The Dom Post reports:

A five-star Hilton Hotel with a vast conference centre could be open and taking bookings in Wellington within three years.

Wellington City Council has confirmed a 165-bed Hilton would include a purpose-built, 2500-capacity conference centre, making it the third-largest in New Zealand should it open as hoped in 2017.

That’s superb news for Wellington. We need both a top hotel, and a conference centre.

The Park Royal (whatever it is now called) managed to block a Hilton being built a few years ago (would have been to replace that eyesore indoor sports arena by Dockside), so hopefully they will not be able to use the RMA to block them this time.

The cost of the Hilton hotel-conference centre has not been disclosed, but it would provide about 350 new jobs. Head developer and investor Mark Dunajtschik confirmed it would be built in Cable St, opposite Te Papa, should the proposal get the green light.

Will be very close to Courtney Central, which is dying slightly. So this may help.

The council would provide an as-yet unspecified amount for the project, but only if the business case, which was still being developed, stacked up and was approved by the full council next month.

There would be a consultation period for the public to have its say.

Mayor Celia Wade-Brown said financial input from the council would most probably be justified.

I’m all for a hotel and convention centre, but not convinced ratepayers should help fund it.

Council economic spokeswoman Jo Coughlan said a large convention centre would enable Wellington to tap into the lucrative Australian market.

“Those convention-goers tend to spend $3000 a trip, compared to a domestic convention-goer, who spends about $1000. It will have a big impact.” …

Positively Wellington Tourism chief executive David Perks said that if the Hilton was built, more foreigners and New Zealanders would visit the city for conferences. “At a conservative level, we think it would grow . . . by about 18 per cent.”

I’m sure there would be be a boost to tourism and the Wellington economy from the proposed hotel and convention centre. But projected benefits tend to always be wildly optimistic. A ratepayer contribution, if necessary, should be modest.

Stuff reports:

Lynne Snowdon’s husband has spoken of the heavy psychological toll of her 11-year battle against former employer Radio New Zealand, which cost the couple about $3.5 million.

“Litigation destroys people – there are no winners in litigation,” said John Hickling, a lawyer who spent years working on his wife’s long-running case.

So why did you pursue it? Radio NZ did not sue you. You sued them?

His comments come as figures released under the Official Information Act show the publicly funded state broadcaster spent more than $2m fighting the employment case after it sacked Snowdon as managing news editor in 2005, including nearly $1.3m in legal expenses.

By the time Snowdon was dismissed, she had already been on sick leave for more than two years.

That’s all taxpayer money wasted.

He said a relatively straightforward employment dispute seemed to have spiralled out of control, involving 23 preliminary hearings, and 70 formal minutes, orders and rulings even before the 47-day full hearing began last year.

It is understood RNZ is now seeking costs of about $1.1m from Snowdon.

Good. Not to be vindictive, but because we need to discourage this from happening again.

Stuff reports:

Government coalition partners have successfully stopped an overhaul of planning laws.

The Maori Party and UnitedFuture MP Peter Dunne teamed up to oppose reforms of the Resource Management Act (RMA), saying it placed economic growth ahead of environmental protection.

National needed either party’s vote to get the legislation over the line.

This afternoon, Prime Minister John Key confirmed negotiations had stalled and he had “parked up” the reforms until after the general election in September.

“I think it is very unlikely we will introduce the RMA bill before the election,” he said.

“I think we will campaign on what we want to do and see what the makeup [of Parliament] looks like, whether we are the Government after the election. I’ve decided to park it up.”

This is very disappointing as further reform is definitely needed. But a reality of MMP, that governments do not always get the numbers.

Hopefully the election will deliver a result that will allow the RMA reforms to proceed, so that it strikes a better balance.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00PM-3.00PM.

1. PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2014 continue to support a growing economy, including jobs, higher wages and delivery of better public services?
2. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “there’s no fundamental underlying reasons to believe there’s a problem in our housing market”?
3. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
4. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the reported statement, last Friday, from the Prime Minister who would not rule out an increase in GST?
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Justice; if so, why?
6. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How will Budget 2014 advance the Government’s work to strengthen the New Zealand tertiary education system?
7. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Finance: How will the changes to the Parental Tax Credit he announced in the 2014 Budget help those who, as he states, are at “the hard end of poverty”?
8. JOANNE HAYES to the Minister for ACC: What reports has she received which show New Zealanders could pay lower ACC levies in 2015?
9. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: Is he concerned that New Zealand has gone from the 10th highest rate of house price growth in the OECD from 2004-2011 to the highest in 2013?
10. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Prime Minister: Has he received information that any other New Zealander, apart from Daryl Jones, has been killed in United States drone strikes; if so, what was that information?
11. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements?
12. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Conservation: What new measures will the Government be able to take to contain and control the kauri dieback disease as a consequence of the $26.5 million committed in the Budget?

Today Labour are asking about the housing market twice, an increase in GST, the Parental Tax Credit, and whether the Minister of Justice stands by all her statements. The Greens are asking whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, and a drone strike on a New Zealand citizen. New Zealand First is asking if the Prime Minister has confidence in the Minister of Justice.

Patsy of the day goes to Scott Simpson for Question 12: What new measures will the Government be able to take to contain and control the kauri dieback disease as a consequence of the $26.5 million committed in the Budget?

Government Bills 3.00PM-6.00PM and 7.30PM-10.00.

1. Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill – Second Reading

2. Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3)– Third Reading

3. Food Bill – Third Reading

4. Vulnerable Children Bill – Committee Reading

The Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill (The Budget) is  being guided through the house by the Minister of Finance, Bill English. This bill seeks parliamentary authorisation of the individual appropriations contained in The Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2015 .

The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) is being guided throught the house by the Minister of Local Government, Paula Bennett. This bill would implement the Government’s second phase of legislative reform relating to the operation of local government.

The Food Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Food Safety, Kikki Kaye. The bill introduces substantial reforms to the regulatory regime for the safety and suitability of food.

The Vulnerable Children Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett. This is an omnibus bill that proposes establishing the Vulnerable Children Act and the Child Harm Prevention Orders Act. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to protect and improve the well-being of vulnerable children.

Larry Mitchell has published his 2014 Council Financial Sustainability  League Table. The key summary from his analysis is:

Best in Class
Clutha District Council
Southland District Council and
Rangitikei District Council

Worst in Class
Kaipara District Council
Kawerau District Council
Horowhenua District Council

Highly Commended
Stratford District Council
Selwyn District Council
Wellington City Council
Marlborough (Unitary) District Council

The number of Councils in each category are:

• 5/5 – 7
• 4/5 – 18
• 3/5 – 19
• 2/5 – 15
• 1/5 – 8

Ratepayers who fund one of the Councils at the bottom of the table should be asking hard questions to their elected representatives.

Stuff reports:

Ruth Dyson, Labour’s longest-serving Christchurch MP, has decided not to take a place on the party’s list.

Labour general-secretary Tim Barnett confirmed Dyson, who holds the Port Hills electorate, had told the party she was withdrawing from the list selection process.

Dyson has dropped down the Labour Party rankings in a series of reshuffles, from No 5 under former leader Phil Goff in 2011, to recently being demoted by David Cunliffe to 28 (out of 34), behind the likes of Kelvin Davis.

Davis is not yet even an MP but will return to the Capital when Shane Jones leaves Parliament.

Barnett said it was “not unusual” for MPs not to chase list placings.

As the MP for Christchurch Central between 1996 and 2008, Barnett never had a list placing. Former MP Stuart Nash has also announced he will not seek a list placing as he pursues the Napier electorate.

Dyson’s move was announced at a regional list selection meeting in Christchurch on Sunday, which Barnett said was “relaxed”. He believed the move was tactical, with Port Hills always a tightly contested seat.

“It’s not unusual for somebody in a seat which is going to be a pretty tight, hard race to focus entirely on being an electorate candidate,” Barnett said.

National doesn’t allow electorate candidates to not be on the party list, as doing so can mean they campaign only for the electorate vote – and don’t have any incentive to campaign for the more important party vote.

Dyson not standing for the list (unusual for a former party president) indicates she is seriously worried she will lose Banks Peninsula, as it has got more marginal with boundary changes.

A candidate who doesn’t have a list place to rely on, can sometimes pick up extra votes by stressing that their opponent will be in Parliament regardless, but the only way to retain them is to give them your electorate vote.

So Dyson going list electorate only indicates she thinks she will need every single vote. It will be a seat to watch – depending on who National selects.

The photos are from Sean Plunket’s FB page. Hat Tip: Keeping Stock

I do genuinely wonder whose car this is. Can it be traced through the number plate?

Molly Ball writes at The Atlantic:

It often seems there’s no center in American politics anymore. Increasingly polarized camps on the right and left hold diametrically opposed, irreconcilable views on seemingly every issue.

And yet more than a third of American voters call themselves neither liberal or conservative but moderate, indicating a substantial chunk of dissenters from the left-right paradigm. Are they just confused? Are they closet ideologues with strongly partisan opinions but a distaste for labels? Are they politically disconnected? What, in short, is their deal?

The folks at Third Way, a Democratic think tank that urges moderate positions, decided to find out. They commissioned a poll of 1,500 American registered voters, asking detailed questions about a variety of issues to find out whether those who called themselves moderate were a distinct group and what sets them apart. The Democratic pollster Peter Brodnitz of the Benenson Strategy Group conducted the inaugural “State of the Center” poll last month; it carries an overall margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction.

What the poll found is fascinating. Moderates, according to the poll, aren’t tuned-out or ill-informed, but they tend to see both sides of complex issues—for example, they want the government to do more to help the economy, but they worry that it may be ineffective or counterproductive. 

Is a very sensible position – want to do more, but sceptical it will be effective.

Moderates’ perspective on the role of government has elements in common with both liberals and conservatives. Only 23 percent of moderates favor a larger government that provides more services (compared to 54 percent of liberals and 13 percent of conservatives); 37 percent favor a smaller government with fewer services (compared to 12 percent of liberals and 62 percent of conservatives).

So moderates are sceptical of government, but not hostile to it. While many on the left have a belief that there is nothing Government can’t do.

Liberals overwhelmingly (75 percent) worry government isn’t involved enough in the economy, while conservatives mostly (60 percent) worry government is too involved in the economy; moderates lean toward the liberal side of the argument, with 53 percent saying not enough involvement to 40 percent who cite too much. Still, more moderates fear big government (52 percent) than big business (41 percent). Two-thirds of moderates think government often gets in the way of economic growth, and a majority (54 percent) think that if government is involved in something, it often goes wrong.

Moderates are, well, moderate.

Majorities of moderates believe government should play a role in creating equal opportunity and that a strong safety net is important even if “a few lazy people game the system,” but moderates also largely believe the government has created incentives for poor people not to work. Most interestingly, even as they see society as unequal, seven in 10 moderates disagree with the idea that “the deck is stacked against people like me.” In fact, it was conservatives who were most likely to see themselves as victims: 35 percent said the deck was stacked against them, versus 28 percent of liberals and moderates.

Interesting.

Stuff reports:

Southern Cross Cable’s near monopoly over international internet traffic appears to be dangling by a thread.

After years of failed ventures and dashed hopes, Hawaiki Cable chief executive Remi Galasso said his company was just a few weeks away from confirming it would build a competing US$300 million (NZ$350m) cable linking New Zealand and Australia to the United States.

The former Alcatel-Lucent executive said Hawaiki had secured a major New Zealand company to be its equity partner and an Australasian bank willing to provide debt financing.

All that remained was for Hawaiki to convert some “letters of intent” it already had from customers into firm contracts and “complete the bank process to unlock the funds”.

“This is not a piece of cake. We are dealing with large organisations, but I am confident the finishing line is a few weeks away,” Galasso said.

Hawaiki would then put into effect the contract it had with United States supplier TE SubCom to lay the the 13,127 kilometre-long cable, which should be ready by March 2016, he said. The cable would have a capacity of 6.4 terabits, sufficient to carry a million HD movie streams simultaneously.

This will be great, if they get over the line. For both competitive and security of supply reasons a second cable is desirable.

It won’t be a silver bullet. The cost of international bandwidth is much reduced from years ago, and is around 5c a GB last time I checked. However competition is the best way to get prices even lower.

Telecommunications Users Association chief executive Paul Brislen said that would be tremendous. Opinions varied on whether a new cable would reduce broadband charges for consumers or raise their data caps, he said.

“The way Southern Cross talks, the international component of any internet-provider (ISP) charge is minuscule, and the way the ISPs talk it is the one thing that stops them offering really large data caps. Time will tell who is right and who is blowing smoke.”

But a new cable was needed in case there was ever a major outage on the Southern Cross Cable, he said. The risk of anything affecting Southern Cross’ twin landing points in Auckland was low but the impact would be huge, he said. “It is very important we have a second company operating.” Southern Cross Cable is half-owned by Telecom. SingTel owns 40 per cent and US carrier Verizon 10 per cent.

It is worth noting that the Southern Cross Cable is a figure of eight so an outage in one segment won’t result in a loss of international connectivity for NZ. They would need to have two simultaneous outages for this to occur.

But again, more cables means less vulnerability.

Galasso did not believe success would adversely impact a separate proposal by Telecom to lay a new cable, the Trans Global Access (TGA) cable, between New Zealand and Australia in conjunction with Vodafone and Telstra. That investment, estimated at about $100m, has been awaiting head-office approval from Telecom’s joint venture partners.

Instead, he said the two cables would be complimentary, as customers could use one as a back-up. “My view is two new cables will be built, Hawaiki and the TGA cable,” he said.

I agree. As more regional data centres get located in Australia, cables to Australia will become more valuable also.

The PM has announced:

Prime Minister John Key has welcomed an invitation to meet the President of the United States during his upcoming visit to the US.

The White House has announced President Obama will meet the Prime Minister in Washington DC on Friday, 20 June.

“The invitation underlines the very close relationship between the United States and New Zealand,” Mr Key says.

“I look forward to meeting with President Obama.  We are likely to discuss the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations, to take stock of our bilateral relationship, and to exchange views on current regional and international issues,” he says.

The Prime Minister is travelling to the United States from June 16 to 20.

While in Washington DC, the Prime Minister will also meet with a range of senior administration figures, Congressional representatives and business leaders. 

The Prime Minister will also undertake a full programme in New York in support of New Zealand’s bid to win a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2015-16.

This is no surprise, yet still welcome.

A diplomat commented to me a couple of months ago how extraordinary it is that the New Zealand Prime Minister is the national leader that has probably spent the most time in the last 12 months with both the President of the United States, but also the President of China.

A reader has sent me in an abridged version of the original 1872 communist manifesto. He notes:

This is a heavily abridged version of the original 1872 document, the abridgement achieved by deletion of “political rhetoric” and political analysis, and leaving core statements of intent, role and structure.  The original has also been edited to the extent of replacing the words “Proletariat” and “Proletarian” with “labour”, replacing the words “bourgeois” and “bourgeoisie” with “capital” and “capitalist(s)”, and the addition of headings in italics.  Other than the foregoing, the words are those of Marx and Engels.

Below is the abridged communist manifesto. What is interesting is how great tracts of it can be found in the policy principles statements of a certain NZ left party. You can guess which one.

The Abridged Communist Manifesto

Modern industry established the world market.

Capital cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production.  All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations.  And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature. Capital has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands.

Role of the worker

In proportion as the capitalist, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is labour, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him.

Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. What is more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by increased speed of machinery, etc.

Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army, they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the capitalist class, and of the capitalist state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooked, and, above all, in the individual capitalist manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of the capitalist spectrum, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

Power of the collective

Labour goes through various stages of development. At first, the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the work of people of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the business owners who directly exploit them. They direct their attacks not against the capital condition of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. But with the development of industry, labour not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of labour are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level.

The growing competition in capital, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual capitalists take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against capital; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they find permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts.

Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots. Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by Modern Industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another.

This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently, into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among capital itself. Thus, the Ten-Hours Bill in England was carried. 

Communist Aims

The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the capitalist class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labour. Wage labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of labour into a class, overthrow of the capitalist supremacy, conquest of political power by labour.

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social STATUS in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

Let us now take wage labour. The average price of wage labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer.

What, therefore, the wage labourer appropriates by means of his labour merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

In capitalist society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations. 

Education

The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

How will communism be achieved?

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise labour to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

Labour will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the capitalists, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., labour organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

In most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. In place of the old capitalist society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. 

Now have a read of this.

From Backbecnhes:

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

SUPERMARKETS-SUPER BULLIES?:  The Commerce Commission is investigating charges that the supermarket chain Countdown used blackmail and extortion on its suppliers. The allegations were brought to light by departing Labour MP Shane Jones. Is it time for a compulsory code of conduct for the supermarkets?  How do we make it fairer for suppliers and consumers?

IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE ON THE CHEAP?: The budget had a lot of lollies in it but not for housing and, certainly, not for first time homebuyers. National pledges to keep lower interest rates but Labour says this doesn’t go far enough to address the housing crisis, particularly in Auckland. The added burden of the reverse brain drain and foreign migration will see even more people trying to find housing in the big smoke. What is the best way to deal with this? Some in the opposition suggest a ban on foreign buyers. Is that the solution? What about a capital gains tax? Or do we need to rely on local councils to do more? And how much of an impact will a tax break on building materials offer?

I ALWAYS FEEL LIKE SOMEBODY’S WATCHING ME:  Are we all under surveillance ALL of the time? Auckland’s CCTV cameras are the start of a national system which may include facial recognition technology.  The new network would be available for Police to access and, in some emergent cases, control. Proponents of the system say there will be “real-time crime prevention.” While civil liberty advocates oppose the move saying our privacy is at risk.  In this day and age-is there a thing such as privacy? Is safety more important than privacy?

There are two ways to get in on the political pub action:

First, you can join the live audience in Wellington’s iconic Backbencher Pub on Wednesday, 21st of May at 6pm. Filming begins around 6:15pm.

Or watch us that night on PRIME TV at 10:30pm!

http://www.primetv.co.nz/

Plus, Follow us on Facebook (BackBenchesTV) or on Twitter @BackBenchesTV.

Our Panel: Labour MP Shane Jones, National MP Paul Goldsmith and New Zealand First MP Andrew Williams.

Shane Jones also gives his valedictory speech that day, so this may be his last media appearance as an MP.

Stuff reports:

There are fewer than 200 electric vehicles currently in the country but a recent push could see it bolt to 70,000 by 2020, provided some key initiatives get a charge.

I’d bet a large amount of money that there won’t be anywhere near 70,000 electric cars by 2020.

There are around 400,000 electric cars in the world. That will grow in the next six years, but thinking that a country that is 0.1% of the world’s population may have say 10% of the world’s electric cars is nonsensical.

McEwen said there were currently fewer than 200 electric vehicles in the country, but global initiatives targeted an uptake of 2.4 per cent of a nation’s total stock by 2020.

In New Zealand that would translate to about 70,000 electric vehicles in just over five years.

“Are we going to get to 70,000, who knows?

I do. No.

He estimated an electric vehicle added about $500 to a household’s annual power bill.

This was roughly a fifth of the cost of fuelling a petrol car travelling the same distance over a year.

Which means when the price difference reduces to under $20,000 or so, then the fuel saving will be worth it.

Mitsubishi’s new Outlander PHEV (plug in hybrid electric vehicle), which cost $59,990, had seen demand surge already this year, he said. These were being sold at about a rate of 50 a month, but a used electric vehicle market was beginning to emerge as well.

Wait a second. If there are less than 200 electric vehicles in NZ, then how can there be 50 a month being sold?

Otherwise, improved infrastructure, such as “fast charge” stations which can “refuel” an electric vehicle to 80 per cent capacity in less than half an hour, needed to be rolled out across the country.

But who pays for these? There’s one in Wellington as the Z station, and my understanding is that staff can’t recall having ever seen an electric car using it!

As technology improves, and costs drop, I’m sure electric cars will become more popular. But this will not happen greatly in the next few years.

Stuff reports:

Maori TV’s Julian Wilcox has quashed speculation he will stand for Labour in the coming general election.

Wilcox has long been rumoured to be a potential candidate in Tamaki Makaurau, with speculation strengthening after the Labour Party council refused a waiver to allow ex-TVNZ presenter Shane Taurima to stand.

Maori Television issued a statement today saying Wilcox, the station’s general manager for news and current affairs, would not be standing for Labour.

“To clarify his position Julian Wilcox has made an unequivocal statement to Maori Television that he is not seeking political office for any political party in the forthcoming elections and remains committed to his job as GM of news and current affairs at Maori Television,” the statement said.

Not seeking political office, but was reportedly a member of the Labour Party last year.

I’m pleased for Maori TV. I’m not sure how Wilcox is doing as News GM there, but he did very well as host and interviewer on Native Affairs.

This does make Tamaki Makaurau more interesting. A high profile candidate such as Taurima or Wilcox would have been more likely to win it for Labour. This must improve the Maori Party’s chances of holding it. The first polls in the seat after candidates are selected will be interesting.

The Internet Party has a policy to extend fibre from the current proposed 75% of NZ homes to 97.8% of NZ homes. They claims this can be done for a Government investment of $200 million.

I am a supporter of getting faster broadband out to rural NZers. Fibre is the best broadband technology, and is the preferred option – if affordable. But I have very significant doubts that you can connect up most of rural NZ for anything close to a $200 million subsidy.

First of all consider that $1.5 billion is barely enough to subsidise fibre to the most urban 75% of NZ. So if the most urban 75% needs $20 million per 1%, it defies belief that the rural 23% could be done with $8.7 million per 1%.

Most reports say rural fibre costs six times as much as urban fibre.

How much would it cost? This would mean laying fibre down almost every road in NZ. We have over 93,000 kms of road. Fibre was estimated to cost by the NZ Institute in 2007 to be around $150,000 per km.

A report by Dr Murray Milner on fibre costs also estimated open trenching costs of $120,000 to $150,000 per km (and up to $600,000 per km in very difficult areas)

That would be be a cost of $14 billion to get fibre down every road in NZ. Now I know the policy is only 97.8% but you get the general feeling that a $200 million subsidy will not get you anywhere near 97.8% coverage.

I think fibre can be extended out beyond 75%. But there comes a point at which the cost is too prohibitive, and satellite and wireless technologies are a better investment.

The 75% target for fibre is (from what I can tell) the most advanced in the world. When complete in a few years, I don’t think any other country will have fibre available to such a high percentage of the population. So lets not think 75% is bad – it is top of the class. Now again, I think we should debate what to do with the remaining 25%. But a policy that says you can get 98% of the population connected up to fibre for a mere $200 million extra subsidy is not credible – by a long shot. You can’t just wave a wand.

If the Internet Party did want to credibly contribute to the debate, then maybe they could fund an independent study of what the costs are of various broadband technologies to the most rural 25%, and then we could focus on what is the best solution.

The Herald reports:

Meet the latest threat to public safety and civil order — 59-year-old Warriors supporter Tony Waring.

The long-time fan was barred from entering last week’s match against Canberra at Eden Park because he was carrying a sign in support of Mt Smart Stadium.

The sign was deemed “inflammatory” by security and Waring was forced to hand it over.

During the mandatory search, a security official found his A3-size sign which read “Stay Smart; Say no to Eden Park” and told Waring: “I’m not sure if you can take that in” before summoning his supervisor.

“I didn’t think I had anything to fear,” recalls Waring, who had used similar signs since last season when the shift to Eden Park was mooted.

Stadiums are commercial enterprises that compete and need revenue to survive.

Mr Waring thought that going to a game at Eden Park with a sign saying “Say no to Eden Park” would be fine.

Why would Eden Park allow that?

Mr Waring can advocate against Eden Park almost anywhere he wants to – at home, on the Internet, in public. But not at Eden Park itself. It is not a public place. It is a private stadium.

The World Health Organisation has just released its 2014 report on alcohol and health. It seems to have had almost no publicity here – possibly because it doesn’t support the claims of certain groups that NZ alcohol stats are really bad on a world scale. Some extracts you may not see elsewhere:

• Far from there being a catastrophic rise in alcohol abuse in New Zealand there has been a real reduction in drinking habits in the last 30 years.   There was a sharp increase in total alcohol consumption per capita from 1970 through the early 1980s, then a sharp drop from 1985 through the late 1990s, and a slight upward trend since then.  So things are not worse than they have ever been…in fact they are a lot better.
• The amount consumed per drinker, New Zealand ranks around 96^th (13.7 litres of pure alcohol per capita).  This ranks us slightly higher than France (at 12.9 litres) and slightly lower than the UK (at 13.8 litres).  So on average, we are a nation of fairly moderate drinkers.
• We are constantly told that we have a “binge drinking” culture in New Zealand, but our rates of prevalence of heavy episodic drinking (classified as more than 6 standard drinks on at least one occasion in the past 30 days) is actually very low by global standards.  The prevalence rate of heavy drinking for New Zealand was 5.6%.  This is more than half that of Australia (13.6%), more than a quarter that of Canada (23.1%), and more than a sixth that of the United Kingdom (33.4%). So when you hear the claim we have 800,000 hazardous drinkers, it is quite a gross exaggeration (as the scare mongers here use a different definition).

Of course there are problems caused by alcohol abuse in New Zealand, and these should be mitigated if it can be done in a way where the benefits exceed the costs. But the narrative that NZ has an awful drinking problem, and it is much worse than in the past – is not true.

Koh Russei Serenity, Koh Russei Island, Cambodia

Cambodia is an amazing country to visit and offers just so much to the traveller looking for a little more than the ‘usual’ – if you have been there you will know what I mean. One thing I didn’t expect was the amazing set of islands off the coast of Sihanoukville.

Located in the Gulf Of Thailand several kilometers of the mainland Koh Russei Island was a lovely place to spend a few days. Each evening I would make the short trek across the island through a forest and past a military base to this stunning and deserted beach to capture the sunset.

Click on the image for a larger view of this photograph.

Cheers

Richard [richardhume.com]

YouTube: Timeless – A Panoramic Journey

Stats NZ and the Ministry for the Environment released a report on Friday showing air quality has improved in New Zealand. You would have thought that the so called environmental party, the Greens, would have quickly rushed out a press release welcoming this. But it seems they were too busy.

Stats NZ says:

Air quality in New Zealand continues to improve, according to a new report released today by the Ministry for the Environment and Statistics New Zealand, showing lower levels of airborne particles that are associated with health problems.

The 2014 Air domain report focuses on three national air quality indicators – PM₁₀ particulates, (particulate matter 10 micrometres or less in diameter), health impacts from PM₁₀, and vehicle emissions.

“The report not only covers the state of the environment but also what has contributed to the state being the way it is and how the state impacts on New Zealand and New Zealanders,” Secretary for the Environment Paul Reynolds said.

The indicators are showing the state of air quality is improving, and the measurable pressures and impacts reducing.

At a national level, annual PM₁₀ concentrations declined between 2006 and 2012. A number of locations breached PM₁₀health guidelines, particularly in winter due to wood and coal burners.

A range of other pollutants are covered in the report, such as carbon monoxide, lead, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. These mostly met short- and long-term health guidelines, though occasional breaches of guidelines occurred at some sites close to roads or major industry.

The improvement in the state of air quality is reflected by declines in the key pressures on PM₁₀ concentrations. The number of homes using wood and coal has declined since 1996, and on-road transport emissions have declined since 2001 even though vehicle usage has increased. The key pollutants from vehicles have each decreased between 25 and 50 percent brought about by improvements in New Zealand’s vehicle fleet and cleaner fuels.

With the state of New Zealand’s air quality improving, associated health impacts from exposure to PM₁₀ have also declined from 2006 to 2012.

Some data from the report:

• PM10 concentration down from 16.9 in 2008 to 15.6 in 2012.
• Our average concentration is the 7th lowest in the OECD
• Every city measured, except Tauranga is lower in 2012 than 2008
• Biggest drops are Lower Hutt with 26% and Dunedin with 24%. Also Penrose 18% down.

We take lean air for granted. But you only have to travel overseas to see how fortunate we are.

Matt Ridley writes in the WSJ:

How many times have you heard that we humans are “using up” the world’s resources, “running out” of oil, “reaching the limits” of the atmosphere’s capacity to cope with pollution or “approaching the carrying capacity” of the land’s ability to support a greater population? The assumption behind all such statements is that there is a fixed amount of stuff—metals, oil, clean air, land—and that we risk exhausting it through our consumption. …

But here’s a peculiar feature of human history: We burst through such limits again and again. After all, as a Saudi oil minister once said, the Stone Age didn’t end for lack of stone. Ecologists call this “niche construction”—that people (and indeed some other animals) can create new opportunities for themselves by making their habitats more productive in some way. Agriculture is the classic example of niche construction: We stopped relying on nature’s bounty and substituted an artificial and much larger bounty.

Economists call the same phenomenon innovation. What frustrates them about ecologists is the latter’s tendency to think in terms of static limits. Ecologists can’t seem to see that when whale oil starts to run out, petroleum is discovered, or that when farm yields flatten, fertilizer comes along, or that when glass fiber is invented, demand for copper falls.

I think that last point is core to the entire debate over environmental issues – and why the prophets of doom have been wrong almost every time.

I have lived among both tribes. I studied various forms of ecology in an academic setting for seven years and then worked at the Economist magazine for eight years. When I was an ecologist (in the academic sense of the word, not the political one, though I also had antinuclear stickers on my car), I very much espoused the carrying-capacity viewpoint—that there were limits to growth. I nowadays lean to the view that there are no limits because we can invent new ways of doing more with less.

Human innovation is the resource that has no limit – and the most important resource.

Take water, a commodity that limits the production of food in many places. Estimates made in the 1960s and 1970s of water demand by the year 2000 proved grossly overestimated: The world used half as much water as experts had projected 30 years before.

Projecting more than a decade ahead is dangerous. Projecting 100 years ahead is almost nonsensical. Image living in 1900 projecting what the world would be like in 2000?

A transcript from The Nation:

Patrick Gower:  Good morning David Cunliffe and you heard the Finance Minister Bill English there say that the Government is happy with immigration settings. That is despite some of the highest figures ever – people flooding into Auckland and no-one leaving. What are Labour’s thoughts on New Zealand’s current immigration settings?

David Cunliffe: Well I thought the minister missed the main point which is the responsibility of any government is the total flows and New Zealand is well served when we get enough new migrants to fill our skill gaps but not so many that it overwhelms our housing market or the ability of our schools and our hospitals to cope. And we always used to try to manage to a zone of say between about 5000 and 15,000 net positive. They’re looking at 41, 42,000, that is just too much and it will overheat the property market even further.

So what would Labour do? Too much, you’ve said immigration settings are too high, what would Labour do?

We would manage net migration flows as far as possible to a steady, positive, predictable level that is sufficient for our housing market and our schools and our hospitals to cope with.

How would you do that because you want to come down from about 40,000 to about 15 [thousand]?

Yeah, well the easiest way to do it is to look at the numbers that are able to come in under different categories and just to manage the points system so you take the very best and the ones that are most suitable for the skill gaps and then you turn it back up again as either the homecoming Kiwi flow reduces or the economy starts to cool and you just have to manage it a bit counter-cyclically. Let me say also Labour has always been committed to an open and multi-cultural society and we welcome the contribution that our migrant communities make.

Labour have joined Winston in blaming economic problems on migrants. Now that isn’t to say that one shouldn’t debate what the correct level of migration should be, but claiming that you can reduce net migration by 35,000 through the points system is very deceptive.

Here’s the long-term arrivals by visa types since 2008:

So migrants coming in a residence visa (the points system) are well down on previous years. They are 16% below the year to March 2008. You could scrap all residential visas and you’ll only reduce net migration by 13,000 or so.

Student visas earn us bucketloads of money.  They don’t give residency. They allow international students to study here, boosting the economy and providing a major funding source to schools and tertiary institutions. Is Labour saying it will cap student visas?

Work visas are up significantly. But these are also temporary, and are used to fill areas with a skills shortage – such as construction in Christchurch. You generally need a job offer.

So the number of permanent migrants to NZ gaining residence is lower than it was six years ago.

So why is net migration up? Well it is made up of four components. They are:

1. People leaving NZ
2. Kiwis returning home
3. Australians moving here
4. Other nationalities moving here

The first three categories can not be controlled by the Government. It is in fact a good thing fewer people are leaving NZ. Up until a year ago Labour was complaining too many are leaving.

Likewise it is a good thing many Kiwis are returning home. Even if we wanted to, we can’t stop that.

Also a growing number of Australians are moving here. I think this is a good thing also. Again, we can’t stop that – even if we wanted to. Unless Labour wants to abolish CER, and remove the right of Kiwis to move to Australia also.

So what has happened to numbers in these four categories. Here’s the data:

So net migration is 24,000 higher than five years ago. But look at what makes up that 24,000. 15,300 are fewer people leaving. 5,700 are Kiwis returning or Aussies migrating. Only 3,400 are other migrants.

This is why it is the politics of xenophobia. Blaming migrants for the change in net migration is scapegoating. Their impact is minimal. The big change is in departures being down and Kiwis returning.

Sure one can have a sensible discussion on whether we should tighten up migration eligibility, but that is not a significant factor in the change in net migration over the past five years.

Also for those think that the migration is all from China, here’s the 2013/14 long-term arrivals by country of previous residence.

1. Australia 21,146
2. UK 14,006
3. China 8,603
4. India 7,350
5. USA 3,981
6. Germany 3,354
7. Philippines 2,923
8. Japan 1,990
9. Canada 1,928
10. Korea 1,752
11. South Africa 1,420
12. Fiji 1,228

Sarah Wilson writes in the Nelson Mail:

I had a stomach bug. That’s all it was. A bit of an upset, when I was in Bali for a friend’s wedding two years ago.

Most of us did – even the bride and groom had a couple days spent in their rooms. But when I got home . . . the pain didn’t stop.

It would come and go, but then I’d have weeks where I couldn’t get out of bed, and I didn’t know why.

I lost weight. Foods that had never been a problem made me vomit. I stopped consuming gluten, dairy, alcohol. Nothing made a difference.

Six months later, I was finally diagnosed with an intestinal bug called Dientamoeba fragilis. It’s nasty. But not as nasty as what was about to happen. …

I was in hospital for about 12 days. It should have been longer, but I discharged myself after being told that I now probably had ulcerative colitis, which is an incurable auto-immune bowel disease.

Eventually this diagnosis was revoked . . . but nothing was put in its place.

I had no proper diagnosis. I had no prognosis – no-one knew when I would get better.

I had to quit work and go through the harrowing process of applying for a sickness benefit – at a time when I couldn’t even get out of bed.

My work was everything to me. I felt empty, lost. Betrayed by my own immune system, which continued to flare out of control.

It’s now a year since I was in hospital – almost two since I first got sick.

I’ve made tiny amounts of progress. I can get around on my own, mostly.

I walk with a cane, because often I’m too weak and too sore to stand up alone. My body reacts badly to a large number of foods and, even if I can manage to eat enough, my system doesn’t extract or retain the nutrients.

I’m constantly undernourished and extremely tired. I’ve had to write this all in bits, and afterwards I’ll have to go and sit down for a while.

Frustrating isn’t the word for it. Frustrating doesn’t begin to cover the fury I’ve felt, going from being a healthy 26-year-old – to being bedridden, quitting work, losing friends.

To having a visible and debilitating disability.

Being disabled is political. It’s public, especially when it means that the world around you no longer fits your needs.

It’s not surprising to me that I have ended up using what limited energy I have to fight for disability rights – which is what my battle with Work and Income is really about.

Sarah’s story is gripping, and as you read it I guess the reaction is that this could have happened to me – it was just a bug after all.

Sarah has become an activist on welfare issues, after her frustrations with WINZ – which she wrote about here. WINZ has apologised for what happened.

But it does highlight that there is a balancing act with welfare reforms, and how WINZ implements them. And we shouldn’t assume the balance is absolutely right.

There are some on welfare who are able to work, and some of the measures introduced are necessary to target them.

But there are also many on welfare who have had horrible things happen to them, and a system which makes them prove every x months they are still unable to work needs some flexibility and judgement involved.

UPDATE: Sarah has written a sort of response to this blog, on her blog.