Note this is not a parody post.

A friend e-mails:

I was at a friend’s place last night. There were about 15 of us catching up and one of my mates who is in the Green Party had been to the Green Party Conference earlier in the day.

He told me that the conference was “fragrance free” that no one could wear aftershave or perfume (and I wonder if that extended to deoderant as well??).

It was written in the agenda booklet too.

This is really too funny for words.

The full list is on the DPMC site.

ONZ

To be a Member of the said Order:

Emeritus Professor Albert Wendt, CNZM, of Auckland. For services to New Zealand.

Professor Wendt was born in Samoa, but of German heritage. He established the University of the South Pacific Center in Samoa, has won the NZ Books Awards and is currently a Professor of Pacific studies at the University of Auckland.

DNZM

To be a Dame Companion of the said Order:

Mrs Ngāneko Kaihau Minhinnick, JP, of Waiuku. For services to Māori and conservation.

KNZM

To be Knights Companion of the said Order:

The Honourable Robert Stanley Chambers, of Auckland. For services to the judiciary. (Deceased. This appointment took effect on 20 May 2013; Her Majesty’s approval having been signified before the date of decease.)

Mr John Stratton Davies, QSO, of Queenstown. For services to business and tourism.

Dr The Right Honourable Alexander Lockwood Smith, of London, United Kingdom. For services as a Member of Parliament and as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr Gordon Frederick Tietjens, CNZM, of Tauranga. For services to rugby.

Dame Ngāneko has been associated with many causes, mostly associated with the left such as anti-nuclear. I doubt anyone can say the Key Government is being partisan with this appointment.

Sir Robert’s appointment was already known, to her his sad untimely death.

Sir John Davies is a former Mayor of Queenstown and a major owner of tourism businesses such as Mt Hutt, Coronet Peak, the Remarkables, Tourism Milford,  the Hermitage Hotel at Aoraki-Mt Cook. As Mayor he was instrumental in establishing the village green in Queenstown.

No surprise with the knighthood for Lockie. Congrats to Sir Lockwood and Lady Smith.

A popular knight I suspect with Sir Gordon Tietjens, or Sir Titch as he will probably be known. A legendary coach for the Sevens. They’ve won ten titles, one rugby world cup and four commonwealth gold medals under him.

Rodney gets better week after week as a writer. Today in the HoS:

Air New Zealand’s rejection of would-be cabin crew member Claire Nathan because of the ta moko on her forearm highlights how New Zealand is developing and unfolding in new and exciting ways.

No longer must we think through the consequences of our actions. This is very liberating. For Nathan, her dream was to work serving the diverse customers who fly Air NZ. In the past she would have had to think through personal decisions that might affect her chances of a job. Like having a tattoo on her arm.

Not any more. She can have her tattoo and Air NZ is wrong to object.

The second great development is that you don’t have to suffer the consequences of your decisions in embarrassed silence. You can trumpet poor treatment in the media and instantly become the victim.

The third is that we are quick to spot any hint of racism. Nathan is Maori. Maori traditionally had tattoos. Therefore, Air NZ is discriminatory and racist. We have yet another opportunity to prove again that we are ever-vigilant in battling the scourge of racism.

As I said choices have consequences.

The Press reports:

Christchurch’s mayoralty race could soon take a dramatic turn with rumours swirling that incumbent Bob Parker may not run.

Parker, who late last year confirmed he would seek a third term as mayor, has been sounding out city leaders lately, asking whether they thought he could win if Christchurch East MP Lianne Dalziel stood against him.

The popular Labour MP is widely tipped to run in October’s election and yesterday said she would announce her “decision” later this month.

The city’s mayoralty race has been non-existent so far with Parker the only confirmed candidate. Yesterday, he denied any suggestion he would stand down, claiming that was purely what his opponents wanted to hear.

It is thought Parker received mixed feedback from those he consulted.

Polling done by his political rivals shows Dalziel holding a narrow lead against him and it is thought these results prompted the Parker rethink.

But his loyal deputy Ngaire Button strongly denied any talk of Parker quitting. “That [rumour] is completely fanciful. Bob has told me he is running.”

Earlier last week, Button hosted a group of “independent” candidates she will soon unveil to stand across the city. The, group, to be called City First, fuelled rumours Parker could endorse Button for the mayoralty and slip out of the political landscape on his own terms.

She did little to dampen down that talk yesterday, saying the idea of Parker endorsing her for the mayoralty was “a scenario that could work out in time . . . but I have not thought about it”.

Bob Parker led the city very well through the initial crisis of earthquake. But he does run the risk of ending up like Winston Churchill in 1950 – the public grateful for the efforts, but wanting a change.

Would it be better to go out on top after two terms, than risk losing to Dalziel?

Stuff reports:

As the Ports of Auckland seeks public feedback on its controversial container port expansion plans, an alternative proposal has emerged for a site on the other side of Auckland.

The promoters of a container port on the Manukau Harbour in the South Auckland area of Wiri claim several potential advantages to the Ports of Auckland (POAL) reclamation in the Waitemata Harbour. These include less pressure on Auckland’s transport infrastructure, significant sea-transport savings of around $150,000 a voyage and estimated savings on container movement costs of $70 a TEU (twenty-foot equivalent units – the standard container size).

The promoters of the alternative port – ports and shipping consultant Mark Oxley, former P&O NZ chief executive Mick Payze and former Maritime New Zealand chief executive Russell Kilvington – have conducted preliminary investigations over the past couple of years but are seeking a backer to fund the estimated $250,000 to take the proposal to the next step of a full feasibility and economic study.

Waterfronts historically have been industrial and commercial areas. But as CBDs have become places where people live and play, they are far better suited for hospitality, retail and open park areas.

So I’m all for moving ports away from CBDs to industrial areas like Manukau Harbour. Of course this should only happen if it can make economic sense. But ports need to grow, as the economy grows, and they won’t be able to do so in locations where they are competing with the public.

Rob O’Neill at Stuff reports:

Over the past few months Telecom has “pulled the pin”, says chief executive Simon Moutter, and made moves designed to change the telecommunications market.

Moutter is referring to initiatives such as sharp cuts announced in December to international data roaming charges, which have been a bugbear for many business travellers whacked with hefty bills for using the mobile internet services when overseas.

Telecom launched a flat daily rate for data roaming by on-plan customers across major travel markets such as Australia where roaming now starts at $6 a day. A $10 a day flat rate applies in other specified markets while elsewhere roaming charges will be cut by up to 92 per cent.

I’m heading to the US soon, and for once plan to keep my NZ sim card in the phone.

What has happened to Telecom? It used to be Vodafone and, more recently, 2degrees making the running in the fast-growing mobile market.

Moutter says Telecom is no longer spending time and energy defending the past or worrying about regulation. It has moved into what he calls “clear air”.

I think the separation of Telecom from Chrous has been great for Telecom. They no longer focus on protecting a monopoly and trying to vertically integrate around the monopoly portion.

Moutter, who in a previous life at Telecom (before a successful four-year stint leading Auckland International Airport) fought the threat of regulation and operational separation fiercely, says Telecom can now be much more clear about what drives its future value.

“A separated model feels a lot better to me than what we called operational separation,” he says.

Where operational separation bound the company up in rules, full structural separation since late 2011 has freed Telecom from a lot of that red tape and delivered a new sense of direction as a pure retail business.

The lesson here is you should regulate the monopoly aspects of a utility, but promote competition in the non-monopoly areas. Sadly Labour/Greens wish to do the opposite and turn power generation into a state controlled monopoly.

Moutter says “texting circles”, or deals such as Vodafone’s Best Mates, are the biggest barrier to winning back market share, but Telecom has moved on from such “closed network” deals, where customers get a discount on calls or texts within a single providers’ customer base, to what he describes as “any net” deals.

“If I was a Vodafone customer, I’d be wondering why I was being held captive,” he says.

A very good question.

Ironically for the man once charged with facing down the regulators, Moutter freely admits that is a product of regulatory intervention – the Commerce Commission’s decision to regulate mobile termination rates charged between providers for calls terminating on their respective networks.

“I was that guy running defence. That was my job.”

As one of those who advocated termination rate regulation, good to see Telecom not embrace it. It has been a great boon for consumers, and has helped foster competition as it makes it easier for people to choose the network offering the best deal – rather than be forced to go on the one their friends are with.

Simon Day at Stuff reports:

A father-son bonding session planned by a North Island primary school was cancelled after a single mother demanded to be included.

Two “Band of Brothers” seminars were arranged by Matakana School to help fathers get more involved in their sons’ lives, and as a forum for dads to share their issues. One session was for dads and another was for fathers and sons. A solo mum wanted to attend but was told she couldn’t because her presence would inhibit discussion. She was told a mother and son seminar was planned for later in the year.

“We really just wanted an opportunity for the guys to open up and chat, and they wouldn’t particularly want to do if there were females around – which I think is understandable,” said principal Darrel Goosen.

The woman’s son was welcome at the second seminar and the guest speaker offered a specific session with her and her son but she continued to insist on attending, Goosen said, so the school board decided to cancel the event.

How incredibly selfish.

“In hindsight we realise we may have offended some single parents, for which we apologise, as this was never our intention,” said a school note to families.

It’s not the school that should be apologising.

The Herald reports:

Gang tensions are believed to have sparked the on-going prison riot at Spring Hill jail south of Auckland, where inmates are setting fires and damaging cells.

But who is to blame? It isn’t the gangs. Oh no. According to the Greens, it is the Government. Andrea Vance tweeted:

Greens say double bunking and smoking ban to blame for heightened tensions in prisons.

This would be hilarious, if it were not so tragic. The smoking ban by the way has been in place for two years, and the double bunking for three years.

Yet the Greens have divined they are to blame for the riot!

Nothing to do with the gangs. For gang members are just victims of society, as are those poor prisoners who can’t smoke and have single cells.

Imagine the fun with a Green Minister of Corrections!

The Herald reports:

Bullrush and other potentially bruising activities are returning to play as research points to the long-term benefits of scraped knees and the odd broken bone.

The moves aim to counterbalance a health-and-safety culture which has seen playgrounds remodelled, particularly overseas where litigation fears have killed off tall slides and seesaws.

Principal Scott Thelning re-introduced bullrush when he was at Christchurch’s Mt Pleasant Primary. He’s now at the city’s Cobham Intermediate, and from Friday, pupils there will be playing the NZ classic.

The game will be monitored by a teacher at first, but eventually children will be able to play unsupervised. A letter will explain the situation to parents and mouthguards will not be compulsory.

Mouthguards? I hope not.

Bullrush is a great game. We played it all the time at school and at Scouts. No kid should grow up without it.

The Herald reports:

A land banking business with a big piece of residentially zoned real estate on Auckland’s outskirts has made more than $6 million a year for almost two decades – doing nothing.

QV records shows Yi Huang Trading Company owns 39 Flat Bush School Rd, which it bought in 1995 for $890,000.

Now, this 29ha block is listed on the market for $112.6 million, promoted as “the land of opportunity, vacant but close to Barry Curtis Park”. …

Developers say Auckland Council officials have blamed them for building high-priced houses but they say land speculators took a bigger toll because they were inactive and reaped rich rewards for locking land away from being put to productive purposes. If it achieves the full asking price, then each year the company has held the land it made $6.2 million, they said, for doing nothing.

There are two solutions for this.

The first is free up the land supply. Because there are so few areas that can be used for residential development, it has produced massive profits for those land bankers. By not freeing up land supply, you encourage them to land bank.

The other solution is a land tax. That will encourage land to be used for productive reasons, not just be banked up for future use.

Andrea Vance at Stuff writes:

And he launched an astonishing personal attack on Prime Minister John Key, who he says is “divisive and corrosive” and “irritated if we are not all grateful for him generously agreeing to be PM.”

He added: “So next time you see John Key smiling, remember he’s not smiling because he likes you, he’s smiling because he’s giving favours to his mates while undermining your democracy.”

And Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald writes:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman has made a rare personal attack on Prime Minister John Key, comparing him to former Prime Minister Robert Muldoon

You could say a lot about the policies put forward by Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald, but you know that they never would have carried out the sort of personal smear attack Russel Norman is now doing with the Greens.

Once upon a time the Greens boasted that they didn’t do personal attacks. I presume they’ll never make that claim again.

I can only presume it is desperation as Russell sees his long awaited dreams of being a Minister slip away.

His speech resembles one of the more angry rants you often read at The Standard. That is because it was probably written by one of the authors at The Standard.

The Herald reports:

Two-thirds of New Zealand’s richest people are not paying the top personal tax rate, with increasingly complex overseas schemes and bank accounts being used to evade the taxman.

Inland Revenue has found that 107 out of 161 “high-wealth individuals” who own or control more than $50 million worth of assets declared their personal income in the last financial year was less than $70,000 – the starting point for the top tax bracket of 33 cents in the dollar.

The multimillionaires used a variety of 6,800 tax-planning devices – such as companies, trusts and overseas bank accounts – to avoid paying tax. One had a network of 197 entities.

I doubt many, if any, avoided paying tax. What they avoided was paying the top personal tax rate of 33%. If you run your affairs through a company, then the tax rate is 28%. However if you take income from your company at greater than $70,000 then you will still pay the 33% rate.

The way you stop this happening is by having the top personal tax rate the same as the company rate at 28%.

Labour’s revenue spokesman, David Cunliffe, said it appeared the problem here was worsening.

Actually what would worsen it massively is Labour’s plan to increase the top tax rate to 39%. That will encourage even greater avoidance.

“I am astounded and appalled. The legitimate tax system requires that everyone pays their fair share.

“If people want to [avoid tax] then it will require the Government to be much stricter and crack down on avoidance opportunities. Why should people who are the most privileged sector of society use their position to avoid paying a fair share of tax?

“That is morally wrong and should be illegal.”

What a fascinating position. Is Labour proposing to make it compulsory for people to pay as much tax as possible? That it is illegal to arrange your affairs in a way that avoids the top tax rate?

Maybe Mr Cunliffe proposes that family trusts be made illegal as they can be used to avoid tax. However I note on the register of pecuniary interests he has declared the Bozzie Family Trust. Is he saying what he has done is morally wrong and should be illegal? What explicitly does he propose to change?

Figures supplied to the Weekend Herald show that the IRD has collected more than $600 million in extra tax since a unit was set up in 2003 to investigate high-wealth individuals.

Other cases still under investigation total $212 million, and a further $112 million is disputed.

Inland Revenue has also identified 500 people it believes may have given themselves artificially low salaries to avoid paying the top personal rate.

The law allows you to arrange your affairs in a way that may mean you pay less tax. But the arrangements can not be “artificial”. So if you are a surgeon earning $500,000 a year into your company and the company pays you only $50,000 a year – the courts have ruled this is artificial and won’t be allowed.

Michael Field at Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s diplomatic bid to create the world’s largest marine sanctuary in the Ross Sea is floundering in its Antarctic waters after China and Japan stridently opposed it.

Japan made it clear they don’t even want discussion on the 4.9 million square kilometre marine protected area (MPA) which is backed by US Secretary of State John Kerry.

The Ross Sea or “Last Ocean” plan went before last year’s Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) but failed for lack of a consensus and decision making was moved to a meeting to be held in Bremerhaven, Germany, from July 11 to 16.

That is a pity. Just as Antarctica itself has international agreements to preserve it for scientific research, the Ross Sea should have the same status.

But the nature of international agreements is you can’t force countries to agree.

The Press reports:

We complain if we are served burnt coffee or stale food, but should we complain if a cafe plays music we find offensive?

Christchurch cafes have the right to choose their own tunes, but some customers are unhappy over the playing of “explicit” songs.

One cafe-goer contacted The Press after he was offended by the use of “four-letter words” in a song playing at C1 Espresso cafe at lunchtime.

“There were young children in the cafe at the time. I raised the matter with the waitress, who was going to talk to the manager about it but seemed pretty unconcerned,” he said.

“Looking around the cafe it didn’t look like a grunge dive; it seemed to be business people, couples, young families, and ‘active elderly’ people.”

The man complained to C1 Espresso owner Sam Crofskey about the song.

Crofskey told The Press it was a cafe’s prerogative to choose their own music.

“Music in a cafe is part of the business’s identity. Along with the furniture, the food and the decor, it’s part of the product. If you don’t like it, don’t go there. I wouldn’t walk into McDonald’s and tell them to turn down the neon lights and be more intimate.”

Absolutely. There are no shortage of cafes to choose from.

Stuff reports:

If the gory photos on cigarette packs and the threat of a hideous death weren’t enough, now an academic has come up with a grim countdown-to-death for smokers.

Smokers will literally be able to see the minutes of their life expectancy drop away with each smoke, if Massey University College of Health head Professor Paul McDonald’s idea gains traction.

He is proposing an idea in which each cigarette would be marked with six rings and a message saying each ring smoked past would take a minute off life expectancy.

If adopted, New Zealand would be the first in the world to print warnings directly on to cigarettes.

The idea is still in its infancy but a preliminary survey of 10 smokers by Prof McDonald showed it would have a “profound” effect.

I’d be wary of any study with just 10 people in it.

As with plain packaging, I’d trial ideas like this in a geographic region so one can establish whether smoking rates there change more than the rest of the country.

The Dominion Post asked four smokers if Professor Paul McDonald’s idea would encourage them to quit.

– Luke Eling, 23, a chef from Brooklyn: It wouldn’t help.

It’s killing you but you are going to die anyway, so bugger it.

I would see if I can smoke it faster than six minutes.

– Robbie King, 33, a body piercer from central Wellington: If it was actually true and you could gauge it like that, it may help. Yes, smoking can be bad for you but my grandfather lived till 97, smoking five times as much as me.

– Mark Speedy, 35, a milkman from Churton Park: It wouldn’t stop me. What if you have a heart attack? Is it a minute off that? Obviously not.

– Sue Barratt, 54, works in insurance, from Karori:

It probably wouldn’t. I still enjoy smoking – that’s the problem.

I do feel guilty about smoking, more than I used to.

I suspect most smokers already know it kills you.

Tougher this week. I got wrong a quote on the cartoons and when Doug Graham was knighted.

Stuff reports;

It can cost parents less than 50 cents a day to give their child breakfast, but principals say most families who send their children to school hungry cannot afford to feed them.

Really. I’d welcome one solid example of a family who can’t afford 40c a day for breakfast. By a solid example I mean full details of their income and expenditure.

But Hamilton beneficiary and mother-of-two, Ali, says she battles every week to put potatoes, rice and Weet-Bix on the table and petrol in the car with the $38 she has left after rent, bills and loan repayments.

The Waikato Times has found that a basic breakfast of Weet-Bix and milk, peanut butter on toast, or porridge costs between 20 and 39 cents a day per child – between $1.43 and $2.73 a week.

And the DPB pays $295 a week in the hand plus $157 family tax credit is $452 a week. Breakfast for two kids is $3 to $6 a week from that or around 1%.

INCOME:

$293 from Winz, plus $120 rent assistance.

EXPENSES:

$285 rent. $30 electricity. $60 loan repayments to the bank and people to whom she owes money.

$38 left for petrol, food and unplanned expenses.

They appear to have left out the $157 family tax credit. Did the reporter not ask, or does Ali not mention it, or has she failed to register for it?

Many articles in the Herald on Labour and the Greens.

First Isaac Davidson writes:

In eighteen months, three or more Green MPs could become Cabinet ministers for the first time in the party’s history.

It will be more than three. If there are 28 Ministers, I would expect the Greens would have around seven Ministers, if their share of the Government’s MPs is around one quarter. Their top seven ranked MPs from the 2011 list are:

1. Metiria Turei
2. Russel Norman
3. Kevin Hague
4. Catherine Delahunty
5. Kennedy Graham
6. Eugenie Sage
7. Gareth Hughes

Chapman Tripp solicitor Linda Clark wrote in a think-piece this week that if Labour formed a government with Greens next year, three Green MPs were likely to be part of the Cabinet.

She said that Greens co-leader Russel Norman was likely to become Economic Development Minister, co-leader Metiria Turei would be given a social policy role, and Kevin Hague could get the health portfolio.

Labour Party sources told the Weekend Herald that they agreed with this prediction, in particular the possibility that Mr Hague, a former District Health Board chief, would get the health portfolio in a Labour-Greens government.

They said Mr Hague was “highly competent” and “trustworthy”, with one source saying Labour “would rather work with him than any other Green MP”.

Kevin is very well regarded. And if they are in the Government, he will be Minister of Health. Annette King wants to be Speaker, not Health Minister. Trevor Mallard will be Leader of the House. They just don’t want to publicly say Trevor will be a senior Minister as he is so unpopular with party activists, and the public.

Dr Norman, Ms Turei and Mr Hague were seen as the only “shoo-ins” for a Labour-Greens Cabinet.

It’s not really up to Labour. How these things tend to work is they decide how many Ministers each party gets, and it is up to the party to decide who fills them – so long as the PM does not veto. So if the Greens want Catherine Delahunty (their No 4) as a Minister, she will be.

John Roughan writes:

Three opinion polls have come through this week. All of them have National still far ahead, two give the party enough votes to govern alone. …

More important probably, they are the first to be taken since Labour and the Greens put their heads together and announced a hare-brained scheme to bring the wholesale electricity market under price control.

This, the parties hoped, would simultaneously undermine the asset sale, allow them to promise lower power prices, distinguish themselves clearly from the Government and give voters an image of a Labour-Green coalition in action.

It definitely did that. And National is polling higher than votes in the 2011 election.

When Russel Norman snarls about business and profits, he might be winning the 10 or 12 per cent of voters that the Greens need to be in play after the next election. But he is turning off the mainstream that Labour needs if it is to get close to the 40 per cent it would need to lead a coalition.

Labour’s strategy to go after the voters on the left, not the centre, is strategically dumb.

So what is David Shearer to do? Obviously he needs to give the Greens a wide berth from here on but more than that, he needs to stop condemning John Key for every little thing. It is just opposition politics and it never works. He sounds programmed, unconvinced and bored, as he must be.

Shearer is an intelligent fellow, still fairly fresh to politics and must be finding some themes of policy and events particularly interesting. He needs to make the most of those subjects. They might not make headlines, his economic leanings, I think, are orthodox and sensible. It may be that while he is talking to small audiences more combatant parliamentarians in his party will command attention and commentators will start writing, Where’s David Shearer?

Let them. If he sticks to a conventional opposition script they will soon be writing him off anyway.

His advisors should let David Shearer be David Shearer.

John Armstrong writes:

It has long been assumed that should the next election deliver the requisite number of seats, Labour and the Greens would bury their differences and form a centre-left government.

That would still seem the most likely eventuality. But it is by no means guaranteed.

Shearer is increasingly making references to a “Labour-led” Government – not a “Labour-Greens” one.

This is in part to counter Key’s demonising of such a combo as the “devil beast” by making it clear that Labour will very much be in charge.

But it is also becoming clear that Labour increasingly thinks it might be preferable to strike a deal with Winston Peters.

There is a growing belief that it might be easier to govern with New Zealand First than the Greens who can be fractious, averse to compromise, and prone to being holier than thou, and, perhaps worst of all, are in fierce competition with Labour for the same segments of the vote.

There are also strong indications that Peters is becoming less inclined to be party to a Labour-led government which includes the Greens.

Wouldn’t that be hilarious if the Greens get more votes than NZ First, but once again Labour screws them over by going with Winston and leaving them without portfolios?

The immediate difficulty with that scenario is Labour and NZ First combined would be unlikely to secure a majority in Parliament.

However, the Greens might find they had little choice but to prop up a Labour-NZ First Administration if only through abstention. The Greens would have nowhere to go.

That is the problem. They could hardly put National into Government or force an election. They could face never ever becoming Ministers.

The two parties have an odd relationship. Labour and the Greens are the Siamese twins of New Zealand politics. They are forever trying to escape from one another but are doomed to having to live together. It is consequently a relationship which has the life and energy sucked out of it by an underlying and debilitating mixture of ambivalence and wariness towards one another.

Siamese twins – I like it.

The second argues that it is a mistake to allow Key free rein to “frame” Labour and the Greens in an image which becomes harder and harder for those two parties to wipe off.

This weekend the Greens will try to render as null and void Key’s potent line that next year’s election will be fought between “the centre-right and far left” by claiming he is the extremist, not them. It is a claim that is most unlikely to wash, however.

If an extremist calls you an extremist, I think that makes you a moderate.

David Fisher at HoS reports:

Leaked documents written by a political strategist who has trained National MPs set out a vision for taking the party to the right of the political spectrum, tripling donations to $6 million a year and using donations and government jobs as inducements to control MPs.

Written by political strategist Simon Lusk, the papers were leaked by a “senior National Party source” to theWeekend Herald, TV3’s The Nation and Fairfax.

I’d never seen the papers before this week.

The message was also important – “dominate the media by controlling the message through credible right wing blogs”. Mr Lusk also said there needed to be a focus on “taking over the public sector” to create a pool of fiscal conservatives who would work with politicians.

I’d  rather shrink the public sector than take it over 🙂

He urged those reading it to “stop donating to the current government”. “They have not listened and will not listen.”

Not surprisingly, a strategy of urging people not to donate to the party doesn’t meet universal popularity.

Incidentally National disclosed donations of $773,000 last year. That doesn’t include donations of under $1,500 which can also account for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Mr Lusk’s briefing came at a time when he was organising training sessions for potential National Party candidates. Disgraced MP Aaron Gilmore was among those keen to attend but was rejected after he failed to meet the fees charged.

As far as I know, the training sessions were free to attend, but invite only.

Longtime National Party member David Farrar, who runs Kiwiblog, was listed as a speaker at a February 2012 session at the Kauri Glen Lodge in Puhoi, north of Auckland, where the session was held. He pulled out.

“I was asked not to,” he said, saying “party hierarchy” made the request. “It would look as if it were officially sanctioned,” he said. He stayed for the social aspect – Mr Slater posted on his Whaleoil blog a photograph of Mr Farrar’s rental car reversed over a wall – before leaving.

Whale loves posting that photo.

The National Party is a broad church, with many factions. They include:

Blue Greens

They’re National but they’re conservationists. Nick Smith is the greenest blue in the party.

Blue Liberals

National with a heart – Katherine Rich showed her liberal streak when she rejected Don Brash’s social welfare plans.

Fiscal Conservatives

Small government, big business. Former party leader Don Brash later ran Act.

Internats

The overseas wing of the party. Prime Minister John Key is the ultimate homecoming story.

Young Nats

The path to the party from an early age. Nikki Kaye is currently the youngest minister in the House.

SuperBlues

The superannuitant wing. Dr Paul Hutchison has just picked up his Gold Card.

I wouldn’t really call them factions. Most “factions” in National are personality based rather than policy based.

Also the Blue Liberals are not wets, they are classical liberals who tend to be “fiscal conservatives” and social liberals – ie people who think the Government should but out of both business and our private lives.

In a related story, David Fisher writes:

A political strategist who has trained National Party MPs says the Ports of Auckland colluded with right wing bloggers to undermine industrial action against the Ports of Auckland.

The claim is in a leaked document written by controversial strategist Simon Lusk – and hotly denied by the publicly-owned port company. …

“The case in point is the way the Maritime Union have received huge negative publicity about their salaries, based on POAL (Ports of Auckland Limited) working with certain bloggers to control the story. Financial support for these bloggers will enable them to build their credibility and readership.”

I was asked about this. I have never had any communication or contact with Ports of Auckland, or anyone acting on their behalf, with regards to this issue. Off memory the only time I’ve had contact with them if when I blogged they should be shifted to Manukau Harbour! They are not keen on my proposal!

Mr Slater said he covered the strike as other media outlets did. He said there was no arrangement with the port to do so and he had not discussed it with Mr Lusk.

He said yesterday he had never actually been paid although believed he should be. On the port, he said: “I hate unions pathologically. I’ve hated them since I was 15 years old and I would do it for free.

“I have never been paid for any posts about unions, ever.”

Some things are just a pleasure!

The Electoral Commission has announced:

On 31 May 2013 the Electoral Commission board cancelled the registration of the United Future New Zealand (United Future) party at the party’s request in accordance with section 70 of the Electoral Act 1993.

Section 70 says:

The Electoral Commission shall cancel the registration of a political party at the request of one of the persons specified in section 63(1) if satisfied that the request for cancellation is made by the applicant on behalf of the party.

I presume they asked to be deregistered as they no longer had 500 financial members.

I don’t think this affects Peter Dunne’s status in Parliament, or as a party leader, as they were a registered party when elected. It does mean that if he stands again, it will be as an Independent or for an unregistered party.

United Future have said:

UnitedFuture Party President Robin Gunston today announced that the party has asked the Electoral Commission to cancel its registration as a political party while it clears up inconsistencies in its confirmed membership numbers.

“While we have well over the 500 members required under Section 71 A of the Electoral Act for a political party to be registered, there are inconsistencies in the party’s records around current addresses and the financial status of some of those members,” Mr Gunston said.

“Quite simply, this meant that we could not, hand-on-heart, sign the required statutory declaration to swear to our membership.

“For that reason, we have asked the Electoral Commission to cancel the party’s registration while we confirm the numbers.

Personally I think the threshold should be at least 1,000 members.

Critic reports:

The Captain Cook Tavern’s long history looks set to come to a close, with the pub’s lease expiring un-renewed on 29 June. James Arnott is one of the owners of Cook Brothers Bars, which has operated the pub for nine years, along with other establishments in the Octagon, Queenstown, Christchurch and Auckland. He told Critic that neither his company nor Dominion Breweries, which holds the main lease on the property, were interested in continuing the lease. 

Arnott said that revenue at the Cook had fallen 40 per cent in the last five years, which he attributed to a “massive change in student culture.” Students drank less frequently, and were more likely to drink at home when they did. Meanwhile, the high rent on the large property had not reduced, and “major renovations” were required to keep the ageing building up to standard. General Manager Matt Barakauskas said that the pub’s staff faced unemployment due to the closure, but that efforts were being made to secure them employment elsewhere. …

If the Cook closes, it will bring to an end 153 years of operation. The establishment began in 1860, although the present building was constructed in 1874 after the original “aged wooden structure” was demolished. According to an article published in the Otago Daily Times on 8 June 1909, the pub “had always one or two permanent boarders” well into the twentieth century, and at least two people died while living in the then-named “Captain Cook Hotel.”

The Cook has had a long reputation of brushing the edge of liquor licensing laws. Around the turn of the twentieth century, The Cook’s publicans were fined on multiple occasions for secretly selling bottled beer on days when the pub was supposed to be shut, and patrons who had been forbidden to buy alcohol were often hauled before the courts for having sly pints at the Hotel. In more recent years, the wildly popular “Cook-a-thon” party held at the end of lectures earned the owners a warning from the Liquor Licensing Authority for encouraging excessive drinking.

As the University expanded in the 1970s, students formed an increasing percentage of the patrons. However, licensing laws that allowed the sale of liquor in supermarkets led canny students to pre-load as a “more cost effective option,” according to Arnott. He also believed, “with a small bit of confidence,” that the increasing use of other recreational drugs among students meant that patrons came to the club tripping, and interested only in drinking water. Whatever the reasons for its demise, the Captain Cook’s taps look set to run dry before next semester.

How very sad. I spent four years at Otago University and had many great nights at the Cook. It was also the venue for my 21st. With both the Cook and Gardies gone, it just won’t be the same there.