John Stringer blogs on 10 reasons why he thinks Bob Parker went:

1. CEO not a poli.
2. Marryatt and Consents
3. Endless negativity and character assassination
4. The Press
5. Polls
6. Wife and “well-being”
7. Reputation and legacy
8. Communication
9. Transferred frustration
10. Media prostitutes.

I don’t agree with all of them, but I do think the endless negativity was very real, and partly explains what Marryatt stuffed up also. He definitely made many mistakes, but I suspect the fact that some Councillors spent so much of their time attacking and undermining the Mayor and CEO, is why he was reluctant to let them know when problems arose, such a the consenting.

Now that is not to defend his decision. He should have informed the Council. But some Councillors are to blame also for creating a culture of negativity and attack, so the CEO did not feel he can be upfront with them. If he tells them of problems, they’ll just use it to attack him.

Sent in by e-mail by a reader. Very good.

Lots of commentary on Labour’s proposed man ban.

Colin Epsiner writes at Stuff:

Oh dear. I really didn’t think it was possible for Labour to top its own goal over the Sky City corporate box debacle. But it has. 

After a week where the Government ought to be on the back foot over the GCSB saga, Auckland’s nutty property market, and the death throes of one of its coalition partners, Labour has come out with a policy so politically barmy it makes you wonder whether it really has any interest in winning the next election. …

David Shearer has – after initially stating the policy had “some merit” – realised he’s dealing with a political bomb and come out against the policy, saying he favours targets rather than quotas. Senior Labour MPs Phil Goff, Shane Jones, and Andrew Little immediately recognised the damage the proposal would do and have denounced it too. 

But it may be too late. This idea needed to be taken out and quietly shot before it ever saw the light of day. From now until it’s debated at Labour’s annual conference in November, Labour’s opponents will have a field day. 

The Opposition needs to be talking to the electorate about jobs, housing, incomes, and hip-pocket issues. Not navel-gazing about its gender balance. The public, to be frank, doesn’t give a toss whether Labour has 41 per cent women MPs or 50 per cent. They just want good candidates and good policies. 

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

No Labour MPs other than Manurewa’s Louisa Wall will publicly back a proposal to have women-only selection short lists for some electorates to boost female MP numbers.

After his initial reluctance to comment earlier this week, party leader David Shearer has now come out against the proposal.

Outspoken male MPs Shane Jones and Damien O’Connor panned the idea in no uncertain terms, warning it risked driving away socially conservative blue-collar voters.

Of Labour’s 34 MPs, only Ms Wall has been prepared to publicly support it since it was revealed on Thursday.

Eleven, including Mr Shearer, have said they don’t support it or are yet to be convinced.

But is David Shearer not a member of the NZ Council that has proposed this?

So either he got rolled at the NZ Council meeting, or he has flip-flopped and was for it before he rages against it.

Fran O’Sullivan supports it though:

Congratulations to Party Central for putting gender equality ahead of diversity when it comes to the ranking criteria for selecting the next crop of Labour MPs.

Quaintly, the notion that a 21st century political party might opt to use its selection process to try to make sure that as many women as men represent us in Parliament has been met with howls of derision and barely disguised outrage.

That’s just on the Labour side of politics. Let’s point out here that the most vocal MP opponents (Yes, I am talking aboutyou, Shane Jones and you, Clayton Cosgrove) are only there themselves by virtue of their list rankings.

John Armstrong writes:

When you are in a hole, you can rely on Labour to dig itself into an even deeper one beside you – as it did this week with its shoot-yourself-in-both-feet potential change to party rules to allow women-only candidate selections.

This was not solely political correctness gone stark-raving bonkers. Apart from alienating one group of voters who have drifted away from Labour in recent years – men – such a rule change would be just as insulting to women in insinuating they could not win selection on their own merits.

The proposal should have been kiboshed by the leader the moment he saw it. That he didn’t – or felt he couldn’t – points to deep schisms in the party.

The message voters will take from Labour’s warped priorities is that of a party which cannot get its act together in the snoozy backwaters of Opposition, let alone in the blazing sun of Government.

There is a reasons this never emerged under Helen Clark. She would have strangled this before it was born, even if she privately backed it.

Bryce Edwards has collected some of the best tweets on this issue. Here’s a few:

Bernard Orsman ‏@BernardOrsman

The ‘man ban’. Can things get any worse for Labour. PC madness. @nzlabour

James Macbeth Dann ‏@edmuzik

David Shearer is against the quotas. That should guarantee they get passed

Perfect Mike Hosking ‏@MikePerfectHosk

The Labour Party manban makes no sense at all. It’s like saying “drinkable organic wine.”

Patrick Gower ‏@patrickgowernz

Labour Party wants a quota system for MPs based on gender etc – not merit. Apparently this isn’t a joke.

Michael Laws ‏@LawsMichael

Labour’s next caucus rule – seats reserved for the disabled, the mentally ill, overstayers, gays, vegetarians, the over 70s, the under 20s.

Philip Matthews ‏@secondzeit

@harvestbird Over a couple of beers with my mates building a deck, we decided that the manplan has set progressive politics back decades.

Julian Light ‏@julianlight

Went for a coffee this morn but was refused service. Not enough women had bought a coffee. Seemed about as fair as Labour’s policy #manban

Aunty Haurangi ‏@_surlymermaid

Upside to the #manban : Less likely John Tamihere will get an electorate seat.

Keeping Stock ‏@Inventory2

Sean Plunket describes the #ManBan as “a completely co-ordinated attack by the Labour Party on itself”; and he’s spot on.

Ben Uffindell ‏@BenUffindell

@LewStoddart More women MPs just for the sake of more women MPs is not a noble goal. Sexism lies in the population at large.

Cactus Kate ‏@CactusKate2

50% of houses should b owned solely by women n we should hv zero interest loans 2 fund this #manban

Finally we have Chris Trotter:

AMIDST ALL THE CLAMOUR of its detractors, the true significance of Labour’s “Man Ban” has eluded most commentators.

Yes, the proposed rule change has undoubtedly damaged Labour’s election prospects.

Yes, there are many more important issues the party would have preferred the news media to focus upon.

Yes, it is further evidence of a party with no reliable political grown-ups in charge.

Yes, Labour’s opponents will dine out on it for months.

And, yes, it’s the only thing the 2013 Annual Conference will be remembered for.

But, the “Man Ban” is also proof of something else: that the distance separating Labour’s rank-and-file from Labour’s Caucus has grown as wide as the gulf that once separated the “old” Labour Party from the “new”.

The conference in November should be spectacular!

I think a record – 10/10 in 34 seconds. Quiz here.

Stuff reports:

The Government has paid no compensation to the families of the victims of the Pike River mine disaster, their lawyer, Nick Davidson QC, says.

This was in spite of apologies from the Government and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment over their contribution to the tragedy, he said.

“Nothing has been paid by the Government [to Pike victims]. Not at all.”

In comparison, Davidson said the Government paid out-of-court settlements over another West Coast disaster, Cave Creek, near Punakaiki.

In that case, the Department of Conservation was found to have acted illegally and negligently after the viewing platform collapsed on April 28, 1995, killing 13 Tai Poutini Polytech outdoor recreation students and a DOC manager, and injuring four other students.

The two cases are not comparable.

DOC was the owner of and responsible for the Cave Creek platform.

The Pike River company was the owner of the Pike River mine and responsible for the mine safety. The court has found they were at fault.

I have huge sympathy for the families of the Pike River victims. However I do not believe it would be a good precedent to have taxpayers responsible for the failings of private companies.

Treasury have released the financial statements for the 11 months to May 2013. The operating balance before gains and losses (obegal) was a $3.3 billion deficit.

The 2012 Budget forecast a $7.8 OBEGAL deficit for the current financial year. It is now looking to be much much less than that. That’s a really promising sign that the economic recovery is strengthening and that the inherited structural deficit will be gone in the next two years.

Stuff reports:

Every town in the country should have CCTV cameras to installed to help in the fight against crime.

That’s the opinion of one top officer, retiring after 30 years in the force, and who in the course of his career worked some of the country’s most notorious crimes

Retiring Detective Sergeant Glenn Tinsley, formerly of the Waihi Crime Investigation Bureau, was heavily involved in both Operation Sara – the murder of Sara Niethe in 2003 – and Operation Olive – the murder of Paeroa Pizza man Jordan Voudouris in June 2012, two investigations he says would have been a lot easier with the help of technology.

He says if the government and public want to “get serious” about crime prevention, the first step should be a rollout of CCTV cameras coupled with plate recognition technology.

He reckons cameras – paid for by local councils, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and ACC levies – should be installed at the entry and exit points of every town.

“If you had a camera set up in all towns either side of Whangamata, Whitianga, Tairua, Coromandel the same, even the [Kopu] bridge at Thames; everything that moves – you are going to catch it,” he said.

Why stop there?

Why not microchip every person born in NZ, with a chip that tells the Police where you are. So if a crime happens in a specific area, the Police can work out who was within 100 metres of the crime and haul them in for questioning.

Then after that, we can start work on pre-crimes. Of course that would mean arresting the entire population of Huntly.

Bob Parker has just announced he will not stand for Mayor again. Right decision after consents debacle.

Will Lianne be crowned unopposed or will more candidates come forward now?

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First has criticised the cost of Science and Innovation Minister Steven Joyce’s recent four-day trip to Europe but Mr Joyce has hit back.

Mr Joyce visited Poland, Germany, Brussels and the United Kingdom in June to strengthen New Zealand’s science, innovation and international education links with the European Union.

He opened the biennial New Zealand-European Commission joint science and technology co-operation meeting in Brussels.

Answers to written questions show the budget for the trip was $56,700, a total NZ First leader Winston Peters said was the equivalent of two minimum wage jobs.

Mr Joyce confirmed today the budget for his trip was $56,700 but said actual costs were still being processed.

He said 75 per cent of the budget was spent on airfares and has called Mr Peters a “hypocrite” for his comments.

“This was the guy who as foreign minister defined spending money. For example, in 2006 he managed to spend more than $250,000 in three months – which equates to around $300,000 today – and he said at the time that was to be expected.

“The good news is that I didn’t burn any bedspreads.”

Heh, no smoking in bed.

But it is truly sad and pathetic to see a former foreign minister attacking Ministers for their travel. Winston presided over a culture of extravagance at MFAT with massive boosts to their budgets.

“While Steven Joyce and his staff are jet-setting around the world, more and more New Zealanders are lining up to collect the dole”.

This trip was not jet setting. Certainly some trips, such as Speaker’s Tours, are fairly shall we say relaxed. But most Ministerial travel consists of 16 hour days, and no spare time at all.

Where did Mr Joyce stay:

* Poland: Hotel Stary, Krakow – 1 night

* Germany: Hotel Berline-Mitte, Berlin – 1 night

* Brussels: Sofitel Brussels – 1 night

* London: Royal Horseguards Hotel – 1 night

People who don’t travel much think travel is fun. Travel is not fun, it is a pain in the butt. Checking into and out of hotels every day and stuck on planes is not a holiday. Don’t get me wrong – being in other countries can be great fun – if you have the time to actually do stuff when you are there. But look at Joyce’s itinerary – every day was travel.

But Mr Joyce gained some support from former foreign affairs minister Phil Goff, who said the costs weren’t unreasonable.

“I’ve never criticised a minister of foreign affairs or a minister of trade for travel costs, because if you’re doing your job you’re spending long hours flying, long hours at meetings and there’s no time for junkets in between.

Good on Goff for playing this fair.

During Mr Peters’ time as foreign minister, he spent more than $250,000 between June and September, 2006.

In that year his office was charged $230 for a bed cover that was burnt with a cigarette, although the money was later reimbursed.

And we’re still waiting for him to repay the $158,000.

Edward Gay at the NZ Herald reports:

A nephew of Mana Party leader Hone Harawira was on bail for a home invasion in which a 12-year-old boy was bashed and robbed when he took part in an aggravated robbery.

Following a four-day jury trial at Auckland District Court, Enesi Zane Brooks Taito and his brother Tohara Harawira were today convicted of aggravated robbery and a third man was convicted of assaulting two witnesses.

It can now be revealed that Taito, 26, was on bail at the time for a home invasion after he and his brother, Mau Harawira, attacked a boy in his Auckland home. Taito was convicted for injuring with intent to injure in that case.

I’m losing track of which Harawiras have been charged with and convicted of which crimes recently, as there have been so many of them.

To help me, could someone do up a family tree showing all the different members, and which ones have convictions?

The Herald reports:

A publisher was “gobsmacked” to receive a complaint about using a Maori greeting in an email to a prospective client.

A sales representative for Travel New Zealand sent an email to Queenstown clothing retailer Bonz requesting advertising support. The email began: “Kia ora …”

Bonz owner Bonnie Rodwell replied: “Sorry but why do we need to be addressed with Kia ora?

“Neither myself or [my office manager] speak Maori. Maybe more people would advertise with you if we were addressed with a little more respect. Whilst we have no issue with anything ‘Maori’ at all, we find it plain silly.”

A bloody silly response. Many Maori words are now commonly used by non-Maori. I use whanau and mana regularly. Kia ora is absolutely common place.

Travel New Zealand publisher Gary Cody says he was “absolutely gobsmacked” by Rodwell’s response last Thursday on the eve of this week’s Maori Language Week.

“I couldn’t believe that someone who relied on tourism is offended by that greeting,” Mr Cody said. He had complained to the Human Rights Commissioner, he said.

But that is equally a silly response. Why the hell would you complain to the HRC because a company expressed a negative view on your use of Kia Ora? Does Travel NZ think they shouldn’t be allowed to have a view contrary to their own?

I think both sides are being pretty stupid. Sending in an e-mail of complaint is stupid, but complaining to the HRC because they complained is equally stupid. They should both grow up.

A the last election Labour got 34 MPs. 22 were male and 12 female. Under Labour’s proposed quota, the bottom five men on the list would have to have been placed below the next five women. So who would have been the lucky five women to have got in:

1. Carol Beaumont
2. Carmel Sepuloni
3. Deborah Mahuta-Coyle
4. Steve Chadwick
5. Kate Sutton

The next after that is Josie Pagani and Lynette Stewart.

More interesting is who are the five men who would have been dumped:

1. Raymond Huo
2. Rajen Prasad
3. Shane Jones
4. Andrew Little
5. Charles Chauvel

Next on the list to be dumped would be Clayton Cosgrove and David Parker!

This shows well the problems of quotas. You’d get gender equality, yet knock out a Maori, two Asians and a Pacific Islander which means less diversity in other areas. Diversity is important (well to me anyway), but you need to balance up many competing factors. A quota removes discretion and is a vote of no confidence in a party to be fair to women.

This may explain why David Shearer has said he against the quota and the man ban (it took him a day to decide though!)

Labour leader David Shearer has come out against proposed party rule changes that would ensure half of all its MPs were women by 2017 and would allow “women-only” candidate selections in some seats.

The proposed rule changes, to be decided at the party’s annual conference in November, would force the party’s list selection committee to ensure women would make up 45 per cent of the party’s caucus in 2014 and 50 per cent by 2017.

However, Shearer said targets, not quotas, was a better way to go.

Absolutely, which is National’s position also.

However just because Shearer and some MPs are against, does not mean it will fail. Quite the contrary. The Party President is a strong supporter of it, and they have been agreed to by the party’s ruling NZ Council – which Shearer is on. Activists could well vote to humiliate Shearer by voting for them in November.

One has to wonder did Shearer vote against them at the NZ Council meeting? If so, then he must have got rolled. If not, he has flip-flopped. Either way a leader not in great control of his party.

Stuff reports:

Longstanding public servants are being asked whether their friends know how to party, if they hate opera and whether they like riddles – and their answers could cost them their jobs.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Department of Conservation are two government agencies that have used psychometric testing as part of restructures and redundancies.

But employment lawyers and psychologists say the increasing use of testing in this way – in both the public and private sectors – is “inherently problematic” and could be illegal.

News of their use comes on the back of an Employment Court decision that found a psychometric test was unfair and used “irrelevant criteria” for deciding on redundancies.

I’ve been on several interview panels for chief executives, which use psychometric testing. Generally I’ve found the test results to be very accurate, and helpful. And sometimes a candidate for a senior role has been hired without psychometric testing – and the result has been an unsuitable applicant.

So as part of a recruitment process, I think psychometric testing is very useful, for certain roles.

But I do not think it is a good fit for decisions on redundancies and restructuring. Once an employee has been working for an employer for some time, the employers and managers should be able to assess their capabilities and attitudes without needing psychometric testing.

The Herald reports:

A couple’s age gap of nearly 40 years is being cited as one of the reasons Immigration New Zealand declined an Indian man’s visa application – a move he says is “ageist”.

Balwinder Singh, 22, met New Zealander Glyn Kessell, 59, at a hair salon in Glenfield last year.

The relationship started with texts, progressed to “intimacy” within three weeks and then marriage two months later.

And just by coincidence he wants residency?

I think Immigration should be suspicious of any marriage that occurs within three months of meeting. And it is not ageist to consider a difference in ages. It is common sense.

Immigration NZ area manager Michael Carley denied the decision was ageist or racist. It was made “after an extremely detailed and thorough assessment, which included visiting Mr Singh and his wife at their home and interviewing them both”.

“The couple got married after an uncommonly short three-month courtship. It was noted during a visit to the couple’s home that their living arrangement appeared to be akin to a boarding situation.”

Not surprised.

He said Mr Singh could take the matter to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal should his appeal to Immigration NZ fail.

He might be deported if the tribunal decided against him.

But if this is true love, I am sure Ms Kessell will be happy to move to India so they can be together.

Well it seems that the Labour Leader is not too keen on his own party’s proposed man ban. Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Shearer may be on a collision course with the party’s Left-wing rank and file over proposals to ensure half its MPs are women – a move that would also allow for “women-only” candidate selections.

Mr Shearer declined to comment yesterday, saying through a spokesman it was “just a proposal to conference”.

But he is expected today to say that while he is in favour of more women MPs he is not convinced a quota system or a “man-ban” in some seats is the right way to achieve that.

Yet, it is the party’s ruling Council that has proposed these. Is he not a member of the Council? Did he get outvoted? Quite possibly. Remember that the party rank and file pushed through leadership rules with a special provision to make it easier for Cunliffe to challenge Shearer at the beginning of the year. He has little support at the grass roots. So where did this idea come from?

Well I blogged last year on these proposals from Auckland Central Labour Party:

And even better Labour Auckland Central propose that if it is apparent the elections will not get at least 50% female officers, they must stop the elections and leave roles vacant. So if an electorate had no women standing for office, then they could elect no one at all!! Well done Auckland Central Labour.

So I do wonder if Jacinda is in favour of the man ban? Is this a way of stopping a challenge for the Auckland Central nomination? Or is this how they plan to stop John Tamihere winning the Waitakere nomination?

Labour added to its woes yesterday claiming in a press release it had 15 female MPs in its 34 MP line-up. It actually has only 14, even after the addition of Ikaroa-Rawhiti MP Meka Whaitiri.

So the question has to be, which male Labour MP did Labour mistake for a woman?

Josie Pagani, who stood for Labour in Rangitikei in 2011 was baffled by the move.

“I can’t understand why the Labour party would be emphasising something like this when they’re trying to get the focus on jobs and power prices and the need to get wages up, so strategically it doesn’t make sense to be talking about this right now,” she said.

“Certainly I wouldn’t stand in a seat where I felt like the implication was I couldn’t win it on my own accord without some ‘special help’,” she said.

This is the sad thing. While the motivation is good – to get more women into Parliament, it will in fact degrade and undermine female MPs. If you win a selection where men are banned from standing, then you will have less moral authority as having won your seat fair and square.

The proposals would also require the party’s list to showcase a mix of ethnicity, gender, geographical spread, sexual orientation and disability representation.

Vernon forgot youth and age also. The proposed rule says:

The Moderating Committee shall be bound by the need to arrive at a list which fairly represents tangata whenua, gender, ethnic groups, people with disabilities, sexual orientations, and age and youth.

Gingas will be upset that they are not yet on the list of groups that must be on the list. Labour are following Greens down the path of having quotas for their list ranking, so I’ve graciously given up some of my time to calculate how they can best balance their list, as I previously did with the Greens.

I hope Labour finds this useful as they can just pop candidates into the slot reserved for them. The data used to compile this balanced list for them is:

• Gender – 50/50 split as mandated by their proposed quota
• Ethnicity – based on 2012 Stats NZ population estimates, which are based on 2006 census data
• Sexuality – have assumed 5% of population gay (includes lesbian) and 3% bisexual
• Disability – data from 2006 Disability survey which shows 17% of NZ disabled, and using their major categories in proportion to prevalence
• Age – based on 2012 Stats NZ estimates for adults aged between 18 and 70.

I see Grant Robertson is a supporter of the new proposed rules. Sadly for him, he will have to be demoted to No 5, and Jacinda rise to the No 2 spot.

You wonder whether a Labour Government will also introduce this to the wider public and private sector? They could insist of a 50% female quota for Cabinet, and also require the public service to have female only selections for public sector chief executives. And why not a gender quota for private sector company boards also?

A good post by Josie Pagani on this issue:

I’m not against quotas.

In Afghanistan, young girls are denied education because there aren’t enough women leaders. Women are victimised and systematically deprived of security, livelihood and other basic rights because they are women. In that context quotas for female representation in parliament are one of the most pressing issues facing that country. 

Quotas have a place as temporary measures. They’re a kickstart to getting women into powerful positions. They have their place.

But in New Zealand? I would prefer Labour to be talking about incomes, jobs, power prices, housing. Instead here we are once again trying to defend the merits of a policy to  people who are open-mouthed in amazement at Labour’s priorities. Here we are using precious political oxygen trying to explain why it’s not really a ‘man ban’. We have so much more to do for women than this.

A strong women candidate does not need the handicap of people thinking she has only been selected because she is a woman, not because she is qualified.

Quotas and bans say that Labour women are not good enough to be selected ahead of men on our merits. I wouldn’t want anyone to think that of me. Helen Clark and Julia Gillard were capable of winning elections without removing men from the contest. We are not helpless dearies who need a bit of a leg up from a fixed race. 

Quotas for women will undermine all women MPs. They’ll be seen as tokens.

The democratic principle at the heart of progressive politics is that any person is as good as another, we all deserve a fair go. Quotas say that what we are is more important than the content of our character or our ability to represent Labour values.

Andrew Geddis blogged here on Pundit that even David Cameron supports women-only pre-selection. But if the UK Conservatives can adopt gender quotas then there is nothing intrinsically progressive about the idea. It’s just something you do instead of making the meaningful changes that are needed to bring more qualified women through. 

Also the UK has FPP. MMP allows a party to have a more diverse caucus. But quotas are a sign of no confidence in the party’s ability to balance up the complex mix of skills, geography and diversity. It is saying we want you to make sure half the caucus are women, regardless of the fact that the last woman in may be massively less competent than the man who misses out.

Labour subtly discriminates against parents. Meetings are scheduled right around bath time or over entire weekends. Pandering to internal blocs is valued over talent developed in community contexts. 

We should be seeking out the women in our communities who go on school camps, sit on their school board or coach local sports teams. We should be head hunting women in the workplace who are proving themselves every day alongside male counterparts. You can’t expect these female leaders to play the silly palace politics needed to get ahead in the Labour party.

Fix childcare. Fix flexible work hours. Fix private sector recruitment so that talent gets promoted there, too, and then recruit leaders from there, from the school gates and the weekend sports fields, instead of from the internal power blocs. And value parenting as much as political parties value political networking. I would like to see all that before they put another fix in to the selection process.

Quotas and a man ban are a snake oil solution. They are an easy fix, that does nothing to get to grips with the underlying reasons why we have fewer women MPs.

Anyway me quoting something Josie says with approval, will sadly send her down three or four places on Labour’s list, regardless of quotas! They may have to reclassify her as a man, to prevent her being selected!

Stuff reported yesterday:

Sport broadcasting in New Zealand continues to fracture with MotoGP shifting to free-to-air television.

The New Zealand broadcast rights for the rest of the 2013 MotoGP motorcycle racing season have been secured by Sommet Sports TV.

The new Freeview outfit, whose channel is provisionally up and running but set to launch officially in 10 days, will offer live coverage of the 2013 MotoGP series and highlights programmes.

The development confirms a second sporting asset has been wrested from Sky Television, 16 days after the subscription giant dramatically lost the New Zealand broadcast rights for the English Premier League football to previously unknown group Coliseum Sports Media.

Also Telecom announced yesterday:

TELECOM BROADBAND CUSTOMERS GET SPECIAL ACCESS TO BARCLAYS ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE (BEPL)

• Telecom the official Telecommunications & ICT Partner for PremierLeaguePass.com
• All 50GB broadband plans upgraded to 80GB at no extra cost – means fans can view more content, including BEPL

Football fans who are customers of the country’s biggest broadband provider Telecom New Zealand will be offered some of the most affordable access rates to the Barclays (English) Premier League (BEPL) via its nationwide broadband network and PremierLeaguePass.com. 

Telecom is offering existing broadband customers a 15 per cent discount1 on the PermierLeaguePass.com ‘Season Pass’, and they can also go in to a draw to win one of 1,000 free ‘Season’ passes. 

New Telecom broadband2 customers signing up for the mid-range plans on a 12 month contract can choose a free ‘Season Pass’ with access to all 380 live games available from PremierLeaguePass.com.

It’s great to see both greater competition in securing “broadcast” rights, but also the business model changing more towards online access so you can watch them at your convenience – not just when a broadcaster decides to show them.

A few people have been demanding that the Government must step in and regulate Sky Television, because they have been so successful at securing good content. I think the  announcements of the last fortnight show how misguided those calls were – in fact they seem like tall poppy syndrome. Regulation should be a last resort – not a first resort.

I’m a very happy Sky customer, but I’m delighted other providers are winning some rights against them. Competition makes companies stronger – and benefits the consumer.

By coincidence I’m co-facilitating a session next Wednesday at Nethui which will be discussing where video on demand is going, and what the future may look like in a few years. I think it is a hugely exciting area. We’ll have most of the broadcasters there, plus other providers like Quickflix. Will hopefully be a great discussion.

Have just published Curia’s monthly newsletter summarising the public polls in NZ, Australia, UK, US and Canada. Note Labour have dropped for three months in a row.

The executive summary is:

Curia’s Polling Newsletter – Issue 69, June 2013

 

June saw three political polls published in New Zealand – a Digipoll and two Roy Morgan polls.

The average of the public polls has National 15% ahead of Labour – 2% more than in May. The seat projection is centre-right 62 seats, centre-left 57.

The return of Kevin Rudd in Australia has seen Labor rebound in the polls, so far, but the Coalition retains a narrow 2% lead on average.

In the United States President Obama’s approval rating slips, and he gets a negative rating on foreign policy for the first time.

In the UK Labour leads the Conservatives by 8% and the UKIP continues to outpoll the Liberal Democrats.

In Canada the honeymoon has ended quickly for new Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, as they drop 5%. However on current polls they would still be the biggest party and lead a minority government.

The normal two tables are provided comparing the country direction sentiment and head of government approval sentiment for the five countries. The mood has improved in Australia and Canada.

We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on Maori names, Labour and National leadership, the GCSB, Sky City, Fluoride, Fiordland plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.

The Telegraph reports:

Stuart Prebble, a former ITV television executive, said the BBC had probably been too swayed by the views of politicians, who were also reluctant to discuss immigration for fear of causing offence.

The Washington Post reports:

The Egyptian military removed President Mohamed Morsi from power Wednesday and suspended the constitution in moves it said were aimed at resolving the country’s debilitating political crisis.

In a televised address to the nation after a meeting with a group of civilian political and religious leaders, the head of the powerful armed forces, Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, said the chief of Egypt’s constitutional court “will assume the presidency” on an interim basis until a new presidential election is held. Sissi said the interim president will have the right to declare laws during the transitional period.

I have mixed feelings on this. I am no fan of Morsi, but I don’t see that he had done anything recently to require military intervention. There was no civil war, there were no human right abuses. There were just protests against him.

It’s good that the military will hold new elections, but what happens if the people elect Morsi again, or someone else the military do not like?

Hopefully Mohamed ElBaradei will win a fair election, as he looks to be the best bet for a Government that is tolerant and relatively secular.

Like many I watched the ISC hearings over the TV live-streams. Dotcom really made a speech more than a submission. New Zealand must be the only country in the world where a convicted criminal who is the subject of an extradition warrant to the US gets to debate security issues with the country’s Prime Minister for 25 minutes.

At least it was a step up from yesterday when the PM had to endure Penny Bright demanding that he hand over details of all his bank accounts to her!

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key last night described former Megaupload tycoon Kim Dotcom as a “conspiracy theorist” after the internet mogul again claimed that the Prime Minister knew about him before his Coatesville mansion was raided in January 2012.

Mr Dotcom called the GCSB bill that Mr Key is promoting “morally indefensible” and said that, in reality, NZ’s foreign spy agency was a subsidiary of the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States.

Mr Dotcom told TV3 last night that he would produce evidence during his extradition hearing to the US that Mr Key had lied about not knowing of him before the raid.

That hearing could be next year.

Earlier, Mr Key told reporters that Mr Dotcom “is a well-known conspiracy theorist. He has never ever found a piece of evidence to support that.”

Dotcom has been claiming for almost a year to have this evidence. If he had it, I have no doubt that he would have released it by now. There is no court rule that prevents him.

Near the end of the 20-minute session, Mr Shearer asked Mr Dotcom if he thought Mr Key had known about Mr Dotcom before the raids.

Mr Key said he hadn’t. “You know I know,” Mr Dotcom said.

“I know you don’t know actually, but that’s fine,” Mr Key said.

“Why are you turning red, Prime Minister?” Mr Dotcom asked.

“I’m not. Why are you sweating?”

“I’m hot.”

That was comic.

There were some useful submissions that day from other submitters on important issues. KDC’s submission was not one of them.

Waldo Kuipers at Microsoft blogs on the issue of protecting student privacy.

New Zealand’s schools work hard to earn the trust of their communities. As part of the important work they do, schools need to collect and hold a large body of confidential and private information about children and their families.

The 2020 Communications Trust ICT in Schools survey suggests that if digital records and email are not already used extensively in every New Zealand school, they soon will be.

In recent years some schools have taken a step further, and are starting to send information to computing services outside the school grounds for storage and processing.

In the hands of teachers who have been supported with skills development and the freedom to innovate, new devices and cloud services present wonderful opportunities to prepare students for the future.

Microsoft had Curia do a survey of parents on their expectations. The results were:

• 95% want schools to require providers of computing and Internet services to commit by contract that they’ll only use student data to deliver services to schools, not for the companies’ own purposes.
  
• 97% of parents want schools to ensure student data is used only for education, and not for commercial exploitation.
• 99% of parents indicated their belief that schools’ duty of care should apply to the computer and Internet environment they provide for student learning.

The Dom Post editorial:

When it comes time for the Local Government Commission to ponder the future shape of local government in the Wellington region it could do worse than consider the fate of the Wellington regional amenities fund.

The fund was established last year to promote artistic, cultural and environmental events and attractions in the wider Wellington region.

Five councils – Wellington, Hutt City, Upper Hutt, Kapiti and Masterton – agreed to contribute funds to it. Three – Porirua, South Wairarapa and Carterton – declined to contribute, despite their residents also benefiting from the amenities and events it was established to support.

This is our problem. The Regional Council has a very limited mandate. This means anything else that should be done regionally can only be done if all eight Councils agree to it. Madness.

I support two tiers as we have at the moment, but as part of the one organisation. That way we don’t have a huge amount wasted on Councils liaising with each other, suing each other.

Things which should be done regionally should be under the ambit of a Greater Wellington Council. Things which should be done regionally should be under the ambit of local councils.

Wellington is blessed with any number of natural advantages, but it can no longer afford to rest on its laurels.

The region is competing with Auckland, Sydney, Brisbane, London, Beijing and countless other cities, for investment, people and skills.

It needs to put its best foot forward and operate as a single region rather than a loose collection of feuding duchies.

Indeed.