Kiwiblog

In question time yesterday:

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What is the basis for according priority to entry of the red zone in the Christchurch central business district?

Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) : The priority that the national controller accords is safety first, and needs second.

Hon Maryan Street: How many business owners and residents are still unable to access their offices and homes in the red zone?

Hon JOHN CARTER: I do not have that information to hand. The member can put the question in writing if she wishes to find out that information.

Hon Maryan Street: How many business owners could have been given access to equipment and records that are vital to restarting their businesses, if time and resources had not been diverted to escorting the Prime Minister through the red zone on repeated occasions?

If Labour thinks they will win the election by complaining that the Prime Minister is allowed access to a restricted area, they really are deranged.

I actually have great sympathy for local business owners who are frustrated at being unable to access their businesses. But to try and blame this on the fact the PM has had access is sad and rather pathethic.

In case it needs to be stated, the Prime Minister is the person who will primarily make the major decisions on the earthquake recovery. He decided to call a state of national emergency, he decided on relief packages for employers and employees, he will make decisions on many things related to the earthquake. No one can seriously think he should not be able to see the earthquake damage first hand.

If Labour wanted to complain about people being shown around the earthquake zone, who shouldn’t have been, I’ve got a name for them the stupid hypocrites. Helen Clark.

I actually had resisted criticising Clark’s private tour around the earthquake zone up until now, because I think her request was made with good motives. But for fuck’s sake if Labour is going to attack the PM for being given access, then Clark’s visit is fair game.

As I said, I think Clark’s private visit was asked for in good faith. Rather than merely give her a private visit, what I would have suggested in response was that all the former PMs visit together – Palmer, Moore, Bolger, Shipley and Clark. That would have been a really nice symbol of unity – as Clinton and Bush 41 were in the US.

The debate and auction were great fun. I’ll do a seperate post on the debate.

We managed to get a total of $10,000 pledged by 5 pm yesterday to buy Winston’s no sign. The bidding started at $1,000 and there were three bidders, and then two bidders and then it hit the $10,000 we had pledged. I kept bidding unti $10,500 but then folded.

The great thing is that by bidding we got the winning amount up to $10,500, which all goes to families of earthquake victims who worked for The Press And CTV.

Congrats to businessman Ted Thomas who won the auction with a very generous donation/pledge.

For me this was mainly about raising money for a good cause. We can always create our own NO sign for 5c, and have it appear during the campaign (and we will). So I would encourage those who pledged money to consider still donating to the relief fund for families of earthquake victims who worked for The Press And CTV. I will be.

If you wish to make a donation, the details are:

‘Press Gallery Quake Fundraiser’
03-1537-0013148-009

And once again thanks to the scores of readers who pledged their support for the auction. You helped make the auction a success.

TVNZ proclaims:

Paul Holmes and Guyon Espiner return to co-host TVNZ’s flagship political programme in this crucial election year along with Victoria University’s Dr Jon Johansson who will lead the panel of expert political analysts. 

 The new series of Q+A kicks off with a feature interview at 9am this Sunday with Prime Minister, John Key, looking at our new world after the earthquakes.

 We have a television exclusive with renowned author, film-maker and political campaigner Tariq Ali, about the jasmine revolutions in the Middle-East, what has sparked them and what’s likely to emerge to replace the dictatorships.  Tariq is visiting NZ and will be live in the Q+A studio on Sunday morning.

 Q+A returns to its usual slot – LIVE on TV ONE 9-10am Sundays.

I must set the My Sky!

Andrea Fox at Stuff reports:

Kedgley says the report failed to address the central issue of lack of competition in the domestic market.

“It doesn’t tell us how the price of milk is set. Farmers say they receive less than 30 per cent of the price of milk, but it fails to shed any light on what makes up the other 60 per cent,” she says.

Maybe this is why the Greens are against national standards in numeracy and literacy?

Winston’s original NO sign is up for auction by the press gallery tonight, with the proceeds going to the families of CTV and Press employees killed in the earthquake.

Thanks to the 58 people who have already pledged a contribution towards our bid to win the NO sign. I’m pleased to report we have now raised enough money to outbid the Prime Minister who said he would bid $5,000. Superb.

However there may be other bidders. Winston has said he will not bid for the sign, but as we know with Winston “NO” means “YES”. I’ve heard a rumour that the Spencer Trust may bid for the sign, and if they win the auction, then the sign will be burnt to ashes quicker than Helen Clark’s forged painting was!

So please keep those contributions coming. The more we get, the more likely it is we will win – plus the more money gets raised for families of those who died in Christchurch. It’s a win-win.

As I originally said, if the framed sign is won by Whale and me, we will ensure it turns up to as many of Winston’s meetings as possible. It will be wonderful. We’ll just have someone silently holding it up at the wave back of the room – no need to heckle or interject – it will be a silent reminder to people about how he lied to the media and the public repeatedly.

After the election, our intention is to then permanently loan it to the Backbencher pub opposite Parliament, where it can be displayed permanently – along with a statement providing context for it.

Pledges can be e-mailed to me. We’ll supply payment details tomorrow, if we actually win it.

This is a guest post by Cole Cameron. Cole, 27, has been living on Tokyo for the last five years. He is a previous Hawke’s Bay and East Coast resident.

MEDIA AND COMMENTARTORS CAUSING A ‘PR’ NIGHTMARE FOR FOREGNERS IN JAPAN

16 March 2011 – Tokyo, Japan – I guess if people hear something often enough they will start to believe it. The international media community are causing a public relations nightmare for foreigners living in quake hit Japan. It would seem that the most exciting images and stories of the quake and devastation which struck the nation last Friday are on a continuous loop. After all, normal people doing normal things doesn’t sell papers!

This is causing major headaches for foreigners in Japan having to dedicate time to calming friends and family back home. It would seem that the images and messages being broadcast by the media are contradictory to what we are telling our friends and family.

It is disappointing to see that the media have given up in some cases on dedicating their air time to the ‘actual’ and have focused their attention to filling any information vacuums with the ‘potential’. This specifically applies to the nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture. A huge list of ‘experts’ have been contacted and are offering academic and theory based opinions on the subject. In times like this it is difficult for anxious people the world over to filter information and often mistake opinion for fact.

Moreover, in many corners of the world the issue of nuclear energy is controversial. I note the nuclear debate in New Zealand has taken on a new lease of life. My question is whether it is important that this debate is needed to be had right at the moment? Is it possible for it to be postponed until say the week after next? For a lot of people again it is difficult to filter this commentary and debate from the facts of the actual situation here in Japan.

I noted in the Christchurch earthquake and similarly with this Japan situation that these crises pose a prime platform for many debates to be returned to the forefront. The urgency to try and have robust discussion about such issues and for commentators to gather mileage on the subject is concerning. This to me often suggests an element of parochialism and a disrespect and/or misunderstanding for the actual situation unfolding.

It needs to be made clear that the quake and tsunami damage is localised largely to the east coast of the northern part of Honshu Island around the city of Sendai. Most of the rest of Japan is in a state of “business as usual.” The whole nation is not crumbling as some media outlets would lead their audience to believe. My advice for people with friends and family in Japan is to take the word of their loved one in Japan as the most accurate. If the advice is not to panic or worry, then that is most probably the truth.

Many Japanese people are perplexed as to why the rest of the world is panicking so much? Some are beginning to second guess the information sources locally and are wondering whether the rest of the world knows something we don’t.

Many of the foreign community are uploading and encouraging others to change their Facebook profile pictures to the poster used by the British Ministry of Information during the Second World War. It simply says “keep calm and carry on.”

Criticism of Phil Goff for his unilateral decision to rule out dealing with a party led by Hone Harawira continues to mount. Firstly we have this story by Duncan Garner:

Many in Goff’s caucus had told 3 News that Labour’s position was not to rule out anybody. Goff denies that.

“That has never been the position of the caucus,” he said.

This means multiple MPs are talking to 3 News, and revealing Goff went against his own caucus policy. Again remember that Goff six weeks agi did rule Harawira out, he then reversed his stance and refused to rule Harawira out, and then this week did a second flip-flop and ruled him out again.

One senior Labour MP told 3 News today that’s when Labour took a position not to keep all its options open.

On the Harawira decision, that MP told 3 News:

“I was really surprised, I thought caucus had agreed not to rule anyone out. I saw last night Phil changed that. Weird.”

What is weird is that the MP was prepared to allow him or herseld to be quoted criticising Goff. That is a deliberate decision.

Also of note is this blog post at The Standard by “Rob” criticising the decison. Now the post itself is not that significant, as the author is anonymous. It’s easy to be a critic when you’re anonymous. What is more significant is the comment by The Standard founder Lynn Prentice in the thread:

Might be time to vote for the greens. Daft as I find them, I think that they have more respect for the voters than this decision shows.

Lynn is a long-time Labour Party activist. For him to publicly speculate about voting for the Greens must mean he is seriously unhappy with what Goff has done. He hasn’t said he will vote for the Greens, but the tenor of his comment is significant.

I always thought that the only good thing to come out from Palmerston North was Tom Scott, but I thooughly approve of this local initiative, as reported by the Manawatu Standard:

People in Christchurch have lost their homes, so people in Palmerston North are ditching their clothes.

More than 200 people were expected in The Square this evening in nothing but their underwear to do an honour lap for the people of Christchurch.

They will also be collecting for the Red Cross Earthquake Appeal and are appealing to the people of Palmerston North to strip for a good cause.

Well done Palmie people – nothing like getting your gear off for a good cause.

Jim Anderton writes in The Press:

Wigram MP and Progressive Party leader JIM ANDERTON explains why he favours rebuilding Christchurch in wood.

‘Ridiculous” and “stupid” are how Richard Field, the Canterbury president of the Master Builders’ Federation, described my recent call to use wood as a primary construction material in the rebuilding of post- earthquake Christchurch. Setting aside the obvious question of why a building industry leader would dismiss wood in this way, the comments from Mr Field ignore mounting scientific and engineering evidence which shows that wood has the characteristics and qualities needed for a safe, modern city. As well as being safe, there are a host of other reasons why wood should form the mainstay of Christchurch’s building recovery – it is ecologically sound and sustainable, it is less expensive than many alternatives and it’s an attractive, iconic New Zealand product. There is another aspect too, and that is in the psychological recovery of the thousands of people who work in the inner city, many of whom now live in fear of working again in high-rise buildings. Those people need to feel secure, and wooden buildings, even up to six storeys high, can afford them that security.

I don’t know enough to say whether Anderton is right or wrong. I tend to think it is more likely the head of the Master Builders Federation will know what they are on about, but it would be interesting to hear reasons for why wood is or is not impractical.

Since 2007, research carried out under the guidance of Professor Andy Buchanan at the University of Canterbury has looked at the potential for commercial buildings to be constructed of wood as opposed to concrete and steel. That research was motivated in part by the Government’s wish to pursue policies towards greater sustainability; its rationale including that modern engineered wood products, along with advances in structural timber engineering and innovative design, positioned timber as a viable alternative to concrete and steel for multi-storey buildings. There are a number of other reasons to look at wood for major construction work. It is a renewable, low-energy resource.

I wonder what the cost differential is?

Another important element when it comes to safety is fire resistance. Strange as it may seem, large wood beams have excellent fire resistance because the slow rate of surface charring protects the wood inside the beams and columns. Fire safety is further increased by sprinkler systems, giving people time to evacuate buildings during an emergency.

Compare that with the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York during the 9/11 event, where the steel frame lost strength as a result of fire. That sort of collapse would be unlikely in a wooden building.

Any engineers with an opinion on this?

Simon Power has announced:

The Government’s $50 offender levy has reached its first-year target of $2 million nearly five months earlier than expected, Justice Minister Simon Power said today.

Since July last year, all convicted offenders have been required to pay a $50 levy at the time of sentencing, regardless of the crime they commit. The levy is collected after reparation and before fines, and is in addition to any sentence or court order.

Excellent.

“The Ministry of Justice estimated that $2 million would be collected in the first year, based on the assumption that 42 per cent of offenders would pay up,” Mr Power said.

“In fact, 55 per cent have paid so far.

“That means we met our first-year target on 5 February, as opposed to 1 July, and that’s fantastic news for victims of crime because it means we can put more into services for them.

The payment rate is around one third higher than projected.

Mr Power said reaching the levy target almost five months early shows how misguided the Labour Party leadership was when it slammed the idea.

“When we announced in 2008 our intention to introduce the levy, now-Deputy Leader Annette King said she was ‘astounded’ by the plan, describing it as a ‘bizarre piece of gimmickry’ and ‘a laughable hoax’.

“And when we introduced the levy last year, Labour leader Phil Goff accused us of overestimating the amount we would collect.

For some bizarre reason Labour have opposed this levy which forces convicted criminals to contribute to the costs of victims. And to be absolutely clear Goff said the Government over-estimated the amount it would collect and in fact they under-estimated it.

So you have to wonder, do Labour now support the levy? Sadly, no. Clayton Cosgrove spins:

Labour’s Law and Order spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove says Labour’s prediction is being borne out that National’s $50 levy on every offender will cost more to administer than it will raise to help victims.

“The levy is quite simply a gimmick,” Clayton Cosgrove said. “Since it came into effect in July last year it has raised about $2 million, and it will cost $2.4 million to set up and administer over the first year.

Clayton fails Maths 101. He is comparing one off set-up costs and the full year operational costs with the income of the first seven months.

Setting up the mechanism for the levy cost $1.3m. That is one off.

The collection cost for 2010/11 is $1.1m. And it has collected $2m in just 7 months. If that continues then it will collect $3.4m over the year. So the income will meet the operating cost by around a 3:1 margin. Even if you depreciate the set-up costs over three years, then that is income of $3.4m against expenditure of $1.5m – providing $2/year to help victims.

I’m amazed Labour is still opposing the offenders levy, when the evidence is clearly there that the amount it is gathering in is sufficient to make it worthwhile. Politically very stupid on their part, as it means National can now point to all of the below, which is funded by the levy, and tell people Labour are against them:

• Four paid homicide support co-ordinators to work with Victim Support’s volunteer network.
• An increase in the discretionary grant for families of homicide victims, from $1,500 to $5,000.
• A court service for victims of sexual violence which will give them access to a trained adviser who understands the dynamics of sexual violence cases and victims’ needs.
• A grant of $500 towards the expenses incurred as a result of sexual violence, such as replacing items of clothing collected for forensic evidence.
• Increases in travel, accommodation and childcare assistance for victims attending court proceedings (from $1,000 to $3,000), and Parole Board hearings (from $500 to $1,500).
• A High Court attendance grant of $124 per person per day for up to five adult members of a homicide victim’s family.
• A funeral grant of up to $4,458.77 to families of homicide victims, on top of the $5,541.23 available through ACC (up to $10,000 in total).

This will be a great question at electorate meet the candidate meetings. Why does Labour oppose convicted crimnals paying a $50 levy to help fund victim support services?

I’ve re-activated the election candidates page I created for the 2008 election, and update it for the 2011 election. It is a permanent page, linked on the left hand sidebar.

The list is copied below and shows the two or three major candidates in each seat. A third party candidate is shown below only if they have a realistic chance of winning the seat and/or are a current MP.

If a candidate/MP has a personal website, I’ve linked it to their name.

If for any electorate you know the name of a missing candidate, and/or a website address for a candidate, you can e-mail that info to me for updating.

Please note that if a National MP is not listed, it is because to the best of my knowledge they have not been officially re-selected as a candidate yet. I’m only adding names on once they are officially selected.

We have $2,810 pledged so far to bid for Winston’s NO sign. Thanks to all those who have pledged money – you will get individual responses also.

As I blogged yesterday, we want to outbid the Prime Minister’s $5,000 bid. We are over half way there. Please, e-mail me if you are willing to contribute towards our bid. Remember all funds go via the Red Cross* to earthquake victims in Christchurch – plus you help enable the infamous NO sign to hit the campaign trail later this year.

The auction is Thursday evening, so we are after a further $2,200 in 36 hours.

UPDATE: Now at $3,670 at midday.

* The proceeds from the debate go to the Red Cross, but the proceeds from the auction go to the families of victims who worked for CTV or The Press.

UPDATE2: Now at $4,020 at 3.30 pm. Thanks to all those pledged to date. I think we will make it. Remember $5,000 is the minimum we are aiming for to be competitive.

UPDATE3: Now at $4,650. We’re getting closeer. Again $5,000 is the minimum we need – not a target. Again thanks so much to those pledging.

Subject to ratification, the PPTA pay dispute and strike action looks to be over. Congrats to both sides for the settlement.

It will be interesting to see what variation there is between the settlement and earlier offers.

Murray McCully announced:

Rugby World Cup Minister, Murray McCully, says the government and other stakeholders have agreed the Christchurch Rugby World Cup matches will be moved out of the city due to unacceptable risks associated with maintaining the current programme.

“Today’s decision is made with regret and clearly is a blow to the people of Canterbury, who rightly pride themselves on being the home of New Zealand’s pre-eminent Super Rugby and NPC teams.”

“But we simply have to acknowledge that collective uncertainties associated with the planned hosting of games in Christchurch are overwhelming,” said Mr McCully.

The Minister says while the stadium structures can be fixed they can only be fixed in time if normal procurement processes are by-passed, placing insurance cover at risk. There is also a risk further testing will reveal other problems causing additional delays.

“Complete replacement of the turf at AMI Stadium is required. We have been advised that would be a tightly managed six month long project to replace it and that the turf was uninsured. The Rugby World Cup games commence in six months from last Wednesday. Any further damage to drainage under the turf places that timetable at risk,” said Mr McCully.

Damn. Looks like it was the only possible call.

Some upside though:

“We are acutely aware that without some initiative from the government AMI Stadium is unlikely to be in use for the 2012 season, due to the extensive damage to the uninsured turf,” said Mr McCully.

“I am therefore pleased to announce that the government will grant $4.1 million to allow the turf repair work to commence immediately, in order for AMI Stadium to be ready for the full NPC and Super Rugby in 2012.”

“The stadium is an important sport and recreation asset and revenue earner for the region, and I am pleased that we can assist to ensure it is repaired as quickly as possible,” he said.

And for RWC rugby fans in Christchurch:

The Minister says there is also recognition that Christchurch-based fans will be extremely disappointed that they can’t watch any matches in their home town. Some have purchased tickets to games expecting them to be at AMI stadium.

“With today’s confirmation that the quarter finals will be moved to Auckland we have started work to develop a special travel package which will allow those who have already purchased tickets to the quarter finals to travel to Auckland on a concessional basis. We hope to have details finalised over the next few days,” said Mr McCully.

Just make sure the concessional travel package is return, not one way

The Dom Post editorial calls on Phil Goff to choose principle over Peters:

As Winston Peters ponders the expense and bother of another tilt at Parliament, he will take heart from Labour leader Phil Goff’s equivocation on the subject of a post-election deal with the NZ First leader. Many voters will take a different view.

Mr Goff said yesterday that he had made no decision about a possible coalition with NZ First, but his other remarks were the verbal equivalent of throwing open the front door, handing Mr Peters the key to his liquor cabinet and inviting him to help himself to the whisky.

Heh, so true. And his line about how he won’t make a call until he knows if Winston makes it back is feeble – he made a call on Hone without knowing if Hone will be re-elected.

While Mr Goff has no doubts about Mr Peters’ reliability or trustworthiness, voters with longer memories do.

Mr Peters is, after all, the politician who railed against secretive big money donations to political parties then arranged for donations from wealthy backers to be funnelled to his party through a shadowy trust without the knowledge of fellow NZ First MPs or party officials.

He is also the politician who waved a sign saying “NO” in large letters when asked whether his party had received money from expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn, and who was subsequently found by the privileges committee to have “knowingly misled” Parliament over Mr Glenn’s $100,000 contribution towards his legal bills.

A verdict Labour to their shame voted against, despite evidence so strong it was well beyond reasonable doubt. Phone records shows Winston and Glenn on the phone, And around two minuites later Winston’s lawyer e-mailing Glenn asking him for money as discussed with his client a few minutes ago.

Mr Goff is desperate. He can feel the hot breath of ambitious colleagues on the back of his neck. However, it never pays to exhibit one’s desperation.

He would be better advised to put principle ahead of self-interest. Mr Peters’ unsavoury attacks on new immigrants and the politics of envy and fear he practises, are not compatible with Labour’s traditions.

This is what amazes me – Winston has spent his political career attacking Asians and immigrants, yet he is a hero to many on the left purely because he is also anti-National.

Prime Minister John Key has done the right thing by ruling out a deal with Mr Peters. Mr Goff should follow suit. It is not just parliamentary seats that are at stake but his credibility and judgment. There are times when leaders should forget political strategising and do the right thing. This is one of those times.

It won’t happen.

If Sea Shepherd has any remaining supporters, perhaps this might make them reconsider. Paul Watson posted on Facebook how the tsunami is the fearful wrath of Neptune. Or in other words, how the Japanese deserved to die in the tsunami because they hunt whales.

Tsunami

Neptune’s voice rolled like thunder thru the sky
Angrily he smote the deep seabed floor
From the shore echoed mankind’s mournful cry
……The sea rose up and struck fast for the shore

From out of the East with the rising sun
The seas fearful wrath burst upon the land
With little time to prepare or to run
Against a power no human can stand

Its just as disgusting as the moron who blamed the Christchurch earthquake on gay ski week. Except the latter was an anonymous nobody while the former was said by the head of Sea Shepherd.

Kyle Conroy has created a page which shows how much money you would have had if intead of buying an Apple product, you had purchased Apple stock.

If in 1997 you purchased an Apple PowerBook G3 250 for $5,700, you’ll be weeping to know you’d have $330,563 if you had purchased Apple stock instead.

If over 14 years you had purchased every single Apple product, it would have cost you $591,719. If, instead you purchased Apple stock, then you’d be worth $11,120,751.

If even in 2004 one was purchasing Apple stock, you would have had a 1000% return on investment. That $499 ipod would have netted you $5,633 in stock today!

Reuters reports:

Bahrain has declared a state of emergency following weeks of unrest on the island kingdom, state television announced on Tuesday, saying the measure would come into force immediately and last three months.

An order by the king “authorised the commander of Bahrain’s defence forces to take all necessary measures to protect the safety of the country and its citizens,” said a statement read out on television.

Meanwhile, Iran called the arrival of Saudi troops in Bahrain unacceptable and urged the kingdom to respond to pro-democracy demonstrators peacefully.

For fuck’s sake – I don’t know whether to cry or laugh.

The nuclear crisis in Japan is nor ranked a six on the International Nuclear Event Scale. This is a logarithmic scale, where each level is around 10 times worse than the level below.

Their levels are:

1. Anomaly
2. Incident
3. Serious Incident
4. Accident With Local Consequences
5. Accident With Wider Consequences
6. Serious Accident
7. Major Accident

Initially the situation in Japan was a two, and then a four. It is now just one off the most serious – which has only been Chernobyl to date. Three Mile Island was a five.

Level six impact is described as “Significant release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of planned countermeasures”. Level seven is “Major release of radio­active ­material with widespread health and environmental effects r­equiring implementation of planned and extended ­countermeasures”.

Hopefully the worst outcome can be avoided.

In the video above you can see Phil Goff talking about ruling Hone out.

Left wing blogger Imperator Fish comments on Goff’s words:

I’m willing to cut the new leader of a political party a bit of slack. Even if they have been around the political scene for years.

But I can barely listen to or read a thing Phil Goff says without groaning. He really needs to be taken aside and given the hard word about gun safety. How can anyone shoot themselves in the foot so many times?

He specifically quotes Goff saying:

“I don’t believe you could form a stable government on a relationship with Hone Harawira.”

And comments:

But Goff’s happy to work with Winston Peters, despite Peters being at least as widely reviled as Harawira. The main difference between the two is that Harawira speaks from the heart. He may be unreliable and unstable, but you know where you stand with Hone.

Does anyone remember how Goff reacted when John Key ruled out working with Winston Peters? I recall accusations of hubris and arrogance. Goff in turn said that he was prepared to work with anyone.

To me this demonstrates a crisis in confidence within the leadership of Labour. There is no consistency in the messages they are sending to the electorate, because they are floundering and bereft of ideas. Nothing they do seems to impress the voters. So they keep trying new things. Goff’s “me too” approach to politicking just shows him to be weak and lacking a firm vision for the country. His comments about Liz Hurley, and suggestions that extrajudicial means should be used to deal with looters, all indicate Goff may be more reactionary than visionary. They also piss off a lot of people who should be falling over to vote Labour.

He concludes:

… if someone like me, who should be a natural Labour voter, is seriously wondering why he should bother voting for them, how many others are there in the same situation?

I don’t think Imperator Fish is alone in asking.

Simon Power has just announced a review and consultation on bail laws.

This is additional to the reversal of the change made by Labour in 2007 which made it easier for people to get bail. This was repealed straight after the election.

Some interesting stats:

• Under 2% of defendents are remanded in custody for the entire period between arrest and trial
• Around 9% of defendents spend some time in custory and some time on bail
• The proportion of defendants that offended on bail has increased from 15.7% in 2004 to 17.9% in 2008
• Over the five years 2004 – 2008, 64,659 defendents were convicted of commiting an offence while on bail
• Of those who offend while on bail, 34% got a community based sentence, 30% imprisonment and 21% a fine

The questions the Government is asking are:

1. What is your view on whether there should be a reverse burden of proof for defendants charged with serious class A drug offences (i.e. should they have to prove that they should be granted bail instead of the prosecution having to prove that they should not)?
2. What is your view on whether electronically monitored bail should continue to be an option for defendants charged with serious methamphetamine offences?
3. What is your view on whether the Courts should be able to release defendants charged with murder on bail
4. What is your view on whether there should be a reverse burden of proof for defendants charged with murder (i.e. should they have to prove that they should be granted bail instead of the prosecution having to prove that they should not)?
5. What is your view on whether new offences should be added to the list of specified offences that qualify for a reverse burden of proof (if the defendant has a previous conviction for one of those offences)? What criteria should be used to assess which offences to add to the list of specified offences?
6. What is your view on whether electronically monitored bail should continue to be an option for defendants charged with serious violent and sexual offences?
7. What is your view on whether the presumption in favour of bail for 17 to 19 year olds should apply to defendants who have previously served a prison sentence?
8. What is your view on whether breach of any condition of bail should be a ground for arresting a defendant under 17 years of age without a warrant?
9. Do you think that any further requirements or safeguards are needed to prevent bail being granted inappropriately in return for information? If so, do you agree with the Government’s proposal to insert a legislative provision into the Bail Act 2000 and are any other requirements or safeguards needed?
10. Are there any other non-legislative measures that could be used to reduce the number of defendants that fail to answer bail?
11. What is your view on whether the maximum penalty for failure to answer Court bail should be increased? If you think it should be increased, what should it be increased to?
12. What is your view on whether the maximum penalty for failure to answer Police bail should be increased? If you think it should be increased, what should it be increased to?
13. What is your view on whether monetary bonds and sureties should be reintroduced in the District Court?
14. What is your view on whether monetary bonds and sureties should be abolished for Police bail?
15. What is your view on whether the EM bail regime should be set out in legislation?
16. What is your view on whether breach of EM bail should be an offence in addition to being a ground for arrest and reconsideration of bail?
17. What is your view on whether time spent on EM bail should be taken into account in sentencing?
18. If time spent on EM bail is taken into account in sentencing, should there be some legislative guidance to assist the Courts in determining the appropriate discount (e.g. a set formula or guidelines specifying the types of factors relevant to deciding how time spent on EM bail should be taken into account)?

My general instincts are that the criteria for getting bail should not change much (remember not everyone charged is found guilty) but that the penalties for offending on bail should be increased.

It will be held on Thursday, March 17, at the Backbencher. Doors will open at 5pm and the debate will start about 7pm.

 Moot: Politics is a grubby business.

 The affirmative: Annette King, MP; Darren Hughes, MP; Simon Bridges, MP.

 The negative: Pinky Agnew, Guyon Espiner, David Townsend

 The chair is Duncan Garner.

Proceeds from ticket sales ($30) will go to the Red Cross (and are available from Brent in the RNZ office) for famiies of earthquake victims.

Afterwards there is an auction, with proceeds also going to the earthquake appeal.

TVNZ’s Guyon Espiner is putting up for auction, the original “no” sign used by Winston Peters. This could go for a fair bit of money – especially as Winston will probably have a secret trust bidding for it.

Whale and I would be keen to buy the sign at the auction. If we win it, we guarantee it will turn up to most of the public meetings that Winston attends during the campaign. E-mail me if you are willing to contribute towards buying it at the auction, and how much you are able to contribute. If we get it for less than the amount pledged, we’ll divide it up pro-rata. And remember it is all for a good cause – money for Christchurch relief.

As well as the  no sign, the gallery will be auctioning off various other items such as the PM’s pinot noir. So. should be a fun night.

UPDATE: The PM has said he’ll bid $5,000 for the sign. Help us outbid the PM as we’ll put it to better use.
So far we have over $1,000 pledged

UPDATE2: I’d say we mow have more than $2,000 pledged. Lots of $20, $50 and $100 pledges all add up quickly. Thanks for e-mails of pledges. We’ll only ask for the money if we actually win the auction.