 2.4%, digital sales up 41.4% and performance rights up 8.6%) in 2009. Also APRA reported that in 2008/09 distributions to music creators increased by 10%
24. In the movie industry, global ticket sales were up 7.6% in 2009, during the worst recession in 70 years
25. Again, this is not to condone illegal file sharing, or to suggest it is of no consequence. But to put the claims of industry groups in proportion.
26. In giving the Copyright Tribunal a mandate to hear file sharing infringement claims, Parliament will be investing many hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Tribunal so it can do this work.
27. It would be prudent for members of the Committee to ascertain that they have sufficient quality research on the economic damage caused by non-commercial personal file sharing, to justify the investment of taxpayer dollars into the Copyright Tribunal’s expanded mandate.
28. An alternative is to do what Canada and the UK have done, and to simply implement a notice and notice regime, which research has shown will deter 70% of file sharers), and evaluate how that regime works, before deciding on the need for the Tribunal.

In summary I urge the Commerce Committee to recommend the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill be passed, with appropriate amendments.

David Farrar

The Herald hits out at dubious pet projects:

The latest example of misuse is the $120,000 that the Auckland City Council’s finance and strategy committee has voted to spend on commissioning a history of the council from 1989 to 2010. …

Never mind, also, that the money is being spent on a work which, no matter how worthy, will be of interest to few and read by even fewer.

Two previous volumes covering the history of Auckland from 1871 to 1989 hardly featured on bestseller lists. …

In time, an uncommissioned historian would surely come up with a far more interesting and relevant work.

I blogged on this, this morning, and agree with the Herald that it is un-necessary expenditure.

The other three editorials are all on Labour and Chris Carter. First The Press:

Last week, before his demotion from the Labour Party front bench over his misuse of his ministerial credit card while in government, Chris Carter spoke of being close to quitting because of the uproar over the matter.

It was apparently only a passing thought but now that he is cooling his heels at home after the Labour leader, Phil Goff, bluntly told him to take some time off to consider his future, it is a question he should seriously consider. Carter’s appalling behaviour in the days after the exposure of his credit card transgressions is only the latest indication that he may lack the temperament, moral compass and gravitas that should be the basic equipment of a member of Parliament and Cabinet minister. …

Carter’s first response, on the other hand, was a pig-headed refusal to accept that he had done anything wrong. Even when Goff finally made it clear to him on Tuesday that his performance had not been acceptable, he still declined to apologise to his fellow Labour MPs and fled from journalists who tried to question him on the matter. It was only after Goff told him to go home and calm down that he finally made the public apology he should have made days earlier. By this time he had forced Goff into the farcical position of having to hold a third press conference of the day to deal with the matter.

The Dom Post:

They show that ministers in the last Labour government thought nothing of spending more on a night’s accommodation, a meal or a taxi ride than some of their constituents could earn in a couple of weeks. The difference between Mr Carter and the other two Labour MPs who misused their ministerial cards for personal expenditure – Shane Jones and Mita Ririnui – is his lack of contrition. …

There are even times when it is in the national interest for them to splash out on a particularly good bottle of wine or expensive meal, for example, when hosting their international counterparts. What the records released last week show, however, is that ministers in the last government lacked the ability to distinguish between spending in their interest and the country’s interest.

That is a problem not just for Mr Carter, who cannot ever hope to hold another ministerial post, but for his party. Bollinger, lobster, massages, limousines, helicopter rides and $700 taxi fares are not the way middle New Zealand lives, let alone Labour’s traditional supporters, the ones Labour’s MPs rely on to give up their free time to hand-deliver mail, knock on doors and ferry supporters to the polls on election day.

Labour has a credibility problem. It will not be fixed by ceremonially beheading three big-spending MPs. It has to reconnect with people who don’t drink Bollinger, stay at luxury resorts or eat like royalty by demonstrating that their concerns are its concerns.

That is the long term challenge indeed.

The ODT opines:

When Labour leader Phil Goff named his shadow cabinet in November 2008, it was clear his natural caution influenced his decisions.

He did not promote any of the new entrants in Labour’s caucus, relying instead on the experience of ministers who had served in the Clark government.

His rationale may have been that they would be best suited to attack the new government and maintain Labour’s poll standings; if so, it was a strategy that failed.

Which is why he will do a full reshuffle later this year.

In that sense, the opportunity presented to Mr Goff by the expenses scandal has proved a godsend.

He was able to remove from the spotlight one serious contender for the leadership in Shane Jones, and in dealing with the other major offenders would finally be able to give a public demonstration of the strength of his own leadership.

Labour has been damaged by this, but Goff personally has come through it ok.

If Mr Carter gets the message, he likely will return in a state of contrition.

If he does not, he will resign, forcing a by-election – a prospect Mr Goff probably would not welcome.

Well who wants to fight a by-election caused by an MP resigning because he resented criticism of his overseas travel?

A leader with better advice than Mr Goff appears to be getting would have acted more ruthlessly, and perhaps Mr Goff – who evidently does not have a personal chief of staff – should consider hiring a political adviser not inclined to shelter him from unpleasant realities.

I recently saw an exceptionally good quote from Solon, a Greek lawgiver in around 600 BC, which was “In giving advice, seek to help, not please, your friend“. This should be pinned up in most parliamentary offices.

I blogged on Monday about complaints local Chinese media had not been able to get access to the visit of the VP of China.

DIA sent me on Tuesday an e-mail which I have attached to the original post. The key part is:

We can assure you there is no attempt to block the local Chinese media from attending various activities during the Vice President Xi JinPing’s visit or adopt any form of censorship. Invitations have been issued today to local media including Auckland and Wellington based Chinese media.

Better later than never!

A few tough ones this week. Quiz here.

Stuff reports:

Police in western New York said two Canadian men attended a church festival and wound up in the woods drunk, naked and covered in mud.

I’m fascinated by what church has festivals like that. Not the Mormons I guess.

Trevor blogged yesterday:

Chris is pretty badly hurt. And he is damaged. That is obvious. He has to decide what he wants to do.

My appeal is for us to be reasonable, forget the lynch mob mentality, and let him work out what is best for him, for Labour and for New Zealand.

And give him space to do that.

Trevor is right. I think people should show the same compassion and reasonableness to Chris Carter, as Trevor himself showed to Nick Smith when Nick got badly hurt and had to take some time off.

Stuff reports:

Take a bow, Labour’s Darren Hughes – at least one former minister has proven capable of separating personal from work spending.

Credit card receipts from Mr Hughes’ ministerial days show that on a trip to a conference in Australia in August 2008 with a staffer, any alcohol they drank at restaurants was paid for in cash separately. Only meals went on the ministerial card.

Mr Hughes was also quick to question his bill – a $7 hotel minibar charge for pistachios in Auckland was reimbursed by the hotel when he said he had not eaten them.

Mr Hughes said it was his custom to separate the cost of alcohol and pay for it personally.

Darren is a very smart lad. You can’t get into trouble doing that. He wasn’t obliged to, but he did. It is called a risk averse approach.

The Taranaki Daily News reports that the region is short of volunteer fire fighters, but highlights how Jana and Jozien Hannah have joined up.

I may be wrong, but I suspect the Opunake Fire Brigade is about to be swamped by a horde of young Opunake men wanting to join the fire brigade.

I think being a volunteer fire fighter is one of the most admirable forms of community service, and anyone who does so has my respect.

Many do not realise that the vast majority of fire fighters in New Zealand are volunteers.

The Herald reports:

The Commerce Commission has formally recommended that mobile termination rates be regulated to promote better competition in the market and to bring New Zealand in line with international standards.

Joyce is now inviting submissions on the Commerce Commission’s reconsidered final report.

Submissions close at 5pm June 29.

Under the Telecommunications Act, the Minister may accept, reject, or require the Commerce Commission to reconsider the recommendations.

“I will make a decision upon consideration of the report, submissions, and advice from officials. It is my intention to do this in a timely manner,” Joyce said.

I would be incredibly surprised if the recommendations are rejected, considering the Minister asked them to reconsider the earlier split recommendation, and you now have a unanimous recommendation.

A new commenter left the following comment:

Oh what a surprise! The National and ACT party’s long term plan of having Banks as Mayor of the so called ‘Super City’ kicks into action as soon as Len Brown shows up 11% ahead of failed MP Banks. Oh another surprise, the horrible geeky little man ( being generous there) Farrar is doing Keys and Hides dirty work for them, just like he did on Winston Peters in the election. Well Farrar, time to exercise a few skeletons out of your cupboard, as well as Banks, Key and Hide. Just wait and see what starts popping up on the internet in the next few weeks, maybe a long term trip to Rarotonga would be well timed, or would Thailand be a better choice for you Farrar?

I deleted the comment, but then decided maybe better to let people see it.

The Thailand suggestion is especially charming, as we know what he is really suggesting by this.

Now here is my dilemma. I know the identity of the person who made that comment, through their e-mail address and domain name, with his threats against me. Kiwiblog’s privacy policy says:

I reserve the right to use or publicise any of the above information. However, unless there is good reason, I intend to only publish information in summarised form …

So the bottom line in terms of privacy in browsing or commenting on this site, is that in 99.99% of all cases I will keep your personal information strictly confidential to me. However if you break the law, defame someone, or really piss me off, then you have been warned!

So should I name the person who made this comment? Does this qualify as the 0.01% exception?

The Herald reports:

Auckland City intends spending $120,000 on a history of itself, in a swansong that minority councillors fear will glorify the ruling Citizens and Ratepayers faction.

The council’s finance and strategy committee voted yesterday to seek expressions of interest for the work, to cover the period since the local government reforms of 1989.

But the idea has infuriated the left-wing City Vision faction, which would rather see the money spent on furniture for Aotea Square shaped like “critters” – an American term that generally refers to domestic animals such as cows, horses or mules.

The author of the history book will be paid from money saved by a freeze in the past two years on fees of council and community board members.

I’ve got a novel idea. How about not spending the money on either the history of the last 21 years or on furniture shaped liked critters?

It’s good the money has been saved by a fees freeze, but that doesn’t mean it has to be spent. One can under-spend. A budget is a limit, not a target.

The NZ Herald reported:

Manukau Mayor and Super City mayoral front-runner Len Brown broke nearly every rule in the book when he put $810 on his council credit card for a dinner at a Manurewa restaurant last September.

The council credit card policy bars card-holders from submitting only an eftpos receipt to verify spending, but that is all Mr Brown provided after the dinner at Volare Restaurant.

He also breached rules requiring him to explain the purpose of the dinner, list who was present, provide an itemised breakdown of the dinner, a GST receipt and a tax invoice.

But Len Brown declared, according to the Sunday Star Times:

At the committee meeting he refused to say who he took to the Volare function.

“Will I give you the names? Never. I want to tell you that, I feel so intensely strong about this,” he said, saying the privacy of the attendees needed to be respected.

This is rank stupidity. Either Len Brown is getting very bad advice, or he is not taking it. According to the Herald it is Council policy to list who was present. The right to privacy disappears when you get paid for by the ratepayers.

How can you be Mayor of a Council and say publicly you refuse to follow their rules – that effectively you are above the law?

The SST has information that strongly suggests the function was not a fundraiser as described by Brown:

On Monday Brown told TVOne’s Breakfast co-host Paul Henry it was “a totally appropriate occasion. It was fundraiser in support of a young singing artist in our community”.

He added: “This is a bona-fide purchase of a table in support of a fundraiser for one of our excellent young musical talents coming through.”

Sounds clear, but:

But the event on September 27 last year was a dinner featuring professional Australian-based opera tenor Geoff Knight, a former member of the Highway 61 motorcycle gang who is aged in his forties.

In 2008 it was reported Knight was “already performing internationally, most recently a four-month stint with Rockdale Opera in Sydney, singing the lead tenor role of Captain Fitzbattleaxe in Gilbert and Sullivan’s operetta Utopia Limited; and earning comparisons to the great Italian tenors”.

The evening was organised by the restaurant’s owner Daniel Nahkle. The cost per head was $70 which included “a sensational five course set menu”.

Speaking from the Gold Coast today, Knight said he was invited to sing at the evening by Nahkle and was paid “a small donation” for the night which “I split with the pianist”.

He said it was around a few hundred dollars.

So if the Mayor’s table was one of 15 tables, then they contributed around $20 to the young (in his 40s) Australian based singer and $790 to the restaurant for the five course dinner.