The Press editorial:

But perhaps it should not have been because widespread respect for English, following his steady, careful performance as minister of finance through the worst financial crisis of the past 80 years, has been growing. A complimentary remark by a respected American economist on English’s performance at a conference in Sydney recently, was not untypical and it prompted a highly regarded New Zealand economist, Matt Nolan, to comment: “This is not the first time I’ve heard people overseas sing Bill English’s praises [it is probably in double-digits now] . . . we have a finance minister who understands the issues and tries to communicate them clearly.”

English came to office with an economy that had already been in recession for almost a year, when the global financial crisis hit. He had a measure of luck – there was no housing bust and although there were nervous moments, the New Zealand banking system did not buckle. But English responded to the crisis pragmatically and skilfully, avoiding severe retrenchment but focusing determinedly on reducing government debt and balancing the budget. Contrary to opposition propaganda, the government did not bring with it any dogma or hidden agenda.

A shock could, of course, upset things. The balance of payments deficit and overseas debt continue to be relatively high and to cause concern. But English’s overarching goal of getting the Government’s books in order, which looked hopelessly remote five years ago, now seems achievable, if only by a whisker, next year.

No surprise that I agree. Bill English has had the most challenging circumstances of any Finance Minister, and done very well. On top of that he is pushing a micro-reform agenda across Government that is making a difference.

While David Shearer was ultimately brought down as leader of the Labour Party by his woeful public communication, the role of weak, ill-thought-out policy in his downfall has probably been underestimated.

It is a factor the three contenders for the Labour leadership – Grant Robertson, David Cunliffe and Shane Jones – do not seem to have cottoned on to. In the beauty-contest meetings held so far, they appear mostly to have been diverted by essentially trivial issues such as the so-called “man-ban” or by seeing how far they can go in outbidding each other in implausible left-wingery.

The Labour leadership contenders have, in some areas, moved to the left of the Greens. That takes some doing!

Bob McCoskrie blogs a Herald article:

Young adult drinkers dependent on the bottle are nearly 10 times more likely to have had 10 or more sexual partners within several years than people who don’t misuse alcohol, a new study shows.

If this news gets out, I’d say it will encourage many more young people to drink more, if it means they are ten times more likely to have sex with more partners!!

David Cunliffe writes at The Standard:

I’d like to thank Lynn and the authors of the Standard for this opportunity to contribute a post here, where Labour members and the broader left come together online. The Standard is certainly one of the most respected political blogs and I am a regular reader.

I’ve always wondered if David is also an author 🙂

I will introduce a living wage for all employees of Government agencies – and I will extend this policy over time to any business that seeks to win Government contracts.

This pledge goes further than what we had before. This is not saying if you are doing work for the Government, the staff doing that work must be paid the Anglican Church mandated living wage. It it saying that any business that has (or seeks) any contract with the Government must pay $18.40 (for now) an hour.

Now the Government is a massive chunk of the NZ economy. There are few businesses who wouldn’t have at least one contract with a government agency. So if you own a copy centre, and you win the contract to do the copying for say the NZ Transport Agency, then you have to pay all your staff $18.40 an hour or more – even the 16 year old copy assistant.

So the way Cunliffe (and I presume Robertson) have worded their pledge, is in fact a de facto minimum wage for all. The destruction of jobs that will follow would be massive.

Some may argue that it will only apply to those working for the Government through the contractor. But I can’t see that happening. Say you are a cleaning company. Could you pay staff $15 an hour when they clean the ANZ but $18.40 an hour when they clean the Reserve Bank? Of course not. No employment contract would allow you to pay people based on who your clients are. It would inevitably mean you would have to pay all your staff whatever figure Rev Charles Waldegrave proclaims every year to be the new living wage!!

The Herald editorial makes the point:

Everyone agrees that New Zealand needs to lift its incomes overall, to match Australian rates if possible. But the Labour Party seems to think that this can be done at the stroke of its pen. Mr Robertson in particular, is talking as though an economy is simply a job-creation scheme and all that a government needs to do is make its priority “people”.

He is surely insulting the intelligence of Labour Party audiences, most of whom appear to have been around a good deal longer than Mr Robertson and can remember when the economy was largely a job-creation scheme.

Promising to lift wages by stroke of a pen, and that there will be no impact on jobs, is a cruel hoax. If it was that easy, everyone would do it.

Oh dear. NZ First MP Asenati Lole-Taylor asking Anne Tolley if she would feel harrassed if asked walking down the street how much for a blowjob!

Watch the Speaker as he tries to work out if this involves ministerial responsibility!

Audrey Young at NZ Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key said yesterday that the School Journal would continue despite the decision to close the state-owned enterprise that produced it, Learning Media.

“There are still some very important parts of the business like the School Journal and that will be maintained,” Mr Key said yesterday after Finance Minister Bill English and Education Minister Hekia Parata announced it would be wound down over several months.

Opposition parties say the decision to open up its traditional business to competition killed it off.

So the opposition believe state owned companies should not face competition?

The company employs just over 100 people. It had its genesis as the School Publications branch of the old Department of Education and has struggled financially for many years.

Mr English said the company had been bailed out before by the Government, even when it had a monopoly contract.

It lost money even when it had a monopoly?

Steven Joyce has announced:

All foundation education (Level 1 and 2 courses) will be fees-free for 20-24 year-olds from 2014, Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment Minister Steven Joyce announced today.

At the same time the government will extend the Youth Guarantee Scheme to 18 and 19 year-olds, meaning that all New Zealanders below the age of 25 will be able to access fees-free level 1 and 2 education courses.

“Level 1 and 2 courses deliver core foundational skills required for success in life. They provide students with the skills required for higher level vocational study, training and employment,” says Mr Joyce.

“Most students gain these skills and qualifications (such as NCEA Level 2) in a school setting, but too many New Zealanders don’t have these skills at age 18, or older.

“The government will focus funding on those who have previously not achieved a level 1 or 2 qualification, including beneficiaries referred by the Ministry of Social Development where level 1 and 2 study meets their needs.

This is good. Few people can contribute to the country and economy without at least NCEA Level 2. It is the minimum in terms of literacy and numeracy that students should have. Allowing people to gain those skills post-school for the same cost (free) as if they were still at school is very welcome.

That is how you help the more disadvantaged in society. Giving them the skills they need.

Just appeared before the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Royal Succession Bill. My points were basically:

1. Ridiculous that it has taken so long to remove the gender discrimination against women where a younger brother succeeds to the throne ahead of an older sister
2. That while a welcome move in the right direction, it doesn’t solve fundamental problem of monarchy – that we may end up with a very undesirable head of state.
3. That if this bill has been in place from NZ’s beginning, then Victoria, the Princess Royal would have become Queen of New Zealand in 1901, and her eldest son would have become King of New Zealand around six months later. That would have been Kaiser Wilhelm II, who would have been King of New Zealand.
4. The bill doesn’t abolish the requirement for the Head of State of New Zealand to be Anglican, and this religious discrimination should go
5. This change will possibly affect one woman in around 80 years or so, if Prince George’s first born is female and has younger brothers. Prince George will probably die around 2115, so any impact is a century or so off.

The Dom Post reports:

The oil, gas and mining sector is the most productive sector in the economy, with workers earning an average of $105,000 a year and generating $333 for each hour worked, a government report shows.

Yet this is the sector that the Greens and some in Labour want to close down. We have Labour leadership candidates saying they want higher wages yet opposing anything that allows for more drilling or mining.

Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce said oil and mineral exports, excluding coal, were worth $2.8 billion last year.

That’s almost as much as the promises made by the leadership candidates this week!

“If we want more and better-paying jobs and more money to invest in our schools and hospitals, then we need to keep making the most of our abundant energy and minerals potential through environmentally responsible development,” Joyce said.

Or we can just print money!

However, the government report shows the petroleum and minerals sector, including gold, coal and aggregates, generates $333 an hour worked based on the GDP for the sector divided by the number of hours paid. That compares with the average of just $48 for each hour worked.

And workers are paid on average $105,000 a year – more than twice the New Zealand average.

Filthy rich pricks! Tax them more!

Also in the Dom Post:

Driven by booming dairy prices, New Zealand’s terms of trade raced up almost 5 per cent in the June quarter as export prices rose at the same time as import prices dipped.

Another sector many on the left claim is bad for New Zealand and must not be allowed to expand!

It was the largest quarterly rise in the terms of trade in two years, as dairy prices rose 14 per cent in the June quarter.

More filthy rich pricks!

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers 2.00PM-3.00PM

1. JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to build a productive and competitive economy in view of the contraction in the tradable sector and negative growth in manufacturing seen in the mid-2000s?
2. Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR to the Minister of Police: What reports, if any, has she received from the Police concerning public harassment and intimidation from street prostitutes and their clients in South Auckland?
3. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that the Government’s review of telecommunications law which may benefit Chorus by up to $160 million and the $30 million taxpayer funded subsidy to the Rio Tinto-owned Tiwai Smelter are examples of corporate welfare; if not, why not?
4. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Energy and Resources:What reports has he received on the petroleum and minerals sector in New Zealand?
5. JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Social Development: Does she have any concerns that the changes to welfare implemented by her this year are causing some beneficiaries trauma; if not, why not?
6. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Health: What progress is the Government making in improving waiting times for elective services?
7. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?
8. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Revenue: What recent initiative has the Government put in place to improve compliance with child support and student loan repayment obligations?
9. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements?
10. CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister of Local Government: What is the Government doing to make it easier to vote in local body elections?
11. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “the Government is committed to improving health services for diabetes and heart disease, with a strong focus on prevention”?
12. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Finance: Has he been advised which banks have put up their interest rates or bank charges since Loan to Value lending limits were announced?

Today Labour are asking four questions. These are about the regulatory relief given to Chorus and the Tiwai Point Smelter one off payment, whether the Minister of Finance stands by all his statements, whether the Minister for Primary Industries stands by all his statements, and finally interest rates. The Greens are asking two questions. These are about Welfare Reform and prevention services in the Health portfolio. New Zealand First are asking one question, about prostitution.

Patsy question of the day goes to Claudette Hauiti for Question 10: What is the Government doing to make it easier to vote in local body elections?

Government Bills 4.00PM-6.00PM.

1. Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill – Third Reading

2.Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill – Third Reading

The Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Housing, Nick Smith. The purpose of this bill is to enhance housing affordability by facilitating an increase in land and housing supply in places with significant supply or affordability issues.

The Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill is being guided though the house by the Minister for Building and Construction, Maurice Williamson. The bill proposes amendments to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006 to validate a disciplinary levy and an offences fee prescribed by the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board. The bill also seeks to extend the Board’s power to impose levies so that it has funding for all of its functions, including the prosecution of non-registered persons.

Chris Barton writes in the NZ Herald:

The PM further fuelled the uncertainty flame following the release of the commission’s report saying: “It has significant implications both for [Chorus] and for UFB. It substantially reduces the income of that company and its capacity around broadband.”

Here’s what John Key might have said: “Well, thems the breaks. The Commission has arrived at its determination after careful consideration. The determination was signalled in 2010. The process has been in law since 2011 and we’ve been expecting it since before Chorus was formed, following the de-merger with Telecom. No one, including the analysts, should be surprised by this. If they are, then they haven’t done their homework.”

To which an enquiring journalist might have asked: “What about the extra cost Chorus is facing on the UFB?

Key: “Well that’s a bit rich. We’ve given Chorus $929 million interest free for 14 and half years, making it a loan worth about $1.2 billion, to build its part of theUFB.

That’s a pretty generous deal agreed by both parties on commercial terms. That’s business. For Chorus to be moaning about extra costs – well that’s its problem – we acted in good faith.”

Journalist: “So you’re not at all worried that Chorus could fail and the UFB won’t get rolled out in time?”

Key: “Not at all. Look, 18c per share is still a good dividend. Chorus is still a good business with a captive market. It has until 2020 to get just 20 per cent of users onto its part of UFB and has from 2025 to 2036 to repay the loan. That seems quite doable. Meanwhile it has a guaranteed revenue stream from its existing copper network. Nothing to see here.”

But of course John Key didn’t say that. Instead he set in train Adam’s intervention to hold copper broadband prices artificially high.

I think the planned intervention is not well justified.

Even if one accepts that it is in the public interest (not that I do) to have higher (than they would be if no intervention) copper prices so that people migrate to fibre, I don’t understand why you would gift the extra revenue to Chorus – rather than use it to fund further fibre roll-out – or rural broadband.

I’m a Chorus shareholder, but I don’t want Chorus to benefit from regulatory changes that are not good for consumers.

I quite accept that there are legitimate issues over how to price the copper network, and should it be based on its current cost, or the cost of the replacement network – as it is in electricity.

But the complicating factor is that the future network is being delivered by way of government contract and subsidy through contracts with Crown Fibre Holdings. So the investment decisions shouldn’t be based on revenues from copper (well not for 75% of the country).

By coincidence, I was at a Chorus announcement last night, and it was an exciting one. They announced that they will connect an entire town in New Zealand up to 1 GB/s fibre. And they are effectively having a competition where towns will say what they would do with it, how they would market themselves, and the winning town will be chosen, and made the fastest town in the Southern Hemisphere when it comes to the Internet.

That’s a great initiative to get communities involved in thinking about their fibre future, and will attract lots of attention. I suspect, sadly, Thorndon doesn’t qualify as a town 🙂

Paul Brislen writes more about the Chorus announcement:

Chorus has launched a promotion that will give one town in New Zealandgigabit speeds on the Ultra Fast Broadband network.

One gigabit per second is fast. OECD rankings suggest that only four countries in the world offer national 1Gbit/s plans – Turkey, Slovenia, Sweden and Japan (this was in 2011 so there may be more by now) and that most top out at about half that speed.

We’re talking about 1000Mbit/s. Today I get 15Mbit/s download so to call it a step change is something of an understatement. My upload speed is barely 1Mbit/s.

We tend to get complacent about the fantastic advances technology makes each year. A doubling of capacity, a tripling of speed, these numbers become run of the mill and users are blasé about them. But a thousand fold increase in my upload speed would be startling to put it mildly, so good on Chorus for trying this out.

The economic potential of offering such a service is astonishing. Think what having such a speed would do to the way we think about remote working or having to live in the main centres. Think about what access to the world at those kinds of speeds would mean for start-up software developers and to our migration patterns. Software companies should be lining up for our cheap housing and staff with no fear of us being too removed from the world.

I am excited about a fibre future. But I also want copper not over-priced during the transition to fibre.

The Press editorial:

When the act allowing for citizens initiated referendums to be held was passed in 1993, it provided that they could only be started after a petition to Parliament signed by 10 per cent of registered electors within 12 months.

The provision was designed to be, and has been, an effective deterrent to single-issue cranks getting their pet obsession on to a ballot paper. It means that anything that does make it to a referendum has some public support already.

It has not, however, prevented the four referendums held so far from being a waste of time and money. All four have produced the answer their proponents wanted and all four have, quite properly, been ignored by the governments of the time, both Labour and National-led.

People should keep asking those who claim a CIR should trump an election, when they will vote to amend the anti-smacking law in line with the 87% vote in that referendum.

The referendum is even more pointless than usual. Not only will it have no influence on the Government’s stance on the issue, it is also on a matter on which the Government undoubtedly gained a mandate at the last election – the fate of state assets was one of the foremost issues of the election campaign. The partial sale of state assets is, furthermore, an issue for which the Government will be answerable at the general election just over a year from now.

That is how it should be. You put up a policy at an election. You keep your word and implement it. You get judged on your record at the next election.

NK News reports:

From there, the Morgans got the chance to appreciate the scenic and personal beauty of the international pariah at harvest season.

“There could be problems in the country where we didn’t see,” Joanne said. “So we can’t comment on anything we didn’t see. But what we saw, it was fantastic.“

“The country is beautiful,” Garth said. “The country is just fantastic, the farms are perfect. They have no pollution.”

It’s a paradise! Perfect farms. No pollution!

“You look at their personal gardens, and they have got sunflowers, pumpkin growing over their roof, they (have) tobacco, huge pride in their personal space as well as their communal farms,” Joanne said. While the standard of living is clearly lower than in the South, they said it probably is not much different from South Korea a couple of decades ago, and that those they witnessed were not malnourished or lacking in necessities in clothing or shelter.

Never occured to them, that of course they don’t get to see the areas where three million people starved to death.

“Frankly I don’t see the DPRK regime through any different lens than I see China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia – even Singapore at times – authoritarian regimes all of them,” he added.

Yes, North Korea is just like Singapore. Absolutely.

John Armstrong writes in NZ Herald:

The week’s prize for barefaced cheek must surely go to the Greens.

With Parliament’s Clerk of the House yesterday finally giving the okay for a non-binding referendum on National’s asset sales policy, the Greens listed the costs to the taxpayer so far of the Government’s partial privatisation programme.

Included in the total, which the Greens estimate as close to $125 million, was $9 million to pay for the referendum.

That sum is certainly a cost the Government has to meet. But it is a cost forced on the Government by virtue of the successful efforts of the Greens and the other Opposition parties.

They force the referendum, and blame the Govt for the cost. Incredible.

The logic for citing this as a Government-imposed cost on the taxpayer was that the referendum was only being held because National has an asset sales policy.

On that basis, the Greens should have included the nearly $50,000 in taxpayer-provided money drawn from its parliamentary funding to pay eight staff to collect signatures for the petition needed to force the referendum.

The $50,000 was only the cost of the extra staff. I estimate the total cost to the taxpayer was around $400,000 when you include all the full-time staff who worked on co-ordinating the petition.

I blogged yesterday on how the caucus looks to be voting on the Labour leadership. That was realatively easy to do, as that involves just 34 people, many of whom have publicly declared their intentions.

Based on feedback and some tweaks at the end of the day I had it Robertson 47%, Cunliffe 35% and Jones 18%, Of the total electoral college vote that would be 19%, 14% and 7% respectively. If you reallocate Jones then 21% Robertson to 19% Cunliffe. However that may change. The senior MPs are still strongly backing Robertson and may get some of the swinging MPs to fall behind them.

Now we have the union vote. First is how much does each union get. I estimated last week that the voting strengths were:

1. EPMU (Engineering etc) 36,987 members, 41.5% of union vote, 8.3% of total vote
2. SFWU (Service Food etc) 22,351 members, 25.1% of union vote, 5.0% of total vote
3. MWU (Meat) 15,313 members, 17.2% of union vote, 3.4% of total vote
4. DWU (Dairy) 7,000 members, 7.9% of union vote, 1.6% of total vote
5. RMTU (Rail) 4,747 members 5.3% of union vote, 1.1% of total vote
6. MUNZ (Maritime) 2,635 members, 3.0% of union vote, 0.6% of total vote

I asked the unions for details of what share of the vote they are, and how many delegates they have. The only union which has replied was the RMTU which kindly confirmed they have 26 voting delegates and affiliate on 3,000 members which makes them 6.44% of the union vote and 1.3% of the total vote. This suggests the total affiliate membership is 46,584.

As we don’t have precise numbers for the others , I’ll apportion out and so this gives us

EMPU – 41% of union vote, 8.2% of total vote, approx 60 delegates

The EPMU National Executive has not endorsed anyone but some EPMU figures such as Paul Tolich are very pro Robertson. Tolich failed to get an EPMU endorsement formally, but that does not mean there is not massive lobbying going on of the 60 or so delegates.

I’d guess that Robertson could get 65%, Cunliffe 25% and Jones 10%.

SWFU – 24.8% of union vote, 5.0% of total vote, any member can vote

Because they are allowing all members to vote, the influence of hierarchy is less. Cunliffe and Robertson are both playing to their members with their living wage promises. Those who are not involved in Labour but attend a meeting will probably find both equally good.

Cunliffe has some SWFU people on his team and a strong Auckland base so I’d go Cunliffe 55%, Robertson 30%, Jones 15%

MWU – 17.0% of union vote, 3.4% of total vote, approx 54 delegates

 This one is very hard to pick. Their members are more provincial than urban, so Jones would do better with them. I’m sticking them down as Jones 34%, Cunliffe 33%, Robertson 33%.

DWU – 7.8% of union vote, 1.6% of total vote, approx 70 delegates

 Like MWU hard to pick, and also provincial and rural based which Jones may appeal more to. The General Secretary is Chris Flatt, a former Labour Party General Secrtary. On the basis he will have some influence and the Labour Head Office is more pro Robertson, I’d go Robertson 40%, Jones 35%, Cunliffe 25%.

UPDATE: Their Exec has endorsed Cunliffe, so now assuming 70% vote Cunliffe.

RMTU – 6.4% of union vote, 1.3% of total vote, 30 delegates

 Head office is in Wellington that may help Robertson a bit. Lots of provincial members. Say Robertson 40%, Cunliffe 35%, Jones 25%

MUNZ – 3.0% of union vote, 0.6% of total vote, approx 30 delegates

Their strongest branch is in Auckland and that should favour Cunliffe. Say Cunliffe 60%, Robertson 20%, Jones 20%

So how would this all come together.

Now again this is quite speculative, and I welcome feedback from people closer to the action into how they think the union delegates (or members) will vote.

What does this show us if we add it to the caucus vote.

Round 1 – Robertson 27.6%, Cunliffe 21.9%, Jones 10.5%

Round 2 – Robertson 31.7%, Cunliffe 28.3%

You need 50% to win. So it means Cunliffe has to pick up  22% of the 40% of the members vote and Robertson needs 18% of the 40%. More simply if the above estimates are in the right ballpark, then Cunliffe needs just over 54% of the members vote to win and Robertson needs almost 46%.

On Friday I’ll have a stab at how the members may vote. Their local MPs will have a fairly big influence on many members, along with their geography.

UPDATE: Herald has said the DWU Executive have recommended to their delegates they vote for Cunliffe. I’ve updated the table on assumption 70% vote Cunliffe.

Clare Curran blogs at Red Alert:

The Labour Party Leadership roadshow continues around New Zealand this week. There are 12 hustings meetings being held from Whangarei to Dunedin. Today we see the announcement of a “virtual hustings” meeting which is yet another new initiative in our quest to bring greater membership participation in the party.

Under the rules for its current Leadership Election, the Labour Party is required to hold a “virtual hustings meeting”. This is an opportunity for eligible voters to put questions to the candidates online, created by the New Zealand Labour Party working with the Scoop Independent News website. It starts today.

Today the Party is putting out a call to eligible voters to submit questions to the three candidates. To submit a question to be put to the Candidates please send an email to [email protected] . The cut-off date for sending your question is midnight on Wednesday 10th of September.

Then from 10-13 September selected questions (from eligible voters) will be answered in a series of blog posts here on the Red Alert. Everyone will then be welcome to join in the discussion (currently moderation policy will apply). The discussion will continue into the weekend on 14 September and online voting closes at midday on Sunday 15 September.

The online promotion is being organised by Scoop.co.nz and promoted over the Scoop Media Cartel group of websites.

Not really that much of an online meeting. More just a non-live Q+A. What would be fun would be a live video-conference where people can tweet, e-mail, text questions in and have them answer them on the spot. But still a good opportunity for Labour members to ask questions, and of course anyone can join in the discussion on Red Alert.

The Fundy Post blogs:

News from University Hall, Auckland University’s latest money-making wheeze (sorry, I meant to say “integrated student accommodation environment” or something like that, but I just couldn’t) comes this  extraordinary  notice: “We have received several complaints of excessive noise of a sexual nature after 10pm. Although engaging in sexual activity is not discouraged, it would be prudent to note the accompanying noise may be heard by your neighbours. If you are unable to restrain these noises, we may have to ban sexual activity between 10pm and 6am.”

Heh. Good luck with that.

This is not a new problem. The walls at Carrington Hall in Dunedin were very thin, and you often could hear who was scoring. The main reason it was not a bigger problem is because the beds were so small, that they were called contraceptives! Of course a few of us upgraded to double beds at our own cost 🙂

I also recall how in the 1950s Carrington (the first mixed hostel in Australasia) had rules stating that you could entertain a person of the other sex in your room for coffee or tea between 2 pm and 4 pm, but the door must remain ajar, all four feet on the ground, and all persons must remain fully clothed.

The end of year magazine had a very amusing cartoon showing a couple of students standing in a room, behind an ajar door with the clock showing 3 pm. They are drinking tea, while having sex standing up 🙂

Stuff reports:

A cafe sporting an anti-Lycra sign for fun has caused a few cyclists to get their wheels in a spin.

Heathcote’s Castle Rock Cafe, which claims to be “unashamedly motorist friendly since 2008”, has a sign out the front deterring Lycra-clad cyclists from entering.

“The bicycle is a beautiful thing but they never should have invented Lycra! No Lycra shorts please,” the declaration reads.

Cafe manager Amy Grice said the sign had been put up by the old owner because of an incident with a large man in very tiny shorts.

That sort of sight was not suitable for children, she said.

I have some sympathy for the cafe owner. But I think the ban goes too far.

They should simply ban men in lycra. Few people object to to lycra-clad women 🙂

Several people have wondered who Helen Clark and Michael Cullen will vote for (as party members they get a vote) in the leadership.

Helen Clark is hard to pick. Grant worked for her for many years. Cunliffe was her choice as successor to keep Goff out (if she won a 4th term).

I suspect on balance Clark will back Cunliffe. He has ministerial experience, and was her chosen successor. She also understands the importance of Auckland. She may well think that Grant also has time on his side – they may both end up as leaders at some stage.

Michael Cullen has endorsed Grant. That is not secret. What is less well known is his severe dislike of David Cunliffe. Just last week he joked at a book awards function that David Cunliffe could not be there to pick up a prize for his book “Learning to walk on water – what I learnt from Jesus of Nazereth, and what he learnt from me”.

The fact he would so openly diss Cunliffe, seems to hark back to the Cabinet days when it was too obvious Cunliffe wanted Cullen’s job.

However his dislike appears to be even greater than Trevor Mallard’s. A source overheard a conversation last week where Dr Cullen was reported to be more vitriolic about Cunliffe, than he was about, well anything.

So Clark and Cullen may be backing different candidates. It is a sign of how divided things are!

UPDATE: I understand that Dr Cullen is not standing on the sidelines like Helen, but is actively lobbying on behalf of Robertson. This is helping him with some members, but others resent figures from the past being involved.

The Herald reports:

Labour’s police spokesman Kris Faafoi said the results showed a high level of use of the DPS by John Key.

“It shows how much the PM has stretched them.”

A spokeswoman for Mr Key said police made decisions on DPS staff assignments.

“The Prime Minister highly values his protection staff who are extremely professional and very hard working in sometimes challenging circumstances.”

I really wish Labour would stop their multi-year campaign of attacking the PM because he has Diplomatic Protection Squad Police accompany him. Its disgraceful. Their antics create a culture where politics may affect decisions around safety of the Prime Minister.

The PM (and previous PMs) get DPS protection because people threaten to kill them. It is not a perk of the job. It is a sad necessity. Labour should not blame the victim!

I hope when National is in opposition they are never so desperate as to criticise a Labour Prime Minister for having DPS accompany them.

Mind you if David Cunliffe wins, he may need the DPS to actually attend caucus meetings to protect him from his colleagues 🙂

Chris Tremain has announced:

Local Government Minister Chris Tremain today announced that a trial of online voting will take place in the 2016 local authority elections.

“Online transactions are the way of the future and the Government is committed to rolling out digital services for New Zealanders,” says Mr Tremain.

“I have asked the Department of Internal Affairs to put together a working party from across government and local authorities and with information technology experts. They will consider the options, costs and security issues involved in online voting.

“Voter turnout in local body elections is traditionally low and we need to look at other ways to encourage people to become involved in the democratic process.

“Online voting will be more convenient and appeal to young voters. It will also make it easier for people with disabilities to vote. “

“There is a high level of interest from the sector in online voting with organisations like the Porirua City Council and the Manawatu District Council volunteering to take part in the trial.

“Robust regulations need to be in place so voters have trust and confidence in the system. The working party will be assessing the security and technology used in public elections overseas to mitigate risk.

“Once the working party reports its findings the next step will be to formulate a plan to implement online voting in local body elections.

This is great news. Postal voting is a dying mechanism. More and more people have no relationship with a post office. I only post around a letter every three months.

I’ve been involved in pushing for a trial of online voting for local body elections since 2011 and have had numerous meetings about this. The local body sector is keen and enthusiastic. The central government bureaucrats though have, to be blunt, done almost everything possible to never have even a trial.  They seem to be resistant to anything that involves change!

So its great to have the Minister cut through the bureaucratic resistance and announce a definite time-frame of a trial for the 2016 elections. It may even be possible to trial it before then if there are some local body by-elections. Most of the background work needed has already been done through various local government working groups.

I don’t (at this stage) advocate e-voting for parliamentary elections. Enough people are turning up to vote at the ballot box. But for local body elections, an option of online voting is essential to complement postal voting.

Online voting will hopefully both arrest the decline in turnout, but also help people make better informed votes. If voting online, it is much easier to go to candidate’s websites etc as you vote rather than just rely on the 200 word blurbs.

Questions for Oral Answer – 2pm to 3pm

Questions to Ministers

1) METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Economic Development: When he said, in relation to the SkyCity convention centre deal, “the negotiated significant additional harm-minimisation measures that apply to all gambling machines in that casino will together act to reduce harm” was he basing his claim on the Health Ministry’s gambling harm minimisation team’s advice; if not, why not?

2) Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “our companies are becoming more competitive”?

3) PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in building a stronger economy that will support more jobs and higher incomes, following the domestic recession which started in early 2008 well before the global financial crisis?

4) PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: Does he agree with the New Zealand Herald that “the Government’s latest response to the problem of housing affordability is as ill-directed as it is insipid”?

5) COLIN KING to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made about foundation education?

6) HONE HARAWIRA to the Prime Minister: Does he accept that his reported comments about the asset sales referendum being a $9 million waste of money are likely to be considered rude, disrespectful and insulting by the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who have signed the petition for just such a referendum; if not, why not?

7) Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister for the Environment: Has she had any advice that exploratory drilling at deep sea levels may pose significant environmental or health and safety risks, and if so, why is she proposing that exploratory deep sea drilling, like the Deepwater Horizon Well, is non-notified under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 and therefore protected from public submissions?

8) CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister of Justice: What changes are being made to pre-sentence restorative justice services?

9) CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Finance: Does he have confidence in the board of Māori Television?

10) Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still stand by his statement yesterday when asked whether he was satisfied that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service has always operated lawfully under his leadership; “as far as I am aware, yes”?

11) CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Will Wanganui Collegiate be required to supervise a child if the child’s parents are unable to pay the $5,200 “parent contribution” for meals, house activities and supervision?

12) IAN McKELVIE to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made regarding assistance for communities to improve their drinking water?

Today, Labour are asking five questions on topics ranging from competitiveness in business, housing affordability, oil drilling, Maori television and Wanganui Collegiate. National will be asking four questions ranging from the economy, education, justice and drinking water.

The Greens will be asking one question about the Sky-City casino deal. New Zealand First will be asking one question about the GCSB with Mana asking one question about assest sales.

Pasty Question of the Day

Today’s pasty question of the day goes to question five from Colin King to Hon Steven Joyce asking the following,

What recent announcements has the Government made about foundation education?

General Debate – 3pm to 4pm

This debate happens most Wednesdays in Parliament with 12 rounds of open speeches from members.

Members Orders of the Day – 4pm to 6pm and 7.30pm to 10pm

1) Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill – Te Ururoa Flavell – Third Reading

This bill was introduced in September 2010 by Te Ururoa Flavell. It seeks to allow local authorities, in consultation with their communities, to reduce the number of, or even eliminate, pokies from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm. This bill since the first reading has been rewritten to make some changes to the bill to be able to waterdown some of the effects of the original bill with a deal done between National and the Maori Party recently to get the bill passed.

2) Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection Bill) – Jacqui Dean – Second Reading

This bill is designed to encourage compliance with enactments administered by the Department of Conservation by increasing penalties to better protect natural and historic resources and protected wildlife. The main changes the Bill makes to the existing law are to both increase the penalties, and implement a consistent approach to penalties across the main enactments administered by the Department of Conservation.

3) Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill – 1st reading continuation – Moana Mackey

This bill is designed to bring back a 10 year ban on the creation of thermal generation of power. This 10 year ban was originally removed in the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill 2008. The 10 year ban on thermal generation of power was apart of the original Emissions Trading Scheme.

Gareth Morgan writes:

Having passed successfully through the demilitarised zone Gareth explains to the world’s media why the West’s “beat-up” view of North Korea is completely wrong.

Gareth and Jo and their group were free to set their own route through North Korea, witnessing at first hand the lives of ordinary North Koreans.

What they found surprised them – a people who were poor, yes, but wonderfully engaged, well-dressed, fully employed and well informed. In Gareth’s view, what North Korea has achieved economically despite its lack of access to international money has been magnificent.

Magnificent?

Surely this must mark the point at which the media stop taking Mr Morgan as a serious commentator on, well anything.

North Korea used to have the same level of wealth as South Korea. Their economic achievements are not magnificent, but poverty of around US$1,800 per capita. And let us not even talk about the three million who died of starvation in this magnificent economy.

Liberty Scott points out:

So the West needs to “rethink” North Korea now, says Gareth.  It wasn’t just a motorcycle trip. His head has gone soft and he has taken in all the lies and thinks they are awfully nice folk.

 

The thing is, the guides are.  The people you see are nice, as they are privileged members of the elite painstakingly trying to make sure their country is seen in a good light.  

 

You don’t need to try to demonise north Korea.  He claims it isn’t a great big prison camp, but who gets to leave Gareth? Who gets passports?  What about the domestic passport system that ensures no one can leave their village or town unless they belong the elite? 

 

He talks of how everything is tidy and clean and everyone has a job. The Potemkin world he got to see. Escorted the whole way, he claims everything he saw was real, and told was real. 

Hat Tip: Not PC