Chester on the Chathams

Thursday, August 5th, 2010 at 12:00 pm

Chester blogs:

Life as an MP is not all work. I spent last weekend on the Chatham Islands playing rugby for the Parliamentary Rugby team. (Yes we paid our own travel and accommodation!) Life’s not all play either as we took some time to meet with the District Councillors about the many issues that challenge those on the island. These include the cost of electricity being up at 93 cents per unit; the wharf deteriorating due to poor workmanship and needing replacement ($6m); the airstrip needing lengthening and strengthening ($3.m); the need for a breakwater so ships can birth, unload, and reload without having to ‘stand off’ awaiting calm weather – which at $10,000 per day for 60-90 days per year is quite significant ($7-10m).

93c per unit of electricity is rather steep. I understand two wind turbines will be added to the diesel generators at some stage.

The lack of a long and strong airstrip means planes are limited by capacity so freight is expensive and so is tourism. Vegetables are expensive – $6 per cabbage – but obviously fish and meat are cheap.

Now a simple response can be “well the islanders choose to live there so why should we bother?” But this is a little simplistic given the Chathams are recognised as part of New Zealand and not a foreign country.

New Zealanders are not expected to pay for their electricity generation or taxed for freight costs in the same way Chatham Islanders do. Although there are costs to living rurally in New Zealand, many of the costs Islanders incur are not replicated here.

The compelling argument the Chatham Islanders make is the huge contribution they make to the New Zealand economy, as the Islands are in New Zealand territorial waters. The most lucrative fishing is on the Chatham Rise and this must contribute tens of millions in tax take alone. The exploitation of the wealth of this small community has resulted in very little being contributed to the infrastructure on the island and big dollars for New Zealand.

Chester has a fair point I reckon. Their value in terms of fisheries must be immense.

Tags: ,

Boscawen Smacking Bill drawn

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

I have had confirmed that the bill drawn from the ballot is John Boscawen’s bill to amend Section 59 in line with the Borrows amendment.

I would hope that both Labour and National would vote for this bill to go to select committee. The public have shown they are not happy with the current law, and the Boscawen/Borrows bill/amendment is a pragmatic option that would rule out the problems of the old law, but remove the rather silly differentiation between “correction” and “good parenting” and “preventing disruptive behaviour”.

The Government did not want this as an issue while it concentrates on the recession and economic issues, but private members bills are not subject to Government timetable, and the House has just two options at first reading- to vote it down despite the referendum result, or to vote for it to go to select committee and let the select committee consider how well the current law is working, and whether the Boscawen bill would be an improvement.

ACT are having a run of good luck with the VSM Bill and now this Bill. Good on them.

As I said, I hope Labour will back the bill to select committee also. That would not be turning their backs on the law they voted for. It is not about going back to the old law. It is about whether the amendments in the Boscawen bill are worth considering – and they are.

A copy of the Bill is here in word format.

UPDATE: To my surprise National will not even be supporting the bill at first reading. I thing this is a pretty huge mistake, and one they may regret over time.

Tags: , , , , ,

The Lower North Island Seats

Thursday, November 13th, 2008 at 4:32 am

Whanganui had a 3% lead in the party vote in 2005, and this expanded out to 22% in 2008. And the 3,500 majority for Borrows goes to 6,000.

Rangitikei sees a 25% lead in the party vote and Simon Power moves his majority from 9,000 to 11,000.

Tukituki has an 18% lead in the party vote, and a 2,600 majority for Craig Foss gets a boost thanks to Labour’s sacking of the local District Health Board to over 7,000.

Palmerston North has been held by Labour since 1978. The party vote was narrowly won by National but Labour’s Iain Lees-Galloway held off Malcolm Plimmer by 1,000 votes.

Wairarapa has National 17% ahead on the party vote. And John Hayes turns the seat safe with a 2,900 majority converting to 6,300 in 2008.

Otaki was a huge battle. I’ve door knocked Otaki in the past and it is not natural National territory in the Horowhenua parts. So winning the party vote by 8% is good for National after trailling by 3% last time. Darren Hughes put up a huge fight to protect his sub 400 majority but Nathan Guy grabbed the seat by almost 1,500.

In Wellington, Labour does a lot better starting with Mana. Labour remains 6% ahead on the party vote but reduced from 18% in 2005. Winnie Laban’s 6,800 majority shrinks only slightly to 5.300.

Rimutaka was the last hope for NZ First. Labour won the party vote there in 2005 by 11% and in 2008 by 0.3%. On the electorate vote just as narrow with Labour’s Chris Hipkins pipping Richard Whiteside by 600 votes. Ron Mark got a credible 5,000 votes but stll trailed by 7,000.

Hutt South is home to Wainuiomata and Trevor Mallard. Trevor delivered a party vote margin for Labour of 4% and a 3,600 majority for himself. In 2005 the party vote margin was 14% and the personal majority 6,600 so some movement there.

Rongotai is now the home of the Labour Deputy Leader. But even before her ascension, Rongotai gave Labour a massive 11% margin on the party vote – 43% to 32% for National. And her personal 13,000 majority in 2005 was only slightly dented to just under 8,000. If that is her low tide mark, she’ll be happy.

Wellington Central saw in 2005 a party vote for National of just 33%, Labour 43% and Greens around 16%. In 2008 it was National 36%, Labour 34% and Greens around 20%. Marian Hobbs had a 5,800 majority and Stephen Franks cut that to 1,500 against new MP Grant Robertson with some Green party votes giving Robertson their electorate vote to keep Franks out.

Ohariu was assumed by almost everyone to be safe as houses for Peter Dunne. But it got close this time. First on the party vote, National beat Labour 43% to 40% in 2005. This time it was 47% to 33%. On the candidate vote Peter Dunne dropped from 45% to 33% making him vulnerable. National’s Katrina Shanks lifted her vote from 21% to 26% and Labour’s Charles Chauvel from 26% to 30%. The Greens candidate got 7% of the vote and may have ironically saved the seat for Dunne.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Banning gang patches a simplistic answer

Thursday, April 17th, 2008 at 9:22 am

Chester Borrows and Michael Laws will disagree with me, but I am unconvinced banning the public display of gang insignia will reduce violent crime, and is justified.

Gangs commit enough actual crimes, that there is no need to go and invent a new crime of wearing a patch, to get them on. I am all for a crack down on gangs.  Gangs exist primarily to arrange crime. But the solution to gangs is to arrest gang members when they break the law, and if they are a recividist offende, keep them inside for a very long time. Longer sentences and less parole would do a lot more than banning gang patches.

Having said that, I don’t think voting for the bill to go to select committee is a bad thing, as it will allow the issues of gangs to be considered. But personally I hope it doesn’t emerge out.

Tags: , ,

Back Benches

Friday, April 11th, 2008 at 2:50 am

I am in danger of getting addicted to Back Benches, even though Tim Selwyn still isn’t a fan. I actually like the lighter side such as poking through an MP’s office.

I like being able to watch the show live while drinking and eating at the Backbencher. And this week the MPs didn’t interject so much, which made it better I though. The MPs on Wednesday were Moana Mackey, Chester Borrows, Ron Mark and Sue Bradford.

They encourage three audience questions to the MPs during the show, and when there seemed to be a lack of volunteers, I agreed to ask a question to Ron Mark.

Now I actually get on very well with Ron, having worked with him in Government in the 1990s,  and I admire his loyalty to his Leader even though I think it is misplaced. But that didn’t stop Ron immediately loudly exclaiming that I was a National plant as I got up to ask my question, and so it made good theatre.

I though I asked a very fair, not at all loaded question, just inquiring whether the MPs thought it was a good thing or a bad thing that NZ had a Foreign Minister who was against foreign trade deals, against foreign investment and against foreigners being able to come and live in NZ :-)

Ron said they were not against any of those things, they just wanted smarter investment, smarter trade etc, Wallace (the host) then asked me the three questions from the NZ First ad.  I happily said yes I support the China FTA.  Then he asked if I supported selling the NZ dairy industry overseas.  I was a bit puzzled by that one because as I said, I wasn’t aware it was for sale, and if so who was selling it.  And how would a sale work – are we actually talking of moving all the cows to Japan or something? Finally I concluded that I think the cows are happier in NZ.

I thought Moana Mackey did very well- relaxed and on message.  I did hope though that when they asked her does she think the Diana inquest got it right, she would proclaim no, no Prince Philip really did murder her. Chester Borrows also good – supporting the FTA, and carefully tip-toeing through the issue of Winston. Ron Mark was on the receiving end of most of it, but as usual was the happy battler. Sue Bradford was fairly subdued, but got good cheers from the large contingent of Green supporters.

So was lots of fun, and was nice the MPs stayed around for a while to chat with the people in the BB.

Tags: , , , , ,