Kiwiblog

The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has reported back its inquiry into the 2010 local body elections.

I was one of a relatively small number of submitters, and was pleased to see they have endorsed some of the proposals I made. It’s a good reminder that we have a small enough country that individuals can have an effect on laws, without having to be an MP yourself.

The recommendations of the committee are:

1. have five, not four, weeks between close of nominations and delivery of voting papers
2. have a trial of Internet voting in the 2013 local authority elections
3. have more flexibility around the timing of release of profiles
4. ensure the order of candidates names in voting papers is completely randomised
5. examine the issue of candidates serving on multiple boards
6. explore having the Electoral Commisson responsible for the oversight of local body elections

Nos 2, 4 and 6 were proposed by me (and possibly some others). The Government is not bound to do what the Committee recommends, but I hope they do. Postal voting is a dying mechanism – fewer and fewer people go to the post office regularly. An option of voting over the Internet would list turnout rates for local body elections, and also make it easier to make an informed vote.

So let us look at who has said they don’t want the Wellywood sign:

• The Prime Minister
• The Leader of the Opposition
• The Mayor of Wellington
• A huge majority of Wellingtonians in a UMR poll

So why is Wellington International Airport determined to impose this montrosity on us, against our will? Who gave them the right to effectively rename our capital city?

If was a Director of WIAL, I’d be very very worried. If you asked your senior management team to go away and come up with a plan designed to destroy your positive brand as quickly as possible, I doubt they could do better than the Wellywood sign.

Does WIAL really think there will be no consequences for them if they continue? Do they think their monopoly status will make them immune from a reaction? It won’t.

The Dom Post reports:

Veteran political journalist Ian Templeton is to be recognised for a half-century of political reporting with an Honorary Doctorate from Massey University. The doctorate, to be presented at a College of Business graduation ceremony tomorrow, is in recognition of his contribution to journalism, the parliamentary press gallery and the New Zealand Press Council. He has been reporting from the press gallery since 1957. Massey University vice-chancellor Steve Maharey said Mr Templeton was a reminder that “old-style ethics and standards are just as relevant today as ever”.

Congratulations Dr Templeton. Ian is a legend who was still working at his 80th birthday. His analysis was as sharp in the 2000s as it was in the 1950s.

Stuff reports:

California preacher Harold Camping said his prophecy that the world would end was off by five months because Judgment Day actually will come on October 21.

Camping, who predicted that 200 million Christians would be taken to heaven Saturday before the Earth was destroyed, said he felt so terrible when his doomsday prediction did not come true that he left home and took refuge in a motel with his wife.

Took refuge in a motel – how awful.

His independent ministry, Family Radio International, spent millions – some of it from donations made by followers – on more than 5000 billboards and 20 RVs plastered with the Judgment Day message.

But Camping said that he’s now realised the apocalypse will come five months after May 21, the original date he predicted. He had earlier said October 21 was when the globe would be consumed by a fireball.

It’s not the first time the independent Christian radio host has been forced to explain when his prediction didn’t come to pass. He also predicted the Apocalypse would come in 1994, but said it didn’t happen then because of a mathematical error.

If anyone believes him third time around, it should be deemed sufficient grounds for them to go to a psychiatric hospital for compulsory treatment.

Patrick Smellie at Stuff reports:

For one of the most fearsome tax minds in the country, departing deputy Inland Revenue Department commissioner Robin Oliver is more imp than ogre.

Robin has been head of policy for IRD for many years, and is hugely respected.

His views on what makes tax policy work are carbon copy Roger Douglas, but he can just as easily whip up a good line in class warfare when describing the kind of social balance a tax system must achieve to succeed.

Grinning, he illustrates a point by asking whether it would be “acceptable for me to retire with international investments, sit on a beach paying almost no tax and using the health system, while some family in South Auckland pays enormous taxes, working double shifts cleaning offices”.

And receiving non means tested NZ super!

His proudest moment was when a meeting of New Zealand businesspeople and accountants rejected the previous government’s research and development tax credits as bad policy.

“All the big four [accounting firms] had to pay off staff and close parts of their businesses, but they never lobbied to keep [the tax credits] because it wasn’t right in their view.”

Yes, I suspect schemes such as R&D tax credits create huge amounts of work for accountancy firms, as companies reclassify expenditure to qualify for the tax credits, It probably creates a mini-industry around how to gain the tax credits.

Mr Oliver says the big tax issues don’t change much over time – the rate, concessions versus broad base, tax everyone or only some people – and there are still only three places to turn for tax: labour income, capital income and land.

Yet he defends the lack of New Zealand capital gains and land taxes.

“It’s not purist, just a practicality,” he says, noting that IRD changed from advocating capital gains to believing it couldn’t be done efficiently.

“No one taxes the family home and, in New Zealand, what do you do about farming? The common farming career progression is to trade to larger farms. A capital gains tax would kill that. What would you do about communally owned Maori land? Capital taxes are levied at death. You can’t tax Maori land that way.”

The alternative is a capital gains tax as complex as Australia’s, where “they have whole conferences on what should be in and what should be out”.

Labur are thought to be considering proposing a capital gains tax. If they do, and win the election, I predict great times for the tax industry as lawyers and accountants prosper.

I do believe a land tax has some merit, so long as it is not about increasing the overall level of taxation.

The Auckland Council is doing something very good. Rather than requiring feedback on their plan to be typed up on the official form, and sent in via snail mail, they are encouraging feedback vis social media.

The Auckland plan is the Auckland Councils 30 year plan – the goal is to make Auckland the world’s most liveable city.  The consultation on the draft plan closes on Tuesday May 31st and It’s open to anyone to provide comments.

The full discussion document is here. It is rather large at 288 pages, so most will want the 17 page summary document. It poses a number of questions in nine categories ranging from how to make Auckland more child friendly and more business friendly. Also on whether the current urban metropolitan limit should be increased etc.

So if you are an Aucklander or care about Auckland, you can have you say. Here are the ways you can do so:

1. Comment on this blog post. Yes they will collate (substantive) comments made on blogs about the Auckland Plan.
2. At the Auckland Plan website.
3. By e-mail
4. On Facebook
5. Or if you can be really concise, on Twitter using #aklplan

It’s good to see the Council use social media to make it easy to provide feedback. So if you have a view on what needs to change in Auckland in the next 30 years, just comment below or use one of those other channels to have your say.

Stuff reports:

Broadcaster Martin Devlin says cabin crew overreacted in removing him from a Jetstar flight today for alleged unruly behaviour.

The Radio Live host was pulled from the plane by police in Wellington this afternoon after the captain called for help.

The flight was due to arrive in Auckland at 9.25am but heavy fog meant the plane had to return to Wellington, a Jetstar spokeswoman said.

“We were expecting the fog to clear but unfortunately that didn’t happen so we had to go back to Wellington,” she said.

Devlin, 46, said he had only commented about the flight delay and asked if the Jetstar plane had equipment to fly in foggy conditions.

“Nothing happened. I was one of many passengers who wanted to know what was going on. We had been up in the air for hours. The stewardess over-reacted,” he told TVNZ.

He said that after speaking to the stewardess he returned to his seat and police arrived and asked him to leave the plane, which he did voluntarily.

If it was Air NZ, I would have no compunction in comcluding that Devlin must have been in the wrong, and his behaviour must have been threatening to have the Police called.

But this is Jetstar, where the customer service training manual seems to be that passenagers are akin to small vermin. You can’t rule out the possibility that they got him arrested because he asked to go to the toilet.

But witnesses on the flight said Devlin was “making a scene” and being abusive toward the crew after the flight was delayed, the New Zealand Herald reported.

Hmmn, so in this case, the blame may lie with Devlin.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove has been forced to defend himself after calling an MP “Old Sooty” during a parliamentary debate.

He says the insult was aimed at Health Minister Tony Ryall.

However, his fellow politicians assumed the remark was directed at Samoan-born, Auckland-raised National MP Sam Lotu-Iiga, who had just addressed the House. …

Last night Mr Cosgrove said the row was “PC gone mad”. The comment was made while Parliament was in urgency last Thursday to pass Budget legislation.

“I’ve called Tony Ryall Sooty for years … Sooty and Sweep are glove puppets.

I’ve always thought of Mr Ryall as a glove puppet, he does what the Government wants. In no way was it directed at Sam. End of story. I think people need to get a life.”

He agreed it was “unfortunate” his remark was misinterpreted: “I understand what the term means if used in the way suggested.

“It is a concern.”

Mr Lotu-Iiga, the MP for Maungakiekie, said Mr Cosgrove approached him the next day.

“He said it wasn’t directed at me. I didn’t hear it at the time. If it was directed me, it’s a reflection on him.”

Mr Borrows said he was watching the debate on TV.

“Clayton followed Sam Lotu-Iiga and he was referring to him quite a bit.

“The camera was flicking back to him and in the last 30 seconds of his speech, he referred to `old Sooty over there’.

“I put it together in my head that he making a racist comment which brassed me off.”

 So did Clayton call Sam “Sooty”, or was he referring to Tony Ryall? My first thought was to check Hansard, to see if they have a record of Clayton ever using that term before.

In May 2009, he also used the term. He said:

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Exactly. What all of them have done—and old “Sooty” in the front row in the pink shirt ought to remember, because he—

I think it is fair to conlude that it probably was Tony Ryall wearing a pink shirt that day (Tony is well known for his colourful shirts and ties), so this supports Clayton’s contention that the remark was aimed at Tony.

So I have to go with the facts here and say that Clayton is not guilty of calling a Pacific Island MP “Sooty”.

But considering the term “Sooty” has a number of slang meanings, some of which are equally objectionable, maybe Mr Cosgrove might want to stop using the name alltogether when referring to any MP at all.

I love Saturday Night Live. This spoof music video with Justin Timberlake, Andy Samberg and Lady Gaga is great.

Frog blogs:

In another success story for MMP, Green MP Catherine Delahunty today announced a joint initiative with the National Party to clean up New Zealand’s most toxic site — Te Aroha’s Tui Mine.

The abandoned, environment-polluting mine has long been known as an issue, and decades later something is finally been done about it.

I’m always a fan of political parties working together on issues they agree on.

The Leaders of the National Party and Green Party agreed to include toxic site management work in their Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which also includes home insulation, the New Zealand Cycleway, natural health products, and a pilot scheme to better protect forests and wildlife from pests. The toxic management addition to the MoU was signed by Environment Minister Nick Smith and Catherine Delahunty, the Green Party’s Spokesperson for the Environment (Toxics).

Smart positioning by the Greens. As they climb to 10% in the latest poll, they show they can work across the spectrum to get things done. So if left wing voters decide a National Government re-election is inevitable, then more left wing voters may defect to Greens as their best way to influence the Giovernment.

One of the reasons often cited as part of Labour’s loss in 2008 was that they ran such a relentlessly nasty and negative campaign against John Key, with everything from the H Fee up.

Whale Oils blogs that Labour have appointed Trevor Mallard as their campaign manager for 2011.

One can only assume that they are determined to run an even dirtier, nastier and defamatory campaign than last time.

I can’t imagine who they will get for their 2014 campaign – maybe Clay Davis?

Yvonne Tahana writes in the Herald:

The Maori Party candidate for the Te Tai Tokerau byelection will be selected today, with movie actor Waihoroi Shortland one of the leading prospects.

Mr Shortland, lawyer Mere Mangu and Whangarei Maori Party official Solomon Tipene will be interviewed at Waitangi today by a panel of eight. …

Mr Shortland, a charismatic and articulate former journalist known to many as “Wassie”, is a reo expert with connections to all of the major northern iwi. He starred in the movie Boy and has had a long career in Maori media.

Ms Mangu will provide strong competition. The leading voice for Tai Tokerau women, she comes with a significant degree of homegrown support and is known to stand and speak at Te Tii Marae at Waitangi.

However, her past unsuccessful attempts for the seat in 2002 and 2005, when she fought hard but finished off the pace as an independent, could be an important factor those on the panel will weigh.

Mr Tipene has less of a profile and ranks as an outside chance.

The stronger the Maori Party candidate, the more chance there is Labour could come through the middle and win the seat – which in this rare case is desirable.

Mangu got 7% of the vote in 2005 as an Independent. That is very high for an Independent.

It will be interesting to see who they select.

The NZ Herald editorial:

The Labour Party’s annual congress held at the weekend should have seen some interesting new ideas. The party has been out of power for the best part of three years and another election is six months away. Polls put Labour well adrift of National, which is another reason to expect some bold thinking. Labour has little to lose.

But there were not enough interesting or innovative ideas from the party at the weekend, though the word innovative was heard frequently. Labour proposes to encourage research and development with a 12.5 per cent tax break. Leader Phil Goff reckoned this would increase private investment in R&D by $1.5 billion a year, especially in high-tech industries that would create jobs and exports.

How often have we heard this? This country has encouraged company research and development at public expense for years. One of the ways Mr Goff proposes to pay for his tax break is by cancelling the present Government’s incentive, worth $70 million a year.

So there are two parts to Labour’s policy. One is to increase the amount the Government spends on subsidising R&D, and the other is to change the way it is funded. National basically has a system where it picks “winners” who apply for grants or subsidies. Labour proposes a 12.5% tax credit than any company that spends over $20,000 can gain.

So both parties are saying they see a role for the Government in encourgaing R&D, but disagree on the level of funding and the method.

The latest to beat this drum is one of the country’s top scientists, Sir Paul Callaghan, who has been attacking the Budget delivered last week for its lack of high-tech investment. His prescription for economic success is very precise. It is not tourism, “a classic low wage activity”, not wine, “nice lifestyle but frankly the revenue per job is poor”. The future lay in technology. “If you look at the profile of high-tech companies in New Zealand you see some surprising strength,” he says. “We have the capacity of growing this sector significantly.”

But it is not clear what the Government should do beyond ensuring the country is equipped with up-to-date infrastructure for high-tech providers to use. There are fears that even in financing an ultra-fast broadband network the National Party might be exceeding its competence.

I agree with Sir Paul, that one of our industries for the future is and should remain high tech. The fibe to 75% of NZ programme should help that industry.

The best governments can do is maintain a reasonable public research budget balanced against all other calls on their revenue, and allow tax write-offs for the development of exportable products. To pretend that research and development assistance is the answer to the nation’s economic needs is not credible. It is an admission of a lack of better ideas.

I quite like the idea that maybe you tie tax credits to R&D which is used in developing exportable products. That would stop tens of thousands of companies reclassifying expenditure as R&D just to gain tax credits. If you had to link it to an export product, then fewer would qualify.

I’m one of four guest speakers in an online public meeting organised by the Greens, to discuss recent copyright legislation and its implications.

The meeting is at 7 pm tomorrow (Wed 25 May) and it is hosted by Gareth Hughes MP. The guest spakers are myself, Thomas Beagle (TechLiberty), Bronwyn Holloway-Smith (Creative Freedom Foundation) and Vikram Kumar (InternetNZ).

The meeting website says:

This site will be updated with more information on how to participate. You will be able to take part by sending your questions and comments via twitter or by emailing Gareth.

You can also get involved by going to the facebook event page

Hope to see a few people online for it tomorrow. I’m looking forward to the discussion. The Greens have been consitently reliable on the copyright issue, opposing the original S92A. The replacement law is a big improvement, but it is still going to potentially impact hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders so if you are interested in the details, come along.

AP reports:

Tim Pawlenty is casting himself as the Republican candidate willing to tell the United States the hard truths as he seeks the presidency, announcing in corn-dependent Iowa that its prized federal subsidies for ethanol should be phased out.

Pawlenty made his first public appearance today (NZ time) since announcing his candidacy yesterday.

He told supporters and GOP activists in the leadoff caucus state the nation can no longer afford to support the corn-based fuel additive.

Pawlenty says he knows it’s risky to challenge the prized subsidy on Iowa soil, where the former Minnesota governor must win or do very well in next year’s caucuses.

Pawlenty also said he plans to discuss changes to Social Security tomorrow (NZ time) when he campaigns in Florida, home to millions of the nation’s retirees.

Good. He will get respect for being prepared to announce tough polciies where they may be most unpopular. It may harm him in those states, but he will be seen as someone credible in terms of getting the massive US deficit under control.

At this stage, Pawlenty is my pick for the Republican nomination.

The Dom Post reports:

Some critics of the Wellywood sign have been caught up in a “pack mentality” that is “really, really ugly”, Wellington Airport chief executive Steve Fitzgerald says.

There have been threats on social media sites to cut down, burn or deface the proposed sign. Moa Breweries has even offered a “beer bounty” to anyone who knocks it down.

Last night about 80 to 100 cars – spurred by a Facebook group opposing the sign – staged a slow-moving blockade around the airport’s departures area.

But Mr Fitzgerald said there was no chance of the airport backing down over its plans for the eight-metre-high, 30-metre-long steel sign on hillside land that it owns next to the Miramar Cutting.

“It is sad that Wellington’s looking like it could be home to Lord of the Flies rather than Lord of the Rings,” he said.

“That sort of pack mentality is completely out of proportion to the plan for a sign that’s intended to do something positive for Wellington. It is very extreme.”

It is ironic for the airport CEO to refer to something being ugly, when he is the one trying to foist an ugly unwanted sign on the city.

Mr Fitzgerald doesn’t seem to get it, but most Wellingtonians do not want the airport company effectively re-naming the city. It is our city, not his, and I resent the hell out of the airport for forcing this name on us. It is outraegous that they think they have this right. Sure it is their land, but it is land which is effectively the front door to Wellington. No one would care if they just planted the sign next to a runway.

It is unbelievable that the RMA and the District Plan, which can in some areas stop you pruning your own trees, allows this giant montrosity to be erected without even notification. I hope there is a lawyer out there who might be prepared to fight this issue in court – if so I am confident we could fund-raise much of the legal costs online.

But there is another way i think the sign can be stopped. The power of leadership. This is a time for Celia-Wade Brown to use her office. Now don’t get me wrong. In no way do I blame Celia for this. It was the former Mayor who was the enthusiast for this (until the backlash). But Celia can and should do more than say she doesn’t support any sign there.

Do the numbers on the Council, and have them pass a motion deploring the sign. The airport company could well back down in the face of a clear Council resolution against it. If Council won’t do it, then write an open letter to the airport from you as Mayor explaining why they should back down. explain to them that Wellingtonians think our creative studios such as Weta are not pale imitations of Hollywood, but in fact do it better than Hollywood. The unique Kiwi way of doing things (which we heard about at the pro Hobbit rallies) with our movies, is special to us, and Wellywood just looks try hard.

But most of all Celia tell the airport company they have no mandate to effectively rename the city. That is a decision that belongs to the people of Wellington. Tell them to concentrate on extending the runways, and to give up on this plan. Point out that WCC is a significant share-holder, and that while you can instruct them as to what to do, you can express astonishment that they seem determined to lower their brand and value amongst the city. That their arrogance is appalling.

An airport is a virtual monopoly, unless people want to drive or train to Auckland. That monopoly protects Wellington Airport. If people had a choice of airports, then their market share would have dropped 75% over this idiotic campaign of theirs. If Wellingtonians could choose anotehr airport to use, we would be.

“The audience for this are potential international tourists whose interests we are trying to spark. The audience isn’t locals and we’re not trying to do something that means lots to locals in terms of the film industry.”

First of all far far more domestic passengers will see the sign, as will most Wellingtonians over time. And the reasons we locals get a say, is because you are effectively purporting to speak on our behalf. By erecting this sign, your message to the world is that Wellingtonains refer to Wellington as Wellywood. We don’t.

Twitter was awash with comments, including one from Hollywood actress Melanie Lynskey, who starred in Sir Peter Jackson’s Heavenly Creatures. “Is this Wellywood sign happening for reals? Who is behind this? So tacky!!”

It is tacky, and worse.

Again I call on Celia and the Council to come out and condemn this sign. Use the moral authority of your positions to tell the Airport that they need to take the people with them, not force a sign on us against our will. Otherwise I reckon we should set up a new ticket for the 2013 local body elections – their one policy will be to amend the District Plan to scrap the sign!

UPDATE: A UMR poll shows 64% of Wellingtonians opposed, and only 22% in favour.  Only 8% of under 30s approve of the sign.  Again – this is a time for leadership from the Council – tell the airport that it is not their job to give Wellington a new name – against the clear wishes of Wellingtonians.

Steven Joyce has announced:

The government has today reached agreements with Telecom New Zealand and Enable Networks that will complete the roll out of ultra fast broadband (UFB) to 75% of New Zealanders where they live, work and study.

The government will partner with Enable Networks, which is 100% owned by Christchurch ratepayers through the Christchurch City Council, to build an ultra fast broadband network for Christchurch, Rangiora and surrounding areas.

The Telecom deals will see a fibre optic network built in Auckland, the eastern and lower North Island and most of the South Island.

As part of the deal, Telecom must split off its network arm, Chorus, into a completely separate company, so that all broadband retailers can compete fairly to on-sell wholesale ultra fast broadband. Chorus will maintain the Kiwishare obligations currently placed on Telecom.

Congratulations to Telecom, and commiserations to Vector and the Regional Fibre Group. Also congrats to the Minister for turning an ambitious policy into a reality.

There were pros and cons with either party winning, and I suspect the negotiations were very tough.

The major focus for many now will be on the structural separation of Telecom. This is probably going to the biggest change in the telco sector since Telecom was created out of the Post Office. The details of the separation are quite vital – Chorus needs to be totally independent from Telecom as quickly as possible.

Today’s agreements with Telecom and Enable mean the government will reach its goal of bringing ultrafast broadband to 75% of New Zealanders by 2019. The rollout will start immediately with schools, hospitals and 90% of businesses covered by 2015.

I believe the fibre rollout will change New Zealand. With fibre to the home, you will get far far more people working from home, less demand for office space, video-conferencing will be as routine as changing the channel on your TV etc.

Wholesale household prices will start at $40 or less per month for an entry level product and $60 per month for the 100 Megabit product. There are no connection charges for households.

Mr Joyce says today is a very exciting day for New Zealand.

“The future of broadband is in fibre, and taking it right to the home will bring significant gains for productivity, innovation and global reach.”

The prices seem pretty reasonable. What will be interesting is what retail services develop to use the fibre. such as combined phone/Internet/TV/movie packages.

The future is in fibre, and I do believe this will be a contributor to increased productivity and economic growth.

Chorus is going to become (for most of NZ) the provider of both copper and fibre access. It will be an infrastructure company. Over time, I’d like to see Chorus (and the other local fibre companies) move towards providing cellphone towers to retail telcos such as Vodafone, 2 degrees and Telecom. It would make a lot of sense as the LFCs will have the fibre connection for the backhauls, and it would mean each telco wouldn’t need to get consent for their own individual towers, but could just hire space on a tower for their transmitters.

Andrea Vance at Stuff blogs:

The parliamentary press gallery have not long traipsed back from our regular Monday “stand-up” with Phil Goff. It was a good chance for us to drill down on some of the finer points of Labour’s new proposals.

Here’s what we know: Labour is proposing to re-instate research and development tax credits, bring farmers into the ETS scheme earlier than expected and lift the minimum wage to $15.

But after our little question and answer session with Goff, there are more questions than answers.

Here’s what we don’t know: Will the tax credits extend to foreign companies? And how is Labour planning to cap them? What will the carbon price will be for the ETS proposals?

We didn’t get an adequate response to criticism that lifting the minimum wage will cost 6000 jobs.

When asked about policy details, Goff repeatedly – and testily – told us to ask Labour researchers. ”Look, I’m not going into the details on that.”

Hmmn, “Ask my staff, not me” is not generally regarded as a good line for leaders to use, even if it is true.

Goff reckons business can afford the wage rise – he told us previous rises under Labour had created jobs, ignoring the fact they were very different economic times.

That is the key point. In a booming economy where jobs are scarce, you can increase the minimum wage with well minimal impact on employment. But pledging to do so at a time of relatively high unemployment and incredibly high youth unemployment is irresponsible as it will price young workers out of the job market.

As at every stand-up, TV political editors Duncan Garner and Guyon Espiner toyed with Goff like cats playing with a wounded mouse. They wanted to know how it is possible to impose a cap on the credits. (Business NZ chief executive Phil O’Reilly likes the idea but says it will be impossible to limit insterest. Key says you can’t – and Labour has got their numbers wrong on the cost.)

Goff, sensibly giving Labour’s reputation on spending, stressed there was $800 million in the pot and that was it. But he couldn’t explain how they could impose that limit.

Mainly because you can’t, unless you make the scheme entirely arbitrary and first in first served. This is one of the reasons the scheme was scraped – it has the potential to blow out massively as firms classify expenditure as research to gain the tax credit.

There the matter should have rested – but Goff’s political skills deserted him. Flustered, he fell into a catty exchange, mixing up the two veteran hacks and sniping “It’s sometimes hard to tell the two of you apart.”

Really?

This is Guyon Espiner. He is the One News Political Editor.

And this is Duncan Garner, Political Editor for 3 News.

If Phil is having trouble telling them apart, he may need glasses. But to help him, I’ll provide descriptions as if they were super models.

Guyon is the Size 0 editor while Duncan is the plus sized editor.

What a shame. It was all going quite well. The congress generated some positive headlines and, more important, some good debate about the economy. Business NZ liked the tax credits idea, and Goff made a good stab at smacking down Key’s claims that the ETS proposals would drive up the price of milk.

Now the wheels have come off a bit. If Goff can’t answer basic questions about his brand new economic  policies, do Labour’s ideas have your confidence?

Even worse they are not brand new economic policies. They are the policies Labour went into the last election on. So all the detail work was done years ago and would be available in papers and the like.

Over at Stuff, I comment on the latest Roy Morgan poll. It is the first scientific poll done since the change of leadership for ACT, and ACT poll only 2%. I comment:

This poll reflects my previously stated view that the way the coup against Rodney Hide played out alienated many potential Act voters.

If ACT remains below 5%, then Epsom will become vital for ACT’s survival.

NZEI’s hatred of Anne Tolley is clouding all their judgement. Their latest bizarre rant is that they are unhappy Tolley did not fly to New York for some talk fest conference, and instead stayed in New Zealand to concentrate on getting Christchurch schools re-opened.

Jo McKenzie-McLean writes in The Press:

Unions have criticised Education Minister Anne Tolley for not attending an international summit in New York because of the Christchurch earthquake.

Tolley was to lead a delegation in mid-March to the International Summit on the Teaching Profession at the invitation of United States Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) president Ian Leckie and the Post-Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) president Kate Gainsford attended the summit, held at the New York Hilton.

The Hilton sounds cheap.

However, Tolley said there was “no way” she was going to leave New Zealand after the earthquake to attend a conference.

She also questioned why the union leaders had attended the summit.

“It is up to these union leaders to justify to their members why they believe their job was to fly to New York for a conference while thousands of their members were affected by the Christchurch earthquake,” Tolley said.

“With all Christchurch schools still closed, many of them seriously damaged, and students displaced and out of school, there was no way I was going to leave.

“It was my job to be in Christchurch and Wellington leading ministry officials and supporting schools to reopen, and I was hugely impressed by the determination and hard work from principals, trustees and teachers during such a distressing time.

“I’ve personally told the NZEI union leaders, in no uncertain terms, my feelings on this matter.”

Imagine if Tolley had gone. She would have been attacked for abandoning New Zealand. NZEI seem determined to have an confrontational relationship.

If you have questions for Labour Leader Phil Goff, he is doing a live chat at 3.30 pm on Facebook.

Someone should ask him if he will pass a special law to ban the Wellywood sign. that might give him a boost in the polls.

UPDATE: Goff also did a session on Twitter which was good fun. The Facebook one was hugely moderated but on Twitter you see the questions as they are asked.

I asked Goff whether, if elected PM, he would get the Navy to fire a missile at the wellywood sign. He replied it was “tempting!”.

He also said he will vote for aa split 18/20 alcohol purchase age. He said he will not vote for gay marriage and ignored my question on same sex adoption.

Overall kudos to Goff for doing the Twitter session. Would be nice to have it last longer next time.

The Southland Times editorial:

Suffer the little children to come unto … a brand new Government minister, all of their own.

Labour Deputy Leader Annette King proposes that a senior minister – and also that must-have accessory that no minister should be seen without; a ministry – be created to co-ordinate and focus all that national goodwill we have towards our kids in a more coherent, rewarding way.

The immediate sniff is that what kids really need isn’t more bureaucracy to lumber around on their behalf.

I am sure kids around the country are celebrating that they mey get their own ministry.

Ms King says the new ministry’s job would be to make sure “that children are a priority not just in theory, but in practice”. This would clearly distinguish it from the agenda of the Families Commission and the Children’s Commissioner, which was to fatten them up to be baked into pies.

And the Children’s Commissioner is independent – can attack the Government. A CEO of a Ministry for Children can not.

Neither will it pass without public comment that Ms King proposes a minister and a department in advance of any new policy regarding what they would do. It is a terribly hard sell to convince the public that ministers and ministries are a good idea in and of themselves. Or that it’s one of those Field of Dreams deals. If you build the ministry, the smart ideas will come …

It reminds me of the Yes Minister episode – a hospital with no patients. Instead it is a Ministry with no policy.

Michael Dickison in the NZ Herald reports:

The Pike River mining disaster being cited by a union boss as an example of an anti-worker culture is “churlish”, says the Prime Minister.

Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly told the Labour Party Congress yesterday that Pike River had “failed in its fundamental duty to provide a safe workplace” yet was initially protected from scrutiny by the state.

She noted how John Key had sat next to Pike River’s chief executive during the memorial service.

Mr Key said last night that Ms Kelly was being “churlish” – and dangerous, too, considering that a Royal Commission of Inquiry was ongoing.

“For Helen Kelly to make those comments until we know what actually happened in that mine is inappropriate in my view. It’s getting in the way of the royal commission.”

The memorial had been a time for everyone to grieve rather than to apportion blame, Mr Key said.

“That day may well come, depending on the results of the royal commission, but it wasn’t appropriate at the time when we held a memorial service.”

 It was a bizarre rant from Helen Kelly. She seemed upset that Pike River executives were not immediately tarred and feathered and made into national villians.

As the PM says, she doesn’t seem to realise the difference between a time to mourn and a time to find out what happened, and who is to blame.