Kiwiblog

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn blogs:

At the beginning of the month I commented on preliminary results from my annual OIA performance survey, which has seen Ministerial performance jump significantly since last year. I’m still waiting on a few Ministers (new Ministers had to be sent a two-stage request, and I failed to notice that Tariana Turia refuses to answer her Ministerial email), but here’s another improvement. Last year, Gerry Brownlee was the worst Minister, answering only 39.7% of requests within the statutory 20-day limit. This year, he’s boosted that to 54.8%.

Credit is due to I/S for collating and publishing the stats. It is a valuable public service, and is part of the reason I am sure there has been an improvement.

Gerry has of course had a lot on his plate of late, but in a reply to I/S he notes:

Notwithstanding this, dealing with requests for information under the Official Information Act is a matter that I take seriously and I have instructed my office to instigate a thorough review of the systems and processes used to manage and track requests made under the Official Information Act.

This is the first of the videos for the Abstain for the game campaign by Telecom’s Backing Black campaign. What do people think?

The Electoral Commission has announced:

On 15 August 2011, the Electoral Commission referred the following matters to Police:

• Charles Chauvel MP, Ohariu Census,
• ACT Party newspaper advertisements in Sunday Star Times and NZ Herald
• Labour Party ‘Prices are Rising Faster than Wages’ flyer.

It is the Electoral Commission’s view that the publication of each of these items constitutes a breach of sections 204F and 204H of the Electoral Act 1993 because the items are election advertisements that do not contain a valid promoter statement and were not authorised in writing by the party secretary.

This isn’t rocket science. The requirement for a promoter statement has been a core part of our electoral law since 1977, and something every party should be complying with out of habit. Failing to do so is a basic failure of political competence. After all, if you can’t publish a fucking ad properly, how do you expect us to believe you can run the country? Sadly, I don’t think Labour will acknowledge that failure and commit to fixing it. Based on their past performance, we’ll be treated to more arrogant whining instead.

Have just heard that the Parole Board have given Rev Graham Capill parole, and released him.

From all the reports I have seen, he has never shown much remorse at all, and his sexual abuse of children makes him NZ’s worst hypocrite.

He has served six of nine year sentence. Sadly under the law that applied at the time, parole is near automatic at two thirds. I think the Parole Board have turned him down seven times before.,

Remember this is the man who claimed that the sex with one of his victims was consensual:

“The law, as it has been explained to me, seems so different to what the Biblical law and indeed common perceptions are of rape,” he wrote.

“The fact that [the victim] consented is irrelevant.”

If we are lucky he will leave NZ.

Fitness NZ have their annual subsidy for joining a gym, back on again.

The initiative is 100% private sector funded, and is an obesity initiative that doesn’t involve food police telling you what can or can not be sold.

FitnessNZ wants to get more Kiwis active. As a part of this, we are subsidising a limited number of memberships for Kiwis who are not a currently members of any fitness centre (and have not been one for the last 12 months). All have been subsidised 40-70% (based on the normal sell price of the membership, which includes any joining or start up fees).

Just go to the page linked above, and choose your region. If it is Wellington, there are 138 discounts left to go. Then you get a list of gyms, and a list of packages, ranging from 3 to 12 months generally.

On top of the 40% to 70% discount, Kiwiblog readers can gain an additional 10% discount.  If you select a package, then on the next page it will ask if you have a special code. Enter “kiwiblog” and click on the button and you receive an extra 10% discount.

So for example a 6 month membership at City Fitness is reduced from $855 to $299 – a $555 saving. A Less Mills extreme 3 month membership is reduced from $673 to $202 – a $471 saving.

Note I receive nothing for promoting this. Just a public service.

The new Financial Markets Authority has advertised for announced the appointment of three more senior managers.

A reader, who hightlighted the ad announcement to me, comments:

I noted the following corporate babble-speak in the space of just 573 words:

1. “Strategic” – mentioned five times;
2. “Stakeholder engagement” – aargh!
3. “Stakeholders” mentioned three times.
4. “Head of Stakeholder Management”, a position description, no less.
5. What, pray, is a “strategic leadership team”?
6. “Stakeholder engagement” seems to be one of the skills of the Head of Stakeholder Management though the difference in language is telling.  Which one wins?
7. I liked someone’s “commitment to achieving tangible outcomes that contribute to business success”.  I would have thought that’s what people get paid for.
8. Being “pivotally involved” is another’s skill.
9. And thanks are due to someone else for “strategic secondments”.

 Please spare us from this nonsense.

They just needed to scatter “fundamental” in there a few times also.

The Dom Post editorial:

It is inconceivable that the “cradle to the grave” social security system envisaged by former Labour prime minister Michael Joseph Savage resembled anything like the welfare state we have today. He dreamed of a temporary safety net to help those down on their luck when times were tough. What we have is a system in which 10 per cent of the workforce is on a benefit, 222,000 children live in benefit- dependent homes and thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds are being paid to sit around and do nothing.

It is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue and one which National is promising to fix.

And Labour is promising to oppose. The more beneficiaries there are, the more votes they get.

Criticisms that the measures are overly-harsh or interfering ignore the fact that there is something deeply flawed with a system that hands over cash to people as young as 16 without expecting something back in return. While there are job-search requirements, they are next to useless for young people without the basic skills needed to secure employment. Requiring them to get up to speed in literacy and numeracy or to undergo trade or other training is not punitive, as some would cast it, but designed to allow them a better path through life.

Taxpayers also have every right to expect that payments to 16 and 17-year-olds are used for the purposes they are intended. It is not a “nanny state” intervention, as some would claim, given the fact that by definition IYB recipients have lost the backing of their parents or been forced to leave home and turn to the state for support.

Nanny state generally is interfering with people whom are independent and restricting their choices. Putting some rules in place for those who rely on the state for income is not in that category.

Dana Leavy at Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key says the Government will decide whether it will reintroduce the youth minimum wage before the election, but says it is unlikely.

This is disappointing. I have no doubt that a $13/hr minimum wage has priced unskilled 16 and 17 year olds out of the market. The three solutions are:

1. Lower the minimum wage for everyone
2. Have a separate lower minimum wage for 16 and 17 year olds, say at 80% of the adult minimum wage as it used to be
3. Have the minimum wage law apply only at age 18, instead of age 16

Option 3 would be my preference. This would be the greatest boost to youth employment, and ensure that 16 and 17 year olds are able to get jobs.

However, Key said today the Government needed to look at all the factors that might work.

“We will consider it,” he told TV3′s Firstline programme. “I wouldn’t say we would necessarily carry it out.”

There was already a training wage which covered the first 200 hours, Key said. While a youth minimum was a factor, the Government didn’t want the public to believe it was the only factor.

“Because I think if it’s the only factor someone’s getting employed on, we’re probably getting off on the wrong track here.”

It is not the only factor, but it is a factor.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

The father of Dunedin murder victim Sophie Elliott says families should be able to say what they want in victim impact statements, and welcomes Government moves in that direction.

Justice Minister Simon Power yesterday introduced the Victims of Crime Reform Bill to Parliament.

It makes a range of changes, among them clearer guidelines around victim impact statements.

“As there are currently no guidelines governing victim impact statements case law has evolved around what cannot be said, including an outline of the offence and opinions or comment on the offender,” Power said.

“This has lead to the unacceptable situation where a victim is effectively censored so they don’t offend the offender.”

Gil Elliott’s statement on the impact of his daughter’s death had entire sections crossed out at the judge’s request, before it was read in court.

Elliott said it was censorship and another example of the justice system treating victims poorly.

Sophie Elliott, 22, was stabbed to death in her bedroom by former boyfriend Clayton Weatherston in January 2008. Weatherston was sentenced to life in prison in 2009, with a minimum non-parole period of 18 years.

Her father today welcomed moves to improve the statement process.

“I think it’s a very good idea,” he told Radio New Zealand.

It is a good idea, and an overdue one. However it is only in the last year or so as victims and their families have spoken out, have many of us realised that their statements are routinely censored.

A reader e-mails:

Although I’ve probably missed the window of opportunity,  something that has riled me up in the last week is how incompetent Auckland Transport was in dealing with resident only parking permits for Eden Park.  Agreed that this is not exactly GFC 2 or London Riots,  but I found that Auckland Transport are arrogant and have not implemented a solution that keeps anybody happy.

I live at xx King Edward Street, Mt Eden,  which is a few blocks from Eden Park.  I’m an avid rugby supporter and actively chose to buy close to Eden Park.

In the lead up to the Rugby World Cup,  the then Auckland City Council, under pressure from a vocal minority, re-evaluated the parking scheme in place.

In this process they did consult with local residents with public meetings etc,  but in essence wanted to implement a wider parking restriction area (Zone B that I live in).  I believe the main drivers were to remove noise and parking related issues from local residents because all 120 minutes once in a while can be a significant inconvenience for some people.

What was clearly stated at the time was that Auckland City Council was attempting to force Eden Park spectators to use public transport.  The problem for me was the extensive market research findings stated that at best something like 50% would use public transport.

In my mind this meant that the remaining 50% would still drive,  and still cause noise and inconvenience to some residents, just not those now living reasonably close to Eden Park.  The problem was simply shifted slightly further away.

As I imply above,  I have no issues with spectators parking in my street, and they do for all the none major games.  So why for the major games can’t spectators park in my street?  Auckland Transport has never managed to answer that one.

So, at a purported cost of around 1 million to implement the full signage and then manage it per year seemed like a waste of money to me.

(more…)

Matthew Hooton blogs at electionresults.co.nz:

As Ian Llewellyn has pointed out already, Mr Twyford has been at some risk in Te Atatu.  Since Ian wrote his piece a few weeks ago, things have got worse for Mr Twyford, with today’s trading having the probability of him winning now down to 72% from over 80% on 1 August.

To put that in context, iPredict is now saying that Te Atatu is the fourth most marginal seat in the country, after West Coast-Tasman, Tamaki Makarau and New Plymouth.

To put it even more in context, iPredict is saying that Mr Twyford has less chance of winning Te Atatu for Labour than Nathan Guy, Ms Kaye and Sam Lotu-Iiga have of winning the previously safe Labour seats of Otaki, Auckland Central and Maungakiekie for National.

This is disastrous for Labour, especially with Paula Bennett looking stronger than ever in Waitakere, and given the political importance of West Auckland.

Worse for Mr Twyford personally, party bosses have given him the insulting low ranking of 33 on Labour’s disgraceful, protect-all-the-losers list.  As I discussed recently, this means that, if Mr Twyford loses to Mr Henare, he’s toast (while Mr Henare could expect to be rewarded with a return to Cabinet for such an historic win).

Keep in mind, of course, that Mr Twyford is still most likely to win Te Atatu.  But how extraordinary that a previously safe Labour seat is now grouped with the most marginal in the country.  It suggests Labour has terrible problems in West Auckland and perhaps suggest why John Key to remain prime minister is trading so incredibly high.

As Matthew says, Twyford remains the favourite to win in Te Atatu. But a market probability of 72% is significantly below most safe seats, and indicates that one or more people are willing to spend money on the basis Twyford may not win.

If people think Twyford is a sure bet, then they should buy up his stock and make some money. If you buy at 72% and he wins, you make a 39% return on investment in just four months, which is an annualised return of 119%. So is Twyford a safer bet than a finance company?

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

REFORMS, REFORMS, REFORMS: National has pledged an overhaul of the welfare system and they’re starting with young people.  But are the solutions proposed by the Government the best way to stop people from becoming life-time beneficiaries? Is about more training? Or job creation? Is stopping 16 & 17 year olds from buying (illegally) alcohol
& cigarettes the right move? Why not make it harder for adults to use their benefit checks to buy their booze & cigs? Is a payment card the right move or is it just another form of food stamps? ACT says the moves don’t go far enough without introducing youth wages?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 17^th of August. Our Panel: Green Party MP Dr. Kennedy Graham, Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni, and National MP Michael Woodhouse.

The Taranaki Daily News pointed out in a recent editorial that Andrew Little will be in Parliament regardless of whether or not he wins New Plymouth.

Andrew wrote the letter above saying there is only a “slim possibility” there will be two MPs in Parliament with strong links to New Plymouth.

Now Andrew is ranked No 15 on the Labour list, which is No 6 on their effective list. So long as Labour gets 22% he should get elected to Parliament.

So when Andrew says there is only a “slim possibility” there will be two MPs in Parliament with strong links to New Plymouth, the only two interpretations I can take from this is:

1. Andrew thinks there is only a slim possibility that Labour will win 22% or more of the party vote; or
2. Andrew will not maintain any presence in New Plymouth if he fails to win the seat, and will be based elsewhere as a List MP – presumably Wellington

Perhaps Andrew could clarify which of these two interpretations is correct, or perhaps they both are?

It’s hilarious that is such a popular search term.

In my “By the numbers” blog at Stuff, I suggest that it is unlikely the teen beneficiary payment cards are unlikely to be “dumb” cards that anyone can use and hence be bartered, but could well be personalised with the person’s name, photo and a PIN.

Texas Governor Rick Perry could well win the Republican  nomination. Already former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has pulled out after a poor showing in Ohio.

The Atlantic looks at Perry and Obama on jobs:

If Texas Governor Rick Perry is the Republican nominee for president, the 2012 election will have a striking parallelism. President Obama would ask voters to overlook a bad national economy for which he’s not fully responsible. The Republican challenger would ask voters to credit him for an impressive state economy for which he is also not fully responsible.

There are two themes here. One is that the likelihood of a politician to take ownership over an economy is directly proportional to the health of the economy. The other lesson is that even as political leaders can try to guide an economy, they are ultimately victims, or beneficiaries, of its underlying fundamentals.

The Texas miracle is, like so many miraculous things, complicated upon closer inspection. Texas accounted for 40 percent of the nation’s new jobs since June 2009. This impressive statistic is the result of geology, geography, history, and politics.

Texas is only 8% of the US population, so 40% of new jobs is an impressive figure.

Texanomics is well-suited to a recession stemming from a financial crisis. When consumers’ balance sheets are hurting, they seek out low cost-of-living. That’s Texas. When companies don’t have access to credit, they hire cheaper labor. Texas again. When young couples look to start a family, they’re drawn to affordable housing, nice weather, and industries that hire: Energy and aerospace in Houston, health care and military in San Antonio, tech and education in Austin, and communications and more energy Dallas.

And the politics:

That the stimulus was a PR-failure says more about the strength of the downturn than the weakness of the administration. But that’s an economist’s distinction, not a campaign platform. The president’s message to voters asks them to see the successes of his policies by imagining how bad things would be without them. In a rotten economy, Obama has to run on a hypothetical. The governor’s economic message is simpler. It’s reality. It’s “Look at Texas.” Perry isn’t entirely responsible for the state’s economic record. But he’s a record worth claiming.

Perry is at 39% to win the Republican nomination on In Trade. Next is Romney on 32%.

Obama’s price for re-election is at 52%, down from 56% a few weeks ago.

This comes from the Berkeley School of Journalism. Tends to show NZ is not too badly off in terms of food prices.

Lloyd Burr at 3News reports:

The National Party has recruited a lesbian, Maori, former-Grassroots Labour supporter who is expected to take a top list spot and seat in Parliament.

Claudette Hauiti, who is in a civil union and raising a child with her partner, admits she “ticks all the boxes” on National’s representation scale.

Ms Hauiti says “I’m not made up of one particular thing, I’m made up of many things….my iwitanga…I’m also an urban Maori, I’m also a business woman…I’m also a mother and all those things help build a very strong character for the National Party”.

But as Claudette said, being on Grassroots Labour does not mean you are a Labour Party member. I even have a page on Grassroots Labour.

Simon Collins at NZ Herald reports:

But Glen-Paul Waru, who tutors the Mangere course and hosts his own Tuesday night hip-hop show Juicy on Juice TV, said National was “on to something” with its plan.

“It was an eye-opener for me when I started working with at-risk youth. I was blown away with the holes in the system and the inadequacy of Winz.”

He said many families pushed their teenage children into applying for the IYB, arranging for aunts or uncles to declare that the children no longer got on with their parents, because the families needed the extra income.

It would be interesting to know the stats for how many IYB recepients stay with family members, and how many rent totally independently.

Many teenagers lied about how much rent they paid so they could get more money. Most received travel allowances of $10 a day to get to class but got lifts with friends so they could spend the money on drugs and alcohol.

“I’ve voted Labour all my life except last time, when I voted no confidence,” he said.

“I’m voting National, only because I’ve been working in this environment for a year and I see how youth are affected … I think National is on to something. It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction.”

Nothing like the voice from the ground, who has no axe to grind.

Even though I knew the ending, the Tangiwai movie on Sunday Theatre was compelling watching. Linda Burgess reviews it for the Dom Post.

They managed to capture the tragedy of the crash so well, with 151 dead. But most of all the focus on Nerissa Love, the fiancee of cricketer Bob Blair.

The film seemed historically accurate in most respects to me. I did wonder whether the engagement did actually meet such resistance from the parents, or whether that was dramatic licence.

For me the most powerful scene is Blair coming out to bat, surprising even his own team-mate, Bert Sutcliffe. As they showed the entire South African stadium rising to their feet to silently welcome him on, you get some idea of how poignant a moment it must have been at the time.

The Australian reports:

ANTI-Israel activists face investigation for alleged secondary boycotts under landmark attempts by the Baillieu government to curb the global campaign to target companies and businesses linked to the Jewish nation.

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission has been asked to investigate anti-Israeli campaigners who have joined the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions group to determine if they should be prosecuted for threatening stores with Israeli ownership or connections.

The ACCC has been asked to consider injunctive relief and damages after 19 people were arrested following an ugly clash between police and protesters outside the Max Brenner store in Melbourne’s CBD on July 1.

The protesters allegedly blocked potential customers from entering the store as part of an “orchestrated campaign” to impose what the government believes is a secondary boycott on the chocolate and coffee store. …

Mr O’Brien told The Australian it was unacceptable to single out any businesses but that it was especially concerning given the 20th-century history behind attacks on Jewish businesses.

“I am concerned that the persons and organisations who caused these disturbances may have engaged in secondary boycotts for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to Max Brenner’s business,” he said. …

The Max Brenner shops have allegedly been targeted by the BDS movement for supplying to the Israeli defence forces.

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd recently met with Victorian federal Labor MP Michael Danby at the same Max Brenner store as the BDS protest. “I don’t think in 21st-century Australia there is a place for the attempted boycott of a Jewish business,” Mr Rudd said at the time. “I thought we had learned that from history.”

Nostradamus highlighted this story to me. He noted:

I think this is a story with potentially huge implications, and that’s not just because I’m a corporate and commercial lawyer.

No surprise that the usual suspects are behind the anti-Israel protest.  I’ve highlighted them below for you.  But, unlike John Minto making a nuisance of himself at a tennis match, these guys are taking things much further: it’s one thing for a person to say “I’m not going to shop at ABC because they support XYZ”; it’s quite another to prevent other law-abiding customers from entering a shop.

All of this raises an interesting philosophical principle.  Even if one sympathises with the BDS movement (which I don’t), how far can they legitimately take their protest?  And how much of a direct link (real or imagined) between a company and Israel does there need to be before the BDS movement gains a semblance of legitimacy?

I think blocking others from entering clearly crosses the line, and good on the Victorian Government for looking at legal action.

And while I can respect the diversity of views on Israel, targeting a shop because they may have sold chocolates to the IDF seems rather over-kill. If they were selling them guns, then I could understand the rationale more.