Kiwiblog

The Electoral Enrolment Centre reports:

The Registrar of Electors has completed their investigation into enrolment irregularities in the electoral roll for the Papatoetoe area of Auckland and removed 306 enrolments.

That is attempted fraud on a huge scale. The 306 people who were told to enrol at addresses where they do not live should be prosecuted themselves unless they reveal who was the mastermind that arranged this – because of course it must have been co-ordinated.

The ballot papers go out today. If a candidate was involved in this attempted fraud, the public need to know this before they vote. I hope the Police assign enough resources to this case (normally electoral matters are ranked below jay walking) so that the investigation is completed swiftly (but thoroughly).

Roger Kerr blogs:

Roberts uses a neat analogy to describe US stimulus package policy later in his post:

Think of having a lot of wet wood and trying to get it going by lighting newspaper as kindling. There’s a fire for a while, while the newspaper is burning. But once the newspaper is consumed, the wood hasn’t caught. Even burning a lot more newspaper (bigger stimulus package) isn’t going to get the wood dry enough to catch fire.

The same applies to government spending in New Zealand. The role of the government should be to provide a framework that allows the economy to prosper. Cutting government spending is a sure way to heat up a damp economy.

Cutting government spending will generate higher growth. Growth generates prosperity. Prosperity creates spending: a roaring fire using dry wood without wasting stacks of paper getting it going.

It is worth remembering that the US had a giant fiscal stimulus and their unemployment rate is 9.6%. They spent $800 billion on fiscal stimulus and claimed it would yield $1.50 in growth for every $1 spent.

Today’s shot is one of a Jacana making a rare misstep. Usually they’re much more adept at ‘walking on water’ (i.e. the weeds just under the surface).

Clicking the image should bring up a larger version.

I liked this shot partly because of the low angle, which helps create the reflection in the water.

Still trying to wean myself off double-espressos this morning… and failing Hope everyone has a great Friday.

The Government announced:

The Government announced today that New Zealand will complete the switch to digital television by 2013.

‘’Our election promise was to achieve digital switchover (DSO) by 2015 at the latest. With 70 percent of New Zealand households already watching digital television, we are in a good position to set a date for DSO,” says Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman.

‘’In achieving DSO by the end of 2013, all of New Zealand will receive the benefit of enhanced reception, better picture quality and more channels. There will be a substantial wider economic benefit generated by the use of freed up spectrum for new technology.

It is the spectrum that is freed up, which has exciting possibilities.

Digital switchover will be phased starting with Hawke’s Bay and the West Coast in September 2012. The rest of the country will switch over in three stages with an end date of November 2013.

I got a new TV a couple of years ago that is digital, so no problems with me. Plus I do all my viewing through My Sky anyway.

Labour are supportive:

Am at NZ Computer Society 50th anniversary conf in Rotorua and about to speak, but want to say that it’s the right decision. Am a bit suprised. it loooked as though the government was going to delay til 2015.

Wonder why they changed their minds. The mobile companies investing in 4G will be pleased.  And it means that we wont lag in the next generation of ultra-fast broadband over mobile.

The “loser” is Kordia, who provide the current transmissions. But they are well on their way with developing other business models.

If anyone has a copy of the original post made at Red Alert, which they edited – could you please send it to me.

UPDATE: Thanks to the many readers who sent a copy through.  What they deleted was:

By David Parker and Phil Twyford

We understand this is a serious matter but we think ACT and National have some questions to answer.

To Rt Hon John Key Prime Minister and Minister of SIS: When the Israelis stole identities of children for false passports, did the Government force the Israeli Ambassador to resign and leave the country, and if so, has the Government considered a similar response to Government MP David Garrett?

Supplementary: Has the Minister received any intelligence reports about ACT MPs or is that an oxymoron?

Supplementary: Has the Minister received any intelligence reports about Ilich Ramírez Sanchez (aka Carlos the Jackal) having escaped prison in France and being sighted in Tonga and New Zealand?

To Hon Rodney Hide the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by his statement that he is bringing “transparency and accountability to local government”?

Supplementary 1:  How can he expect transparency in local government when he in central government has suppressed David Garrett’s criminal record for two years and his own for even longer?

Supplementary: Will he reinstate Heather Roy who has demonstrated a strong commitment to transparency by proactively releasing documents to the media?

To Hon Maurice Williamson the Minister of Customs: Is the Minister confident the new Smartgate system is capable of picking up false passports?

Supplementary: What sort of passport would facilitate the quickest progress through Smartgate: a diplomatic passport, the new Kiwi digital passport, or a David Garrett passport, and is this just more good news for the Government?

Supplementary: What percentage of ACT politicians have convictions for drunk and disorderly behaviour in airports and would this be picked up by Smartgate?

To Hon John Boscawen, Minister of Consumer Affairs: Does misleading and deceptive conduct breach the Fair Trading Act?

Supplementary: Does he think it was misleading and deceptive conduct for Mr Garrett, in his presence, to tell journalists last week that he had no other convictions?

Supplementary: Is it now ACT party policy that conviction politicians must have criminal convictions rather than principles?

Supplementary: Will the Government be prosecuting Garth McVicar and “Sensible Sentencing Trust” under the Fair Trading Act for crimes against tautology?

That’s our first stab. We invite readers to submit their own questions below.  Especially ACT MPs or staffers who may well have more information they wish to share.

Don’t know why they deleted them. I think they’re great!

From Mike E:

MikeE_NZ is pretty happy right now that David Garrett didn’t read The Silence of the Lambs.

Hat Tip: Not PC

Craig Nevill-Manning is a Kiwi, but also Director of Engineering for Google in New York.

Talking about what Google did to help with aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. They used their mapping tools to identify areas most affected etc. Also they set up a person finder service where people could register people they were looking for, or for people to say they were ok. Had 50,000 entries on it. Needed a lot of translation though.

Quoted Larry Wall who said the three virtues that programmers have are laziness, impatience and hubris

Craig said the laziness and impatience is good as it means you get things done on time, and don’t try and empire build. And the hubris is the fact you’re willing to let people see what you have created, and are confident it will work.

He’s having problem getting a website in Chrome. A wit yelled out “Try Safari”

He’s now writing some code  live from the stage. Some in the audience are yelling out suggestions as he fixes bugs. In the end he runs out of time, so we don’t get to see a mash-up for Google Maps to show where boat ramps are.

Just showed off an image recognition service – you hold it up to the webcam, and Google recognises it and searches for info on it. Cool.

The Herald reports on the latest revelations from 60 minutes about Stephen Wilce:

Disgraced former Defence Force top scientist Stephen Wilce ignored concerns about military projects which led to at least one cost blow-out of $100 million, it was alleged last night.

Scientist Iain MacKenzie, who worked with Mr Wilce at the Defence Technology Agency, told TV3′s 60 Minutes programme that he quit after his concerns about several top-priority projects were ignored.

The main focus is on how he got hired. I agree this is a concern, and we need to find out how it happened.

But equally disturbing to me, is that the Defence Force kept him on – in the fact of criticism both internally and externally. Critics said he was clearly not up to the job.

So I want an additional inquiry – into his bosses, and why they never listened to the complaints, and most of all why they never noticed he was not up to the job. Unless they really want to argue any old unqualified person can head up their technology agency.

As certain people get hysterical over the fact I have not condemned a bill which was passed unanimously by every MP in Parliament – yes by Labour, by the Greens, even by Jim Anderton. How this makes it partisan is beyond me. It is a rare display of non-partisanship.

But I thought it would be useful to highlight what I have actually said about the law.

Post No 1 was yesterday at 8.19 am. I quoted the concerns of the Greens and ACT over the bill (but they voted for it), and commented:

And people should be vigilant. The powers given to the Government are potentially immense.

I also blogged on how the Opposition, the media and bloggers should be vigilant about how the powers granted under the law are used.

And I praised the Government for agreeing to a Labour amendment to reduce the time period by three years.

Post No 2 was primarily a link to Andrew Geddis, who is extremely critical of the law. Yes I went out of my way to point people to a serious attack on the law. I referred to the act as “constitutionally over-reaching and potentially draconian”. I also blogged:

The Government should indeed be very careful about any use of the emergency powers. There will be a backlash, if they are used un-necessarily.

Also, as I commented on the other thread, it could well be a good idea in say a couple of months, to look at amending the Recovery Act so the powers to amend legislation by regulation is restricted to just those Acts identified as necessary. I can understand that initially there may not have been time to go through all 2,000 or so Acts and identify which ones of them may get in the way of reconstruction – but that could be done over the next few weeks.

So I am actually proposing constructive ways the law can be changed to be less far-reaching. I’ve yet to see anyone else do much apart from whine.

Then we had the third post last night. It basically has two arguments to it.

The first is I actually say that if you go back to the original meaning of a dictatorship (the roman version), then it is indeed arguably correct to say we have a dictatorship. Now if anyone thinks me saying “Oh yes we are actually in a dictatorship” is the message the Government wants out there, they need to get real. I am sure the Government is just delighted that I am saying “Well, technically we are in a dictatorship”. Yes in fact I’ve just checked my daily talking points from the PMO, and in bold underlined text they say “David, please go out there and blog how technically it is correct to say we are in a dictatorship – but stress it is a nice dictatorship”

The second is I made the argument that this is a well intentioned or even benevolent dictatorship – like the original Roman dictatorships were – a temporary granting of power to get through an emergency. I stand by this assertion – I do not think this is some grab for absolute power by the Government. This is an assertion no doubt shared by the Green party and Labour party, as they voted unanimously for the law.

My position remains constant – the emergency law is well intentioned, but constitutionally over-reaching and I would like to see it amended in the next couple of months to restrict the ability to amend laws to those acts identified as likely to need amending for the purpose of earthquake recovery.

Sam Morgan introduced as the person most NZers think of, when they think innovation.

Sam talking about how he had an early Internet – posting floppy disks to friends. Discovered you could wash postmarks off stamps and re-use them!

Then he continued with his criminal exploits, of splicing into his neighbour’s phone lines to dial all over the world – stopped when they got the phone bill. Also a way you could get free calls through 018.

Sam had so many youthful criminal exploits, he could be a law and order spokesman for ACT

Then talked about Trade Me. Importance of making it a fun place to work. Focused on the trust model – how that was crucial to strangers selling and buying to and from each other.

Also spoke on how speed is crucial to usability.

Sam is now on board of Fairfax Media – said he has gone from spending 10 years trying to kill newspapers to now trying to work out how they survive in the digital world.

Now talking about Pacific Fibre. Said idea came over a breakfast with David Cunliffe when he and Rod were saying that fibre to the home will just move the bottleneck to the overseas links, and Cunliffe challenged them to do something about it themselves – so they did!

They want a world with no data caps (yay!). Showed a nice graphic of how video has grown from 1% to over 50% of international bandwidth. You Tube alone is responsible for 10% of global traffic!

Showed off a video cam you can place over your ear, and you can talk and show your caller what you are seeing. This will all be part of what drives future bandwidth.

I’m in Rotorua for the NZ Computer Society 50th anniversary conference.

Steven Joyce spoke on how Governments are not good at innovation – tried that in an experiment known as the Soviet Union. Said innovation happens in all the companies and firms that are represented at this conference, and the Government’ job is to try and facilitate a supportive environment.

He said that copper has done better than anyone expected, but fibre is the future. The current investment in copper is about catching up with the rest of the world, while the planned investment in fibre is designed to give NZ a competitive advantage – an advantage that the NZ Institute says could be worth over $2b a year in extra GDP.

While most focus is on the $1.5b urban fibre project, Joyce said he considers the rural broadband situation is more urgent as around half our rural citizens still can only get dial-up. I thought this was ironic as the speed at the conference hotel had slowed down to dial-up also!

I missed most of Paul Matthews response, as both the wireless and mobile Internet connections were frozen so had to reboot my laptop.

Conference Chair Liz Eastwood is doing a show and tell of technology from the past – the slide show projectors we used to use to show off our holidays, and the telex machines etc etc. You do forget how much the world has changed!

Meant to blog this a few days ago, but kudos to Labour for voting for the repeal of the Foreshore & Seabed Act. Never easy to admit you were wrong, and that your successors have handled it better.

But more important than point scoring, is that this should be durable – with both major parties supporting it.

Some commentators have been declaring that the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill has turned NZ into a dictatorship and Gerry Brownlee is our new Supreme Overlord.

Of course this is not true. We remain a democratic country, with parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament can repeal the said act, and indeed remove the Government – which is a minority Government.

But there is an argument to be made, that we could be seen as under the rule of a dictator – if you know your classics.

In modern history, a dictator is seen as an evil bad ruler – Hitler, Stalin, Kim, Hussein etc. They have absolute rule for life. We definitely do not have that sort of dictatorship.

But a long time ago, a dictator was seen in positive lights – in fact some dictators are seen as democratic heroes. Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix changed the office from a noble one to a tyrannical one when he was made dictator for an indefinite period in 82 BC. Prior to that, it was well regarded.

Normally Rome was ruled by the Magistrates (mainly the two Consuls) and the Senate. But in times of emergency, the Consuls could appoint a sole ruler, to act as dictator for a period of no more than six months. Their job was to deal with the threat or emergency, and then they give up the office.

Now in terms of what has happened in NZ, there are some parallels. There has been an emergency which is unable to be dealt with under current arrangements. So a temporary granting of power has been given to deal with the situation. And like in Roman times, the exercise of the power is not generally subject to challenge (the dictator could be be prosecuted for their actions). Another parallel is the dictator had power to change any law as he saw fit, just as can happen in NZ now.

The most popular dictator was Cincinnatus. He was made dictator in 458 and 439 BC. The first time saw him working on his farm when he was told he had been appointed Dictator of Rome. He crossed the Tiber, drafted every man of fighting age, and in 16 days defeated the Aequi. He then resigned his dictatorship and returned to his farm.

So my hope is that our temporary “dictators” will use their power as wisely as Cincinnatus, and surrender it when it is no longer needed!

1. Applying for a passport in the name of a dead child is a seriously bad thing to do – even for someone in their 20s. I myself had some well known legal problems in my 20s, but was never this stupid.
2. It was 26 years ago. By itself it does not make himself ineligible to be an MP, or even a law & order spokesperson.
3. The decision by the court in 2005 to discharge without conviction was in my opinion correct, but the granting of name suppression was wrong. There should have been some consequences for the offending.
4. David Garrett was right to disclose this to the ACT Party when he sought nomination.
5. It was a incredibly bad call to not disclose it publicly prior to him entering Parliament – even more so considering his high profile on law & order issues.
6. Thinking it would not eventually come out, reflects bad political judgement on behalf of both Hide and Garrett.
7. As far as I know, a defendant is able to breach his own name suppression, and reveal his or her own court experiences. Using name suppression as a reason not to have revealed this earlier is a cop out.
8. This, along with the Tongan assault conviction, seriously undermines Garrett’s ability to continue as law and order spokesperson. I’d put Heather into that portfolio, and move Garrett into other areas where he has a strong background such as industrial relations.
9. Again, if this had been disclosed in 2008, I doubt it would have received more than a passing “Wow what a stupid thing to do when you were young”, and it would not be hurting ACT today, when they least need this.

iPredict have just launched two stocks on whether Cameron Slater or Andrew Williams will receive more votes in the Albany Ward, for the Auckland Council elections.

The Slater to win more votes stock is at 23c.

The Williams to win more votes stock is at 78c.

Will the incumbent Mayor actually get less votes than a rebel blogger? If you think you know the answer, there is money to be made.

Andrew Geddis has a useful piece on the Earthquake Recovery Act.

He goes through all the reasons why the Act is constitutionally over-reaching and potentially draconian – but usefully also goes through some of the safeguards (public reaction to any mis-use of the emergency powers).

The Government should indeed be very careful about any use of the emergency powers. There will be a backlash, if they are used un-necessarily.

Also, as I commented on the other thread, it could well be a good idea in say a couple of months, to look at amending the Recovery Act so the powers to amend legislation by regulation is restricted to just those Acts identified as necessary. I can understand that initially there may not have been time to go through all 2,000 or so Acts and identify which ones of them may get in the way of reconstruction – but that could be done over the next few weeks.

Fluked a guess to the final answer but still had one wrong from earlier. Quiz here. 35 seconds.

The Dom Post reports:

The Maori Party co-leaders have been forced into damage control to defend their decision to support new foreshore and seabed legislation after party MP Hone Harawira pulled his vote.

The Marine and Coastal Area Bill will have its first reading today and although the Maori Party had agreed to cast all five votes in support of it, yesterday Mr Harawira said he would not allow his vote to be used.

Most politicians do not decide whether or not to vote for a bill, based on whether they are absolutely happy with it. Otherwise, no bills would ever get passed.

The usual test that MPs apply, is “does this bill improve the status quo” or will New Zealand be a better place if the bill passes, rather than not passes.

So by this test, Hone Harawira’s decision not to support the Marine and Coastal Area Bill, is politically inept – it is effectively saying he prefers Labour’s Foreshore & Seabed Act.

Now of course he does not. So why is he voting against – well basically because he can. It allows him to remain “pure”. He says he wants the entire foreshore and seabed held in Maori title.

Ironically Hone’s stance probably helps National. They can point to it, as showing they did not go too far.

But Hone’s stance is very unfair to his colleagues. Hone knows the bill can pass without him, so he has the luxury of voting against. But his colleagues are forced to deal with real  politik, and support the bill.

In terms of representing those with similar views to him, Hone is a very effective activist. But in terms of being able to achieve outcomes in Parliament, he is a pretty lousy MP. He puts his personal brand ahead of actually achieving things.

The Dom Post reports:

Police are on standby to attend a Porirua City Council meet-the-candidates night because of concerns that patched gang members planning to attend could start trouble.

There are also claims Mongrel Mob members have thrown their support behind Porirua mayoral candidate Russell Marshall after he met the local chapter’s leader. The Mob is understood to have taken issue with anti-gang campaigners and fellow candidates deputy mayor Litea Ah Hoi and Wayne Poutoa. …

Ms Ah Hoi said Mr Marshall had approached Mob members “and sought their support and votes”. Gang members had been actively recruiting non-enrolled voters to support Mr Marshall’s campaign, she said.

There were already so many reasons not to vote for Marshall, but this gives you another if you live in Porirua.

Maybe one of the other candidates will get Black Power to join their campaign team!

The Herald reports:

New Zealand teachers are some of the lowest paid in the OECD, despite working more hours than most of their overseas counterparts, an international report reveals.

The annual Education at a Glance report, which compares the education systems of the 29 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, found that after 15 years’ experience, a New Zealand teacher made $10,000 a year less than OECD counterparts on average.

The entire article is peppered with stats designed to give the impression our teachers are underpaid. It reads like a PPTA and NZEI press release. But they have missed out the most important stat – our GDP. I blogged this in response last week, and need to repeat it again:

I am not surprised teachers in Australia get paid more. Everyone in Australia gets paid more – they are a wealthier country. The solution to this problem is to increase productivity growth.

The better comparison between countries is how much do teachers get paid, compared to the average wage, or how much does a country spend on education as a percentage of GDP.

The OECD report answers the latter.

In Australia 3.5% of GDP is spent on non-tertiary education, and in New Zealand it is 4.0%. So we are already paying more as a percentage of GDP, than Australia. Hence the solution is to increase GDP, not to increase the share spent on education.

Only three OECD countries spend a higher percentage of GDP on non-tertiary education than New Zealand.

So all these stats about how teachers are paid less than the OECD average – it is because we earn less than the OECD average, and it is basic economic that you have to generate the wealth to spend it.

What would be good is if someone did some proper comparisons, such as what do NZ teachers get paid, compared to the average wage for their country and/or what do teachers get paid compared to the average GDP per capita.

The OECD doesn’t seem to have up to date average wage data for NZ, but there is good data on GDP per capita. So let’s compare teacher salaries to GDP per capita. Taking a primary teacher with 15 years experience, the data is:

• Australia $46,096 salary vs $38,911 GDP per capita = 118% ratio
• UK/England $44,630 vs $34,619 = 129%
• France $31,927 vs $33,679 = 95%
• Luxembourg $67,723 vs $78,395 = 86%
• US $44,172 vs $46,381 = 95%
• NZ $38,412 vs $26,708 = 144%
• OECD $39,426 vs $35,138 = 112%

So in fact New Zealand is paying primary teachers with 15 years experience far more, compared to our national wealth, than the OECD average, and than Australia, the US, UK, US, France etc.

Even if ones takes secondary teachers with 15 years experience, NZ at 144% pays far more relative to national wealth than even Luxembourg. So bear this in mind as you read:

They also started on an average of $10,000 less than Australian counterparts and earned up to $82,000 less than those in top-paying Luxembourg.

Again – that is because those countries are far wealthier.

New Zealand teachers get paid more, than almost any other country, compared to GDP per capita, and almost inevitably the average wage.

And if you think that this is not the relevant comparison, then you probably think money grows on trees.

The House has unanimously passed the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. As no MP objected, it was ut through all stages by leave of the House – rather than by use of urgency.

The Herald reports:

The Government’s Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill passed into law yesterday as political opposites Act and the Greens both raised concerns over the sweeping powers it gives ministers.

And people should be vigilant. The powers given to the Government are potentially immense.

The legislation creates an “Order in Council” mechanism that enables ministers to relax or suspend potentially every other act of Parliament – barring five dealing with constitutional matters – to the extent they may “divert resources away from the effort to efficiently respond to the damage caused by the Canterbury earthquake”.

Opposition MPs have, sensibly, said lets give the Government the tools they need to expedite the recovery in Canterbury. I am sure they will be vigilant (as will the press and bloggers) about any actual use of the emergency mechanisms, to be sure they are not over-reaching.

It also creates the Canterbury Earthquake Commission, comprising mayors of the three affected districts and central government representatives. It will advise ministers on what Orders in Council are required to speed up rebuilding efforts. The orders must be signed off by the Cabinet and the Governor-General.

So an obvious warning bell would be any Order in Council, not recommended by the Commission.

The Greens supported the bill to its first reading but put forward amendments including limits to the scope of legislation it could override and shortening the duration for which it would apply.

As originally drafted the bill would have been in effect until 2015 but that was shortened to April 2012 after consultation with Labour.

Good to see changes made after consultation.

Judge Harvey has found Cameron Slater guilty on nine of the ten charges relating to name supression. The judgement is here – Police v Slater. I’ll do a fuller post tonight or tomorrow analysing it n depth, and especially any implications for the wider blogosphere and media. It is pretty long for a district course case – 70 pages.

The fine is $750 per charge plus $130 costs, so total cost is $7,920.

There are some proposals from the Law Commission that are with the Government, which are worth implementing. One of them makes it harder for people to get name suppression, and the other will make it easier for media (and bloggers I hope) to access details of suppression orders so that you are less likely to accidentally breach a suppression order (as has happened to me on occassion).

I hope we do see some law changes in the near future. While I don’t endorse deliberately breaking the law, I do endorse the intent of the campaign – which is to to have a more open justice system.

UPDATE: Have also placed the pdf on Scribd, below:

Police v Slater