The United States a a system of Government with a separation of powers. The executive wing does not need a majority in the legislative wing (like in NZ). This model has both strengths and weaknesses to it.

One aspect is that a budget needs to pass the House, the Senate and the President. Since the 1990s it has been hard to achieve this as if no party holds all three, they have different ideas on what the size of the state should be and appropriate levels of spending and taxation.

I’m all for the Republicans refusing to pass a budget that increases spending and taxation, especially as the USG has a deficit which is huge as a % of GDP. They absolutely need to have a realistic path back into surplus – which will at some stage mean entitlement reform. The across the board spending cuts that sequestration brought in have not had anywhere near the dire effect that Obama claimed. While they are a blunt tool, they have shown you can reduce spending (or even the growth in it) without a huge impact on services (as has been the case in NZ).

However I think they are on much weaker ground with their refusal to pass even a continuing resolution to roll over funding, unless Obama agrees to defund Obamacare. Like it or not he won that fight and got the law through a previous Congress. Refusing to pass a budget unless he abolishes it, or defers it, is unreasonable to me.

They won a good battle on the sequestration and that will increase the reductions in spending in the future. Obama hates the sequestration cuts and will be in a weaker negotiating position when the second round is about to hit. They may be able to get a deal at that point. But their demands for him to effectively abolish the signature law reform initiative of his first term is unreasonable to me. Their party is divided on it and may splinter. On the other hand, maybe Obama will blink and agree to a deferral as the law is still pretty unpopular.

Some Republicans think a US Government shutdown isn’t the end of the world, and they are right. While very embarrassing, and painful for affected employees, a couple of weeks or more of no museums and bureaucracy is not that big a deal. It has happened before.

What would be a big deal is a refusal to increase the debt ceiling, which would see the United States of America default on its sovereign debt. As they are the global reserve economy, this would be a massive deal. It could plunge the world into recession. The US Chamber of Commerce is against any games over the debt ceiling and I agree with them. The focus should be on cutting spending to reduce the deficit and eventually stop increasing the debt. But to refuse to increase the debt ceiling when you have already passed budgets that have deficits, is not reasonable.

So in summary the GOP should continue to hold firm on sequestration and not agree to end it unless they get a good deal on spending reductions. It is essential that spending be constrained as the US deficit is so massive. But they should not use the budget process as a way to effectively over-turn a law already passed. That sets a bad precedent for all future Congresses to do the same. And they also should not play games on the debt ceiling.

An interesting billboard on Featherston Street. Personally I think it is the job of parents to restrict their kid’s access to unsuitable websites, not the Government. Plus the huge number of kids who have access on mobile phones means any home based filtering is ineffectual at best.

I note the Australian Liberal Party said they planned to introduce a filtering requirement like the one mooted in the UK. They dropped the policy two days later due to the backlash.

Anyway there is nothing on the billboard that says who is responsible for it There is no legal requirement to do so, but it is unusual to have an anonymous billboard. Anyone know who may be behind it? It isn’t Family First as they always put their name and logo on their publications.

A reader, David Buckingham, has sent me a copy of an OIA request he made to the Reserve Bank asking how many obsolete coins and notes have they received in the last three years. The Reserve Bank will still take old currency, even when no longer legal tender. In fact a couple of years ago I did a clean up of old coins at my place and took them to the reserve Bank who direct credited the value to my bank account.

What is surprising is how many old notes and coins are out there. Here is the number of coins and note returned from 2011 on:

• 1c coins – 142,276
• 2c coins – 154,760
• 5c coins – 1,789,596
• $1 notes – 25,285
• $2 notes – 41,330

But the RBNZ is still getting some pre-decimal currency is. They also have received:

• 10/- notes – 167
• £1 notes – 187
• £5 notes – 188
• £10 notes – 8

And some old coins:

• Halfpennies – 7,080
• Pennies – 13,352
• Threepennies – 90,676
• Halfcrowns – 31,320

Amazing how long old currency stays in circulation.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand’s exports to China have more than trebled since the free trade pact between the two countries came into force.

New Zealand exports to China were worth $7.9 billion in the year to August (the most recent trade statistics available). That’s up from $2.2 billion five years earlier, an increase of 260 per cent. China is now our largest export market.

The China FTA is our best deal ever and Phil Goff’s greatest legacy.

People should remember though that both Greens and NZ First voted against it. They voted against a deal that has seen an extra $5.7 billion a year of exports. Imagine the state of the NZ economy if their views had prevailed.

“It has exceeded all expectations, I think,” says Charles Finny.

Now with consultancy Saunders Unsworth, Finny was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade official who in 2004 was tasked with building the case with the Chinese for beginning negotiations, the first with a developed country, and then launched the negotiations in 2005.

They were to take three years.

And five years after the agreement took effect, the transition to free trade still has some way to go. Tariffs on beef, sheepmeat and kiwifruit will not go until the start of 2016, and not until the start of 2019 on whole and skim milk powder and wool. But by then 96 per cent of New Zealand’s exports to China will be duty-free.

This is key information. The full benefits of the FTA are yet to be realised.

New Zealand now has a network of free trade agreements which covers all of Asean and all three Chinas – Taiwan and Hong Kong as well as the People’s Republic – and that provides options to diversify, he says.

“If you look at markets like Taiwan, Singapore and Hong King where you have a proxy for a Chinese population at certain income levels, you see a disproportionately large spend on food and on things like high quality fruit. Look at Hong Kong and wine; it is just absolute upside.”

Rabobank, in a report last week, is bullish about the prospects for lifting beef exports to China as rising incomes drive demand for what is considered one of the foods of affluence.

Yet some parties remain hostile to international trade.

The Herald editorial:

The Green Party has called the Government’s bail-out of Solid Energy “privatisation by stealth”. Would that it were so. The state coal company will cost the taxpayer $155 million under the terms of the bail-out. It would have been more if the banks holding most of the company’s $380 million debt had not agreed to exchange just $75 million of it for shares in the company.

The banks could have insisted on repayment of all the debt, liquidating Solid Energy and costing 1,000 jobs.

But State-owned Enterprise Minister Tony Ryall is saying little to suggest there is any prospect of Solid Energy going back on to the partial privatisation programme with the power generators and Air New Zealand. More is the pity. The rise and fall of Solid Energy is a textbook example of the pitfalls of public ownership.

There is a case for the Government to own some monopolies like Transpower. There is no case (in my mind) for the Government to own a coal company.

Labour’s state-owned enterprise spokesman, Clayton Cosgrove, never tires of the phrase “asleep at the wheel” when blaming ministers for the company’s ambitious investments. But Treasury records show that in 2010, when coal was still booming on China’s continuing steel production and the board of Solid Energy was making big plans to diversify, the Government was cautious.

Indeed. The Government turned down the funding for the big plans. I suspect Labour would have handed over a billion dollars and renamed Solid Energy KiwiCoal.

If world prices pick up and the company can entertain wider ambitions again, it should be sold to the biggest bid. There is no reason for coal to be a state concern and every good reason to relieve the taxpayer of further risk.

Absolutely.

We should sell TVNZ also, while someone will still pay money for it.

The Herald reports:

Domestic spying agency the Security Intelligence Service is looking for a new deputy chief executive who will advise Prime Minister John Key on internal and foreign threats.

No they’re not.

It is not an SIS job. The job is for a Deputy Chief Executive of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, who will oversee their Intelligence Coordination Group (ICG), National Assessments Bureau (NAB) and the Security and Risk Group (SRG).

While the SIS is New Zealand’s domestic spying agency the successful candidate will provide leadership and coordination of both the domestic and external security sector.

Again the job is not an SIS job. It is a DPMC job.

Horizon have released a exit poll showing John Palino only 4% behind Len Brown in the Auckland mayoralty.

Before people get too excited by this, I would point out Horizon’s final pre-election poll in 2011 had Labour winning the general election and only 5% behind National (in fact they got 20% behind National).

An August UMR poll had the gap at 23% (47% to 14%).

Could things have changed that much in the last six weeks? We’ll find out in a week when the results come in.

Given the rarity of finding one tauhou (silvereye), by itself, three seem more realistic.  One Australian immigrant I have no great objection to.

Click for larger, higher res image

From original album

Stuff reports:

America’s holy grail of music now belongs to Lorde, and the Auckland dad who first picked her talent can happily say: “I told you so.”

Teenager Ella Yelich-O’Connor – who performs as Lorde – made headlines worldwide when she topped America’s music charts yesterday, becoming the first New Zealand artist to have their own song at No 1 on the Billboard Hot 100.

Royals pushed past Miley Cyrus’ Wrecking Ball and Katy Perry’s Roar to take out the top spot, earning the 16-year-old a place in music history.

Making No 1 is an incredible achievement for anyone, but especially so for a Kiwi 16 year old.

I’ve got Lorde’s first album (The Love Club), but not yet her second one (Pure Heroine).

While she is a very talented artist as Lorde, what is very cool is the maturity of Ella. I’ve read several interviews with her and she seems mature beyond her years, very intelligent, and also an accomplished decision maker. So many teen stars go off the rails later in life, and I can’t think of someone less likely to do so. She seems very well grounded.

NZ On Air music manager Brendan Smythe said reaching No 1 in the Billboard top 100 was a “monumental achievement,” unlike any he had seen.

“It is so wonderful. I’ve been around for 25 years in this business, and this is probably the biggest moment in New Zealand music in those 25 years. The No 1 on Billboard is kind of like the holy grail of music, and now it’s Lorde’s grail.

“A New Zealand artist achieving the holy grail in America … it’s something we’ve all dreamed of, worked for, wanted, and it’s such an extraordinary achievement.”

It’s hard to under-sell how big this is. Sort of like Peter Jackson producing the biggest selling film of the year – but Peter doing it as a 16 year old!

Gareth Hughes blogs on the parliamentary prayer, which is:

Almighty God, humbly acknowledging our need for Thy guidance in all things, and laying aside all private and personal interests, we beseech Thee to grant that we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country to the glory of Thy holy name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen, and the public welfare, peace, and tranquillity of New Zealand, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

Gareth says:

Speaking in my personal capacity, I think it’s time to have a discussion around it.  Like many Kiwis and MPs I am not a Christian and I don’t think the prayer reflects the rich and varied religious and spiritual life in New Zealand in 2013. To me, it’s an issue of having Parliament – the representatives of the people of New Zealand – actually reflect the people of New Zealand rather than only one religious group. We should have an inclusive ceremonial opening that all kiwis can feel comfortable with, whatever their faith.

Not all Parliaments around the world have a prayer, though most inherited the practice from growing out of Britain’s Westminster model. South Africa’s National Assembly and parts of Canada have a moment of silence for personal reflection for MPs. In Scotland, they rotate speakers of different affiliations to reflect the make-up of the census. One week they might have a Christian speaker, and another a speaker with no religious affiliations.

There are three major options as I see it:

1. The status quo of a Christian prayer
2. Change the prayer so it isn’t exclusively Christian, but a general spiritual prayer
3. Have no prayer at all

My preference is 2. I could make a case for 3, but people don’t have to take part in a prayer if they don’t want to. However having a prayer which is exclusive to one religion is not a good thing, and is a bad precedent.

The Listener has a book review by me on an excellent book by Richard King called On Offence: The Politics of Indignation.

To quote my own review:

Richard King’s On Offence: The Politics of Indignation is very timely. King argues that all around the world more and more people are claiming it is their right to not have others offend them, and governments and other institutions are bowing to their demands. …

King argues that the principle of free speech is meaningless unless it includes the freedom to offend and that the modern fetish for sensitivity is corrosive of genuine civility. Well-documented and researched, his book doesn’t just report on the high-profile cases of manufactured offence, but dissects the changes in society that have led to this.

It condemns sensitive souls on the left and right of politics, lambasting both political correctness and religious conservatism. Governments and the media are jointly judged as spineless for their failure to defend freedom of speech in the case of the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

King slates political correctness as moving beyond political liberalism when those fighting against intolerance and bigotry do not seek freedom from others’ views but the freedom to impose their own on others. He also takes aim at what he calls patriotic correctness, where political opponents are browbeaten for undermining national pride.

I suspect many readers would enjoy reading the book. It is in no way a kneejerk book, but a very incisive examination of the growing culture of a claimed right not to be offended.

Brian Fallow writes in NZ Herald:

Local Government New Zealand and the New Zealand Initiative are calling for more public services to be provided by local government and funded by local taxes.

At least they would like to see a debate about whether the split between the responsibilities of central and local government is optimal.

NZ Initiative executive director Oliver Hartwich said New Zealand was an outlier among developed countries in having so small a share – 11 per cent – of total government spending undertaken at the local level.

The OECD average for spending by levels of government below central government was 30 per cent, he said, and only Greece and Ireland were more centralised.

We are unusual in having only two tiers of Government – central and local – no provinces or states. Now that I advocate that.

Local Government NZ chief executive Malcolm Alexander said a greater devolution of real authority to local government might encourage greater participation by the public, pointing to reports that in the local body elections now under way only 10 per cent of eligible voters in Auckland have voted so far.

The Swiss Ambassador spoke at an event last night on this topic. She mentioned that in Switzerland all powers started with the cantons etc and over time they decided what to hand upwards to the Federal Government, such as currency and military. In NZ all power rests with central Govt and local government is a creation of central government.

While attracted to the idea of local income taxes, Hartwich stressed that he was talking about re-allocating tax between central and local government, not an overall increase.

Absolutely. I have some attraction to the idea of taxes rather than rates to fund local government. Rates increases are only paid by home owners and businesses (directly) and any increases are often hidden by the fact your house’s value may have changed. I suspect it would be harder for a local Council to increase a local tax rate than it is to increase rates.

Hartwich has a paper on localism here.

Bill English also spoke last night and made some great points on the resilience of local communities and how locals care far more about local outcomes than officials in Wellington, and spoke about some of the pilots around the Waikato where some local initiatives are achieving great things.

Hamish Rutherford at Stuff reports:

The Treasury lobbied for the governor of the Reserve Bank to be stripped of the right to solely decide on interest rate decisions, saying it created risk of “poor judgment”.

When Alan Bollard confirmed that he would stand down from the role last year, senior Treasury officials wrote to Finance Minister Bill English suggesting decisions on the official cash rate (OCR) should be made by a committee, rather than having the decision rest solely with the governor.

“Internationally it is usual to have a committee approach, with a range of possible committee structures,” senior analyst Renee Philip wrote last year, adding that the role of the Reserve Bank had broadened.

“The current single-decision-maker approach poses risks, such as a greater risk of poor judgment by a future governor than with a committee.

This is a worthwhile debate to have.

As I understand it, the Reserve Bank does have a committee that discusses the official cash rate settings, but it is advisory not decision making. One could have it as the official decision maker. It wouldn’t change the decisions, but would give some greater certainty. However it might reduce the accountability of the Governor, as he or she is the one who can be sacked if underlying inflation persist outside the agreed target range.

BNZ, Westpac, NZIER, Infometrics and Berl economists appeared to back the idea of a decision-making committee.

According to the Treasury, BNZ feedback was that a “committee internal to [the Reserve Bank] would ensure against risk of a future rogue governor”.

The Green Party said the advice of the Treasury aligned with its position.

No, it doesn’t. The Greens have said they want a committee to decide, but there is a key difference with Treasury advice. Treasury have said (and most international models are like this) that the committee should comprise senior staff of the Reserve Bank – ie be an internal committee.

The Greens want an external committee where they and/or sectoral interests such as unions, farmers and manufacturers have representatives on the committee. That has considerable danger.

The Manawatu Standard editorial:

There are some serious problems at Massey University’s Extramural Students’ Society, and they wdill not be resolved by the president sticking her head in the sand and hoping they will go away.

I don’t think she wants them resolved. She wants to continue in her job regardless.

In April, Ms Chapman dismissed the vice-president; in May she dissolved the society’s executive; and the following month she appointed three new members to the executive to “pass budgets”. That same executive then agreed to a proposal from Ms Chapman to increase her $20,000 annual salary, allegedly to $50,000, for her part-time position.

$50,000 for a part-time job!

The reality she faces, however, is that a significant number of the members she represents have serious concerns about how she has discharged her duties and it is incumbent upon her to address those concerns. Instead, she has rebuffed calls for a special general meeting of the society to discuss the issues and has refused to respond to news media inquiries.

If Ms Chapman is as assured as she appears that all her actions are constitutional and in the best interests of her members, one would have thought she would be eager to dispel the aspersions that have been cast on her leadership.

While Massey University has understandably steered clear of what is effectively an internal students’ society matter, the time has come for the university to bring some pressure to bear, officially or otherwise.

The very public spat between Ms Chapman and her members reflects poorly on Massey and does nothing to encourage people to enroll in its extramural courses. The university provides funding to the society through a service agreement, so it has some leverage that could be used to help resolve this unfortunate episode.

The university are the body that forces all Massey extra-mural students to fund EXMSS. They are culpable for what is happening. Vice-Chancellor Steve Maharey should intervene and tell EXMSS there will be no more money unless they have proper accountability.

The ABC reports:

Labor leadership candidate Bill Shorten wants to introduce quotas to boost the number of gay and lesbian politicians in Parliament.

Mr Shorten is continuing his pitch to the party membership, sending out a manifesto that calls for the introduction of quotas for politicians representing minority groups.

He says the party should consider quotas for Indigenous Australians and the lesbian, gay, bixsexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community.

NZ Labour are introducing a gender quota, and I don’t see how you can argue for a gender quota yet argue against a gay quota. Once you start down the quota route, it is hard to stop.

Also having a gay quota will be challenging also. Do you have a quota for LGBTI generally or individual quotas for each subset? Lesbians won’t accept a gay man as necessarily representing their interests, so you may need a separate quota for gay men, lesbian women, bisexual men, bisexual women, pre-op transsexuals, post-op transsexuals and intersex persons.

Or you could of course just not have quotas at all on the basis they are demeaning and they judge a person on just one aspect of what makes them up.

There is nothing wrong with having a commitment to diversity. But quotas are a very harmful way of achieving diversity.

Stuff reports:

Tom Clancy, whose high-tech, Cold War thrillers such as “The Hunt for Red October” and “Patriot Games” made him the most widely read and influential military novelist of his time, has died. He was 66.

Penguin Group (USA) said today that Clancy had died yesterday in Baltimore. The publisher did not disclose a cause of death.

“We are saddened by the passing of beloved bestselling author Tom Clancy. Fans worldwide, including us, will miss him greatly,” publisher Penguin Books USA said on its official Twitter feed.

The G.P. Putnam’s imprint that appeared on Clancy’s books is a unit of Penguin.

Clancy died in Johns Hopkins Hospital in his native Baltimore, Maryland, according to US media reports. A hospital spokeswoman was not immediately able to confirm that information.

Clancy arrived on best-seller lists in 1984 with “The Hunt for Red October.” He sold the manuscript to the first publisher he tried, the Naval Institute Press, which had never bought original fiction.

A string of other best-sellers soon followed, including “Red Storm Rising,” ”Patriot Games,” ”The Cardinal of the Kremlin,” ”Clear and Present Danger,” ”The Sum of All Fears,” and “Without Remorse.”

The Sum of all Fears is probably my favourite book. Executive Orders also very good. Actually I loved all the books Clancy wrote. However the books that appeared in his “universe” but were mainly written by someone else were pretty awful.

In 1996 I discovered the world of the Internet and especially Internet newsgroups, or Usenet. There were thousands of news groups including one called alt.books.tom-clancy. Fans could start and respond to threads about Clancy’s books.

After a couple of months I noticed a post from a [email protected]. I assumed it was a fan, but it turned out to be Tom Clancy himself. So for around a decade you could interact with Clancy on the newsgroup, and get clarifications on his books, learn about future books etc. The Internet has been great for bringing authors and fans together, and Clancy was probably the first big time author to be publicly participating in this way.

Anyway very sad that there will be no more Clancy books beyond the one due out this year.

Eric Crampton blogs:

It seems that the lawyers at Sky didn’t like my post on Netflix. They’ve not been in touch with me about it, nor did they get in touch with the folks at SciBlogs about it when I syndicated it there.

But late last week, the National Business Review asked if they could run it as part of their Weekend Edition. I agreed, as I always do. Shortly after it went up at NBR, I received an email from NBR’s Head of Digital saying that they’d had to pull the piece after a legal threat from Sky TV. Sky’s lawyer wanted excised from the article the instructions on how to access Netflix from New Zealand. In my piece, I linked to an Australian website providing instructions on how to access Netflix. I also included a postscript noting that Hola seemed to work very well.

So it is there anything wrong with telling people how to get around geoblocking?

First, note that New Zealand generally allows “parallel importation”. The New Zealand Government, in general, does not think that it is its job to enforce whatever exclusive dealing arrangements that some overseas manufacturer wants to enter into with a domestic distributor. There is a minor exemption on DVDs and films where you cannot import films for commercial distribution for a period of five months from the date that the film is first made available to the public. This lets the theatres get a run where international windowing delays release here relative to the US. However, the ban specifically allows import of legitimate copies for personal non-commercial use. It would be reasonable to read accessing Netflix for personal use as falling into this category, though note that I am not a lawyer. I discussed the temporary ban here. …

But, by my read of 226b, the variety of mechanisms described at this Australian site simply work to circumvent a system controlling geographic market segmentation by preventing playback in New Zealand of a non-infringing copy of a work. Netflix’s catalogue of films and TV shows in the US is non-infringing in exactly the same way that a DVD on sale in the US is non-infringing. And buying a DVD there, bringing it here, and watching it on a region-free DVD player should be as protected as subscribing to Netflix via something like Hola or Unblock-us. Maybe it violates the Netflix terms of service in the US, and Netflix could be justified in cancelling somebody’s account if they deemed such use to be in violation of their Terms of Service. I expect that bringing a Region 1 DVD here and watching it on a region-free player might violate the DVD’s Terms of Service as well. But a take-down notice based simply on the use of the word Hola or a simple description stating that installing Hola was really easy? Again, I’m not a lawyer; hopefully I won’t have to consult one. I’ll rattle a tip-jar if I do and if it winds up being at all pricey.

Getting around geoblocking actually allows you to pay for a copyrighted work. I think we should resist all geoblocking. If you want less piracy, then allow us to buy the content we want.

Any lawyers have a view on whether Eric’s original blog post does fall foul of the Copyright Act?

The NZ Herald reports:

Since Len Brown’s first budget in 2011, debt has risen from $3.9 billion and is projected to reach $6.7 billion this financial year – not including the Mayor’s pet $2.86 billion rail loop. Orakei councillor Cameron Brewer says these are huge numbers while mayoral challenger John Palino believes the Super City is being bankrupted.

Soaring debt, hefty rate increases and a blow-out in the wages bill have marked Len Brown’s first term as Mayor and Treasurer of the Super City. …

Since Mr Brown’s first budget in 2011, debt has risen from $3.9 billion and is projected to reach $6.7 billion this financial year. Every day the council has borrowed $2.5 million and the interest bill this year is $347 million. 

A good story, that would have been better if it had been done a month or two ago!

On the thorny issue of rates, Mr Brown has proudly driven overall rates increases down from 3.9 per cent to 3.4 per cent and 2.9 per cent in his first term, but been blind-sided by the move to a single rating system in 2012 resulting in some ratepayers paying more than the average and some less.

The Government came to his rescue to cap maximum increases at 10 per cent for three years, but there has been rates pain along the way with Albert-Eden households copping a 19.7 per cent increase in the past three budgets and Puketapapa (19.6 per cent), Orakei (18.3 per cent), Maungakiekie-Tamaki (17.6 per cent) and Howick (15.7 per cent) also being clobbered. Henderson-Massey households have fared best with an overall drop of 2.8 per cent in their rates over three years.

Rates should increase no faster than inflation, on a per capita basis.

The agency that designed the Super City trimmed staff numbers from the 9430 of the previous eight councils to 8207 and forecast an annual salary bill of $513 million by 2012. The actual bill hit $655 million in 2012. Mr Brown told the Herald that the council group currently has 7800 staff – “significantly less than what we were before”.

However, figures in the just-published annual report show a head count of 10,616 fulltime and part-time employees. The notes say “the total number of fulltime employees” is 8074 and the fulltime equivalent of “part-time employees” is 1490. A council spokesman said part-timers were included in the fulltime figure.

What’s more, the number of staff earning more than $100,000 has climbed about 20 per cent in the past year to 1500, 113 of whom earned more than $200,000

So Len’s Council is spending almost 30% more on staff that was proposed.

Ewan Wilson has facebooked:

Some of my political opponents and their financial supporters have raised my historical fraud convictions as an important issue going into the Mayoral election.

I’m not sure if this is a reference to my blog post but for the record I am not a political opponent of Wilson, or a financial supporter of any candidate.

I am extremely proud of Kiwi Air and what we achieved. 

It was great having Kiwi Air bringing more competition to the skies. But does the pride extend to the hundreds of travellers who had paid for air tickets and were left stranded at airports when Kiwi Air went into liquidation? And the people and companies that were owed $8 million that never got paid?

That said, I’m the first to acknowledge my mistake of signing four documents in 1995 which lead to the convictions. I let down my wife, my family, my staff and the public. However I do not subscribe to the view that this mistake defines who I am or who I could be. Every single day in everything I do I use this life lesson to continually be and become a better person. This means making better decisions. The decisions I made as a young man are very different to the ones I make today. My family and I have been recently challenged again as I fought cancer and I can assure you the person I am today has yet again evolved significantly as a result.

My question back to you is simply this: “As a person whose has made a mistake, does that mean I stop evolving and making a worthwhile contribution to society?”, I would say emphatically, no.

First of all I absolutely do not think a criminal record means you can not make a worthwhile contribution to society. Far from it. However if you are seeking the mayoralty of a major city, then your criminal record is relevant.

But here’s what I’ve observed over the years. Ewan minimises what he did. He refers to his convictions as the result of a mistake. Later on he calls it an “error of judgement”. It seems a long way removed from any contrition.

His offending was bad enough that he was banned from being a company director or involved in the management of a company for five years. However he has shown a history of not accepting that punishment.

Just a year after he was banned, the Herald reported:

Kiwi Air founder Ewan Wilson has been told by the Companies Office that he should be careful not to get too involved in the new charter airline K2000.

Last year Mr Wilson was banned for five years from being a director, or from taking part in the day-to-day management of any company, because of his role in the mismanagement of Kiwi Air.

After Mr Wilson popped up this week as a consultant to the latest international “nuts and cola” airline, the Companies Office wrote a letter reminding him what he could and could not do for K2000. …

He said he had acted as a consultant for an Auckland company, The Little Kiwi Management Company, on a range of projects for the past six months.

“It would appear the bureaucrats in Wellington have very little to do other than to chase their own tails.

“I’m a consultant. The Companies Office is going to have to live with that and move on.”

Doesn’t sound very contrite does he. He sounds arrogant and annoyed that the Companies Office dared to remind him that he was banned.

This was not the only time. In 2003 he decided again he was above the law, as the Herald reported:

Ewan Wilson, the man who founded the ill-fated Kiwi Airlines, could be forced to resign from his position on a prominent Hamilton trust following revelations that he was not legally entitled to stand for election.

Following the collapse of Kiwi Airlines in 1996 Mr Wilson was convicted of fraud and sentenced to three months’ periodic detention.

A separate Companies Office investigation resulted in his being banned from managing or directing any company for five years.

That order has now expired, but it was still in place when Mr Wilson, also a Hamilton City councillor and Waikato District Health Board member, won a seat in the WEL Energy Trust elections last June.

WEL Energy Trust chairman Garry Mallet said Mr Wilson had signed a form before the election saying that to the best of his knowledge he met the eligibility criteria, which included not having any prohibition orders.

Again it is all explained away as being a mistake – that he didn’t read the papers.

Wilson first announced he was standing for Mayor of Hamilto in 2001. So while it may be 17 years since his offending, he though so little of his convictions that he was standing for Mayor just four to five years later, and campaigning when he was still in his five year ban period as a company director.

So to be honest the opinion I’ve formed over the years is that Wilson has never shown any contrition for his criminal offending. He resented the Companies Office pointing out their ban to him. He decided as early as 2001 that he wanted to be Mayor, which strongly suggests to me he never saw the convictions as a big thing. They’re just a mistake, an error. Why should they be held against him? Just as the failure of Kiwi Air was never his fault – it is all the fault of Air New Zealand because they responded. And when issues such as the V8s come up, Ewan again says it was not his fault, as he was only on Council for some of the period dealing with them. There just seems to be a huge pattern there which to my mind is absolutely relevant to his suitability to be Mayor.

It’s nothing personal. I’ve never met the guy. It’s an impression I gained at the time of the collapse, and has been reinforced on multiple occasions since then. If he does manage to win, I hope he proves me wrong.

Stuff reports:

A former Christchurch man with more than 158 convictions, including 11 for driving while disqualified, drove at more than three times the speed limit in a residential area while children played, a court has heard.

Howard David Braithwaite, 41, who recently moved to Nelson, has been sentenced in the Nelson District Court for dangerous driving and for driving while disqualified for the 12th time.

Police said that about 9am on January 12, they received calls from residents of Dunns Ave, near the Pines Beach, north of Christchurch.

Braithwaite was driving an unregistered, unwarranted Holden about 100kmh in a 30kmh zone. He drove around the small streets at that speed, skidding at every corner.

Lucky to not be facing manslaughter.

Residents were on the footpath, and several children were playing near the road, police said.

One resident followed Braithwaite in an attempt to get him to stop, but he braked the car suddenly, and the resident collided into the rear of the car.

Police found Braithwaite at his house a short time afterwards. He had changed his shirt in an attempt to confuse them regarding his identity and told them he had been home at the time of the offending.

He failed a breath test, but passed a subsequent evidential test.

Not sure if it is better or worse than he was not totally pissed.

Judge Richard Russell said Braithwaite had 15 pages of previous convictions, accumulated between 1989 and 2012.

Among these were 11 previous convictions for driving while disqualified, 20 convictions for other driving offences, and more than 80 other convictions.

It was by “a very fine margin indeed” that he had decided on home detention, Judge Russell said.

He sentenced Braithwaite to six months home detention, 150 hours of community work, and disqualified him from driving for 18 months.

I’d be thinking a lifetime disqualification from driving and 18 months inside! How long until he kills someone?

It probably won’t surprise anyone that I won’t be voting for Celia Wade-Brown to be re-elected Mayor. However it might not be for the reasons people assume – that she is a Green Party member. I have endorsed a number of Labour and Green party members for local government positions in the past.

I basically assess local body candidates on what I call the 3 Ps – policies, personality and political management.

Now when it comes to policies, of course there are not that many areas I agree with Wade-Brown. However the Mayor is just one vote of 15. So policies alone is not a sufficient reason to not vote for someone.

Personality isn’t a problem for me with Celia. She pleasant and engaging, and generally gets on well with people. She is no Bob Parker who managed to alienate huge swathes of people.

It is the third area, political management, where the Mayor hasn’t been successful. The Council under her leadership has been almost embarrassing at times as it flip-flops backwards and forwards on issues such as the Basin Reserve.

Dave Armstrong notes in the Dom Post:

Sadly, one of Ms Wade-Brown’s strengths – that she is largely a democratic consensus politician – is also one of her weaknesses. With an evenly divided council, there is a feeling, even amongst Wade-Brown’s supporters, that she hasn’t rammed through much of her own policy, so not a lot has been achieved. Worse, the outsourced and CCO (Council- controlled Organisations) tail seems to be wagging the council dog, with the mayor and council being kept in the dark.

Being unaware of the costs of your own office refurbishment and the fact that the Council had outsourced most of its works operations is almost unforgivable in terms of political competence.

But also, the failure to get much done through Council. You don’t achieve that by ramming things through (as you only get one vote). You achieve that by working with Councillors on win-wins. A Mayor should never turn up to a Council meeting unaware of how a vote will go. They need to be constantly talking to colleagues, building coalitions, and the like.

I don’t like Len Brown’s policies very much (and very much like some of John Palino’s ideas) but you have to credit Brown that he hasn’t lost too many votes at Auckland Council. His team have run a reasonably tight operation.

So that’s why I won’t vote for Celia – partly policies and partly political management. If she does get re-elected, then of course her policies will not change but I do hope she improves her political management.

There are five other candidates, and the Dom Post has their views on leadership here.

Karuna Muthu and Rob Goulden both have some good policies. They’re both fiscally conservative and pretty balanced on issues such as transport. But no-one thinks either can win. Karuna’s challenge is his lack of experience on Council and Rob’s is being able to persuade people that he has got over the battles of yesteryear from when he was last on Council.

Jack Yan has run a good campaign for the second time. Armstrong notes:

Mr Yan is a younger, impressively multilingual entrepreneur with the rare distinction of being both an ex- Alliance candidate and involved with the Miss Universe competition. 

I do have a suspicion of anyone who has been an Alliance candidate. Yan does have some good ideas and has done well in business. However I have reservations about whether he would be up to the political management needed to be Mayor. They are different skills.

John Morrison is the person most likely to beat Celia. If this was an FPP election I’d vote for John. I’ll be happy if he becomes the Mayor. I’ve been on Radio with him a few times, and he’s a well grounded funny guy. He also has a very impressive record of achievement as a Councillor in bringing both sporting events and jobs to Wellington.

However his campaign hasn’t been the best and stuff such as the comments about a model, and objecting to voting booths at the university have caused reluctance with some people who want a change, but are unsure if he is a change for the future.

As I said, I’m hoping he’ll beat Celia. I think a Morrison mayoralty will stabilise the Council, and we won’t end up with a Council that is flip-flopping all over the place. I’ll be ranking Morrison No 2.

My No 1 vote will go to Nicola Young. I think Nicola has the policies, the personality and the political skills to be a good Mayor.  Having only launched her campaign mid-year, the odds are against her. But I constantly hear feedback from people saying that they badly want change, they have hesitations about John, and like what they have seen to date of Nicola.  I really admire her for staying true to her principles and not saying she’ll vote for a living wage, despite the baying from some on the left who see that issue as a litmus test for humanity (which says more about them). I’ve also had good feedback from various groups around Wellington such as Vic students who have said Nicola has engaged with them, listened to them and even adopted some policy suggestions.

So I’ll be voting Nicola Young 1, John Morrison 2. If you want change for Wellington the key thing is to make those two your top two choices. It doesn’t matter so much which is 1 and which is 2 – follow your own preferences. They key thing is to put the person you least want elected as No 6 or leave them unranked entirely.