Archive for July, 2011

MPs tweeting

July 31st, 2011 at 10:58 am by David Farrar

The Daily Telegraph reports:

MPs are spending almost 1,000 hours a year on Twitter, the social networking site, according to research.

The number of MPs tweeting – sending messages of 140 characters or fewer – has more than doubled from 111 in January last year to 275 today, and is expected to go on rising as more politicians sign up.

Keen tweeters include Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister and Ed Miliband, the Labour leader.

Only 1,000 hours a year for 650 MPs? Hell, I reckon Tau and Trevor do 1,000 hours just between them 🙂

An unhealthy obsession

July 31st, 2011 at 10:30 am by David Farrar

Susan Pepperell at HoS reports:

A former Radio New Zealand news boss who has been fighting her sacking for more than six years has placed a new dossier in front of the Serious Fraud Office, alleging money went missing from the state broadcaster between 1999 and 2003.

But the toll on Lynne Snowdon has been severe.

She was due to appear in court in Wellington tomorrow for the next stage in what has become a costly and protracted employment dispute, but her husband and lawyer John Hickling has sought an adjournment because Snowdon’s health is too bad. She could not stand up to the rigour of courtroom questioning.

I am not surprised her health is bad. She has fought a jihad for eight years against Radio NZ, since she lost her job there. Now I’m all for fighting for your rights, but Snowdon has taken this beyond rational levels. I imagine she has turned herself unemployable.

“It has been extremely expensive and has taken a terrible toll. It’s unrelenting and you can’t get on with your life,” Hickling said.

Hickling tries to make it sound like Radio NZ is responsible for it dragging on six years, when of course it is his wife. No one has forced her to run to the SFO, to appeal multiple times on multiple issues.

She managed to get two years sick leave at $120/000 year before she was let go. As far as I can tell, she believes she should have remained on sick leave for life. Most employees have a maximum of 5 – 10 days a year – she got 500 days.

Taxed for working from home

July 31st, 2011 at 10:16 am by David Farrar

As we roll out fibre to the home, more and more people will work from home – at least part of the time. This will have a number of positive side-effects such as reduced congestion, lower carbon emissions and reduced office rental pressure.

However as previously reported here, and now by Maria Slade in the HoS, Labour’s proposed CGT will tax people who work from home.

Ernst & Young tax partner Jo Doolan said Labour had claimed that only a small proportion of New Zealanders would be impacted by capital gains tax, but because most firms employed fewer than five people many owner/operators could be affected.

“It’s quite clear in [Labour’s] document … but they’re hoping they can distract attention from it,” Doolan said. “Let’s not be sneaky about it and pretend it’s not going to impact on a lot of people.”

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) could choose not to claim tax deductions for a home office, and would therefore avoid the capital gains tax. “Either way you’re going to be paying more tax. We want our SMEs to grow and that’s absolutely critical to the future. We can’t afford to be hitting them.”

And just think about the compliance costs:

There would also be issues in policing it, defining the areas used for operating the business, and valuing those areas, Craig said. Many entrepreneurial companies kept costs low by working from home. “Why would you punish that efficiency? It’s going to add a whole lot of compliance obligations for very little practical effect,” Craig said.

BusinessNZ chief executive Phil O’Reilly described the proposed tax as “absolutely counterproductive”. If a person owned a house for 10 years but ran a business from the home for only half that time, which part would be subject to the tax? “It just shows you the ridiculous nature of this proposal.”

If you are going to do a Capital Gains Tax, then it should be simple and fair and apply to all assets.

Why we need welfare reform

July 31st, 2011 at 9:32 am by David Farrar

Imogen Neale in the SST reports:

Lots of babies, lots of partners, lots of houses and lots of benefits.

Welcome to the career dream of young boys already failing in the education system. …

“There is no warmth about loving little children or wanting to be good parents. It is purely about this being a pathway to an income,” the one-time principal of a youth justice facility school said.  …

Sutherland said in some cases the children were merely repeating what they saw in their own homes.

“They perceive that they’ll get a girl pregnant. She will be on some form of benefit and will get a house, and that they’ll live with them, and that is their income.

“They live with mum, who often has a number of children and boyfriends.”

If you grow up in a household where no adults are ever in employment, then all too often your expectations are changed.

General Debate 31 July 2011

July 31st, 2011 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel

Sure we believe you

July 30th, 2011 at 2:19 pm by David Farrar

NewstalkZB reports:

There’s a pledge from New Zealand First ahead of its annual conference that it will follow the rules on disclosing political donations.

The party was forced to correct its donation returns before the last election, revealing gifts which should have been declared.

Returns filed to the Electoral Commission show New Zealand First has lodged nil donations over the past two years.

Party Leader Winston Peters says next year’s contributions will be reported appropriately.

“We will be abiding by the law, as we have always done,” says Mr Peters.

As we have always done? What a blatant lie.

NZ First were never charged or prosecuted – that is correct. But that is because there was a six month (off memory) time limit for charges.

They did not abide by the law. Here is what the Electoral Commission said:

Although the 2007 return was materially false, no offence committed under section 214G(3) or 214G(4) of the Electoral Act 1993 as the Party Secretary had no intention to mis-state or conceal the facts

So the return was false, but no prosecution because only the party secretary can be held liable.

In respect of the 2005 and 2006 returns, the statutory time limit for any prosecution has expired.

And these were not trivial donations unreported. From 2005 to 2007, NZ First declared there had been zero donations over $10,000 when in fact there had been around $235,000 of donations.

And no that doesn’t include the $100,000 Owen Glenn gave to pay Winston’s legal bills. Likewise it does not include the revelation by the SFO that the Velas had also paid Winston’s electoral petition expenses to Bob Clarkson.

Yet Winston still insists they have always abided by the law.

Classic Dim Post

July 30th, 2011 at 12:12 pm by David Farrar

Danyl blogs:

Senior government Minister and key National Party campaign strategist Steven Joyce will be spotted to the Labour Party for the election campaign, Prime Minister John Key announced today.

The surprise announcement comes after weeks of dire polling for the Labour Party, compounded by a series of public relations fiascos. Joyce is regarded as Key’s closest advisor, and National’s strategic mastermind.

‘This will make the 2011 General Election a fair fight instead of a somewhat undemocratic cake-walk,’ Key said in his Beehive Press Conference. He added that came to the decision after speaking with Joyce, who ‘loves a challenge.’


Joyce will work closely with senior Labour MP Trevor Mallard, who is currently running Labour’s election campaign. Joyce has insisted that the two men will work together as equals.

‘Trevor’s role will be crucial to our success’ Joyce announced in a joint press conference with Labour leader Phil Goff. ‘In light of recent information security problems, Trevor will safeguard our campaign strategy documents in a tent on the Auckland Islands.’

The Auckland’s are an unpopulated sub-Antarctic island group with no phone or internet access. ‘Everything depends on this,’ Joyce insisted, as Mallard’s tiny orange dinghy sailed out from Invercargill into fearsome three meter swells.

Well they will be safer there, than backing them up to the webserver.

In the interests of party balance, Labour has traded Joyce for Dunedin South MP Clare Curran, and she’s believed to be behind the Prime Minister’s shock announcement that he will conduct the remainder of his campaign in virtual reality environment Second Life, and prefix every single word he speaks with the letter ‘i’.

The Prime Minister’s fairy-winger avatar commented on the new strategy when he addressed an online press conference of goblins, virtual journalists and the National Party Cosplay Association this afternoon.

‘iI imay ihave imade a ihuge imistake,’ Key said.

I love the phrase “the Prime Minister’s fairy-winger avatar” 🙂

Sarah Mosley on politicial corectness

July 30th, 2011 at 11:03 am by David Farrar

The ODT ran this column from Year 13 student Sarah Mosley:

Political correctness. Is it a well-meaning initiative, or an attempt to undermine our laid-back way of life?

No more can we have policemen and firemen. We must be non-gender specific, and don’t even think about mentioning religion or race. The world is going into PC overdrive. …

Political correctness in New Zealand is on a smaller scale compared to the madness in the United Kingdom. A chief constable refused to release pictures of two escaped murderers because it might breach their privacy. What about the victim?

New Zealand hasn’t completely escaped though. The PC fog is sneaking down the country.

Auckland’s Middlemore Hospital has removed the crucifix from the hospital’s chapel, oh, sorry, I mean the spiritual centre. How much comfort will patients or visitors find in an empty room, devoid of any of the religious symbols that they have come to expect? …

The Eskimo lolly is one of our country’s favourites. Last year, there was a lot of publicity about them. The large majority of us have all eaten at least one, if not 50. Apparently that makes us cannibalistic, Inuit-hating people. Get real. Most of the time they’re processed so badly that you can’t tell what they are anyway.  …

Political correctness is a crazy plan to stop human beings doing what we were designed to do – think for ourselves.

To stop this dangerous trend we need to stand up for what we believe in and think for ourselves. Keep a sense of humour and stop small-minded people ruining our lives.

These PC trends are sneaking in all over the world. Society is at risk of being destroyed. We need to unite, burn those risk management plans, buy a big bag of Eskimos, and take responsibility for our own actions.

Hear hear. Well said Sarah.

Labour announces policy for traffic delays

July 30th, 2011 at 9:58 am by David Farrar

Shane Jones says:

Labour’s Transport spokesman Shane Jones says a future Labour government is committed to 100 per cent funding of a two-lane link road on the Kapiti Coast instead of National’s planned four-lane expressway.

Shane Jones made the announcement at a meeting in Waikanae last night.

“Transport Minister Steven Joyce ditched the long-planned link road when he announced a four-lane raised expressway about 18 months ago, roughly along the same route,” Shane Jones said.

“But the link road is what people want. It’s far cheaper, which is important when cash is strapped, will have far less environmental impact on the district than the four-lane expressway, and will do the job that’s needed of reducing congestion.”

No, it won’t. Two lane roads are terrible for congestion, as all traffic slows down to the slowest vehicle.

After decades of dithering, Steven Joyce announced a plan for four lanes from the airport to Levin. This is exactly what the Wellington Region had been calling out for. We’ve alll had the multiple congestion delays on Sunday afternoons etc.

However a road is only as fast as its slowest point. Under Labour you would have four lanes everywhere but Kapiti, which means when it is busy the entire corridor will slow down to the slowest car on the road.

John Pagani notes on election results:

Before the transport agency decided on its particular route, it put out options that seemed to threaten most homes in the region. Colmar Brunton did a survey (pdf) and a route was selected that was the most popular in that survey.

49 per cent supported it.

Opponents of the motorway have argued the poll was flawed because it didn’t offer a ‘no expressway’  option.

Since about 15 per cent of respondents selected ‘no need for expressway’ or some variation such as ‘upgrade existing SH1’, I’m not sure how people arrive at this claim, but it is what they say.

Yesterday, Labour came out with a policy – the one supported by 7 per cent in the poll.

If opposition to the expressway was as strong as opponents say, then you would expect Labour would have picked up support in Otaki.

Interestingly iPredict stocks in Otaki haven’t moved at all.

Labour are just pandering to a vocal but minority pressure group. This isn’t unusual, but in this case they are prepared to screw over all the Wellingtonians who drive to Kapiti or beyond.

General Debate 30 July 2011

July 30th, 2011 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel

US debt visualisation

July 29th, 2011 at 4:04 pm by David Farrar

Check this site out.

They’re $100 bills representing what the US national debt will be by the end of the year.

Q+A 31 July 2011

July 29th, 2011 at 3:44 pm by Kokila Patel

Q+A features leading scientists Robert, Lord Winston and Sir Peter Gluckman on protecting our most vulnerable children this Sunday.

Following the government’s controversial green paper this week, we’ll ask what can be done in those early years and what science can teach us?  Then, the politics. Labour is pushing a child-centred policy, so what solutions can deputy leader Annette King offer?

Paul Holmes looks at the battle for the presidency of the Maori Women’s Welfare League that’s gone all the way to court. Destiny  Church leader and presidential candidate Hannah Tamaki talks about her aspirations and the controversy that’s dogged her campaign.

Joining Dr Jon Johansson on the panel are Maxim Institute Chief Executive Greg Fleming and former Human Rights Commissioner and academic Ella Henry.

Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE.  Repeats at 9.10pm Sundays, 10.10am and 2.10pm Mondays on TVNZ 7       

Debating the Threshold

July 29th, 2011 at 3:19 pm by David Farrar

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn has responded to my blog post where I agreed with him on keeping the one electorate seat threshold, but advocated the party vote threshold should be 4%, rather than abolished.

He notes my position is the same as the Royal Commission which said:

the Commission considers that the [4%] threshold is a justifiable and desirable means of preventing the proliferation of minor parties in the House. Such a proliferation could threaten the stability and effectiveness of government.

I/S says:

Which probably sounded good back in the safe, conformist, 2-party world of 1986, where we hadn’t had a coalition government for over fifty years, and political difference and dispute was seen as threatening. But to modern eyes, it seems quaint – not to mention sniffily undemocratic. To point out the obvious, we currently have 8 parties represented in our Parliament, and in the past have had as many as 9. And it hasn’t threatened the stability or effectiveness of government one bit

First of all I would disagree that there hasn’t been an impact on stability and effectiveness. Clark went early in 2002 due to the collapse of the Alliance as one example.

But the measure is not how many parties get into Parliament, but how many do you need to *all* agree to be able to pass a law. Here’s what the situation would be under 5%, and no threshold since 1996:

1996 – Nat/NZF would not have been a majority and would have needed either ACT or Christian Coalition or both United and Legalise Cannabis to govern. Was hard enough to be stable with Winston, let alone needing either Graham Capill or the Legalise Cannabis Party to agree to the budget.

1999 – Labour/Alliance needed Greens to pass laws, and no change at 0% threshold

2002 – Labour/Progressive/UF had 62/120 seats. With no threshold they would be 59 seats. UF had ruled Greens out so they would need either Christian Heritage, Outdoor Recreation, or Alliance to support.

2005 – The only change would be Destiny would have one MP

2008 – National would not be able to choose to pass laws either with ACT or Maori, but only if both agreed. That to me would not be stable or effective.

There are two reasons for this. The first is that our political culture doesn’t support destabilising, winner-take-all, toys-out-of-the-cot tantrum politics. Winston Peters tried that in 1996, the electorate punished him for it in 1999, and our parties have learned their lesson:

Actually with no threshold, there is no chance of a party being wiped out, so I think they would be more likely to have tantrums. Falling under the threshold would no longer be oblivion.

The second reason is mathematical: a “proliferation of minor parties” actually increases stability and effectiveness, by increasing the number of possible majority coalitions, thus reducing the bargaining power of any one party.

You have more combinations, but you need more parties to agree to form a Government. I do not think a six party Government is more stable than a two party Government. Israel has shown us this many times. This is not some crazy theory – they have the empirical evidence – which is why they have raised their threshold.

We have a good example of this in the current Parliament: ACT can’t “hold the government to ransom” and demand big policy concessions because National has an alternative majority with the Maori Party. Meanwhile, the Maori Party can’t “hold the government to ransom” because the National has an alternative majority with ACT. The two parties effectively act as a check on each other’s demands.

And here I/S is just wrong, because the very thing he lauds (the ability to choose ACT or Maori) would not happen under no threshold. National would have had 55 seats, ACT 4, Maori 5 and United 1. You need 62 to govern.

Having an extra 3 or 4 kibble parties at the bottom end simply increases the balance; if one of them doesn’t like your policy, then you go to another. You’re only in trouble if they all don’t like your policy, in which case its probably well-deserved

Nope under a no threshold scenario, if even one of the kibble parties disagrees, then you’re stuck.

The other argument I have against no threshold, is it will encourage extremism. Again not just a theory – look at Israel. With no threshold you can gain a list seat with 0.4% of the vote or 10,000 supporters. Now the way you get your 10,000 votes is to come out with crazy extreme policies (for example a law change so husbands can not be charged with raping their wives) that may repeal 98% of the country but appeals to 0.4%.

And no threshold will encourage extremist parties, and reward them with a seat. And if that seat is needed to form a Government, they will then get some sort of policy win.

As I said I think one can debate a 3% v 4% v 5% threshold, but I believe a threshold is desirable and necessary.

Meanwhile, this illusion costs us in democratic terms, by effectively disenfranchising (at the last election) 6.5% of the population. DPF would probably counter that those people and their views and votes aren’t important. I disagree.

Well they always have the choice of voting for a party likely to be in Parliament. No party perfectly represents my policy views. I choose to vote for the party that I deem most able to fulfil my policy desires.

If you take the view that every person must be able to get their preferred party into Parliament, then why stop at a 120 MP house where the effective threshold is 0.4% if there is no statutory threshold. You could argue for a 500 MP House, so that even parties with 0.1% of the vote get to be represented.

Key in Rimutaka

July 29th, 2011 at 1:20 pm by David Farrar

As I have said before, I think it is very healthy to have the Prime Minister do public meetings. I’d attend this one myself, but I am judging a debate between young ACT candidates that night at the Backbencher!

Well done to Jonathan Fletcher for organising this. I’d encourage people to ask tough (but genuine – not point scoring) questions. If I was attending I’d ask why National won’t introduce performance pay for teachers.

Lessons from Blair for National and Labour

July 29th, 2011 at 12:50 pm by David Farrar

This week’s column at NZ Herald:

I think the time has come where National can do better than be more competent and pleasant managers of Labour’s health, education and welfare systems. The Government is thankfully looking seriously at reforming the welfare system, but the education system for example badly needs a decentralised performance pay system for teachers. Will National be content with national standards (which are entirely laudable), or will they propose more substantive reforms?

I also nominate the Labour MP whom I think could make the most credible advocate of reform.

Two good political resources

July 29th, 2011 at 12:31 pm by David Farrar

Congrats to Fairfax and Keith Ng for this graphical interface of their poll results. You can see the responses to six different questions broken down by seven possible splits.  This sets the bar for poll reporting.

The second resource is from the Guardian. It shows from 1972 to 2011 the countries of the EU and whether their Government is left-wing or right-wing. I had not realised until I saw their graphic, how massively centre-right Europe currently is.

Only six Governments are left-wing, and 21 are right-wing. Europe has never been so blue.

No tag for this post.

Key will serve full second term

July 29th, 2011 at 11:35 am by David Farrar

Matthew Hooton has written in NBR (offline):

As a rumour, it’s surprisingly prevalent.

  Just as he wanted to be a successful businessman, but not necessarily the world’s wealthiest, John Key wanted to be prime minister, but not necessarily the longest-serving.

  After achieving the top job, he would serve a few years before going out on a high.

  According to the theory, Mr Key would hand over to Steven Joyce sometime before the 2014 election.

This gets pushed a lot, mainly I suspect by Labour. There is a degree of truth to it. I don’t think John Key is obsessed with staying Prime Minister for as long as possible, and I think he could well retire before he loses an election.

However I’ve never thought he would not contest the 2014 election, and seek a third term (if he gets a second). Anyway Matthew asked Key the question about 2014:

When I asked Mr Key specifically this week if he intended to serve a full second term and lead National into the 2014 election, he barely bothered with the usual platitudes about “taking one election at a time” or “serving at the pleasure of the party and the public.”

His answer was not arrogant but it was unequivocal: yes, that was exactly his intention.

So that’s one little rumour we can put to bed.

Is this a final nail?

July 29th, 2011 at 11:03 am by David Farrar

While I regard the chance of Labour forming Government after the next election as remote, I’ve never dismissed it entirely. In fact I have warned of a possible scenario where National gets 46% and loses to Labour on say 32% if Labour can pull off a deal with principally the Greens and NZ First (if they make it).

However NewstalkZB’s Felix Marwick has just tweeted:

NZF leader Winston Peters won’t be drawn on possible post election deals but says he doesn’t envisage a Lab’, Green, NZF scenario happening

This is potentially a huge blow to Labour, as they desperately need Winston to both make 5% and to back them, to be in with a chance.

Winston has not ruled Labour out per se, but has ruled out Labour, Greens and NZ First. This suggests he may do a repeat of what he did in 2005 (if he is in a position to do so) and veto the Greens from being Ministers.

The Greens would then have to decide between accepting being screwed over again by Labour, forcing a new election, or allowing a National-led Government to govern. None of them pleasant options for them. So I think the Greens will be hoping Winston doesn’t make 5%.

Maori participation in tertiary education

July 29th, 2011 at 9:57 am by David Farrar

Elizabeth Binning at NZ Herald reports:

More than 200 tertiary providers will meet in Auckland today to find ways of getting more Maori students into tertiary education.

That’s an interesting goal. Here are the latest tertiary education participation rates (2009) for four ethnic groups, alphabetically – Asians, Europeans, Maori and Pasifika.

In order of best to worst, here are the four participation rates – 17%, 13%, 12%, 11%.

Your challenge is to match them up.

Phil Goff life saver

July 29th, 2011 at 9:39 am by David Farrar

Labour List MP Raymond Huo blogs at Red Alert:

One Chinese community leader told me that Labour’s economic package is a “watershed moment” to define the future of New Zealand. Other constituents told me that when encountered with a natural disaster “Key is talking about how to save lives while Goff is going there to save lives”.

I’m amazed the media failed to report this saving of lives.

General Debate 29 July 2011

July 29th, 2011 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel

Blunt on Phil and the polls

July 28th, 2011 at 10:43 pm by David Farrar

Fake Facebook Friends

July 28th, 2011 at 10:13 pm by David Farrar

Whale and Cactus have been playing detective and discovered that one of my 1,500 or so “friends” on Facebook is a fake.

This is not surprising. I am sure others are also. My policy for the last couple of years has been to say “yes” to all Facebook friend requests, unless they are a known sociopath etc.

I used to only say yes to people I actually knew, but the hassle of trying to recall had I met someone or not, and potentially offending them by saying no got to much, so I went for an automatic yes policy.

In an ideal world I’d set up a second account, and restrict it to close friends only. Might do that, when I have the time.

iPredict launches

July 28th, 2011 at 9:04 pm by Kokila Patel

iPredict launches

Four months before November’s election, political journalists, activists and junkies now have 24/7 access to New Zealand’s most accurate forecast of the 2011 election result, following today’s launch by New Zealand’s online predictions market, iPredict, of

The new site provides constantly updating forecasts of every aspect of the New Zealand 2011 election, including the party vote share, every electorate contest and a graphical projection of the shape of the 2011-14 New Zealand Parliament.

Daily commentary on the main market movers will be provided by editor Ian Llewellyn, a former press gallery political reporter for The Independent business weekly and the New Zealand Press Association (NZPA), and a former press secretary in the 1990s to Finance Minister Bill English and former Health Minister Simon Upton after spending eight months on the picket line during widespread industrial unrest in Thatcher’s Britain in 1989. is powered by the iPredict market, New Zealand’s most accurate forecaster of political and economic events, and sponsored by Auckland corporate and public affairs consultancy Exceltium and online news-service

The Chief Executive of iPredict, Matt Burgess, said would bring to life the comprehensive and detailed information on New Zealand
politics available at and would help bring new traders to the market.

“In Ian Llewellyn, we have also found someone with a very broad range of political and journalistic experience, in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, to bring to life what our market is telling us about the future,” Mr Burgess said.

The Managing Director of, Alastair Thompson, said online predictions markets were uniquely suited to provide data to other 24/7 news organisations, such as

“Polls are static and out of date the moment they are completed and while they might be useful to fill the gaps in daily newspapers and 6pm news bulletins, the online environment can provide so much richer and more immediate information,” Mr Thompson said.  “At Scoop, we are delighted to be partnering with Exceltium and iPredict to bring this information to life and complement our own 24/7 election coverage.”

The Managing Director of Exceltium, Matthew Hooton, said his company was committed to assisting iPredict in its growth.

“Across the world, predictions markets such as iPredict in New Zealand or inTrade in the United States are showing they are far more accurate, timely and relevant than traditional political polling and we have been pleased to work with iPredict over the last year to develop its offering,” Mr Hooton said.  “We’ve funded because the proven predictive power of iPredict will continue to become more important in New Zealand politics and we want to be associated with its growth and success in the years ahead.”

iPredict is owned by Victoria University of Wellington.  Journalists are welcome to use, with attribution, data and reports from in their
own reporting of the New Zealand election.

The Nation 30 July 2011

July 28th, 2011 at 8:50 pm by Kokila Patel

Sean Plunket with:

  1. Judith Tizard (former Auckland Central MP) on the way ahead for Labour.
  2. An extended interview with Simon Power on his career, his reforms, his ideas and his future.
  3. Ian Duncan Smith (British Work and Pensions Minister) on welfare reform.
  4. Sunday Edition Panel — David Kemeys (Sun Star Times editor), Michael Cummings (Manawatu Standard editor)

30/07/2011 10.30 am, Sunday Repeat 31/07/2011 8.00 am – TV3