Gerry Brownlee announced:

Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee is welcoming today’s announcement that the NZ Transport Agency has shortlisted two consortiums to deliver the long-awaited Transmission Gully project. …

“This is another important step towards providing motorists and businesses in the lower North Island with a quicker, safer and more reliable route in and out of the capital, bypassing many of the bottle necks and hazardous areas that drivers currently have to deal with on this part of State Highway 1.”

The 27 kilometre long highway will form a key part of the Wellington Northern Corridor, one of seven key state highway routes being progressed by the Government as Roads of National Significance to reduce congestion, improve safety and support economic growth.

Mr Brownlee says the Wellington region has been waiting for Transmission Gully for over 70 years.

“Wellington is currently reliant on a two-lane highway that has trouble coping in peak times, and is vulnerable to closure in the event of crashes and natural disasters.

“Our capital city deserves better if it’s to reach its full economic potential, and the Transmission Gully route will help to unlock that potential.

I just hope a contract is signed before the next election so if there is a change of Government, the Greens can’t cancel it.

John Armstrong writes:

He had originally said he had the phone number on hand. Then yesterday he said he did not have a clue how he had come to have the number. Then he said he had not had the number. Then he said he said he had rung directory services to get the number. Then he said he was not sure whether he or one of his staff had rung directory.

Yes, amazing he doesn’t recall the exact details of a one minute phone call three years ago.

Labour’s Grant Robertson asked Key whether he could understand why New Zealanders were struggling to believe anything he had to say on the matter when he could not even say how he came to have Fletcher’s phone number.

Yes, this is the issue that Labour has decided is of prime importance to New Zealand. Did John Key call Fletcher directly or go through an operator! Next they will focus on whether the phone call was one minute long or shock horror two minutes long.

But quite possibly with good reason. Most people could not really give a toss about how Key got hold of Fletcher’s phone number.

The very real danger for Labour is that in building a case against Key it is thus seen to be fixated by relative trivia; that Labour is so obsessed with destroying Key as a political force that it can no longer see the wood for the trees.

Indeed. I encourage Labour to keep asking questions about whether or not John Key used directory service. They should do so for at least the next six weeks.

Some people may say that they should focus on the Budget next month, but they are too smart too fall into the trap of focusing on the economy. After all we have a Budget every single year.

I’m disappointed that Labour have only dedicated half of their oral questions to this issue. I think they should use 100% of their questions.

Questions for Oral Answer 2pm-3.15pm

Questions to Ministers

1. MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to keep down the cost of living for New Zealanders?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
3. AARON GILMORE to the Minister for the Environment: What recent reports has she seen on the impact of the Resource Management Act 1991 on business investment in New Zealand?
4. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement in relation to Cabinet’s decision to integrate Wanganui Collegiate, that it was a very difficult decision, but he is sure it was the right thing to do; if so, why?
5. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Is he confident that the Government’s initiative to provide “Better, Sooner, More Convenient” health care is meeting his expectations; if not, why not?
6. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Health: What progress is the Government making on improving access to angiograms for patients with severe chest pain?
7. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Defence: Will he rule out further cuts to personnel numbers in the New Zealand Defence Force and cuts to the inshore patrol vessel fleet; if not, what cuts are being considered?
8. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister of Tourism: Will any of the extra $158 million for tourism in Budget 2013 be spent on tourism marketing and promotion for the 100% Pure New Zealand campaign; if so, how much?
9. ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: Has he seen any reports that New Zealand power prices have increased at twice the rate of most other countries?
10. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: What progress can he report on efforts made to increase veterinarians in rural New Zealand?
11. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will New Zealand journalists be able to visit and monitor the New Zealand Police training programme in West Papua when it recommences in September 2013 under an aid allocation of US $2 million; if not, why not?
12. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on 24 September 2012 in relation to the work of the GCSB, “I think you can take confidence in the fact that to the best of my knowledge, I’ve never been informed or ever had reason to believe there’s ever been an error before”?

Today, National are asking 4 questions on topics ranging from cost of living, RMA impacts on businesses, angiograms and veterinarians bonding scheme. Labour are asking 5 questions ranging from issues such as the stock stand question to the Prime Minister, ” Does he stand by all his statements?, to questions about health, defence force staffing levels, power price increases and the GCSB. The Greens are asking 3 questions on issues such as Wanganui Collegiate, tourism funding and police training in West Papua.

Pasty question of the day

Today’s pasty question of the day goes to question 10 from Ian McKelvie (MP for Rangitikei) to the Hon Nathan Guy which asks. What progress can he report on efforts made to increase veterinarians in rural New Zealand?

General Debate  3.15pm to 4.15pm

12 speeches of 5 minute length on any topic that Members of Parliament wish to speak about.

Members orders of the day  4.15pm to 10pm

1) Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill – 12 x 10 m speeches – Dr David Clark – Third reading

This bill creates the ability to Monday-ise both Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day so that if these public holidays fail on a weekend day then you would be able to claim the public hoilday on the following Monday. So far this Bill has been supported by all other parties other than National and Act, however is expected to pass tonight as National will not be exercising there power of Veto on this bill.

For background information on this bill, Dr David Clark gave a good summary speech in this bills second reading. Click here for a link to his second reading speech.

2) Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill – 12x 10 min speeches – Louisa Wall – Third reading

This bill is designed to amend the Marriage Act 1955 to allow for a change to section 2(1) to allow Marriages to be conducted between 2 people instead of the status que of between a Man and Women.

The best speech in support of this bill during all the debates has been the one from Chris Auchinvole which is able to be viewed here. 

3) Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill  – 12 x 10 m speeches – Todd McClay –  Second reading

This bill is designed to control the display of gang symbols and logos on government buildings including schools, hospitals, WINZ and other government buildings, In addition, it stops members of gangs from wearing gang related gear within government buildings.

At the first reading of this bill it was passed 69 to 52 with National, New Zealand First, United Future and Act supporting this bill.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First will support law changes allowing the GCSB to spy on Kiwis, giving the Government a comfortable majority on the controversial legislation.

That means either 69 or 72 votes in favour.

Prime Minister John Key last night briefed Mr Peters, Labour leader David Shearer, Green co-leader Russel Norman, United Future’s Peter Dunne and Act’s John Banks on his proposed amendments to the GCSB Act.

The major change will make it clear the GCSB can intercept New Zealanders’ communications when assisting other agencies including the SIS, police and Defence.

I’ve been waiting for someone to make a principled case that the GCSB should not be able to assist those other agencies, but am yet to see it.

That co-operation has occurred for many years but questions about its legality were publicly raised in Cabinet Secretary Rebecca Kitteridge’s GCSB report last week.

The key thing is any assistance must only be under conditions where a warrant has been signed off.

Here’s a question for Labour and the Greens. If they win office in 2014 – will they pledge to change the law to ban the GCSB from assisting the SIS, Police and Defence?

Rainbow at dawn, over the Ben Ohau Range, Mckenzie Country. New Zealand landscape photography by Sarah Sisson.

This stunning rainbow was captured by Sarah near the turnoff to Mount Cook Village several years ago. Such moments of natural beauty are all too rare (and fleeting).

Free Wallpaper Download

You may download the large version of today’s image from this link:  Please note the new, shorter, Password = wwp

This image is available as a greeting card here.

See you next week!

Cheers – Todd [www.sisson.co.nz] 

Magnus Wilberg writes in the Financial Times:

Europe is making a mistake. In February, the European Commission published a proposal for a financial transaction tax – also called a Tobin or “Robin Hood” tax – in the EU. Eleven states have been granted the right to impose a minimum 0.1 per cent tax on equity and debt transactions and a minimum 0.01 per cent charge on derivatives transactions. If the experience of Sweden’s use of such a tax is anything to go by, this move is extremely unwise.

Why do some people advocate for a FTT?

One aim of the proposed tax is to improve the efficiency of financial markets by reducing speculation. Another is to generate tax revenues. Those were also the reasons why Sweden introduced a transaction tax in 1984.

If an FTT actually worked, and it was used to lower income tax rates, then it could be worth considering as part of a policy of broad base and low rates. But do they work?

Initially, the tax rate was 0.5 per cent in connection with the purchase and sale of shares. In mid-1986, the rate was doubled and the tax base was broadened to cover share options and convertibles. The trading volume on the Stockholm stock exchange changed dramatically when the tax was increased. Average turnover fell 30 per cent during the second half of 1986 and throughout 1987. The turnover in the 11 most traded shares fell 60 per cent. It seems unlikely that this sharp decrease reflected a decline only in speculative trading.

Later, in 1989, the tax base was broadened to include bonds. This, in turn, led to an 85 per cent reduction in bond-trading volume and a 98 per cent reduction of trading volume in bond derivatives. The increase in tax revenues resulting from the broadening was less than 5 per cent of what had been expected.

By 1990, shortly after the last vestiges of the currency controls were abolished in Sweden, more than 50 per cent of the trading in Swedish shares had moved to London. Conversely, once the tax was abolished in December 1991, trading on the Stockholm stock exchange recovered.

We live in an increasingly mobile and borderless world. Companies can decide where to locate, where to pay tax, and where to do financial transactions. The best way to have a good tax base is to have low rates.

This conclusion is reinforced by studies on the effects of the Swedish tax, which suggest that it reduced market liquidity but not volatility. Since increases in speculative trading tend to be associated with more volatility, this also suggests that the tax had little substantial effect on speculative trading.

So it didn’t even achieve its main aim.

The NZ Herald editorial:

When the Marriage Equality Bill passes its final vote in Parliament, possibly tonight, it will signify a marked social change. Less than a decade ago Helen Clark’s Government dared not extend the definition of marriage to same-sex couples, offering them a legal equivalent called civil union. Since then, public opinion has undergone a sea change.

It has happened not only in New Zealand but in Australia, the United States and Europe. Quite suddenly, most people have come around to the view that homosexual commitments deserve equal recognition.

It is a change primarily linked to age. Younger people have grown up with gay and lesbian friends, class-mates and colleagues and see no reason not to allow their friends to marry.

In the US in 2004 opposition to same sex marriage was an electoral winner for the Republicans. In 2012 it was an electoral loser. And a poll in the US had just revealed that a majority of Republicans under 30 favour allowing same sex marriage with 51% in favour and 46% opposed.

The same poll also looks at views based on religion.

• White evangelical Christians: 24% support/73% oppose
• White non-evangelical Protestants: 54% support/43% oppose
• White Catholics: 53% support/43% oppose
• Hispanic Catholics: 54% support/35% oppose
• African-American non-evangelical: 65% support/31% oppose
• Jewish: 78% support/21% oppose

So a majority of (white) American Catholics support same sex marriage.

Thoughtful contributions to our opinion pages have argued that marriage between a man and a woman is too important to social cohesion for its heterosexual definition to be lost. Marriage, they said, is not simply a declaration of love and commitment, it is the legitimation of procreation and the formation of families.

If its definition is to be detached from that purpose and marriage is to mean any form of human bond, what next, they asked. Might a commitment of more than two people have a right to the same recognition? Polygamy is permitted in some cultures. Why restrict the recognition to sexual relationships? One woman who lived with her sister wrote about their enduring non-sexual life together and wondered whether, in the name of equality, they too should be allowed to marry.

Marriage, as a professor of law pointed out on our pages yesterday, has been instituted in every culture, tribe and race since antiquity as the union of a man and a woman. It has never, until now, included a category of relationships that have no reproductive capacity and cannot provide a child with the care of two biological parents.

A fair summary of the better arguments against.

Those who worry that something of value will be lost can probably relax. Laws cannot change the ordinary meaning of words such as marriage, bride, groom, husband, wife, mother and father. Marriages for heterosexuals, including the blessings that believers obtain from churches, will not be diminished.

It remains to be seen whether same-sex couples marry in large numbers but their right to do so will be a significant achievement, another legal statement of equality. The gay community’s fight for the right to marry pays tribute, in its way, to the inherent value of the institution.

I agree. Couple aspiring to marry is a good thing.

The debate will be over tonight, thank goodness. It’s been great to be part of a team working for this change. I respect that some are opposed to the change, but the opposition to civil unions proved misplaced – and I think this will prove the same.

While there has been some passionate views on both sides, I think it reflects well on New Zealand that we can have this debates generally without the nastiness and rancour you see in some countries.

A Herald story also has a useful breakdown by party for the second reading:

FOR

* National: 44 per cent of MPs
* Maori: 100 per cent
* United Future: 100 per cent
* Act: 100 per cent
* Labour: 91 per cent
* Green: 100 per cent
* Mana: 100 per cent.

AGAINST

* National: 56 per cent of MPs
* Labour: 9 per cent
* New Zealand First: 100 per cent
* Independent (Brendan Horan): 100 per cent.

From my point of view, it would have been nice to have the majority of National MPs voting in favour. But even if only 10 out of 59 National MPs were in favour, this law change would have occurred.

The Electoral Commission has announced:

On 15 April 2013, the Electoral Commission referred Larry Baldock and Peter Redman, Conservative Party of New Zealand candidates at the 2011 general election, to Police for filing a false Candidate Election Expenses and Donations Return.

It is an offence under section 205N of the Erlectoral Act 1993 for a candidate to file a false return.

The Electoral Commission has also referred Larry Baldock for paying, or arranging another person to pay, election expenses in excess of the $25,000 maximum specified in section 205C of the Electoral Act 1993.  This is an offence under section 205F of the Act.

This is quite rare. Reading between the lines it looks like some election expenses were not declared, and in the case of Baldock those expenses would have put him over the $25,000 limit.

Baldock stood for Tauranga and got 1,512 votes or 4.2%. Peter Redman stood for Bay of Plenty and got 1,306 votes or 3.7%.

Peter Redman declared no donations and $42 of expenses.

Baldock declared a donation of $24,900 from the Conservative Party and $24,900 of expenses so I’d say it is about some sort of undeclared expense. Maybe it was a joint advertisement for Baldock and Redman and they attributed it all to the party, rather than to each candidate? We’ll find out in due course.

Of course the Police may do nothing, as is often the case. No Right Turn undiplomatically puts it like this:

Of course, we know what will happen: the police will take the complaint, and then forget about it, just as they have with virtually every other complaint referred to them by the Electoral Commission. The police simply don’t care about electoral law. If you steal a television, they’ll throw you in jail. Try to steal an election, and they ignore it.

As they did with Labour in 2005.

This is not the first time the Conservative Party has had issues with its returns. I blogged on these last May.

UPDATE: This NZ Herald story has more details on what may be the issue.

Also of interest to me is that Baldock got only 206 votes more than Redman despite Baldock spending the maximum $25,000 and Redman basically zero. This reinforces again to me that advertising has only a minor impact on votes.

Stuff reports:

Labour and the Greens will unveil their policies to cut power prices on Thursday.

The announcement follows criticism of Labour leader David Shearer after he said the party would make changes, but did not say what they would be.

Shearer said on Sunday that Labour would make changes to the electricity sector if it was successful in the 2014 general election.

He said he was announcing the plan because it was only fair to those considering buying shares in Mighty River Power.

Or, they are trying desperately to scare people off. The more relevent information they should be disclosing is whether they will purchase back the shares, if they win Government.

“The reason we’re doing this is because we both share the same ambition to bring down electricity prices,” Shearer said.

Really? I hope media ask Labour about how their proposed changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme will double the impact of the ETS on power prices.

Also look at all these Green party policies that would push the price of power up:

• Development of a fully renewable electricity generation system – that will push costs up as renewables tend to cost more.
  
• Encourage the development of emerging renewable technologies by setting Feed In Tariffs whereby they will be paid a higher rate per kWh generated for the first few years; – ie force consumers to pay more for electricity
• The Green Party does not favour further large hydro plants – ie no economies of scale
• The Green Party believes that the best way to reduce emissions from mining and burning coal is to leave the coal in the ground
• Phase out fossil fuels, starting with coal
• Making all new deep sea drilling within territorial waters, the EEZ and the continental shelf for fossil fuels a prohibited activity

Now if you think these policies will lead to cheaper electricity, I have a bridge for sale you can buy.

I can’t find data for New Zealand on costs of various sources, but this US graph illustrates pretty well.

Now nuclear is not an option for NZ. The Greens want coal banned. They also want no more large hydro projects. They want NZ to be 100% renewables. And both Labour and Greens want to double the impact of the ETS on power prices.

The idea of cheaper power prices under a Labour/Green Government is as plausible as Palmerston North becoming a tourist mecca.

I am a fan of renewable energy, but decisions on using it need to be based on it being cost effective. Blanket bans and prohibitions on coal and large scale hydro will inevitably lead to much higher power prices.

The Ministry of Health has just published a survey of NZers and alcohol. The results are interesting, compared to five years ago. I think they show again how exaggerated the moral panic around alcohol has been.

• The proportion of NZers who have had an alcoholic drink in the last year has dropped from 84% to 80%
• The proportion of 15 to 17 year olds who had a drink in the last year has dropped from 75% to 59%. This shows how absolutely wrong it would have been to increase the alcohol purchase age to 20. The current age of 18 is leading to fewer young people drinking than in the past.
• The proportion of adults who have “hazardous” drinking has dropped from 26% to 22% for men and from 11% to 9% for women.
• The proportion of 18 – 24 year old drinkers who are hazardous drinkers has fallen from 49% to 36%.
• The more deprived the area someone lives in, the less likely they are to drink, but if they do the more likely they are to be a hazardous drinker. 11% of adults who live in the least deprived areas are hazardous drinkers compared to 18% of adults in the most deprived areas.

These results are very consistent with other surveys in recent years.

(Apologies readers – today’s post is a little later than usual! As such I’ve added links to videos of the oral questions via inthehouse.co.nz – speters)

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers

1. DAVID SHEARER (LAB) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? (video)
2. TODD McCLAY (NAT) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in its share offer programme to reduce debt and free up capital for priority spending? (video)
3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZF) to the Prime Minister: Does he believe that he has met the requirements of the Cabinet Manual to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards in his ministerial capacity, his political capacity and his personal capacity; if so, why? (video)
4. Hon PHIL HEATLEY (NAT) to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received on the latest benefit figures? (video)
5. Hon DAVID PARKER (LAB) to the Minister of Finance: Will the recent rise in the New Zealand dollar to a post-float high on the Trade Weighted Index cause job losses among non-primary exporters and import substitution businesses? (video)
6. JULIE ANNE GENTER (GRE) to the Minister of Finance: Does he have a plan to fund the Auckland City rail link in the upcoming Budget given that public backing for the rail project is more than twice as strong as the Government’s proposed new motorway north from Puhoi? (video)
7. Dr JIAN YANG (NAT) to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government recognising the importance of China for New Zealand’s trade, education and tourism sectors? (video)
8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (LAB) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What responsibility, if any, does he take for Solid Energy’s precarious financial position? (video)
9. NICKY WAGNER (NAT) to the Minister of Housing: How will the $320 million settlement of Housing New Zealand’s insurance claim for earthquake damaged properties help achieve the Government’s priority of rebuilding Christchurch? (video)
10. GRANT ROBERTSON (LAB) to the Prime Minister: What role, if any, did he play in recommending the appointment of Ian Fletcher as Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau? (video)
11. MIKE SABIN (NAT) to the Associate Minister of Social Development: What early results can he report from the Government’s efforts to deal with welfare fraud? (video)
12. GARETH HUGHES (GRE) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will he recommend returning the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill to the select committee so that the public can have a say on the so-called “Anadarko Amendment”; if not, why not? (video)

National is asking five questions, Labour four, the Greens two, and NZ First one. Patsy of the day goes to Nicky Wagner for question 9 – how will the $320 million settlement of Housing New Zealand’s insurance claim for earthquake damaged properties help achieve the Government’s priority of rebuilding Christchurch?

Labour is asking the PM a gotcha, and on exchange rates, Solid Energy, and the GCSB Director’s appointment. The Greens are asking on the Auckland City rail link and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, and NZ First is asking the PM a gotcha.

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Crown Minerals Amendment Bill (third reading)
2. Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2) (third reading)
3. Continental Shelf Amendment Bill (third reading)
4. Reserves Amendment Bill (third reading)
5. Wildlife Amendment Bill (third reading)
6. Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill (second reading)
7. Immigration Amendment Bill (second reading)

The Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2), Continental Shelf Amendment Bill, Reserves Amendment Bill and Wildlife Amendment Bill (formerly the omnibus Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill) are being guided through the house by Simon Bridges and received their third reading together. The bills aims to promote prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand.

The Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill makes changes to the provision of legal services paid for by the Crown, including legal aid and lawyers for child and youth advocate services. Specifically, it limits the number of legal aid grants and increases the amount legally aided people must pay. The Bill also limits eligibility for legal aid, reintroduces a user charge for civil and family legal aid, and enables interest to be charged on legal aid debts. Judith Collins is in charge and it received its second reading today.

The Immigration Amendment Bill amends the Immigration Act for the purpose of discouraging people-smuggling. Specifically, it establishes a legal framework for the mandatory detention, under a group warrant, of irregular migrants arriving as part of a mass arrival group. Michael Woodhouse is in charge and its second reading is in progress.

John Key has announced:

“Today I am announcing that, as part of this package, we will be investing an additional $158 million over four years into tourism,” says uriMr Key.

“Achieving growth in tourism earnings requires targeted new investment to position New Zealand as a high value destination in markets with real potential for growth.”

In the year ended March 2012 tourism generated $9.6 billion of revenue and was 15.4 per cent of export earnings. It was 3.3 per cent of GDP and employed 6.2 per cent of the workforce.

“Later this week when I attend New Zealand’s premier tourism conference, TRENZ, I will announce details of where this $158 million will be invested,” says Mr Key.

Tourism is a great export earner, and helps reduce the current account deficit.

Current Vote Tourism is:

• Departmental Costs $7.6m
• Tourism Strategy $1.2m
• Tourism Marketing $83.8m
• National Cycleway $12.1m

A $158m increase over four years is an average of an extra $40m a year which is basically a 50% increase in the marketing budget.

Stats NZ has the latest life expectancy data:

• Life expectancy at birth is 83.0 years for females and 79.3 years for males.
• Life expectancy at birth has increased by 0.8 years for females and 1.3 years for males since 2005–07.
• Female life expectancy at birth is 3.7 years higher than male life expectancy at birth, down from the largest difference of 6.4 years in 1975–77.
• The gap between Māori and non-Māori life expectancy at birth has narrowed to 7.3 years. This compares with 9.1 years in 1995–97, 8.5 years in 2000–02, and 8.2 years in 2005–07.
• Life expectancy at birth is 76.5 years for Māori females and 72.8 years for Māori males, compared with 83.7 years for non-Māori females and 80.2 years for non-Māori males.

The closing of the gap between men and women, and between Maori and non-Maori is a good thing (so long as the gap closing is by both getting better, not worse!).

The average life expectancy for a 45 year old non-Maori male is another 37 years, so that may be 47 years of Kiwiblog to look forward to 🙂

If like me you are a male born in 1967, then there is a 96.4% chance you are still alive, and 3.6% chance you have already died. The chance of dying within the next year is 0.2%.

If you were a male born 65 years ago, there is a 12.8% chance you have died and a 1.1% chance you will die in the next year.

The age at which you have a 10% chance of dying in the next year if you are a male is 86 and at 90 you have a 16% chance of dying in the next year.

At age 67, the chance you have died is 28.1% for Maori men, 21.2% for Maori women, 12.2% for non-Maori men and 8.8% for non-Maori women.

A few years ago the SOE Kordia purchased the ISP Orcon. I wasn’t sure it was a great idea for a government owned enterprise to be purchasing private companies in an incredibly competitive market. However SOEs are meant to make decisions for commercial reasons, and presumably Kordia saw it as adding value to their business.

Yesterday Kordia sold Orcon. Just as their purchase as a matter for the board, so was the sale. Neither require or gain shareholder approval. Ministers would have been informed, but are not needed to consent.

But Clare Curran has put out a release suggesting that Orcon is a strategic asset and that somehow it is all the Government’s fault. Very bizarre. Her release says:

The sale of the state-owned Telco Orcon is shrouded in mystery and appears to be yet another example of short-term thinking by this Government, says Labour’s Communications and IT spokesperson Clare Curran.

It worries me when MPs do not realise that there is in fact no Government decision involved. Does Labour think Ministers should run SOEs directly and decide for them what assets they purchase or sell? Why have boards of directors?

Ministers would be consulted on decisions like this, but are not the decision makers.

“The bottom line is the Government should have decided whether Orcon is now a strategic asset and if it is an important means to drive uptake of ultrafast broadband.

The suggestion that Orcon is a strategic asset is staggering, and shows that I think some in Labour regard everything as a strategic asset. Orcon has around 5% market share and if Labour think you can consider Orcon as a strategic asset, then I can only assume they believe the Government should purchase Chorus, Telecom, Vodafone, 2 Degrees, Inspire Net and well just about every company in New Zealand.

Then on this new definition of strategic asset, they should buy both Foodstuffs and Progressive because what is more strategic than food? But wait if a 5% market share is also now strategic, they better buy up the 4 squares also!

Now you might say Labour have not said Orcon is a strategic asset, just that it might be. Well I think such distinctions are meaningless when a company is so clearly a million miles away from being a strategic asset.

If I was attacking the decision to sell Orcon, I’d focus on whether Kordia has actually made a profit or a loss on the purchase. Did Kordia lose taxpayer money by buying an ISP?

Audrey Young reports:

Trade Minister Tim Groser says his bid to become the next director-general of the World Trade Organisation is no longer “a long shot”.

From the original nine candidates, Mr Groser has made it through the next round of five candidates.

Over the next few weeks, they will be reduced to a shortlist of two.

“What we thought was a very long shot I don’t think you could describe as a very long shot any longer,” he told the Herald.

Mr Groser is a former trade ambassador to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), based in Geneva.

He is competing with candidates from Indonesia (Mari Pangestu), South Korea (Taeho Bark), Mexico (Herminio Blanco) and Brazil (Roberto Azevedo).

He said he needed strong support from developed and developing countries to survive this far.

“Given that three out of four members in the WTO, 120 out of 159, are a developing country, I needed to get strong support from developing countries to survive politically.

I would not be surprised if Tim makes the final two. However my expectations are that while Groser is the strongest candidate (by far) on a personal level, being from a developed country will count against him with most of the voting countries. Hence when it gets down to the final two, the other candidate will win through.

I hope I am wrong, as we need a strong WTO to liberalise world trade and Groser would do an excellent job.

The Guardian profiles the five remaining candidates. I think Roberto Azevedo from Brazil could be the one to beat.

The Dom Post editorial:

There are good reasons to be cynical about Labour leader David Shearer’s vague promise to rein in power prices if he becomes prime minister next year.

It’s like King Canute claiming he can stop the tide – except King Canute knew he couldn’t.

First, it will have escaped nobody’s attention that Labour had plenty of time to ease the burden of electricity costs for households and businesses during the nine years it was in government from 1999 to 2008. But instead of putting in place measures to achieve that, it presided over a nearly 70 per cent rise in prices and happily raked in more than $3 billion in dividends from the state-owned power companies.

And this was a time of record surpluses.

Clearly, Labour had no problem with families and small businesses being hit with unnecessarily inflated electricity bills when the cash was helping to fund its big spending policies. That only appears to have become a concern once it was turfed out of office.

Exactly.

Mr Shearer says the policy has arisen from the prospect of power prices soaring further once 49 per cent of Mighty River Power, Genesis and Meridian are sold into private hands. However, as the price gouging by the three companies between 2001 and 2007 showed, vesting full public ownership in a power company does not necessarily guarantee lower prices. Indeed, figures issued by Energy Minister Simon Bridges in February showed that, at that time, private companies were offering the lowest rates in 15 of the 21 regions on the Powerswitch website, which allows consumers to compare prices.

What matters is having choice and competition, not ownership.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Mr Shearer’s main aim in announcing the policy the day before the first shares in the part privatisation of MRP were offered to New Zealand retail investors was to dampen down interest in the sale. The woeful lack of detail only supports the view that it has been made up on the hoof and rushed out as a last-minute sabotage tactic.

Sabotage is a good word for it, but it was such a pitiful attempt at sabotage, with no details, that it was more like a damp fire-cracker.

~ John Stringer, www.CoNZervative.wordpress.com

“you have the satisfying sense of a five-course meal with a great dessert at the end.”
I went and saw this on opening night last night. I have to say, this is Tom Cruise’s best movie since A Few Good Men (1992) and Vanilla Sky (2001). But I’m a huge fan of intelligent sci-fi. so may be biased. First the synopsis…

A veteran US tech. (Cruise, Jack/”Tech 49″) and his female British station assistant (‘Victor’), United Nations/Earth Fed. 2077, are assigned to the devastated Earth after “the war.” Humans won but were forced to leave for Titan, a moon of Saturn. They protect several huge nuclear extractors, processing sea water as energy for humanity on Titan under the NASA control of The Tet circling above them in the atmosphere, like an orbiting moon (destroyed by aliens). Comm.s link and Control is “Sally,” evoking “HAL” of 2001, “Data” or “Computer” of Star Trek). Jack and Vic. maintain really cool drones that are mopping up enemy ‘alien’ Scavs (scavengers) on Earth. But memories torment Tech 49.

Ok, that’s all I’m going to say, as the real star of this film is the story, and that is why this film is so good. The story rocks first. Now to the stars…

Tom Cruise (Jack Harper/Tech 49) is brilliant as lead. He doesn’t over act, is less intrusive, and – like Vanilla Sky – moves beyond clichéd handsome sex-hunk saving the world single-handed and getting the girl (hooray, hate that rubbish). Oblivion has restored my interest in Cruise as an actor after several recent flops (Rock of Ages 2012). His acting is a good balance. Perhaps three divorces has grounded him. Morgan Freeman (Breech) plays his usual wise-head sage role, but is under-cooked in this movie (I would have liked more screen time). One of two leading ladies is Olga Kurylenko (Julia) a Ukranian actress whom we’ve seen as a recent Bond girl (Quantum of Solace). She looks Maori and plays the juxtaposed black-haired First Lady to red-head surrogate Andrea Riseborough (Victoria ‘Victor’), a British actress in her first A-list role, Cruise’s mission side-kick.

This is a movie of a graphic novel (like Walking Dead, Constantine, et al) by Joseph Kosinski (who also directs, brilliantly). The novel is as yet unpublished by Radical but was given out at a 2009 comics con. delayed by art development for the film. The concept made it to film first after initial conception in the graphic novel genre, a form of backwards development.
“Oblivion” is Prometheus meets Star Wars (Ewoks and Sandmen) meets Red Planet. There is also some time travel interplay. It has a great kick at the end.

We begin in 2077 after the Earth has been devastated after the arrival of aliens. Humanity fights back with nukes, wins, but in the process devastates the earth. Earthquakes and tsunamis finish off civilisation and humanity flees to Titan, a moon of Saturn. Our heroes are on Earth as “An Efficient Team” in a sky station 3000 feet up, maintaining war drones and protecting the massive sea water nuclear processors. Scavs (scavengers) are still about, remnants of the defeated ‘alien’ army who interfere with drones and the processing plants, like the Ewoks and Sandmen of Star Wars.

The design of this film is immaculate (Cruise calls it “elegant”). The space craft are stunning, on a par with the predatory cat droid of Red Planet (‘AMEE’). Delicious. Cruises’ space and ground transports are awesome.

Sci fi frequently adopts Classical or Biblical allusions. The names of space craft often feature (Zion, Nebuchadnezzar, Prometheus, Icarus, etc.) and in Oblivion, Jack’s mission craft is called “Odyssey,” an obvious message there. Latin prose from Roman poet Horatius’ The Lay (stanza XXVII) also features strongly in this film, but no spoiler.

Another high point are the sweeping devastated vistas (ala Planet of the Apes): Washington DC as a flooded delta, the tip of the Empire State Building, the tops of the Brooklyn Bridge etc, you get the picture. At times it feels like New Zealand but was shot in Iceland.

There’s a Modernist-feel to the sky station that ’49’ and ‘Victor’ inhabit, coupled with a 1960s Mad Men chic that flavours the high-tech Star Wars/Red Planet-esque sci-fi aesthetic.

The gadgets and armoury are gorgeous, restrained but highly designed. This is not the grunge of Alien or the pop culture of Star Wars, something satistfyingly in-between. The comm.s link from NASA control in The Tet is crinkly black and white (like the 1969 moon landings). Nice.

The story grips you immediately, and has twists and turns. Good movies move through several plot-altering episodes, and Oblivion does this in spades. So you have the satisfying sense of a five-course meal with a great dessert at the end.

Tech 49 has a huge secret that he has kept from Victor, who plays the Company game and is a rigid stickler for protocol. Recurring memories, deja vu and bad dreams are a key to this movie, but no more on that.

This held me all the way. Oblivion is luscious in its cinematography, the CGI Special FX are dazzling unobtrusive supporting actors serving the story, which is deep, satisfying, moving, exciting, and resolves brilliantly. I empathised with the characters, came to hate the enemy, and enjoyed the ride at several levels.

9/10 (one point behind The Avengers, a perfect move, because I wanted more development of Freeman).

~ John Stringer, www.coNZervative.wordpress.com

Judith Collins has announced:

Justice Minister Judith Collins today announced the appointment of Dr Jackie Blue as the Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) Commissioner.

“I congratulate Dr Blue on her appointment as EEO Commissioner for the Human Rights Commission,” Ms Collins says.

“The EEO Commissioner has an important role to play in championing EEO principles, issues and practices in New Zealand as well as appreciating their relationship to social, economic and labour market trends.

“Dr Blue is committed to human rights and equity issues and is currently the Chair of three cross-party groups in Parliament. I’m confident she will be a very capable Commissioner.”

Dr Blue will be leaving Parliament to take up her new position. She will assume office on 4 June 2013.

Congratulations to Jackie on her appointment. I was very critical of the appointment of former National MP Brian Neeson to the Human Rights Review Tribunal, so I will criticise political appointments that lack merit. but this is not one of those cases.

Jackie has a good track record at working with MPs from all parties, and will do well in the role I am sure.

Her departure from Parliament will of course create a list vacancy. The next candidate on National’s list is former MP Paul Quinn. Media have previously reported he does not desire or intend to return to Parliament. If he declines the spot, then Wellington Central candidate Paul Foster-Bell will become a List MP.

If Tim Groser does become WTO Director-General, then the next on the list is broadcaster Claudette Hauiti.

Stuff reports:

An Invercargill man convicted of raping a woman in 2004 is angry she was upset by his appearance outside her house on Sunday and says what happened is in the past and she needs to get over what happened.

Craig Crofts moved next door to the woman in 2011, which outraged the community and spurred the justice minister to propose an amendment to the Harassment Act.

Crofts had moved from that address but on Sunday was seen outside the woman’s house by her partner, who said Crofts was at the end of the driveway. …

Yesterday, Crofts said he lived four blocks from the woman and had every right to walk down the street.

He had been returning from his father’s house and, though it was not his usual route, he had done nothing wrong.

There was “no particular reason” he had chosen to walk down that street, he said. As he was walking past the woman’s house, her neighbour had called out to him. He had said hello to the neighbour, but he did not stop at the end of her driveway, he said.

“It’s been eight years – it’s in the past. It’s a public area and it’s my right to walk down the street. I don’t want anything to do with her. I got over it; she needs to get over it, too.”

What a nasty piece of work. There is no way he just happened to walk home that way, and stop. He is harrassing her, after raping her.

Crofts has at least 77 convictions and has been sent to prison on 13 or more occasions. Sadly he only got four years for the 2004 rape. Since then he has been back inside at least twice – relating to breaches of harassment orders and stealing women’s underwear.

Last year, Justice Minister Judith Collins proposed a new protection order under the Harassment Act following The Southland Times’ story about Crofts moving next door to the woman he raped.

Yesterday, a spokeswoman for Ms Collins said the proposed order was a priority for the minister and would probably be introduced to the House in late May.

The order would allow victims of a serious violent or sexual offence to apply to the court for protection. The advantage would be the new order relies on an application by the victim, and could include special conditions designed to address the particular circumstances of the case.

Breaching the order could be punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $5000.

For two breaches in three years, the maximum penalty would be increased to two years’ imprisonment for a third contravention.

Sounds very much needed for cases like this.

Fox News reports:

The Boston Marathon headquarters has been locked down after two explosions were reported near the finish line, a spokesman told Reuters.

Witnesses reportedly heard two booms near the finish line inside the Fairmount Copley Plaza Hotel that sounded like two claps of thunder. 

The Associated Press says there are reports of injuries. 

Unless this is a freak accident, this is a terrible criminal event – to target marathon runners. One can only assume they wnted to kill or injure as many people as possible.

There are first hand reports on Twitter of horrific injuries, legs blown off etc.

My prayers and thoughts are with the victims, and with the United States today.

UPDATE: Two or three dead so far. My emotions are torn between profound sadness and massive anger. What should have been a day of joy has become a day of tragedy. May those responsible be found and removed from civilisation.

UPDATE2: The NY Post is reporting 12 dead and 50 injured. Note no other media are reporting this many dead. Two dead and six critical is the latest on CNN.

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

MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Although, we are pre-taping the programme hours before the 3rd reading of Louisa Wall’s marriage equality bill—it currently looks as though it is set to pass. What we want to know—what will happen now? Will we notice the difference? What will Thursday look like in this new environment?

WILL MIGHTY RIVER SHARES = MIGHTY PROFITS FOR YOUR BOTTOM LINE?: The shares into Mighty River Power open to the public this week. So far 440,000 people pre-registered for shares but how many of them will actually be purchasing shares? How keen are mum & dad investors? What could happen to the Mighty River shares should the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter close? What will this mean for power prices? Can reform lower power prices? Or are rising power prices much like death and taxes-a certainty?

FEELING SUPPRESSED?: The Jesse Ryder case is one of the many recent examples where suppression laws have come into question. The men accused of Ryder’s attack have suppression but one citizen journalist is now facing charges of breaking suppression after videotaping the two men and posting the video on-line. Fair? A step-too far? Is it time to have a look at our suppression laws? Are too many people given suppression unnecessarily? Or in a country of 4.5 million—is suppression necessary to protect privacy? Are there some crimes that should be named & shamed?

There are two ways to get in on the pub political action:
First, you can join the live audience in Wellington’s iconic Backbencher Pub on Wednesday, 17th of April at 6pm. Filming begins around 6:15pm.

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

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

Our Panel: Labour MP Jacinda Ardern, National MP Jami-Lee Ross, and Green Party MP Holly Walker.

John Key has announced changes to the oversight of the GCSB and SIS:

1: The pool of candidates who are able to perform the role of Inspector General will be widened, by removing the requirement that the person be a retired High Court judge. This will broaden the range of experience and capability available to the role. For example, Australia’s equivalent is a former ombudsman.

2: The Inspector General’s office will be made more proactive, taking it a step further from the role it currently has, which is more review-focused. The office would be able to undertake its own inquiries more easily, and it will be expected to specifically note publicly each year its view on whether or not the agencies it oversees are compliant with the law.

The Government will increase the scope of the Inspector General’s active review programme to include a much broader range of the agencies’ activities. This will have the effect of making the Inspector General’s role more proactive.

3: The resourcing and staffing of the Inspector General’s office will be increased, and the new role of Deputy Inspector General will be created.

4: Legislation will explicitly expand the Inspector General’s work programme, including compliance audits and greater reporting responsibilities. GCSB’s own quarterly reporting processes will be tightened up.

5: The Inspector General’s work will become more transparent, through greater availability of its reports and views publicly.

These all look like good changes, in line with what Kitteridge recommended.

I presume these proposed changes be open for submissions, and there may be further changes that can be proposed and considered.

“It is now the responsible thing to do to clarify the legislation, to make it clear the GCSB can provide support to agencies which are undertaking their lawful duties.

“To do anything less would be to leave our national security open to threat, and as Prime Minister I am simply not willing to do that. To do nothing would be an easy course of action politically, but it would be an irresponsible one.”

Mr Key says thetre proposed changes to the GCSB Act will clarify its long-standing practices, so the GCSB can provide assistance to other agencies, subject to conditions and oversight.

I think this is inevitable and desirable. It would be silly to allow what was basically a drafting error in the 2003 law, neuter our capacity to respond to potential security threats.

However it is important that any legislation restricts the GCSB to assistance where an independent warrant has been granted to the other agency. And the changes above must include specific disclosure of such assistance as part of regular reporting so that one can see that any assistance is rare and only in line with warrants issued by the appropriate authorities.

I assume and hope that the legislation will follow the normal legislative path, including committee submissions. Of course it will go to the Intelligence and Security Committee, rather than a select committee.

The ISC comprises (I think) John Key, David Shearer, Peter Dunne, John Banks and Russel Norman

Today, Mr Key also released the terms of reference into the unauthorised disclosure of Ms Kitteridge’s report.

The Commissioners of the report, DPMC Chief Executive Andrew Kibblewhite and GCSB Director Ian Fletcher, have appointed David Henry to conduct the inquiry.

Good. It is outrageous that the draft report was leaked, and there are only a few people who could have had access to it. Hopefully the inquiry will discover the person responsible.