Kiwiblog

Lincoln Tan at NZ Herald reports:

The Government is negotiating with entertainment group SkyCity to build the country’s largest convention centre in Auckland despite strong political opposition.

Prime Minister John Key said the project would create jobs, boost tourism and put the country on the map as a “business events destination”.

“An international-sized convention centre is essential for New Zealand to tap into the growing market of high value business visitors we are currently missing out on,” Mr Key said.

He said the tourism industry and business sector had been asking for an international-sized convention centre for years.

I think almost everyone agrees an international-sized convention centre is a good thing, as extra tourism is very positive – improves the current account deficit, creates jobs, boosts the tax take and generally grows the economy.

The proposed 3500-seat convention centre would be built between Hobson and Nelson Sts and is expected to provide an estimated $90 million boost to the economy through new spending by additional international visitors.

It is projected to attract 183,000 delegates annually, adding an extra 101,000 visitor nights and 350,000 additional delegate attendee days in Auckland.

SkyCity will pay the full construction costs for the centre, estimated at $350 million, but has asked that the Government consider alterations to gambling legislation and regulations.

Businesses, unions and lobby groups constantly ask the Government for law changes that they feel are beneficial to them, and New Zealand. This is not unusual.

They key is how reasonable or desirable are the changes, and weigh them up against the projected 1,000 extra jobs.

First lets look at what has been ruled out:

Mr Key said any discussion on reducing the entry age of 20 to casinos, allowing SkyCity an internet gambling licence or additional casino licences had been ruled out.

Personally I think the entry age should be 18 anyway. As much as possible we should have just two ages denoting the boundary from youth to adult. At 16 you should gain some initial rights - sex, driving, etc. And at 18 you should get the rest of your adult rights.

I also think regardless of Sky City’s wishes, we should allow Internet gambling. By banning it in NZ we drive people to use offshore sites which are less safe and may rip people off. Far better to allow it in NZ and regulate it.

But these have been rejected regardless. On the issue of an additional casino license, I agree with the Government that this should not be “gained” in this way. There should be a competitive tender for licenses in new regions. Mind you, I actually would personally allow multiple licenses in cities.

So what is up for consideration:

Areas under negotiation include an extension of SkyCity’s licence beyond 2021 and a proposed increase in gambling tables and machines at its Auckland casino.

I can’t say a licence extension is a big deal. Hard to imagine a scenario where they don’t keep the licence anyway. This is just about having security of investment.

I also have to say I don’t see an issue with increased tables and machines. If the convention centre is going to bring in tens of thousands more visitors and hence casion patrons, then you will need extra capacity for them.

“Any changes to gambling regulations will be subjected to a full public submission process,” Mr Key said.

So people should have their say. I haven’t looked at the exact details, but on the surface it seems like a no brainer. A $350 million construction, an extra $90 million a year economic growth, an extra 100,000 visitor nights and 800 – 1,000 new jobs seems a great deal of benefit, and the changes sought is stuff which generally I think we should be doing anyway.

Yes some people have problems coping with gambling, and they should be given support and tools to help them. But for millions of New Zealanders, gambling is just a bit of fun – whether it be Lotto, Instant Kiwi or a visit to the casino.

You just have to read John Pagani’s column on dirty tricks, and how virginal and pure Labour are, and how they don’t do that stuff. The sentence that actually had me collapse into laughter was this one:

There’s no point complaining about it – Labour could play dirty pool if they wanted to. They think they don’t have to because their ideas are good enough to win them elections.

I’d almost think it was satire.

Stuff reports:

National’s  Selwyn MP, Amy Adams, is the new chairwoman of the  finance and expenditure select committee. She replaces Craig Foss, who is taking over the portfolios of outgoing minister outside Cabinet John Carter. Also on the committee is Stuart Nash. Despite their row over the amount of tax farmers pay, the Labour list MP says Ms Adams is a hard worker and will do a great job as chairwoman. He says the row was exaggerated. ”It was just a Labour member ribbing a National member who was ribbing a Labour member.”

Like Stuart, I also think Amy will do a great job as Chair – as she did with the Electoral Legislation Committee.

It’s dangerous for me to make predictions about MPs futures, but I am very confident in predicting that Amy will become a Minister if National gets re-elected.

Tom Pullar-Strecker at Stuff reports:

A planned “one-stop shop” to handle all public dealings with government departments could affect thousands of state servants.

The new ServiceLink organisation – a mega call-centre which could ultimately employ several thousand staff – is being set up in a plan for the one agency to handle everything from phone and internet inquiries to applications for benefits, tax returns, fines and other payments for state services.

In a way this would be catching up with local Government.

In the old days, there were dozens of phone numbers for say the Wellington City Council, depending on what service you wanted. Now there is just one phone number and the call centre deals with almost all inquiries.

1. The government could save $100 million a year from “efficiencies” that would include avoiding the duplication of information technology systems and merging call centres. But officials said the goal was also to make services more convenient for the public.

Saving money is not a bad thing though, even if not the main aim.

Ms Pilott said the union supported initiatives that helped “join up services” and made life easier for the public. “But that change shouldn’t be used as an excuse to cut jobs.

“If jobs become surplus because of new initiatives, those workers should be redeployed to provide more extended services to the public. Also, if ServiceLink is going to be a success, an enhanced working environment … is vital for improving service delivery.”

I’m not sure if Ms Pilott is saying that the call centrc should have more staff than necessary, or calling for any savings from it to be invested elsewhere. The latter is what has been happening over the last two years anyway – there are 3,000 fewer public servants but there are (off memory) 1,500 more teachers, 1,000 more nurses, 500 more doctors, 300 more Police etc.

Claire Trevett in the NZ Herald writes:

The Labour Party is investigating what it calls a “malicious breach” of its website after right-wing blogger Cameron Slater began to release inside party information he had obtained.

Labour’s president, Moira Coatsworth, said yesterday that the party was concerned personal information of donors and members could be used in a “politically motivated” way after an online contact database was “exploited” through a weakness in security.

A weakness in security? That implies there was some security at all. Why doesn’t someone ask Labour exactly how secure this data was? On a scale of 0 to 100, would it not be a zero?

Whale has put up some extracts of their donor data, being the $10 Cactus Kate declared she would donate to buy one of their illegal stop signs. He also states:

One of the most star­tling things I noticed from these trans­ac­tions, is that some are being processed by par­lia­men­tary ser­vices staff. Through out the files you can see trans­ac­tions processed by David Tal­bot. He is a staffer, paid by par­lia­men­tary ser­vices who works in Phil Goff’s office.

This is a huge con­flict, and raises ques­tions about how the Labour party is han­dling its affairs.

Why would a Labour Party Lead­ers Office staffer be han­dling credit card transactions?

I’ve not seen the files, so can’t comment directly on the allegation, but I suspect Whale will be happy to post the file proving this.

New Zealand politics seems to be a bit peculiar in that the racism or racist charge is levelled all the time, on very flimsy grounds.

Often this is from the left, with for example Hone Harawira calling people racists or worse because they don’t support Maori seats.

But sometimes it is from the right also, and an example is this press release from Don Brash as ACT Leader:

Proposals to make tertiary level Maori language and education courses compulsory for secondary school teachers are racist, high-handed and wrong-headed, says ACT New Zealand Leader Dr Don Brash.

Now as it happens, Pita Sharples has said there is no proposal to make the Maori language compulsory for secondary teachers. But regardless, even if that was the proposal I can’t see how one can label it racist. One can absolutely label it high-handed, wrong-headed, counter-productive etc. But not racist.

Maori is one of three official languages of New Zealand. Requiring teachers to know some basic Maori language can not be racist, unless one considers having English as a compulsory language is racist.

Again such a proposal can be argued to be wrong, bad, un-necessary, divisive etc  but not racist.

My plea to all politicians is to stop calling things racist so much, and instead debate proposals on their merits.

Eric Crampton’s op ed in the Dominion Post, and online at CIS is very good.

IF THE Government said that the minimum price for a new car were $50, nobody would expect it to affect sales. Neither would an increase to $65. But it would certainly start mattering if the Government applied a minimum price of $5000 to all cars, new and used.

Exactly. Only the stupidest person could argue that a mimimum price would not affect sales at certain levels. Hence the focus should be about at what level it starts to matter.

The latest youth unemployment figures are very bad. The unemployment rate for kids aged 15 to 19 is 27.5 per cent …

This isn’t just the recession. Unemployment rates for adults are higher than they were in the boom of the mid 2000s, but the recent downturn has not hit adult workers the same way that it’s hit the kids. The current adult unemployment rate of 6.6 per cent is only three points higher than its low mark in the mid 2000s. Meanwhile, youth unemployment rates are a staggering 15 points higher.

So what changed?

Both rates usually track each other, reflecting the overall strength of the labour market. Changes in the adult unemployment rate explain a high proportion of changes in the youth rate.

But in late 2008, this relationship began to break down. Compared with a previous trend, the current youth unemployment rate is eight points higher than we could have expected given the adult unemployment rate. That’s about 12,000 kids who, given the current adult unemployment rate, we would have expected to have jobs. …

Neither can they simply be due to the current downturn: when adult unemployment hit 10.2 per cent in 1992, the youth unemployment rate was 23.4 per cent – three points lower than today – and youth labour force participation rates were higher. Bear in mind that adult unemployment today is nowhere near 10.2 per cent.

The answer seems obvious. While done with good intentions, the abolition of a lower minimim wage rate for teenagers has priced them out of the labour market.

No, the sharp increase in youth unemployment from late 2008 appears to have been caused by the abolition of the youth minimum wage in early 2008. Such a result isn’t surprising. Economist Stephen Gordon summarised Pierre Fortin’s work on this effect in relation to minimum wages: when minimum wages are below about 45 per cent of the average wage, they have little effect on employment; above that, they present a danger to employment.

By contrast, New Zealand’s minimum wage of $13 an hour is about 50 per cent of the average hourly wage – well into the range in which we expect negative employment effects, particularly for young workers.

And if the minimum wage increased to $15/hr, it would impact youth even harder.

Reinstating a youth minimum wage well below the adult rate wouldn’t eliminate youth unemployment. But it would let employers start creating new jobs that young workers could productively fill while gaining experience. It’s time to stop pricing young workers out of the labour force.

I agree. What the Government should do is freeze the youth minimum wage at $13/hr and keep it there until it has hit the floor of 80% of the adult minimum wage (which happens when it hits $16.25), and then have it remain at 80%.

Bill Maher and Jane Lynch read out the Facebook messages between Congressman Anthony Weiner and a Vegas Waitress. How he ever thought he would not get caught out, considering the sheer volume of women he was sexting etc is a mystery. The messages are not safe for work.

The best comment so far on him, comes from his mate Jon Stewart:

WHAT?! A Congressman had a sex scandal, and had to apologize to Bill Clinton? For what? Copyright infringement? A patent violation? Are you insane? That is insane; I can hear the big dog taking the call: “Anthony, I’m very disappointed in you, now, this Twitter thing, can anybody sign up for it, or do I need to go to the Apple Genius Bar?”

Heh.

David Fisher at the Herald on Sunday reports:

Slater supplied the Herald on Sunday with a sample of the information he has obtained.

The proof was a copy of the minutes of a “Labour North” meeting held on May 25 this year, serving the party’s candidates for the five electorates north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

The minute stated the “Labour North” collective should “use Parliamentary Services for best outcome of LP (Labour Party)”.

Parliamentary Services rules strictly forbid the use of services for campaigning purposes.

You can see the minutes for yourself at Scribd.

They go on to say:

It was clarified that an officer or MP is required to be on site for campaigning use as the rules and use of parliamentary services resources is under increasing scrutiny.

Now using an office for campaigning is forbidden regardless of whether an MP is there or not. What this means, is that Labour wants an MP to be in attendance so they can claim it is not campaigning, but parliamentary work.

The minutes also listed the presence of Australian Labor Party activist Sandy Rippingale. She was a senior figure of 30 years with the party.

Slater said the visit by Rippingale to the “Labour North” meeting showed the party was subject to foreign influence.

Rippingale told the Herald on Sunday she was in New Zealand to attend the Labour Party congress.

Asked if she was working on the election campaign, Rippingale said: “I can’t make comment on the relationship between the two Labour (Labor) parties.”

Which pretty much confirms it. Now in my view nothing wrong with ALP helping out NZLP, except that Labour is the party that has railed against foreign interests being involved with election campaigns.

UPDATE: Labour have sent out a damage control e-mail to all their donors, informing them their details have not been securely stored and their names, e-mails, addresses and amounts of donations may all now be public. Every person who has donated money online to Labour is likely to have their donation made public.

Again I should stress that while I have no first hand knowledge of how the information was obtained, I am told that there was no hacking, cracking or illegal access. It was simply available to the world.

The ODT editorial:

People who hold positions of high office can expect scrutiny over behaviour that might be said in some respect to impact or reflect upon the performance of public duty. And a police investigation certainly exceeds any objective minimum threshold for justifiable public interest, which is why the original handling of the Darren Hughes matter by the Labour Party leadership was, and is, inexplicable. …

It will be recalled Mr Hughes, some days after the news of the investigation broke, stepped down from his position as senior whip; then, as the furore grew and details leaked into the public domain, he resigned from Parliament. Had his leader, Phil Goff, played a more decisive and firmer hand earlier, it is quite possible Mr Hughes would now be able to resume his place in the House; had Mr Goff, for instance, announced to Parliament and to the people of New Zealand, as soon as he became aware of it, that Mr Hughes was facing a police investigation over an allegation and was immediately standing aside until the investigation was complete, the way for his rapid rehabilitation might still be open.

There is a near universal consensus that Darren would probably still be an MP today, if Phil Goff had handled the issue better. That’s bitter medicine for Labour MPs to reflect upon over the next few months. Their own leader effectively robbed them of one their most popular and effective MPs.

Jarrod Booker in the Herald reports:

Sophie Elliott would be turning 26 today if she had not been brutally murdered by her former boyfriend.

Her father, Gil Elliott, imagines that his daughter – due to take up a job with the Treasury the day after she was killed – would have become a “fully fledged economist” in Wellington, and would have flown home to Dunedin to celebrate her birthday with a special family meal and cards and presents.

During the Bidget lockup this year, I looked around the room at the many young bright Treasury staffers there. It’s a big day for them doing the Budget lockup and then the party that night in the Minister’s Office. And I reflected how Sophie would almost certainly have been one of those staffers in the lockup, if Weatherston had not killed her four years ago.

Today, to coincide with Miss Elliott’s birthday, her mother Lesley launches the book Sophie’s Legacy – A Mother’s Story of Her Family’s Loss and Their Quest for Change, along with the Sophie Elliott Foundation to help guide young women through life’s dangers.

Far too many women in NZ are killed by their partners or ex-partners. All too often the warning signs are there. The moment they hit you even once, is the moment you should get out.

In the book, Mrs Elliott reveals she discovered her daughter was stabbed 216 times only after the evidence was presented in court, 18 months later.

I was shocked when I heard this. The family should be told the basic details before court.

Sophie’s foundation is online here.

I recommend people check out Whale Oil on Monday.

Bob McCoskrie blogs:

Family First NZ is calling on bookstores to ban the sale of an offensive book entitled “Go the F*** to Sleep” by Adam Mansbach. 

My general rule of thumb is that anything Bob wants to ban, is probably worth seeing

By chance, someone has sent me a copy of the book and it is hilarious. Here are some of the lines:

The cats nestle close to their kittens now.
The lambs have laid down with the sheep.
You’re cozy and warm in your bed, my dear.
Please go the fuck to sleep.

The windows are dark in the town, child.
The whales huddle down in the deep.
I’ll read you one very last book if you swear
You’ll go the fuck to sleep.

The eagles who soar through the sky are at rest
And the creatures who crawl, run, and creep.
I know you’re not thirsty. That’s bullshit. Stop lying.
Lie the fuck down, my darling, and sleep.

The wind whispers soft through the grass, hon.
The field mice, they make not a peep.
It’s been thirty-eight minutes already.
Jesus Christ, what the fuck? Go to sleep.

This is going to make such a great Christmas present to my friends who have small kids.

The Wikipedia article on the book is interesting:

When Adam Mansbach’s daughter Vivien was two, she would take up to two hours to fall asleep. Exhausted and exasperated, one night Mansbach posted a note on Facebook, “Look out for my forthcoming children’s book, Go the — to Sleep”. Following his post, friends of Mansbach responded enthusiastically, so that Mansbach began writing what was then only a hypothetical book.

What a great way for a book to happen.

Go the Fuck to Sleep was subject to an unintended viral marketing campaign after PDF copies of the book, presumably from advance copies sent to booksellers, were distributed via email. While the book was originally scheduled for release in October 2011, by the end of April the book had hit #2 on Amazon.com‘s bestseller list

It’s interesting that in this case, illegal electronic copies of the book led to it bcoming a best seller.

You can pre-order the book from Fishpond. On sale 16 June.

Morgan Godfery at Maui Street has taken offence at my post on the taniwha, and has done a response titled “David fucking Farrar”. Rather disappointing that he feels the need to engage in personal abuse, as I had previously quite rated his insights into Maori politics.

In the hope he might actually want to debate the issues, I’m going to respond to his post.

I do not know what Farrar is trying to achieve here. My take is that he is patronising Maori culture.

No it isn’t. I am a supporter of Maori culture. I think Maori TV does (for example) an excellent job and am happy as a taxpayer to help fund it because I recognise the value of our indigenous culture.

However that does not mean I won’t take the mickey if someone uses a cultural myth to try and hold up a road or rail project.

Let me do an analogy. I also have a deep appreciation for Irish culture. But if someone tried to stop or delay a rail project because they said a leprechaun lived in the route, then I’d mock them also. And if a Catholic priest got up and said you can’t build a road here because the Holy Spirit actually lives on the proposed route, I’d mock them – or suggest they be referred for psychiatric treatment.

“A huge amount of koha”. Is that implying Maori can be pacified with hand-outs? Or that Maori are greedy and prone to accepting donations.

Not Maori as a group. I don’t tend to generalise about a group. What I was saying is those who try to stop or delay a project by claiming a taniwha is in the route probably will drop their objections in return for a monetary settlement. I can’t think of two many other reasons someone would claim a taniwha lives in the way of a road or rail route.

“Once the tunnel is built, they could do a side tunnel for him, so he can play safely away from the trains”. Is that implying that the concept of a Taniwha is childish?

No that is me implying that the notion of a Taniwha as a physical creature is silly.

New Zealanders love to take the piss out of other cultures, as if their culture is the be all and end all. It is perfectly acceptable if David and his mates do not accept the concept of Taniwha, that’s there call and a fair one, but it is rude, disrespectful and borderline racist to go around disparaging other cultural beliefs. It is the worst sort of arrogance.

Nonsense. Would I be racist against the Scottish if I do not accept Nessie exists? Am I racist against the Welsh because I don’t believe in Welsh dragons?

I think it is a good thing if our museums and history books record the historic belief in Taniwhas, and their historical significance. I am fine with even teaching some of these historical myths and beliefs. But what I am not fine with is people trying to use these myths to hold up construction of rail and road projects.

Personally I think Morgan should be angry at those who do use Taniwha in an inappropriate context, as it is their actions which generate a backlash against Maori culture and historic beliefs.

The implication I get from David’s post is that Maori are ignorant and childish.

Not at all. I suspect the vast majority of Maori probably agree with me that using Taniwha as a device to delay a rail or road project is stupid.

Let me make it quite clear – my beef is only with the individual who claimed the Taniwha lived in the route of the CBD rail loop.

All I have to say to the commenters at Kiwiblog is get fucked. Go and die. As for David – you’re just a disappointment. Fomenting happy mischief? Get real. Fomenting hate. That sounds more accurate.

Urging people to kill themselves because you don’t like their views. I’m starting to understand why Morgan is such a fan of Hone Harawira.

Was sad to receive the news that Brian Dooley had died, aged 79.

WHen I discovered the Internet, I also discovered Usenet newsgroups, and from 1996 to 2003 spent many an hour debating politics, society and well just about everything in nz.general, nz.politics and soc.culture.new-zealand. I met and made many good friends through Usenet.

Brian was one of the regular posters on the nz.* groups up until this  year. I’ve not beeen on Usenet for many years but have fond memories of debating Brian, and even met him a couple of times at meet-ups. He has an acerbic wit which I appreciated, even if it was directed at me occasionally.

My condolences to his family and close friends.

I thought Metiria Turei handled her interview on The Nation very well – defending the Greens from Sue Bradford’s claims they have swing to the right (if only).

Turei used a line, which I have advocated in the past they should use, that they can work constructively with both National and Labour and regardless of who forms the Government, they’ll aim to make it a greener Government. It’s a good message which could well appeal to some swininging voters who may be saying they want John Key as Prime Minister but would like the Government to do more on environmental issues.

Again no one should think that if they have a choice, the Greens won’t install a Labour-led Government. They will, unless Labour totally alienate them.

But given the probability of at least a second term of a National-led Government, it is smart to portray yourselves as able to have influence, rather than just opposition.

Last week the release of a report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy made news around the world as it declared the war on drugs a costly failure. Part of the reason it got so much publicity was that the Commissioners included:

• Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil
• César Gaviria, former President of Colombia
• Ernesto Zedillo, former President of México
• George Shultz, former Secretary of State
• Richard Branson, entrepreneur
• Kofi Annan, former Un Secretary-General

Now I don’t necessairly disagree with the conclusion that the war on drugs has been a failure. Having said that, I’m not sure better alternatives have been articulated.

Anyway I got curious about this Global Commission that made headlines around the world. I wondered who actually established the group? Was it the UN? Was it a country? An NGO?

And then I wondered who selected the Commissioners? Did they select people known to share a common view that the war on drugs has failed? Did they advertise for Commissioners?

And finally I wondered who was paying the bills?

The interesting thing is that none of these questions can be found on the Commission’s website, or in their report. They seems to have had a virgin birth, just declaring their own existence.

So who can find out answers to the questions – who established the commission, who appointed the commissioners and who is paying the bills?

As far as I can tell no mainstream media outlet has asked these questions, or more importantly included them in their reporting. If this was a group hand picked for their known opposition to current drug policy, that is a relevant piece of information.

John Pagani writes at Stuff:

First Past the Post was awful, but MMP’s flaws have been worse than I hoped.

Party lists have mostly been rubbish, especially in the big parties.

Anonymous party officials have too much say and their party list choice are inadequately transparent even to members of their own parties.

I agree with John’s concerns over transparency of list ranking in the major parties. But I disagree that the party lists have been mainly rubbish. In National they have given us Katherine Rich, Chris Finlayson, Don Brash, Hekia Parata, Tim Groser, Steven Joyce etc.

There are too many MPs who can’t win a marginal seat but cling on through the list because of their special skill at palace politics.

This is what NZers really don’t like – defeated electorate MPs coming back on the list.

Parliament is more diverse if you keep a score of ethnicity, gender and other outward characters; I’m not sure thinking within parties is more diverse. Having fresh or unconventional ideas is a good way to get bounced down the list.

When there are more locally elected representatives, there are more MPs who have room to speak and act independently. A little courageous independent thinking is a good thing.

This is very true. Electorate MPs can take a more independent line. A List MP trying to do so will have a short future.

I like the idea that MPs should have to persuade a group of voters to get elected. One way to rehabilitate MMP would be to increase the number of electorate MPs, to around 90 or 95 out of 120.

It’s a nice idea but it would break the proportionality of MMP. If there were 95 electorate seats, in 1996 Labour would have a one seat overhang and in 1999 Labour would have had a nine seat overhang. In 2002 Labour would have a 10 seat overhang.

The other thing we need to do is get rid of the messy two-ticks business. By the time of the 2015 election more people will have only ever voted under MMP than voted under First Past the Post. Yet unacceptably high numbers of people still don’t understand how the two ticks work.

Separate votes for electorate and party votes invite cynicism and manipulation. Voters in Epsom should decide whether they want to vote for National, or vote for John Banks and in doing so help to bring in other ACT MPs. We should not have parties trying to figure out whether to stand, and instructing their own supporters to vote for another party. That’s a circus.

I disagree. I like the fact that you can split your vote and give your party the party vote, but vote for the best local MP regardless of party.

People who despise democracy are planning a big campaign against MMP later this year. They want to return to the days when governments could break promises with impunity. They want to buy government instead of winning it by winning a battle of ideas.

Remember what I said in my last blog post on this topic? The attacking of motives rather than debating the issues?

Also I would contend that while MMP has had many benefits, one of its weaknesses is in fact that it is easier for parties to break promises under MMP. If you form a majority single party Government then there is no excuse for not implementing your manifesto. If however you have to do a deal with other parties to forrm a Government, then it is inevitable that you must compromise on your manifesto.

If I had confidence MMP would be truly reformed I would vote for it. I’m weighing the alternative. If it’s just worse versions of party lists, I’ll give the alternatives a miss. If MMP’s advocates are too opposed to reform, I’ll pick another system. What I won’t be picking is the status quo.

There are reforms you can make to MMP to make it better. But there are also some thing you can’t change about MMP without breaking it – such as having a higher proportion of electorate MPs.

The Nation’s lineup:

We will profile John Key then Sean Plunket will be live with the PM for half an hour — the interview will focus on John Key the person, what drives him, what his deep down beliefs are and what sort of legacy he wants to leave behind him.

Also: The lighter side of politics with retiring Civil Defence Minister and long time party whip and after dinner wit, JOHN CARTER.

The Key interview could be very interesting, and the Carter one likely to be hilarious.

Had a very enjoyable Thursday evening in Wellington. Had dinner at Ortega Fish Shack and my God the food was divine. Had prawn tails followed by the most lovely gurnard. One could easily get addicted to this place.

Then went to Downstage to see C’mon Black. It’s a Roger Hall production, so I was expecting to enjoy it, and I did.

Gavin Rutherford plays Dickie Hart, a Kiwi farmer who leaves the farm and the shiela behind for a once in a lifetime trip to South Africa for the Rugby World Cup in 1995. Rutherford excelled in the role, and kept the audience laughing throughout as he relived what happened on that tour.

The nice thing about getting to go to around 20 to 25 plays a year is that I’m now starting to recognise the different styles of the various actors, producers, directors and writers. I reckon in a couple more years I’ll be able to do blind testing, like they do for coke and pepsi – no looking at the programme, and try and guess who the producer and director was!

C’Mon Black, reminded me somewhat of Le Sud. They were both so good at sending up different cultures. Le Sud took the piss out of NZ, Maori and French cultures. C’Mon Black takes the piss out of NZ and South Africa, and occassionally England. Rutherford manages to capture both the Kiwi farmer, and the South African tour guide so well.

The funniest moment would have been when Dickie phones home, asks about the cows, the farm etc and then only at the end asks the wife how she is. Then as he hangs up he curses he forgot to ask about the dogs.

The play brought back vivid memories of following the Cup from New Zealand. The reminder of Jonah as the giant that crushed the English and was so feared to tackle. Some firm even offered money for anyone who could tackle him. Rarely has there been a team that looked so unbeatable as the All Blacks in that match.

And then there was that final – where so many All Blacks were still sick from food poisoning, no tries were scored, where it went to extra time and then the Boks won with a drop goal. The agony was played out on stage masterfully.

This has been a somewhat stressful week as work pressures have been non-stop and my “to do before next week” list hit double digits. So the play was a very well timed way to unwind and relax, helped by some drinks afterwards at the Tasting Room also.

My weekly column at the NZ Herald is on the the Darren Hughes saga. I compare the Darren Hughes and Richard Worth affairs in some details. My final sentence was:

There has been much speculation about Darren’s future. At the risk of being accused of trying to polish a turd, maybe Darren should look on what happened as an opportunity. Darren is a smart personable guy who could probably excel in any number of roles. My advice is to get out of New Zealand for at least a couple of years – travel the world, find some interesting jobs to do, visit your mates and then decide down the track whether you still have that burning desire to serve in Parliament.

I wasn’t sure if “polish a turd” would get through the sub-editors

Northland MP John Carter gave his valedictory speech to Parliament on Tuesday. John is one of the funniest guys you will ever meet, but also one of the most hard working MPs around. His advocacy for his constituents is legendary, and this is why he has such huge majorities in an area which is economically quite poor.

Parliament won’t quite be the same without John there. But as he said in his valedictory speech:

Here I am, giving my valedictory. If I had known it would be this good I would have done it years ago! I must say people have been kind enough to say they are sad to see me going. I am sorry they are sad; I am as happy as all hell.

It’s great to see an MP leave with no regrets or rancour.

I cannot help but mention the “Hone” affair. This is the real “Hone” from the far north, by the way, folks. The only thing I want to say in that regard is that it made things rather difficult for me, because the Prime Minister, who had been waiting 10 years to meet the President of the United States, happened to be in the United States meeting the President at the time the “Hone” affair occurred. I think otherwise I might have got away with just a good boot in the proverbial. Unfortunately, what happened was the Prime Minister, who had had his photo taken shaking hands with the President, appeared on page 8 of the New York Times andI appeared on page 1. It seriously pissed him off, I can tell you.

Oh it did indeed. He was absolutely ropable.

So I got stuck into the Labour Party in Opposition and talked about all the cunning things those members were doing. I said we were not going to put up with these cunning things and we would not have cunning stunts like this happening. It went on and on. I kept saying it, and I know that Gerry, who was sitting there, was waiting for me to bugger it up, and so was everyone else, funnily enough, even people in the gallery. I carried on about cunning stunts until I slipped up. Eric Roy was in the chair. He fell over in collapse. Ailsa Salt, who was a dear, dear lady and a very prim and proper lady, just about fell out of her chair. Gerry Brownlee collapsed in his seat. Trevor Mallard, who was sitting on the other side, got redder and redder and sort of fell back; I saw tears flooding down. Annette King, who was sitting there, said “I resemble that remark.” and slid under the chair. The worst part was that I had to keep talking while the whole place around me was bloody hosing themselves laughing.

I was watching Parliament when that happened. It was even worse than John described. The entire house was in tears of laughter and I’d say it took at least two minutes until people stopped laughing.

The thing that disappointed me was that I had thought I would be the first person ever to have that word recorded in Hansard—the Speaker could not pull me up, because he was laughing—but when I got it I saw it had been written as “cunning tricks”.

I checked that myself also. Sadly the c word is not to be found in the hallowed pages of Hansard.

I raise that story for a reason. There is a serious issue that we all need to consider, and it is this: we need to have humour. We need to be serious. Obviously, we need to debate issues—this place is important to the country—but we also need to be able to share humour. I have to say that I am more and more concerned—indeed, I am pleased I am retiring—that the scrutiny we are coming under, particularly from the media, who are trying to sanitise us and turn us into saints, is ridiculous. We need to have members who are real, who can laugh at themselves, share things about themselves, and be real people. If we do not, how else can we represent the people in this country who are real? I ask the people who are prone to criticise us to let us have some space and let us be real people. Occasionally, we will make mistakes, but let us be real, because that is what New Zealand is.

I could not agree more. The last thing we need is 120 plastic fantastics who never say anything in case they offend someone.

I will start with racing, which has been seriously frustrating, to say the least. I just want to say that the people in the racing fraternity are a wonderful group of people, but, sadly, until they realise that the changes that need to be made to the racing industry have to come from within, it will not succeed. We need to get more focus from within. Craig, I say to you good luck my friend. Every racing Minister—with one exception—has not been well liked. I also thank Michael Stiassny, who has done the best job he can in trying circumstances to get the changes that are needed. But if the racing industry does not change, in my view it is doomed.

That is a shot across the bows.

I also want to comment on local government. I am particularly proud of the part I played in the Auckland reforms. We made an amazing change, working with the likes of Mark Ford and Brendan Boyle and so many others from the Department of Internal Affairs and local government offices. What a wonderful team we had. But, in particular, I commend Rodney Hide for the leadership he gave and for the way in which he brought together that team to put together the Auckland reforms, which are now such a success. I know there may be one or two who do not agree, but in the main it was an outstanding achievement. Rodney, thank you for your friendship and thank you for your leadership. It is a real credit to you and to those who were able to work with you in that role. Thank you very much.

Very classy.

Finally, there was the civil defence portfolio. I have to say that of all the portfolios it became rather challenging, given that I was told by John Hamilton when I started that the portfolio would not take too much time and that I would not have to put too much focus on it.

Heh.

I am proud to have been the longest-serving member of Parliament for the Northland electorate. Mr Speaker, I am conscious of the fact that you have served in this Parliament longer than I have, but as far as the electorate goes, I have been the longest-serving member. One of the things I am proud of is that, with the exception of 1993, with every election the majority has increased. I am really proud of that fact. It is something I am very proud of.

John won Bay of Islands in 1987 and 1990.Then the Far North in 1993, and Northland since. His majorities were:

• 1996 – 5,961
• 1999 – 5,454
• 2002 – 7,558
• 2005 – 9,275
• 2008 – 10,054

Growing the majority in 2002 was especially impressive.

I will finish with this little ditty that someone sent to me. I thought it was worth reading it out, and it goes like this:

He walks, his head beneath the clouds
He strides across the North
He helps the people far and wide
He is the people’s man.

Goodbye.

There was a nice function afterwards also, with great speeches from Maurice Williamson and others. My highlight was having the PM note that John was the first Minister who had resigned who wrote his own resignation letter!

I won’t say that I hope John enjoys the Cook Islands, because I know he will. Farewell for now, mate.