We stayed overnight in Perry Saddle Hut with another group of five trampers. Four Germans were booked into the camping site, but tried to be a bit sneaky and stay in the hut. One of the girls in the other group firmly but politely told them that it wasn’t on, and that the higher hut fees cover stuff such as flying in the gas by helicopter. They eventually conceded and had to set their tents up in the dark.

I did my part for cultural relations, as when I was trying my head torch out it shone in one of the girl’s eyes who complained it was very bright. I exclaimed “Ve we vays of making you talk” having forgotten about the four Germans in the hut. Whoops.

Breakfast was porridge, which we had every morning. Been years since I had porridge and had forgotten how good it was!

We headed off around 8.30 am with 7 kms to cover to Gouland Downs Hut, and 24.2 kms for the entire day.

I’ve never used walking poles before, but have become a total convert. They really make a huge difference. I was only going to get one but was advised that two is better.  I didn’t like the idea of no spare hands, but with two poles you really do get into a good routine and pace.

The first couple of kms were through forest.

Scott fording the stream.

Flowers up at 800 metres.

I was expected the environment to change every day or so, but on this tramp it sometimes change every few kms.

Crossing Quintinia Creek. I declared to the amusement of my group that if I ever have daughters I will call one of them Quintinia as it is a very nice name. You can call her Quinn most of the time and Quintinia when she misbehaves!

Out of the bush and the landscape opens up.

Great views of the plains. Sometimes you forget you are 800 metres up.

Again great variety in scenery.

I didn’t know about the shoe or boot pole, but it is quite famous it seems. There is even a high heel shoe and a roller blade on it!

Just beautiful.

Jane by the 1 km marker. Some walks have regular distance guides, but on the Heaphy you have no idea how far off you are until you get to the 1 km signs either side of a hut. They are a huge relief when you sight them.

Incidentally they are not actually 1 km from the hut. We noticed that some of the final 1 kms were a lot longer than others. A DOC ranger explained that staff were told to just walk 12 minutes from a hut and lay the marker down. So the distance depends on the walking pace of each DOC ranger!

Gouland Downs Hut where we met Ranger Matt. He was a great ambassador for DOC – very friendly and informative. He gave us the updated weather forecast, and told us not to believe it. He was right. It forecast sun for the next three days, and we got drowned the following morning. Basically whenever rain was forecast it was a good day, and when sun was forecast it rained. Overall weather was pretty good considering we had a forecast for non stop rain when we started off.

They call this the enchanted forestm just after the hut. It is like a movie set.

Tracey having fun on the suspension bridge.

Once again the environment changes.

This is Saxon Hut which was 5.4 kms on from Perry Saddle Hut. Most trampers stay here on the second night if doing the four night tramp. We were doing the tougher three night version, so only stopped here for lunch. Lunch was large crackers with cheese and salami. Fairly Light to carry and keeps well for multiple days.

As you can see, very different to the more modern huts. Still very cosy though.

Someone figured adding a nose on would make this the perfect Kiwi.

More great bush.

Tracey had mentioned that morning that her boots were ten years old and she may need new ones soon. That afternoon the sole came off at the front, so we had to tie it back on with my compass cord, to stop it flapping!

Is it just me, or does that look a little like Bill English?

Not only does the bush change often, the type and colour of the path does also.

This is us relaxing after the worst part of the track. It was several kms of basically mud. You realise how well maintained the rest of the track is, when you strike a part that isn’t.

We were pretty pleased to see James Mackay Hut, which was 11.8 kms on from where we had lunch. Spent around seven hours tramping.

Relaxing up in what we called our penthouse suite. The whiskey helped, except we decided that next time we need two hip flasks each – not two for the party.

The inside of the hut. Is due to be upgraded early next year.

Half a dozen Wekas came visiting during the evening.

Dinner was the second of our dehydrated dinners. They’re not going to win Michelin stars, but they’re not too bad.

The decision by every other party and MP in Parliament (and the Conservatives outside it) to oppose legislating to overturn the Commerce Commission decision on the price of copper broadband was both bad and good for the Government.

The bad is that legislation was obviously a preferred option for the Government, even though the Telecommunications Review was only a discussion document. It is true that they had some weeks ago started to back off that route, and look at other options, but their statements up until then had quite strongly been in support of legislation.

I think it is a fair criticism that the Government should have talked to other parties at an earlier stage about whether they would support legislation, rather than fairly forcefully support it, and then realise you can’t do it.

So while the political management hasn’t been optimal, the upside is that having Parliament assert its right to say no to the Government, does actually assist the Government. It removes the legislative option off the table, and will I believe lead to more constructive dialogue between all parties on where to go from now. The members of the Coalition for Fair Internet Pricing (Kiwiblog is a member) will I believe be keen to engage constructively not that the risk of over-riding the independent regulator is gone, and Chorus can’t demand the Government do something it is clearly incapable of doing.

The decision by Amy Adams to have an independent financial review of Chorus was an excellent one (and something I had called for), and the way I see it is there are four steps ahead of us on resolving this issue They are:

1. Does Chorus have financial problems under the current settings, and the Commerce Commission determination?
2. If the answer to 1 is yes, Are there changes Chorus can make to solve those problems themselves?
3. If the answer to 2 is no, then what are the factors that got Chorus into this state?
4. If the answer to 2 is no, then taking account of 3, what options are open to the Government, and which are preferred

We will soon get the answer to No 1. I am sure it will be a comprehensive report. I’ve had a financial modelling expert take me through what they expect the report will find, and that it will conclude on current settings Chorus will breach their debt financing agreements – specifically the acceptable ratio of debt to EBITDA. The Commerce Commission determination will increase debt and decrease EBITDA and this means the banks could withdraw their loans to Chorus which could plunge it into an Air New Zealand type situation.

Note that this does not mean Chorus will be bankrupt or even unprofitable. The report could well conclude that over the next six years or so Chorus will still make small profits, and even have marginally positive cashflow. The issue is likely to be mainly around debt and timing of cash requirements.

So if the answer to 1 is yes as the Prime Minister has (correctly it seems) warned, then we get to whether Chorus can make changes themselves to prevent a breach of their debt agreements, or can renegotiate their financing.

Obviously one change is a reduction of dividends. I say this with sadness as a Chorus shareholder, but if you have a debt problem, then you can’t expect to pay out dividends. Once you are getting the full benefits of the fibre investments, then they would resume I expect. I note Chorus has already started to head down this path by saying their proposed dividends are likely to be reduced.

It is unlikely that change would be enough. So the report needs to also look at whether other changes will be enough to prevent a debt default. Can opex be reduced. Can capex be delayed.  With that in mind we note the story yesterday:

Network company Chorus is flying about 200 staff from Wellington to Auckland today for an annual get- together – despite “crying poverty”.

Mr Bonnar said Chorus had twice been recognised as one of the best employers in Australasia, “and a big part of that is once a year we get all our people together”.

“It’s to hear from the senior people in the business where the organisation is at, where it’s going, what its strategy is and how what they do fits in with it.”

Now I don’t have a problem with Chorus doing this as a private company. But if you are sticking your hand out for Government assistance, then decisions like this will face public scrutiny. The cost is minimal to their overall opex, but taxpayers will expect Chorus to be as fiscally frugal as possible, before any additional taxpayer money is considered.

But what happens if the report concludes that Chorus does both have a debt problem, and can’t solve it internally. Well then I think you need to identify the factors that got Chorus into this state. I don’t mean a blame game, but identifying what contributed. Obviously the Commerce Commission determination is a significant factor, but is it the only factor? Have there been UFB cost over-runs? Was Chorus too close to the debt rations anyway, regardless of the determination?

Then after you have identified the factors involved, do you look at potential outcomes for the Government and Chorus. Off the top of my head, they include:

• Chorus defaults on its debt (highly undesirable)
• Chorus defaults on the UFB build (highly undesirable)
• Chorus renegotiates the debt (would banks agree?)
• The Government guarantees the debt for Chorus (the banks may call it in immediately)
• The Government makes the repayment schedule for the UFB build financing longer (will it make much difference?)
• The Government loans Chorus more money
• The Government slows down the UFB build (undesirable)
• The Government takes a stake in Chorus

I’m not against the last option. In fact the Government already has some preference shares in Chorus as part of the UFB contract. When it comes to commercial trading companies, I believe the Government shouldn’t own any shares at all. I’d sell 100% of the power companies etc. However just as I can accept the state should own Transpower as the national electricity grid, there is a case that the national fibre and telecommunications grid should be a government utility also.

Put it like this, if you were back in 1987, knowing what you know now, you would have split NZ Post telecommunications division into a Telecom and a Chorus on day 1, and have sold Telecom and kept Chorus. You sell off the competitive elements and own and regulate the monopoly.

So I’m not ideologically against the Government taking a stake in Chorus. It also would mean that both current Chorus shareholders and the Government would both share in the pain of getting Chorus out of its debt problems – which is preferable to it being just the Government (or worse Internet users as originally mooted).

To a degree, I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s see what the report says on 1, 2 and 3. Then we can focus on the “least bad” option for ensuring Chorus can deliver on the UFB project and 75% of New Zealand homes get fibre access to ultrafast broadband.

NewstalkZB reports:

The Prime Minister is playing down suggestions the public may have been targeted for data collection by domestic spy agencies.

Fresh revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden have shown the Australian Defence Signals Directorate offered in 2008 to share data collected on Australian citizens with its intelligence partners

John Key called GCSB boss Ian Fletcher today to seek assurances that New Zealand had not done the same.

“I wasn’t Prime Minister (at the time), but I rang the head of the agency and said ‘can you confirm for me that New Zealand didn’t collect wholesale metadata about our ordinary New Zealanders.’

“The answer was ‘we didn’t, and because we didn’t we couldn’t have shared it.'”

The Australian offer was made in 2008, when Helen Clark was Prime Minister. So maybe someone should ask Helen Clark on the record if she ever authorised the collection of metadata from NZers, and the sharing of it with other countries.

Maybe the NZ Labour Party can confirm that when they were in Government, this did not happen on their watch.

3  News reports:

Stats NZ reports:

New Zealand’s merchandise terms of trade rose 7.5 percent in the September 2013 quarter, Statistics New Zealand said today. The latest increase was due to export prices for goods rising more than import prices.

“Dairy export prices helped lift the terms of trade to their highest level since 1973,” prices manager Chris Pike said. “Both the terms of trade and export prices have been on the rise since the start of this year, reflecting higher dairy prices.”

Terms of trade is a measure of the purchasing power of New Zealand’s exports abroad. An increase means New Zealand can buy more imports for the same amount of exports.

In the latest quarter, the price of exported goods rose 8.9 percent, while seasonally adjusted export volumes fell 2.1 percent. Both price and volume movements were strongly influenced by dairy products.

In the September 2013 quarter, dairy export prices rose 24 percent to their highest level since 2008, and are now 46 percent higher than a year ago. Seasonally adjusted dairy export volumes fell 2.7 percent, which is the fourth consecutive quarterly fall. Seasonally adjusted dairy product values rose 20 percent, following a 4.7 percent fall in the June 2013 quarter.

So which political party wants NZ to doubly decimate our dairy herd (reduce it by 20%) in order to fight climate change? I wonder how many votes know Green party policy is to reduce NZ’s dairy herd by 20%, at a time that dairy prices are giving us the best terms of trade in 40 years. It’s almost an economic suicide note.

Transtasman has published its annual ratings for the 120 (currently) MPs. As usual, I do some analysis.

The overall average rating is 4.7 (+0.3 from 2012, which is a reasonable increase)

Average Ratings per Party

1. Maori 5.2 (-0.5)
2. National 5.1 (+0.2)
3. Labour 4.6 (+0.6)
4. Green 4.4 (+0.4)
5. United Future 4.0 (-2.5)
6. NZ First 3.3 (-0.1)
7. Mana 2.5 (-2.0)
8. ACT 1.0 (+1.0)

The small parties all get pretty hammered. NZ First says much the same, and National, Greens and Labour all go up. Labour’s average rating has increased the most.

Top MPs

1. Bill English 9.0 (+1.5)
2. John Key 8.5 (+0.5)
3. David Cunliffe 7,5 (+3.0)
   Steven Joyce 7.5 (+0.5)
   Tim Groser 7.5 (nc)
   Chris Finlayson 7.5 (-0.5)
   Judith Collins 7.5 (nc)
   Paula Bennett 7.5 (+0.5)

Bottom MPs

1. John Banks 1 (+1.0)
   Rajan Prasad 1.0 (nc)
   Brendan Horan 1.0 (-1.0)

Top Labour MPs

1. David Cunliffe 7.5 (+3.0)
2. David Parker 7.0 (+0.5)
   Phil Goff 7.0 (+0.5)
   Annette King 7.0 (+1.0)
   Chris Hipkins 7.0 (+1.5)

Top Third Party MPs

1. Russel Norman 7.0 (-1.0)
   Winston Peters 7.0 (nc)
2. Tariana Turia 6.5 (+0.5)
3. Metiria Turei 6.0 (nc)
   Te Ururoa Flavell 6.0 (nc)
   Kevin Hague 6.0 (+1.0)

Biggest Increases

1. David Cunliffe +3.0
   Hekia Parata +3.0
2. Paul Goldsmith +2.5

Biggest Decreases

1. Peter Dunne -2.5
2. Phil Heatley -2.0
   Hone Harawira -2.0
   Pita Sharples -2.0

Group Ratings

1. Ministers 6.3 (+0.3)
2. Cabinet 6.7 (+0.6)
3. National frontbench 7.4 (+0.6)
4. Labour frontbench 5.8 (+1.7)
5. National backbench 4.0 (nc)

The Cabinet have improved their rankings this year and the National front bench are scoring very highly. However a significant increase for Labour’s front bench which finally has most of their strongest MPs on it.

Worth noting that as always, I of course disagree with some of the ratings. Some of the National backbench ratings are seriously astray for example.

Media lawyer Steven Price blogs at Media Law Journal:

As the NZ Herald reports, the owner/operator/author of NZ’s most widely read blog is being sued for defamation. The plaintiff has formally asked him whether he knows the name of his source. (You might have thought that the answer to this might simply be “yes”. But I guess there’s an obvious follow-up). Slater has refused to answer on the grounds that he is a journalist, writing for a news medium, and therefore does not need to reveal his source. This rule is contained in s68 of the Evidence Act 2006.

Note a couple of things. First, in order to get this source protection, Slater has to show that his blog is a “medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news.”

Second, even if he is a journalist, that doesn’t guarantee that he won’t be ordered to reveal his source(s). The judge can order him to identify his source on the grounds that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the negative impact on the source and the general impact on the flow of information to journalists. This rule applies to all journalists.

So if you are recognised as media, it does not mean you will automatically not have to reveal your sources. It means the threshold for you to be forced to reveal them is higher.

The Judge ruled:

Whale Oil is a blog site. It is not a news medium within the definition of s68… of the Defamation Act. It is not a means for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observation on news.

Price comments:

The judge gives very little reason for this conclusion. It seems a very questionable one. Whatever you think of WhaleOil, it’s hard to deny that he breaks news stories, and that he writes commentary on news. When you factor in the requirement that the courts are supposed to have regard to rights of freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights Act when interpreting statutes – and there’s a respectable argument that protecting sources facilitates the flow of important information – then there seems a powerful argument that this section ought to be construed widely enough to encompass at least some bloggers.

It is a pity the Judge gives no reasoning at all. As Steven says, the conclusion is questionable – at a minimum.

Yet another problem is that the Commission’s inclination was to allow bloggers to be included in the regime, on the grounds that it made no sense to distinguish between mainstream media and bloggers when both were serving the interests of free speech. It would have treated anyone as media who regularly published news and opinion of current value to a public audience, providing they agreed to be bound by an ethics regime. This last element is problematic for Cameron Slater’s case. But in the end the thrust of the report is the need to recognise the valuable news-role played by at least some bloggers.

So in the end, the judge’s conclusion is simply not convincing.

Basically the Law Commission actually said blogs should be able to qualify as media, so long as they had a code of ethics and were subject to an independent complaints process like other media.

It gets worse though. The judge goes on to consider the High Court rules. He cites a rule that says a defamation defendant doesn’t have to disclose sources before trial when pleading honest opinion or privilege. The judge says this rule doesn’t apply because Cameron Slater didn’t argue a defence of “honest opinion on a matter of public interest.” This reasoning seems particularly weird to me. The defence of honest opinion no longer requires  that the comment be on a matter of public interest. He doesn’t need to plead public interest: it would be superfluous. It seems to me that this rule surely applies to a defendant who pleads honest opinion, which Slater did. So I think the judge is wrong there too.

All sounds ripe grounds for an appeal.

UPDATE: Russell Brown blogs on this issue also:

But this is really to misread the Commission’s overall perspective on blogs and similar internet publications – which is that they can and do play an important role in public debate. It ultimately proposed a new news media regulator, which blog publishers could opt to join and be subject to.

He also declares that Whale Oil fits the definition in the Evidence Act:

Whatever you think of Slater’s personal style, I don’t think you can reasonably argue that Whaleoil does not do this.

Brown looks at the wider ramifications:

On this site we do not and are not likely to attract defamation actions in the way that Cameron Slater does. But I was threatened with such action this year. I was aware at the time that a discovery order was a possibility if it went ahead – and also confident that discovery would not reveal anything harmful to my defence. Sources weren’t really an issue. But had things been different, it would have been extremely undesirable to have had my rights ruled out on the argument offered by Judge Blackie.

He concludes:

Anyway, Slater is appealing the decision and I don’t need to defend his work in this instance to hope he succeeds.

Maybe people can help donate to fund the appeal.

UPDATE2: Greg Presland at The Standard also blogs:

It may be that for the greater good Cameron Slater must succeed in his appeal.  

Rare agreement across the political spectrum.

Now back in Nelson having finished the Heaphy Track, and back in Wellington later today. Was an absolutely incredible tramp, and loved it – even when it rained! The first of the nine Great Walks I’m planning to do over the next three summers.

We stayed overnight on Wednesday at the Mercure Apartments in Nelson. They are brilliant Great rooms and views for reasonable prices, and a great pub (the Honest Lawyer, who is buried outside it) across the road.

Definitely stay there again. Then on Thursday morning we had a 8 am shuttle to take us to the start of the Heaphy Track. We used Golden Bay Air for our transport to and from the the track. Our shuttle driver in, was also our scheduled pilot for picking up at the other end!  The drive is around three hours.

The start of the track, just before Brown Hut.

I doubt many people stay at Brown Hut as it is 500 metres from the start. Probably used if you only enter late afternoon or if you are coming the other way and finish in the evening.

The first day is 17.5 kms and you climb around 900 metres. A nice wee challenge going up so much while you are fresh.

One of the more solid bridges we crossed. There are a few swing and suspension bridges later on.

It rained occasionally on the first day, but nothing heavy. Fairly overcast, which had the advantage of not getting too hot.

The colour of the rocks/track changes quite a lot, and later on the overall scenery changes dramatically.

Dozens of little streams you ford. With good boots you shouldn’t get wet – unless you slip in!

Around halfway there at this stage.

This little bird was very friendly. Spent around five minutes talking to me from barely a foot away.

A very welcome sight was the Aorere Shelter after around 4 kms and 12.5 kms. The logical place for a late lunch.

Tracey enjoying the view. Most of the time you are in the canopy, but every so often it breaks open. You realise how remote you are when you can see nothing but bush.

The bush is quite different for the last few kms higher up.

The view from Flanagans Corner, the highest point on the Heaphy Track. You’re 915 metres up at this stage.

The very welcome Perry Saddle Hut.

Perry Saddle is a  new hut opened in 2012, replacing a much smaller one. we loved it. Lots of space and great views.

Nice also to have separate bunk beds rather than all be squashed in together like in some huts. Not the Ritz, but pretty good as huts go.

Relaxing at the end of Day 1.

The view from Perry Saddle Hut.

For this weeks photo I decided to display a far more relaxed perspective of India. Taken at Palolem Beach in Goa, it was easy to let go of the hustle and bustle and just enjoy scenes like this.

Goa is truly a magical place…if you have been there then you will know what I mean.

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

Free Wallpaper – Desktop or iPad

I hope you enjoy this photograph – you can download it as a free Desktop Wallpaper HERE and please share with your friends.

Cheers

Richard [richardhume.com]

The Herald reports:

Would-be Green Party leadership challenger David Hay – whose application to stand as a candidate for the party has been rejected – says he is not finished with the party and will today call on the party’s volunteers and candidates to rally behind him.

At number 16 on the party list, Mr Hay was not far off a seat in Parliament with the Greens at the last election. However, following his threat to challenge Russel Norman for co-leadership last week, the party executive on Saturday said he would not be allowed to stand next year.

That prompted Mr Hay to call for both co-leaders Dr Norman and Metiria Turei to stand down.

Last night he told the Herald he planned to increase the pressure on the two co-leaders today by calling on party volunteers to “go on strike”.

That would involve asking them to cease their work on behalf of the party.

The Greens have for years boasted of how democratic their party is, and how they decide things by consensus etc. And then a party member who almost became an MP announces he will seek the co-leader role at their conference next year, and the party hierarchy ban him from being eligible to even be a candidate, let alone a co-leader.

To ban a member from being a candidate is a drastic step. National’s Board uses it very very rarely, and basically only uses it for people who are “mad” or “bad”.

The Greens could leave it up to individual electorates as to whether or not to have David Hay as a candidate. They could have left it up to their membership where to rank him as a candidate. But the party bosses have struck him down. Never again will Green cries of being different ring true.

“The other candidates and volunteers should be very fearful. If they can do this to me as number 16 on the party list … all bets are off in terms of who’s going to be next.”

He claimed Ms Turei was behind the party executive’s move to prevent him from standing next year. Party insiders had told him “it’s got her fingerprints all over it”.

“If this is the way the leadership is behaving we need to put a stop to that,” he said.

So the Greens are now the party where if you declare you want to stand for the leadership, you get banned from candidacy. Sounds like the current co-leaders are very desperate to avoid a vote. I suspect their concern if not that Norman would beat Hay, but that the size of the protest vote for Hay could show how much discontent there is.

The Herald editorial:

In themselves, the Government’s proposed amendments to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act contain a reasonable degree of common sense. What can be wrong with changes that aim to reduce the risk of children drowning? And if the new law would mean even portable or inflatable pools need to be fenced off, isn’t it right to encourage parents to adopt best practice and empty them after each use?

The only problem is that the proposal is a further sign of a Government regulatory itch that is now of eczematous proportion.

A fair point.

Regulation appeals to governments because it is the easiest response to a problem. But each affects people’s freedom in some way. At their worst, regulations can also skew patterns of investment and the use of economic resources. That is why any government is right to question whether a planned restriction is strictly necessary. And if one is implemented, it should watch it in practice, not least for unintended consequences, and continue to ask if it is justified.

The Government should, therefore, be asking if changes to the swimming pool legislation are necessary when the most stringent fencing will not save young children from all potential water hazards. Many pools are, after all, not far from beaches or lakes, which cannot be barricaded in the way that private pools are meant to be.

Kids can drown in baths. Maybe we should require baths to be fenced off. Also maybe Councils should have to fence off all streams, rivers and lakes. And kids have been known to fall down drains, so perhaps we need to fence off all drains as well.

Colin Espiner writes at Stuff:

I think the Green Party is, overall, a force for good in New Zealand politics and provided it sticks to its core environmental principles rather than social activism it’s likely to do very well again at the next election.

But every now and again the Green Party requires calling out. And its implacable opposition to exploratory drilling by Texan oil company Anadarko off the west coast of the North Island is one of these times.

The hyperbole and rhetoric spewed by the Greens and other assorted opponents of deep-sea drilling for oil and gas is out of all proportion to the risks involved in this venture, and has been driven far more by emotion than it has by logic or science.

A campaign of fear and loathing.

It’s true that deep-sea oil drilling has risk. It’s true there have been accidents – most of them during the 1970s and 1980s, when the technology was still relatively primitive and safety and environmental standards lax by today’s measure.

The notable exception, of course, was Deepwater Horizon, which exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, killing 11 people and spilling more than 600,000 tonnes of oil into the sea.

A report into that disaster found a litany of safety breaches, poor decisions and cut corners, which sparked a wave of regulation- tightening at other deep-sea oil rigs around the world. Both the energy sector and governmental environment watchdogs agree the industry is far safer now than it was even three years ago.

Those risks will never be completely extinguished, of course. But the same goes for flying in a plane. The chances of your flight crashing are extremely low. Every possible safety precaution is taken. It remains possible you will crash. But you still fly, because the benefits outweigh the risks by such a large margin that most people agree it’s worth it.

No human activity can be made risk free.

The benefits to our economy from deep-sea oil drilling are similarly huge. The Government has estimated the potential returns at $12 billion a year if even one new offshore oil field is found.

In the context of our economy, that’s about the relative size of the worth of Australia’s mineral deposit trade with China. It has the potential to transform New Zealand into a wealthy nation with a high standard of living and first-class social services.

Other nations have become rich from deep-sea oil, most notably Norway, which has managed to keep its reputation as a clean and green nation while pocketing $122 billion, which it uses to fund the world’s most generous welfare system.

Greens and Labour have huge spending plans, but consistently oppose economic development which would help fund that spending.

As David Hay feared, yesterday the Greens’ executive took the rare step of dumping him from their candidates pool.  He hasn’t gone quietly though and has suggested the Greens’ leadership should step down.

“The Green Party’s co-leaders need to step down and step away,” Hay said. “We don’t want people like this in Parliament. We don’t want them in Government. We don’t want them in the party. I have completely lost faith in the ability of the party’s co-leaders to stick to the Green Party kaupapa and do what the Green Party does . . . to be fair, transparent, and honest, to do a better type of politics.”

I think the Green Party executive made a real mistake in dealing with Hay behind closed doors.  It would have been more helpful to the Greens’ cause and ‘kaupapa’ if the membership had been given the opportunity to reject Hay and his actions themselves rather than have it come from on high – that would have been the kind of direct democracy that the Greens have talked about for years.

The part of the story that is only starting to come out now is why the Greens’ executive dumped Hay from the candidates pool.  It  is related to his actions and behaviour as a candidate at the last election.  Essentially Hay was seen as unable to stick to agreed campaign strategies and behaved somewhat erratically – sounds pretty Greens-like to me!

And predictably Poto Williams wins the Christchurch East by-election.  Williams ends ups with a majority of 4,613.

Poto Williams got 8119 votes, Matthew Doocey 3506 and the Greens’ David Moorhouse came in third with 926 votes.  The Conservatives’ Leighton Baker came in a pretty respectable fourth with 487 votes.

Labour has held the Christchurch East seat since 1922 and last general election Lianne Dalziel had a majority of 5334.

The Taxpayers’ Union unearthed a gem of a story this week that highlights an ongoing trend of taxpayer funded cafes:

The Taxpayers’ Union has slammed taxpayer owned company Transpower for spending $1.2million on a staff café and reception area in a building where the lease expires in 2014.

In 2012, the taxpayer owned company spent $1.2million refurbishing its reception and building “The Wire” a place where, according to Transpower CEO Patrick Strange, personnel “can engage and collaborate with each other, and with our guests.”

“We want to know how a $1.2million café and reception is better value than sending staff to one of the many cafés within a few hundred metres,” says Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams.  “With the time left on the lease, the cost works out at around $65,000 per month.  That’s a lot of free coffee for only 450 staff.”

“This is a taxpayer owned, state monopoly that instead of keeping our electricity prices reasonable or paying dividends back to the Government, has thrown money into building its own exclusive café in the middle of Wellington’s CBD.”

At a time when retail is finding it tough and the Wellington economy certainly needs a bit of a lift wouldn’t it be more prudent and for the ‘greater good’ to save the $1.2M and encourage staff to lunch or meet in cafes nearby.  Off the top of my  head there are around thirty cafes within a few hundred metres of Transpower.  Perhaps an option could have been to have a scaled down reception area and a couple of meeting or collaborative spaces.

How hard is it for public sector CEOs and management to consider how they spend the tax and rate payer dollar?  Is there really proven staff productivity gains?  Perhaps Dr Strange could provide the evidence for why the $1.2M refurb was needed.

Transpower is not alone.  Treasury [DPF: their cafe was closed many years ago] and others have had taxpayer subsidised cafes over the  years.  At the local government level most of the big councils have on-site cafes.  Just imagine if the staff (who are often major employers in a localised area) chose to spend their money in local shops and cafes.  First, any suggestions of dying CBDs (such as in Hamilton and Wellington to an extent) might get a bit of a lift plus it would be one of the easiest economic development policies implemented.

Ultimately, CEOs need to balance staff contentment with appropriate spend of the taxpayer and ratepayer dollar.

Another day of victim blaming:

A blackmaiiler who threatened to publish intimate photos of girls he befriended online says he accepts “90 per cent” of the blame – but says his 11-year-old victim should not have been on Facebook.

“What’s an 11-year-old doing on Facebook when you have to be 13 to be on Facebook?” Brandyn Alan Stewart, 21, said yesterday.

He said he was not blaming the girls but added: “I take 90 per cent of the responsibility, but it takes two as well.”

This was not the first time this creep had been caught doing this and just shows that there are some nasty, predatory people online.

An interesting point to note for parents:

Stewart had posed as a 16-year-old on a Facebook page he created on January 7. By February he had 426 friends – all of them young females.

Putting aside the access age to Facebook (13), where is  the parental supervision?  Many of these girls are minors.  Parents need to take an active interest in their children’s online presence and talk about whether it is a good idea to ‘friend’ people previously unknown to them online.  Check out this video, it is a very powerful demonstration of how our children don’t see online strangers as ‘stranger danger’

A new initiative has been set up between the Waitangi National Trust and Westpac bank to encourage more children to visit Waitangi leading up to the 175th anniversary of the Treaty signing.

Figures from the Waitangi National Trust show that of the 100,000 people who visit the Treaty grounds each year nearly half (45,000) are tourists, and nearly half of the 55,000 domestic visitors are from Auckland.

But only 3,000 schoolchildren – or just over 2.5 per cent of New Zealand’s 762,400 primary and secondary school students – make the trek north each year to the historic grounds.

This seems like a low number for a location that has great significance to New Zealand’s history however it isn’t the most accessible part of the country.  It would probably make some sense for the initiative called ‘Our Nation’s children’ to perhaps target Auckland schools. For once I agree with the Principals’ Federation that it would be more difficult to get children from other parts of the country there:

“Look at the cost of a child in Gore catching a flight to Kerikeri; it was $800 for a return flight on Air New Zealand, it’s an awful lot of money.”

“That doesn’t allow for food and accommodation … how sustainable is that over time ?”

I remember visiting the Treaty grounds as a kid.  My parents had a general belief to see all parts of New Zealand on our summer school holidays.  We would scrapbook and write stories about what we had seen and learned each day.  That of course was driven by my parents.

So many New Zealanders have a view of Waitangi as being a divisive and even scary place based on what they’ve seen from protests at Waitangi from the past.  That can be a barrier to visiting.

It would be great to see Waitangi visited as often as Independence Hall is visited in the US.  For interests sake I thought I’d have a look at the websites of the two locations.  The site for Independence Hall (the location of where the Declaration of Independence was signed) is run by the US National Parks Service. It is clearly a very busy park and there’s a tonne to do on site and online.  I then had a look at the Waitangi National Trust site that runs the visitor programme at Waitangi.  I was pleasantly surprised at the level of education available online especially for teachers and children.  The pages related to the new initiative ‘Our Nation’s Children’ are interesting and the schools’ competition certainly reduces the costs for some children to get to the grounds.

One interesting difference is that access to Waitangi is $25 for overseas visitors while Independence Hall is free to all (though extras such as tours are charged). A guided tour at Waitangi is $10 for all adults.  At both sites children under 17 are free.

Patrick Gower has a delicious story that may point to why David Hay felt the need to publicly challenge Russel Norman for the male co-Leadership of the Greens.

It turns out that the Party hierarchy have been moving against Hay since late October. it is interesting that messages coming from Norman and other Greens has been that the Party is super democratic and Hay is entitled to challenge for the leadership. Oi guess they forgot all that stuff about how there were moves afoot to dump this guy from the candidate pool.

A few questions should be answered by the Greens – since they purport to be the most democratically, transparent and open party when did Mr Hay  find out that there was a move to dump him from the candidate pool? When were the party rank and file going to be told?  Were the co-Leaders aware of the move to dump Hay and if so why the comments about being a Democratic Party? If the Greens are so open, transparent and democratic why did Mr Hay feel his only avenue was to go public with a challenge if Russell?

I can’t wait for the detail to come out – the Greens are looking a little wobbly on this one.

I’ll put it upfront that I am unlikely ever to be a Conservatives voter.  I am far too right wing economically and am a social liberal (most of the time).  However I will take it upon myself to assist the wider public and ask Colin Craig to please get some discipline.  The man who fronted so much of the pro-smacking brigade has a real problem with discipline himself.

The latest is an interview this morning with Sean Plunket Sean asks a simple question about Chem Trails and Colin gives a pretty poor answer:

“I don’t know and when I don’t know I am quite happy to say I don’t know – and apparently this is not the standard Party line that you are expected to know an have a definite view on this.

“I feel it is very honest to say I don’t.”

I don’t have a huge issue with this response.  When he was leader of the Nats Don Brash was well known for saying he wasn’t sure on an issue and that he would get back to a journalist.

The difficulty is Colin then answered Sean’s question about the Twin Towers and said

“it may be more possible (that terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers instead of a government conspiracy)”.

Interesting that he entertains the possibility of a US government conspiracy to kill thousands of Americans.

Colin then goes on to say:

“the real issue if we are talking Monsanto and other very large food corporates is that there is a real issue about food supply, about food labelling about renewable resources about food. I have some concerns about bioengineering, modification of food – I’m not absolutely opposed to it but I think it is a risky track to go down.”  I do not think our food industry should be controlled by one or two big players.”

My issue with Colin is this.  Stop talking about this fluff.  Start talking about the real Conservatives policies, learn to move a question away from the sensational to the sensible.  Please, please start looking credible.  There is a range of issues and policies that Colin should and could be talking about. Here, Colin, I will help out – try this link to the Conservative Party’s web page http://www.conservativeparty.org.nz/index.php?page=Issues

And please don’t get all snippy and think Liberals (even fiscal conservatives and social libs like me) are picking on you.  We’re not… you have created all of this all by yourself.  You actually have some important stories to tell and issues to highlight but you keep missing them because, like a magpie, you keep going for the flashy stuff.

Ignore the silly fluff and focus!  You should be challenging Winston.  Instead Winston is biding his time and has no need to comment at all because you are creating vacuums and filling them with stuff that is so, so unnecessary.  When was the last time you even touched an issue that crosses over Winston’s territory?  You simply haven’t because you are asleep at the wheel.

A friend overheard an interesting comment from a neighbouring table in a café the other day “If there’s ever a time to make me vote National, it’s Colin Craig. We need to make sure Nats get 50%”

That sort of comment above  is being said not because the electorate cant take you seriously but because you don’t take yourself seriously.  Time to look like a leader and focus on the real issues, Colin.

* this post is written by Jadis so please don’t lynch poor DPF

What a way to die!

A group of Calabrian mafia assassins beat a rival with a spade and fed him alive to pigs, Italian police say. They have been rounding up 20 people for various mob crimes including five murders.

The murder probably took place in March 2012 when Francesco Raccosta disappeared, but his body has never been found, the court in the southern city of Reggio Calabria said in a statement.

Investigators arrested one of Raccosta’s suspected assassins after they captured him bragging about the hit in a telephone wiretap.

“It was such a pleasure to hear him scream,” the suspect said. “In my opinion, there’s nothing left of him … This pig can really eat!”