Kiwiblog

I read over the weekend a paper by the NZ Asia Institute on foreign crewed fishing vessels in NZ waters. It makes a convincing case that the status quo is not working, and some terrible abuses are happening. The solutions are harder though.

Many may think that these foreign vessels are legally able to pay slave labour rates, and undercut NZ vessels. In fact the law requires them to be paid the NZ minimum wage, and there is a code of practice setting out minimum requirements with wages, living conditions etc. All staff on board an FCV must hold a NZ work visa which means the NZ Minimum Wage Act and Wages Protection Act applies. The COP requires crew to be paid for at least 42 hours a week at $2/hr above the minimum wage. Sounds fine in theory.

So what is the problem? Well to be blunt, some of the companies that supply the FCVs simply lie, cheat and cover up. And the treatment of the crew can range from cruel and inhumane to worse.

And this is happening in NZ waters. In terms of wages, as I said, the law does require them to be paid NZ minimums, but again we learn:

So the status quo is pretty horrible. But what is the solution? Is it more audits? Do you require say a NZer on board each FCV who checks for compliance? Or do you ban FCVs? The reason we have them in the first place is because the NZ industry did not have the operational capacity or capital to operate deep-water-factory-freezer vessels, which would mean an inability to harvest the total allowable catch. The authors argue that now in 2011, one can, so FCVs should be phased out.

I don’t support phasing them out, except as a last resort. The authors note they focused on the “dark” side of the industry and did not cover the many quality operators. One question I have is what proportion of the total, are the “bad” FCVs.

I’d also be keen to look at other options, such as better pro-active audits, and a blacklist of certain companies if their audits fail. One needs to make sure there are very strong incentives for those companies to obey the law, and treat their staff well. If they are unable to do that, they should not be allowed to be contracted to NZ quota holders.

TVNZ has announced that One News will host three election debates. They are:

1. Mon 31 October – major party leaders
2. Wed 16 November – minor party leaders
3. Wed 23 November – major party leaders

Now it is great that we have three debates scheduled to help people make informed votes on who governs New Zealand for the next three years.

But where are the televised debates on the electoral system referendum, which will decide our electoral system for the next 50 years or so?

Surely if we have 270 minutes of prime time devoted to the election debates, we should have at least that much time on TV for debating the electoral system?

I hope TVNZ and TV3 announce a number of electoral referendum debates. It is only 32 days until we vote on whether or not we keep MMP or have another referendum in 2014. Radio NZ has led the way with a high level debate, I hope they will not be the only broadcaster to do so.

Radio NZ is hosting a debate on MMP and the electoral system referendum. The debate will be moderated by Julian Robbins and Philippa Tolley.

The debate will be held on Wednesday 26 October starting at 6 pm and you can be part of the audience at Te Papa’s Soundings Theatre. It will be broadcast on National Radio after the 8 am news on Sunday 30 October, and also available online at radionz.co.nz/Insight.

The panel for the debate is

• Rt Hon Jim Bolger, former Prime Minister
• Hon Michael Cullen, former Deputy Prime Minister
• Hon Ruth Richardson, former Finance Minister
• Jeanette Fitzsimons, former Green co-leader
• Sandra Grey, Campaign for MMP
• Jordan Williams, Vote for Change
• Professor Nigel Roberts

I think it will be fascinating to listen to, and find out who supports which system, and why. Fitzsimons will be MMP of course. I understand both Bolger and Richardson may actually agree on their preferred option! And not sure where Cullen sits.

This is Tom Scott’s Saturday cartoon. He must be a time traveller! Maybe it helped inspire Donald to score what turned out to be the winning three points!

The Dom Post reports:

A Rotorua man who subdued a young girl with fly spray and then raped her has been jailed for 10 years.

Robin Whitiora Chadwick appeared in the High Court at Rotorua this morning on a single charge of sexual violation by rape.

Chadwick, a part time security guard, had forced the 13 year old girl to inhale two cans of fly spray before raping her at a house near Lake Tarawera in 2009. …

Chadwick continued to deny his guilt and showed no remorse towards the victim, the court heard.

Justice John Priestley said Chadwick had a previously been jailed for the rape of two younger girls in Taranaki in 1994.

In this case the girl’s young age, her vulnerability, the use of the fly spray to stupefy the girl, and the isolated location of the offending were aggravating factors in sentencing Chadwick to 10 years imprisonment, with a minimum non parole period of five years, he said.

If three strikes had been in previously, at a minimum his 1994 rape convictions would be a first strike, which means he would not be eligible for parole for this rape. This would put him away for ten years, instead of a minimum five years only. Personally I think having raped three children is enough leniency, and he shouldn’t be getting out to rape anymore.

Bit his offending is even worse than that. The Rotorua Daily Post reveals:

Justice John Priestley said Chadwick, 57, had 24 previous convictions

Now if any of those were strike offences also, then he would be getting 20 years with no parole for this rape.

Now bear in mind that Labour are committed to repealing the three strikes law,which means scum like Chadwick can carry on getting parole time after time after time. A change of Government will have real consequences.

It has been a tough 12 months for New Zealand. 11 months ago, we had the Pike River explosion, and then in February the second Christchurch earthquake. On top of that, we’ve watched as countries big (US) and small (Greece) topple on the edge of disaster with debt defaults, and have wondered how badly will we be hit, if one or more countries drown under their debt burdens.

So when we won the hosting rights in 2005, who would have thought it would prove such a tonic for our country. It has captured our collective spirit in a way I’ve not seen with any other sports tournament. Why has it been so good? Many, many factors. Here’s some of the factors and people to thank in my opinion.

• Jock Hobbs and Helen Clark for winning us the hosting rights. My third favourite moment of the RWC was having Jock Hobbs present Rochie McCaw with his 100th test cap.
• Leon Grice and the RWC2011 team who implemented the concept of a stadium of four million people. Leon told me at a fairly early stage about the plans (which were part of the bid) to have teams and overseas fans “hosted” by various cities and towns, and it was an inspired idea that worked magnificently.
• Martin Snedden and the NZRFU who organised the tournament so well. I loved the choirs, and the Oles at each kick off!
• The four million Kiwis who loved being great hosts. It’s something we excel at.
• Also those who attended the games and cheered passionately for whichever team we adopted for the day. For many of the teams, they probably played to a bigger more supportive home crowd than they ever got at home.
• The party central and fan zones. They were brilliant. We are (mostly) social creatures and even the largest pub can only hold so many. They were almost too popular in Auckland, but also made the rest of the country feel part of the action.
• RWC Minister Murray McCully. Murray gets a fair bit of flak for his hands on management style and one journalist famously said Murray makes Helen Clark’s micro-management look like benign neglect! But in this case, Murray and his team’s attention to detail have  paid off in spades.
• The RWC Opening Ceremony. The comparison to 1987 RWC is like comparing humans to apes. The ceremony was Olympic-class. It was my second favourite moment of the tournament.
• The minnow teams. They all played their best games, and all 48 matches were good games to watch. This wasn’t a tournament of three or four countries, but all 20. If it were not for Canada, France would not have even made the quarter-finals, let alone the final.
• The mighty All Blacks.  They won the average pool game by 60 points to 12 – a 48 point margin. They won their quarter-final by 23 points, their semi-final by 14 points and the final by one point.
• While it is a team effort, Graham Henry and Richie McCaw impressed and inspired as coach and captain. Richie one day will sit in Olympus as one of the Gods of the game.
• The French. They hit their top form just when it was needed, to give the All Blacks the fight of their lives. The French and the Welsh should both be proud of their team’s achievements.
• The Final. I’ve never been so caught up in a game. God knows what would have happened if we had lost. I now understand why 30% of NZers said the outcome of the RWC mattered more to them than the election outcome. I was living in terror of the drop goal. Breating was optional for those last few minutes.
• The Award Ceremony. This was my number one moment of the tournament, with two parts resonating especially. McCaw holding the Webb Ellis Cup aloft. That moment will become as iconic as David Kirk’s 24 years earlier. But the most emotional moment was when the Cup was taken onto the ground by a Canterbury boy whose mother had died in the earthquake. His beaming smile of joy led to many a tear being shed, as people reflected how rare such smiles has probably been since the earthquake.

So it has been a great six weeks, and the All Blacks are world champions. Despite the euphoria, I think this will be the last Rugby World cup we host in New Zealand. But it will be a tournament that I know I, and many others, will never forget.

Feel free to share below your favourite memories. No negativity on this thread please. If you feel the need, go to General Debate.

Well the New Zealand All Blacks are the world champions by 8 points to 7. Let the celebrations begin!!!!

But full credit to the French who played a magnificent game, and performed so very very well that they must be gutted not to have won, but should be proud of their play.

Only one topic today. Our first Rugby World Cup Final in 16 years.

A few months ago most of us were braced for disappointment. We had been through this before. The All Blacks peaked too early or choked or something, and we lost.

But then as the pool play got underway, our optimism has risen and risen. We won all four games convincingly, scoring 240 points and conceding just 49. We picked up a bonus point for every game, meaning we scored at least four tries.

In our pool France barely qualified. If Tonga had beaten Canada, France would have not made the quarter-finals.

England was the only unbeaten team in Pool B, but lost at the quarter-finals, as did Argentina.

Amazingly in Pool C, Australia finished second behind Ireland. That gave us hope for the semi-final.

Pool D has the Springboks win all their games, but they held Wales off by one 1 point. They were arguably our biggest threat, but then they got knocked out by Australia despite playing the stronger game. I think it was at this point that things were really looking good. We were confident we had Australia’s measure, and sure enough they couldn’t score a try against New Zealand in 80 minutes.

So today is the day, starting at 9 pm, where we’ve got the best chance since we won the inaugural trophy to regain the title World Champions. Of course the result is far from guaranteed. France can play amazingly effective rugby when they hit top form. They have twice before beaten us at Rugby World Cups. But tonight, it should be the All Blacks’ day.

What are your picks for the score or margin? I’m saying the All Blacks by 13.

In case Wellingtonians have been wondering what those lights in the sky have been, they are spotlights from three of Victoria University’s campuses who teamed up with   Fuji Xerox, Dimension Data, EMC, Mainzeal, Downer and NEC Business Solutions to light up the skies during the Rugby World Cup.

So they will show for the final time tomorrow night. After that maybe they could go to the Air Force for use as an anti-missile laser defence system

I loved the full time try to Wales. They lost, but I have never seen Wales play as well as they have in this World Cup.

So it all ends tomorrow. Where will you be watching the final, if you are?

Joseph Romanos writes at Stuff:

A second Rugby World Cup has been playing out behind the scenes in New Zealand, and it’s been just as torrid as the one that has so engrossed us since September 9.

Rugby fans have been able to watch key World Cup matches live on no less than five New Zealand channels – TV One, TV3, Maori (English version), Maori (Maori language version) and Sky.

The battle for viewers has been fascinating.

TV One began sensationally, drawing 1.015 million viewers for the first match, New Zealand against Tonga. This immediately followed the opening ceremony, also a TV One triumph.

For that first match Sky had an audience of 442,000 and Maori Television, 177,000.

As the tournament has progressed, however, the big mover has been Maori Television.

By the quarterfinals, Maori Television was the most popular of the free-to-air channels. At times its audience was virtually the combined viewership of TV One and TV3.

For the New Zealand v Argentina quarter-final, Maori Television drew 501,000, behind Sky (628,000), but well ahead of TV One (420,000) and TV3 (236,000). It has continued to rate extremely well.

Maori TV have done an excellent job with their coverage and viewers have voted with their feet. The fact they started off with 20% of the audience of TV One, and at the quarter final had more viewers is a huge tribute to them. They are showing that in many ways they are becoming our national public service broadcaster.

Tahu Potiki, a director of Maori TV, also writes:

I recall the many sceptical, sometimes scathing, comments when it was announced Maori Television was to be the lead broadcaster for the Rugby World Cup, and the political stoush that surrounded the bidding process, but it certainly seems to have been a good choice. It is unclear what the differentiating factor is, but the uninterrupted broadcast is most likely playing a part.

I know I got home late one day and turned television on just in time to catch the last bit of the national anthems. Immediately the teams had finished singing the coverage halted and we crossed to an advertisement or a promotion. I realised then I was watching the wrong channel and changed quickly to Maori TV.

I’ve watched some on Sky Sports and some on Maori TV. Have not decided yet for the final but will probably be Maori TV to hear Keith Quinn hopefully declare the All Blacks the World Champions!

Reuters reports:

A plan to overturn a 300-year-old ban on heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics and end discrimination against royal daughters is likely to be approved at a summit of leaders of Commonwealth nations next week, the government has said.

Both these changes are welcome steps forward. It means the oldest child of William and Catherine will be the Monarch after William, regardless of gender.

However while a Royal can now marry a Catholic, they can not themselves be Catholic.

This means that so long as NZ remains a monarchy, our head of state by law can only be Anglican. I think such religious discrimination has no place in the 21st century.

AP report:

President Barack Obama declared an end to the Iraq war, one of the longest and most divisive conflicts in US history. He said all US troops would be withdrawn from the country by the end of 2011.

This is a good thing. It will be interesting to see if armed conflict continues significantly without foreign troops there. Likewise whether the Iraqi troops and police will be up to the job of keeping Iraq under the rule of law.Hopefully in ten years time, Iraq will be a relatively peaceful and still democratic country.

The US military presence in Iraq stands at about 40,000. All US troops are to exit the country under a deal struck between the countries in 2008 when George W. Bush was president.

It is worth stressing that it was indeed Bush who put an end date to US troops. Obama merely moved it forward a few months.However he had the responsibility to stay committed to his timetable, which he has done.

I think Iraq has proven a lesson for the United States. It is one thing to topple a dictator. It is another to try and rebuild a country as happened post WWII with Germany and Japan. The US were too ambitious in Iraq, and getting rid of the Army and banning Baath party members from Government.

It may be the Libya “model” proves the better one. I’ve always thought that in Iraq what the US should have done is after destorying the ability of the Iraqi army to invade, then captured or killed the top 10 people in the Government, told No 11 he is now in charge and that if they don’t have fair elections within the next 24 months, Nos 11 to 20 will face the same fate as Nos 1 – 10.

This is a guest post from Labour MP and Epsom Candidate David Parker:

What’s going on in Epsom?

The latest NBR poll for the Epsom electorate highlights problems for both National and Act.

My vote is up from 4.3% in the prior Herald poll to 17% in this latest one. Who wouldn’t be pleased with that 400% increase or the fact that at 17 % I am closing in on John Banks on 24%?

But the reality is that National’s Paul Goldsmith at 37% is well ahead, despite effectively saying “vote for Banks”. It is obvious that the Epsom voters are reluctant to be told how to vote, as shown by John Banks only mustering a quarter of the votes in the bluest electorate in the land.

I am not surprised. From my campaigning in Epsom, it is absolutely clear the Act Party is seen as an embarrassment by the vast majority.

If there is a surprise for me in Epsom, it is that so few people knew that John Banks tripled Auckland City Council’s debt during his last three years as Mayor. This recent history is very damaging for Key as well as Banks, given their repeated assertions that they are fiscally responsible and Labour is profligate.

The reality that Banks was “borrow and spend” will get through. I am telling everyone! Every letter box in Epsom will get this message.

Each step John Key takes to do a deal with Act’s borrow-and-hope-Banks and the-ends-justify-the-means-Brash undermines the image he has crafted for himself. He knows this erodes his political capital, but obviously thinks he needs Act.

The economic creds of John Key have been tarnished by his misrepresentations about the Standard and Poors downgrade statements.

Further, this has caused a renewed willingness to accept that Labour under Michael Cullen ran substantial surpluses and reduced government debt, which Key and Brash opposed. There is a widening acceptance that Labour was fiscally responsible at a time when the USA, the UK and most of Europe were not.

So the fact that Key is willing to do a deal in Epsom with Banks allows Labour to highlight these truths, which then causes voters to consider that, notwithstanding all of National’s spin, it is National’s deficit.

The Epsom platform enables us to remind voters of these facts, and contrast our plan to grow the export economy (substantial changes to tax, savings and monetary policy without selling our power companies) with National’s lack of an adequate plan.

All this at a time when so many are concerned that the world is changing fast, yet National and Act are stuck in a Chicago School of Economics time warp on the side of the bankers who were part of the problem and who are symbolic of the 1% who the 99% are protesting about.

Just as John Key’s image as a non-politician is undermined by what is happening in Epsom, so are National’s attacks on Labour.

The reality is that Banks’ very public record is there to haunt Key and Banks. The man who claims Muldoon as his hero has the worst economic record of any Mayor, ever, in the entire history of New Zealand.

While the last Labour government ran budget surpluses and reduced government debt, this is what John Banks did to Auckland:

Auckland City Council debt more than trebled in his last 3 years as Mayor!
2007          2008         2009                31/10/2010
$135m      $322m      $499m             $738 million !!!!!!!!

This was all pre amalgamation, and resulted in three credit downgrades for the council from Standard and Poors (from AA+ to AA-).

The Act spin that debt increased because the old Auckland City was borrowing for the new City is untrue. (That extra $416m of borrowing in the 2010 year took Auckland City Council debt to $1,155m at the time of amalgamation, but is excluded from the above figures.)

So John Banks certainly does not stand for fiscal responsibility.

The problems for National and Act go further.

I can attest from my campaigning in Epsom that voters still remember voting in the perk buster Rodney Hide, only for him to be busted for his use of perks.

They still remember the hypocrisy of the Act party opposing name suppression and favouring tougher sentences, and then finding out that David Garrett had name suppression and a discharge without conviction for stealing a baby’s identity and passport fraud.  Some are also aware Act knew this when they took a large donation from the misnamed Sensible Sentencing Trust and made Garrett Act’s law and order spokesperson.

It should be no surprise to anyone that no-one is sure what Act stands for. Liberals or conservatives?  Populist or principled? Take your pick.

The Epsom voters also regularly say to me that they can’t understand why Act has been taken over by Don Brash and John Banks, both of whom are past their use by date. That this is a widespread view was confirmed in the latest NBR poll where only 14% of those polled thought the change to Acts leadership had improved things while over 40% said it had made things worse and 30% said that there was no change to what was an already dire situation.

More people than you might expect also remember that Banks left National when last in Parliament with a reputation more sullied than Rodney Hide’s. Banks was kicked out of Cabinet by National. He then refused to sit on any select committee and while drawing a full salary as an MP took a paid job as a talkback host for Radio Pacific.

For all of these reasons the people of Epsom are very reluctant to hold their noses and vote for Banks.

I thought that Jon Johansson’s comment on Q&A last weekend was interesting. He made the point that Act is now polling at lower levels than at the last election. Voting for Banks in Epsom may in itself be a wasted vote (those unintended puns can’t be avoided given Brash’s proclamations). The problem for Act is that even if Banks did win Epsom, he is likely to bring in only himself and perhaps Brash to Parliament. Any extra votes gathered between now and the election would come off National. Not only will National want them for themselves, but Act still won’t make 5% and voters won’t want to risk wasting their party vote either. 

With Act polling low, an Epsom win is unlikely to bring a substantial voting wedge to prop up National.  Add to that this latest NBR poll showing Act is much less likely to get Epsom this time compared with last (and thus their party votes would be lost), and Act should be nervous.

The motivation for Epsom voters to throw their votes to Banks is undermined for so many reasons.

All in all, the Epsom election is proving useful to Labour and is allowing us to highlight issues National would much prefer had less profile.

The result will be more party votes and more electorate votes for Labour – inside and outside of Epsom. Thank you John, John and Don.

David Parker – Labour Candidate for Epsom -22 October 2011

I am happy to run guest posts from other (significant) Epsom candidates, of course.

UPDATE: In his guest post Mr Parker states that at the last election ACT took a large donation from the Sensible Sentencing Trust. This appears to be a false statement. All donations over $10,000 are required to be disclosed to the Electoral Commission, and none was. The ACT Party Treasuer and Secretary both say no donation of any amount was ever received, and the Sensible Sentencing Trust has said it never made any donation. In the absence of any proof from Mr Parker, I conclude the statement is wrong.

UPDATE2: David Parker has asked me to add the following on:

Garth McVicar has today (25 October) said that the Sensible Sentencing Trust has not made donations of money to any political party, including Act. It appears from his statement that the only gift the Trust itself made to Act was David Garrett. What donations, if any, came from members of the so-called Sensible Sentencing Trust to Mr Garrett or Act  I do not know.

Derek Cheng at the Herald reports:

The Labour Party’s vision for the future of work and wages is virtually identical to a unions’ wishlist outlined at the party’s annual conference a year ago, prompting questions about their influence.

Of course it is identical. Labour is effectively the parliamentary wing of the unions.

It is incredible to consider that Phil Goff who supported so many of the reforms of the 1980s, is now pushing a return to the 1970s.

What other new policies will Labour announce? Maybe ..

• No Sunday trading, to give workers a break
• A retail pricing commission which sets maximum retail prices to stop consumers from being ripped off
• A rent freeze

What other 1970s policies should Labour resurrect?

Rosemary McLeod in the Dominion Post writes on Charles Chauvel:

MINE is a thankless trade. Surely all writing is. You beaver away with scarcely a word of encouragement – and then screens take the place of paper, and you become endangered as well as thankless.

You don’t anticipate this. You couldn’t have imagined a time when yesterday’s work wouldn’t be wrapping tomorrow’s takeaways. But that day is fast upon you, and it’s time to get a grip. What would Labour MP Charles Chauvel do in a situation like ours? That’s the question.

Which Rosemary goes on to answer.

I devote my Herald column to Labour’s work and wages policy. Many of my Herald columns are reasonably reflective. In this one, I call a spade a spade.

Deborah Russell writes in Stuff:

The state has no business in the marriage game. It does have a legitimate interest in noting who is in a committed relationship. As a society, we want to be able to tell which people happen to be sharing accommodation as mere flatmates, and which have amalgamated their interests for the foreseeable future. …

It is unfair the state gives a certain status (marriage) to some households but not others. Either the recognition ought to apply to all, or none. Anything else represents the state picking and choosing among citizens, saying some are more worthy than others. That ought to be anathema in an egalitarian society.

Churches should not be allowed to perform state marriage ceremonies. They are welcome to perform their own ceremonies, but there is no reason for the state to endorse them. If the Head Prefect of the Assembly of Elf Worshippers wants to conduct wedding ceremonies on midsummer night’s eve, then she should go ahead. It just oughtn’t to count for the purposes of the state.

People who want to register their relationship with the state as well as in the eyes of their church or coven or humanist society should do that. They should make a trip to the Registry Office to record their relationship for the purposes of the state, and then independently do whatever they like that constitutes solemnising a marriage in their own religion.

As for marriage for lesbian and gay and other non-traditional couples, or trios, or whatever, what is available for one New Zealander must be available for another. If the Government wants to stay in the marriage game, then it should make its version of marriage available to everyone – straight, gay, lesbian, transgender, two or three or more, whatever. That’s only fair.

I broadly agree with Deborah that the state should merely register relationships, and it should be up to individual couples if they wish to have that relationship called a marriage by the particular religion they follow.

AP reports:

Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s dictator for 42 years until he was ousted in an uprising-turned-civil war, was killed Thursday (overnight NZ time) as revolutionary fighters overwhelmed his hometown of Sirte and captured the last major bastion of resistance two months after his regime fell.

Interim government officials said one of Gaddafi’s sons, his former national security adviser Muatassim, was also killed in Sirte and another, one-time heir apparent Seif al-Islam, was wounded and captured.

His death was probably inevitable, once he refused to flee into exile. It seems he was captured alive, and he should have been put on trial, but there are conflicting stories of whether he died from wounds or was executed.

Gaddafi did many evil things in his life. However it did seem for a while that he had become a more benign dictator when he stopped funding terrorism. However his response to peaceful protests showed that the leopard hasn’t changed his spots.

Families of victims killed in the Libyan bombing of a PanAm jet over Scotland in 1988 said justice was served with Gaddafi’s death.

PanAm flight 103 exploded as it flew to New York from London on December 21, 1988. All 259 people aboard the aircraft were killed and 11 others on the ground in Lockerbie also died from falling wreckage.

“I hope he’s in hell with Hitler,” said Kathy Tedeschi, whose first husband, Bill Daniels, was among the people killed in the bombing. “I just can’t stop crying, I am so thrilled.”

“I am sure (Gaddafi) was the one who pushed to have this done, the bombing,” said Tedeschi, 62, whose three children were aged 10, 7 and 2 when their father was killed.

Now that the Libyan Civil War is effectively over, the question is who is next?