Sunset over the Tasman Sea, from Gentle Annie Beach, West Coast. New Zealand landscape photography by Todd Sisson.

This is an image from a road trip we did with the kids two weeks ago to Nelson and the West Coast. The wheels fell off somewhat (figuratively) with a death in the family occuring and a whole lot of re-planning required – hence my absence once again.

Anyway, we are back into ‘normal’ life this week and busy at work trying to finish the new website that we started building 2 years ago…

Cheers – Todd

Free Wallpaper Download

You may download the large version of today’s image from this link:   Password = wwp

Thanks for your support!

Cheers – Todd [www.sisson.co.nz] 

An amusing article from The Independent:

Journalese definitions

Acolytes Supporters of someone with whom we disagree

Arcane Rules ones we can’t be bothered to explain

Bed What love rats and lotharios do to their conquests

Boffin Anyone with a job at a university, a science GCSE, or a lab coat

Bonk Casual sexual relations

Booze-fuelled rampage What vile thugs go on, to the dismay of revellers

Bubbly How friends described the victim. She may also have “loved life”

Budding Someone under 20 who’s good at something

Calculated snub The worst kind of snub

Champagne lifestyle Typically, what someone “plundered bank accounts to fund”

Draconian The Government is proposing something with which we disagree

Foul-mouthed tirade Someone has said a Bad Word. This event is always “extraordinary” or “astonishing” to newspapers, whose staff are well known for their delicate sensibilities

Innocent bystanders The people who look on in horror when bad things happen. If injured themselves, they become “innocent victims”, to distinguish them from the victims who pretty much had it coming

Jekyll and Hyde character No one predicted he’d go on a killing spree. Probably because neighbours described him as a “loner” who “kept himself to himself”

Love rat One who has “two-timed” a partner. Almost always a man. If he’s a celebrity, his exploits should be recounted with a slight air of admiration, and he should be described near the start as a “bad boy”. Also used of adulterous politicians and men on welfare who’ve fathered six children by five women. If writing about a woman, try “marriage wrecker”.

Raft The standard unit of “measures”. Under the imperial system, a “cocktail of measures” is an eighth the size of a raft. A “whole raft of measures” is a raft plus a cocktail

Rapped In March 2013, several outlets including the BBC offered the headline: “Police chief rapped over Hillsborough”, conjuring the image of some kind of appalling duet with Jay-Z

Red-faced What council chiefs usually are after a “humiliating U-turn” over parking charges

Rushed The only way anyone gets to hospital, typically after ambulances raced to the scene

Sex session One or more bonks

To put it another way (newspaper euphemisms)

Bon viveur Drunk

Confirmed bachelor He’s gay

Flamboyant He’s gay

Fun-loving She put herself about a bit

He never married He was gay

Well turned out He’s gay

Feel free to add to the list below!

Over the last couple of days I’ve been chatting to a number of Labour people about how they think MPs will vote in the leadership contest. I started this thinking it would show Robertson well ahead, with over two thirds support. But it looks like the caucus is much closer than that. I’ve specifically been asking about second preferences also, to try and work out what may happen with any reallocated preferences.

Most of the data is based on publicly known preferences or history. Some of it is based on educated guesses such as their geographic location, who their friends in caucus are etc. Some MPs have not yet decided, so for them it is predicting where they are likely to go. So what I’m saying is that while much of the data is solid, some is speculation. It is not claiming to be a guarantee of how the vote will go. It is an good stab at how things are shaping up. I will update it as more data comes to hand.

As I said, I was surprised that things appear to be so close between Cunliffe and Robertson. If this is how the vote turns out in caucus, then I would say Cunliffe is looking very solid to win overall as most think he will get a majority of the members and unions.

The above is, again, not based just on my views, but on others who are closer to the action. Here’s some of the rationales:

• Ardern – Robertson’s likely Deputy Leader
• Beaumont – publicly supporting Cunliffe
• Clark – likely to vote with old guard, as doing well with them
• Cosgrove – Anyone but Cunliffe
• Cunliffe – Jones his second choice over Robertson, and may (quietly) ask Jones to be Deputy
• Curran – very hard to pick. Cunliffe has helped her with ICT portfolio when she was new MP, so may lean to him, but is close to more people in Robertson camp. Assuming Robertson for now. Has now declared she is voting Robertson in a letter to members.
• Dalziel – publicly backed Cunliffe
• Dyson – publicly backing Robertson
• Faafoi – seen drinking with Robertson on Seven Sharp, likely to vote as Goff does
• Fenton – probably backing Cunliffe as most union MPs are. Am told she is in Camp Robertson, tends to go where Annette King goes.
• Goff – Cunliffe last as partly blames him for election loss
• Hipkins – has little future under Cunliffe
• Huo – very hard to pick. Prob leaning Cunliffe as Auckland based. Also Chinese community (but not Hup himself) quite conservative on sexuality issues
• Jones – of course him as first choice. Cunliffe as second choice, as more likely to do well with him
• King – Anyone but Cunliffe
• Lees-Galloway – publicly backing Robertson Cunliffe
• Little – A key vote. His chance of future leadership is better with Cunliffe or Jones than Robertson. But sources now say much more likely Robertson.
• Mackey – publicly backing Cunliffe
• Mahuta – publicly backing Cunliffe
• Mallard – will probably retire if Cunliffe wins
• Moroney – probably go with Cunliffe as most unionists are
• O’Connor – Jones, then Cunliffe rather than the gaggle
• Parker – Not declaring but likely to vote Robertson as most of front bench are. But could go elsewhere if guaranteed he keeps Finance
• Prasad – was thought to be organising for Cunliffe at last year’s conference
• Robertson – the surprise is he probably will rank Jones over Cunliffe for his second preference. There is considerable antipathy between Camp Robertson and Cunliffe, so Jones is the second choice for many
• Ross Robertson – likely to vote for Jones as the least left wing one
• Shearer – likely to vote Jones I understand as the only one of the three that didn’t stab him in the back
• Sio – publicly backing Cunliffe
• Street – Jones clearly last choice!
• Tirikatene – publicly backing Jones
• Twyford – a swinging voter. Is in with old guard and likely to do better with Robertson. But does he vote against a fellow West Auckland MP? Probably will go with Robertson
• Wall – close to Cunliffe
• Whaitiri – a surprise here, but I am told she is leaning Cunliffe
• Woods – publicly backing Robertson

Again, fell free to e-mail me with any corrections or updates. Sources will, as always, be protected.

UPDATE: A Labour person messages:

An interesting blog post by Alice Lerner who analysed CVs of those who got a job, and those who didn’t. Her findings are:

• typos and grammatical errors matter more than anything else
• having attended a top computer science school doesn’t matter
• listing side projects on your resume isn’t as advantageous as expected
• GPA doesn’t seem to matter
• having worked at a top company matters

In essence the most crucial factor in your CV is the absence of typos, followed by the quality of your previous employers. Your academic scores, your choice of university, your other activities have little impact.

The other factor that had an influence was clearly being able to work out what someone did in previous jobs.

Just another good example of the power of data analysis. Intuition is being replaced by data. Still a place for both of course!

Hat Tip: Stats Chat

I’ve been listening to quite a few of the speeches in the UK Parliament about Syria, and also some US commentary. I have to say that the arguments against military action against Assad seem more persuasive to me, despite the fact I hate the thought that he gets “away” with using chemical weapons against children.

The most persuasive argument against is that once you take action, even if a few cruise missiles, then you have entered the conflict on the side of the rebels. And you may get drawn into the conflict more and more. What if you bomb some sites, and Assad uses chemical weapons again? Do you escalate? Do you end up sending troops in eventually?

Will a few missile strikes deter or prevent Assad? Probably not. Only if you sent them to his home!

Also on a minor matter of international law, Syria never signed the treaty against chemical weapons. It doesn’t make the use of them any better, but it does mean that justification for a strike is more difficult.

Add on the fact that the UN won’t support action, UK isn’t in, the public don’t support a strike, and there is no clear end game, I think the safer option is not to strike. Obama has said he will ask Congress for authorisation. I wonder if he hopes they will vote no, so he can say he tried, but he can’t. However he risks looking ineffectual after his red line comment.

The case for a strike is partly based on how unacceptable it is for Assad not to be punished or face consequences for what he has done, or allowed. And I have to say that grates with me. However I am a bit of a believer in karma. It may not happen immediately, but I do wonder if his use of chemical weapons may in fact lead to greater opposition to his regime from Syrians. Maybe someone will assassinate him, or at some point I think he will face a messy end. Gassing your own people rarely ends well.

The real problem, and tragedy, is there is no good end game. There is no real path to an end to the conflict, and the formation of a Government with wide-spread support. The opposition is almost as bad as Assad (if not worse), and spend a fair amount of time attacking each other also.

So for now I think sadly the balance is to hold back. Unless you are prepared to intervene to such a level that you remove Assad or destroy his military capability, a more limited strike may achieve little, and drag the US into the conflict.

On a lighter note, enjoy this humour from the Huffington Post.

The Herald reports:

Families of the 29 men killed in the Pike River blasts will be “relieved” by the Government’s decision on whether to support a plan to re-enter the mine, Prime Minister John Key says.

Cabinet today made its decision on whether to fund a plan for a staged re-entry of the coalmine, where the men’s bodies have been entombed since the fatal blasts in November 2010.

The plan was approved last week by the board of Solid Energy and the Government’s High Hazards Unit.

Mr Key said families would be briefed on the Cabinet decision before Energy and Resources Minister Simon Bridges made an announcement tomorrow.

“Whatever the outcome of that decision, yes, I think that they will be relieved that things are another step further along.

Sounds like it is a go.

The staged re-entry plan is designed to seal off the ventilation shaft in the mine’s main entry tunnel, known as the drift.

The mine will be pumped full of nitrogen to force out any methane gas and allow experts to walk down a 2.3km shaft to a rockfall.

Whether they can ever get past the rockfall is another issue!

UPDATE: It is a go.

The Government will fund a plan to re-enter and explore the main tunnel leading up to the rock fall in the Pike River Coal Mine.

Families of the 29 men killed in the mine nearly three years ago were briefed this morning.

Energy and Resources Minister Simon Bridges made the announcement this afternoon, putting the estimated cost of the plan at $7.2 million and said the chance of finding bodily remains in the tunnel was “slim”.

The plan announced today does not cover entry into the main mine workings which is blocked by the rock fall.

“The Government cannot comment or speculate about re-entering the main mine until the tunnel re-entry has been successfully achieved,” Bridges said.

On entering the mine proper, Bridges said he was personally sceptical.

There had been fires, explosions and floods, so it was likely the environment would probably be highly unstable.

I for one do not begrudge the cost.

Matt Harman at Fuseworks writes:

The non-resident buyers policy followed a fairly typical pattern – as soon as it was released there was a flood of information and opinions released to the media – some in support of the policy, but mostly not.  

This isn’t a Labour Party specific problem – we’ve found the same pattern with virtually any announcement made by any political party.

Themes that gained the most traction were that the policy is xenophobic and that it only targets a very small portion of buyers.

Backers said that having no restrictions is causing a housing bubble, that similar policies are common in other countries and NZ land should be kept in NZ hands. …

We compared the media reported responses to Labour’s policy for the three days immediately following the announcement, to what was reported in the following two weeks.

Initial reporting focused heavily on four themes:

• – Labour’s message that the approach was common overseas
• – The view put forward by John Banks and others that it is xenophobic
• – The view first expressed by lawyer Stephen Franks that the policy may violate NZ free trade agreements (FTAs)
• – The view put forward by the National Party and others that the policy would likely target a small proportion of buyers
•  

In the following two weeks the responses related to NZ FTAs and the number of buyers it would impact receded, while the xenophobic narrative continued to be a high proportion of the overall discussion.

I am not surprised the media narrative changed, as it transpired Labour’s policy would breach several FTAs they themselves signed!

Stuff reports:

Parents have raised concerns about a discrimination experiment that pitted blue-eyed pupils against their brown-eyed classmates at a Christchurch school.

Four classes from Cobham Intermediate School – involving about 120 year-8 pupils – were split into what they were told were the more “superior” blue-eyed pupils, and the lesser brown-eyed pupils, to teach them about racism and discrimination.

But a mother of a brown-eyed pupil said her 13-year-old son came home from school upset and “really angry” after the roles were not reversed in his class.

If you’re going to do an exercise like that with kids, it is a good idea to make sure everyone experiences both groups.

Students with blue eyes were told of new research that students with blue eyes developed at a superior rate and were more mature than other students.

The classes talked through the issues before pupils left, but their children might wish to discuss it further at home, it said.

Thelning said the lesson provided “a catalyst for discussion and reflection”.

Reversing the roles had been considered but the blue-eyed children had shown “empathy and awareness for others”.

Well this proves of course that us blue eyes are superior, because we look after our brown eyed pets well 🙂

Questions for Oral Answer.
Questions to Ministers 2.00PM-3.00PM.

1. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding the estimated proceeds of asset sales that “I just want to emphasise that it is not our best guess; it’s just a guess”?
2. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to responsibly manage its finances and deliver better public services, following fast-rising government spending of the mid-2000s?
3. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: What is the difference between a “one-off incentive payment” and a subsidy?
4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service has always operated lawfully under his leadership?
5. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Science and Innovation:What progress has been made in the Government’s plan to provide internships for students in New Zealand’s research and development intensive industries?
6. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Will the Government suspend its asset sales programme until a referendum on the issue has been held, given the Clerk of the House has certified that 327,000 New Zealanders, or more than 10 percent of voters, have signed a petition triggering that referendum?
7. Hon PETER DUNNE to the Associate Minister of Health: What specific “corrective actions” will the Malvina Major Retirement Village be required to undertake, following the recent Ministry of Health spot audit?
8. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements?
9. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on how the education system is performing at a local level?
10. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his promises in Health?
11. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Broadcasting: What progress has been made on the regional rollout of the digital switchover for New Zealand television viewers?
12. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Prime Minister: Will he support a parliamentary debate and vote on any Government decision to give moral support for a United States-led military strike on Syria; if not, why not?

Today Labour are asking four questions. The first two questions are about Mixed Ownership Model, and the Tiwai Point smelter one off incentive payment. The last two questions are about whether the Minister for Primary Industries stands by all his statements and whether the Minister of Health stands by his promises. The Greens are asking about the asset sales referendum and military action on the Syrian crisis. New Zealand First is asking one question about the SIS.

Patsy of the Day goes to Katrina Shanks for Question 11: What progress has been made on the regional rollout of the digital switchover for New Zealand television viewers?

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

1. Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill – Committee Stage

2. Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill– Committee Stage

3. Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers)  Bill – Committee Stage

4. Statutes Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

5. Unit Titles Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

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 Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. This bill would implement the Government’s decisions resulting from a review of the Family Court conducted by the Ministry of Justice.

The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers)  Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy. This bill provides for cost recovery arising from processing of travellers in the aviation security, biosecurity, and customs areas.

The Statutes Amendment Bill and the Unit Titles Amendment Bill are being guided through the house by the Minister for Courts, Chester Borrows. The first  is an omnibus bill proposing amendments of a technical nature to 30 Acts. The second is the provisions of this bill that were divided out from the Statutes Amendment Bill (Formerly part of Statutes Amendment Bill).

Hanna Rosin at Slate writes:

How many times have you heard that “women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men”? Barack Obama said it during his last campaign. Women’s groups say it every April 9, which is Equal Pay Day. In preparation for Labor Day, a group protesting outside Macy’s this week repeated it, too, holding up signs and sending out press releases saying “women make $.77 to every dollar men make on the job.” I’ve heard the line enough times that I feel the need to set the record straight: It’s not true.

We hear similar lines in NZ.

How to get a more accurate measure? First, instead of comparing annual wages, start by comparing average weekly wages. This is considered a slightly more accurate measure because it eliminates variables like time off during the year or annual bonuses (and yes, men get higher bonuses, but let’s shelve that for a moment in our quest for a pure wage gap number). By this measure, women earn 81 percent of what men earn, although it varies widely by race. African-American women, for example, earn 94 percent of what African-American men earn in a typical week. Then, when you restrict the comparison to men and women working 40 hours a week, the gap narrows to 87 percent. …

The big differences are in occupation and industry. Women congregate in different professions than men do, and the largely male professions tend to be higher-paying. If you account for those differences, and then compare a woman and a man doing the same job, the pay gap narrows to 91 percent. So, you could accurately say in that Obama ad that, “women get paid 91 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.”

So still a gap, but less of a gap.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Key said yesterday the “living wage” promise was “unbelievable”, and a “back-of-the-envelope calculation” put its cost at $2.5 billion if rolled out to all low-paid workers, or $68 million a year if implemented just within the core public service.

Economists had also estimated it would cost 26,000 jobs, because of the extra cost to business.

And that’s just one policy!

Someone who earned $13.75 an hour working 40 hours a week with three children would pay $4000 a year in tax on an income of $29,000. But they would get about $23,000 a year back in accommodation supplement and Working for Families payments.

The living wage calculations by the Anglican Church are unsuitable for application across the board as a minimum wage. They are based on an employee having a certain number of children. Not all employees have children, in fact most don’t. A 17 year old cleaner doesn’t need $18.40 to live on. Hell many university graduates start on less than $18 an hour.

The Dominion Post is unimpressed with the three candidate’s mad rush to the far left:

Well that didn’t take long. Labour’s American-style primary contest is only days old, but already it is apparent that in terms of policy none of the three contenders for the leadership has any more to offer than the departing David Shearer.

Caucus favourite Grant Robertson’s big idea – one quickly signed up to by party champion David Cunliffe – is to introduce a living wage of $18.40 an hour for all government workers. Meanwhile, Shane Jones, the outsider in the contest, is threatening to pass laws to regulate how much supermarkets can charge for food.

Both ideas sound great. Who doesn’t want lowly paid workers to get greater reward for their efforts? Who wouldn’t welcome a reduction in food prices? The problem is that neither proposal is remotely deliverable.

Labour’s leadership candidates are employing the rhetoric of old-fashioned class warfare. Soak the rich to feed the poor. 

I don’t know why the three of them just don’t come out and say they are deporting all rich pricks, confiscating their wealth and declaring poverty to now be illegal!

Mr Robertson will say his proposal applies only to government workers and contractors, but limiting its application only creates inequities of another sort.

Why should a cleaner mopping out a privately owned building earn several dollars an hour less than a cleaner vacuuming a government building? Why should a worker in a privately owned rest home receive less government support than would otherwise be available, because the Labour Party has decided to advantage a subset of all workers.

Oh I can answer that one! So the unions will vote for them to become leader.

Mr Robertson and Mr Cunliffe may also point out that their proposal is to introduce a living wage “over time”. However, the caveat either renders the proposal meaningless or recklessly irresponsible. Meaningless, if by “over time” they mean the amount of time it would take the minimum wage to rise to that level under the present system. Recklessly irresponsible, if they are actually intent on establishing an elite class of privileged workers.

New Zealand is a global price taker, not a price setter. The country prospers when it is nimble and flexible. It suffers when it is rigid and flat-footed.

Governments can no more raise living standards by decreeing higher wages, than they can by telling supermarkets how much they can charge for a leg of lamb or a box of cornflakes.

If Messrs Robertson, Cunliffe and Jones are serious about running the country, they should advance serious policies.

Their decision to have a US style primary has meant they are captured by the unions and activists, and hence we now have a US style pork barrel competition.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

Young children from parts of northern NSW without fluoridated water are being hospitalised for mass extractions of rotten teeth at nearly twice the rate of other children.

Dentists and paediatricians in Lismore and Ballina say tooth decay among young children is at Third-World levels.

This is what some Hamilton Councillors aspire to?

The situation has prompted the Australian Dental Association to urge the federal government to use its influence to force councils swayed by ”fringe groups who peddle fear … and conspiracy theories” to embrace water fluoridation.

Sounds familiar.

”Political parties [need] to have the guts to get into the debate, show some leadership and back the science and the experts to improve the dental health of all Australians.’

Indeed.

The three Labour leadership contenders are making so many promises, that I’ve done this little table below for easy reference. Please, please let me know (e-mail preferably) if there are any pledges I have missed. I will keep updating this.

Cunliffe’s pledge to extend Part 6A to all workers takes the prize for the most destructive policy.

Part 6A is the part which states that if a company wins a contract off another company, they have to employ all the staff of the other company.

At present this only applies to industries such as catering, cleaning, orderly and laundry. Cunliffe’s pledge would massively expand this.Say you work for a copy centre, and you lose a major contract to a competitor. The winning copy centre has to hire your staff!In theory it would apply to law firms also. Say a law firm loses a major client to another law firm. All the lawyers who worked for that client at the old firm, would have to be hired by the new firm!It would in fact destroy competition, mergers and acquisitions in New Zealand. It is bad enough we have Part 6A for some industries, but to apply it to all workers is indeed a great leap backwards. The unions though will love it. Getting 20% of the vote in the leadership contests has given them power beyond their wildest dreams.

UPDATE: Have added on Grant’s pledge to have taxpayers fund a second fibre cable to the United States.

UPDATE2: Cunliffe also promising a Pacifica TV channel

UPDATE3: Robertson on Te Karere said he wants Treaty settlement target shifted from 2014 to 2020 and the Police Commission to apologise to Tuhoe.

 UPDATE4: Cunlife promised in a speech he would introduce national awards or “industry standard agreements” within 100 days of an election.

Twisted Hive blogs:

Questions from the NZ Herald to candidates:

Q: Why is Labour not connecting with voters?

Grant Robertson: We’ve struggled to get a clear direct message that speaks to people’s everyday lives and to connect our values with the policies we are putting forward. I do believe we’ve got a good mix of policies, with more to come. The challenge is articulating them in a way New Zealanders say “my life will be better under a Labour Government”. I think I can do that.

Sorry Grant, can you explain to me how if you’ve struggled to get a clear message out, with the vast majority of the office staffed by your people, you will manage any better if you were Leader? As Deputy, and part of the strategic planning team since 2008 haven’t you already tried?

It is a fair point. Grant was a major part of the disastrous 2011 campaign, and as deputy leader can’t totally distance himself from the last 18 months.

GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION POWERBROKERS GO HEAD-TO-HEAD IN A SPECIAL EDITION OF TV3’S ‘THE VOTE’ 

Is the Kiwi dream of owning your own home on the way out? Or is there a way to make housing more affordable? Do we need to ban foreign buyers, let our cities sprawl or do more to help first-home buyers onto the property ladder?

This month, The Vote tackles housing, asking “How do we fix New Zealand’s housing crisis?”  In a piece of television history, the people answering that question are the political powerbrokers, in the first primetime multi-party debate to be held outside an election campaign, screening on Wednesday 11 September, at 8.30pm on TV3.

Just over a year from the 2014 General Election, and as the Labour party prepares to select its next leader, Kiwis will get their best chance to compare Government and Opposition approaches to the housing crisis.  In a departure from its usual format, The Vote will be divided into three parts, each covering a key area of the housing debate: foreign ownership, first home buyers and the housing shortage.

The Vote: Housing Special will give Kiwis a rare insight into the Government’s plans, and the alternatives offered by Opposition parties.  The coin toss has determined Duncan Garner will lead the Government team, with Sam Lotu-Iiga representing National, Peter Dunne speaking for United Future and John Banks for ACT.  Guyon Espiner will lead the Opposition team, with Labour’s Phil Twyford, New Zealand First’s Winston Peters, and Metiria Turei representing The Green Party.

Broadcaster and lawyer, Linda Clark will again be charged with keeping the debaters in line and on topic.  This month, instead of asking viewers to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the moot, she will invite them to vote ‘Gov’ or ‘Opp’ to indicate who they think offers the best solutions to the housing crisis, the Government or the Opposition.

Housing has been the topic of heated debate this year as prices in New Zealand hit record highs and home ownership rates fell as low as they’ve been for 50 years. Just 65 percent of Kiwis now own their own homes, down from 75 percent in the 1990s. In that time, house prices have more than doubled.

The median house price in New Zealand is now $385,000 – nearly 10 percent higher than the previous peak in 2007. In Auckland and Christchurch a median home now costs seven times the median household income, compared to just twice the median income in 1980, and Prime Minister John Key has said he fears young New Zealanders are “being locked out of the housing market altogether”.

Senior Producer Tim Watkin says:  “We’re really excited to be able to pull together such a significant debate on The Vote.

“Housing literally hits people where they live, so this month we’re asking politicians for their solutions – what can they do to stop the next generation of Kiwis from being a generation of renters?

“It’s the first time six parties have agreed to debate on primetime television outside an election campaign, and that’s because New Zealanders care so much about this issue.  We all need to know what the future holds for housing in New Zealand.”

Joining Duncan and Guyon next week are representatives of all main political parties:

THE GOVERNMENT – Led by Duncan Garner

• Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has been the National MP Maungakiekie for five years and chairs the Social Services Select Committee, which oversees the passage of new housing laws.  Sam grew up in South Auckland after emigrating from Samoa as a child, and now lives in Onehunga with his family.  He has an MBA from the University of Cambridge, and worked in law and banking before entering politics.  In his electorate he sees developers stifled by regulations and says the Government is on the right track with its housing strategy – freeing up land for development, making councils quicken housing consents and keeping interest rates low.
• John Banks leads the ACT Party and is MP for Epsom. He is also a minister under the National-led Government. ACT’s main housing policy is giving Kiwis the Freedom to Build. That means fewer regulations and quicker consenting processes, as well as freeing up more land. Banks believes this is “the quickest and most effective way to make housing more affordable” and endorses the Government’s action in this area. ACT opposes a ban on foreign buyers, believing we should be encouraging foreign investment in New Zealand. He also opposes a Capital Gains Tax, saying it will only create more red tape.
• Peter Dunne is MP for Ohariu and leader of United Future, which has a confidence and supply agreement National. He supports the government’s direction with housing and the need for more affordable homes. Dunne does not believe we have a housing ‘crisis’ but a problem that could be helped by allowing families to capitalise their Working for Families payments to support the buying, extension or upkeep of a house. He thinks the Opposition parties’ policy of banning foreign buyers is racist and a solution looking for a problem.

THE OPPOSITION – Led by Guyon Espiner

• Phil Twyford is Labour’s MP for Te Atatu and Spokesperson for Housing.  His background includes working as a journalist before setting up Oxfam New Zealand. A Capital Gains Tax of 15 percent (exempting the family home) was at the forefront of Labour’s election campaign in 2011 – and remains one the party’s key policies to help more Kiwis reach the home ownership dream. Labour has also announced a plan to build 100,000 houses over 10 years and restrict foreign ownership of New Zealand properties.
• Metiria Turei has been the Green Party Co-leader since 2009 and a Green MP since 2002.  Metiria lives in Dunedin and has worked as a lawyer, as well as an advocate for the unemployed and beneficiaries. She leads the Green campaign for safe, secure and sustainable housing. Like Labour, the Green Party housing policy includes restrictions on foreign ownership and a Capital Gains Tax. The Green Party believes in “modern urban design”, so opposes opening up land that will create sprawling cities. It would like to implement a Progressive Ownership programme to help more Kiwis buy houses.
• Winston Peters is the leader of New Zealand First, and may hold the balance of power at next year’s General Election. Peters believes Housing is a “disaster in the making”, alleging Auckland’s housing boom is fuelled by thousands of foreign investors buying properties and making housing unaffordable for many Kiwis. New Zealand First wants an immediate freeze on all foreign property sales and a register of all foreign owned land. New Zealand First policy also aims to ease the serious housing shortage and provide government assistance to home owners, with sale and purchase land agreements and low interest rates.

The Vote is competitive current affairs – a monthly series of entertaining and informative national debates on the big issues facing New Zealanders. The debates take place in theatres with audience participation and voting, but the opinion that matters most is that of the audience watching at home.

Viewers are encouraged to vote for free at www.TheVote.co.nz, via Twitter @TheVoteNZ and Facebook at The Vote NZ. Viewers can also text their vote by texting ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to 3920 at a cost of 20 cents per text.

The Vote is produced by TV3’s News and Current Affairs division with funding from NZ On Air, and screens once every four weeks in the same timeslot as 3rd Degree.

The Financial Times reports:

A new runway at Heathrow airport would be a quarter-owned by local residents under plans submitted to the commission examining the future of Britain’s airports.

The idea, put forward by the Co-operative wing of the Labour party, would be a novel way to reduce the formidable local opposition to the project.

But the Co-op idea goes much further and proposes the setting up of a mutual runway trust with a 25 per cent stake in the project.

Not only would the trust be involved in business decisions related to the runway, it would also benefit from the “inevitable considerable profit” generated. The trust would have the freedom to invest in community projects or initiatives to benefit local people.

Gareth Thomas, chair of the Co-op party – which counts 32 Labour MPs among its members, including shadow chancellor Ed Balls – said one private company should not own the whole runway “lock, stock and barrel”.

Under his proposals, the trust would be modelled on a building society or foundation hospital, with a board of local council leaders and a professional executive, supported by a governing council of residents.

“The community should benefit directly by owning a powerful share of any new runway,” said Mr Thomas, MP for Harrow West. “Business as usual won’t be good enough.”

 That’s not a bad idea. Turn the local residents into shareholders!

I did have the video from You Tube embedded but for some insane reason they have removed it. Stuff has a copy on their site.

It is from the Auckland University Law Revue and had 300,000 views on one weekend before You Tube removed it. Superbly produced, and very witty. It is of course a parody of Blurred Lines.

The Herald reports:

A referendum will be held on asset sales after confirmation that a petition under the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act gained the support of 10 per cent of eligible electors.

The petition, organised by the Keep Our Assets coalition and led by Grey Power president Roy Reid, asked: “Do you support the Government selling up to 49 per cent of Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis Power, Solid Energy and Air New Zealand?”

Shares in Mighty River Power were first floated on May 10 this year.

The Clerk of the House of Representatives, Mary Harris, today said she was satisfied the petition had more than the 308,753 signatories required on March 12, the day it was delivered.

The Clerk was originally expected to announce the results at 1pm.

But an embarrassing mistake by Greens co-leader Russel Norman has marred the release for Opposition parties.

Dr Norman tweeted the news this morning, having missed the embargo.

He then tweeted an apology.

Whoops!

The coalition had two months to collect 16,000 valid signatures after the initial count was deemed just short of the number required. After a thorough checking process, it was estimated that 327,224 eligible electors signed the petition, about 18,500 more than required.

This is the fifth petition under the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act to proceed to a referendum.

The Speaker is expected to present the petition to the House tomorrow.

The Government will then have a month to set a date for holding the referendum or specify that it is to be a postal referendum.

The date of the referendum must be within a year of its presentation to the House, unless the House by a 75 percent majority vote agrees to postpone it for up to a further year.

If I were the Government I’d do a postal referendum as soon as possible – say December.

Labour’s SOE’s spokesman Clayton Cosgrove said the asset sales programme must be halted until after the referendum.

“John Key must respect the democratic process. Over 327,000 Kiwis have called for a referendum. Their voice must be heard,” he said.

What nonsense and hypocrisy.

If Labour and Greens are now claiming a referendum trumps an election, then why did they vote against allowing parental correctional smacking when 87% voted it should not be a crime? They voted down a bill to allow it, just weeks after the referendum. National voted against also, but at least National has never claimed a non-binding referendum should trump an election policy.

The point of the referendum is to politically damage the Government. Now fair enough, but let’s not pretend it is anything else.

Of course taxpayers now pick up the cost of the referendum, on top of the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars spent on collecting signatures.

The reality is that National got a mandate for its policy at the election. This was not some minor obscure policy. It was a policy debated for 10 months after it was announced in January 2011. It was at the centre of the election campaign. Labour’s entire campaign almost was focused on stopping the partial sales, and the result was they failed.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key has dismissed as a stunt Kim Dotcom’s plans to begin a political party.

The Herald on Sunday reported yesterday that the internet mogul was planning to start a political party with the aim of gaining the 5 per cent of the vote required to get into Parliament.

Dotcom told the paper “It is much too early to say anything about a new political party”, but later tweeted “My embryonic NZ political plans leaked by whistleblower. Still looking for partners. Not ready yet”.

I think it is a great idea to splinter the anti-Govt vote.

However Mr Dotcom may have overlooked one problem. He is ineligible to be an MP.

S47(1) of the Electoral Act states:

Regardless of anything in subsection (1), a person is not qualified to be a candidate or to be elected unless he or she is a New Zealand citizen.

In 2002 an MP was disqualified after it emerged she was not a citizen. Kelly Chal was provisionally elected on 2002 election night for United Future but then disqualified as a candidate and MP after they realised she was not a citizen.

The Telegraph reports:

But the extent of the hikes has apparently even shocked the very Socialist ministers who implemented them.

Stuff reports:

Cunliffe said that he was going to deliver “the basics for families”.

“You know, it is easy for a politician to promise the earth, moon and stars. To say that everyone will have a job tomorrow and a living wage. That is what I want and I won’t settle for less.”

Umm, I’d say that is promising the earth, moon and stars.

Putting aside the economic contradiction of promising a massive increases in wages, and more jobs, what Cunliffe and Robertson are pledging is a hoax.

Can they name one country on earth which has full employment?

And note that the living wage pledge has now shifted from people working for Government and contracting to Government, to a living wage for everyone. Everyday their policies move further to the left. The Greens will soon be seen as more centrist than Labour at this rate.

When do they start pledging they also want everyone to live to be 100?

Tracy Watkins warns that their pork barrel promises may make them unelectable:

Labour’s leadership hopefuls should be wary of losing the war to win the battle.

The pork barrel style campaigning of the first two days of their leadership roadshow may or may not give one of them an edge over their rivals among the party faithful. But it goes without saying that the delegates who get to decide the next Labour leader are not the voters Labour needs to reach out to in 2014 to win the next election. To win back those swinging voters, Labour needs to grow its support in the political centre. With the exception of wild card Shane Jones, however, this leadership race has been all about the two main candidates, Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe,  racing to shore up their credentials on the Left. If they are not careful, the underdog Jones will steal a march on both of them. While his rivals have their gaze turned inward, he is reaching out over both of them to appeal to the voters who aren’t card carrying Labour members. And his smoko room politics and harking back to old fashioned Labour values are far more likely to resonate with the wider public.

I used to think Jones would get say 5% only, but I’d say he is picking up significant support, so that no candidate will win on first preferences. It will come down to who his supporters rank second.

The first day on the hustings had the candidates vying to gazump each other on policy including a living wage, repealing the Government’s industrial relations law changes, a Pacifica TV channel, raise taxes on the wealthy,  regulate food prices and raise the minimum wage.

Oh I missed the TV channel!

I’ll do another post on this once ballot papers go out, but some initial thoughts on 11 candidates standing for the Lambton Ward of the WCC. With Stephanie Cook and Ian McKinnon both retiring, it is very competitive.

The 11 candidates are:

Nicola Young

Nicola is also standing for Mayor, and running a good campaign. I’ve known Nicola for a long time, and she is very good at thinking outside the square and making things happen – two things we need on Council. She’s the sort of change we need, and will vote responsibility with our rates.

Rex Nicholls

Rex was previously a Councillor but retired in 1998. When he was on Council previously he was a great Councillor. He is fiscally responsible but also a good back of necessary infrastructure projects such as the stadium and the sewerage system. He’s also been active in saving heritage buildings such as the Shamrock and Trekkers Hotel. Most of all Rex is an astute businessman. Council needs a good balance of skills. I don’t want a Council just of businesspeople, but the current Council is under-strength in business skills.

Iona Pannett

Iona is a Green Party Councillor, and I don’t agree with her on most policies. I don’t want the Greens and allies having anywhere near a majority on Council, as we would go backwards. However I think it can be valuable to have a diversity of voices, and I credit Iona with a good work ethic and an ability to work with others. I’ll probably rank her 3 or 4.

John Dow

John Dow has a great CV, and has been a part of many good things in Wellington such as the Wellington Gold Awards for business, New Zealand International Arts Festival, and Wellington Phoenix. He is close to John Morrison. I like his CV, but know nothing about him beyond the 200 word blurb. I will probably rank him 3 or 4 also.

Michael Appleby

Perennial candidate for local and central government as leader of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. Adds humour to the candidate meetings!

Milton Hollard

CV looks solid. Supports a Super City. Details a few policies which look okay but I wonder about the cost.

Mark Peck

The former Labour MP for Invercargill for 12 years. Never made a Minister. As a Labour candidate is bound to vote in accordance with Labour local caucus decisions, and policy framework. Now a small business owner (a cafe) which is a plus. His campaign manager, or authorised person, appears to be Grant Robertson. Rather hypocritically he pays his own staff under $15 an hour, opposes a minimum wage of $15, yet demands the Council pay all staff a living wage of $18.40 an hour. Guess it is easier when someone else pays.

Stephen Preston

A corporate trainer. Can not work out from his blurb what he stands for. Lots of buzz words.

Jennifer Stephen

Supports rates being under control, but also Council backing winners.Could be okay, but not much to judge on. Would be great if the Council website linked to their websites, if they had one.

Mark Wilson

Wants to shift the port to Ngauranga. I agree! Not so sure about light rail though, as the cost is massive.

John Woolf

Against development, flyovers and motorways. I presume he owns a cycle shop.

As I said, I’ll do a fuller post once ballot papers are out.