Very funny – and probably true.

Went to see Django Unchained at the Empire Theatre in Island Bay. A great little theatre, which was well patronised. A nice place to see a movie, and then dinner afterwards at Original Thai just down the road.

Anyway – to the movie.

It is classic Quentin Tarantino. The corny music, the oversized text, the blood and splatter, the lethal protagonist.

If you liked Kill Bill, you’ll like Django Unchained.

Jamie Foxx stars as Django, but my favourite character was Dr King Schulz played by Christoph Walz. An elderly softly spoken German who surprises often.

Leonardo DiCaprio excels as a charming but nasty slave owner. And Samuel L Jackson is unrecognisable as the “house nigger” who hates Django.

There are heaps of scenes where you will laugh out loud, and a large number of great gun battles.

It is a wonderful spaghetti western. Highly recommended if you like Tarantino’s work.

My only complaint was no strong female character.

This graphic from Vanity Fear shows the death toll and method for each film.

Stuff reports:

The depth of Solid Energy’s financial woes have been laid bare with the Government confirming the company is in talks with bankers over its debt levels.

The Solid Energy board was working with Treasury, advisors and the banks about further restructuring options, with the aim of returning the company to a sustainable financial position, Finance Minister Bill English said.

“Despite restructuring, Solid Energy’s financial position has continued to deteriorate. It is in constructive discussion with banks,” English told a media briefing this afternoon.

He confirmed there had been differences of opinion for some time over the direction of the company.

“There will be the opportunity for us to go back and look pretty hard at the governance and the monitoring.”

The Government would not let the company go into receivership, English said. He would not directly answer questions about a taxpayer-funded bailout, but would not rule it out. …

State-owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall said a number of factors had weighed against the company, in particular world coal prices dropping by 40 per cent.

We should have sold Solid Energy years ago. Taxpayers should not be forced to be investors in risky commercial enterprises such as mining. There is no strategic need for the Government to own a mining and power company – just as we also don’t need to own companies that run hydro-dams.

Labour and Greens go on about all the dividends from these companies, and overlook the risk – as we have seen with Solid Energy.

We shouldn’t own a loss making rail company either.

Governments should focus on what they are good at – passing laws, developing policy, regulation etc. The private sector should run companies, receiving both the benefits of them when successful – but also having to foot the losses when not sucessful.

Sadly this means Solid Energy will probably never be sold, and potentially remain a taxpayer liability for some time.

I just hope the Supreme Court upholds the High Court decision, so the Government can get on with at least reducing its shareholding in these competitive commercial companies.

A guest post by barrister Nikki Pender.

Brian Rudman’s column in the NZ Herald today, A Charade of Heirs and Graces,  made me think.

An obviously devout republican, Rudman says:

How a liberal-minded modern politician can see any form of inherited monarchy as 21st century is beyond me. Especially one living in a realm on the other side of the globe from the home of said royal head of state. Suggesting this law change is a victory for human rights is a joke as far as ordinary Britons and New Zealanders are concerned. It doesn’t help any one of us becoming head of state of the democracy we live in.

But don’t we in fact enjoy a meritocratic constitutional monarchy?

No one forces us to remain part of the Commonwealth nor to retain the Queen (and her descendants) as Head of State. If there was general, popular support for a change it could be effected relatively swiftly.  But there is no popular support. Which is another way of saying that the majority of Kiwis consider that the Queen deserves her position.  And those who succeed her know that they too have to meet the same high standard – and ward off any competition – otherwise they’ll be dumped.

And frankly, who else on the planet has been trained from birth to fulfil what is a lifelong tour of public duty?

It works for me.

The Herald reports:

The days of tiny “shoebox” apartments in Auckland could come back if a new rule in the unitary plan is passed.

The Auckland Council draft unitary plan is proposing to reduce the minimum apartment size from 35 square metres to 30sq m plus a minimum balcony space of 8sq m.

This must be what Labour has in mind for under $300,000!

Katie Chapman at Dom Post reports:

Cabbies may have to pay to use taxi ranks as Wellington City Council looks to save ratepayers’ money.

But taxis warn that the cost would just end up being passed to passengers.

A proposal to charge taxis for using city stands is among ideas mooted by council officers for inclusion in the draft Annual Plan, which sets the city’s budget and rates take.

Councillors will debate the draft next month before the final version is sent out for public consultation.

I use taxis a fair bit, but despite that I think there is some merit to this idea. Central city space is at a premium. Those who use it for parking or for taxi stands should pay for the economic cost of that space. Basically it should be user-pays. I’m not sure ratepayers should subsidise taxi users.

Parliament has announced:

The House’s Order Paper has a refreshed format. The changes are designed to enhance the function of the Order Paper, which is similar to an agenda—it lists the business before the House on a sitting day. One of the helpful new features is the insertion of hyperlinks from each bill title listed on the Order Paper to the text of the bill. This will provide easier and faster electronic access to the business before the House.

This is a useful initiative. It was silly that you couldn’t click on a bill’s name to view it.

One of the reasons why I started my daily Parliament posts was because there was no one page where you could see everything scheduled for Parliament that day, with links for more info.

But we’ll keep them up, as the posts on Kiwiblog include the oral questions for each day, plus a brief background on each bill due for debate.

James Dann is a Christchurch local body politician and blogs on the Christchurch rebuild etc. His latest blog post is on the Nielsen survey for CERA which has upset a few people because in fact it found not everyone was unhappy.

James has said the survey is unrepresentative:

The key to this survey is in the methodology. It was undertaken between August 29 and October 15 last year. 2381 people responded to the survey. 1156 of them were from Christchurch City, 618 from Selwyn District and 607 from Waimakariri District. So that means that of the people who did respond, more than half (1225) AREN’T ACTUALLY FROM CHRISTCHURCH. I mean no disrespect to the people of Rolleston, Lincoln, Rangiora, Kaiapoi etc. I am sure they have had a hard time. But they don’t have the same issues that people who actually live in the city do. They haven’t had to deal with a lack of services, portaloos, red zoning, TC3 land, roadworks to the same extent that people who live in the city do. …

Yet the survey then merges these three population groups, and continues to extrapolate from the combined population for another 100 pages. If you get to the end of the report, you’ll find the populations of Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri. They are 289,000, 30,000 and 36,000 respectively. More than 80% of the adult population lives in Christchurch, and yet more than 50% of respondents come from less than 20% of the population, a section of the population that the survey shows have a more positive response in this survey.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Now the Herald has gone and reprinted his blog post in the Herald.

James has made a fatal mistake. He has not read the survey results.

He is correct that the raw sample is not reflective of the overall population. That 80% live in Christchurch but only half the responses were from Christchurch people.

But what he has either deliberately or accidentally omitted, is that the results are weighted so that the results do precisely match the area, gender and age of the local population. Nielsen say  in their report:

The sample design over-sampled residents of the two districts with smaller populations to ensure that the sample size within each district was sufficient to allow reliable and robust analysis. 

At the analysis stage, the data was adjusted by a process called weighting. This process adjusts for discrepancies between the profile of people who completed the survey and the known profile of residents of greater Christchurch. 

Population statistics are obtained from Statistics New Zealand data and is based on the latest population projections. 

Weighting increases the influence of some observations and reduces the influence of others. So, for example, while 618 or 26% of completed interviews came from Selwyn District, the population of Selwyn actually represents about 8% of greater Christchurch. Thus, the data was adjusted so that 8% of any ‘greater Christchurch’ result reported is based on the responses of Selwyn residents.

So the criticism of Dann are entirely invalid, and worse the Herald has repeated them on their website. This is not a matter of opinion. His failure to mention that the results are weighted by area totally invalidate his criticism. The Herald was aware of this also, as one of their editorial staff tweeted his blog post and I pointed out this failing in a response (which they retweeted).

Appendix 5 of the poll results on page 103 details their weighting matrix with precise quotas for area, gender and age. It is a model of transparency.

Incidentally how significant were the differences in responses from those in Christchurch itself, and the two neighbouring districts? Here’s the figures for overall quality of life – good vs poor.

• Christchurch City 72% good vs 7% poor
• Selwyn 85% good vs 4% poor
• Waimakariri 82% good vs 4% poor
• Greater Christchurch 74% good vs 7% poor

So the results for Greater Christchurch are almost identical to Christchurch City.

The only question I have is whether Mr Dann knew the survey was weighted and decided not to mention that fact, or whether he just failed to read the results in full.

UPDATE: He has amended his original blog post to now mention the weighting, but note that the version picked up by the Herald doesn’t include this.

UPDATE 2: Dann was a Labour Party candidate at the last local body elections. Yet the Herald didn’t think to mention this. Shocking.

Bernard Orsman at NZ Herald reported:

Blogger David Farrar has questioned whether ratepayers are funding Mr Brown’s re-election campaign.

In a post on his Kiwiblog site titled “Len’s gaggle of spin doctors”, Mr Farrar said Mr Brown’s hiring of Dan Lambert took his tally of spin doctors to six – more than the entire parliamentary Labour Party.

Labour has five parliamentary press secretaries and a part-time speech writer for 34 MPs. Prime Minister John Key has four press secretaries and one media assistant.

Mr Brown refused to answer questions about communications staffing under his leadership.

Mr Lambert blocked repeated requests by the Herald to speak to the mayor, saying: “I think it’s reasonable the mayor wouldn’t want to go on record on a matter like this.”

I don’t think it is unreasonable for the Mayor to front on why he needs six communications staff. I do think it is unreasonable for those staff to block access to the Mayor.

In Parliament leaders can’t do that. They have weekly press conferences or run the media gauntlet when the House is sitting. A Mayor should be more open to the media, not less open.

Maybe there really is a need for six staff. But it would be good to hear what it is.

Shane Cowlishaw at Stuff reports:

Concerns have been raised about the plans to investigate people without their knowledge as the Government introduces measures to prosecute the partners of benefit fraudsters.

Announcing the changes yesterday, Associate Social Development Minister Chester Borrows said a new offence would be created to allow the partner or spouse of a person wrongly collecting a benefit to be charged.

It would mean partners could face a fine of up to $5000 or 12 months in jail, as well as their share of the repayments.

Last year more than $20 million was lost because of relationship fraud, making up one-third of welfare fraud cases. …

Beneficiary Advocacy Federation spokeswoman Kay Brereton said she was supportive of the move to target partners.

Currently the majority of people being punished for relationship fraud were women, who were often pressured into the crime. While there would be situations where a partner was not aware of the fraud, this would be the minority, she said.

“I’d love to think that this would discourage men, and I know I’m being very sexist but what we see is mostly men, to discourage them from pressuring their partner into doing this.”

I agree that in the majority of cases it is a joint decision to commit benefit fraud, so the ability to prosecute both is a useful change.

Cristina Odone blogs at the Telegraph:

John O’Farrell, Labour’s candidate in the Eastleigh by-election, used to contribute amusing articles to the New Statesman when I was the magazine’s deputy editor. The comedian was unfailingly polite in his dealings with me. Our contact was by telephone only and I remember picturing a mild-mannered soul clad in regulation socks and sandals.

But mention Margaret Thatcher and gentle O’Farrell starts foaming at the mouth and spewing bile. In a book he wrote about his support for Labour, he revealed his “disappointment” when the IRA failed to kill the then prime minister in Brighton, in 1984. “Why did she have to leave the bathroom two minutes earlier?” he asked himself when Mrs Thatcher survived the bomb blast that destroyed her bathroom in the Grand Hotel.

So Labour’s candidate is someone who supported the IRA attempted assassination of the UK Prime Minister. Charming, and not surprising.

Given the venom with which Labour supporters attack the former PM, you’d think that when their party finally came to power in 1997, it reversed every one of her hateful policies. In fact, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown guarded the Thatcher legacy as lovingly as if she’d been a grocer’s daughter born and bred in Islington. Her successors kept the privatisation and kept at bay the trade unions.

Smart men.

This makes me suspicious. If Labour can live with Margaret Thatcher’s policies, what is it about her that they find so unacceptable? …

Secondly, she’s a woman. The party that pays lip service to equality and feminism is, behind the scenes, deeply misogynist. Labour historians like to claim that Barbara Castle could have beaten Thatcher to be the first woman prime minister. But Castle was only allowed to rise to Cabinet ministerial level; and her biography, Red Queen, revealed that Wilson, Healey, Jenkins and Crosland kept her firmly in her place by reminding her that her female brain had scraped a third‑class degree. …

Harriet Harman and Diane Abbott are tolerated as noisy sisters; but the minute they aspire to higher office, the sniping starts. Labour women must not get ideas above their station. A woman who climbs to the very top wrongfoots the party’s apparatchiks. Working mothers are fine, as long as they are drones who contribute to the economy. Tokenism in the board room is also acceptable, as a female non-exec has little real bearing on what happens in the company.

But don’t let some uppity woman start bossing everyone about. Margaret Thatcher, née Roberts, did. Her extraordinary career has exposed Labour as the party of men.

Will the UK Labour Party ever have a female leader? I doubt it. The unions are so male dominated, and now get a third of the vote for leader.

Stuff reports:

Anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd claims two of its boats were deliberately rammed by a Japanese whaling ship in the Southern Ocean.

They probably wrote their statements weeks ago.

Sea Shepherd lie. Paul Watson is a pathological liar. This comes from no less a source than his former acolyte Pete Bethune.

I’m all for protesting against the so called scientific whaling which is a farcical exploitation of a loophole in international agreements. I support WWF and even Greenpeace campaigns in this area.

But Sea Shepherd are pathological liars who believe the ends justify the means and they have a long history of violence and aggression.

Eddie at The Standard blogged:

It’s well known that 10 or 11 members of caucus did not give confidence to David Shearer as leader. He might be tempted to punish them in the upcoming reshuffle.

Shearer should go with his instinct and do the opposite. …

To win, Labour must unify. To win Labour must use the best talent caucus has. Shearer should promote some of those capable members even if they have been part of the group pushing for change. Even if that means dislodging some of his own lieutenants. Because that is real leadership.

A couple of hours later chief Cunliffe lieutenant Charles Chauvel resigned from Parliament, with reports emerging he had been told he had no role in a future Labour Government.

But I agree that the smart strategy for Shearer is to unify the caucus. I blogged on 5 February:

I think that Shearer should give Cunliffe a meaningful portfolio in the reshuffle, and offer him a path back the front bench.

So what other changes should Shearer be looking at. Some thoughts:

• Shane Jones – clear he will be promoted back on front bench. Jones is one of Labour’s best communicators and has charisma. Also business smart. However is notoriously lazy, and often lacks judgement. A risk, but one Shearer needs to take. The only one who can attack the Maori Party with credibility.
• Nanaia Mahuta – no doubt she will lose Education. The issue is whether Shearer keeps her on the front bench. If he demotes her it looks bad to sack someone who is on pregnancy leave. Also sacking both Mahuta and Sio could mean no brown faces on front bench which would upset many in Labour. Hence promoting Jones is needed to demote Mahuta. At end of the day I don’t think Mahuta has done enough to deserve to stay. She should get a respectable second row portfolio.
• Maryan Street – a competent Minister who struggles in opposition.  Being up against Ryall makes it harder. Hard to see a place remaining on front bench on merit, but sacking two women would be difficult for Shearer.
• Su’a William Sio – the easiest decision to make. Not effective at all. Something wrong if he stays.
• Chris Hipkins – a no brainer to promote him. A good performer in the House and with the media. Knows education well but Labour may find that a young MP whose only experience is student associations and working in Parliament is not going to be seen as a credible future Education Minister. Hughes had the same challenge (and background). But Chippie will do well holding the Government to account – his challenge will be articulating an alternate vision to parents.
• Lianne Dalziel – could be in line for a promotion – especially if Mahuta or Street is dropped. The departure of Chauvel sees her legal background as a plus.
• Andrew Little – no doubt he gets promoted. Only issue is whether to the front bench. For my 2c I’d promote him there – he will obviously be a senior Minister when Labour get into government.

It will be interesting to see what Shearer does.

The Privacy Commissioner has published a guide for users of cloud computing. It’s a very useful resource.

Their checklist for small business is:

1. Figure out which cloud services will work for you and what your current risk level is
   
2. Know what information you’ll be sending to the cloud
3. Recognise that the responsibility is ultimately yours
4. Security – lock it down
5. Check out your provider
6. Know exactly what you’re signing up for
7. Be as up front with your clients as you can
8. Location – where will the information be?
9.  Use and disclosure – who sees the information and what will it be used for
10. Ability to exit, and deleting information

I just wish data caps were higher so I could backup my stuff to the cloud in real time.

Bob Jones writes in the NZ Herald regard the Coroner saying coke should have warning labels:

We read this sort of coroner guff frequently following unusual deaths in which, not content to simply do their job and officially state the cause of death, they instead ignore the extreme oddity of the circumstances and ascribe them to the community at large.

A circus elephant escapes, runs amok and tramples someone to death and the coroner will urge that the government makes us all build elephant-proof fences. A 158kg woman rolls over in bed in a drunken stupor and crushes to death her ex-jockey husband. This actually happened in Tasmania in the late 1980s.

Coroner Crear presumably would urge the government to ban jockeys and other small males sleeping with fat women, or alternatively, that fat women have a warning sign tattooed on their buttocks. In short, coroners too often fail to recognise freak accidents as simply that, namely freak.

Heh, so true.

Older readers will remember George Wilder who delighted us all with his prison escapes. Who can forget his escape from a Taranaki prison when the army was called in from Waiouru to assist prison officers and police searching for him on the central plateau where he had been spotted. Because they occasionally ran across hikers, at day’s end the searchers were shown a photo of George. “That bugger was here all day in the search party”, they all shouted, but too late, George had slipped off into the night.

George wasn’t publicly perceived as a villain, rather he was viewed as an addiction victim for his obsession with taking cars, riding about in them for half an hour then leaving them unharmed. He simply couldn’t stop himself despite endless court warnings. Coroner Crear would doubtless blame the car manufacturers and Professor Sellman would want cars added to the addictive substances list.

Highly likely! They always blame the company.

Early Morning, Pataua South, Northland. New Zealand landscape photography by Todd Sisson

This is one of my favourite images from last month’s Northern sojourn.  On the previous evening I had headed out barefoot to wash my coffee cup and half an hour later found myself at the top of this hill (with very sore feet).  I resolved to return the next morning to chance my arm at a shot (suitably be-hooved this time) – and this was the pick of the bunch IMHO.

Enjoy!

Free Wallpaper Download

You may download the large version of today’s image from this link:  Password = freewallpaper

I like this one so much that I have loaded it as a canvas print.

Cheers – Todd

[www.sisson.co.nz] 

Amelia Wade in the NZ Herald reports:

Food prices are not becoming more expensive as the increase in cost tracks the rate of inflation, an economist says.

The cost of a basket of fruit and vegetables has increased by 14.2 per cent in five years, according to Statistics New Zealand data requested by theHerald.

The Consumers Price Index – a measure of inflation – has jumped 15.7 per cent over the same period.

Shamubeel Eaqub, principal economist at the NZ Institute of Economic Research, said the rising cost of food often inspired emotive reactions.

“When you look at these issues, you sort of need to step back a bit.”

Mr Eaqub said food prices were not becoming more unaffordable. Since 2000, the average hourly wage had risen by about 50 per cent while food prices had risen about 30 per cent, he said. “Typically speaking wages will rise quicker than the cost of living.

Good to see the Herald doing stories like this, rather than just reporting a lobby group calling for GST to come off fruit and vegetables.

Note on Sunday I also blogged on this issue.

Nicholas Jones at NZ Herald reports:

The humour of trail-blazing broadcaster Kevin Black is again filling New Zealand’s airwaves in tribute after his sudden death.

Radio Hauraki, where “Blackie” reigned supreme as the country’s top radio DJ, has been playing some of his most-loved prank calls since the 69-year-old died after a suspected heart attack on Monday night.

Listeners called in throughout yesterday to recall their favourite Blackie parody calls, which set the standard for radio humour.

The highlights are:

* Called the Ministry of Mines to report that after finding readings for uranium in his backyard, he and his friend dug a 100ft hole, and thought they had better inform the authorities. A concerned and overwhelmed official, muttering “my God”, asks him if he has any professional qualifications to do such a thing. “No. I have an uncle who was a coalminer down in Westport,” Black deadpanned.

*Told a woman in Papatoetoe that her garage remote was suspected of interfering with planes flying over her home. The woman went outside and confirmed to Black that the remote was closing and opening the garage. “Now point it at the plane above you,” he instructed. “Oh, no, I don’t want to do that,” she insisted.

*Called a rental car company and asked for some modifications to be carried out before picking up his car. “I don’t want any doors, could you take them off?” he asked. “Could you also take out all the seats except the driver’s, and the bonnet, too?” Finally, the attendant asked what he would do with the car. Black explained he would race it in the stock cars on Saturday, and wanted it as light as possible.

Love them all. Some pranks can be a bit nasty and humiliating. But these were all great fun. I love the rental car one especially.

Questions for Oral Answer – 2pm to 3pm

Questions to Ministers.  

1. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government’s financial position?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
3. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement that “anyone expecting details of a ‘cosy sort of little deal’ would be disappointed” by the Deputy Auditor-General’s report into the SkyCity Convention Centre negotiations.
4. DENIS O’ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What criteria did he use in deciding that owners of vacant sections in the red zone of Christchurch should only be compensated at half of the sections’ most recent rateable value?
5. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What economic opportunities will a new convention centre bring for Auckland?
6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Did he or his office receive the 12 November 2009 report from Ministry officials to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, summarising the process with SkyCity for the building of a convention centre; if so, did he read it?
7. MIKE SABIN to the Associate Minister for Social Development: What steps is the Government taking to reduce welfare fraud?
8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What contingency plans, if any, does the Government have in place regarding its asset sale programme should the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter reduce production?
9. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Trade: Will New Zealand support Australia’s objection to signing up to investor-state dispute provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; if not, why not?
10. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why is he offering only 50 percent of rating valuation for commercial or bare land in the residential red zone where the land could not be insured?
11. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Corrections: What announcements has she made on improving prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons?
12. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her decisions in relation to schools in Christchurch?

Today there is 5 questions being asked by Labour with questions relating to Sky City Convention Centre, Assest Sales, Canterbury Earthquake recovery and the clossure of schools in Christchurch. In addition, the Greens are also asking about the Sky City Convention Centre mainly in relation to the report by the Deputy Auditor-General and are asking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 

New Zealand First are asking about the Christchurch Earthquake recovery and the payout decisions made on commerical sections. Finally, National are today asking 4 questions ranging from the possitives of the Sky City Convention Centre to Welfare Fraud and prisoner training inside our prisions.

Questions to Members    

Today also sees 1 question from Brendan Horan to Hon Damien O’Connor (Member of Parliament for West Coast – Tasman) in relation to the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill.  

1. BRENDAN HORAN to the Member in charge of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill: What is the purpose of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill?

General Debate 3pm – 4pm

12 x 5 Min speeches from various MPs

Private and Local Orders of the day 4pm – 6pm and 7.30pm to 10pm

1. Waitaki District Council Reservces and Other Land Empowering Bill  – 3rd reading – 12 x 10 min speeches – Jackie Dean 

This bill relates to 3 pieces of land inside the Waitaki District including sites such as the Palmerston Showgrounds, Lookout Point Island with it’s intent to clafifty the status of one piece of land and for the removal of reservations on the Palmerston Showgrounds and Lookout Point Island in order to allow the council to take over ownership of Palmerston Showgrounds and allow for the council to sell parts of Lookout Point Island as was orignally intended for in 1885.

At the last reading of the bill the vote passed by 97 to 23 with New Zealand First, Mana and the Greens voting against the bill

     2.    South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill – Committee Stage – Hon Chester Borrows

This bill would allow for the South Taranaki District Council to transfer ownership of the Cold Creek Rural Water Supply Scheme to back to the community via creating a co-operative called Cold Creek Community Water Supply Limited which would allow allow them to look after the scheme that provides water to around 7,620 hectares of land  in the Pihama/Te Kiri area in South Taranaki.

So far the Greens have opposed this bill on the grounds due to “the potential injustice that the privatisation would result in” (Quote from Eugenie Sage – 2nd Reading speech)

    3.   Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill – First Reading – 12 x 10 min speeches – Hon Damien O’Connor 

This bill is designed to claifiy rating issues in the Tasman District during the years 2003-2004 and 2008-2009 in which they failed to apply section 23 of the Local Government Act 2002 correctly when setting rates in the region, especially in the areas of  Tata Beach and Ligar Bay in Golden Bay who have challenged the Tasman District Council over stormwater charges charged to them during these years.

For some background reading to the bill and the reasons why it has been created feel free to read these stories from the Nelson Mail

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/7731601/Council-seeks-bill-to-fix-rating-mistake
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/7783535/Residents-meet-MP-over-new-bill

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig is using his personal wealth to make a nationwide drop of leaflets which criticise MPs who do not follow their electorate’s wishes.

His office has published and distributed 200,000 leaflets at a cost of $55,000 – a figure which Mr Craig expects to double as he ramps up his party’s electioneering.

The leaflets have accused MPs of ignoring their electorates in making changes against the wishes of the majority, such as the anti-smacking bill and asset sales.

Mr Craig was especially critical of Prime Minister John Key for backing a bill to legalise same-sex marriage – a move he felt was out of tune with Mr Key’s Helensville electorate.

“This is not an insignificant issue. The majority of people genuinely feel their MP should be guided by their own electorate and not their own opinion.”

I disagree entirely. I quote (again) Edmund Burke:

Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs,—and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure,—no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

As much as I would personally benefit from MPs making all their decisions based on opinion polls, I think it is wrong. Public opinion is always something to be considered and of influence. But at the end of the day decisions should be made on the basis of whether you believe an action is good or bad.

Mr Craig said that if he was elected, he would vote for gay marriage if his electorate demanded it, in spite of his strong opposition to the law change.

Really? Honestly?

Okay so does this mean if Colin Craig was an electorate MP and a poll showed the majority of his electorate support abortion on demand, Colin Craig would vote for the law to be abortion on demand – no matter how strongly he personally feels it is murder?

I’d like to see an answer to that question. Would Colin Craig vote for abortion on demand if a majority of the electorate backed it?

I doubt it.

Anna Leask at NZ Herald reports:

Doctors later said the severity of Mike’s head injuries was usually only seen in car-crash victims – they had never seen it in an assault before.

Three men were arrested soon after and charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The Herald has chosen not to name them for legal reasons.

Two of the men were already on bail and jointly facing charges, including assault with intent to injure and possession of a knife. After the alleged assault on Mike, one was remanded in custody and the other re-bailed.

Bail is often appropriate when people are first charged as they have not yet been found guilty (if they are). But if you are on bail and get charged again then bail should not occur unless there are exceptional circumstances.

The third man was also remanded in custody but bailed after a successful High Court appeal. He was arrested again in January for failing to appear in court and then granted bail again until his next appearance.

And if you fail to turn up to court, you should also lose the right to bail.

The family believed that anyone charged with a violent offence should be kept in custody until their trial to prevent any further attacks.

That is a step too far. But if they have a history of offending or were already on bail when further alleged offending occurs – then bail should not occur.

Mathew Dearnaley reports at NZ Herald:

Former North Shore mayor and senior policeman George Wood says he did not realise he was breaking the law by taking a cellphone photograph while driving across the harbour bridge. …

He believed he would have been within the law had he used a standard camera, which would have been harder to operate while driving.

He is correct. Absolutely legal to take a photo on a camera, just not on a cellphone.

This shows the stupidity of a law that targets just one sort of device  mobile phones. The law should focus on all distractions, not just scapegoat cellphones.