Archive for the ‘NZ Politics’ Category

The latest nonsense claim from Peters

August 29th, 2014 at 8:10 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Justice Minister Judith Collins has said NZ First leader Winston Peters was wrong when he said one of her people approached him about negotiations after the election if she was National leader.

This evening Peters told TV3 he had “backdoor approaches myself from the Collins’ camp… If you can’t talk to [National leader] John Key after the election, can you talk to her?”

Peters believed the move was an attempt to undermine the prime minister which Collins was likely to be aware of.

“I didn’t think the bag man was coming without her consent,” Peters said.

Collins had previously said she was not responsible for what others did, but came out more strongly this evening.

“Winston Peters is wrong. I have never approached him nor have I asked anyone else to approach him,” she said in a statement.

This is a silly almost made up story. Not made up that someone may have had a conversation with Peters, but made up that it was an approach on behalf of Collins.

I’m 95% certain I know who Peters is referring to. He is not an MP. He is not an official of the National Party. And he is not close to Judith Collins. In fact I don’t think he has had a conversation with her in almost three years!!! I’ve had more conversations with Winston Peters in the last two years than this person has had with Judith Collins, so does that mean if I say something, it can be seen as being on behalf of Winston Peters?

This is just Peters trying to get himself publicity.

Tags: ,

Debate polls

August 29th, 2014 at 8:05 am by David Farrar

Rachel Cunliffe blogs at Stats Chat on how meaningless opt in polls are. Three different opt in polls or surveys had Key ahead by 22%, Cunliffe ahead by 1% and Cunliffe ahead by 27%. They are NOT scientific.

I was on a plane so did not see the debate, but consensus seems to be David Cunliffe did well, apart from interjecting a bit too much. That is as I predicted.

Tags: ,

More media on Labour’s shambolic housing policy launch

August 29th, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Patrick Gower at 3 News reports:

What is wrong with David Cunliffe and the Labour Party?

Labour is going backwards when it should be going forward. That means something is seriously wrong with its campaign. …

And here’s one of the reasons why – Labour’s campaign is listless, meandering and shambolic.

The media with him say it’s a bit of a shamble and have been reporting on it. …

I took a look at Cunliffe’s campaign myself in Hobsonville yesterday.

Hobsonville quickly turned into campaign trail bizarro-world.

Cunliffe was out there to counter-attack on housing after Key trotted to the very same streets earlier in the week.

Cunliffe and housing spokesperson Phil Twyford re-announced the party’s Kiwbuild policy, saying Labour could build a $485,000 two-bedroom terraced house for $360,000 because of economies of scale.

But they didn’t have a house as an example, they were just standing on the street.

Twyford was saying there were heaps of examples of the $485,000 homes in Hobsonsville, but he didn’t know where they were and never got back to me with an address.

I can tell Twyford where one is – it’s just around the corner, a $450,000 two bedroom – I know because Key took us there on Monday.

Then they rolled out two first home buyers, Harrison and Jordy, who bagged National’s Homestart policy.

But under questioning they weren’t first home buyers at all, they weren’t even looking.

In fact they wouldn’t even buy a house under Labour’s policy.

Then it turned out that they were members of the EPMU, and they stopped answering questions when asked if they voted in Labour’s leadership campaign last election.

And despite the policy being around since David Shearer was leader, Labour still couldn’t come up with simple lines like when the first house will be built.

Labour seem to think photo ops are all they need to do, and that the media won’t ask for details. It’s good that the media are asking for details of a policy which will see the Government borrow $3 billion a year or so. Also good that they are asking for affiliations of people trotted out by Labour.

Felix Marwick at NewstalkZB is on the same tune:

It’s fair to say Labour’s re-launch of its KiwiBuild policy in Hobsonville on Wednesday didn’t run exactly smoothly.  Labour was looking to promote a specific part of its policy; two bedroom housing it claimed could be built 120 thousand dollars cheaper than under current government programmes.  They couldn’t show us a house. Nor could they initially say exactly how many of the houses would be built under the KiwiBuild approach. Finally the tame talent, which they’d brought along as an example of who would benefit from the policy, weren’t actually looking to buy a property just at the moment and wouldn’t even be able to immediately do so under Labour’s proposed initiative.

Again this will see taxpayers being exposed to $3 billion a year of borrowing for a policy which appears to be only slightly more advanced than an idea on a napkin.


Debate thread

August 28th, 2014 at 6:30 pm by David Farrar

If you watch the debate tonight, feel free to comment below on this thread. I’ll be on a plane from Auckland to Wellington, so won’t see it live!

Tags: ,

Greens are advertising on Whale Oil!!

August 28th, 2014 at 3:52 pm by David Farrar


Stuff has this screenshot of Whale Oil, with Green Party advertising on it. That’s very very funny.

It’s very nice of the Greens to help boost the income of Whale Oil.

Tags: ,

Latest poll

August 28th, 2014 at 3:44 pm by David Farrar

Have blogged the latest NZ Herald Digipoll at Curiablog.


This is the latest time and size weighted average of the public polls.


Labour’s aspiring home owners not actually looking to buy

August 28th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

David Cunliffe is backing the party’s choice of a couple used as a case study for Labour’s housing policy, after the pair conceded they weren’t actually looking to buy.

But one of them is a member of the Labour affiliated EPMU, so they’ll do!

Mr Cunliffe introduced Jordy Leigh, 20, and Harrison Smith, 22, as “a young couple who make about $75,000 a year”.

Not bad for so young.

Ms Leigh said they were currently living with her parents and although they had “had a look at houses in the Auckland area” she conceded they weren’t actively in the market to buy.

Twyford could not point out one of the properties he was talking about, saying they were scattered through the development.

The party could also not say how many $360,000 homes would be built.

“We haven’t actively been looking for a home to buy in the near future – that’s definitely not our goal – our goal is to have a home in a few years. We’re trying to start a family.”

Stuff points out:

However, Leigh, an EPMU union member, said their first home would still be out of reach even under Labour.

National’s policy would help only with the deposit and she and Smith couldn’t meet mortgage repayments.

“So, we haven’t been looking actively for a home to buy in the near future, that’s definitely not our goal,” Leigh said.

“Our goal is to have a home in a few years … not actively looking but aspiring to have our own home. We would not be able to get one next year. Under KiwiBuild we would have to wait a few years.”

Cunliffe shrugged off the gaffes and told reporters he wasn’t worried about Labour’s campaign.

What were the gaffes?

Twyford could not point out one of the properties he was talking about, saying they were scattered through the development.

The party could also not say how many $360,000 homes would be built.

So they could not point to a single specific house and say this is what they would build for $360,000 and can not say how many they could do for that price. It’s almost a con.

Nick Smith also points out the reality of Labour claiming 10,000 houses a year:

“KiwiBuild is a joke because Labour has no idea how it would build 10,000 homes a year, cannot explain how they would pay for it and they still have not worked out who would be eligible for the homes,” Dr Smith says.

“Launching the policy in Hobsonville only served to highlight Labour’s previous failings.

“Labour in government announced a 1600-home development on this land in 2002, but by 2008 had no planning approved, no resource consents, no infrastructure built nor a single house constructed.

“If they couldn’t build 1600 houses in six years, how can they promise 10,000 a year now under KiwiBuild?

As I said previously, if they do win it will be hilarious watching the excuses.

Tags: ,

Maori Party ahead in Te Tai Hauāuru

August 28th, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

I’ve blogged at Curiablog the results of a Maori TV poll on Te Tai Hauāuru.

This is the seat held by Tariana Turia. Labour and almost all the pundits have been claiming it will be an easy win for Labour. I’ve never been so sure, as I think personal loyalty to Turia will still play a part in this election – even though she is retiring.

The poll showed the Maori Party candidate ahead by 3%. That shows it will be a close race. With a 500 person sample, it means there is an 81% chance McKenzie is actually leading.

Maori TV are polling all seven Maori seats. Lots of interest in the seats held by Flavell, Sharples (retiring) and Harawira. They may decide who gets to govern!

Tags: ,

Chief Ombudsman to review OIA compliance

August 28th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

The Chief Ombudsman will launch an investigation into the way the Official Information Act is being used after the election and will include a probe into ministerial offices as part of the inquiry. …

Chief Ombudsman Dame Beverley Wakem said issues which would be examined included government departments having to seek “sign off” from their ministers before releasing information when there was no reason to do so.

She said there was “excessive reference upwards for approval” to release information when there was no good reason for doing so. …

“I have observed unnecessary steps and referrals upwards. I have heard of at least five layers of approval before something can be released. That’s absurd.”

She said the unnecessary upwards delays included referrals to ministers for approval to release information. There were also offices which had “delayed things beyond what is reasonable” while others did “incredibly well”.

“There’s actually fundamentally nothing wrong with the Act. What is wrong is the execution.

I think this is very welcome, regardless of who is in Government. Some sensitive material will always involve informing the Minister’s office under no surprises, but there probably is too many layers and hoops to go through.

I actually support amending the OIA so all Cabinet level documents get released proactively after say six months, even if not requested.

Dame Beverley, who is president of the International Ombudsman Institute, said she had been tempted to publish a league table of best-to-worst agencies, as other bodies did abroad.

“We haven’t resorted to that in New Zealand but each day that goes by it becomes more tempting.” She said the framework of the inquiry had been completed and it would be launched in the next few months.

They should. In the absence of official stats, bloggers such as No Right Turn compile their own league tables. But would be better to have official ones.

Tags: ,

O’Sullivan on Dotcom

August 28th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

It’s ridiculous that the New Zealand political system can be gamed by an international businessman with criminal convictions who bought his way into this country via the Investor Plus scheme. That businessman subsequently avoided extradition attempts. Then bankrolled a new political party to the tune of $3 million to “take down John Key” and is now openly colluding with Julian Assange to drop a political bomb just five days out from the election.

Kim Dotcom has long been resisting US Government attempts to extradite him to the United States to face allegations of racketeering and money-laundering over the use of his former file-hosting site Megaupload.

Now Dotcom’s palled up with the redoubtable Assange, who took refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London to avoid extradition by the Swedish Government over alleged sexual offences.

Both men seem fairly unenthuiastic to actually turn up to a trial!

You can just imagine the phone calls between the pair.

“This is better than playing Call of Duty, Julian … You can take down a whole Government in this country, all you need is money and some politicians happy to go on the payroll.”

Dotcom has plenty of supporters who feel he was hard done by over the super-hyped raid on the Coatesville mansion. There are big issues still to be addressed.

But it’s notable that while he has flung more than $3 million into the Internet Party – even putting on the payroll a former Alliance Cabinet minister whose politics are vastly different from his – he won’t brook informed questions over what’s really gone on in the Coatesville sandpit when it comes to getting out his chequebook to buy political influence.

Thus he has tried to legally constrain his former bodyguard Wayne Tempero from speaking to media about the lead-up to the birth of the Internet Party.

This is remarkably thin-skinned. If Dotcom has nothing to hide, why would he be concerned about what Tempero has to say?

If he was just a businessman, it would be understandable. But we have the effective leader of a political party gagging former staff from speaking up. If you enter politics, then gagging people is a bad look.

Tags: ,

The 1st leaders debate

August 28th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

David Cunliffe is saying he is the underdog in the first leaders debate tonight. He is uncharacteristically being far too modest.

John Key is strong debater, with a strong grasp of policy and politics. But David Cunliffe is no David Shearer. He is a polished top debater.

He won prizes for debating and public speaking at secondary school. In fact his team won the NZ Schools Jaycee Cup. He carried on debating at Otago University (which has produced many NZ debaters) and has been an MP for 15 years.

Neither man is the underdog. They are both strong formidable debaters. Labour are trying to do the expectations game, where they declare a tie as a stunning victory.

I encourage people to watch the debate for themselves and form their own judgement about how the two men go. Don’t give much regard to reports of who was the favourite on say Twitter (very left leaning) or the Roy Morgan worm (mainly promoted on left sites).


A former foreigner who farms here speaks up

August 28th, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Anders Crofoot writes in the NZ Herald:

When it comes to the foreign ownership of farmland, my family has a unique perspective.

Before my wife, Emily, and I moved our family thousands of miles from upstate New York to the Wairarapa, we did research. A great deal of it. We’d narrowed our choices to English-speaking Canada, Australia and of course, New Zealand. Since moving Downunder, we’ve learned that being a “good bastard” is a compliment. Maybe Winston Churchill was right when he said “Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language”.

While Emily was the farmer, I was an investment analyst. Together, we learned about the country, its political stability, history, economy, agricultural system, climate and the rural property market. Of course, being “foreign investors”, we checked out whether we’d be welcomed or not.

They decided to invest here.

Being in Federated Farmers a few years later, I came across one farmer who made Winston Peters look like a weak-kneed liberal. Proving the debate is seemingly two-thirds heart and one-third brain, I later learned that he’d bought a farm in Australia but he still opposed foreign investment, albeit slightly sheepishly.

Bit like the former deputy leader of NZ First who used to decry immigrants in his thick English accent!

Deciding on a country is one thing, but it’s quite another to get the ideal farm. We were very fortunate to convince Castlepoint’s board that New York Yankees were fit custodians for their iconic Wairarapa station. That was 1998 and we’ve never looked back.

Kiwis are the most hospitable people with an unerring knack of convincing you to take on more responsibilities. I was one of two non-New Zealand-born farmers on the Federated Farmers board. I’m also on the board of Grow Wellington and, to keep my feet firmly on the ground, I’m Castlepoint’s fire chief. Emily is similarly involved and our children are now working in New Zealand.

Politicians are quick to say that families like us are their “ideal” business migrants. The message is that “people like us” will continue to be welcomed, whichever party wins on September 20. Unfortunately, that nuance is lost if you’re thousands of miles away reading or watching news on-demand.

If we were researching New Zealand today, would we make the big move? Possibly not.

Those parties beating the drums against foreign investment should reflect on that.

The tone around foreign investment has hardened for the worse. To outsiders, politics and cultish popularity now seem big determinants. There’s also a nasty undercurrent which reflects poorly on us as Kiwis. Who this is putting off we’ll never know, but it is off-putting.

Farming is the most international industry we have. It’s this mix of people that makes New Zealand agriculture unique and the success it is. The Green Party opposed Shania Twain’s high-country purchase but look at what British record producer Robert “Mutt” Lange has given back: 53,000ha and a whole landscape permanently protected. The restoration and enhancement of Young Nicks Head may never have taken place had a Kiwi farmer purchased it rather than New York financier John Griffin. We’re even near-neighbours of James Cameron — that’s in a rural sense because we’re over an hour away by car.

Politics must come out of the “foreign investment” debate because it can so easily spiral into the gutter. Rules are important and we Kiwis accept that with sport, why not overseas investment?

And we have rules – that any investment must produce benefits for NZ. But various parties want blankets bans, because it gives them a soundbite for the election.A

Tags: ,

Is it 2002 all over again?

August 27th, 2014 at 6:22 pm by David Farrar

The latest 3 News poll has National down 2.5% to 45%, but Labour dropping even more (2.6%) to 26.4%. That is even lower than their 2011 result. So in National’s worst week, Labour drops even further.

There is volatility in the polls, but at this stage it is not people going from right to left. It is a transfer of votes within the right and left blocs. National losing to Conservatives and Labour losing to Greens and Winston.

The Conservatives at 4.6% is great news for them. Now it is just one poll, and let’s see what the others say. But it gives them what they need – relevance.

People will wonder what is the impact on the outcome if they made 5%? Well here is the result with them on 4.6% and 5.0%.

Conservatives 4.6%

Centre-Right 59 seats (Nat 57, ACT 1, UF1)

Centre-Left 53 seats (Lab 33, Greens 17, Internet Mana 3)

Centre 11 seats (NZ First 8, Maori 3)

This means National would need the Maori Party to govern, and Labour would need both NZ First and the Maori Party (plus Greens, Mana)

Conservatives 5.0%

Centre-Right 62 seats (Nat 54,  Conservatives 6, ACT 1, UF1)

Centre-Left 51 seats (Lab 32, Greens 16, Internet Mana 3)

Centre 11 seats (NZ First 8, Maori 3)

This means National would still need the Maori Party (or NZ First) to govern, but Labour would be unable to govern under any combination.


Tags: ,

Labour claims they can build Auckland homes for $360,000

August 27th, 2014 at 3:55 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Labour would be able to offer first home buyers two-bedroom properties in Auckland for as little as $360,000 if elected, party leader David Cunliffe announced today.

Labour’s KiwiBuild policy would build 100,000 new, affordable homes over 10 years and sell them at cost to first home buyers, Mr Cunliffe said.

“Using the purchasing power of the Government and off-site building techniques we will be able to lower the cost of building a home.

“This will enable Labour to sell a new two-bedroom terraced KiwiBuild home for around $360,000 in some parts of Auckland.

“That compares to around $485,000 for a similar Hobsonville home.” …

Labour’s housing spokesman Phil Twyford said KiwiBuild would deliver the equivalent of a Hobsonville $485,000 two-bedroom terrace home for $360,000 by forgoing the developer’s margin on the land cost-saving $36,000 and a further $89,000 would be saved by using off-site manufacturing, bulk buying building materials and reducing builders’ margin through high-volume tendering.

If Labour do win the election, it would be amusing to see them actually try to implement the policy and the excuses they’ll come up when the homes cost way way more than that. Maybe they’ll blame the unions for pushing the price of labour up!

Socialist parties always think that the state can provide things cheaper if you get rid of the profit margin, and economies of scale. But, you know what? The history of the world is they almost never do.

By this logic, we would all have much cheaper food if the Government owned all the farms. Think how much cheaper our food would be if farmers did not make any profit from the land, and instead the Government just employed them all directly?

And think about how much cheaper our food would be, if the Government centrally purchased all agricultural supplies for farmers. It would reduce the cost of farming massively, and hence food.

How about this for a challenge to Labour. If they really think they can produce two bedrooms houses in Hobsonville for $360,000 at no loss, then why don’t they promise to reimburse the taxpayers for any homes they build that cost more than that? Why should it be our money they gamble with?

Tags: ,

Some candidate stats

August 27th, 2014 at 2:26 pm by David Farrar

From the Electoral Commission.

  • 15 parties seeking the party vote (+2 from 2011)
  • 554 candidates (+10)
  • 369 dual candidates
  • 71 list only candidates
  • 114 electorate only candidates
  • 38 electorate candidates not with a registered party
  • Epsom and Tauranga have most candidates at 11 each
  • Hauraki-Waikato have least candidates at three
  • 390 men (-7) standing and 164 (+17) women.

Candidates per party are:

  1. Labour 85
  2. National 75
  3. Conservatives 64
  4. Green 60
  5. ACT 44
  6. Social Credit 35
  7. Internet Mana 35
  8. NZ First 32
  9. Maori 27
  10. ALCP 13
  11. United Future 11
  12. NZ Ind Coalition 10
  13. Ban1080 9
  14. Focus NZ 8
  15. Civilian Party 8

Labour on assets buy back

August 27th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has refused to confirm if his party is planning to buy back state-owned assets sold by National.

In a confusing exchange with reporters today, Cunliffe first said the party would “be saying more about that before the election.” 

Asked to clarify if voters could expect the party to set out a position before polling day next month, he replied:  “No, I haven’t said that.”

But he later appeared to back-track, saying: “They will certainly know before they cast their vote.”

God knows what that means.

Another story suggests that their bribe to get Winston on board will be $100 million a year to buy “assets”. Basically this means the politicians will be playing the stock market with our money. It won’t even be in a professional investment fund. If Labour win, then Cunliffe and Peters will decide on our behalf to buy shares in maybe Contact Energy, maybe Xero, maybe Kathmandu, maybe Woolworths. It will just be a giant slush fund, run by politicians.

If they think they are so good at playing the sharemarket, they should borrow against their homes, and invest with their own money.


It seems the feminists work for me!!

August 27th, 2014 at 1:35 pm by David Farrar

Peter Zohrab has done an open letter to the Speaker of the House.

27 August 2014

The Speaker Rt. Hon. David Carter
Parliament House

Dear Mr. Carter,

On 26 August 2014, Human Rights lawyer, Tony Ellis, said in an interview on Television New Zealand that Human Rights are only paid lip service to. It was not clear whether he was referring to human rights in general in New Zealand, but that may well be the case! 

On August 1st 2014, some Men’s Rights activists, including myself, were mounting a demonstration outside Bowen House, Wellington, which of course houses the offices of many Members of Parliament.  Three security guards who were working inside Bowen House came out — one-by-one and later en masse — to harass us, by questioning us and implying that what we were doing was not allowed and that they had some authority over us, both of which was untrue.  They took our photographs.  I only got rid of them by taking their photographs and starting to phone the Police.  As you know, they have no jurisdiction over the footpath and so were interfering with our Freedom of Expression.

At one stage, an obviously Feminist woman appeared out of nowhere and started arguing with us. I assume that she was deliberately dropped off by car in front of us, because I had not seen her walk towards us from the side along the footpath, and she left by being picked up by car from the footpath in front of us.  She was obviously an agent provocateur, and it was after that that the three security guards appeared together and said that they had received a complaint, which appeared to be from her.  It was a false complaint.

Could you please 

  1. discipline your security guards for this arbitrary and totalitarian behaviour;
  2. find out from them the name and contact details of the woman who complained to them and pass this information on to the Police and to me;
  3. discipline them if they do not have a record of her name and contact details;
  4. ask the Police to investigate if the incident with the agent provocateur was instigated by David Farrar, who passed in front of us twice and is a Feminist.

On 7 April 2013 I wrote to you about another case of Parliamentary staff apparently interfering with my Freedom of Expression — with regard to Select Committee submissions.  On that occasion, you gave no impression of having got to the bottom of the matter.  I hope you achieve a better result this time.  I note that the senior of the three security guards was a woman, and that the [deleted by DPF] does a good impression of being a Lesbian woman.  David Farrar has mentioned that I have called New Zealand a Dykeocracy, so this may be a case in point.

 I attach photographs of the security guards.

Yours sincerely,

 Peter D. Zohrab  

Should I confess that I did indeed send in a feminist provocateur to argue with Peter Zohrab? Will he discover that the Wellington Young Feminists Collective is in fact a wholly owned subsidiary of DPF Group Ltd?

The vast feminist conspiracy claims another victim. Well done girls. Charlie is very pleased with your work.

Tags: ,

Some lyrics from the Kill the PM song

August 27th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

I think there is a huge difference between song that have general lyrics about violence, sex and the like – and a song that explicitly expresses a desire to kill a specific person, and to have sex with a specific person. The first is art. The second is creepy.

Here’s some lyrics from the song by @peace.

That’s why I’m going to kill the Prime Minister. I’m going to kill the Prime Minister, because we are down and suffering and the motherfucker ain’t doing nothing. Going to kill the Prime Minister.

One of these days I’m going to fuck your daughter. This poor boy going to make his seed, going to wake up in your girl – well hello Miss Key.

This is beyond creepy. And the creep isn’t one bit remorseful. He has no idea what the impact might be on Steffi Key to hear there is a song about how he wants to fuck her. He thinks that because he doesn’t like the politics of her father, he can target her in a song like this.

There should be consequences for such vile behaviour.

John Armstrong notes:

By yesterday afternoon, @Peace appeared to have realised it had made a rather big mistake. It posted on Facebook, saying the song had been written with the purpose of getting young voters to enrol. Anyone who has listened to the song will know that is an untruth of huge proportions. The lyrics have nothing to do with enrolling to vote. 

What is ironic is that the left leaning Rock Enrol wanted to use Homebrew at concerts to promote voting. I’d say a song implying rape of a young woman will not encourage young people to vote, but just absolutely turn them off politics.

Simon Sweetman also notes:

The band @Peace really screwed up. You only have to click on that Wiki link to see how they’re going to be remembered. They released a song threatening to kill John Key - and then went into a swift panic, explaining that it was really all about mobilising young voters. The rallying cry included reference to sleeping with Key’s daughter. It wasn’t (quite) a statement of rape – but it’s a blunt and nasty use of the term, it’s a leading statement – “one of these days I’m going to f*** your daughter”. It could be very easily construed as a threat, an act of violence.

The sad thing is this was predictable. Tom Scott, formerly of Homebrew, has spent years spewing vile and hatred at John Key. He has rarely been called out for this. In fact one Labour MP raved how much she loves his music. So is it any surprise when he takes his hatred and bile from one level, and ramps it up slightly more so that he moves into glorifying violence against those those politics he disagrees with. Why does he get more extreme? Because he suffers no consequences for his behaviour. NZ on Air carry on giving him taxpayers money (which is ironic as his song is all about how he gets nothing from the Government!).

UPDATE: Psycho Milt at No Minister spells it out for those who think it is just a song:

If you’re thinking he didn’t say he was going to rape her, you’re missing the point.  Here’s the rape culture involved:

1. The most obviously rapey bit is that whatever interest or distinct lack of interest Stephanie Key might have in letting this ambulatory excrement within touching distance of her apparently isn’t relevant from his point of view.

2.  The less obvious, but far worse, rapey bit is the matter of why this turd-on-legs wants to fuck Stephanie Key – not because of her appearance, her personality or any of the other, mundane, trivial reasons two people might fuck.  No, the reason he wants to fuck her is he thinks squirting semen in her would be a suitable gesture of contempt for her father.  That’s rape culture right there, folks. Attitudes to sex and to women don’t get much more poisonous than this – quite an achievement for a self-proclaimed Green voter…

Can’t have put it better nyself.

Tags: , , ,

Labour’s latest billboard

August 27th, 2014 at 12:43 pm by David Farrar

Owly Images

This is not a parody. Iain Lees-Galloway posted it.

Good to have them be honest about the impact of their pro-union policies.

UPDATE: For the terminally stupid, this was a graphic posted to the Internet by Iain Lees-Galloway, not an actual physical billboard.

Tags: ,

Food inflation now at -0.1%

August 27th, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar


Stats NZ has released their monthly food price index and it shows annual food inflation for the last 12 months was -0.1%, or basically food prices are stable.

The graph below shows food inflation since 2000. Note that the spike in 2011 was partly caused by the GST increase which saw income tax rates drop to compensate.

Food is one of the basic necessities, and the cost of food is a major factor for families. Food prices are mainly impacted by global and domestic markets, but government policies that impact the economy also have an effect.

Over the five years 8 months since November 2011, food prices have increased 10.3% and fruit and vegetable prices have increased 12.5%. On a per annum basis this is 1.8% and 2.2% food inflation respectively.

During the nine previous years, annual food inflation averaged 4.1% and fruit & vegetable prices increased 5.8% per year on average. Fruit and veges costs 52% more in November 2008 than November 1999.


$100 million for rural broadband

August 27th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

NBR reports:

InternetNZ has welcomed a move by ICT Minister Amy Adams to top up the six-year, $300 million Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) with $100 million more in contestable funding if National is re-elected.

Ms Adams has also promised $50 million to boost mobile phone coverage in remote areas.

The policy would be funded by extending the Telecommunications Development Levy, currently due to expire in 2016, for another three years.

The Levy (successor to the old Kiwi Share Levy that used to go straight into Telecom’s pocket) extracts $50 million a year from telecommunications companies, proportionate to their revenue (see Commerce Commission table right).

As the law stands, the levy will reduce to $10 million a year after 2016.

Funds from the levy go toward the RBI build, which is being carried out by contract winners Vodafone (building new cell towers fixed wireless broadband leg) and Chorus (fibre). Unlike the $1.35 billion the Crown is investing in various companies involved in the urban Ultrafast Broadband (UFB) rollout, the money does not have to be paid back, and Chorus and Vodafone get to operate RBI infrastructure on a commercial basis (with the proviso they give all retailers equal access). 

The fact the new funding is contestable is a blow for Chorus, which had been feeding off rumours that National will put more money toward public-private broadband. 

I think it is a good thing that the funding will be contestable, so rural regions get the best bang for the buck.

Today’s policy announcement has also put Labour on the backfoot. 

National has already comprehensively out-spent the previous Labour government on broadband; Labour’s ICT policy promised new spending in the region of $21 million.

Again, David Cunliffe and Clare Curran find themselves out-Laboured by Steven Joyce and Amy Adams.

Labour need all the spare money to pay families on welfare more money for staying on welfare.


International expert says land supply is the reason for house inflation

August 27th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

David Killick at The Press reports:

Former World Bank principal planner Alain Bertaud, who visited Christchurch this month, has more than 30 years’ experience in urban planning. Now based in New York City, he has worked in places as diverse as France, the United States, Central America, Yemen, and Thailand. …

Providing affordable accommodation, according to Bertaud, is not that hard.

“The solution is to increase the supply of land. I would not bother so much on the construction of the housing itself, I think that can be taken care of fairly easily by the private sector.”

The opposite of what Labour is proposing. Labour has been against increasing the urban boundary in Auckland to allow more land to be used for housing.

Let’s figure it out. Look at your latest property valuation, or that of someone you know. Compare land value and “improvements” (the house). I bet land value accounts for over 30 per cent of your total property value. In some desirable areas, like coastal areas, land value may be over 50 per cent.

That is crazy. Bertaud says the rule of thumb is that land should be no more than 30 per cent.

In Houston, Texas, it would be only 15 per cent. “It’s strange because normally when the land prices are very high it’s a very dense country like Japan or Holland. This is not a dense country.”

Exactly. Unless we expect farms to take over the whole countryside, New Zealand has plenty of space for houses. “It’s a self-inflicted problem, frankly.”

It is, primarily by local government. From the point of view of local government, they like to restrict land, as it makes life easier for their planning departments. So land supply restrictions work well for the entity which decides them, but punish those seeking to buy a home.

Restricting land supply and imposing too many controls also stifles business growth, especially in the central city, Bertaud warns.

“I think it’s so inconsistent to put restrictions on height and say at the same time we want a compact city, we don’t want sprawl. If you put a restriction on height, it means you want people to use more land but you don’t provide this land.”

You need to allow growth to be both vertical and horizontal.


Churches campaigning

August 26th, 2014 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar


A reader writes:

Hi David.  The Anglican and Methodist churches appear to have entered the election campaign, at least in Chch.  These huge 3-hoarding wide landscape erections (all with “Oops” but variant wording) have appeared at numerous church sites in the city, with various anti-Govt messages (such as national debt etc not just social policy or poverty as canvassed by the Sallies sometime sin a political framework).  Haven’t seen this before. I have sited them at two main Anglican churches and one Methodist one, so it is obviously coordinated.  

That reminds me that I must find time after the election to work on a members’ bill to remove tax free legal status from churches in New Zealand. They should have no special status beyond that of any other NGO.



The NZ First list

August 26th, 2014 at 2:14 pm by David Farrar

NZ First have announced:

1 Rt Hon Winston Peters
2 Tracey Martin
3 Richard Prosser
4 Fletcher Tabuteau
5 Barbara Stewart
6 Clayton Mitchell
7 Denis O’Rourke
8 Pita Paraone
9 Ron Mark
10 Darroch Ball
11 Mahesh Bindra
12 Ria Bond
13 Mataroa Paroro
14 Romuald Rudzki
15 Jon Reeves
16 Asenati Lole- Taylor

Andrew Williams has dropped off the list entirely, after he criticised his draft ranking of 13. I must say that I don’t see what he had done to deserve his demotion (unlike Lole-taylor who had made numerous blunders). Williams did some dumb stuff as Mayor of North Shore, but had been pretty restrained as an MP.

A huge promotion for the MP for Wogistan, Richard Prosser.

If NZ First make 5% then Fletcher Tabuteau and Clayton Mitchell will be MPs. It is good to see NZ First bringing some new blood in.

Fletcher Tabuteau is their Rotorua candidate and has run a marketing and communications company. He is now a educator in business teaching.

Clayton Mitchell is their Tauranga candidate and a local City Councillor. He has said he will carry on doing both, if elected.

Ron Mark would get in if NZ First gets close to 7%.


Will Labour abolish three strikes for repeat serious offenders?

August 26th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Labour voted against the three strikes legislation, and off memory were committed to abolishing it in 2011.  Does anyone know if this is still their policy? They are saying nothing publicly, which makes me suspect it it – but they know it will be unpopular, so keep quiet on it.

The Herald reviews law & order policies, yet doesn’t mention the three strikes law once. Will a change of Government mean repeat serious violent and sexual offenders continue to get parole?

Once the review was completed, Labour would consider several changes which improved the court experience for sexual assault victims. It would look at changing cross-examination rules to make sure victims were not “put on trial”. Specialist courts could be established which trained judges, lawyers and staff in the dynamics of sexual violence and dealing with victims. And the definition of consent could be amended so the burden of proof was shifted from the Crown to the accused. This provoked some public discomfort as critics felt it could impinge on a person’s right to be presumed innocent.

Yep under Labour you will be presumed to be a rapist, ad will have to prove consent, if there is no dispute that sex occurred.