Adam Bennett reports:

The latest attempt at giving farmers a presence in Parliament and a potential rival to Act on the political right is getting close to attracting enough members to register for next year’s election.

Looking at its policies, I’d say it is competing with NZ First.

The Focus NZ party, headed by Kerikeri farmer and businessman Ken Rintoul, was formed last year around a group of farmers opposed to big rate increases proposed by the Far North District Council.

Initially called the Rural Party when it formed in August, Mr Rintoul said the name was changed in November to reflect the large proportion of urban businesspeople among the 180 members it had at that point.

Now the party has over 400 members, not far off the 500 required to register with the Electoral Commission.

You need around 100,000 votes to get into Parliament. Getting 500 members is a very low threshold to register. Some parties end up with fewer votes than members.

Like Act, Focus NZ wants to cut taxes, but not in all areas: it wants to introduce a new tax on international financial transactions.

Also unlike Act, it is opposed to asset sales.

Oh God, they support an FTT. A cross between NZ First and Social Credit.

I predict they will fail to make even 1%. Here’s the history under MMP of new parties that don’t have an existing MP already in Parliament, with their best results:

• 99 MPs 0.03%
• ACT 7.14%
• Advance NZ 0.05%
• Animals First 0.17%
• Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis 1.66%
• Asia Pacific United 0.02%
• Bill & Ben 0.56%
• Christian Heritage 2.38%
• Christian Coalition 4.33%
• Conservative 2.65%
• Democrats for Social Credit 0.08%
• Destiny 0.62%
• Direct Democracy 0.03%
• Ethnic Minority 0.12%
• Family Party 0.35%
• Family Rights 0.05%
• Freedom 0.02%
• Future NZ 1.12%
• Green Society 0.11%
• Kiwi Party 0.54%
• Libertarianz 0.29%
• Mana Maori 0.25%
• Mauri Pacific 0.19%
• McGillycuddy Serious 0.29%
• Natural Law 0.15%
• NMP 0.05%
• NZ Conservative 0.07%
• NZ Super & Youth 0.06%
• One NZ 0.09%
• Outdoor Recreation 1.28%
• Pacific Party 0.37%
• People’s Choice 0.02%
• Progressive Greens 0.26%
• RAM 0.02%
• Republic of NZ Party 0.02%
• South Island 0.14%
• Te Tawharau 0.02%
• Workers Party 0.04%

So of those 38 parties, only ACT have made it in. 31 parties have failed to make even 1% and six parties made 1%. Of those six, four were effectively Christian parties, plus ALCP and Outdoor Recreation.

The Herald reports:

The policeman found to have planted evidence that led to the wrongful conviction of Arthur Allan Thomas for the murders of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe has died.

The Herald has learned that former Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton, 83, died in Middlemore Hospital late on Sunday night after a short illness. …

The commission report said: “Mr Hutton and Mr [Len] Johnston planted the shell case … and they did so to manufacture evidence that Mr Thomas’ rifle had been used for the killings.”

Neither Mr Hutton nor Detective Sergeant Johnston, who died in 1978, were investigated by police over the allegations of wrongdoing or held to account.

The Solicitor-General at the time said there was not enough information to lay charges against them.

It is a pity they were never charged. Their alleged actions were toxic to the Police, and should not be tolerated.

Karl du Fresne writes in the Manawatu Standard:

I have some advice – unsolicited – for whoever takes over from Peter Cavanagh, the chief executive of Radio New Zealand, who steps down toward the end of this year.

RNZ is a national treasure, but it’s a flawed treasure, and that makes it vulnerable. By correcting the most obvious of those flaws, whoever takes over from Mr Cavanagh could help protect the organisation against political interference.

So what is this flaw?

So what might the new RNZ chief executive do to enhance the organisation’s standing in a political climate that is less than favourable? One obvious step is to take a tougher line against the editorial bias that still permeates some RNZ programmes.

Public broadcasting organisations, by their very nature, tend to be Left-leaning. It’s not hard to understand how this comes about. Journalists distrustful of capitalism naturally gravitate toward state-owned media organisations, seeing them as untainted by the profit motive. This becomes self-perpetuating, since the more Left-leaning an organisation becomes, the more it attracts other people of the same persuasion. The result is often an ideological mindset that permeates the entire organisation.

I think that is a nice summary of the problems that inhabit most state funded broadcasters. There is no “master conspiracy” that a broadcaster such as Radio NZ tries to be politically left-leaning. It is just that they tend to attract left-leaning staff, and sometimes have a workplace culture that is hostile to non-conforming views.

To be fair to Radio NZ, they are nowhere near as bad as the BBC. And certainly some shows try very hard to have a diversity of views.

But publicly funded broadcasters have an obligation to make programmes that reflect the views and interests of the entire community – not just those the broadcasters happen to favour.

This is explicitly stated in RNZ’s charter, which commits the organisation to impartial and balanced coverage of news and current affairs.

It’s the duty of the chief executive, who also has the title of editor-in-chief, to ensure this happens. But in this respect, Mr Cavanagh, an Australian who was recruited from the ABC in 2003, has been missing in action.

The ABC is arguably a worse offender.

Overall, RNZ presents a more balanced range of perspectives than it used to. But on some programmes, a stubborn Left-wing bias persists.

Kim Hill is the worst offender. This is a problem for whoever runs RNZ, because she’s also its biggest name.

Chris Laidlaw lists to the Left too, as does Jeremy Rose, a journalist who frequently crops up on Laidlaw’s Sunday morning show. Rose appears to be on a lifelong mission to convince people that there are humane alternatives to nasty, heartless capitalism.

Heh I have to admit that Mediawatch seems to have at least one segment every week complaining about the evils of advertising. They even spent two weeks talking about that some food company sent some free samples to some journalists who tweeted about their launch. Shock, horror.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that RNZ should become a tame government puppet. That would be far worse than the status quo.

But we all have an interest in Radio New Zealand surviving, and a genuinely independent, non-partisan RNZ will be in a far stronger position to defend itself than one that consistently leaves itself exposed to allegations of bias.

It is a fair point.

The Herald editorial:

Rio Tinto is doubtless more than happy that the Government has stepped in to try to broker a deal over the electricity supply contract for the Tiwai Pt aluminium smelter. The global company’s bargaining position has always been strong. Now, the concerns that have brought the Government to the negotiating table make it even stronger. Nonetheless, there remains no reason to bow to the mining giant’s every demand.

I am unconvinced they should be given any special treatment, beyond a commercial volume based discount for electricity which is up to Meridian to negotiate.

As much was confirmed by Contact Energy’s share price dropping 3 per cent in early trading after Meridian announced the negotiation deadlock.

A 3% drop is not the end of the world.

There are other factors for the Government to consider, not least the threat to 750 jobs at the smelter and a further 3000 indirectly in the Southland region.

But will those jobs endure just because the Government comes to the party? I am doubtful. If the smelter is not a going concern, then its closure is inevitable. If the smelter is a going concern, I’m not too keen to subsidise it.

Some people will make comparisons to Sky City and The Hobbit. But I view those two as quite different. Sky City is not threatening anyone. It is not saying that it will pack up shop, if it does not get its way. That negotiation is about Auckland needing a world class convention centre and negotiating some regulatory changes that would allow Sky City to  build it.

And The Hobbit stuff happened because of the malign interference of the Australian union. They instigated a global boycott that led to a possible shift overseas. Their influence had to be negated.

Rio Tinto are just trying to use the asset sales to renegotiate a contract they had already agreed to. Now that is fine for them to try – but the negotiation should be with Meridian.

Rio Tinto’s position is the stronger in that it has made it clear that it wants to sell the smelter. If that is not possible, closure is an alternative response to the sagging world price for aluminium. Even so, there is no reason for the Government to start genuflecting. This country has already given successive Tiwai Pt operators very good deals since it built the Manapouri hydro station to power the smelter more than 40 years ago. The Government’s approach to these negotiations should, therefore, not be markedly different from that of Meridian. If a deal that makes commercial sense cannot be struck, it will not be fatal to the asset-sales programme, the country’s electricity framework, or, in the long term, the Southland economy. On no account should the Government throw in the towel.

I agree. Any concessions should be minor, if at all.

NZ Herald reports:

Proposed new offences could mean harsher penalties for protesters who interfere with offshore petroleum and minerals exploration.

If passed into law, the changes to the Crown Minerals Bill would help protect “legitimate exploration”, Minister of Energy and Resources Simon Bridges told TV One’s Q+A programme yesterday.

The first offence would stop deep sea protesters “from doing dangerous acts, damaging and interfering with legitimate business interests with ships”, he said. This could result in 12 months’ jail or a $50,000 to $100,000 fine depending on whether it was for an individual or body corporate.

A lesser offence for entering a specified area, probably within 500m of a ship, would carry a fine up to $10,000.

The offences would apply within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone – the fourth largest in the world at more than four million sq km.

“This is not about stopping legitimate democratic protest. There are a range of ways people can protest – at a company’s front door, on the street, actually still out at sea.”

This is about the difference between protest and interference. Protest is our God given right. Interference with someone else going about their legal business is not a right – it is in fact an offence. The problem has been the penalties are so low, that there is no deterrent.

The Dom Post reports:

An important social contract underpins New Zealand’s welfare system. At its heart is the principle that society will provide for individuals who are unable to support themselves on the understanding that those who are able to work will make an honest effort to look for employment.

Yep, and support for the former is undermined when the latter does not occur.

Sadly, however, some beneficiaries see it as their God-given right to remain on welfare for life and not only make no effort to improve their lot, but add to the burden on taxpayers.

They include women on the domestic purposes benefit who seem to believe they can have as many children as they want while remaining dependent on the state, and that workers will be happy to pay for them to have that privilege.

It is a minority, but it is not an insignificant minority. We should be full of compassion for parents who suddenly find themselves without a partner because they die, flee, turn abusive. But that is a different situation to having multiple babies to multiple partners over many years, and hence never being in employment.

The number of women who have had additional children while on the DPB is undeniably cause for concern. Between 1993 and 2011, almost a third of women who drew the benefit had at least one more child. In 2010 alone, 4800 children were born to solo mothers already on the DPB – 7.5 per cent of the total live births that year.

A third is far too high. Mistakes will and can occur, but at a third that suggests many of them are deliberate decisions to have further children despite being unable to even provide for existing children.

That is not fair on working parents who would dearly love more children, but who have put off increasing the size of their families because of economic pressures.

Exactly.

It is also not fair to the children of those beneficiaries.

It has long been established that children in working families have far better health, education and social outcomes. That is true for children with one parent as well as those with two.

Not only do children in sole-parent families benefit from their mother or father having a higher income than they would get from welfare payments, they also benefit enormously from seeing their parents go out to work every day.

This is the part that I think is most important. A child who grows up in a household where no adult ever works in paid employment is going to probably start life very disadvantaged.

Elusive Taniwha finally snapped on Zealandia reservoir 

Press Release – For Immediate Release (Embargoed until 1 April 2013)

“Friends” of the Karori Historical Society

A local man on a Zealandia night adventure has snapped a photo which will change the course of New Zealand history.  His grainy but unambiguous photo clearly shows a Taniwha swimming near the Karori water dam.  While Taniwha have previously been considered legendary and/or extinct, locals and experts believe that the recent upgrade work on the nearby distribution tanks, designed to help provide emergency water to a parched Wellington, has stirred the elusive beast from its long slumber in the depths.

The current reservoir was built in 1925 but the Taniwha is likely to have taken up residence well before that and long before the development of sonar, photography and video cameras.  That would be only logical explanation why it has been largely undetected to date.  However, in recent days, several unnamed older members of the Karori Historical Society have claimed that their journal – “Stockade” – had recorded a number of previous sightings but they were reluctant to “go public” with the information for fear of ridicule.

Confronted with the soon to be famous photo, a senior Karori historian reluctantly confirmed that she was well aware of the earlier Taniwha sightings.  “Legend has it that there were two Wellington Taniwha – Whataitai and Ngake – when Wellington harbour was originally a lake.  Ngake lashed his tail back and forwards, and crashed into the great Seatoun wall of rock with such force that he smashed out into the open sea.  He swam off into the deep waters of Raukawa Moana (Cook Strait), and was never seen again.”

“It is just possible,” said the historian who refused to be named “that the other Taniwha found its way into the Upper Reservoir during the 1855 Earthquake and made his way down into the deeper waters of the lower dam – built between 1876 and 1878.  The creature would have then used the deep waters below the cliff to hide for decades.  It probably lived on ducklings, eels and gold shavings from the abandoned mine.”

In light of the new photographic evidence – easily comparable in quality to pictures of Big Foot, Elvis and the Loch Ness Monster – a glass bottomed boat is being readied for the expected influx of visitors including international media, biologists and extreme tourists.

Further sightings should be notified to the Acting Deputy Spokesperson for the “Friends” of the Karori Historical Society Mr David Bernard.

ENDS

The Press editorial:

For as long as many people can remember, the open-road speed limit for driving in this country has not changed. It has not increased significantly since the late 1960s when it was raised, under the old imperial system, from 55 miles per hour to 60mph – the equivalent of 96kmh, so not significantly different than the 100kmh that applies today on highways and motorways.

Umm, that is missing out a big chunk of history. The open road limit may have been 60 miles per hours, but in 1973 due to oil shocks, it dropped to 80 km/hr or 50 miles/hr.

It was only in 1986 it went to 100 km/hr.

So far from the open road limit rarely changing, the changes have been:

• 1962 – from 50 mph to 55 mph
• 1969 – from 55 mph to 60 mph
• 1973 – from 60 mph to 50 mph or 80 kmh
• 1986 – from 80 kmh to 100 kmh

Consider the cars that Kiwis were driving when the speed limit was last raised.

There is a world of difference between the engineering and safety standards of 21st-century cars and the likes of the Morris Minor, the original Mini, the Ford Cortina, the Holden Kingswood, the Rover 2000 and the Hillman Imp. Road engineering, too, has improved during those decades. Seen in this context, a proposal to raise the limit by only 10kmh on a relatively small number of top roads can be seen as very modest.

The difference in car safety and engineering is massive.

The speed limit is a maximum, not a target, and the rules – so often observed mainly in the breach – state that people should drive at a speed under the limit that is appropriate to the road, traffic, weather and other conditions.

If the speed limit is increased on engineered motorways, this should not be taken as an indication to drive at 110km on the open road or rural highways, where a 110kmh speed limit would not be appropriate.

Yep – drive the the conditions. Sometimes that will be 110 km/h and sometimes 70 km/h.

A friend has asked me to spread the word and solicit votes for Warrington Surf Lifesaving Club, I’d appreciate your votes and a blog post would be even better:

BP is running a nationwide competition for Surf Life Saving, where an IRB (Inflatable Rescue boat) is the prize for the club with the most votes. Warrington Surf Club was leading the votes, since a campaign was kick started by Columba College, after the incident at Purakunui, when the IRB from their club was used.

The boats are worth $25,000 and for a small club like Warrington, this would mean lots of raffles, sausages sizzles and quiz nights to raise the money to buy one.

Please support Warrington and go on-line and vote for Warrington Surf Lifesaving Club, and to pass this on to friends, workmates and family for their votes (voting closes shortly).

Please visit www.bpsurflifesaving.co.nz select Southern Region and then Warrington SLSC.

The Maori Party have announced:

New co-leader, Te Ururoa Flavell, has announced a solution has been implemented to the leadership and succession challenge that the Maori Party have been facing.

Upon reflection we have all agreed that with Tariana retiring at the 2014 election, it will not benefit the Maori Party to have both co-leaders retire at or before the next election. Therefore it has been decided that Pita will remain co-leader for the foreseeable, future and will remain a Minister while the Maori Party is in Government.

Maori Party President Pem Bird has thanked Pita Sharples for his agreement to remain one of the helmsmen of the Maori Party waka, and also thanked Tariana Turia for her service to the party.

Tariana has agreed for her retirement to take effect immediately as a co-leader, and the National Council has resolved to elect Te Uroroa Flavell as her successor  This means that we will have clear leadership going into the 2014 election with Pita Sharples and Te Uroroa Flavell as co-leaders. Tariana will remain a Minister up until the election, and it is our expectation that Te Ururoa will become a Minister after the election if the Maori Party is in Government again.

 

 

Continue reading »

The Herald reports:

North Korea issued its latest belligerent threat yesterday, saying it has entered “a state of war” with South Korea. It came a day after its leader threatened the US because two American bombers flew a training mission in South Korea.

Analysts say a full-scale conflict is unlikely and North Korea’s threats are instead aimed at drawing Washington into talks that could result in aid and boosting the image of leader Kim Jong Un at home.

But the harsh rhetoric from North Korea and rising animosity from the rivals following UN sanctions over Pyongyang’s February 12 nuclear test have raised worries of a misjudgment leading to a clash.

In a joint statement by the government, political parties and organisations, North Korea said it will deal with all matters involving South Korea according to “wartime regulations”. It also warned it would retaliate against any provocations by the US and South Korea without “any prior notice”.

I know this is just rhetoric from North Korea, and any actual conflict would be a terrible loss of life.

But there is a little bit of me that almost hopes the North Korean regime does launch an attack, so that they lose their ability to continue to threaten the region, and more importantly so that 25,000,000 citizens are freed from their slavery and brain-washing.

North Korea arguably has the worst human rights record of any country on Earth, and their grinding levels of poverty and starvation are entirely self-imposed. I hope within my life-time, those 25 million human beings get to reclaim their human rights – preferably without conflict.

I blogged last week that so far I thought the new Pope was looking very promising, and he continues to impress. I’m not Catholic but I want the Catholic Church to have a leader who will do well.

The Herald reports:

Pope Francis has won over many hearts and minds with his simple style and focus on serving the world’s poorest, but he has devastated traditionalist Catholics who adored his predecessor, Benedict XVI, for restoring much of the traditional pomp to the papacy.

Francis’ decision to disregard church law and wash the feet of two girls, a Serbian Muslim and an Italian Catholic during a Holy Thursday ritual has become something of the final straw, evidence that Francis has little or no interest in one of the key priorities of Benedict’s papacy: reviving the pre-Vatican II traditions of the Catholic Church.

One of the most-read traditionalist blogs, “Rorate Caeli,” reacted to the foot-washing ceremony by declaring the death of Benedict’s eight-year project to correct what he considered the botched interpretations of the Second Vatican Council’s modernising reforms.

So what is the fuss over including two girls?

There were certainly none of those trappings on display Thursday at the Casal del Marmo juvenile detention facility in Rome, where the 76-year-old Francis got down on his knees and to wash the feet of 12 inmates, two of them women. The rite re-enacts Jesus’ washing of the feet of his 12 apostles during the Last Supper before his crucifixion, a sign of his love and service to them.

The church’s liturgical law holds that only men can participate in the rite, given that Jesus’ apostles were all male. Priests and bishops have routinely petitioned for exemptions to include women, but the law is clear.

Francis, however, is the church’s chief lawmaker, so in theory he can do whatever he wants.

“The pope does not need anybody’s permission to make exceptions to how ecclesiastical law relates to him,” noted conservative columnist Jimmy Akin in the National Catholic Register. But Akin echoed concerns raised by canon lawyer Edward Peters, an adviser to the Vatican’s high court, that Francis was setting a “questionable example” by simply ignoring the church’s own rules.

Papal infallibility can come in useful sometimes 🙂

“People naturally imitate their leader. That’s the whole point behind Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. He was explicitly and intentionally setting an example for them,” he said. “Pope Francis knows that he is setting an example.”

Yep, an example that probably thrilled many female Catholics around the world.

The inclusion of women in the rite is problematic for some because it could be seen as an opening of sorts to women’s ordination. The Catholic Church restricts the priesthood to men, arguing that Jesus and his 12 apostles were male.

Francis is clearly opposed to women’s ordination. But by washing the feet of women, he jolted traditionalists who for years have been unbending in insisting that the ritual is for men only and proudly holding up as evidence documentation from the Vatican’s liturgy office saying so.

I think people are reading too much into it, if they think this will lead to female priests.

My thoughts are with the family and friends of Eric and Kathy Hertz and the wide 2Degrees company which Eric was CEO of.

Hertz was a major part of the success of 2Degrees which last August signed up its millionth customer after just three years of operations. Their entry into the market led to a halving of call and text costs from other telcos.

The company will of course endure without their CEO, but it will be a very sad time for their 750 staff and board.

Hertz gave an interview just four days ago:

As for Hertz, who is an American, he says he’s not going anywhere. His family have settled in New Zealand and have acquired residency. “This is home. It’s a wonderful place to live. I’ve worked and lived in seven different countries and the quality of life here is unequalled. I don’t know why people leave.”

One of many people who came here for a job, and decided to never leave.

An excellent column by Brian Gaynor:

The writer expressed his strong opposition in the following way: “The [asset sales] represent asset stripping. They are publicly owned by everyone, including poor people. The dividends they produce will no longer be returned to the population as a whole but to a small, wealthy minority. There is no innovation or expansion, just a continuation of the rich getting richer, and the poor poorer”.

Gaynor first points out:

The first point is that the sale of 49 per cent of MRP to 300,000-plus New Zealanders is not asset stripping as none of the company’s assets will be sold for the benefit of the Crown or the new minority shareholders.

And in fact a mixed ownership model will allow the former SOEs to acquire more asset and expand, if they so wish.

The second point is that the Government will continue to receive 51 per cent of MRP’s dividends and the payout should increase in the years ahead.

Port of Tauranga is a good example of this.

The Mount Maunganui company listed on the NZX in March 1992 after the public acquired a 44.7 per cent shareholding. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council owned the remaining 55.3 per cent.

Port of Tauranga paid a total dividend of only $2.2 million in the year before its NZX listing and the Regional Council’s shareholding was worth just $44 million at the $1.05 a share IPO price.

Twenty years later the Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s economic interest in the port company has increased as follows:

The council’s shareholding has declined from 55.3 per cent to 54.9 per cent but the value of its holding has soared from $44 million to $1.015 billion.

The council now receives an annual dividend of $34.6 million from the port company compared with just $2.2 million when it owned 100 per cent.

This is the model that the unions and their allies have tried to destroy.

Everyone is a winner – the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and its ratepayers, Port of Tauranga’s minority shareholders and the company itself.

It is totally inappropriate to look at partial privatisation as a zero sum game, a game where there must be a loser for every winner. Partial privatisation can lead to a substantial increase in value and income for a regional council, or the government, if the listed company is well governed and managed.

Absolutely. There can be no argument that privately owned and managed companies do better overall than wholly owned public ones. By this I do not mean no private companies fail and no public companies succeed. Of course not. But if you look at decades of economic data across OECD countries, the difference is stark.

And Gaynor gives a local example:

In the following 12 years, before the company was taken over by its majority shareholder, the Auckland Regional Council’s economic interest increased as follows:

The council’s shareholding remained at 80 per cent but the value of its holding soared from $318 million to $678 million at the $8 a share takeover price

The council’s annual dividend from the port company jumped from $8.5 million to $34.3 million.

The company’s performance has been poor since it was fully acquired by the Regional Council, now Auckland City, in 2005.

Auckland City’s annual dividend has fallen from $34.3 million in 2005, when it owned 80 per cent of the company, to $20.1 million in the June 2012 year, even though it now has 100 per cent ownership.

When a company is 100% owned by the Government (or a Council), it will make sub-optimal decisions due to influence of the shareholder.

If they are listed on the NZX they have a legal duty to treat all shareholders equally and do what is best for the company as a whole. If the major shareholder wishes to influence their decisions they have to do so transparently through public shareholder resolutions.

The HoS Herald editorial:

You have to hand it to the National Road Safety Committee. These public servants don’t conceal their view that the Cabinet needs to lower blood-alcohol limits for drivers. While the politicians wait, inexplicably, for research on safety gains of lowering the adult alcohol limit from 80 to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, the committee pulls no punches.

The HoS and Herald has been running a campaign for over a year demanding the Government do what it says, and not complete its research. To have a hysterical editorial saying that it is inexplicable they are waiting for research speaks for itself.

They also mischaracterise what the research is. It is not research into whether there would be safety gains from lowering the blood alcohol limit to 50. You don’t need research to tell you that. There would also be safety gains from lowering it to zero. There would be safety gains from dropping the speed limit to 20 km/hr.

What the hysterical HoS demands the Government  not find out is how much of an impact a lower limit would have, and what the cost would be – ie how many people legally drive at an 50 to 80 level, and would be criminalised for doing so in the future.

If you claim there is no need to know this data, then why is 50 the right level to go to? Why not 60? Why not 40?

Its latest Safer Journeys report says: “Any level of alcohol increases driving errors, and affects alertness, skill and judgments … we need the adult legal breath-alcohol concentration limits to better reflect the risk that alcohol poses to all road users and communities.”

Of course any level of alcohol increases risk. Just as any level of speed increases risk.

The committee has leapfrogged the research project – an excuse for inaction by former Transport Minister Steven Joyce – and suggested a new solution: variable limits for types of drivers. While those under 20 already face a zero limit, the committee proposes new levels “lower than the default” for those with drink-drive convictions, commercial licences, in different adult age bands and with existing demerit points.

Not a bad idea. Worth considering.

It is worth looking at the blood alcohol levels in over 25 year old drivers who are fatally injured. In 2011 it was:

• None – 36
• 0 to 30 – 68
• 31 to 50 – 3
• 51 – 80 – 2
• 81 to 100 – 2
• 100 to 150 – 3
• 150 to 250 – 20
• 250+ 15

I’m yet to be convinced drivers in the 51 to 80 range are the problem.

NZ Herald quiz here.

Tamsyn Parker at NZ Herald reports:

Analysts said the negotiation issue could have a small negative effect on the pricing of Mighty River Power’s shares.

Milford Asset Management senior analyst William Curtayne said the situation would probably result in the bankers having to alter the pricing of the offer moderately.

For those looking to buy Mighty River Power shares it could mean the company would now be cheaper.

But Mighty River Power was still a great company which was giving off a lot of cashflow compared with what savers could get by putting their money in the bank.

Curtayne said it might also be good news for Meridian in the long term.

He said if the company pulled out of selling power to Rio Tinto, it could sell the power to other energy companies such as Genesis or Contact which would enable them to shut down more expensive operations like the Genesis-owned Huntly and Contact’s Otahuhu power station.

“It sounds bad at the headline. But in the long run if the market reacts effectively we could end up with a relatively benign outcome.”

Curtayne said it was better that the situation be revealed now.

“It’s good for them to come out and signal where they are now. It gives the situation more clarity.”

He said it could mean the Government got less money for Mighty River Power, but more for Meridian, which is worth twice as much.

Devon Funds Management analyst Phillip Anderson said it would affect the price of Mighty River Power at the margins.

Even more reason for the Government to stay out of this, and leave the negotiations to Meridian.

Audrey Young writes:

Opposition parties are frustrated that Mr Carter is not applying the same method as Dr Smith.

Generally Dr Smith would decide whether a question was “straight” or “political” and if he deemed it a straight question he would not accept a political answer – one that contained a political attack on a party.

That was hugely different from the days when ministers could simply use a word from the question and be deemed to have acceptably “addressed the question”, which is the requirement.

Mr Carter has opted for a halfway house. If he believes a minister has not addressed a question adequately, he will allow an MP to repeat it, sometimes several times, and Mr Hipkins has used it to the greatest effect with his questioning over the resignation of Education Secretary Lesley Longstone.

“The reason is he is asking straight questions,” said Mr Carter.

Mr Carter said he thought Dr Smith was the best Speaker he had ever seen in action “but I never thought for one minute I would do things exactly as Lockwood did”.

“He tended to paraphrase the question as he saw it and paraphrase the answer as he saw it and then draw a conclusion as to whether the answer was adequate enough.”

Mr Carter said he attempted to do that for the first couple of days but the result was that some MPs sought to bring the Speaker’s comments into a question in the House.

Ultimately if the minister hadn’t given a satisfactory answer, it was not the Speaker’s responsibility, it was the minister’s responsibility.

“At some stage in proceedings you have got to move on and then the Members of Parliament and anybody listening to Parliament will judge the accuracy and ability of that minister.”

I’d make the point that the first months of a Speaker’s regime are always turbulent, and the best time to judge is around four months in.

Jared Savage at NZ Herald reports:

Nearly 100 children were found wandering by themselves in SkyCity last year, show new statistics which anti-gambling advocates say prove problem gambling is a growing issue.

In most cases, the adults responsible for the children were found in the main gaming floor on pokie machines or at a table game.

Note we don’t get told the proportion between the two. It might be 4 at pokie machines and 96 at table games. Does the PGF who released the data have the breakdown?

Figures released by the Department of Internal Affairs under the Official Information Act show there were 64 incidents of “unattended children” last year, involving 96 children. In 2009, just 19 such incidents were recorded.

64 incidents is around one a week. Sounds reasonably high but what I want to know is comparison rates. How many unattended children are found each week in malls and/or supermarkets and what is that as a proportion of overall customers?

Because casinos are probably the only entities required to report on this data, it is all too easy to jump to conclusions.