KPMG report:

Ask your average Kiwi which country is currently dominating foreign investment into New Zealand, and their answer would probably be China.

But the reality shows quite a different picture, according to research undertaken by KPMG NZ.

KPMG has analysed trends in foreign direct investment through a review of the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) approvals over the period July 2010 to December 2012.

This research showed that Asia accounted for only 16% of gross foreign direct investment over the last two years. Australia remains our main single source of capital, at 46%. Combined, North America, Europe and Australia accounted for approximately 70% of investment.

And of the 16% which is Asian:

Among Asian countries, Japan (53%) was a bigger investor in New Zealand than China and Hong Kong (33%). Significant acquisitions made by Japan in the last two years included beverage companies Independent Liquor and Charlie’s.

So China is one third of 18% which is 6%.

The full report states:

The growth of Asia represents a great opportunity for NZ. However, in an economic sense kiwi’s need to realise that Asia is more important to NZ than NZ is to Asia. Given that Asia’s consumer market is about 3.8 billion people and NZ’s is about 4.4million, it is easy to see why.

Joint ventures, partnerships and other innovative arrangements with foreign investors should be considered as ways to commercialise Kiwi innovation and to gain access to overseas markets.

Some parties demonise foreign investment. They seem to view the economy as a closed shop, and promote a view that every dollar of foreign investment is somehow crowding out domestic investment. But it isn’t. Foreign investment helps the economy grow, and creates jobs and more investment opportunities locally.

Simon Collins at NZ Herald reports:

Intensive housing project of 6000 homes and ideas for attracting new businesses and training organisations will help revitalise eastern suburbs around Tamaki estuary.

Auckland’s low-income suburbs of Glen Innes, Pt England and Panmure will roughly double in population under a draft plan for more intensive housing to be unveiled today.

The urban “regeneration” project, which could add up to 6000 new homes to an existing 5050, is expected to be one of the first “special housing areas” with fast-tracked resource consent processes under a housing accord signed last month by Housing Minister Nick Smith and Auckland Mayor Len Brown.

The target of 6000, included in the accord, makes it the biggest housing development scheduled in Auckland and twice as big as the 3000-unit Hobsonville development.

It covers the area between West Tamaki Rd in the north and the Panmure Basin in the south, including 2880 Housing NZ homes, about 1160 owner-occupied houses and just over 1000 private rental properties.

Unlike other developments, the draft Tamaki strategy also includes 11 other social, economic and environmental elements, as well as housing, designed to make the area more liveable despite doubling the population density.

Sounds very worthwhile.

The area is among Auckland’s most deprived, with a 2006 median income of only $20,000 and an employment rate of only 52 per cent, compared with 65 per cent across Auckland. Sole parents make up almost half the area’s families.

But the strategy sees opportunities for more jobs and training by attracting new businesses, redeveloping under-used land along the existing railway and encouraging training agencies such as Manukau Institute of Technology, Unitec and Te Wananga o Aotearoa to take over parts of Auckland University’s Tamaki campus, which the university plans to sell as it develops a new campus in Newmarket.

Houses, and jobs.

But Dr Smith said development was most likely to be done by “public/private partnerships” as at Hobsonville, where a Housing NZ subsidiary contracted with private developers to build houses.

Oh no, a public/private partnership. That means it is evil. It must be opposed by the left!

The NZ Herald reports:

A $760 million Northern Motorway extension to Warkworth has won Auckland Council support as a nationally important project rather than a “holiday highway” for Prime Minister John Key.

“This is not about Auckland and it is not about the holiday highway,” former Rodney district mayor Penny Webster told fellow members of the council’s regional development and operations committee yesterday.

The committee voted 16-4 to refer the project to a Government-appointed board of inquiry rather than deal with it locally under a process open to court appeals.

Excellent news for those living and working north of Auckland.

Kate Shuttleworth at NZ Herald reports:

A pay deal has been signed between the union representing primary and intermediate teachers and the Government to introduce an allowance for 800 expert teachers worth $4 million, the start of performance pay.

Principals will endorse teachers who meet a set of criteria judged against the New Zealand curriculum and they will be assessed by a panel of people who are yet to be decided.

The union, New Zealand Educational Institute, say they took the idea of an allowance to reward experienced teaching staff to the Education Ministry in its pay negotiation round, asking for as many allowances as possible.

Its Primary Teachers Collective Agreement was fully ratified with the ministry on June 7, after long negotiations.

The “advanced classroom expertise teacher allowance” was agreed to by the ministry, but was capped at 800 eligible teachers.

By 2015, 800 teachers across 2000 primary and intermediate schools will be paid an allowance of $5000 a year – worth $4 million.

A good step in the right direction.

Better teachers should be paid more.

A staff member at NZEI said its members would not see it as performance pay because teachers’ achievement wouldn’t be based on raw National Standards data.

That’s not what performance pay should be about. It should be about flexibility so that top teachers are paid significantly more than other teachers. How one assesses who is a top teacher is something I’d leave to each principal or board.

We hear a lot about income inequality. I find this to be a fairly unsophisticated measure, as it assumes people stay at the same income level thoughout their life. Of course people at age 18 earn a lot less than someone at age 50 with 30 years experience.

What I think is much more important is that people born into a poor household, have the opportunity to earn more than their parents did, and that wealth is earnt not just inherited.

A CIS publication has this graph from Australia.

So only a quarter of those born to a father in the bottom quintile end up in that quintile themselves. 74% move into a higher quintile including 54% who move into the middle or top two quintiles. That’s a good thing. It is not a perfect distribution (which would be 20% in each quintile) but it is far far from static.

Also 17% of those born to the wealthiest quintile, end up in the bottom quintile. So wealthy parents do not guarantee that you are wealthy. In fact 72% end up outside the top quintile.

This is what policy makers should focus on. Social and income mobility and equality of opportunity. Not on insisting an 18 year old should be paid the same as a 50 year old, or that an intern should be paid comparable wages to a group general manager.

And from Siberia, proof that some animals don’t actually mind the cold…

Amur Tiger

The Siberian (or Amur) subspecies population is reasonably stable at the moment, albeit the genetic makeup is creating some concern.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

Mana Party leader Hone Harawira wants to offer Maori first-time homebuyers no-deposit, low-interest loans but admits he doesn’t know how much the programme would cost.

So do I have this right?

If you have a Maori great great grand parent you can get a no deposit, low-interest loan, but if you don’t you are not eligible?

Appalling.

And of course it is not costed. That would require someone to actually do some work, rather than just open the mouth.

Housing Minister Nick Smith said the Mana policy would cost more than $3 billion a year and put New Zealand “seriously in the red”.

The Mana policy is outlined here:

• Only Maori first home owners would be able to apply
• There would be no deposit
• Interest rates would be no higher than the rates government pays on money it borrows
• Applicants can either build new or buy an existing property
• Applicants will be able to negotiate mortgage arrangements that suit their circumstances

The Greens have proposed that the Reserve Bank Board should set the official cash rate, not just the Governor. It’s a reasonable debate to have, but one that seemed familiar. I was sure the issue had been canvassed in the past as part of an independent review. I asked Don Brash if my recollection was correct and he responded:

David, you are almost correct. Cullen asked Lars Svensson to conduct a comprehensive review of the whole monetary policy framework. At the time, in 2000, Svensson was a leading monetary policy academic, at Yale from memory. Being Swedish, he had the advantage of being from a country regarded as “moderate” in political terms and, like New Zealand, a country very dependent on trade, with a floating exchange rate. He has since become one of the Deputy Governors of the Swedish central bank. 

He gave the New Zealand framework top marks, describing it as “world’s best practice”, but he did say that he thought that having all monetary policy decisions vested in the single person of the Governor was risky. (Fortunately for me, he said I had done a good job!) He suggested that instead monetary policy decisions should be taken by a small internal committee of senior RB staff – not by the board of (outside) directors because of the potential for conflicts of interest. Both the Treasury and the non-executive directors of the Reserve Bank recommended that New Zealand stick with the single decision-maker model because that makes it easier to pin the blame if monetary policy doesn’t deliver what the Policy Targets Agreement (the agreement between Minister of Finance and Governor) requires to be delivered.

It is a fair point, that if you make the decision a joint one by the Board, it makes it harder for there to be accountability for any failure in monetary policy.

Bjorn Lomborg writes at the Huffington Post:

British Prime Minister David Cameron has rightly put free trade on the top of the G8 agenda. It is possibly one of the best ways we could help the world foster economic prosperity and development.

Cameron writes that comprehensive free trade “could boost the income of the whole world by more than $1 trillion.” As it turns out, this is likely a serious understatement.

The classic argument for free trade points out that specialization and exchange benefits everyone, because goods are produced by the countries that specialize in those goods and produce them most efficiently. The standard World Bank models show that realistic free trade, even just by the end of this decade would increase global GDP by several hundred billion dollars per year, with perhaps $50 billion accruing to the developing countries. Towards the end of the century, the annual benefit will likely exceed Cameron’s $1 trillion annually, with half going to the developing world.

But a growing number of academic studies now show that the free trade story goes much further than simple specialization. History shows that open economies grow faster. Good examples include Korea from 1965, Chile from 1974 and India from 1991, which all saw their growth rates increase significantly after liberalization. Even modestly freer trade helps domestic markets become more efficient and get supply chains better integrated. At the same time trade transfers knowledge, which spurs innovation. Free trade means we don’t all have to reinvent the wheel over and over again.

This is perhaps best captured in a recent state-of-the-art literature review by Professor Kym Anderson for the Copenhagen Consensus think tank. Anderson, one of the World Bank’s lead modelers, shows that the long-run benefits from even a modestly successful Doha free trade round would be vast. The annual GDP compared to no extra free trade would in 2020 be about $5 trillion larger, with $3 trillion going to the developing world. Towards the end of the century, slightly higher growth rates will have accumulated to benefits exceeding $100 trillion annually, with most going to the developing world. By then, benefits would add about 20 percent annually to developing world GDP.

The benefits of free trade to both the world, and especially developing countries are enormous.

In New Zealand we would have far higher unemployment and lower wages if it were not for our free trade agreements, especially the recent one with China which has seen exports treble.

Bear in mind that NZ First and the Greens both bitterly opposed the free trade agreement with China. The latter party has voted against every trade deal ever, as far as I know. If they had been around in 1983 they would have opposed CER with Australia.

While the benefits of global free trade seem so starkly obvious to the world, it is also clear that vested interests, especially in agriculture, fight for their privileges. About 40 percent of government expenditure on global subsidies goes to agriculture. Despite farmers comprising a very small proportion of the population in developed countries, agricultural interests seem to have a stranglehold over OECD governments to keep their $252 billion in annual support.

An obscene amount of money.

Yet, there are many reasons we need to get farmers and others off subsidies. Even with austerity, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy makes up the biggest share of the EU budget, costing 363 billion euro between 2014 and 2020. The upcoming U.S. farm bill might waste $950 billion over the next decade.[viii] Here, the G8 should take the creative and courageous steps necessary. For example, it could compensate entrenched interests for their losses over the next decade or two, while it phases out subsidies and other trade distortions. This cost would run to another $50 billion per year globally, but would be a miniscule price to pay for the benefits yielded by free trade — for every dollar spent, the world would see much more than a hundred dollars of long-term growth benefits.

That would be a great step.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key was adamant yesterday the Reserve Bank and retail banks could find a way to exempt first-home buyers from proposed restrictions on low-deposit home loans.

At his post-Cabinet press conference, Mr Key said he supported the move by the Reserve Bank that would see banks limit how much of its new mortgage lending could be made on high loan-to-value ratios (LVRs).

He indicated any measures negotiated would be unacceptable if they penalised first-home buyers at the expense of speculators and property investors.

“Yes I accept absolutely and endorse the view that the banks should be forced to use this as a legitimate tool.

“I don’t think it should be a tool that is used to write high LVR ratios for a bunch of rich people, and lock out a whole lot of first-home buyers.”

I’m not so sure it is as easy as the Reserve Bank or the PM thinks. First let’s look at how big the “problem” is.

This data is from the five major NZ banks.

So the top three lines are all mortgages with LVRs below 80%.  They comprise four fifths of the total mortgages, and this was much the same in 2008.

There has been virtually zero growth in high LVR loans (over 90%) since 2008 despite there being solid growth in the housing mortgage market.

Essentially, of the approximate $185 billion of housing lending in NZ currently around $150 billion worth of it has an LVR of under 80%.

I think both the RBNZ are the Government somewhat over egging the problem and the need for LVRs.

We also have to be careful of the possibilities of unforeseen consequences. Restrictions on how much a bank can loan to home buyer may mean that they seek unsecured funding, rather than secured funding. This actually happened in Sweden, and actually works to decrease financial stability.

The proposed policies work fairly well in housing markets when there is an over-supply. But in NZ the problem is more an under-supply.

Jo Nova blogs on the costs of Green jobs. Parties around the world love to talk about creating Green jobs, because who can be against jobs and against being good for the environment? A win-win right?

The trouble is that their Green jobs are almost always reliant on huge subsidies that actually destroy jobs.

She gives five examples:

• Each green job in Britain costs £100,000 (and 3.7 other jobs)
  
• In Spain each Green job cost $770,000 and nine jobs were lost for every four created
• In Italy each Green job costs 5 jobs from the rest of the economy
• In Germany the subsidy per Green job is 175,000 Euros
• Green jobs in Denmark are estimated to have reduced Danish GDP by $270 million

We already have tens of thousands of “Green jobs” in New Zealand. They are the ones that get created when an employer is doing well enough to hire more people in the area they work in (such as tourism). The Green jobs that you hear certain political parties promote are the ones that require huge subsidies and destroy jobs elsewhere in the economy.

Always amusing to read the list of most trusted people. Some of the interesting inclusions:

1. John Kirwan, former All Black, depression awareness spokesperson
2. Willie Apiata VC, soldier
3. Richie McCaw, All Blacks’ captain
4. Alison Holst, food writer
5. Judy Bailey, TV presenter, charity worker
6. Peter Leitch, businessman, charity worker
7. Peter Snell, former athlete, scientist
8. Jerry Mateparae, Governor-General
9. Kevin Milne, former TV host. consumer advocate
10. Sarah Ulmer, cyclist
    

The top 10 professions:

1. Paramedics
2. Firefighters
3. Rescue volunteers
4. Nurses
5. Pilots
6. Doctors
7. Pharmacists
8. Veterinarians
9. Police
10. Armed Forces personnel

The bottom ten:

• 41. Call centre staff
• 42. Airport baggage handlers
• 43. Journalists
• 44. Real estate agents
• 45. Insurance salespeople
• 46. Politicians
• 47. Sex workers
• 48. Car salespeople
• 49. Door-to-door salespeople
• 50. Telemarketers

It’s nice the journalists and the politicians managed to beat out the prostitutes this year!

The Press Deputy Editor writes:

Lianne Dalziel is good for Bob Parker, and vice versa. It seems an odd argument, but each needs the other to validate whatever comes of the Christchurch mayoral election.

The point was made eloquently by city councillor Peter Beck when he announced in March that he would soon retire, and expressed a wish that the coming contest should be a “two-horse race”.

“My hope is that there is one, and only one, seriously credible alternative [to Mayor Parker] so that the city has a clear choice,” Beck said then. “That is good for democracy. It is good for both candidates. Whoever is elected will then hopefully carry a real mandate of the people.”

With respect, Cr Beck said that because he didn’t want Parker winning against a split vote. Nothing to do with mandate.

Voters should not pay too much attention to the party politics in this election.

Good God. Just ignore the fact she has spent two years demanding the Minister resign.

Both Parker and Dalziel have considerable strengths. The real danger here is that a credible third candidate will declare and deny ratepayers the chance to make a proper decision between the two. It would not help the city if a mayor was elected at this important time who did not command a clear majority of votes cast.

Such a credible third candidate would be perfectly entitled to stand, but should carefully consider his or her motives for doing so before declaring.

This is the bizarre part. I’m not sure I can recall a NZ newspaper before imploring people not to stand for office, let alone almost threatening them that they will be seen as having bad motives if they do stand.

How incredibly arrogant to declare that Parker and Dalziel must be the only choices and that a credible third candidate is a “danger” who will hinder a “proper” decision. I’d suggest many people in Christchurch would love to have a credible third candidate as they are so thoroughly depressed by the prospects of either Parker or Dalziel.

The Dom Post editorial:

The time has come for teacher unions to accept that national standards in reading, writing and mathematics are here to stay.

Parents clearly want plain-English reports about how their children are progressing in the three most important building blocks for a sound education, and the policy has been overwhelmingly endorsed at the last two elections.

It is therefore in teachers’ interests to work with the Ministry of Education to ensure a sound system of assessment and data collection. Sadly, the signs this week are that teacher unions and representatives will continue cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

One of the strongest arguments teachers have advanced against the standards is that there is a lack of consistency in the way they are applied and insufficient moderation at a national level. It is therefore difficult to judge, on the raw data, how well one school, or even pupils within the same school but with different teachers, are performing compared to others.

That is a valid concern, and one that the ministry has always acknowledged would need to be addressed as national standards were bedded in. Its solution is an online tool designed to assist teachers to make more reliable and consistent assessments, thereby giving more confidence in the integrity of results. Known as the Progress and Consistency Tool, or PaCT, it is being trialled this year and will be compulsory from 2015.

Given the fears teachers hold about the inconsistency of national standards results and the lack of moderation, the public could be forgiven for thinking they would fully support the introduction of the tool. Instead, the primary teachers union NZEI, the Principals’ Federation, the Association of Intermediate and Middle Schools and the Catholic Principals’ Association have called on school boards and teachers to boycott PaCT.

It’s the solution to the very thing they have been complaining about – and their response is to boycott it. It’s appalling.

They say because the system requires them to judge national standards by working through tick boxes of achievements to generate a result, it will undermine their professionalism and reduce quality teaching.

The claims are ridiculous. Ensuring consistent assessment in reading, writing and mathematics across schools will have no impact on how individual teachers seek to inspire, guide and educate their charges. All it will mean is that when an 8-year-old boy at a decile 1 Auckland school and an 8-year-old girl at a decile 10 Wellington school are assessed as being above the standard for reading, there is a much greater degree of confidence that the results are accurate.

If I was a primary school teacher I’d be embarrassed by having a union that is so hostile to consistent assessment.

Maybe the Government should play the same game as the NZEI, and remove it from every working group on educational policy in the country? They’ll get to represent their members on pay negotiations, but why should they be treated as a professional body on other issues when they so clearly are not?

If teachers fear the information being released is inaccurate, then the answer is to work with the Government to make sure the system in place is as robust, reliable and fair as possible

Most teachers are doing that. But the union activists are doing everything possible to stop this.

The Sun reports:

A LABOUR politician has revealed his marriage is on the ropes – because he’s cheating on his wife with an ALIEN.

Simon Parkes, who sits on Whitby Town Council, claims he meets his extra-terrestrial lover four times a year for sex sessions on a spaceship that’s orbiting the Earth.

The 53-year-old driving instructor even alleges he has fathered a love-child called Zarka with his mistresses – who he calls the Cat Queen.

Simon, a married father-of-three (human kids) from North Yorkshire, described his encounters with his other-worldly other woman in Channel 4 documentary Confessions Of An Alien Abductee.

He revealed: “What will happen is that we will hold hands and I will say ‘I’m ready’ and then the technology I don’t understand will take us up to a craft orbiting the Earth.”

The councillor claims his wife was furious when she found out about the affair – but he insists he’s doing wrong, because his lover is from another planet.

He explained: “My wife found out about it and was very unhappy, clearly. That caused a few problems, but it is not on a human level, so I don’t see it as wrong.”

Simon told the documentary team extra-terrestrials have been reaching out to him since he was a baby, because his “real mother” is a 9ft tall green alien with eight fingers.

I don’t think I need to comment.

Deborah Hill-Cone wrote in the Herald on Monday:

As a young female journalist I was probably sadly before my time in shamelessly trying to schmooze my way to notoriety of any kind like an overpainted attention-seeking goose. Back then, how I would have loved to have been in Andrea Vance’s position, the famous Fairfax journalist who brought down a Cabinet minister. How glorious to be feted for your special powers of turning a powerful man to mush, leading him to say he “made errors of judgment” while in your thrall.

Whether their relationship was romantic or not scarcely seems to matter. Although it does seem disingenuous for Vance to now play the victim. Whatever the background, Vance still exhibited a degree of influence – for that week anyway she was more powerful than any politician – that made her the envy of her colleagues.

Especially those who are a little too dangerously in love with the romantic image of their profession – they are the noble crusader, the Katharine Hepburn wisecracker, the reincarnation of Martha Gellhorn. Even if these days being a female reporter is more like being an “It” girl than a hack.

You have to be good at putting on the different personas that are expected of you, whether that be vampish, coquettish or as “enchantingly nasty” as Rita Skeeter. Most often young female journalists still seem to be cast in these starring roles by older tweedy men. It is in the classic tradition of Pygmalion – anyone remember Maddie in House of Cards?

I wonder how many female reporters in the parliamentary Press Gallery have unresolved “daddy issues”. (Oh I know they will all deny this strenuously, they are tough, independent and staunch. I’d have said the same, too.) I just can’t help thinking it would be progress if female journalists were writing their own parts rather than continuing to play the role of temptress to male politicians.

It is no surprise that this outraged a huge number of female journalists, and rightly so. It’s offensive to both Andrea and her colleagues. Katie Bradford-Crozier wrote a great response:

I’m angry. I’m not sure what’s come over New Zealand in recent weeks. It’s like we’ve decided to take out the prize for holding the most sexist and misogynist views towards women in the media.

As a FEMALE (I’m also blonde and quite small, but don’t hold that against me) reporter with just ten years experience working in a variety of media in New Zealand, Australia and London, I’m gobsmacked. Yes, I’m over 30. So in the words of some commentators, my career is over.

The reality is by the time you get to my age and you’re still in the media, it’s easy to feel positively ancient. Many of my colleagues last just a few years before the bright lights of PR, marketing or pretty much anything else beckons. Despite what so many seem to think about journalism, it’s not easy. Every man, dog and blogger out there is ready to criticise our every move and it’s even worse for those of us in the press gallery.

We work hard, have spent years studying, many of us still have huge student loans, we work late night and weekend shifts for low pay. In the end many of us sacrifice family, friends and an ordinary life to do it. You don’t do this job unless you love it.

I’m not complaining – ask anyone who knows me and they will tell you I am proud to say I am lucky enough to have the best job in the world and I absolutely love it.

But the treatment dished out to female reporters is frankly disgusting. The vitriol thrown at the very talented Andrea Vance in recent weeks has been abhorrent. She is a very, very good journalist. I’m not afraid to say that I’m jealous of just how good she is. The comments and insinuation following her stories on the GCSB leak have left me, and many others, infuriated.

For some, it seems the idea a female reporter would (shock horror) manage to get a story purely by working hard and being tenacious, is impossible. Surely some sort of seduction or honey trap was involved? How else could this possibly have happened?

It’s not just the treatment of Andrea that has shocked me. It feels like it’s become open slather on female journalists, particularly those of us in the press gallery. Apparently we all have “daddy issues” and we flirt and flutter our eyelashes to get stories. We’re all temptresses. If only it was that easy.  I myself have been belittled and had my abilities questioned because I’m young, blonde and female – that clearly means I can’t get a job based on my any merits other than how I look. The four years at university and experience at numerous media outlets count for nothing.

I’ve bolded what I think is the key thing.

Katie’s excellent column got retweeted by a large number of journalists, especially the female ones. This led to to ask what was the collective term for a group of angry female journalists. The replies included:

• A swarm
• Lovely people who we all admire and love. And respect.
• I don’t know but I can’t wait for Alasdair Thompson to blog on the subject.
• a sisterhood?
• a group of really pissed off journalists
•  I’d like to declare a moratorium on the use of the word “posse” as any part of a description of a group of female journalists.
• can we just give DHC a term instead?
• I’m still holding onto hope a NZ female journalists collective is created. So “collective” is nice.
• A court. A giggle. A pert.
•  The term for a group of goldfinches is a “charm”. But bird references.
• a valkyrie?
• The press gallery?
• This was discussed among the Gallery tweeps a few weeks ago, upon discovering a group of male journos is a Pride.
•  A bulletin? A column?
•  An umbrage? A vexation?
•  i like “a glaring”. it’s also a word for a group of angry cats
• A fury? A vengeance? A wrath? or maybe best described as a Gallery?
• an agency?
• a group of pissed off female journalists is a “poutrage”

My favourites were “a valkyrie” and “a poutrage”.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

A stoush is brewing in Labour over a possible replacement for Christchurch East MP Lianne Dalziel, with locals warning that attempts to parachute list MP Clayton Cosgrove into the seat will be resisted.

Speculation inside Labour has suggested that Cosgrove, who lost the Waimakariri seat in 2011, could be an option.

If he won that would bring in the next candidate on Labour’s party list, Northland-based Kelvin Davis, who is seen as a strong supporter of leader David Shearer.

Sounds like he needs the numbers!

Yesterday, Cosgrove would not rule himself in or out as a candidate for the seat. He was “very flattered and humbled” to be mentioned as a possibility.

“But it’s all speculation. That’s all I’m saying.”

However, a well-placed Labour source in Christchurch East said there was a lot of “negativity” towards Cosgrove.

“If he does come this way there will be big problems.”

Locals being mentioned in connection with the seat include James Caygill, whose father David Caygill was finance minister in the Lange Labour government.

Councillor Glenn Livingstone has not ruled himself out but said he had no plans for a tilt at Parliament at this stage.

Leanne Curtis, a manager at Canterbury Communities’ Earthquake Recovery Network, said yesterday she was “happy to say I am not standing”.

I expect Caygill to go for Chch Central, but he may go for this one. The trouble is teh seat may radically change at the next election. My pick for Labour’s nominee is Tony Milne.

Idiot/Savant is not keen on Cosgrove:

So the worse-kept secret in Christchurch is out, and Lianne Dalziel is officially running for mayor. Which means a by-election of she wins, which in turn requires a Labour candidate. So naturally, Labour are talking about parachuting Clayton Cosgrove – a man without a connection to the area, but with a very strong connection to David Shearer – into the seat, so they can in turn get Kelvin Davis – another man with a strong connection to David Shearer – in off the list.

This encapsulates everything that is wrong with the Labour Party: taking their voters for granted, treating their support like a gift from the leadership rather than something which must be won, and the infection of everything with their petty internal politics. And then they wonder why people treat them with contempt? We’re only returning the favour…

Nor is Emma Hart:

You’re thinking about standing Clayton Cosgrove in Christchurch East, instead of him fighting to regain Waimakariri? I mean, I guess it would be an efficient way of showing both electorates exactly the same degree of respect, but really? This is Christchurch. Even moving someone in from North Canterbury is considered carpet-bagging here. …

It will be interesting to see whom both National and Labour select.

“Hey Clint” was calling me a liar on Twitter yesterday because on Newstalk ZB last night I scoffed at (presumably his) the spin that the Greens had not done a u-turn on the printing money policy, ad I cited what Russel Norman said on Q+A. Clint is arguing their policy was a “proposal” which is different to a policy under the Green Party constitution.

This is a degree of subtltly that I am sure was lost on 99% of the public, and it seems even his own leader. Listen to this audio of him on with Susan Wood. She says to him “Why the backdown and change of heart” and he accepts the premise of the question – it is a backdown or u-turn.

And let’s look at the transcript of Q+A to see whether the average person listening would have taken this as a discussion document or a firm policy:

Well, today the Green Party’s releasing a proposal around the exchange rate.

So in Greenspeak, now when they propose something – that doesn’t mean they support it or it is a policy. It just means they want to talk about it.

SHANE                         So just so we’ve got it clear – you want the Reserve Bank to go out and print some new money to buy some earthquake bonds off the government. The government then would use that money to help with the Christchurch rebuild – help build the sewers and the streets and that type of thing – and also to go towards saving for our next disaster.

DR NORMAN              That’s right.

When your party’s finance spokesperson and co-leader says they want the reserve Bank to go out and print some new money, it is clearly a policy. It has been advocated by your most senior politician. Not a single person listening to Q+A would have taken this as something the Greens were not committed to. Arguing the dropping of it is not a u-turn is ridiculous and desperate spin.

Also Dr Norman himself has spent months on Twitter highlighting other countries doing QE, and lamenting NZ is not doing the same.

SHANE                         Can I ask you will Labour support this policy?

DR NORMAN              We have spoken to Labour and given them a heads-up about what we’re talking about today.

So Dr Norman doesn’t in any way say “No, no this is not a policy. It is only a discussion document”.

Yet for me pointing this out, a Green spin doctor calls me a liar. More Muldoonist smears.

What To Do When The Internet is Down? infographic by GlitchAgency.

 

I can relate to the be thankful for 3G tethering!

Kate Shuttleworth at NZ Herald reports:

A privileges complaint has been laid with the Speaker of Parliament over the behaviour of two veteran Labour MPs at last week’s Law and Order Select Committee.

Committee chairwoman Jacqui Dean is unhappy with the way Trevor Mallard and Phil Goff behaved during the appearance of Police Commissioner Peter Marshall and Deputy Commissioner Mike Bush.

Labour MP Trevor Mallard stormed out of the committee during a fiery exchange about the eulogy given by Mr Bush at the funeral of former detective inspector Bruce Hutton in April. …

Mr Goff argued with Ms Dean and swore after his questions about police redundancies and station closures were stifled.

Mrs Dean said both outbursts were unacceptable.

I understand Goff used the F word, which is definitely not allowed in Parliament.

Mr Mallard said: “The only comment I will make is the fact that Jacqui Dean has been public [about the complaint] is an indication that she’s not taking it seriously.

“You either let the Speaker decide if you’ve got a case or you make a fuss about it publicly, you don’t do both,” he said.

Does no one in Labour think about their record before they open their mouth? So according to Trevor you shouldn’t make a fuss about privilege complaints if you are serious about them. Well let’s look at some recent cases:

Here’s his own leader David Shearer just a few days ago:

New Zealanders are still none the wiser as to who leaked the Kitteridge Report. All we have is an MP who has resigned as minister but refuses to cooperate with the inquiry. The matter cannot lie here. This is why we have taken the matter to the Privileges Committee to get to the bottom of who leaked the report.

So according to Trevor’s own words, David Shearer is not serious about his privileges complaint as he went public about it!!

And if we go further back we have:

• 10 Oct 2011 – Press Release by Phil Goff about how Labour is laying a privileges complaint against the PM over comments in the House
• 1o July 2011 – Press Release by Trevor Mallard about how Labour is laying a privileges complaint against Bill English over comments in the House about asset sales 
• 30 July 2009 – Press Release by Clayton Cosgrove about how Labour is laying a privileges complaint against ACT MP David Garrett over comments in a select committee 
• 7 July 2009 – Press Release by Grant Robertson about how labour is laying a privileges complaint against Nick Smith over comments in Parliament relating to ACC redundancies

Trevor gets an F for consistency!

Luke Malpass at the NZ Initiative writes:

If someone asked you how much of New Zealand was built upon, what would your guess be? 5% or 10%? More? Less? And to what extent would this affect your views on urban development and expansion?

There is a widespread view that too much of New Zealand is being built upon: along with cows, the main thing we are growing are houses, and that not only are there too many houses but they are also eating into valuable farmland and nature.

There are many reasons for this view, but at a popular level the main reason might be that growth and development happen in areas where people tend to move or travel. People also tend to go where other people are and then complain about there being ‘too many people’. Many folk see new development and extrapolate out to development they cannot see, which often does not exist.

So how much of NZ do you think is urbanised?

About 9% of the United Kingdom is built up and 15% of the Netherlands. Even the United States, with more than 300 million people, has only 5% built on land.

And NZ:

A look at the numbers bears that out: less than 1% of New Zealand is built up, including landfill and highways. Clearly New Zealand is not filling up. Compared to other countries in Europe, New Zealand has very few people and very little land built upon.

The only developed countries that have a lower urbanised percentage than NZ are Iceland, Canada, Finland, Norway and Australia. In other words four countries than are half ice and the biggest island in the world!

The Dom Post editorial:

The dream is over, for the time being anyway.

A comprehensive study of Wellington’s transport options has concluded what has long been obvious to everyone except Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown: the light-rail system she promoted during her 2010 mayoral campaign is unaffordable.

The light rail scheme would have cost around $3,000 per household!

The study commissioned by the New Zealand Transport Agency, Greater Wellington Regional Council and the Wellington City Council puts the cost of turning Ms Wade-Brown’s dream into reality at $940 million. The alternatives canvassed in depth in the report are markedly cheaper.

The first – providing more bus lanes during peak hours and more priority traffic signals for buses – has a $59 million price tag. The second – a dedicated busway for bigger, modern buses separated from other traffic as much as possible – would cost $207 million.

Buses are often the most effective form of public transport. They are more flexible and cost effective. However the Greens don’t like buses because buses go on roads and roads are evil!

The bus rapid transit will cost under a quarter of the light rail option. It would result in $95m of time savings compared to $56m for rail. And critically it would lead to a 75 increase in public transport usage in the morning peak time while the rail option would not change the numbers at all.

So what else is planned about from a dedicated busway and bigger more modern buses? The Dom Post reports:

A second two-lane tunnel through Mt Victoria could be open to traffic within a decade.

The NZ Transport Agency has today revealed plans for a second Mt Victoria Tunnel and widening of Ruahine St and Wellington Rd to connect to the new $90 million Basin flyover.

Yay, a key step in the vision of having four lanes on State Highway One from the airport to Levin.

The plans for the second tunnel show it would sit directly along the northern side of the existing tunnel.

It would provide two lanes for east-bound traffic, along with a separate pedestrian and cycle facility linking to the flyover. On the Hataitai side of the tunnel, Ruahine St will become four lanes, and will also sport a pedestrian and cycling path.

Cool. If only they can get the tunnel to smell better!