Kiwiblog

As widely expected, Tasmania is looking to be a hung parliament, with the Greens having the balance of power. A couple of seats are very close but at this stage it looks like Liberals and Labor gets 10 seats each and Greens five seats.

Tasmania Labor have lost four seats, three to the Libs and one to the Greens. The swing from Labor was 12.9% with Libs up 7% and Greens 6%.

In South Australia though, Labor looks like it has defied the polls predicting they would lose their majority. There were some big swings (7.7% on average to date) against them, but not evenly.

At this stage Labor look to have 25 seats, one more than what they need to have a majority. Mike Rann will be a very happy man.

Two of the six Australian states have elections on Saturday – South Australia and Tasmania.

Most pundits are calling the South Australian election too close to call, and indeed it may be a hung Parliament on the night. The latest Newspoll had the two party preferred vote at 50% each.

There are 47 seats in the House of Assembly, so you need 24 to form a Government. Labor, led by Premier Mike Rann, has 28 seats and it is quite possible they could lose five seats, which need less than a 6% swing.

However the Liberal Party has only 14 seats. IF they pick up five seats that only takes them to 19, plus one National MP is 20. You see there are four independents. So whichever party manages to win a seat off an independent, or do a deal with them may get to form the Government. If Rann loses five seats, he only needs one Independent to govern, so may hold on.

One Independent, Kris Hanna, is a former Labor and Greens member. Another is a former Mayor. A third is retiring and his seat will probably go Liberal. The fourth is a former Liberal who is now Speaker.

The South Australian Senate is less important. Some may be amused that a No Pokies political party actually has a state senator!

The new Opposition Leader, Isobel Redmond is generally regarded as having run a good campaign, despite being the 4th leader in four years. Mike Rann has been state Labor leader for 16 years and Premier since 2002. He is a former Kiwi, and mate of Phil Goff’s.

Tasmania uses STV for their House of Assembly, and have five electorates with five MPs each in them. So 13 out of 25 seats needed to govern. The latest Newspoll has Libs 37%, Green 26% and Labor behind the Libs, suggesting Labor and Liberals will win 10 seats each and the Greens five seats, giving them the balance of power.

Labor, which has been in power for 12 years, is not keen on this and has been running “robocalls” telling voters the Greens will legalise heroin and give violent criminals the right to vote.

What will happen in the Greens do hold the balance of power is interesting. The Labor Premier, David Bartlett, has said he will resign if the Liberals gain more seats, but both major parties have ruled out signing a formal power-sharing deal with the Greens or negotiating away significant policies. It is far from clear whom the Greens would allow to govern.

So both states may end election night without knowing who gets to form the Government. We’ll find out shortly.

The NZ Herald focuses on the departure of Vanda Vitali:

The trust board was also keen to see the museum throw off austerity and become part of an international trend typified by Te Papa. Part of this was a restructuring that left 46 personnel, many of them senior staff, without jobs.

Amid accusations that this meant core museum displays were being downgraded, the board backed Dr Vitali to the hilt for most of her tenure. Its support began to waver late last year, however, after a series of public relations disasters.

It is questionable who should bear the responsibility for these. Did the board, having appointed Dr Vitali and provided a mandate, fail to give sufficient direction and guidance?

Did it not recognise sufficiently that, as a Canadian, she was operating in an unfamiliar cultural context? Or did the director, like many set on instituting change, not see finesse and heedfulness as part of her job description? …

It must not become fusty and tradition-bound. Dr Vitali’s achievement can be measured by comments lamenting her resignation.

One of the more notable came from Naida Glavish, of the Ngati Whatua Runanga, who said she had brought the museum “back to life”. An initial reservation about Dr Vitali was her sensitivity to the Maori and Pacific exhibitions.

Museums are always seeking a balance. In Auckland’s case, that involves using flair and imagination to attract local people, while also catering for overseas tourists’ major interest, the Polynesian treasures.

Dr Vitali wrought major change in a short time. With a little finesse, the correct balance can be struck.

Is Te Papa still looking for a CEO?

The Dominion Post is unhappy with Israel:

The timing of Israel’s announcement of a new 1600-house Jewish development in East Jerusalem was the equivalent of a one-fingered salute to the United States and to the peace process.

It demonstrates a contempt for the Obama Administration so withering that it diminishes the American ability to broker any deal. The administration had last year demanded a freeze on Jewish settlements, but eventually got only a partial, temporary halt – except in Jerusalem.

Why should the Palestinians pay any heed to what Washington wants, when the Israelis clearly don’t? It will also raise questions even among those sympathetic to Israel whether its current leadership has any intention of reaching a negotiated settlement.

I am a friend and supporter of Israel, but on this issue I agree they are wrong. They really should stop building new settlements. It makes the job of achieving a peace agreement a lot lot harder, for little gain.

The Press focuses on bad driving:

It is the common complaint of many New Zealand motorists. Truck drivers hog the road and, being oblivious to other road users, are responsible for accidents and near misses, both in urban areas and on the open road.

Those who subscribe to this jaundiced view should be taking a hard look at the video footage on The Press’s website. This footage, which was taken from cameras mounted in Canterbury Waste Services (CWS) trucks and which has created great public interest, has graphic images of other road users behaving recklessly and illegally.

It includes video images of one car overtaking a truck and forcing oncoming traffic to take evasive action. Other footage shows motorists not stopping at red lights or compulsory stop signs, failing to adhere to the give-way rule at other intersections, adopting some appalling driving techniques at roundabouts, and skidding due to a failure to drive to the conditions.

Luckily Wellington drivers are better than that

The ODT looks at child abuse in the Catholic Church:

It is hard to believe the senior ranks of the Roman Catholic Church, increasingly under siege in Fortress Vatican, have any real appreciation of the extent of the calamity facing them.

For if they did, surely they, and Pope Benedict XVI, would be cutting a radically different course from that now being offered to a confused, disappointed and sometimes angry congregation.

Prominent among the strategies it has adopted in the face of what is beginning to seem like a perfect storm of recent revelations – of sexual abuse cases and “cover-ups” in Brazil, the United States, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Germany and, periodically, in this country and Australia – has been the time-honoured tactic of attacking the messenger. …

It just reminds me of the South Park episode where a priest calls on the gathered Cardinals to stop priests having sex with little boys, and the response back is that as they can’t have sex with women, if they stop having sex with little boys, then they’ll get to have no sex at all!

Abstinence is not natural in my opinion!

The Herald reports:

As New Zealand anti-whaling activist Peter Bethune sat confined in Japanese custody yesterday his eldest daughter turned 15, unsure of when she will next see her father.

How is this a story? It is not as if the Japanese Government sent a squad of ninjas to kidnap Bethune from his family home.

Bethune trespassed on board a Japanese ship, knowing he was breaking the law in doing so. He has in fact been looked after well on the ship, fed and given a room. And when back in Japan, he is of course facing charges for his trespass.

The sole reason he is not at home for his daughter’s birthday is because he chose not to be there – he chose to board the Japanese ship.

Danielle’s mother, Sharyn, was showing “remarkable resilience” through the tough time, which had been a struggle for the family emotionally and financially, he said. The pair have another daughter Alycia, who is 13.

It is a shame Bethune has abandoned his family. But that was his choice. Bethune wanted to be arrested, and wants to have a trial in Japan.

Personally if I was the Japanese Government I’d avoid a trial and just kick him out. But have no doubt that is the last thing Bethune wants – to be home with his family. He wants a high profile trial.

The Herald reports:

The Daily Mail reports:

Two government advertisements which use nursery rhymes to warn of the dangers of climate change have been banned for exaggerating the threat.

Commissioned by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, the adverts are based on children’s poems Jack and Jill and Rub-A-Dub-Dub and assert that climate change will cause flooding and drought.

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) ruled the adverts – which attracted 939 complaints – made exaggerated claims which went beyond mainstream scientific consensus.

The proponents of man-made global warming are basically their own worst enemies. If they didn’t feel the need to over-state the position and scare-monger, then there wouldn’t be such a backlash against them.

The news that the UK Government’s own advertisements were so unbalanced, as to be banned, will just drive thousands more people towards the view that it is all a crock of shit – even if it is not.

The Herald reports:

Abbott has come up with a plan to tax big business – those earning more than A$5 million ($6.25 million) a year – to pay for a surprisingly generous compulsory leave scheme.

Under his proposal primary carers would be paid at their full rate of take-home pay up to a maximum income of A$150,000 a year ($187.5 million) for 26 weeks. Abbott estimates the scheme will cost about A$2.7 billion a year.

A rather desperate election bribe. First of all, taxing large businesses to pay for the entire costs is blatantly unfair. If it is deemed desirable to have paid maternity leave, then it should be funded by all taxpayers.

Secondly it is massive welfare for the rich. If you were on $40,000 you will get $20,000 maternity leave. If you were on $150,000 you will get $75,000.

Rudd’s scheme, due to be launched next January, pales by comparison. This scheme will pay the minimum wage of about A$544 a week to the primary carer for a maximum 18 weeks’ leave after the birth of a child.

It will cost an estimated A$260 million a year, paid out of consolidated revenue.

Rudd’s scheme seems far more sensible to me.

Not a good sign for Australia, if both parties are getting into a bidding war of spending money they don’t have.

Claire Browning at Pundit pulls no punches:

Shame on Labour spokesperson Chris Carter and partisan blog The Standard for using anti-whaling diplomacy for short-term political gain

Never has the right-wing sobriquet “The Stranded” seemed more appropriate.

I am truly loathe to diss a friendly fellow blog, and I apologise for it already. But they asked for it. It stems from this hysterical politicisation of New Zealand’s IWC negotiating stance, here and here, by The Standard blogger Eddie, which even one of their own readers characterised as “partisan hackery”. “I’m not sure what I think of this [wrote Neil] but using it as an excuse for more partisan hackery is tedious”. That didn’t stop Labour spokesperson Chris Carter wading in:

And then:

Even more offensive than Eddie’s posts was colleague Marty G’s comments, excoriating anyone who might disagree on the comments thread, evidently mistaking ad hominem for wit: “I don’t give a crap about Palmer … have you suffered a head injury? … follow the link in the post, genius” … and so on.

Claire concludes:

Using dead whales as pawns in a political game is no less sickening than their original butchery. Carter says the Labour Party stands for their conservation. What I take from the past two day’s performance is that it stands for ill advised unnuanced politicking, over substantive hard policy choices.

John Armstrong also looks at the diplomatic proposal:

Has New Zealand sold out to Japan by backing a compromise proposal before the International Whaling Commission which would reopen the door to commercial slaughter of whales, albeit in limited numbers?

The answer is an emphatic “no”. If John Key and his Foreign Minister, Murray McCully, should plead guilty to any charge, it is to one of being realistic.

The one-dimensional “you are either with us or against us” nature of the debate between the pro- and anti-whaling brigades leaves little room for the subtlety and nuance of diplomacy which – despite the hairy chest-beating of Australia’s Rudd Government – is the only viable means of reducing the ever-increasing number of whales being harpooned in the southern oceans.

Even the merest hint of concession to the Japanese had the Government this week labelled as “pro-whaling” by Labour. That is absurd. It is equally absurd to paint the Government’s caution compared with Australia’s bellicosity as evidence National does not give a toss about the environment.

Were that true then Sir Geoffrey Palmer – someone with a passion for preserving the environment and the expertise in international law to make it happen in this case – would by now have presumably resigned as New Zealand’s Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission.

And what has happened under the present stand off:

The status quo on whaling is no longer tenable. Japan’s ships continue to steam through the huge loophole which permits whales to be killed for “scientific” purposes. The number of whales slaughtered each year for science has risen steadily from 300 in 1990 to an expected 3000 this year.

Australia’s threat to take Japan to the International Court of Justice might make people feel a lot better about those figures. It will not save one whale. It could in fact endanger many more.

It would be years before the court made a judgment. If Australia were to lose its case on the legality of whaling, it could be open slather on the species.

The only thing Australia is likely to achieve is wrecking any consensus on the plan to allow commercial whaling for a 10-year period, but with big cuts in the numbers killed each year,

This plan would buy time for the commission while restoring some control over the numbers killed – something it is powerless to do with regard to scientific whaling . …

With an election later this year, narrowing opinion polls plus a manifesto commitment to go to the international court, Kevin Rudd is having severe problems with digestion. His tough talk should be seen for what it really is – utter expedience, making New Zealand’s stance look principled in comparison.

d

Just sent out the monthly newsletter summarising the public polls in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the US and the UK. The summary:

February saw four political polls – a Roy Morgan poll, a TVNZ poll, a TV3 poll and a NZ Herald poll.

The average of the public polls has National 22% ahead of Labour and able to govern alone. The gap in January was also 22%.

Australia sees Labor’s federal lead decline to 13% with Roy Morgan and 4% with Newspoll. In the states Labor leads in South Australia and the Greens look likely to hold the balance of power in Tasmania.

In the United States Barack Obama has a net positive rating of 3%, the same as January and in the generic congressional poll, the Republicans are tied with the Democrats.

In the UK, the polls have continued to improve for Labour and the average has the Conservatives only 5% ahead, which is projected to give Labour more seats than the Conservatives.

In Canada the Conservatives are only 2% ahead of the Liberals, a big drop from a 9% lead in December.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail and you can subscribe to it here.

I saw this article in the Telegraph:

All of the 26 Swiss cantons on Sunday voted against the proposal by animal rights activists to extend nationwide a system already in place in Zurich.

Overall, just 29.5 per cent of voters were in favour. In seven cantons the “No” vote was more than 80 per cent. …

If citizens had voted for the initiative, each canton would have appointed a lawyer to act on behalf of animals at taxpayers’ expense.

The canton of Zurich has had its own animal lawyer since 1992. Antoine Goetschel’s clients include dogs, cats, guinea pigs, farm animals and, recently, a large pike.

“It took 10 minutes of struggle to reel the pike in before killing it. I regard that as cruelty. If someone had done that to a puppy, there would have been outrage,” he said.

“People accused of animal cruelty very often hire lawyers to defend themselves. Why shouldn’t someone speak for the animal as well? It’s about fairness and defending a minority.”

I await the Green Party proposal here. It turns out Switzerland has extremely detailed laws on animals:

Under a new Swiss law enshrining rights for animals, dog owners will require a qualification, anglers will take lessons in compassion and horses will go only in twos.

From guinea-pigs to budgerigars, any animal classified as a “social species” will be a victim of abuse if it does not cohabit, or at least have contact, with others of its own kind.

The new regulation stipulates that aquariums for pet fish should not be transparent on all sides and that owners must make sure that the natural cycle of day and night is maintained in terms of light. Goldfish are considered social animals, or Gruppentiere in German.

So if you don’t turn out the lights at night for your goldfish, you might be in court!

Anglers will also be required to complete a course on catching fish humanely, with the Government citing studies indicating that fish can suffer too.

The regulations will affect farmers, who will no longer be allowed to tether horses, sheep and goats, nor keep pigs and cows in areas with hard floors.

The legislation even mentions the appropriate keeping of rhinoceroses, although it was not clear immediately how many, if any, were being kept as pets in Switzerland.

If you have a rhinoceros, I suspect you go to some lengths to keep it happy!

It gets even better. Switzerland even has a law to protect the dignity of plants:

Over a decade ago, an amendment was added to the Swiss constitution in order to defend the dignity of all creatures — including vegetation — against unwanted repercussions of genetic engineering. The amendment was turned into law and is known as the Gene Technology Act. However the law itself didn’t say anything specific about plants, until recently, when the law was amended to include them. …

Recently, the Swiss Parliament asked a panel of philosophers, lawyers, geneticists and theologians to determine the meaning of dignity when it pertains to plants.

Lo and Behold, the team published a treatise on “the moral consideration of plants for their own sake.” The treatise established that vegetation has innate value and that it is morally wrong to partake in activities such as the “decapitation of wildflowers at the roadside without rational reason.”

Okay everyone you have been warned. Any more decapitation of flowers, and you’ll be prosecuted.

The latest Blunt.

A refrain we often hear is that we should listen to the scientists, when it comes to issues like climate change. And I agree.

Now the Climategate e-mails have been debated at some length. Poneke did an extensive blog post where he advocated that there was real cause for concern about what they unveiled. Some attacked him for this and said it was no big thing.

The UK Parliament is holding hearings on the e-mails, and one notable submission is from the Institute of Physics, representing 36,000 scientists.

Some quotes from their submission:

The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.

That was the opening, and then:

There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ’self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

The whole peer review process for climate science needs reviewing they say.

Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

The law sets out the minimum necessary disclosure, but ethical scientists should be disclosing far more than the minimum.

Now the practises disclosed by Climategate do not mean that there is not a link between greenhouse gas emissions and increasing temperatures. Few people argue that.

But what it does mean is that you can’t expect the nations of the world to commit hundreds of billions of dollars on mitigation efforts, when the key scientists involved in climate research have failed to follow good scientific practice with their data, and make it open.

The climate science “industry” needs to not ignore Climategate but adopt a universal policy of full and open access to all data, and to not treat those with different scientific theories as enemies.

The NZ Herald editorial does not appear to be online.

The Press looks at the furore over the forged passports by Mossad:

British police officers have arrived in Israel in an attempt to find out who or what stole the identities of six British-Israeli nationals and used them in the assassination in Dubai last month of a leader of the Palestinian Hamas organisation. The chances that the police will find anything worthwhile is exceedingly remote. If the murder was carried out by the Israeli foreign intelligence agency Mossad, as Dubai alleges and many others suspect, the Israeli Government will see to it that the truth never emerges. If it was perpetrated by some other actor – and the possibility that the killing was carried out by Arab agents from Hamas or elsewhere as part of some internecine feud has not been entirely ruled out – there is no chance that any plodding Western investigation is going to get to the bottom of it.

Maybe iPredict should do a market on who was it. My money will be on Mossad!

The victim was Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, co-founder of the military wing of Hamas, the radical Islamic organisation that controls the Gaza Strip. What Mabhouh was doing in Dubai without security protection is not known. As someone well aware that he was a target for assassination from a variety of quarters, Mabhouh seldom ventured far from Damascus where he was heavily protected. It appears likely he was involved in arranging a further illicit shipment of weapons from Iran for Hamas’s continuing attacks on Israel and for some reason felt secure travelling without guards. If this is the case, it is likely that Israeli intelligence seized the chance to carry out a strike that had probably been planned for some time.

Hamas is at war with Israel. Their policy is to destroy Israel. It is hard to argue that the co-founder of the military wing is not a legitimate military target.

The Dom Post welcomes a review of employment law:

Four years ago, a Tauranga company concerned about the theft of company property installed motion-sensitive cameras on its premises.

The cameras filmed a worker placing a cardboard box containing cakes of soap under a bench. Another worker, who subsequently admitted stealing company property, was filmed taking a box from under the bench and putting it in his car. The company believed it was a clear case of theft. It asked the worker who had placed the box under the bench to explain his actions. He refused. The company sacked him.

End of story? No. The worker took his case to the Employment Relations Authority. The authority found in favour of the employer. The worker appealed to the Employment Court. It took a different view.

It found the worker had been unjustifiably dismissed because his employer had not followed proper procedures. It had given him only selected portions of the surveillance tape, it had not put in writing the misdeeds of which he was accused, and it had wrongly concluded that the worker’s representative was stalling when he put off meetings because of other commitments. The company was ordered to pay the employee $12,000 for lost wages and $7000 for distress.

A good example of the case for change.

The ODT looks at home insulation:

Large-scale taxpayer subsiding of home insulation would seem an unlikely policy for a right-of-centre political party.

But that is what pragmatic National did and, by and large, Prime Minister John Key and his colleagues will be pleased with the outcome.

As are the Greens!

The Herald reports:

The Herald reports:

The Vatican’s top bioethics official yesterday dismissed calls for his resignation following an uproar over his defence of doctors who aborted the twin fetuses of a 9-year-old child who was raped by her stepfather.

Monsignor Renato Fisichella said he refused to respond to five members of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life who questioned his suitability to lead the institution.

Fisichella wrote an article in the Vatican’s newspaper in March last year saying the Brazilian doctors didn’t deserve excommunication as mandated by church law because they were saving the girl’s life.

A common sense and humane view from the Archbishop.

This article in the National Times by a former departmental speech writer for the Rudd Government is a must read. Some extracts:

Around the same time a section meeting was called. Our boss arrived late, but in the best of moods. ”We’re under budget!” she announced proudly. The old-timers let out whoops of joy.

”What’s going on?” I asked someone quietly.

”We’re under budget,” they replied with a rare smile.

”Oh, so that’s good? You’ve saved money?”

”No, no,” her smile turned to ash as she gave me that pitying look I usually received when I asked a question. ”It means training.”

Our section was under-budget by hundreds of thousands of dollars, necessitating we blow all the unspent money before the end of the financial year. Unfortunately, ”training” did not mean I would finally get some training. ”Training” consisted of hastily booked, dubiously relevant conferences and courses, most of which were conveniently located a long way from Canberra.

Despite my short length of service, I was included in the spending free-for-all. I later found myself in a plush Sydney harbourside hotel with hundreds of dollars in unnecessary travel allowance – everything, including meals, flights and accommodation, was covered by the department. I was attending a conference on Web 2.0, a topic I was mildly interested in but which had nothing to do with my duties.

The rest of the office also enjoyed jetting around the country. Four staff members managed to book into the same four-day public relations event and, reportedly, a great time was had by all.

Unless one things NZ is magically immune from this, I wonder how much training happens here.

We were not the only ones wasting money. Associated with our section were those boffins who create public health campaigns, the ones that appear on television with increasing regularity: nights out turning into nightmares, measure your fat stomach, wash your hands – that kind of thing.

I was surprised to discover the minds behind these campaigns were not health professionals. They had backgrounds and degrees in marketing, communications and advertising, not medicine. Under their watch, the government became the No.1 spender on free-to-air television.

As was the case here with the last Government.

None of these events prepared me for what happened next. After remaining silent on the issue for many months, the Prime Minister suddenly took an interest in the nation’s health. I found out when a grim-faced boss herded us all together. ”The PM is going to make a health announcement and you have to organise it,” we were told.

”When’s it happening?”

”Monday.” (It was Friday afternoon.)

”When did we first learn about it?”

”Now.”

Rudd is infamous for dreaming up ideas and demanding they be implemented within days.

Young suits from the Prime Minister’s office stalked the wings of the announcement, roaring loudly into mobile phones. Their counterparts from the Health Minister’s office hovered in the background, looking miserable.

The Prime Minister’s office staff feared nobody and respected them less. The only time they shut up was when the Prime Minister himself was speaking. Any other speaker, including Roxon and the commission’s spokeswoman, could go to hell. One grabbed my pen from my hand and stormed off with it. I later asked for it back and was laughed at.

My colleagues were always fearful of the Minister’s office, but for the first time I was witnessing the force that terrified the MO staff themselves. Orders came down that all our ministers were to clear their calendars for the next six months – they were to become as visible to the media as possible. They were going on a consultation tour of the country.

Initially, there was little rhyme, reason or co-ordination to the process. A website was thrown up that looked ghastly when it first went live, so ghastly that the Prime Minister refused to promote it as had been planned. A team was banged together to run the site and to put up lots of pretty pictures of the government in consultation mode. The gossip was the Prime Minister’s attention had been caught by the Web 2.0 phenomenon, as had many Western leaders in the wake of Obama’s presidential campaign, and YourHealth.gov.au would be the first to jump on the bandwagon.

A Minister hears of something new and demands it be done – damn the cost.

Along with the tidal wave of events we suddenly had to organise, I was given a new duty: ensuring photographers were always present to capture our ministers nodding gravely as they consulted. There was no limit to the cost. Fortunate photographers around the country suddenly found themselves hired, whatever quote they supplied.

My last days at the department were a cavalcade of new staff, swept up from wherever they could be found amid the chaos generated by the YourHealth steam train. The entire project was developed backwards, necessitating constant adjustments. Money was thrown at local production companies to create sincere-looking website testimonials. Staff were ordered to use the site and vote on the polls to generate hits. I wandered through the disorganisation in a permanent state of bewilderment.

I can almost guarantee this is not the rare exception, but  quite frequent occurrence. It’s like when the PM suddenly decides a sound bite of carbon neutral sounds good, and they generate a workstream around it.

After four months, I walked away and did not bother telling anyone why.

I care about health dollars, although not enough to initially refuse that crazy job. Thanks to an ongoing medical condition, I’ve had need of the health system on occasion. My immediate family contains two doctors and three nurses. I’m anecdotally familiar with the state of our public hospitals and mental health system.

A few months before the department hired me, I spent eight agonising hours in emergency waiting for treatment for a chronic case of food poisoning. I was eventually diagnosed, pumped full of morphine, rehydrated intravenously and strapped to a bed in the emergency ward to recover overnight.

The next time I spend eight hours waiting in emergency, I will be thinking of unused speeches, cancelled events and weeks of wasted organisation and research. I will be thinking of expensive television advertising campaigns and T-shirts and golf balls with little slogans. I will be thinking of websites and a consultation process driven by photography. I will be thinking of ”training”.

Or we can believe the PSA and Labour that there is no savings to be made in Government.

While Kiwiblog is primarily for my views, I have from time to time run guest posts from people with a different point of view.

My good mate Mike Moore (no not the famous one) is mates with Bryan Law, and asked me if I would consider allowing a couple of guest posts from Bryan while he is over here for the Waihopia trial in early March.

My stance to the protesters was rather unsympathetic, but I am a big believer of freedom of speech, and am happy to have Bryan put a different point of view.

The trial of the ANZAC Ploughshares – 3 Catholic Worker “activists” who deflated a Kevlar dome at the Waihopai intelligence base in April 2008 – is due to commence in the Wellington District Court on Monday 8 March.  The trio, Fr Peter Murnane, Sam Land and Adrian Leason are charged with wilful damage to the value of $880,000.  http://www.cairnspeacebypeace.org/?p=32

A broader collection of peaceniks and greens are supporting the three during their trial, and some will use the occasion to promote fairly extreme views around how to end war and develop democracy.  A look at their program http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/pltrial.pdf reveals that Murray Horton (anti-bases campaign), Moana Cole (Ploughshares), Keith Locke (Greens MP) and Bryan Law (Christians Against ALL Terrorism, Australia) will speak about the issues at a public meeting on Wednesday 10 March, at St John’s Church Hall.

Bryan Law is completely unknown here, but enjoys a certain notoriety in Australia. In recent years he’s stood trial with others for breaking into the Pine Gap intelligence base in central Australia, trespassing into the Shoalwater Bay military training area in central Queensland, and swimming out in front of US warships in his home town of Cairns.  Bryan is particularly proud of the Christian activists’ efforts at Shoalwater bay, where he claims the live-firing component of Exercise Talisman Sabre had to be stopped because of the trespass actions.  He claims this article explains pretty clearly the tactics and methods that allow ordinary citizens to intervene into and stop war.  http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/story/2009/07/01/notorious-protester-hits-shoalwater/

As I said, Bryan’s been in contact with KiwiBlog, courtesy of my old colleague in crime, Mike Moore from CairnsBlog.  He says that KiwiBlog looks “pretty cool”, but a lot of the commenters appear to him as hostile and uninformed.  He says that:

“If these people had any idea about the traditions and actions of the Catholic Workers, they’d understand just how close to the original Boston Tea Party, the American revolution, and the ANZAC spirit these ploughshares activists stand.  I hope the present Tea Party hopefuls in the US and elsewhere get serious about a resurgence of democracy.  The world sure could use it”.

I predict we will have some lively debates between Bryan, and others. As always, passionate exchange of views is fine, but deeply personal abuse will get sanctions.

The Dom Post reports:

Twenty-five years after New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy was debated at the prestigious Oxford Union, our prostitution laws are taking centre stage.

The Prostitutes Collective national co-ordinator, Catherine Healy, will enter the debating chamber in England next week, to argue that prostitution should be legalised.

Squaring off against her will be a top British policeman and a conservative American lobby group.

Incidentally, prostitution was legal in New Zealand before the Prostitution Law Reform Act was passed a few years ago. It was solicitation, not prostitution, that was illegal.

Prostitution is fully legal in only around two dozen countries – Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey, Lebanon, much of South America, and the eastern states of Australia.

The BBC has a Q&A with Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

I found it very interesting, and recommend people read it. He is very upfront on what do know, and do not know, and what periods of warming have and have not been significant, such as:

As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

and

B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

So from 1995 to 2009, there has been warming, but not at a level to be deemed significant, and likewise from 2002 to 2009 there has been cooling but not at a level to be deemed significant.

What this signifies to me is that the data over the next five years or so will be very important – it may either push the post 1995 era into significant warming, or the post 2002 era into significant cooling. The chances of post 2002 era being a statistically significant cooling are less, as it is a shorter period.

The Herald reports:

Kevin Rudd would like to see the drinking age in Australia raised from 18 to 21 years.

The Prime Minister said he would prefer an increase, given a recent series of tragic accidents involving P-plate drivers.

Since the start of the year 12 teenagers have been killed in cars driven by P-plate drivers in New South Wales and Victoria.

In one crash that killed five teenagers in Melbourne the 19-year-old driver had a blood alcohol level almost four times the legal limit.

I love the logic here. Because some young Australians break the very serious laws about drink driving, Kevin Rudd thinks the solution is to lower the drinking age, as if that would make a difference.

The sort of people who drive pissed, are not going to change their behaviour because it is technically illegal to purchase the alcohol, as well as drive after drinking it. It won’t affect the problem drink drivers, but will criminalise a million or so young Australians.

Fascinating history in the NZ Herald of how Canada chose its flag:

One day historian George Stanley was walking with John Matheson, a Liberal MP on the committee, when he looked up and saw the Royal Military College flag and its vertical panels of red-white-red, with the college crest of a fist in the middle.

“There, John, is your flag,” he said.

Mr Matheson recalls the moment: “I remarked that Canadians would not accept a mailed fist symbol. He said, ‘No, I mean with a red maple leaf in the place of the college crest’.”

Mr Matheson was immediately taken with it, but had to sneak it into the committee room to add it to the wall alongside the other proposals.

The committee firstly rejected the red ensign 10 votes to four.

They then had to vote on Pearson’s Pennant, the red maple leaf ensign and the Union Jack or fleur-de-lis. When the latter was voted out, it was clear that the new flag would not have a Union Jack.

The Conservatives assumed the Liberals would vote for the Prime Minister’s design, and they wanted the vote to be as inconclusive as possible, so they voted for the red maple leaf ensign which, to their horror, was the unanimous choice.

The quirks of history.

No surprise there has been another collision as the stated aim of the Sea Shepherd Society is to sink the opposition. I am amazed that the media breathlessly report on each clash with doubt over who is responsible.

Wikipedia states on Paul Watson:

As of 2009, Paul Watson has said that the organization has sunk ten whaling ships while also destroying millions of dollars worth of equipment.

Their aim is to destroy and sink whaling ships. So who do you think causes the crashes.

Of course every time there is a crash, the Sea Shepherd people claim they were not at fault. Anotehr quote from Wikipedia may help the media:

Watson’s public relations savvy is shown in an episode of Whale Wars when he creates an international media “storm” after two crewmembers are detained on a Japanese whaling vessel.^[18] In his book, Earthforce!, Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently.^[9] He also states that the “truth is irrelevant” due the nature of mass media.[19

So Watson has written a book telling his followers to lie to the media in a confident way, and the media still fall for it and report the claims without scepticism.

Populus polled the UK on climate change in early November 2009, before Climategate, and again in early February 2010.

The findings, and the changes from November to February are:

• 75% (-8%) agree global warming is happening
• 34% (-16%) of that 75% agree it is an established scientific fact that climate change is largely man-made
• 50% (+11%) say man-made global warming is a widespread theory but has not been conclusively proved
• 14% (+5%) say man-made climate change is environmentalist propaganda with little or no evidence

Now to look at these numbers as shares of the total population, they are:

1. 25% (+8%) say there is no global warming
2. 11% (+4%) say there is global warming but it is natural
3. 38% (+6%) say there is global warming but it has not been conclusively proven it is man-made, however that is the widespread theory
4. 26% (-16%) say that there is global warming and it is an established scientific fact it is largely man-made

So this shows the magnitude of the changes. Those who say it is a fact we have man-made global warming has dropped from 42% to 26%. That is a relative decline of almost 40%, so one in three people who believed global warming is definitely man-made have changed their minds.

UPDATE: This Blunt cartoon seems topical

The Daily Beast interviews Nigerian Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka.

What did the 76-year-old Mr. Soyinka—who divides his time between the U.S. and Nigeria—make of his country’s placement on a watch-list of states deemed to be incubators of Islamist terrorism? “That was an irrational, knee-jerk reaction by the Americans. The man did not get radicalized in Nigeria. It happened in England, where he went to university.

As did the 7/7 bombers.

“England is a cesspit. England is the breeding ground of fundamentalist Muslims. Its social logic is to allow all religions to preach openly. But this is illogic, because none of the other religions preach apocalyptic violence.

And remember this is a Nigerian, who has opposed apartheid in South Africa and the military rulers of his homeland.

Our conversation turned to Nigeria, where ferocious killings had just occurred in the central city of Jos, with Muslims slaughtering Christians, and vice-versa. Mr. Soyinka, here, began to brood: “A virus has attacked the world of sense and sensibility, and it has spread to Nigeria, where it has taken on a sanguinary dimension. Roaming hordes of killers are entering homes and dragging out people of other faiths and hacking them to death. In my youth, you heard, side-by-side, the church bells ringing and the beautiful, sonorous call to prayer of the muezzin. But now, it’s a disease. One doesn’t really know how to handle it.”

In other words, it was not always that way.

The day before, in his lecture on The Road, Mr. Soyinka earned a burst of applause with his own, ingenious solution: “I think this is where our rocket engineers and astronauts can come to our rescue. We should assemble all those who are pure and cannot abide other faiths, put them all in rockets, and fire them into space.” In our own conversation, he offered—almost apologetically—a more prosaic solution: “Education. And rigorous punishment for those who feel, not ‘I’m right, you’re wrong,’ but ‘I’m right, you’re dead.’”

I think such sentiments will get a lot of virtual applause also.

In Mr. Soyinka’s view, the origins of the current phase of the world’s religious strife—including all of the bloodshed in Nigeria—lie with Ayatollah Khomeini and his fatwa against Salman Rushdie, in 1989. “It all began when he assumed the power of life and death over the life of a writer. This was a watershed between doctrinaire aggression and physical aggression. There was an escalation. The assumption of power over life and death then passed to every single inconsequential Muslim in the world—as if someone had given them a new stature.

“Al Qaeda is the descendent of this phenomenon.

While it is not quite as simple as this, I think he is close to the mark. The world should have reacted to the fatwa against Rushdie with strength – sanctions if necessary. The EU should have said it is unacceptable for a Government to declare a death sentence over a non citizen due to a book they wrote, and that until it is rescinded, there will be no trade with Iran because you do not trade with barbarians.

More recently the world missed another opportunity with the Danish cartoons. The correct response to the death threats should have been not appeasement, but every newspaper in the western world publishing the cartoons.

The Press editorial:

For those concerned about climate change and trying to persuade politicians and populations that something must be done about it, these are not good times.

First, there was the hacking of emails from one of the world centres for climate research, at the University of East Anglia, some of which show scientists behaving in ways that fall far short of the candour and integrity expected of top researchers.

Then there was the disappointment of Copenhagen, where an attempt to agree on a legally binding accord that would give the world something to succeed the Kyoto Protocol was sunk, primarily by the machinations of China and India.

And since then it has emerged that two rather startling predictions of climate-change disaster turn out to rest on nothing more substantial than a magazine interview and an article by non-scientific members of a pressure group.

And the combination of these events means that there will be no reductions in emissions in the foreseeable future. As I calculated a few weeks ago, China’s growth in emissions alone massively out-strips any reductions the rest of the world might make.

For all their headline-grabbing appeal, the glacier and the Amazonian rainforest stories are, so far as the science is concerned, insignificant. Far graver, from this point of view, are the underhand practices of particular climate researchers revealed in the leaked emails. Both stories do, however, severely damage public trust that the IPCC operates according to the most rigorous standards.

There is a mass of evidence that suggests that man-made climate change is a problem and that political action will need to be taken to avert severe consequences for the globe. But that evidence, like all scientific evidence, must be properly weighed and must be subject to challenge. That is necessary not only to get good science but also to get the public consensus required for any action that may need to be taken.

What is interesting is that no one in the IPCC seems to have realised the damage done by the e-mails and the false claims. They keep repeating the mantra that it doesn’t undermine the basic linkage – and while they may be right scientifically, they are wrong politically.

These articles about the failings of the IPCC are not on obscure blogs or Page 23 of newspapers. They are appearing almost daily on front pages around the world. Even liberal newspapers such as the Guardian have devoted considerable space to the problems in the IPCC reports.

Business as normal will not work for the IPCC. Too much damage has occurred. There needs to be some resignations and some sort of announcement of additional fact checking if they want their next report to have influence.