John Key has confirmed the Government will make a contribution to the Auckland CBD rail loop, with construction starting in 2020.

The details will be released on Friday, and it seems there will be some other announcements also. What will be of interest is how much the Government is contributing.

I first blogged on the CBD rail loop in 2009, and commented:

The key thing is, it is not a choice between improving roads and public transport. They are not substitutes, but complementary.

Labour and Greens have been trying to say that it is one or the other – that one must cancel the Puhoi to Wellsford motorway extension to fund the rail loop.

I also noted at the time:

If it can be done for that much money, the economic argument really stacks up.

But the cost has grown from that initial $1.5 billion.

In 2010 I blogged:

I think it is the most sensible of the proposed rail projects for Auckland.

And said:

Let’s assume ratepayers will pay 3/4. Work out how much that is, and consult Aucklanders on whether they are happy with that investment. Then you can talk to the Government about its contribution.

The details of the cost split is critical. I have said people outside Auckland should not be significantly funding the Auckland rail loop. However if the Govt’s contribution can be funded from the approx Auckland share of the National Land Transport Fund (ie through petrol tax paid by Aucklanders), then that is fine with me.

I suspect that is why the start date is 2020. Up until 2020 the NLTF is funding the various road of national significance, and as they get completed, my guess is the CBD rail loop will be the next priority.

Incidentally as far as I know, the Government has never refused to fund the CBD rail loop. They have always been careful with their language, saying there is not currently enough money in the NLTF for it. Unless I have missed something, they have never said never (to paraphrase James Bond).

The Herald reports:

Environment Minister Amy Adams has confirmed she will block councils from setting their own rules on genetically modified organisms, saying that central Government’s controls on GM trials and releases were strict enough.

The minister was challenged in Parliament yesterday after the Heraldrevealed she was investigating attempts by North Island councils to introduce higher standards on GMOs in their planning documents.

Ms Adams said in the House that she was concerned that councils were trying to go against central Government’s rules on new organisms.

“Local councils are local councils – they operate under the national framework. There has never been the ability for them to rewrite national rules that they don’t like.

“And if councils have concerns about the way GM regulation in New Zealand works, they should raise those with the [Environment Protection Agency] and attempt to address the legislation on a national basis. They should not set up their own independent states…”

Excellent. This will stop the anti-science nutters from bullying Councils into bans. New Zealand had a Royal Commission of inquiry into GM. It was demanded by the Greens and others. They said that GM should not be banned in NZ, but allowed under strict conditions.

It is worth recalling that in over 20 years of genetically modified crops and food, there has never been any documented ill effects from it. Wikipedia states:

•  the American Association for the Advancement of Science has stated “Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques.
• The American Medical Association, the National Academies of Sciences and the Royal Society of Medicine have stated that no adverse health effects on the human population related to GM food have been reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers.

1. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
2. PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making to ensure future generations of New Zealanders are not saddled with excessive debt?
3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “In 2009, New Zealand was rated first on the Transparency International’s ‘Corruption Perception Index’. Out of 180 countries, New Zealand was rated as having the lowest perceived public sector corruption. As a nation, that ranking is something of which we can be very proud”?
4. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Has he had any reports of an imminent Government U-turn on Auckland’s City Rail Link?
5. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has she received on improvements in the retention of students in secondary school?
6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received on affordability of health care for New Zealanders?
7. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister of Housing: What initiatives is the Government taking to address housing supply in pressured markets like Auckland and Christchurch?
8. JAN LOGIE to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Attorney-General’s advice that the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) unjustifiably limits the right to judicial review; if not, why not?
9. NICKY WAGNER to the Associate Minister of Health: What is being done to address the mental health needs of people in Canterbury?
10. CLARE CURRAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement of 11 June 2013 that “I can assure the House that we do not use our partners to circumvent New Zealand laws”?
11. PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Civil Defence: What reports has she received on how civil defence managed last week’s extreme weather events across New Zealand?
12. Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR to the Prime Minister: Does he still stand by his reported statement that the Prostitution Law Reform Act 2003 “hasn’t actually worked”?

Today Labour are asking four questions, The Greens are asking two questions and New Zealand are asking one question. Labour are asking about whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, the Auckland Inner City Rail Loop, healthcare affordability, and whether New Zealand uses its partners to circumvent New Zealand Law. The Greens are asking about Public Sector Corruption, and the right to Judicial Review over decisions made by the Ministry of Health. New Zealand First are asking a question about Prostitution Law Reform, an issue decided ten years ago.

Patsy question of the day goes to Paul Foster-Bell for Question 11 : What reports has she received on how civil defence managed last week’s extreme weather events across New Zealand?

General Debate 3.00PM – 4.00PM

Twelve speeches of no more than ten minutes each. Often the highlight of the parliamentary week, as standing orders are more relaxed.

Government Bills 4.00PM – 6.00PM

1.  Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill – Second Reading

2. Taxation (Livestock Valuation, Assets Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill – Second Reading

3. Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No2) – First Reading

4. State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill  – Committee Stage

The Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Finance, Bill English. This bill seeks parliamentary authorisation for the individual appropriations and changes contained in The Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand and Supporting Information for the year ending 30 June 2013.

The Taxation (Livestock Valuation, Assets Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill is being guided through the house by the new Minister of Revenue, Todd McClay. This bill proposes measures foreshadowed in Budget 2012 to broaden the tax base.

The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No2) is being guided through the house by the Minister for Local Government, Chris Tremain. This Bill amends the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to enable local boards established under the Act to delegate responsibilities, duties or powers conferred or allocated to them under the Act.

The State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill is being guided through the house by Minister of State Services, Dr Jonathan Coleman. This bill seeks to amend legislation governing the management of the State sector and public finances in New Zealand.

Fraser Nelson writes at The Spectator:

I often think of the Kinnock speech when I hear someone like Blower saying that poor kids can’t be expected to do so well. These (stunning, sickening) examples of how the poor are systematically failed by our education system really does call for the kind of anger that Kinnock envinced in 1987. It was a conservative, George W Bush, who updated Kinnock’s point for the 21st century. “Some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards,” he said in 13 years ago. ” I say it is discrimination to require anything less–-the soft bigotry of low expectations”.

The bigotry of low expectations is alive today. If someone lives in a decile 1 area, then they are not expected to do well.

This is what separates British left and right now. The left, in its post-Blair phase, no longer very worked up about the poor doing badly at school. (“It may matter or it may not,” Blower said about poor children going to top universities). The standard left response is to talk philosophically about inequality in society, as if this has the slightest bearing on whether the sink schools ought to be tolerated in this day and age.

By contrast, the right are hopping mad about educational inequality. When the subject is raised in front of Michael Gove, it’s like flicking a switch. He blows his top.

Gove is doing an excellent job.

The difference between left and right, now, is that you will seldom hear a left-winger getting Kinnock-style (or Gove-style) angry about educational inequality. The right are so angry about educational inequality that they want to tear up the whole system. Now that Labour takes 80pc of its funds from the union, it seems to be on the side of the system, no longer on the side of those failed by the system. As Iargued in the Telegraph on Friday, the Conservatives can now claim to become the party of the working class.

Our school system is good for most students. But the bottom 20% or tail do worse than most other countries. We need to do what we can to lift their expectations and results.

The OECD has published its 2013 Education at a glance book of OECD educational statistics. The report has around 400 tables in it.

Ministers Parata and Joyce highlight NZ is :

• Investing 7.3 per cent of its GDP in education – the seventh highest in the OECD
• Investing 20 per cent of all public expenditure in education, which is the second highest percentage in the OECD
• In the top third of countries for participation in early childhood education  – 95 per cent of four year olds enrolled in 2011
• In the top seven countries for the percentage of public expenditure allocated to early childhood education
• In the top 10 of the OECD for the highest proportion of tertiary qualified adults, with 39 per cent of 25 to 64 year-olds and 47 per cent of 25 to 34 year-olds in New Zealand having a diploma or higher qualification
• Increasing significantly the number of 15 to 19 year olds enrolled in study –81.5 per cent in 2011, up from 74 per cent in 2008

So let no one say the issue for education is not enough money being spent by taxpayers.

Stephen Fry blogs:

There isn’t any point in denying that the outburst of sympathy and support that followed my confession to an attempt at self-slaughter last year (Richard Herring podcast) has touched me very deeply.

Some people, as some people always will, cannot understand that depression (or in my case cyclothymia, a form of bipolar disorder) is an illness and they are themselves perhaps the sufferers of a malady that one might call either an obsession with money, or a woeful lack of imagination.

“How can someone so well-off, well-known and successful have depression?” they ask. Alastair Campbell in a marvelous article, suggested changing the word “depression” to “cancer” or “diabetes” in order to reveal how, in its own way, sick a question, it is. Ill-natured, ill-informed, ill-willed or just plain ill, it’s hard to say.

But, most people, a surging, warm, caring majority, have been kind. Almost too kind. There’s something a little flustering and embarrassing when a taxi-driver shakes you by the hand, looks deep into your eyes and says “You look after yourself, mate, yes? Promise me?” And there’s something perhaps not too helpful to one’s mental health when it is the only subject people want to talk to you about, however kindly or for whatever reasons.

But I have nothing to complain about. I won’t go into the terrible details of the bottle of vodka, the mixture of pills and the closeness to permanent oblivion I came. You can imagine them and I don’t want to upset the poor TV producer and hotel staff who had to break down my door and find me in the unconscious state I was in, four broken ribs thanks to some sort of convulsive fit that must have overtaken me while I lay almost comatose, vomit dribbling from my mouth. You can picture the scene.

The episode, plus the relationship I now have with a magnificent psychiatrist, has made made my mental health better, I think, than it’s ever been. I used to think it utterly normal that I suffered from “suicidal ideation” on an almost daily basis. In other words, for as long as I can remember, the thought of ending my life came to me frequently and obsessively.

His entire blog post is very raw and real, but I am sure hugely helpful to the millions who suffer from depression and other mental illnesses. When you read what he has gone through, I am sure you feel less alone in your own battles.

I suppose I just don’t like my own company very much. Which is odd, given how many times people very kindly tell me that they’d put me on their ideal dinner party guestlist. I do think I can usually be relied upon to be good company when I’m out and about and sitting round a table chatting, being silly, sharing jokes and stories and bringing shy people out of their shells.

But then I get home and I’m all alone again.

I don’t write this for sympathy. I don’t write it as part as my on going and undying commitment to the cause of mental health charities like Mind. I don’t quite know why I write it. I think I write it because it fascinates me.

And perhaps I am writing this for any of you out there who are lonely too. There’s not much we can do about it. I am luckier than many of you because I am lonely in a crowd of people who are mostly very nice to me and appear to be pleased to meet me. But I want you to know that you are not alone in your being alone.

Loneliness is not much written about (my spell-check wanted me to say that loveliness is not much written about – how wrong that is) but humankind is a social species and maybe it’s something we should think about more than we do. I cannot think of many plays or documentaries or novels about lonely people. Aah, look at them all, Paul McCartney enjoined us in Eleanor Rigby… where do they all come from?

The strange thing is, if you see me in the street and engage in conversation I will probably freeze into polite fear and smile inanely until I can get away to be on my lonely ownsome.

Make of that what you will.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

Have blogged the latest Herald Digipoll at Curiablog. Labour down 5.5% and Shearer down 6.1%.

In terms of next Labour leader, 32% say Cunliffe, 17% Robertson and 14% Little.

Brian Edwards blogs:

I find it hard to contain my disgust at the response in South Africa and abroad to Nelson Mandela’s hospitalisation for what is quite clearly a terminal illness. It has been nothing short of ghoulish.

Mandela is 94. Given what he has experienced in that long life, it is perhaps surprising that he has survived to such a ripe old age. Now it is time to let him go.

But ‘letting him go’ has not been an acceptable option for the country’s politicians, its churches and many of its citizens. The nation is encouraged to ‘pray for Madiba’ – not for a peaceful end to his suffering, but for the extension of that suffering or, at best, his survival in what may be little more than a zombie-like state. What masquerades as loving concern is in fact the ultimate selfishness.

Edwards is right.  I find this deathwatch ghoulish. We don’t need twice daily updates on him. When he dies, many will pay tribute – as is appropriate.

What South Africa and the world needs to do is to mourn Mandela’s death when it occurs and, when the mourning time is over, celebrate the life he lived. Instead, we crowd like vultures around the hospital bed of a dying man, some savouring titbits of hope, others in the expectation of gathering the first morsels of publicity that will increase their journalistic reputations.

Well said.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

The top former public servant called in to restore order to the troubled Ministry of Education has been confirmed as its new boss.

Deputy State Services Commissioner Sandi Beatie today confirmed Peter Hughes had been appointed secretary for education and chief executive of the Ministry of Education.

This is very good news for the Government, and for the Ministry. Hughes is a top operator and with a five year appointment, should be able to significantly improve how the Ministry operates. Ministers will be very pleased to have Hughes stay on.

Danyl McLauchlan blogs at Dim-Post:

My book goes on sale next Friday. You can preorder it directly from the VUP online bookshop. Preorders will be (a) signed and (b) signed by me, because apparently it’s ‘unethical’ to get the intern to copy my signature. Ebook format will be available here. (It takes a while for the ebook format to go live at major providers like Apple and Amazon. I’ll keep you updated.)

I’ve not yet read my review copy, but I suspect many will purchase it on the basis of Danyl’s blog writings. I will do a review once I have read my copy. The blurb for it is:

A sleepy bohemian neighbourhood.

An ancient legend from the ancient past.

A brilliant but troubled young writer.

A voluptuous healer.

A shadowy cult and its sinister leader.

A trail of riddles; a hidden artefact.

An explicit sex scene, then a struggle for ultimate power.

And a final, unspeakable secret.

Unspeakable Secrets of the Aro Valley is a dark and hilarious odyssey through Wellington’s underbelly.

Sounds fun. I’m looking forward to reading it.

The launch party for it is on Friday 5 July at Philosophy House in Aro Valley.

The Herald reports:

Government Chief Information Officer Colin McDonald is to get more powers and a bigger budget as the Government seeks to keep a lid on IT debacles like Novopay and a string of privacy breaches.

Mr MacDonald who is also Department of Internal Affairs chief executive, will now be equally responsible with the relevant minister for the sign off and roll out of big government IT projects like the $1.5 billion upgrade of the Inland Revenue’s computer system which will be the biggest ever public sector IT project.

Prime Minister John Key said if ICT projects failed in the same way Novopay had, the buck would now largely stop with the Government Chief Information Officer (GCIO) and his department as well as the relevant minister.

“As we can see with things like Novopay, if you get it wrong it can be a very painful experience.” …

He said Mr MacDonald’s team will receive an additional $1.5 million a year for additional staff and resources.

That was on top of previously announced extra funding of $3 million in 2012/2013 and $4 million a year thereafter.

Mr Tremain said Mr MacDonald would give independent advice to ministers regarding major projects and would have sector-wide oversight of ICT plans, projects and risks.

He would also report to ministers on any security risks, and implement privacy and security standards and controls across the public sector.

The announcement was part of the wider Government ICT strategy and action plan, released yesterday which aims to save up to $100 million year by 2017.

The plan includes offering all new services online by 2017.

Giving the CIO more powers seems sensible. Few agencies have the experience and capability to manage a major IT project by themselves.

I like the commitment for all new Govt services to be offered online.

Speaker David Carter has ruled that as United Future is no longer a registered political party, it is no longer eligible to be recognised as a parliamentary party under Standing Orders. Hence Peter Dunne is now classified as an independent MP.

This means he loses $122,000 of annual leader and party funding. Also he no longer has the right to speaks on motions where all party leaders get to speak.

However the Speaker also indicated that if they do get re-registered they will likely again be recognised as a parliamentary party, so he is likely to regain his former status in a couple of months or so.

NZIER have published this note:

The Greens’ idea to use the Reserve Bank Board to make monetary policy might improve decision-making but using a board designed to represent industry, risks compromising the Reserve Bank’s independence and the goals of monetary policy.

So they’re saying collective decision making may be better, but not if those deciding are not independent.

Responsibility for monetary policy rests solely with the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Twenty-five years ago, monetary policy was tied to the neck of one person to maximise accountability for inflation targeting. Today most countries have adopted inflation targeting but use a board rather than a single person to set interest rates.1

Groups tend to make better decisions than individuals by using a wider range of information. That often leads to less extreme decisions.2 And decision-making by groups is more effective because members of the group contribute a greater variety of perspectives.3

I would note it can lessen accountability though.

Recently the Reserve Bank of New Zealand set-up an internal Governing Committee, comprising the Governor, Deputy Governors and an Assistant Governor, as a group to assist decision-making.

These innovations help the Reserve Bank form better decisions from a wide range of information and perspectives. That means the distinction between a single decision-maker and decision-making by a board is blurred by current Reserve Bank practice. 

So we expect better monetary policy from a board rather than a single person. But given the way policy is currently set these gains are unlikely to be large.4

In other words, the decisions are in practice collective ones.

Moving to a board structure has practical implications. We agree that like elsewhere in the world, releasing the minutes and voting record of the committee improves transparency.

Agreed.

But already New Zealand has a very transparent central bank. According to one measure, New Zealand ranks as the second-most transparent central bank globally.5 Publishing the board minutes is helpful but the Reserve Bank of New Zealand does not have a transparency problem. 

But let’s not pretend there is a huge problem.

It’s not clear what making the decision-making board more representative of the wider economy might achieve.

If the problem is improving decision-making, NZIER’s view is the Reserve Bank already receives considerable input from all parts of the economy as part of its regular information gathering process.

Including exporters and manufacturers on a decision-making board seems targeted towards a solving a different perceived problem: changing the objectives of monetary policy.

But good monetary policy is not about promoting exports: it’s about targeting inflation.
Ultimately, monetary policy is a technical activity. So any decision-making board needs the professional advice and experience of career economists that understand the economy.

Basically the proposal is an attempt to change the purpose of monetary policy by stealth.

The Dom Post editorial:

The eight Wellington city councillors who voted to ban off-licence alcohol sales after 9pm in the hope of curbing the harm from people guzzling booze before they hit the pubs have overlooked one very important point – their targets are not stupid.

Unlike the Councillors arguably!

The move will not stop the pre-loaders from getting a head start before they go out for the night. If anything, it is likely to see them start drinking excessively earlier in the evening, causing more problems than it will solve while penalising every responsible drinker from one end of the city to the other.

Yep, it will. Many don’t start drinking at home until 10 pm or so but if they have to go buy the alcohol before 9 pm, the parties will simply start earlier and last longer.

Councillors who support the proposal, adopted by eight votes to seven, say it will help prevent people pre-loading at home or side-loading – avoiding paying bar prices by ducking out of pubs to buy takeaway alcohol or to consume previously hidden caches.

The desire to tackle those problems is laudable. Pre- and side-loading are undeniably factors in the excessive levels of intoxication that are a blight on Wellington’s nightlife.

However, simply banning off-licence sales after 9pm will solve nothing. It is absurd to believe it will be beyond the wit of those who pre- and side-load to get organised enough to visit off-licences before they have to stop selling alcohol.

Yet, it will disadvantage someone doing their household shopping late at night, who can’t buy a bottle of wine with it.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers.

The Press reports:

Christchurch mayoral candidate Lianne Dalziel has slammed the level of debt the city council will be taking on as “fiscally irresponsible”.

Great to hear a Labour MP blast fiscal irresponsibility and raise the alarm on debt. I can only presume Lianne will not be voting Labour at the next election then, as their policies are for more spending and more debt.

In her speech Dalziel said it was “fiscally irresponsible” to take the council’s debt levels to 2% short of the maximum allowable ratio “giving us no room to manoeuvre should any calculations fall short of budget”.

I agree.

3 News reports:

But Ms Dalziel, the current Christchurch East MP, did not offer a solution to the planned uptake. Instead, she says she’s not making any promises around level of debt.

“I’m just offering absolute fiscal responsibility in terms of insuring that we’re not placing our council into so much debt that we don’t have we anywhere to move just in case something goes wrong,” she says.

Ms Dalziel says she’s opposed to asset sales as a solution – but is not ruling them out completely.

“I’m opposed to strategic assets being sold, [but] I’m not having a conversation at the moment about what strategic means,” she says.

It is pointless to criticise unless you have a credible alternative.

Debt is a function of spending. You borrow money to fund either an operational deficit or capital expenditure.

There are basically just two ways to reduce debt – spend less, or increase revenue.

If Lianne is saying the Council is spending too much money (which is very possible) she should identify what spending she would chop.

If she is saying the Council needs to increase its revenue, then she should spell out which assets she would sell, or how much more she would increase rates by.

“My final decision to run was only made two weeks ago so I haven’t got a detailed policy platform, but I will have one when I launch [the campaign] formally,” she says.

“I’ve got a couple of months to basically work with a variety of people across the city to put together that policy platform.”

Fair enough not to have it yet, but having blasted the Council for their debt she will in time need to be specific about what spending she would cut to reduce debt – or alternatively which assets she would sell and/or how much rates would increase.

Stuff reports:

The country’s third-largest internet provider, Slingshot, is likely to be on a collision course with Hollywood after launching the Global Mode service, the Telecommunications Users Association says.

The service disguises customers’ internet protocol addresses and can make it appear as if customers live in the United States or Britain. That means Slingshot customers can access online services that are not available in New Zealand, such as online television service Netflix and the US shopfronts of online stores such as iTunes.

Slingshot launched Global Mode as a free option for its broadband customers, promoting it as a service that they would use if they were hosting overseas visitors.

What a great idea. It is so frustrating that some online retailers refuse to sell you material based on your IP address. For example, there is no legal way to purchase the US House of Cards in new Zealand.

A guest post by Gary Lindsay:

On Saturday I managed to get myself banned from the Facebook page for Fish and Game New Zealand, after commenting on this post about their blanket opposition to RMA reforms. It’s not the first time I have been banned from Facebook pages and will probably not be the last. It’s also not the first time that I have been banned for putting forward a rational argument at odds with what the admins think. What makes this different is that Fish and Game is a statutory body, whose job is prescribed by New Zealand law.

The Fish and Game Council is the body who get the money from hunting and fishing licenses (except for Taupo licenses). In return they are responsible for managing the fresh water fishery and game habitats and ancillary activities (link). One of their statutory functions is also to “Advocate generally and in any statutory planning process the interests of Fish & Game New Zealand and, with its agreement, any regional Fish & Game Council in the management of sports fish and game, and habitats.” Whether this includes a propaganda campaign opposing a major government policy that is vaguely in their sphere of interest is a matter of conjecture. Personally I think it’d be a hard sell to convince anyone.

As a statutory body, Fish and Game shouldn’t have a policy of blanket opposition to RMA reforms, and certainly shouldn’t be using such emotive terms as ”Attack on RMA” and “Attack on Kiwi Values”. They should also be careful about using the opinion of a former prime minister from the opposition party, even if he is head of the Law Society. The Environment Minister has said that the reforms will not result in water degradation, so the points raised are controversial at best or incorrect at worst. It reminds me of being required to join VUWSA when I was studying, even though I didn’t agree with any of their policies either – although I am sure the Fish and Game Council won’t be spending money on cannabis for J-Day.

Instead of blanket opposition to the reforms, surely the best result for anglers will be if the Fish and Game Council work with the government to ensure their concerns are dealt with. Shutting the door on dialogue is counter-productive and will only result in Fish and Game being ignored through the reform process. And it will be recreational anglers, not the Fish and Game Council or anyone else, who will (potentially) lose.

Today I am asking myself: to what extent should statutory bodies be allowed to lobby the government? Should those organisations be allowed to be the political mouthpiece of the people who are elected to run them? Or should the government demand that they should stick to their statutory functions and not overstep the mark? I know that other statutory bodies, such as the hundreds of commissions (such as the Human Rights Commission) do lobby the government and do criticise government policies, however their role is not to manage a resource. Other government bodies manage their business and make recommendations to the government but tend to stay away from politics, like the old Department of Building and Housing. Exactly what should the lobbying role of this government body be?

Finally, since I know it will be brought up in the discussions, I would like to say why somebody who lives in Queensland has an interest in this at all. It is simple – although I live in Australia, I fish in both countries. I also retain strong ties to New Zealand through my family and friends, and I have an interest in politics and governance in general. Some will also recognise that I do sometimes enjoy a bit of trolling, and will think “I’m not surprised that he got banned.” I wasn’t trolling in this instance (I wouldn’t be writing this if I was), however I was questioning their policy. I can supply a copy of what I wrote prior to being banned.

It’s bad enough when taxpayer funded lobby groups use taxpayer money to attack the Government (they should use their own not mine), but even worse when a statutory body with compulsory funding does so.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

The surveillance capabilities of police, the Security Intelligence Service and Defence Force will be beefed up if controversial spy legislation falls over, Prime Minister John Key says.

This is what some people overlook. Those agencies all have legal authority to intercept communications if they get (for Police and SIS anyway) a warrant for it.

What is being proposed is that the GCSB can continue to do the actual interception on their behalf as they have the expertise. If the bill fails, it won’t mean a single less domestic interception. It will just mean interception infrastructure will be duplicated and exist in multiple agencies, rather than one.

That’s not to say there are not some changes that can be made to the bill.

Stuff reports:

As Ms Gillard starts what is shaping up to be her toughest week in Parliament, a review of opinion polls indicates that Mr Rudd’s three-stage siege on the Labor leadership has cost the party direct political support and could destroy it for a generation.

The review by Gillard supporters is of opinion polls before and after Mr Rudd’s two previous leadership tilts.

Its release represents a new stage in the internecine warfare between the current and former prime ministers as Labor MPs stare electoral annihilation in the face.

A senior minister has told Fairfax Media that the only certain effect of Mr Rudd’s “revenge mission” has been to send the ALP’s stocks into the basement, guaranteeing that Tony Abbott will be prime minister after the election.

The figures, based on the results of the monthly Fairfax-Nielsen poll, the fortnightly Newspoll, and others, show Labor’s standing with voters has headed south immediately following the last two raids on the top job by Mr Rudd and his backers.

Very smart work by the Gillard team to compile this. Yes Labour would be low in the polls even if Rudd’s supporters were not white-anting the Government, but his continual attcks (through proxies) on Gillard are what has driven the ALP to such a low level in the polls. Voters hate disunity.

The ALP Caucus should not reward him for his campaign.

The most recent Fairfax-Nielsen and Newspolls show Labor’s primary vote at 29 per cent and the gap widening between Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott in the preferred prime minister category.

On that poll, the ALP would win 42 seats and the Coalition 103.

Meanwhile, the Australian Services Union’s NSW secretary, Sally McManus, has confirmed that she sent an email to members asking their opinions on the Labor leadership.

“I’m not doing that in order to get any publicity about it,” Ms McManus said in a voicemail message to Fairfax Media.

“At the moment it’s between me and my members . . . Probably I’ll leave the poll open for a couple of days and after that be in a position to talk to people.”

Support from the unions is critical to Ms Gillard’s hold on power. Australian Workers’ Union boss Paul Howes in particular has backed the Prime Minister’s continuing leadership.

Isn’t it appalling outside groups get to determine who the Prime Minister and Labor Leader will be?

And NZ Labour is heading this way. In Australian Labor, the unions only have (great) influence. In NZ Labour they now get 20% of the vote.

THIS WEEK ON PRIME TV’s “BACK BENCHES”:Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

WHO SHOULD GET THE PILLS?:  Pharmac—the Government’s drug-buying agency wants your input on their funding policies? Who should be getting the pills? Where should our priorities lie? Should they put more money extending the lives of the elderly? Or should they prioritise medicines that would improve the lives of younger people?   What about the poor—are they more deserving of help than rich people? Should the future earning potential of children be considered? Focusing on preventable diseases vs. genetic?

SPY BILL—IS IT SAFETY vs. PRIVACY?: The Law Society has made their opinion over the GCSB law changes proposals known. They hate it. They say the changes would mean the GCSB would go from a foreign intelligence agency to a domestic one. So, would the new powers be too broad? Why would New Zealanders need to watched? In order to gain safety—is a loss of privacy the price to pay?

There are two ways to get in on the political pub action:

First, you can join the live audience in Wellington’s iconic Backbencher Pub on Wednesday, 26^th of June at 6pm. Filming begins around 6:15pm.

Or watch us that night on PRIME TV at 10:30pm!

http://www.primetv.co.nz/

Plus, Follow us on Facebook (BackBenchesTV) or on Twitter @BackBenchesTV.

Our Panel: Labour MP Lianne Dalziel, National MPPeseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, and Green Party MP Kevin Hague.

Review: World War Z by John Stringer (http://conzervative.wordpress.com/).

As a selective zombie genre fan (Zombieland, Legend, 28 Days/Weeks, The Walking Dead) I vote this a good addition to the zombie film cultus; how appropriate to have a lead actor named Pitt front a zombie film.

World War Z (for Zombie) is based on “World War Z” the 2006 apocalyptic horror novel by Max Brooks which was a follow-up to his 2003 book, The Zombie Survival Guide. However, the movie bears little relation to the Brooks’ book.

Brad Pitt (Gerry Lane) is a retired UN operative (last mission Liberia). The world starts goin’ crazy, fast (ie when a wing-mirror gets smashed off by a cop, you know your day’s goin’ downhill when that happens) with a rapid-spreading, 11-second-infecting rabies type virus afoot (or no foot, as the case may be). Most cities of the world are over-run and these zombies move fast. Gerry and his family only just make it to a military flotilla out at sea, safe from zombies, where a US official (Fana Mokoena) is running things after everyone else in Washington has got their teeth in to something else and “turned.”

Gerry heads off with a special Ops team in exchange for his family’s place on one of the ships, to try and track down the original source at possible locations around the world. They want to understand how and why the infection is spreading. Don’t get bit.

This is essentially the very successful British 28 Days Later (2002) and 28 Weeks Later (2007, starring Robert Carlyle, one of the best actors around) zombie romps redone, which introduced sprinting zombies. Z borrows heavily from both movies.

We have the clichéd Mummy and Daddy separated and kids caught in between issues, seen in Legend, Walking Dead, 28 Days and War of the Worlds, now a required plot staple of these movies (is zombie-ness a meat-aphor for separation?) and perhaps most poignantly addressed in the seven minute Australian zombie movie Cargo (appropriately directed by Ben Howling another great genre surname).

The drama and special effects of Z are fantastic. There are also some riveting scenes (like when zombies attack on a plane; and the attack on Jerusalem). Others I really enjoyed:

the over-running of several mega cities is dramatic and poignant political commentary under the zombie veneer.
The desperation on the Belarus airplane after they think they’ve escaped but find a zombie in the toilet, and how that plays out. No spoiler.
Pitt instantly chopping off the female Israeli soldier’s hand (Segen) to save her from “turning” a partnership begun but not really developed in the movie. I suspect the script had a betrayal and conflicted love story in it that got edited out.
The Laboratory lab technician zombie on the other side of the glass door from Pitt for hours on end, with his teeth-chattering Hannibal Lector impersonation.
A zombie going nuts in a plane seat still strapped in, after crashing.
The turbulence caused to the Belarus airplane from a nuclear detonation we glimpse out the port side window.
I also like how Pitt wraps Vanity-Fair or Vogue magazines around his limbs to protect himself (will zombies be put off?) a kind of parody on himself and the paparazzi.
This movie also gives us the most frightening zombie I’ve seen yet, a black female lab technician with dreads, locked in a glass lab. Awesomely disturbing.

If you didn’t catch it, the scene where Pitt and his family are trying to flee from the rooftop by helicopter and Pitt suddenly runs over to the edge of the building, and counts to 11. He thinks he’s been bitten and counts to 11 to see if he turns. If so, he’ll fall off and save his family from himself.

I would not watch this in 3D, it was fine in 2D, but one NZ critic found the action in 3D exhausting. That is sometimes my experience too; you can have too much clarity, like drinking too much champagne.

Mum is freckle red head Mireille Enos (incidentally a Mormon); the ubiquitous black man in charge is Fana Mokoena; and Z also stars British actor Peter Capaldi known to Commonwealth audiences from the Dr WHO Torchwood TV franchise (incidentally playing a Dr here of the W.H.O Research Centre).

There is plenty of modern politics woven in here too:
1. Israel catches on quickest that the zombie outbreak is happening (in India) using its “tenth man paradigm” and closes its walls and thus protects itself, or does it? So, some subtleties there about walls, Jews, immigration and how Israel is besieged.

2. North Korea controls its outbreak when all 23 million act as one, and smash each other’s teeth out so there is less biting. Gummed to Death in North Korea might be a sequel. It adds a new dimension to Gangnam.

3. Working with Belarussian airways.

This is apocalypse on steroids. It is gripping racy drama, and I loved the tension all the way with the same pressure applied in different contexts (a supermarket, dark apartment hallways, a crowded city, in a research centre -vestiges of Alien II there).

Pitt is great, restrained acting and good presence, but the narration at the end is a bit of a hokey anti-climax. The discovery of how to deal with the zombie threat is somewhat implausible (well, this is an Undead movie I suppose) and frankly, wifey and kids were redundant other than as inconvenient satellite phone callers (you’ll see). Why too, do only our two protagonists survive the mega plane crash. Luck? Pitt’s good looks?

A great addition to the genre, and really worth a watch – I enjoyed it immensely, especially the Jerusalem scenes – but it’s not deep (just enjoy, you don’t read Shakespeare on a roller coaster after all).

One point behind the grittier British 28 Weeks Later with its relentless opening scene, 7/10.

~ John Stringer.